text:
# Inertial Effects on Berry’s Phase of Neutrino Oscillations

## 1 Introduction

Particle interferometry has been recognized as a tool to carry out delicate measurement of physical quantities that can be related to the difference in phase of the interferring beams. Besides, the observation of quantum mechanical phases provides accurate informations about quantities determining the phase shift (as for example, the flux of a magnetic field) and allows to test the quantum behaviour of systems. A remarkable contribution in this topic has been given by Berry in his pioneering paper. In his work , he showed that a quantum state acquires an additional phase (Berry’s phase) $`\beta ^g`$, which is related to the geometry of parameter space, besides the normal dynamical phase $`\varphi `$. He considered a non–degenerate quantum system in an initial eigenstate of a Hamiltonian which varies adiabatically through a circuit $`C`$ in the parametric space. The state evolves under the Schrödinger equation remaining in each instant an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.

Aharonov and Anandan  reformulated and generalized Berry’s result by disregarding the parameter space and considering an arbitrary, not necessarily adiabatic, cyclic evolution in the projective Hilbert space $`𝒫()`$, which is the space of one–dimensional subspace (called also rays) of an appropriate Hilbert space $``$ (see also ).

Nevertheless, in all formulations, Berry’s results are based on non–relativistic quantum mechanics and thus are not covariant. The covariant generalization of Berry phase was derived in Ref.  where, by using the proper time method , the authors showed that

$`\beta ^g`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _C}<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda )|{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _a}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda )>𝑑\lambda _a`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi +i{\displaystyle _C}<\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )|{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _a}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )>𝑑\lambda _a,`$
where $`\lambda _a`$ are the evolution parameters depending on the proper time, the state $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda )`$ satisfies the cyclic condition, $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda )>=|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda )>`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda )>=e^{i\varphi }|\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )>`$.

On the experimental side, a series of striking experiments have also been carried out and their results provide direct or indirect evidences for the existence of such a geometric phase .

The aim of this paper is to derive the geometrical phase attributed to the cyclic evolution of a mixed state, as for example, neutrino oscillations. This result is carried out in an non–inertial reference frame, i.e. for an accelerating and rotating observer. As well known, the effects of the acceleration and the angular velocity are relevant in interferometry experiments. In fact, by using an accelerated neutron interferometer, Bonse and Wrobleski derived the predicted phase shift of quantum systems . Because of the validity of the equivalence principle, one expects that this effect occurs also in a gravitational field, as has been verified in Ref. . Besides, Mashhoon has derived a coupling of neutron spin to the rotation of a non–inertial reference frame  from an extension of the hypothesis of locality. In Ref. , the neutron Sagnac effect has been found using an angular velocity of about 30 times that of Earth. The spin–rotation and the spin–acceleration contributions to the helicity precession of fermions has been calculated in , and recently, the inertial effects on neutrino oscillations have been analyzed in .

We find that the geometrical phase, when evaluated in a non–inertial reference frame, does depend on the parameters characterizing the physics of neutrino oscillations, i.e. the vacuum mixing angle and the mass–squared difference, and the ones characterizing the background geometry, the acceleration and angular velocity in our case. Besides, a dependence on the energy of neutrino also appear. The quantum phase shift induced by the non trivial topology of the background space–time has, as we will see, interesting geometrical consequences in connection to the curvature of the parameter space of states.

The layout of this paper is the following. In Sect. 2, we review the main features of neutrino evolution in an accelerating and rotating frame (see Ref. ). The Berry phase in such a frame is calculated in Sect. 3. Discussion and Conclusions are drawn in Sect. 4.

## 2 Neutrino Evolution in a Non-Inertial Frame

In Ref. , the neutrino phase is generalized in the following way

$$|\psi (\lambda )>=\underset{j}{}U_{fj}e^{i_{\lambda _0}^\lambda Pp_{null}𝑑\lambda ^{}}|\nu _j>,$$
(2.1)
where flavor and mass indices are indicated by $`f`$ and by Latin letters, respectively. $`U_{fj}`$ are the matrix elements transforming flavor and mass bases, $`P`$ is the four momentum operator generating space–time translation of the eigenstates and $`p_{null}^\mu =dx^\mu /d\lambda `$ is the tangent vector to the neutrino worldline $`x^\mu `$, parameterized by $`\lambda `$; $`x^\mu =(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ are the local coordinates for the observer at the origin. We use the natural units.

The momentum operator $`P_\mu `$, used to calculate the phase of neutrino oscillations, is derived from the mass shell condition

$$(P_\mu +A_{G\mu }\gamma ^5)(P^\mu +A_G^\mu \gamma ^5)=M_f^2,$$
(2.2)
where $`A_G^\mu `$ are related to the spinorial connections appearing into the covariant Dirac equation in curved space–time , $`M_f^2`$ is the vacuum mass matrix in flavor base

$$M_f^2=U\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1^2& 0\\ 0& m_2^2\end{array}\right)U^{},U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(2.3)
$`\theta `$ is the vacuum mixing angle. Ignoring terms of the order $`𝒪(A_G^2)`$ and $`𝒪(A_GM_f)`$, one gets that, for relativistic neutrinos moving along generic trajectories parameterized by $`\lambda `$, the column vector of flavor amplitude

$$\chi (\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{c}<\nu _e|\psi (\lambda )>\\ <\nu _\mu |\psi (\lambda )>\end{array}\right)$$
(2.4)
satisfies the equation

$$i\frac{d\chi }{d\lambda }=\left(\frac{M_f^2}{2}+pA_G\gamma ^5\right)\chi .$$
(2.5)
In deriving (2.5), one uses the relation $`P^0=p^0`$ and $`P^ip^i`$ .

In a frame with acceleration $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ and angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$, the components of $`A_G^\mu `$ are

$$A_G^0=0,\stackrel{}{A}_G=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2}\frac{1}{1+\frac{\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{x}}{c^2}}\left\{2\frac{\stackrel{}{\omega }}{c}\frac{1}{c^2}[\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\omega })]\right\},$$
(2.6)
so that Eq. (2.5) becomes

$$i\frac{d}{d\lambda }\left(\begin{array}{c}a_e\\ a_\mu \end{array}\right)=𝒯\left(\begin{array}{c}a_e\\ a_\mu \end{array}\right).$$
(2.7)
$`\sqrt{g}`$ is the determinant of the metric tensor of the accelerating and rotating frame , $`a_f<\nu _f|\psi (\lambda )>,f=e,\mu `$ and the matrix $`𝒯`$ is defined as

$$𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta & (\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G& (\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \end{array}\right].$$
(2.8)
up to the $`(m_1^2+m_2^2)/2`$ term, proportional to the identity matrix. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_2^2m_1^2)/2`$. We restrict to flavors $`e,\mu `$, but this analysis works also for different neutrino flavors. In order to determine the mass eigenstates $`|\nu _1>`$ and $`|\nu _2>`$, one has to diagonalize the matrix $`𝒯`$. Using the standard procedure, one writes the mass eigenstates as a superposition of flavor eigenstates

$`|\nu _1>=\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _e>\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _\mu >,`$ (2.9)
$`|\nu _2>=\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _e>+\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _\mu >,`$
where the mixing angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is defined in terms of the vacuum mixing angle $`\theta `$

$$\mathrm{tan}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta 2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta }.$$
(2.10)
We note that $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }\theta `$ as $`\stackrel{}{A}_G0`$ (i.e. $`\stackrel{}{a}0,\stackrel{}{\omega }0`$). The eigenvalues of the matrix (2.8) are

$$\tau _{1,2}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4}\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G)\right]^2}.$$
(2.11)
In the base of the mass eigenstates, we have $`|\psi (\lambda )>=a_1(\lambda )|\nu _1>+a_2(\lambda )|\nu _2>`$, so that Eq. (2.7) assumes the form

$$i\frac{d}{d\lambda }\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ a_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau _1& 0\\ 0& \tau _2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ a_2\end{array}\right),$$
(2.12)
where $`a_i=<\nu _i|\psi (\lambda )>,i=1,2`$, and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ a_2\end{array}\right)=\stackrel{~}{U}\left(\begin{array}{c}a_e\\ a_\mu \end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\\ \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\end{array}\right).$$
(2.13)
We have used the adiabatic condition $`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }/d\lambda 0`$ in order that (2.12) is a diagonal matrix, i.e., we are neglecting the variations of acceleration and angular velocity, with respect to the affine parameter $`\lambda `$, in comparing to their magnitude. Eq. (2.12) implies

$$a_k(\lambda )=a_k(\lambda _0)e^{\alpha _k(\lambda )},\alpha _k(\lambda )i_{\lambda _0}^\lambda \tau _k𝑑\lambda ^{}.$$
(2.14)
with $`k=1,2`$. For the initial condition $`|\psi (\lambda _0)>=|\nu _e>`$, the state $`|\psi (\lambda )>`$ is

$`|\psi (\lambda )>`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}\theta _0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }e^{i\tau _1\lambda }+\mathrm{sin}\theta _0\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }e^{i\tau _2\lambda }]|\nu _e>`$
$`+`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}\theta _0\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }e^{i\tau _1\lambda }+\mathrm{sin}\theta _0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }e^{i\tau _2\lambda }]|\nu _\mu >,`$
where $`\theta _0=\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\lambda _0)`$ and the adiabaticity condition has been used in (2.14). Therefore, accelerating and rotating observers will experience a flavor oscillation of neutrinos. For example, the probability to observe an electron neutrino is readily calculated from (2) and it is given by

$$|<\nu _e|\psi (\lambda )>|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _0+\stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _0\stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha .$$
(2.16)
## 3 Inertial Effects on Berry’s Phase

In this Section, the Berry phase is calculated in an accelerating and rotating frame. For convenience, let us invert Eq. (2.9)

$`|\nu _e>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _1>+\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _2>,`$ (3.1)
$`|\nu _\mu >`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _1>+\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _2>.`$
Repeating the previous analysis for the state $`|\nu _e(\lambda )>`$, we see that Eq. (2.7) can be read, formally, as a Schödinger equation, the matrix $`𝒯`$ playing the role of the effective Hamiltonian. Then, the neutrino state $`|\nu _e>`$ evolves according to the relation

$`|\nu _e(\lambda )>`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i𝒯\lambda }|\nu _e>`$ (3.2)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\tau _1\lambda }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _1>+e^{i\tau _2\lambda }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _2>,`$
being $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2=\tau _1`$, defined in (2.11), the eigenvalues of $`𝒯`$ corresponding to the eigenkets $`|\nu _1>`$ and $`|\nu _2>`$, respectively (see Eq. (2.12)). In a cyclic evolution, i.e. from $`\lambda `$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda `$, the final state $`|\nu _e(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda )>`$ and the initial state $`|\nu _e(\lambda )>`$ (see Eq. (3.2)) do coincide, apart a phase factor, provided that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\pi /(\tau _1\tau _2)`$

$$|\nu _e(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda )>=e^{i\varphi }|\nu _e(\lambda )>,\varphi =\frac{2\pi \tau _1}{\tau _1\tau _2}=\pi ,$$
(3.3)
Inserting Eq. (3.3) into Eq. (1) (for $`a=1`$, i.e. the evolution parameter does coincide with the affine parameter), the Berry phase of an electron neutrino moving along a cyclic path can be written as

$$\beta _e^g=\varphi +i_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }<\nu _e(\lambda )|\frac{}{\lambda }|\nu _e(\lambda )>,$$
(3.4)
where $`\varphi `$ is the dynamical phase evaluated in Eq. (3.3). An explicit calculation of (3.4) yields the result

$`\beta _e^g`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$
$`=`$ $`\pi \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta 2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G)^2}}}\right],`$
where Eqs. (2.10) and (3.1) have been used. In similar way we get the Berry phase of muon neutrino

$`\beta _\mu ^g`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \mathrm{cos}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$
$`=`$ $`\pi \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta 2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G)^2}}}\right],`$
As arises from Eqs. (3) and (3), $`\beta _{e,\mu }^g`$ depend on the vacuum mixing angle, on the mass–squared difference and energy of neutrinos, and on the parameters characterizing, through the spinorial connection, the background geometry: the acceleration and angular velocity. Besides, the quantum shift phase induces also a dependence on the energy of neutrinos. Note that $`\beta _e^g+\beta _\mu ^g=2\pi `$.

A direct or indirect evidence of the Berry phases (3) and (3) is very difficult to achieve and how a quantum interferometry experiment could reveal it goes beyond the aim this paper. We just analyze some interesting consequences of the above results.

If the condition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta 2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G=0$$
(3.7)
holds, then Eqs. (2.10), (3) and (3) imply $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=n\pi /2`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, so that

$$\beta _e^g=0\text{and}\beta _\mu ^g=2\pi .$$
(3.8)
Furthermore, in the rotating frame with angular velocity $`\omega `$ and acceleration zero, Eq. (3.7) reduces to the form

$$|m_2^2m_1^2|\frac{4E_\nu \omega }{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }$$
(3.9)
where $`E_\nu `$ is the energy of ultrarelativistic neutrinos, $`E_\nu |\stackrel{}{p}|`$. Let us analyze Eq. (3.9) for solar neutrinos and in the case in which the observer is comoving with the Earth, i.e. its angular velocity is $`\omega 710^5`$rad/sec. Results of the mass–squared difference, calculated by using (3.9) for typical values of the solar neutrino energies and vacuum mixing angle, are reported in the Table. The agreement with the experimental data comes from neutrinos with energy varying in the range $`10÷60`$MeV. In this range in fact, we find a mass–squared difference of the order $`10^{12}÷10^{10}`$eV2 for vacuum mixing angle $`10^1\mathrm{sin}2\theta 1`$ (see also ).

At the present, there is a strong evidence in favor of oscillations of neutrinos and of their non–zero masses. Such results have been found in different experiments: solar neutrino experiments , atmospheric neutrino experiments , and the accelerator LSND experiment . Recent reports indicate that the best fit in favor of solar neutrino oscillations are obtained for the following case

$$|m_2^2m_1^2|(0.5÷1.1)10^{10}\text{eV}\text{2},\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 0.67÷1,$$

in very good agreement with our results summarized in the Table.

If the momentum of the neutrino $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is perpendicular to the spinorial field $`\stackrel{}{A}_G`$, then the coupling term vanishes and Eq. (3) and (3) reduce to

$$\beta _e^g=2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\beta _\mu ^g=2\pi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,$$
(3.10)
i.e. the mixing angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ coincides with the vacuum mixing angle $`\theta `$. Of course, when the angular velocity and the acceleration of the frame are zero, we recover trivially Eq. (3.10) and results of Ref. , obtained for Minkowskian background. Eqs. (3) and (3) represent a generalization of the results obtained in Ref. .

For ultra-relativistic neutrinos and high values of the acceleration and angular velocity, so that the coupling term is much more greater than the mass–squared difference, the Berry phase (3) and (3) assume the following values: $`\beta _e^g\pi `$ and $`\beta _\mu ^g\pi `$.

Extension of these results can be done, invoking the equivalence principle, to stationary gravitational fields, last ones responsible of the quantum phase shift. The previous analysis applies also to quantum system involving boson mixing, as the oscillations of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

In this paper, the covariant generalization of the Berry phase proposed in Ref.  has been applied to problems involving mixed states, as neutrino oscillations. We have calculated the Berry phase of the electric and muon neutrinos in a cyclic evolution with respect to an accelerating and rotating reference frame and we have found that these phases do depend on the vacuum mixing angle, the mass–squared difference and on the coupling between the momentum of neutrinos and the spinorial connection.

The condition of no–mixing expressed by Eq. (3.7), which diagonalizes the mixing matrix (2.8), implies that the Berry phase of the electron and muon neutrinos assume the values equal to $`0`$ or $`2\pi `$, respectively. Such a condition has been analyzed for observers comoving with the Earth, so that $`\omega 10^5`$rad/sec and $`|\stackrel{}{a}|=0`$. In this particular case, the numerical values of the mass–squared difference, calculated by using Eq. (3.9) (see Table), are compared with ones of the recent experimental data, showing a very good agreement. It is worth to note that the inertial effects on the Berry phase, hence on the neutrino oscillations, induce a dependence on the orientation of the rotating observer (the direction of the angular velocity) with respect to the direction of the neutrino momenta. It implies hence a dependence on the zenith angle recently discussed in the framework of the atmospheric neutrino flux .

A direct or indirect measurement of inertial (or gravitational) effects on the Berry phases related to the neutrino particles is at the moment very difficult, considering also the fact that the values of the mass–squared difference of neutrinos and the vacuum mixing angle are till now open issues. Nevertheless, the Berry phases (3) and (3) have interesting implications from the geometrical point of view. As already said in the Introduction, the Berry phase is attributed to the holonomy in the parameter space. It appears when a quantum state is parallelly transported in the parameters space around a close path. The final quantum state is rotated, with respect to the initial one, by an angle which can be related to the connection (the Berry connection) $`𝒜=<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|d|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}>=𝒜_ad\lambda ^a`$ appearing in Eq. (1), being $`d=(/\lambda _a)d\lambda ^a`$ the exterior derivative in the parameter space. Besides, one can also define a curvature (the Berry curvature) as the field strength of $`𝒜`$, $`=d𝒜=(d<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|)(d|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}>)`$.

The existence of this phase, associated with the cyclic evolution, is universal in the sense that it is the same for the infinite number of possible motions along the curves in the Hilbert space, which project to a given closed curve in the projective Hilbert space of the rays, and for the possible (effective) Hamiltonians, which rule the evolution of the state along these curves.

In a Minkowski space–time, the Berry phase is related only to the vacuum mixing angle: The quantum vector state is rotated of the angle $`\theta `$ when parallelly transported along a close curve, so that, as discussed above, it can be associated to the curvature in the space of states (see Eq. (3.10) and Ref. ).

In a non–inertial reference frame, new geometrical features arise, as one can see from Eqs. (3) and (3):

The parallel transport along a close curve contains also the contribution due to the spinorial connection $`A_G^\mu `$, which induces a quantum shift phase, hence an additional rotation in the parameter space of the quantum vector state. The total rotation is given by the (mixing) angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$, so that the Berry curvature turns out to be related both the vacuum mixing angle and to the spinorial connection, i.e. to the non trivial geometry of the background space–time.

Due to the coupling term, $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}_G`$, the geometrical phases (3) and (3) show a dependence on the energy of the neutrinos, loosing in such a way the character of universality: different values of the neutrino energies correspond to different Berry’s phase.

Such a new geometrical setting follows from the generalization of the quantum mechanical phase (2.1) in which, as suggested by Stodolsky , the metric field appears in the definition of the scalar product. The dependence of the geometrical phase on the energy of particles and on the parameters characterizing the background geometry is a common aspect of the behaviour of a quantum particle in a certain class of four dimensional stationary space–time, as tubular matter source, slowly moving mass current and spinning cosmic string . In the last case, for example, it is shown that the gravitational geometrical phase of a quantum particle with energy $`E`$ moving around a spinning cosmic string (with angular velocity $`J`$) is $`JE`$ .

As final comment, we stress that the previous results holds also for stationary gravitational field, as an obvious consequence of the validity of the equivalence principle. Then, the understanding of the issues concerning the influence of the gravity on the Berry phase are of interest in view of theoretical arguments which try to construct general relativity as a gauge theory and, in particular, to formulate the symmetric second–rank tensor field in the framework of the unified gauge approach. In such a way, the gravitational field should play the role of electromagnetic field, in strict analogy with the Bohm–Aharonov effect, and its theoretical (and phenomenological) consequence could help for a better understanding of the quantum nature of particles evolving in non trivial geometries.

Table: Estimation of $`|m_2^2m_1^2|`$ given by (3.9) as function of $`E_\nu `$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$, and fixed value of $`\omega 710^5`$rad/sec.

| $`E_\nu `$(MeV) | $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ | $`|m_2^2m_1^2|`$(eV2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1 | $`10^{13}`$ |
| 1 | $`10^1`$ | $`10^{12}`$ |
| 10 | 1 | $`10^{12}`$ |
| 10 | $`10^1`$ | $`10^{11}`$ |
| $`50÷60`$ | 1 | $`10^{10}`$ |

Acknowledgments

Research supported by MURST fund 40% and 60% art. 65 D.P.R. 382/80.
GL acknowledges UE (P.O.M. 1994/1999) for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Random matrix model for chiral symmetry breaking and color superconductivity in QCD at finite density.An animated gif movie showing the evolution of the phase diagram with the chiral and diquark coupling parameters can be viewed at http://www.nbi.dk/~vdheyden/QCDpd.html

## I Introduction

A number of early and recent model studies of finite density QCD  have suggested that quark Cooper pairs may form above some critical density and lead to ‘color superconducting’ matter. Although perturbation theory performed on single-gluon exchange suggests pairing gaps of a few MeV , some recent calculations including non-perturbative interactions, either in the form of the Nambu Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model  or those induced by instantons , indicate gaps as large as $`100`$ MeV. Theses values imply that color superconductivity may be relevant to the physics of heavy-ion collisions and neutron stars.

Quark pairing singles out one color direction and thus spontaneously breaks $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{color}}`$ to $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{color}}`$. The pattern of symmetry breaking may however be richer, since the formation of condensates in one $`qq`$ channel competes with the breaking of chiral symmetry in the orthogonal $`\overline{q}q`$ channel. In an earlier paper  we formulated random matrix models for both chiral and diquark condensations in the limit of two quarks flavors and zero chemical potential. Our aim was to understand the phase structures which result from the competition between the two forms of order solely on the basis of the underlying symmetries. In this spirit, we constructed random matrix interactions for which the single quark Hamiltonian satisfies two basic requirements: (1) its block structure reflects the color $`SU(N_c)`$ and chiral $`SU(2)_\mathrm{L}\times SU(2)_\mathrm{R}`$ symmetries of QCD and (2) the single quark Hamiltonian is Hermitian. This last condition ensures the existence of well-defined relationships between the order parameters and the spectral properties of the interactions. In particular, condition (2) is obeyed by single-gluon exchange, which is generally regarded as the relevant description of QCD. Aside from conditions (1) and (2), the dynamics of the interactions does not contain any particular structure. In order to solve the model exactly, we described this “dynamics” by independent Gaussian distributions of matrix elements.

In practice, what distinguishes the interactions from one another is their respective coupling constants, $`A`$ and $`B`$, in the $`qq`$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ channels. The ratio $`B/A`$ measures the balance between chiral and diquark condensation forces. The absolute magnitudes of $`A`$ and $`B`$ play a secondary role. They introduce a scale in the condensation fields but do not affect the phase structure. We have shown in  that the condition (2) of Hermiticity forces $`B/A`$ to be smaller or equal to $`N_c/2`$. This constraint results in the absence of a stable diquark phase in the limit of zero chemical potential.

The purpose of this paper is to extend our previous analysis to non-zero chemical potentials, for which the interactions cease to be Hermitian. Non-Hermitian interactions lead to considerable difficulties in numerical calculations in both lattice and random matrix theories. Standard Monte Carlo techniques fail because the fermion determinant in the action is complex and the sampling weights are no longer positive definite. Obtaining reliable results thus requires a proper treatment of cancellations between a large number of terms; a problem which has not yet found a satisfactory solution . The present random matrix models possess exact solutions. The saddle-point methods used in  to derive the free-energy as a function of the condensation fields remain valid at finite densities and give exact results in the thermodynamic limit of matrices of infinite dimensions. Here, we will use these methods to calculate the thermodynamics quantities as a function of the condensation fields and deduce the phase diagrams from the field configurations which maximize the pressure.

We will discover that the pressure function has a simple analytic dependence which leads to polynomial gap equations. This situation reminds us of the gap equations obtained in a Landau-Ginzburg theory near criticality, and the random matrix approach is analogous in many respects. Both theories associate a change of symmetry with a change of state in the system. They are both mean-field and describe the dynamics of a reduced number of degrees of freedom $`N`$, where $`N`$ scales with the volume of the system. In random matrix models, these degrees of freedom can be related to the low-lying quark excitation modes in the gluon background, i.e. the zero modes in an instanton approximation of that background ***This relation is explicit in the random matrix models where only chiral symmetry is considered ; it is expected to remain true once color symmetry is also taken into account .. In the Landau-Ginzburg formulation, the degrees of freedom correspond to the long-wavelength modes which remain after coarse-graining. There is, however, an essential difference in the construction of the two theories. A Landau-Ginzburg theory starts with the specification of an effective potential for the relevant degrees of freedom. A random matrix model starts at a more microscopic level with the construction of an interaction which, once integrated over, produces an effective potential. The integration can carry along dynamical constraints and thus restricts the allowed range of coupling constants. An example of such restriction is the Hermiticity condition in , which implies that $`B/AN_c/2`$. This condition is characteristic of the dynamics of the interactions which we consider and remains true at finite chemical potential. We will therefore take it into account in the following.

In this paper, we consider random matrix models in which both chiral and color condensations can take place and study the resulting phase diagrams in temperature and chemical potential. We review the model of Ref.  and discuss the general form of the pressure as a function of the condensation fields in Sec. II. We then solve the gap equations and analyze the six topologies that the phase diagram can assume in Sec. III. We compare our results with those of QCD effective models, discuss the possibility of other symmetry breaking patterns and the extension to the case of non-zero quark current masses in Sec. IV. Section V presents our conclusions.

## II Formulation of the model

### A The partition function

The generalization of the matrix models introduced in Ref.  to finite quark densities is straightforward. We represent the quark fields for each of the two flavors by $`\psi _1^{}`$ and $`\psi _2^{}`$. The partition function at temperature $`T`$ and chemical potential $`\mu `$ is then

$`Z(\mu ,T)={\displaystyle 𝒟H𝒟\psi _1^{}𝒟\psi _1^{}𝒟\psi _2^T𝒟\psi _2^{}}`$ (1)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^{}\\ \text{}\\ \psi _2^T\end{array}\right)^T\left(\begin{array}{cc}+\left(\pi T+i\mu \right)\gamma _0+im& \eta P_\mathrm{\Delta }\\ \text{}& \text{}\\ \eta ^{}P_\mathrm{\Delta }& ^T+\left(\pi Ti\mu \right)\gamma _0^Tim\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^{}\\ \text{}\\ \psi _2^{}\end{array}\right)\right].`$ (11)
Here, $``$ is a matrix of dimension $`4\times N_c\times N`$ which represents the interaction of a single quark with a gluon background. Its measure, $`𝒟H`$, will be discussed below. The parameters $`m`$ and $`\eta `$ select a particular direction for chiral and color symmetry breaking and are to be taken to zero in the appropriate order at the end of the calculations. The current quark mass $`m`$ is to be associated with the chiral order parameters $`\psi _1^{}\psi _1^{}`$ and $`\psi _2^T\psi _2^{}`$. The complex parameter $`\eta `$ is to be associated with the order parameter for Cooper pairing, $`\psi _2^TP_\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1^{}`$, in which $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }iC\gamma _5\lambda _2`$ ($`C`$ is the charge conjugation operator) selects the quark-quark combinations which are antisymmetric in spin and color, i.e. a chiral isosinglet, Lorentz scalar, and color $`\overline{3}`$ state. Note that in order to permit the construction of correlations between the fields $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2^T`$, we have transposed the single quark propagator in the second flavor, hence the upperscript $`T`$.

The interaction $``$ is intended to mimic the effects of gluon fields and thus explicitly includes the desired chiral and color symmetries. Of central interest is single-gluon exchange, which has the chiral block-structure

$`_{\mathrm{sge}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& W_{\mathrm{sge}}\\ W_{\mathrm{sge}}^{}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
where $`W_{\mathrm{sge}}`$ has the spin and color block-structure of a vector interaction,

$`W_{\mathrm{sge}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\sigma _\mu ^+\lambda ^aA^{\mu a}.`$ (15)
Here, $`\sigma _\mu ^+=(1,i\stackrel{}{\sigma })_\mu `$ are the $`2\times 2`$ spin matrices, and $`\lambda _a`$ denote the $`N_c\times N_c`$ Gell-Mann matrices. The $`A^{\mu a}`$ are real $`N\times N`$ matrices which represent the gluon fields.

Since we want to explore the evolution of the phase structure as the balance between chiral and diquark condensations is changed, we consider the larger class of Hermitian interactions to which single-gluon exchange belongs. As noted in the introduction, this choice is motivated by the fact that Hermitian interactions have a clear relationship between the order parameters and the spectral properties, in the form of Banks-Casher formulae . We write an Hermitian interaction $``$ as an expansion into a direct product of the sixteen Dirac matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$ times the $`N_c^2`$ color matrices. The matrix elements are given by

$`_{\lambda i\alpha k;\kappa j\beta l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C=1}{\overset{16}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\right)_{\lambda i;\kappa j}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N_c^2}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }^a\left(A_{\lambda \kappa }^{Ca}\right)_{kl},`$ (16)
where the indices ($`\lambda `$,$`\kappa `$), $`(i,j)`$, and $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ respectively denote chiral, spin, and color quantum numbers, while $`(k,l)`$ are matrix indices running from $`1`$ to $`N`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ represent the color matrices $`\lambda ^a`$ when $`aN_c^21`$ and the diagonal matrix $`(\delta _c)_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ when $`a=N_c^2`$. The normalization for color matrices is $`\mathrm{Tr}[\lambda ^a\lambda ^b]=2\delta _{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}[\delta _c^2]=N_c`$; the normalization of the Dirac matrices is $`\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_C\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}]=4\delta _{CC^{}}`$.

The random matrices $`A^{Ca}`$ are real when $`C`$ is vector or axial vector ($`C=V,A`$) and real symmetric when $`C`$ is scalar, pseudoscalar, or tensor $`(C=S,P,T)`$ . Their measure is

$`𝒟H`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{Ca}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \kappa }{}}𝒟A_{\lambda \kappa }^{Ca}\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left[N{\displaystyle \underset{Ca}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \kappa }{}}\beta _C\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ca}^2\mathrm{Tr}[A_{\lambda \kappa }^{Ca}(A_{\lambda \kappa }^{Ca})^T]\right],`$ (17)
where $`𝒟A_{\lambda \kappa }^{Ca}`$ are Haar measures. Here, $`\beta _C=1`$ for $`C=V,A`$ and $`\beta _C=1/2`$ for $`C=S,P,T`$. We want to mimic interactions which in a four-dimensional field theory would respect color $`SU(N_c)`$ and Lorentz invariance in the vacuum. Therefore, we choose a single variance $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ca}`$ for all channels which transform equally under color and space rotations.

The temperature and chemical potential enter the model in Eq. (23) through the inclusion of the first Matsubara frequency in the single quark propagator. Such $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ dependence is certainly oversimplified but none the less sufficient to produce the desired physics. Our purpose is to understand the general topology of the phase diagram and not to provide explicit numbers. More refined treatments including, for instance, all Matsubara frequencies would modify the details of the phase diagram and map every $`(\mu ,T)`$ coordinate to a new one. However, any such mapping will necessarily be monotonic and will conserve the topology. We note in particular that we do not assume a temperature dependence of the variances, i.e. we neglect the $`T`$-dependence of the gluon background. A non-analytic behavior in $`T`$ should only arise in the contribution to the thermodynamics from the degrees of freedom related to chiral and diquark condensations. We thus expect a realistic $`T`$-dependence of the gluon background (and of the variances) to be smooth and not to affect the overall phase topology.

We choose the signs of the $`T`$\- and $`\mu `$-dependencies to mimic a diquark condensate which is uniform in time, i.e. which does not contain a proper pairing frequency. In a microscopic theory formulated in four-momentum space, the absence of a proper frequency leads to pairing between particle and hole excitations with energies which are symmetric around the Fermi surface. We simulate this effect by selecting opposite $`T`$-dependences for the fields $`\psi _1^{}`$ and $`\psi _2^T`$, while maintaining the same $`\mu `$-dependence.

### B The pressure function

The integration over the random matrix interactions is Gaussian and can thus be performed exactly. Following the procedure of Ref. , we use a Hubbard-Stratonovitch transformation to introduce two auxiliary variables $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, to be associated with the chiral and pairing order parameters respectively

$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`\psi ^{}\psi \psi _1^{}\psi _1^{}=\psi _2^T\psi _2^{},`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`\psi \psi \psi _2^TP_\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1^{}=\left(\psi _1^{}P_\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _2^{}\right)^{}.`$ (19)
An integration over the fermion fields then reduces the partition function to

$`Z(\mu ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left[4N\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })\right]},`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the negative of the pressure, $`P(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, per degree of freedom and per unit spin and flavor,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`P(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`A\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(N_c2)\mathrm{log}\left[((\sigma +m\mu )^2+T^2)((\sigma +m+\mu )^2+T^2)\right]`$ (23)
$`+2\mathrm{log}\left[((\sigma +m\mu )^2+T^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }+\eta |^2)((\sigma +m+\mu )^2+T^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }+\eta |^2)\right]\},`$
where we have dropped the prefactors $`\pi `$ in the temperature dependence for simplicity. Here, the coupling constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ are weighted averages of the Fierz coefficients $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }^{Ca}`$ and $`f_\chi ^{Ca}`$ obtained respectively by projecting the interaction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ onto chiral and diquark channels,

$`A=2\left({\displaystyle \underset{Ca}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ca}^2f_\mathrm{\Delta }^{Ca}\right)^1,B=2\left({\displaystyle \underset{Ca}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ca}^2f_\chi ^{Ca}\right)^1.`$ (24)
To make contact to microscopic theories, we note that a small coupling limit in either channel corresponds to a small Fierz constant and hence to large parameters $`A`$ or $`B`$. This limit favors small fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\sigma `$. Because we can always rescale the condensation fields by either $`\sqrt{A}`$ or $`\sqrt{B}`$, the only independent parameter in Eq. (23) is the ratio of $`B/A`$, which by virtue of Eq. (24) is a measure of the balance between the condensation forces. Again, Hermitian matrices $``$ satisfy $`B/AN_c/2`$.

The mass $`m`$ and the parameter $`\eta `$ explicitly break chiral and color symmetries. They act as external fields which select a particular direction for the condensation pattern, and should be taken to zero at the end of the calculations. (They can also be kept constant to study the effect of a small external field, a point which we take in Sec. IV.) They are useful for obtaining the order parameters from derivatives of the partition function. In the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`Z(\mu ,T)`$ in Eq. (20) obeys

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}Z(\mu ,T)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}4N\underset{\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })\right\},`$ (25)
where the right side represents the global minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (23) for fixed $`\mu `$ and $`T`$. The order parameters for chiral and diquark condensations are given as

$`\psi ^{}\psi =\underset{m0}{lim}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N_fN}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}Z}{m}}|_{\eta ,\eta ^{}=0},\psi ^T\psi =\underset{\eta ,\eta ^{}0}{lim}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}Z}{\eta ^{}}}|_{m=0},`$ (26)
where the number of flavor is $`N_f=2`$. Note that the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ must be taken first before the small field limit $`m,\eta 0`$, see . Given the $`m`$\- and $`\eta `$-dependences of the log terms in Eq. (23), we have

$`\psi ^{}\psi =B\sigma (\mu ,T),\psi ^T\psi =A\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu ,T),`$ (27)
where $`\sigma (\mu ,T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu ,T)`$ are the condensation fields which minimize $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for fixed $`\mu `$ and $`T`$.

Equation (23) is the main expression from which we will deduce the phase structure as a function of the ratio $`B/A`$. Its form is very simple to understand. The quadratic terms correspond to the energy cost for creating static field configurations with finite $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The log terms represent the energy of interaction between the condensation fields and the quark degrees of freedom. They can be written in a compact form as $`\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{log}S(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })]=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{det}S(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ is a trace in flavor, spin, and color, and $`S`$ is the single quark propagator in a background of $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fields. Substituting the Mastubara frequency $`Tip_4`$, it becomes clear that the poles of $`S`$ in $`p_4`$ correspond to the excitation energies of the system. From Eq. (23), we see that two colors develop gapped excitations with

$`p_4`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{(\sigma \mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2},`$ (28)
where the plus and minus signs respectively correspond to particle and antiparticle modes. The $`N_c2`$ remaining colors have ungapped excitation with

$`p_4`$ $`=`$ $`\pm |\sigma \mu |.`$ (29)
It is important to recognize that the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (23) contains the contribution to the thermodynamics from only the low energy modes of Eqs. (28) and (29). The right side of Eq. (23) thus corresponds to the non-analytic piece in the thermodynamic potential which describes the critical physics related to chiral and color symmetry breaking. In a microscopic model, the right side of Eq. (8) would also contain a smooth analytic component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{reg}}(\mu ,T)`$ which arises from all other, non-critical degrees of freedom in the system. Our model does not contain this contribution and thus cannot be taken as a quantitative description of bulk thermodynamics properties; the model is constructed to describe the critical properties and should be used as such.

We show in the next section that the forms of the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in Eq. (23) and of the associated excitation energies in Eqs. (28) and (29) are sufficient to produce a rich variety of phase diagrams which illustrate in a clear way the interplay between chiral and color symmetries. In particular, we will find that single-gluon exchange reproduces the topology obtained in many microscopic models of finite density QCD, see for instance .

## III Exploring the phase diagrams

We noted earlier that the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (23) is very similar to a Landau-Ginzburg functional. Although $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is not an algebraic function, it is equivalent to a polynomial of order $`\sigma ^6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^4`$: The gap equations reduce to coupled polynomial equations of fifth order in $`\sigma `$ and third order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Generically, four types of solutions exist:

* (i) the $`0`$-phase, the trivial phase in which both $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanish,
* (ii) the $`\chi `$-phase, in which chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken but $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$,
* (iii) the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase, in which color symmetry is spontaneously broken but $`\sigma =0`$,
* (iv) the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ phase, a mixed broken symmetry phase in which both fields are non-vanishing, $`\sigma 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$.

The $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase is thermodynamically distinct from the $`\chi `$\- and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-phases and is not a “mixture” of these two phases.

At a given $`\mu `$, $`T`$, and $`B/A`$, each of the solutions (i) - (iv) can either be a minimum or a saddle-point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The complex flow of these solutions with the variation of $`B/A`$ leads to large variety of phase diagrams. The phase structures can however be grouped according to their topologies as shown in Figs. 16We have rescaled in each figure the units of $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ for clarity. Figure 1 shows the case of smallest values $`B/A`$, which favor chiral over diquark condensation. $`B/A`$ then increases continuously from Fig. 2 to 6. We now discuss Figs. 1-6 in the six following subsections. We indicate in parentheses the corresponding ranges of $`B/A`$ and discuss their limits in the text.

Pure chiral condensation: ($`0B/A0.139N_c`$ or $`0B/A0.418`$ for $`N_c=3`$; see Fig. 1). Generically, the global minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (23) is realized by field configurations which maximize the log terms while keeping reasonably low values of the quadratic terms $`A\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B\sigma ^2`$. We consider first the limit $`AB`$. The minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must then correspond to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ in order to avoid the large energy penalty $`A\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. No diquark condensation occurs in this case, and color enters only as a prefactor $`N_c`$ in the number of degrees of freedom. This becomes clear if we absorb $`N_c`$ into $`B`$ and set $`B`$ to $`1`$; we then recover the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ studied in the chiral random matrix models  which neglect color altogether.

We briefly recall the phase structure in this case. The gap equation for the chiral field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)/\sigma =0`$, has a trivial root $`\sigma =0`$ and four other roots which satisfy the following quadratic equation for $`\sigma ^2`$

$`N_c(\mu ^2T^2)+B(\mu ^2+T^2)^2+(2B(T^2\mu ^2)N_c)\sigma ^2`$ $`+`$ $`B\sigma ^4=0.`$ (30)
In the high temperature limit $`T\mu `$, both roots in $`\sigma ^2`$ are negative. The only real solution of the gap equation is $`\sigma =0`$, and the system is in the symmetric phase. Decreasing $`T`$ for fixed $`\mu `$, one encounters a line of second-order phase transitions

$`L_{\chi ,2}N_c(\mu ^2T^2)+B(\mu ^2+T^2)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
where one of the roots $`\sigma ^2`$ in Eq. (30) vanishes. Below $`L_{\chi ,2}`$, the trivial root becomes a local maximum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)`$, and we have a pair of local minima at the real roots $`\sigma =\pm \sigma _0`$, where

$`\sigma _0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2B}}T^2+\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N_c^216B^2\mu ^2T^2}}{2B}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (32)
These roots correspond to a chiral broken phase. They become degenerate with $`\sigma =0`$ on the second-order line $`L_{\chi ,2}`$, where the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ scales as $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)\sigma ^4`$. Thus, the critical exponents near $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ are those of a mean-field $`\varphi ^4`$ theory.

The second-order line ends at a tricritical point $`(\mu _3,T_3)`$ at which all five roots of the gap equation vanish and where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)\sigma ^6`$, giving now critical exponents of a mean-field $`\varphi ^6`$ theory. From Eq. (30), this happens when $`2B(T_3^2\mu _3^2)N_c=0`$, which with the use of Eq. (31) gives

$`\mu _3=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{4B}}}\sqrt{\sqrt{2}1},T_3=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{4B}}}\sqrt{\sqrt{2}+1}.`$ (33)
For $`\mu >\mu _3`$, the transition between the chiral and trivial phases is first-order and takes place along the line of equal pressure

$`L_{\chi ,1}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{116\mu ^2T^2{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{N_c^2}}}\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^2}{2B^2}}\left(1+\sqrt{116\mu ^2T^2{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{N_c^2}}}\right)\right]\right)`$ (35)
$`+N_c\mathrm{log}\left[\mu ^2+T^2\right]+B(\mu ^2T^2)=0.`$
This line intercepts the $`T=0`$ axis at $`\mu =\mu _1`$ which obeys

$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{B\mu _1^2}{N_c}}+\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{B\mu _1^2}{N_c}})=0.`$ (36)
This gives $`\mu _1=0.528\sqrt{N_c/B}`$, or $`\mu _1=0.914/\sqrt{B}`$ for $`N_c=3`$.

$`L_{\chi ,1}`$ in Eq. (35) is a triple line. To see this and clarify the character of $`(\mu _3,T_3)`$, it is useful to consider the effect of a non-zero quark current mass $`m`$ . A mass $`m0`$ selects a particular direction for chiral condensation. If we now consider the three-dimensional parameter space $`(\mu ,T,m)`$, the region delimited by $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ and $`L_{\chi ,1}`$ in the plane $`m=0`$ thus appears to be a surface of coexistence of the two ordered phases with the chiral fields $`\pm \sigma _0`$ of Eq. (32). Along $`L_{\chi ,1}`$, this surface meets two other ‘wing’ surfaces which extend symmetrically into the regions $`m>0`$ and $`m<0`$. Each of the wings is a coexistence surface between one of the ordered phases whose chiral field continues to $`\sigma =\pm \sigma _0`$ as $`m0`$ and the high temperature phase. Hence, $`L_{\chi ,1}`$ marks the coexistence of three phases and is a triple line. The three phases become identical at $`(\mu _3,T_3)`$, which is thus a tricritical point. The second- and first-order lines $`L_{\chi ,1}`$ and $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ join tangentially at $`(\mu _3,T_3)`$, see .

The onset of diquark condensation modifies the topology that we have just described. This takes place for coupling ratios $`B/A0.139N_c`$ to which we now turn.

The QCD case: ($`0.139N_cB/A\alpha _1(N_c)`$ or $`0.418B/A1.05`$ for $`N_c=3`$; see Fig. 2). To understand the conditions for the onset of diquark condensation, consider a pure diquark phase by setting $`\sigma =0`$ in Eq. (23). The gap equation $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ then has three solutions: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\sqrt{2/A\mu ^2T^2}`$. In the high $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ phase, only the trivial root is real and the system is in the symmetric phase. Inside the semicircle

$`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}2/A\mu ^2T^2=0,`$ (37)
the trivial root becomes a maximum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and we have a pair of two real minima $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for which color symmetry is spontaneously broken. The roots $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ go continuously to zero as one approaches $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$, which is thus a second-order line provided no other phase develops. The fate of other ordering forms depends on the pressure in the diquark phase,

$`P_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`A(\mu ^2+T^2)2+(N_c2)\mathrm{log}\left(\mu ^2+T^2\right)+2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{A}}\right).`$ (38)
The maximum pressure $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is reached on $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$, where it also equals the pressure of the trivial phase. The condition for the onset of diquark condensation is then clear: The semicircle must lie in part outside the region occupied by the chiral phase. Then, the maximum pressure in the diquark phase is higher than that of the chiral phase, and the diquark phase is stable near the semicircle.

To find the minimum ratio $`B/A`$ for which this condition holds, we compare the dimensions of the chiral phase to the radius of the semicircle, $`\mu _{\mathrm{semi}}\sqrt{2/A}`$. When $`B/A1`$, the line $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ lies well inside the boundaries of the chiral phase, whose linear dimensions are $`T=\sqrt{N_c/B}`$ (along $`\mu =0`$) and $`\mu _1=0.528\sqrt{N_c/B}`$ (along $`T=0`$). The onset of diquark condensation requires therefore $`B/A`$ to be large enough that the semicircle crosses the first-order line between chiral and trivial phases. This takes place along $`T=0`$ when $`\mu _{\mathrm{semi}}=\mu _1`$, or

$`\sqrt{2/A}=0.528\sqrt{N_c/B},`$ (39)
which gives $`B/A=0.139N_c`$, or $`B/A=0.418`$ for $`N_c=3`$.

For larger values of $`B/A`$, the diquark phase exists in a region delimited by $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$, on which it coexists with the symmetric phase, and by a first-order line of equal pressure with the chiral phase. This phase diagram is realized for ratios including that corresponding to single-gluon exchange, $`B/A=N_c/(2(N_c1))`$ (or $`3/4`$ for $`N_c=3`$), which is the ratio taken in Fig. 2. We have verified that the two segments of first-order lines, between the chiral and the diquark phases on the one hand and the chiral and trivial phases on the other hand, join tangentially. Figure 7 shows the chiral and diquark fields as a function of $`\mu `$ and $`T`$. It is worth noting that the chiral field vanishes with a square root law near the second-order line $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ and is discontinuous along the first-order line $`L_{\chi ,1}`$. The diquark field vanishes with a square root law all along the semicircle line.

The topology in Fig. 2 can also be summarized by a simple counting argument. Consider the difference between the pressures in the diquark and the chiral phases along the $`T=0`$ axis,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }=N_c2+(A+B)\mu ^22\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{A\mu ^2}{2}}+N_c\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{B\mu ^2}{N_c}}.`$ (40)
This difference varies from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=N_c(1+(2B)/(N_cA)+\mathrm{log}[(2B)/(N_cA)])`$ as $`\mu \sqrt{2/A}`$, to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=(N_c2)\mathrm{log}\mu ^2`$ as $`\mu 0`$. We have just argued that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be negative in the former limit if $`B/A>0.139N_c`$. In the latter limit, however, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is always negative for $`N_c>2`$ and the system is necessarily in the chiral phase. That the diquark phase must be metastable for small $`\mu `$ is clearly a consequence of the fact that chiral condensation uses all $`N_c`$ colors while diquark condensation uses only colors $`1`$ and $`2`$. This counting argument was mentioned in early models of color superconductivity  and is here completely manifest. For $`N_c>2`$, the diquark phase must appear at densities higher than those appropriate for the chiral phase.

Onset of the mixed broken symmetry phase: ($`\alpha _1(N_c)B/AN_c/\sqrt{8}`$ or $`1.05B/A1.06`$ for $`N_c=3`$; see Fig. 3). The chiral solution $`\sigma _0`$, Eq. (32), ceases to be a local minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)`$ for sufficiently large $`\mu `$. It turns into a saddle point along a line where the second derivative $`^2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ vanishes,

$`L_{\mathrm{mix}}\left(N_cA2B\right)\left(N_c+\sqrt{N_c^216B^2\mu ^2T^2}\right)8B^2\mu ^2=0.`$ (41)
A new minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ with both $`\sigma 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ develops in the region to the right of $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$. This new minimum corresponds to a new phase, the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase, which competes with the diquark phase. When the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase first appears along $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$, it has the same pressure as the chiral phase. Therefore, the condition for this new phase to realize the largest pressure is that the instability line $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ lies in the region spanned by the chiral phase. Then, along $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$, the new phase necessarily has a pressure that exceeds that in the diquark phase and is favored.

To see what ratios $`B/A`$ are needed for the mixed broken symmetry phase, consider the point where $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ meets the $`T=0`$ axis,

$`\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_cA}{2B}}1\right)}.`$ (42)
When $`B/A1`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}\sqrt{N_c/B}/\sqrt{4B/A}\sqrt{N_c/B}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ lies well outside the chiral phase. $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ then moves towards the $`\chi `$-phase as $`B/A`$ increases. It first crosses the first-order line between chiral and diquark phases when $`\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}=\mu _1`$, where $`\mu _1`$ is the point of equal pressure which obeys $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ in Eq. (40). This condition gives a ratio $`B/A=\alpha _1(N_c)`$, where $`\alpha _1`$ is a non-trivial function of $`N_c`$ which we study in the appendix. Here, we note only that $`\alpha _1(3)=1.05`$ for three colors. When $`B/A>\alpha _1(N_c)`$, we find that the mixed broken symmetry phase develops in the wedge bordered by the second-order line $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ of Eq. (41), and a first-order line on which it coexists with the diquark phase. The phase diagram is shown in Fig. 3, while an expanded view of the wedge of mixed broken symmetry and of the first-order line near $`(\mu _3,T_3)`$ are respectively shown in Figs. 8 and 9.

A new critical point: ($`N_c/\sqrt{8}B/A\alpha _2(N_c)`$ or $`1.06B/A1.163`$ for $`N_c=3`$; see Fig. 4). As $`B/A`$ increases above $`\alpha _1(N_c)`$, the semicircle $`2/A=\mu ^2+T^2`$ grows relative to the chiral phase, and eventually reaches the tricritical point $`(\mu _3,T_3)`$ of Eq. (33) when $`B/A=N_c/\sqrt{8}`$. At this stage, the segment of first-order line between chiral and trivial phases disappears. For $`B/A>N_c/\sqrt{8}`$, the semicircle meets the second-order line between chiral and trivial phases, $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ in Eq. (31), at a new critical point

$`\mu _4=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2B}{N_cA}}\right)},T_4=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2B}{N_cA}}\right)},`$ (43)
which now separates three phases as shown in Fig. 4.

Coexistence of four phases: ($`\alpha _2(N_c)B/AN_c/2`$ or $`1.163B/A1.5`$ for $`N_c=3`$; see Fig. 5). With still higher coupling ratios $`B/A`$, the wedge of mixed broken symmetry in Fig. 4 grows in size relative to the other phases. Its tip reaches the new critical point $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ when $`B/A`$ satisfies the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}=\alpha _2(N_c){\displaystyle \frac{4N_cN_c^{3/2}\sqrt{2N_c4}}{4(4N_c)}},`$ (44)
the derivation of which we detail in the appendix. We just note here that $`\alpha _2(3)=1.163`$. This coupling ratio also marks the appearance of two new critical points, as illustrated in Fig. 5. First, when $`B/A>\alpha _2(N_c)`$, the point $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ characterizes the coexistence of all four phases, and it has thus become a tetracritical point. The pressure of the system at $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ has the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)a\sigma ^4+b\mathrm{\Delta }^4+c\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, where $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are constants detailed in the appendix. We note in particular that none of the four second-order lines in Fig. 5 join tangentially at the tetracritical point.

The second point appearing above $`B/A=\alpha _2(N_c)`$ is a tricritical point $`(\mu _{3\mathrm{m}},T_{3\mathrm{m}})`$ which lies on the boundary between the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$\- and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-phases. Its origin can be understood from the similarity between the characters of the mixed broken symmetry phase and the chiral phase. The diquark field in the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1+4A^2\mu ^2\sigma ^2}}{A}}\mu ^2T^2\sigma ^2\right)^{1/2}.`$ (45)
Substituting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for this expression, we find that the gap equation for the chiral field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))/\sigma =0`$, has five roots. Despite the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )0`$, the dynamics of these roots as a function of $`\mu `$ and $`T`$ is identical to that of the roots in the pure chiral condensation case discussed at the beginning of this section. In particular, the transition to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase starts out second-order near $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ and takes place along a line where three of the five roots vanish. This second-order line is thus determined by the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\sigma ^2}}(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))|_{\sigma 0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (46)
which is the analog of Eq. (31) and gives

$`L_{\chi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta },2}(N_c2)(\mu ^2T^2)+\left(BA(1A\mu ^2)\right)\left(\mu ^2+T^2\right)^2=0.`$ (47)
In analogy with the pure chiral case, the transition becomes first order at high $`\mu `$; second- and first-order segments join tangentially at a tricritical point $`(\mu _{3\mathrm{m}},T_{3\mathrm{m}})`$.

We determine the location of this point as follows. We observe that, as in the pure chiral broken case, the potential along the second-order line $`L_{\chi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ has the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)\sigma ^4`$. (See Eq. (46).) This scaling form becomes $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)\sigma ^6`$ at $`(\mu _{3\mathrm{m}},T_{3\mathrm{m}})`$ where all five roots vanish. Thus, the tricritical point is located on the line $`L_{\chi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ at the point where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\sigma ^4}}(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (48)
which is the analog of the condition $`2B(T^2\mu ^2)N_c=0`$ for the pure chiral case. We have solved Eq. (48) numerically to determine $`(\mu _{3\mathrm{m}},T_{3\mathrm{m}})`$ in Figs. 5 and 6.

Disappearance of the chiral phase. ($`\alpha _2(N_c)B/A`$; see Figs. 6 and 10). The wedge of mixed broken symmetry gains space in the $`(\mu ,T)`$ plane at the expense of the chiral phase as $`B/A`$ increases above $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$. The chiral phase eventually shrinks to a vertical line along the $`\mu =0`$ axis when $`B/A=N_c/2`$, as shown in Fig. 10. That the chiral phase is still present for $`\mu =0`$ can be understood as follows. When $`B/A=N_c/2`$ and $`\mu =0`$, both condensation fields appear in Eq. (23) in the combination $`\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. A pure diquark solution $`(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })=(0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ can thus always be rotated into a pure chiral solution $`(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,0)`$ , and thus does not represent an independent phase. This symmetry is however no longer present as soon as $`\mu 0`$, in which case the diquark phase becomes thermodynamically independent from the chiral phase.

Recall that the ratio $`B/A=N_c/2`$ is the maximum ratio that our model can realize . It is instructive however to explore higher coupling ratios, although they do not necessarily describe physical situations, by setting $`B/A>N_c/2`$ by hand in Eq. (23). We find that higher $`B/A`$ force the diquark phase to grow in size at the expense of the mixed broken symmetry phase. Figure 6 shows one example with $`B/A=1.8`$ and $`N_c=3`$. The similarities between the critical properties of the mixed broken symmetry phase and those of the pure chiral broken phase are now clear: Compare for instance the critical lines between Figs. 1 and 6.

## IV Discussion

Baryon density discontinuity. We have argued that the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (8) represents the non-analytic contribution to the thermodynamics which is directly associated with the breaking of chiral and color symmetry. The potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should therefore not be used too literally in computations of the bulk properties of the phases we have encountered. It may however give reasonable estimates of discontinuities near a phase transition. For instance in the pure chiral case, the random matrix models of Ref.  estimate that the baryon density $`n_B=(1/3)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu ,T)/\mu `$ changes discontinuously at the first order point along $`T=0`$ by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_B2.5n_0`$. Here, $`n_0=0.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$ is the density of normal nuclear matter. The result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_B`$ relies on an evaluation of the number of degrees of freedom $`N`$ from instanton models and seems to be a reasonable estimate of the baryon density discontinuity .

$`\mathrm{\Delta }n_B`$ is modified by the presence of diquark condensation. We consider single-gluon exchange with $`N_c=3`$, which realizes $`B/A=3/4`$, and work in the limit $`T=0`$. Taking the derivative of Eq. (40) with respect to $`\mu `$, we find the discontinuity in baryon density at the point $`\mu _1`$ of equal pressure between chiral and color phases to be

$`N_\mathrm{\Delta }N_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu _1}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}B\mu _1^2\right).`$ (49)
Here, $`\mu _1`$ obeys $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi =\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (40); we have $`\mu _1=0.87/\sqrt{B}`$. Hence, $`N_\mathrm{\Delta }N_\chi 6.4\sqrt{B}`$ in the appropriate unit of inverse chemical potential. Were no diquark condensation to occur, we would have found a discontinuity

$`N_0N_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\mu _1}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{B\mu _1^2}{3}}\right),`$ (50)
where $`\mu _1`$ is now the point of equal pressure between chiral and trivial phases. We want to keep the same $`B`$ as in Eq. (49) so as to compare two situations which realize the same vacuum chiral field $`\sigma _0=\sqrt{3/B}`$. The condition of equal pressure in Eq. (36) gives then $`\mu _1=0.914/\sqrt{B}`$ and we have $`N_0N_\chi 8.4\sqrt{B}`$. Thus, we find that diquark condensation reduces the discontinuity in baryon density by roughly twenty five percent.

Away from the chiral limit. We now turn to study the effects of a small quark current mass $`m`$ in Eq. (23). For $`m0`$, chiral symmetry is explicitely broken, and the chiral condensate $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ ceases to be a good order parameter. This affects the phase diagrams in Figs. 1-6 in a number of ways. We consider the effect of a small mass $`m`$ chosen so that $`m10`$ MeV in units for which the vacuum chiral field is $`\sigma \sqrt{3/B}400`$ MeV and illustrate a few cases in Figs. 11-14.

Figure 11 shows the limit of small ratios $`B/A`$ which favor chiral over diquark condensation. Since $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ is no longer a good order parameter, any two given points in the phase diagram can be connected by a trajectory along which no thermodynamic discontinuity occurs. It results that the second-order line $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ in Eq. (31) is no longer present when $`m0`$. There remains, however, a first-order line, which ends at a regular critical point $`(\mu _c,T_c)`$. This point can be located as follows. Along the first-order line, the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)`$ has two minima of equal depth separated by a single maximum. All three extrema become degenerate at the critical point $`(\mu _c,T_c)`$, past which $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)`$ possesses only one minimum. The location of $`(\mu _c,T_c)`$ can thus be determined from the condition that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)`$ scales as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)(\sigma \sigma _0)^4,`$ (51)
at $`(\mu _c,T_c)`$ and for small deviations $`|\sigma \sigma _0|`$. The location of $`(\mu _c,T_c)`$, as well as $`\sigma _0`$, are then determined by requiring the first three derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,0)`$ to vanish at the critical point and for $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$. A small mass tends to increase the pressure in the low density ‘phase’ with respect to that in the high density ‘phase’. Its results that a mass $`m`$ displaces the first-order line $`L_{\chi ,1}`$ of Eq. (35) to higher $`\mu `$ by an amount linear in $`m`$. The pressure increase also delays the onset of diquark condensation; the ratio $`B/A`$ for which the diquark appears first increases linearly with $`m`$.

Figure 12 shows the case of QCD: there is now a second-order line $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ which separates the high temperature phase from a mixed broken symmetry phase; the dominant effect of $`m`$ on the diquark phase in Fig. 2 is to produce a small chiral field $`\sigma m`$. The effect on the thermodynamics in both the chiral and the trivial phases is, however, second order in $`m`$, and so is the displacement of the second-order line $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ from Fig. 2 to Fig. 12.

The evolution of the phase diagram for higher $`B/A`$ parallels the evolution we have outlined for $`m=0`$ in Figs. 3-6. The phase with a finite diquark field grows until it eventually reaches the critical point $`(\mu _c,T_c)`$. Higher ratios lead to a phase structure in which the first- and second-order lines intersect as shown in Fig. 13. A wedge of another mixed broken symmetry phase, initially with a large chiral field and a small diquark field, appears at still higher $`B/A`$ on the left of the first-order line. This wedge grows in size until it encounters the boundary of the other mixed broken symmetry phase. The second-order lines then merge into a single continuous line as shown in Fig. 14. This line is the locus of point for which

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }=0}=0,`$ (52)
and on which a chiral solution with a vanishing diquark field turns into a saddle-point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Inside this boundary, the global minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ describes a single mixed broken symmetry phase. This phase again exhibits properties similar to those of a chiral phase. It contains in particular a first-order line which ends at a critical point $`(\mu _{\mathrm{cm}},T_{\mathrm{cm}})`$ at which the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ scales as $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)(\sigma \sigma _0)^4`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )`$ is the diquark field for fixed $`\sigma `$.

To summarize, the effects of a small mass is linear for the chiral and mixed broken symmetry phases and quadratic for the diquark and trivial phases. The chiral field no longer represents a good order parameter, and the second-order lines of vanishing second derivatives with respect to $`\sigma `$, i.e. $`L_{\chi ,2}`$ in Eq. (31) and $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ in Eq. (41), disappear. The tricritical points become regular critical points while the tetracritical point in Fig. 5 disappears.

The $`N_c=2`$ and $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limits. In order to make connection with known results and to obtain some insight on the dependence of the phase structure on the number of colors, it is interesting to consider the limits $`N_c=2`$ and $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. First of all when $`N_c=2`$, the Hermitian matrix models realize only a single coupling ratio $`B/A=1`$ . We focus on single-gluon exchange for which the potential in Eq. (23) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`A(\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\mathrm{log}[(\sigma \mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2+T^2]\mathrm{log}[(\sigma +\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2+T^2].`$ (53)
A rotational symmetry appears at $`\mu =0`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ depends on chiral and diquark fields via the combination $`\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Diquark and chiral phases do not in this case represent independent states. We find for the combined fields that

$`\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{A}}T^2,`$ (54)
below a critical temperature $`T_c=\sqrt{2/A}`$, while symmetry is restored above $`T_c`$. This rotational symmetry is a consequence of the pseudo-reality of $`SU(2)`$-QCD, a property by which the Dirac operator $`D=i_{\mu a}\gamma ^\mu \lambda ^aA_{\mu a}+m`$ commutes with $`\tau _2C\gamma ^5K`$ where $`\tau _2`$ is the antisymmetric $`2\times 2`$ color matrix and $`K`$ the complex conjugation operator. For $`\mu =0`$, this property permits one to arrange color and flavor symmetries into a higher $`SU(4)`$ symmetry, see for instance .

At finite $`\mu `$, however, the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry is explicitly broken. The global minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ always has $`\sigma =0`$, and the system prefers diquark condensation over chiral symmetry breaking. This results agrees with instanton models , and lattice calculations . We now have a second-order phase transition from an ordered state with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2/A\mu ^2T^2`$ in the low $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ region to a symmetric phase at high $`T`$ and $`\mu `$.

The opposite limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ is more subtle. In microscopic models, it is expected on general grounds that the quark-quark interaction is suppressed with respect to the $`\overline{q}q`$ channel by powers of $`1/N_c`$ . In the present model, we observe that diquark condensation disappears as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ if the interaction is single-gluon exchange. Its coupling ratio $`B/A=N_c/(2N_c2)1/2`$ as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. Thus, we have $`B/A0.139N_c`$ and the only possible topology for the phase diagram is that in Fig. 1. Hence, no diquark condensate forms. Other Hermitean interactions with $`B/AO(N_c)`$ can however explore the full range of phase diagrams which display diquark condensation. The actual number of possible toplogies is however reduced to five, as $`\alpha _2(N_c)N_c/\sqrt{8}`$ for $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ (see Appendix) and Fig. 4 can no longer be realized.

We summarize the variation with $`N_c`$ of the coupling ratios characterizing a change in topology and of the ratio realized by single-gluon exchange in Table 1.

Comparison with a microscopic model: In contrast to microscopic models, the random matrix interaction does not lead to a logarithmic instability of the gap equation near the Fermi surface. To clarify this effect, we consider diquark condensation in a chiral symmetric phase at $`T=0`$ and compare the random matrix approach to a microscopic model. We choose here the NJL study of Berges and Rajagopal . In the random matrix formulation the gap equation

$`2A\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mu ^2}}`$ (55)
has a non-trivial root $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mu _c\mu }`$ with $`\mu _c=\sqrt{2/A}`$. The model of  gives an equation of the form

$`2A^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qq^2F^4(q)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(q\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2F^4(q)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(q+\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2F^4(q)}}}\right),`$ (56)
where $`F(q)`$ is an appropriate form factor which falls off over $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$. Clearly, the right side of Eq. (56) contains a singularity for $`q\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ which is absent in Eq. (55). This singularity has two consequences. First, the behavior of the diquark field for large $`\mu `$ depends sensitively on the form factor. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, the singularity at $`q\mu `$ in the right side of Eq. (56) gives $`2A^{}\mu ^2F^4(\mu )\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ to logarithmic order. Thus, instead of the square root behavior $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu )(\mu _c\mu )^{1/2}`$ of the random matrix approach, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ now vanishes as $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu )\mathrm{exp}(c/(\mu ^2F^4(\mu )))`$, where $`c`$ is a constant. This result is only true for a smooth cutoff $`F(q)`$. For a sharp cutoff $`F(q)=\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heavyside function, the diquark field exhibits the square root singularity. This tail is exponentially sensitive to form factors; with regards to establishing the general topology of the phase diagram, such behavior is not qualitatively different from $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. The second consequence of the logarithmic singularity in Eq. (56) is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu )`$ must be non-monotonic for intermediate $`\mu `$. This profile can be seen by drawing in the plane $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mu )`$ the lines of constant height for the right side of Eq. (56): these lines must go around the point $`(\mu _0,0)`$ where the logarithmic singularity is the strongest as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu )`$ reaches a maximum at $`\mu _0`$.

Color dependency in the chiral fields. The patterns of symmetry breaking which we have described can become even richer if we allow the chiral fields to depend on color. This possibility arises in the instanton model of Carter and Diakonov , who remarked that the Dyson-Gorkov equations close in color space on the condition that gapped and ungapped quarks can develop different masses. We studied the effects of this additional degree of freedom in the limit of zero chemical potential  and found no change in the phase structure for ratios $`B/AN_c/2`$. The situation is different for finite $`\mu `$. Choosing different masses for the two gapped and the $`N_c2`$ ungapped quarks leads in some limits to an increase in the pressure of phases with finite diquark fields. The main consequence is an increase of both the parameter range and the region in the $`(\mu ,T)`$ plane for which the mixed broken symmetry phase exists. This result is obvious since the mixed broken symmetry phase is the only phase which can exploit this additional degree of freedom. However, there is also a general mechanism at work by which a change of phase structure always takes place above a certain threshold for the coupling constants.

We wish to illustrate these effects in a few cases and concentrate on the limit $`N_c=3`$ and $`m=0`$ for clarity. We denote the chiral fields for color $`1`$ and $`2`$ by $`\sigma _1`$ and that for color $`3`$ by $`\sigma _3`$. In order to permit these fields to be different, we include the projection of the interaction onto a chiral-$`\lambda _8`$ channel as described in . For $`\mu 0`$, the thermodynamical potential becomes

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma _1,\sigma _3,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B(\beta _1\sigma _1^2+\beta _2\sigma _1\sigma _3+\beta _3\sigma _3^2)\mathrm{log}[(\sigma _1\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2+T^2]\mathrm{log}[(\sigma _1+\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2+T^2]`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}[(\sigma _3\mu )^2+T^2]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}[(\sigma _3+\mu )^2+T^2],`$
where

$`\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{3B}},\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{2C}{3B}},\beta _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{3B}},`$ (59)
describe the coupling between $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _3`$. $`C`$ is a coupling constant associated with the chiral-$`\lambda _8`$ channel . By fine tuning the various Lorentz and color channels which compose the random matrix interactions, we can realize a range of ratios $`B/C`$ for any fixed $`B/A`$§§§This range is $`3/16B/C3/2`$ for $`B/A<3/4`$ and then reduces linearly to $`B/C=3/2`$ for $`B/A=3/2`$. New patterns of symmetry breaking only appears when $`C>0`$ and the chiral-$`\lambda _8`$ channel is attractive .

Consider first single-gluon exchange. The coupling ratios are $`B/A=3/4`$ and $`C/B=3/16`$. The chiral-$`\lambda _8`$ channel is repulsive, and the phases with the largest pressure always satisfy $`\sigma _1=\sigma _3`$, which is the case shown in Fig. 2. If we now fine tune the interactions so as to increase $`B/C`$ to $`B/C3/2`$ while keeping $`B/A=3/4`$, the phase diagram changes substantially. The first-order line between the chiral and trivail phases splits at the point where it meets the diquark transition line into two first-order lines. Together with the $`T=0`$ axis, they delimitate a wedge of mixed broken symmetry phase with $`\sigma _1\sigma _3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Thus, with an attractive channel $`B/C3/2`$ the mixed broken symmetry phase appears much earlier than previously discussed. This is an extreme case. For fixed $`B/A`$, the mixed broken symmetry phase does not appear immediately as $`B/C`$ increases from $`0`$: there is a threshold value above which the new phase appears (this value is $`B/C1.29`$ for $`B/A=0.75`$). Therefore, it takes large variations of the coupling constants $`B/A`$ and $`B/C`$ away from the values expected for single-gluon exchange to modify the phase structure of Fig. 2.

To complete the picture of the effects of an attractive channel $`C>0`$, consider next $`B/A=3/2`$. This ratio can only be realized by a color diagonal interaction for which $`B/C=3/2`$ . In this case, there is no freedom in fine tuning $`B/C`$ to other values. The effect of splitting masses in colors is now maximal. $`\beta _2`$ in Eq. (59) vanishes and $`\sigma _3`$ decouples from the other two fields. Its gap equation leads to the same solutions as a pure chiral phase with $`\sigma 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and the phase diagram for the third color is that of Fig. 1. For $`B/A=B/C=3/2`$, the partial pressure for colors $`1`$ and $`2`$ has the same form as in the limit $`N_c=2`$, see Eq. (53). There is then a rotational symmetry between $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`\mu =0`$ and $`\sigma _1`$ vanishes for $`\mu 0`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2/A\mu ^2T^2`$ for $`\mu ^2+T^22/A`$. The overall phase diagram is obtained by superposing the two pictures; we have a mixed broken symmetry phase with $`\sigma _1=0`$, $`\sigma _30`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ on the left of the first-order line $`L_{\chi ,1}`$ of Eq. (35). This phase is contiguous to a pure diquark phase which develops as in Fig. 2 on the right of $`L_{\chi ,1}`$ and below the semicircle. With respect to Fig. 5, the mixed broken symmetry phase thus occupies a wider area in the $`(\mu ,T)`$ plane.

A color-$`6`$ condensate. It has been suggested that an energy gain may result if the third color condenses in a spin-$`1`$ color symmetric state . We find no such condensation for single-gluon exchange. We can however fine tune the interactions so as to keep $`B/A=3/2`$ and allow this channel to develop. The Fierz constant for projecting on a color $`6`$ is half that for a $`\overline{3}`$ color state. Thus, we can understand qualitatively how a color-$`6`$ behaves by repeating our previous analysis with an additional phase which now may develop inside a semicircle of radius $`\sqrt{2}`$ smaller than the radius of the diquark phase. This semicircle crosses the first-order line beween chiral and diquark phases at $`B/A0.754`$ and a color-$`6`$ phase can, in favorable cases, increase the pressure of the system. However, as far as QCD is concerned, a color-$`6`$ condensate should be very small since its threshold ratio is very close to $`B/A=3/4`$. This is an example of a result which cannot be regarded as robust: in a microscopic theory, the fate of the color-$`6`$ phase will inevitably depend on the details of the interaction and on whether these give rise to exponential tails for the associated condensation field. By contrast, the chiral and diquark phases are fully developed for $`B/A=3/4`$ and the phase diagram in Fig. 2 should thus be considered robust.

## V Conclusions

Our random matrix model leads to a thermodynamic potential which has a very simple form. Yet, it contains enough physics to illustrate in a clear way the interplay between chiral symmetry breaking and the formation of quark Cooper pairs. We have found that this interplay results in a variety of phase diagrams which can be characterized by a total of only six different topologies. Single-gluon exchange leads to the topology shown in Fig. 2, a phase diagram familiar from microscopic models. We have considered the chiral and scalar diquark channels, which seem the most promising ones. We have found that chiral and diquark phases are fully developped for the ratio realized by single-gluon exchange and that it takes large variations in the coupling ratios $`B/A`$ and $`C/B`$ to depart from that result. On the other hand, other less attractive condensation channels seem sensitive to coupling constant ratios and are expected in microscopic models to depend on the details of the interactions. Furthermore, these channels develop weak condensates at best. It is worth keeping in mind that the present picture is mean-field; we expect that quantum fluctuations will inevitably have large effects on the weak channels, which should thus not be considered robust. We conclude that QCD with two light flavors should realize the topology suggested by single-gluon exchange and that this topology is stable against variations in the detailed form of the microscopic interactions.

Many effects lie in the mismatch between the number of colors involved in each order parameter: all $`N_c`$ colors contribute to the chiral field, while a Cooper pair involves two colors. A result of this for $`N_c=3`$ is that the chiral broken phase prevails at low densities. Furthermore, our model reproduces to a reasonable extent the expected limits at small and large $`N_c`$. We expect such counting arguments to be valid in both microscopic models and lattice calculations. More generally, we believe that random matrix models can provide insight into calculations of QCD at finite density by providing simple illustrations for many of the mechanisms which are at work.

Not all the phase diagrams that we have studied are directly relevant to QCD. However, many of their characteristics such as the presence of tricritical and tetracritical points are generic to systems in which two forms of order compete. Our model could naturally be extended to the study of nuclear or condensed matter systems in which such competion takes place. The construction of a genuine theory seems technically involved at first glance  but in fact contains only three basic ingredients: the identification of the symmetries at play and their associated order parameters, the knowledge of the elementary excitations in a background of condensed fields, and the calculation of the range of coupling constants realized by the random matrix interactions. These three components are sufficient to build a thermodynamical potential and determine the resulting phase structures in parameter space.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful for stimulating discussions with G. Carter, D. Diakonov, H. Heiselberg, and K. Splittorff.

## A Calculation of $`\alpha _1(N_c)`$ and $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$

In this appendix, we calculate the ratios $`\alpha _1(N_c)`$ and $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$, which respectively characterize the onset of the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase and the appearance of the tetracritical point.

### 1 The ratio $`\alpha _1(N_c)`$.

The mixed broken symmetry phase appears first for the coupling ratio $`B/A`$ for which the instability line $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ of Eq. (41) crosses the first-order line between chiral and diquark phases. This crossing occurs on the $`T=0`$ axis. The line $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ meets the $`T=0`$ axis at $`\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}`$, Eq. (42),

$`\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{N_c^2A}{4B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2B}},`$ (A1)
while the condition of equal pressure at that point gives

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi =(N_c2)+(A+B)\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}^22\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{A\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}^2}{2}}+N_c\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{B\mu _{\mathrm{mix}}^2}{N_c}}=0.`$ (A2)
Combining these two equations gives the determining equation for $`\alpha _1=B/A`$,

$`(N_c2)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\alpha _1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\alpha _1\right)\left(1+\alpha _1\right)2\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{4\alpha _1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\alpha _1}}1\right)\right]+N_c\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\alpha _1}}1\right)\right]=0.`$ (A3)
This is a transcendental relation which needs to be solved numerically for each $`N_c`$. In particular, we find $`\alpha _1(2)=1`$, $`\alpha _1(3)=1.05`$, and $`\alpha _1(N_c\mathrm{})0.321N_c`$.

### 2 The ratio $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$.

Two conditions determine $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$. Coming from small $`B/A`$, $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$ corresponds to the ratio at which the wedge of the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase reaches the critical point $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ of Eq. (43). Decreasing $`B/A`$ from large values, $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$ marks the coexistence of the tetracritical point $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ and the tricritical point $`(\mu _{3\mathrm{m}},T_{3\mathrm{m}})`$. We now show that these two conditions are equivalent, and thus that the transition from Fig. 4 to Fig. 5 is continuous.

To proceed, we concentrate on the region near $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ where we perform a small field expansion of the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in Eq. (23),

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)+a_0\sigma ^2+b_0\mathrm{\Delta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{2}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^4+c_1\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2+𝒪(\mathrm{min}^6(\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma )).`$ (A4)
Here, the coefficients of the quadratic terms are linear in $`\delta \mu =\mu \mu _4`$ and $`\delta T=TT_4`$ and vanish at $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$, while those of the quartic terms are

$`a_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{2B^2}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^2N_c}{4}},b_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}},c_1={\displaystyle \frac{2AB}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}},`$ (A5)
to leading order in $`\delta \mu `$ and $`\delta T`$.

The condition that the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase includes $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ can be determined as follows. While $`B/A`$ increases from below $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$, the tip of the wedge of the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase slides along the the line of equal pressures between chiral and diquark phases, which we denote by $`L_{\chi \mathrm{\Delta },1}`$. Minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in Eq. (A4) to find the respective pressure in the $`\chi `$\- and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-phases, this line is determined near $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ by

$`L_{\chi \mathrm{\Delta },1}{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{b_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{a_1^2}}=0.`$ (A6)
The left boundary of the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase is the instability line

$`L_{\mathrm{mix}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }=0,\sigma =\sigma _0}=0,`$ (A7)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the $`\sigma `$ field in the chiral phase. From Eq. (A4), this gives near $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$

$`L_{\mathrm{mix}}b_0{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a_1^2}}c_1=0.`$ (A8)
The tip $`P_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ of the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase is the intercept of $`L_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ and $`L_{\chi \mathrm{\Delta },1}`$. From Eqs. (A6) and (A8) $`P_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ thus obeys

$`a_0^2\left(c_1^2a_1^2b_1^2\right)=0.`$ (A9)
Now, imagine that $`B/A`$ is strictly smaller but near $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$. Then, $`P_{\mathrm{mix}}(\mu _4,T_4)`$, and we have $`a_00`$. The location of $`P_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ is therefore determined by the condition $`a_1^2b_1^2=c_1^2`$, where the coefficients $`a_1`$, $`b_1`$ and $`c_1`$ are those of Eq. (A5) augmented by linear corrections in $`\delta \mu `$ and $`\delta T`$. If we now let $`B/A\alpha _2(N_c)`$, the tip $`P_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ reaches $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ and the linear corrections in $`a_1`$, $`b_1`$, and $`c_1`$ vanish. Using Eq. (A5), and solving $`a_1^2b_1^2=c_1^2`$ for $`B/A`$ gives

$`\alpha _2(N_c)={\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{4N_cN_c^{3/2}\sqrt{2N_c4}}{4(4N_c)}},`$ (A10)
which is the result stated in Eq. (44).

Coming from large ratios $`B/A`$, the determining condition for $`B/A=\alpha _2(N_c)`$ requires that $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$ obeys Eq. (48),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\sigma ^4}}(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )`$ is the diquark field in the $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }`$-phase. Taking the derivative of Eq. (A4) with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\sigma )(c_1\sigma ^2+b_0)/b_1^2`$ which when inserted back in Eq. (A4) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\sigma ^4}}(\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ))`$ $``$ $`a_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{b_1^2}},`$ (A12)
in the neighborhood of $`(\mu _4,T_4)`$. Setting the right side to zero, we recover the previous condition of Eq. (A9).

| Table 1. A few characteristic coupling ratios. | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ratio $`B/A`$ |  | $`N_c=2`$ | |  | $`N_c=3`$ | |  | $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ | | |
| Onset of diquark condensation |  |  | |  | 0. | 418 |  | 0. | 139 | $`N_c`$ |
| $`\alpha _1(N_c)`$ |  | 1. | 0 |  | 1. | 050 |  | 0. | 321 | $`N_c`$ |
| Disappearance of the tricritical point. |  |  | |  | 1. | 061 |  | 0. | 354 | $`N_c`$ |
| $`\alpha _2(N_c)`$ |  | 1. | 0 |  | 1. | 163 |  | 0. | 354 | $`N_c`$ |
| Maximum ratio $`N_c/2`$ |  | 1. | 0 |  | 1. | 5 |  | 0. | 5 | $`N_c`$ |
| Single-gluon exchange |  | 1. | 0 |  | 0. | 75 |  | 0. | 5 |  |