text:
# The Light-Front Hamiltonian formalism for two-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics equivalent to the Lorentz-covariant approach

## 1. Introduction

The Hamiltonian approach to quantum field theory in the light-front (LF) coordinates $`x^\pm =\left(x^0\pm x^3\right)/\sqrt{2},x^{}=(x^1,x^2)`$, where $`x^+`$ plays the role of time , is one of the nonperturbative approaches to solving the strong coupling problem . In the framework of this approach, quantization is performed in the plane $`x^+=0`$, and the generator $`P_+`$ of the shift along the $`x^+`$ axis serves as the Hamiltonian. The generator $`P_{}`$ of the shift along the $`x^{}`$ axis does not displace the quantization surface and is therefore kinematic (in the Dirac terminology) in contrast to the dynamic generator $`P_+`$. As a result, the momentum operator $`P_{}`$ turns out to be quadratic with respect to the fields and is independent of the interaction. On the other hand, this operator is nonnegative and has a zero eigenvalue only on the physical vacuum. Therefore, the field Fourier modes corresponding to positive and negative values of $`p_{}`$ play the role of creation and annihilation operators over the physical vacuum, and they can be used to construct the Fock space. In the LF coordinates, the physical vacuum thus coincides with the ”mathematical” vacuum. The bound-state spectrum can be found by solving the Schrodinger equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }P_+|\mathrm{\Psi }=p_+|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(1\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

in the subspace with fixed $`p_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$, which gives the expression $`m^2=2p_+p_{}p_{}^2`$ for the mass $`m`$.

This search for bound states can be performed outside the framework of perturbation theory (PT), for example, using the so-called discretized LF quantization method (the discretized light-cone quantization (DLCQ) method ). But the LF-Hamiltonian formalism involves a specific divergence at $`p_{}=0`$  and requires its regularization. The simplest regularization (we refer to it as lightlike) is the ordinary cutoff $`\left|p_{}\right|\epsilon >0`$ breaking the Lorentz and gauge invariances. It is also possible to apply another regularization preserving the gauge invariance, namely, the cutoff $`\left|x^{}\right|L`$ with the introduction of periodic boundary conditions (this regularization is used in the DLCQ method.) In this case, the momentum $`p_{}`$ becomes discrete ($`p_{}=p_n=\pi n/L`$, where $`n`$ is an integer), and the zeroth field mode corresponding to $`n=0`$ is explicitly separated. In principle, the canonical formalism permits expressing the zeroth mode via the others by solving the constraints, which is usually a complicated problem .

Introducing the lightlike regularization can generate a nonequivalence between the LF-coordinate theory and the ordinary Lorentz-covariant theory. Indeed, experience with nonperturbative calculations based on the LF-Hamiltonian formalism shows that the calculation result can differ from the corresponding result obtained in Lorentz coordinates . Moreover, such differences were found even in the lowest PT orders . This leads to the problem of ”improving” the canonical LF Hamiltonian (resulting from the naive quantization in LF coordinates), i.e., to the problem of finding counterterms for this Hamiltonian that compensate the indicated differences. If this problem can be solved in all PT orders, then the resulting improved LF Hamiltonian can be used for nonperturbative calculations.

The PT generated by the LF Hamiltonian can be represented as the Feynman PT with the same diagrams, but with the cutoff $`\left|p_{}\right|\epsilon >0`$ and with a special integration rule, which we call the lightlike calculation, namely, integration is performed first with respect to $`p_+`$ and then with respect to the other momentum components . To reveal the abovementioned differences in the PT framework, it therefore suffices to compare the lightlike and the ordinary (which we call Lorentz) methods for calculating diagrams. (In what follows, the terms lightlike or Lorentz applied to diagrams and Green’s functions mean that the lightlike or Lorentz calculation methods are used to find them.)

For nongauge field theories of the type of the Yukawa model, it is possible to find the counterterms required for improving the canonical LF Hamiltonian  including all PT orders in the coupling constant . But the direct application of the method in  to the gauge theory using the simplest ultraviolet (UV) regularization requires adding infinitely many counterterms to the canonical LF Hamiltonian. This difficulty can be overcome by introducing a specific nonstandard regularization  similar to the Pauli-Villars regularization, and the gauge invariance is then broken. This leads to the appearance of a large, but finite, number of counterterms with unknown coefficients. As a result, the improved LF Hamiltonian for quantum chromodynamics contains great number of undetermined coefficients, and it reproduces the results of the Lorentz-covariant theory in all PT orders only for some preliminarily unknown dependence of these coefficients on the regularization parameter in the regularization-removal limit. The presence of unknown coefficients and the complicated structure of the regularization (the regularized Hamiltonian contains many additional fields) make practical calculations with the resulting Hamiltonian extremely complicated. Moreover, because only the PT with respect to the coupling constant was analyzed, there could remain purely nonperturbative effects that are not taken into consideration.

In this paper, a different method is suggested for constructing an LF Hamiltonian suitable for twodimensional gauge theories (the two-dimensional quantum electrodynamics (QED-2) is considered here). We first pass to the boson formulation of the theory and then analyze the boson PT (with respect to the fermion mass) to find the improved LF Hamiltonian in terms of bosons. Furthermore, we return to the fermion variables in the already constructed LF theory. We note that the boson PT is principally distinct from the PT with respect to the coupling constant in the original fermion theory (in QED-2, the latter PT does not exist at all because of infrared divergences). Therefore, the resulting LF Hamiltonian can take the nonperturbative effects (with respect to the ordinary coupling constant) into account.

The suggested method for constructing the LF Hamiltonian can be applied only to QED-2, but the information obtained in the analysis of this two-dimensional model can be used to develop new methods that take the nonperturbative vacuum effects into account in constructing the LF Hamiltonian for fourdimensional gauge theories. Such attempts to extract some information about four-dimensional LF gauge theories from an analysis of the QED-2 appeared recently .

## 2. Method for constructing the LF Hamiltonian for the QED-2

The suggested method for constructing the LF Hamiltonian for the QED-2 is based on the possibility of passing from the QED-2 to an equivalent scalar theory  (of the type of the sine-Gordon model). This is done using the bosonization procedure, i.e., the transformation from fermion to boson variables . After this transformation, the mass term of the fermion field in the QED-2 Hamiltonian becomes an interaction term for the scalar field, and the fermion mass $`M`$ becomes a coupling constant in the boson theory. For $`M=0`$, the QED-2 is the Schwinger model, and the boson theory turns out to be a free theory. The PT for the boson theory (i.e., the PT in $`M`$) is a chiral PT. The nontriviality of the quantum vacuum in the QED-2 related to instantons ($`\theta `$-vacuum)  is taken into account explicitly in the boson theory using the parameter $`\theta `$ in the interaction term.

The Lagrangian of the boson theory has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L=L_0+L_I,\left(2\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L_0=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi m^2\phi ^2\right),\left(3\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L_I=\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }:e^{i\phi }:+\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }:e^{i\phi }:,\gamma =\frac{Mme^C}{2\pi },m=\frac{e_{\mathrm{el}}}{\sqrt{\pi }},\left(4\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`e_{\mathrm{el}}`$ is an analogue of the electron charge, $`C=0.577216`$ is Euler’s constant, and the normal-ordering symbol means that the diagrams with closed lines are excluded from the PT with respect to $`\gamma `$ (this corresponds to the usual meaning of the normal-ordering symbol in the Hamiltonian).

We consider the Feynman rules for this theory in Lorentz coordinates. There are vertices of two types with $`j`$ external lines ($`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ here). The factors corresponding to these vertices are $`i^{j+1}e^{i\theta }\gamma /2`$ for the first type and $`i^{j+1}e^{i\theta }\gamma /2`$ for the second type. The vertices without lines ($`j=0`$) are regarded as connected subdiagrams. It is convenient to relate part of the vertex factors $`i^{\pm j}`$ to the lines that are external relative to the vertex (i.e., $`\pm i`$ for each of the lines). The propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)=0\left|T\left(\phi \left(x\right)\phi \left(0\right)\right)\right|0`$, where the free field $`\phi \left(x\right)`$ corresponds to the expansion of Lagrangian (2.), has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)=d^2ke^{ikx}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right),\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right)=\frac{i}{\pi }\frac{1}{\left(k^2m^2+i0\right)},\left(5\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`d^2k=dk_0dk_1`$ and $`kx=k_0x^0+k_1x^1`$.

On one hand, the resulting PT is simple because it is a scalar-field theory; on the other hand, it is complicated because it involves a nonpolynomial interaction. Therefore, there are infinitely many diagrams in each PT order, and their sum can have a UV divergence, although each of the diagrams is finite . It can be easily shown that in the second PT order with respect to $`\gamma `$ (and hence also with respect to $`M`$), the sum of all diagrams contributing to the nonvacuum Green’s function is UV finite . This suggests that the situation is the same in the higher PT orders as well. Indeed, analyzing the PT in the coordinate space permits proving  that the sum of all connected Lorentz-covariant diagrams of an arbitrary order $`n`$ with respect to $`\gamma `$ is UV finite, and there is no divergence for $`n>2`$ even if the method of adjoining external lines is fixed, whereas for $`n=2`$, this is so only after the summation using all such methods. Only the sum of second-order vacuum diagrams and also the sum of second-order nonvacuum diagrams with a fixed method of adjoining external lines remain UV divergent. We note that the indicated UV finiteness can be proved only for Lorentz-covariant Green’s functions and not for lightlike ones, because some diagrams are zero in the lightlike calculation, which destroys the proof. The UV divergences of lightlike diagrams can be automatically regularized using the lightlike cutoff parameter $`\epsilon `$. These divergences appear as $`\epsilon 0`$, and they must be compensated by counterterms.

The exponentiality of the interaction in the model under consideration permits reformulating the PT in the language of superpropagators, i.e., of sums of contributions corresponding to the versions of connecting a pair of vertices by a different number of propagators . The superpropagator is equal to $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}`$ for a pair of vertices of different type and to $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}`$ for vertices of the same type. In this approach, for a given number of vertices and a fixed method of adjoining external lines, the sum of all ordinary diagrams (including the disconnected ones) is described by a single diagram in which each pair of vertices is connected by the corresponding superpropagator (the connectedness is always understood in the usual sense).

The presence of UV divergences in the abovementioned sums of second-order nonvacuum diagrams requires introducing an intermediate UV regularization (it is intermediate because the ultimate values of nonvacuum Green’s functions are UV finite and no renormalization of the Lorentz-covariant theory is needed). For example, the Pauli-Villars regularization can be taken as the intermediate regularization. An LF boson Hamiltonian was thus constructed in  (a similar consideration was performed in  for the sine-Gordon model involving no UV divergence). This Hamiltonian involves a counterterm with a coefficient that is proportional to the chiral condensate and divergent in the limit of removing the Pauli-Villars regularization. Therefore, this regularization should be retained to the end of the calculations. Because the Hamiltonian remains Pauli-Villars regularized, it is impossible to return to the former fermion variables and obtain an LF Hamiltonian in fermion terms characteristic of the original gauge theory. Therefore, we here use a special UV regularization for the Lorentz-covariant propagator of the boson field $`\phi `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }_{reg}\left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right),\hfill & \left\{\left|x^{}\right|\alpha \right\}\left\{\left|x^+\right|\alpha \right\}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right),\hfill & \left\{\left|x^{}\right|>\alpha \right\}\left\{\left|x^+\right|>\alpha \right\}\hfill \end{array},\left(6\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right)=\frac{i}{\pi }\underset{\left|k_{}\right|\epsilon }{}𝑑k_{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_+\frac{e^{i\left(k_+x^++k_{}x^{}\right)}}{2k_+k_{}m^2+i0},\left(7\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

is the lightlike propagator and $`\alpha `$ is the UV-regularization parameter. This regularization has a remarkable property, namely, after the transformation to LF coordinates, it introduces no additional modifications in the theory apart from the already performed cutoff $`\left|p_{}\right|\epsilon >0`$ and permits the inverse transformation to the fermion variables.

Unfortunately, if regularization (2.) is used, then the Lorentz-PT propagator depends essentially on the parameter $`\epsilon `$ because the passage to the limit as $`\epsilon 0`$ corresponds to removing the regularization. This is why direct comparison of the lightlike and Lorentz PTs in the momentum space using the method in  becomes impossible because the complicated expression for the superpropagator in the momentum space does not permit separating the full dependence on $`\epsilon `$ for the difference between the calculation results for the diagrams in the Lorentz and LF coordinates. Therefore, we must perform the analysis in the coordinate space.

If the method described in  is used, then the contribution of the domain $`p_{}\epsilon `$, $`p_+\frac{1}{\epsilon }`$ is taken into account, which corresponds to the domain of large values of $`x^{}`$, $`x^{}\frac{1}{\epsilon }`$, in the coordinate space. Analyzing the convergence of exponential series in the expansions of superpropagators in this domain leads to the conclusion that these series can be truncated, i.e., it is possible to pass to ”partial” superpropagators,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }D_\pm ^m\left(x\right)=\underset{m^{}=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{m^{}!}\left(\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)\right)^m^{},e^{\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}D_\pm ^m\left(x\right).\left(8\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The results obtained by the method in  can then be used. This procedure is performed in Sec. 4, but it must be preceded by finding the differences between the lightlike and Lorentz superpropagators for finite values of $`x^{}`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. Usually no such differences between the propagators appear, but such a contribution in terms of superpropagators appears in the model under study because of the ”bad” UV behavior of the theory. We must first find precisely this contribution and compensate it using a counterterm for the LF Hamiltonian.

## 3. Compensating the differences between the lightlike and <br>Lorentz superpropagators for finite values of $`x^{}`$

The lightlike propagator completely regularized by the condition $`\epsilon \left|k_{}\right|V`$ can be written in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }_{\epsilon ,V}^{lf}\left(x\right)=\underset{\epsilon }{\overset{V}{}}\frac{dk}{k}e^{i\left(kx^{}+\frac{m^2}{2k}x^+\right)\mathrm{sign}\left(x^+\right)}\left(9\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

(Here, we proceed from expression (2.) with the additional cutoff $`\left|k_{}\right|V`$.) On the other hand, the Lorentz propagator can be brought to a similar form with the momentum cutoff in the Lorentz coordinates, $`\left|k_1\right|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(x\right)=\underset{\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\overset{V_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\frac{dk}{k}e^{i\left(kx^{}+\frac{m^2}{2k}x^+\right)\mathrm{sign}\left(x^0\right)},\left(10\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{}0`$ and $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{}`$ . For $`x^20`$, the regularization in expressions (3.) and (3.) can be removed, after which they coincide. (It should be taken into account that the sign of the exponent in the integrand function in (10) becomes inessential after the regularization is removed.) It hence follows that the related superpropagators also coincide. For $`x^20`$ and $`x^\mu 0`$, the behavior of the Lorentz propagator in the regularization-removal limit is described by the relation

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2e^{2C}}{4}\left(x^2i0\right)\right).\left(11\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

This implies that the Lorentz superpropagator connecting vertices of different types in the regularization-removal limit behaves as

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}\frac{4e^{2C}}{m^2}\frac{1}{x^2i0}\left(12\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

for the indicated values of $`x`$. The behavior of the Lorentz superpropagator $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}`$ connecting vertices of the same type is described by the right-hand side of (3.) to the -1st power.

The behavior of lightlike superpropagators in the domain $`x^{}0`$, $`x^+0`$ coincides with that of the Lorentz superpropagator because formulas (3.) and (3.) coincide in this domain. In relation to continuity, the behavior of $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$ for $`x^+0`$ and $`x^{}0`$ is the same as that of $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}`$, and $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$ behaves like the distribution $`𝒫\frac{1}{x^+}`$ in the sense of the principal value,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)}\frac{4e^{2C}}{m^2}\left(𝒫\frac{1}{x^+}\right)\frac{1}{2x^{}i0\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{n}\left(x^+\right)}.\left(13\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

(This can be proved by estimating the integral of $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$ over a small neighbourhood of the point $`x^+=0`$ .) Summarizing the foregoing, we conclude that

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)},\left(14\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)}=\frac{2\pi ie^{2C}}{m^2\left|x^{}\right|}\delta \left(x^+\right).\left(15\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Relations (3.) and (3.) hold in the sense of distributions on the class of test functions vanishing for $`x^\mu =0`$ and having a support bounded with respect to $`x^{}`$. If the limit values of the lightlike superpropagators $`e^{\pm \mathrm{\Delta }^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$ replaced with the regularized superpropagators $`e^{\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$ then relations (3.) and (3.) hold as $`\epsilon 0`$ if the size $`W`$ of the abovementioned support with respect to $`x^{}`$ satisfies the condition $`W\epsilon \underset{\epsilon 0}{}0`$.

The LF Hamiltonian should now be supplemented with a counterterm ensuring the improvement of the lightlike superpropagator $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$ according to formula (3.). The related counterterm for the action can be taken in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }S_c=\frac{\pi e^{2C}}{2}\frac{\gamma ^2}{m^2}d^2xd^2y(:e^{i\phi \left(x\right)}e^{i\phi \left(y\right)}:1)\times \text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times \delta \left(x^+y^+\right)\theta \left(\left|x^{}y^{}\right|\alpha \right)\frac{v\left(\epsilon \left(x^{}y^{}\right)\right)}{\left|x^{}y^{}\right|},\left(16\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the parameter $`\alpha `$ (first introduced in formula (2.)) is used to ”cut out” the UV singularity and $`v\left(z\right)`$ is an arbitrary additionally included rapidly decreasing continuous function satisfying the conditions $`v\left(0\right)=1`$ and $`v^{}\left(z\right)=v\left(z\right)`$.

It can be shown  that such an addition to the action is equivalent (to within an order-$`\epsilon `$ correction) to adding the expression

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{2\pi i}{m^2}e^{2C}\delta \left(x^+\right)\frac{\theta \left(\left|x^{}\right|\alpha \right)}{\left|x^{}\right|}v\left(\epsilon x^{}\right)\left(17\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

to each lightlike superpropagator $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right)}`$. As $`\epsilon ,\alpha 0`$, expression (3.) coincides with the right-hand side of (3.) in the action on functions of the class described after formula (3.). The indicated equivalence is proved by transforming the expression for an arbitrary Green’s function using superpropagators. In this case, the estimate $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right)}_{x^+=0}=O\left(\epsilon \right)`$ implied by (3.) is essential.

We note that the presence of the delta function of $`x^+`$ in (3.) and hence in (3.) ensures the locality of the action with respect to the time $`x^+`$ and permits passing from the counterterm in (3.) for the action to that in the LF Hamiltonian.

## 4. Analysis of the lightlike and Lorentz-covariant <br>perturbation theories

We consider the lightlike PT for Green’s functions without vacuum loops that is generated by the action

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }S=d^2x(\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi m^2\phi ^2\right)+B:e^{i\phi }:+B^{}:e^{i\phi }:)+\frac{2\pi }{m^2}e^{2C}|B|^2\times \text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times d^2xd^2y(:e^{i\phi \left(x\right)}e^{i\phi \left(y\right)}:1)\delta \left(x^+y^+\right)\theta \left(\left|x^{}y^{}\right|\alpha \right)\frac{v\left(\epsilon \left(x^{}y^{}\right)\right)}{\left|x^{}y^{}\right|}.\left(18\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

This action differs from that corresponding to Lagrangian (2.) in the replacement of the coupling constant $`\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }`$ with the complex parameter $`B`$ and in the addition of the counterterm described in the foregoing section. (The coefficient in this counterterm is related to B in the same way as the coefficient in (3.) is related to $`\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }`$.)

We prove that the lightlike PT generated by action (4.) is equivalent to the Lorentz-covariant PT for all orders in the limit as $`\epsilon ,\alpha 0`$. In this case, the expression $`B`$ depends on $`m`$, $`\gamma `$, $`\theta `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\epsilon `$, and it is a power series in $`\gamma `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }B=\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }+\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_k\gamma ^k.\left(19\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

To analyse this PT, it is convenient to pass from its statement in terms of the superpropagators $`e^{\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}`$ to the expression via the ”nonfull” superpropagators $`\left(e^{\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}1\right)`$. In the new terms, each pair of points may or may not be connected by the corresponding nonfull superpropagator on the condition that only connected diagrams are considered. This excludes vacuum subdiagrams that would be taken into account if the full superpropagators $`e^{\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)}`$ were used.

In the ordinary lightlike PT, there is a class of diagrams that are always zero, namely, the diagrams all of whose external lines are adjoined to a single vertex. A diagram of this type is called a ”generalized tadpole” (or a GT diagram). From some standpoint, nonzero GT diagrams do exist in the theory under consideration, namely, in accordance with the presentation in Sec. 3, the second term in the right-hand side of formula (4.) for the action can be replaced by adding expression (3.) to each superpropagator $`\left(e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon ^{lf}\left(x\right)}1\right)`$, after which the GT diagram may become nonzero. It can be shown  that only a second-order GT diagram with vertices of different type, which is simply a product of the two vertex factors and a superpropagator, becomes nonzero. Only the additional term (3.) contributes to this GT diagram, and this contribution is equal to $`i\left|B\right|^2w`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }w=\frac{2\pi e^{2C}}{m^2}𝑑x^{}\frac{\theta \left(\left|x^{}\right|\epsilon \alpha \right)}{\left|x^{}\right|}v\left(x^{}\right).\left(20\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

This GT diagram may or may not be adjoined to each of the vertices. Therefore, its inclusion can be replaced by redefining the vertex factors, namely, the sums $`\left(B+\left|B\right|^2w\right)`$ and $`\left(B^{}+\left|B\right|^2w\right)`$ can be regarded as the vertex factors instead of $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$. The lightlike PT generated by action (4.) thus has the form of a set of diagrams consisting of nonfull lightlike superpropagators with the addition of expression (3.) (in the case of vertices of different type). Here, these diagrams contain no GT subdiagrams, and their vertex factors are $`\left(B+\left|B\right|^2w\right)`$ and $`\left(B^{}+\left|B\right|^2w\right)`$.

With regard to intermediate UV regularization (2.), the GT diagrams in the Lorentz-covariant PT (generated by Lagrangian (2.)) are nonzero in all orders. Nevertheless, arguing by analogy with the above, we conclude that their inclusion can be replaced by redefining the vertex factors, namely, the vertex factors $`\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }`$ and $`\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }`$ can be replaced with $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, where $`A`$ is the sum of all GT diagrams with external lines adjoined to the vertex $`\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }A=\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }+\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_k\gamma ^k.\left(21\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Expression (4.) is calculated in the Lorentz coordinates (in all orders of $`\gamma `$ including the first). In view of the results in the proof of UV finiteness mentioned in Sec. 2, we can conclude that the expressions $`A_k`$ are finite for $`k>2`$ and that $`A_2`$, is divergent as $`\epsilon 0`$ or $`\alpha 0`$ (because $`A_2`$ is the sum of second-order diagrams with a fixed method for adjoining external lines). It turns out here that the divergent part can be separated as

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }A_2=\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}w+const.\left(22\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The Lorentz-covariant PT regularized according to formula (2.) is thus a set of diagrams consisting of nonfull Lorentz superpropagators, these diagrams contain no GT subdiagrams, and their vertex factors are $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$.

The lightlike and Lorentz PTs obtained in the above form are suitable for comparison. We first require that their vertex factors be equal,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }B+\left|B\right|^2w=A.\left(23\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore, as shown in Sec. 3, the nonfull lightlike superpropagators with the addition of (3.) (for vertices of different type) that constitute the lightlike PT coincide in the limit as $`\epsilon 0`$ in the domain of finite values of $`x^{}`$ (as $`\epsilon 0`$) with the nonfull Lorentz superpropagators that constitute the Lorentz PT. As a consequence of regularization (2.), this also holds for $`\left|x^{}\right|\alpha `$. Therefore, the difference between the lightlike and Lorentz PTs can appear only at the expense of differences in the domain of large values of $`x^{}`$, $`x^{}\frac{1}{\epsilon }`$. As can be seen from formula (3.), for these (and greater) values of $`x^{}`$, the lightlike superpropagator remains finite for any $`x^+`$ and $`\epsilon `$. Hence, series (2.) for the lightlike superpropagator can be truncated, and the sum of the residual series is uniformly small with respect to $`x^+`$ and $`\epsilon `$. It can also be shown that the contribution from the additional terms (3.) is insignificant for large values of $`x^{}`$. Analytic behavior (3.) of the Lorentz superpropagator permits moving the integration contour with respect to $`x^+`$ away from the singularity $`x^+=0`$. Hence, the series can once again be truncated, and the sum of the residual series is uniformly small with respect to $`x^+`$ (and there is no dependence on $`\epsilon `$). This means that the contribution to the difference between the lightlike and Lorentz diagrams coming from the domain of large values of $`x^{}`$ does not change under the passage to ”partial” superpropagators (2.). This is equivalent to the passage to finite sums of diagrams in terms of the ordinary propagators. The comparison method in  for the lightlike and Lorentz methods for calculating diagrams can be used for these diagrams as well. This method applied to the scalar theory shows that the differences only exist for GT diagrams . But the form of PTs that we consider involves no GT subdiagrams (see the comments after formulas (4.) and (4.)).

We can thus see that if the parameter $`B`$ satisfies condition (4.), then the lightlike PT generated by action (4.) is equivalent to the Lorentz-covariant PT for all orders in the limit as $`\epsilon ,\alpha 0`$. Hence, the theory defined by the LF Hamiltonian

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }H=dx^{}(\frac{1}{8\pi }m^2:\phi ^2:B:e^{i\phi }:B^{}:e^{i\phi }:)2\pi e^{2C}\frac{\left|B\right|^2}{m^2}\times \text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times dx^{}dy^{}(:e^{i\phi \left(x^{}\right)}e^{i\phi \left(y^{}\right)}:1)\theta \left(\left|x^{}y^{}\right|\alpha \right)\frac{v\left(\epsilon \left(x^{}y^{}\right)\right)}{\left|x^{}y^{}\right|}\left(24\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

corresponding to (4.) is perturbatively equivalent in the regularization-removal limit to the Lorentz-covariant QED-2.

## 5. Removing the intermediate UV regularization <br>and returning to the fermion variables

We find the parameter $`B`$ from Eq. (4.),

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }B=\frac{1}{2w}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4w^2}+\frac{A^{}}{w}A^{\prime \prime 2}}+iA^{\prime \prime },\left(25\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ are the real and imaginary parts of $`A`$ and the sign of the root is chosen in accordance with the lowest order in expansions (4.) and (4.). As can be seen from formula (4.), the expression $`w`$ is a function of the product $`\epsilon \alpha `$, and it diverges as $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\epsilon \alpha \right)`$ as $`\epsilon \alpha 0`$.

Hamiltonian (4.) and Eq. (4.) were derived as a result of analyzing the PT with respect to $`\gamma `$ for a fixed value of the regularization parameter $`\alpha `$. The regularization removal $`\alpha 0`$ is therefore impossible in the PT framework. But because the analysis was performed in all PT orders, we leave the PT framework in what follows and apply the resulting Hamiltonian in nonperturbative calculations. We can thus remove the intermediate UV regularization $`\alpha 0`$ and hence $`w\mathrm{}`$. Then, proceeding from the available information about the divergence of $`A`$ (see formula (4.) and the preceding text), expression (5.) can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }B=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}A^{\prime \prime 2}}+iA^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\widehat{\theta }},\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta }=\frac{2A^{\prime \prime }}{\gamma }.\left(26\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

It is interesting that the modulus of the coupling constant turns out the same as in the original Lorentz-covariant theory. (We recall that the complex parameter $`B`$ plays the same role in the lightlike theory as the expression $`\frac{\gamma }{2}e^{i\theta }`$ in the Lorentz-covariant theory.) For large values of $`\gamma `$, expression (5.) may involve the root of a negative number, which means that Eq. (4.) has no solution; hence, the suggested scheme for constructing an LF Hamiltonian cannot be used for these values of $`\gamma `$.

We also note that because of the special structure of the counterterm, the zero value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ in Hamiltonian (4.) does not result in the appearance of divergences in matrix elements.

The scalar theory denned by LF Hamiltonian (4.) can be rewritten in the form of an LF fermion theory using the inverse bosonization procedure . Here, the regularization $`\left|p_{}\right|\epsilon `$ is replaced with the cutoff $`\left|x^{}\right|L`$ with periodic boundary conditions (as in the DLCQ method mentioned in Sec. 1). In this case, the zeroth mode with respect to $`x^{}`$ is excluded from consideration, as a result of which the step $`\pi /L`$ of the discrete momentum $`p_{}`$ starts to play the role of the parameter $`\epsilon `$. To perform the inverse bosonization procedure, it is convenient to change the normal ordering of the exponentials in the second term of Hamiltonian (4.) according to the formula

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }:e^{i\phi \left(x^{}\right)}e^{i\phi \left(y^{}\right)}:=:e^{i\phi \left(x^{}\right)}::e^{i\phi \left(y^{}\right)}:\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}e^{i\frac{\pi }{L}n\left(x^{}y^{}\right)}\right)\left(27\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

and choose a function $`v\left(z\right)`$ of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }v\left(z\right)=\left|z\right|\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m}e^{i\pi mz}\right)\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n+\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\pi nz}\left(28\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

(We recall the arbitrariness in the definition of $`v\left(z\right)`$ mentioned in the comment after (3.).) In this case, applying the inverse bosonization formula

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\psi _+\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2L}}e^{i\omega }e^{i\frac{\pi }{L}x^{}Q}e^{i\frac{\pi }{2L}x^{}}:e^{i\phi \left(x\right)}:\left(29\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

permits using fermion variables to write LF Hamiltonian (4.) defining a theory that is perturbatively equivalent to the Lorentz-covariant QED-2 in the regularization-removal limit (see ),

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }H=\underset{L}{\overset{L}{}}dx^{}\left(\frac{e_{\mathrm{el}}^2}{2}\left(_{}^1\left[\psi _+^+\psi _+\right]\right)^2\frac{M}{2}(Re^{i\omega }d_0^++h.c.)\frac{iM^2}{2}\psi _+^+_{}^1\psi _+\right),\left(30\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }R=\frac{e_{\mathrm{el}}e^C}{2\pi ^{3/2}}e^{i\widehat{\theta }(M/e_{\mathrm{el}},\theta )}.\left(31\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The field $`\psi _+`$ satisfies antiperiodic boundary conditions with respect to $`x^{}`$ and can be expanded with respect to the creation and annihilation operators as

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\psi _+\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2L}}\left(\underset{n1}{}b_ne^{i\frac{\pi }{L}\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right)x^{}}+\underset{n0}{}d_n^+e^{i\frac{\pi }{L}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)x^{}}\right),\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\{b_n,b_n^{}^+\}=\{d_n,d_n^{}^+\}=\delta _{nn^{}},b_n|0=d_n|0=0.\left(32\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The expression $`Q`$ in (5.) is the charge operator defining the physical subspace of vectors $`|phys`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }Q=\underset{n1}{}b_n^+b_n\underset{n0}{}d_n^+d_n,Q|phys=0.\left(33\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The expression $`\omega `$ in (5.) is the operator canonically conjugate to $`Q`$. The operator $`\omega `$ has the properties

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^{i\omega }\psi _+\left(x\right)e^{i\omega }=e^{i\frac{\pi }{L}x^{}}\psi _+\left(x\right),e^{i\omega }|0=b_1^+|0,e^{i\omega }|0=d_0^+|0,\left(34\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

which completely define it, and the square brackets mean that the zeroth mode with respect to $`x^{}`$ is discarded. The lightlike momentum operator $`P_{}`$ has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }P_{}=\underset{n1}{}b_n^+b_n\frac{\pi }{L}\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right)+\underset{n0}{}d_n^+d_n\frac{\pi }{L}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right).\left(35\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

It is also interesting that the coefficient $`R`$ in the ultimate expression for LF Hamiltonian (5.) and its defining parameter $`\widehat{\theta }`$ are related to the values of the vacuum condensates in the Lorentz coordinates ,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{Im}R=\mathrm{\Omega }|:\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }:|\mathrm{\Omega },\left|R\right|=\frac{e_{\mathrm{el}}e^C}{2\pi ^{3/2}},\left(36\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta }=\mathrm{\Omega }|:\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi +\theta \right):|\mathrm{\Omega }.\left(37\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

(The second relation in (5.) follows from (5.).) Here, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the physical vacuum, and the normal ordering is performed in the Lorentz coordinates.

## 6. Conclusion

Using the bosonization procedure and an analysis of the PT in all orders with respect to the fermion mass $`M`$, we have constructed LF Hamiltonian (5.) defining a fermion theory perturbatively equivalent to the Lorentz-covariant QED-2 in the continuous limit as $`L\mathrm{}`$. This Hamiltonian involves all terms appearing in the naive quantization in the LF coordinates. In this case, one of these terms (the third term in (5.)) does not participate in the quantization in the Lorentz coordinates and appears as one of the counterterms restoring the equivalence of the lightlike and Lorentz PTs. Moreover, the resulting Hamiltonian contains one more counterterm (the second term in (5.)) proportional to the zeroth modes of the fermion fields times the phase operator $`e^{i\omega }`$, which neutralizes their charge and fermion number. The coefficient of this counterterm is determined by the value of fermion vacuum condensate (5.) and is linear in this value for a small fermion mass. Under a certain relation between the condensate value and the magnitude of the charges $`e_{\mathrm{el}}`$, Eqs. (5.) defining the abovementioned coefficient may be incompatible, which means that the suggested scheme for constructing the LF Hamiltonian is inapplicable in this case. But if the condensate ever assumes such values, this can only occur for sufficiently large fermion masses.

The resulting LF Hamiltonian can be used for nonperturbative calculations using the DLCQ method. We hope that the information obtained in the analysis of the given two-dimensional model will facilitate developing constructive methods for the LF Hamiltonian that take nonperturbative vacuum effects into account and are applicable to four-dimensional gauge field theories.

Acknowledgments. One of the authors (E. P.) is grateful to F. Lenz, M. Thies, and B. van de Sande for the valuable discussion and help.

This work was supported in part by the Russian Federation Ministry of Education (Grant No. EOO-3.3-316), the DFG (Grant No. 436 RUS 113/324/0(R), during E. P.’s stay at Erlangen University), and a Gribov ”World Federation of Scientists” scholarship.


format: text

text:
# Anomalous Hall Effect in Ferromagnetic Semiconductors in the Hopping Transport Regime

## Abstract

We present a theory of the Anomalous Hall Effect (AHE) in ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As in the regime when conduction is due to phonon-assisted hopping of holes between localized states in the impurity band. We show that the microscopic origin of the anomalous Hall conductivity in this system can be attributed to a phase that a hole gains when hopping around closed-loop paths in the presence of spin-orbit interactions and background magnetization of the localized Mn moments. Mapping the problem to a random resistor network, we derive an analytic expression for the macroscopic anomalous Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}`$. We show that $`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}`$ is proportional to the first derivative of the density of states $`\varrho (ϵ)`$ and thus can be expected to change sign as a function of impurity band filling. We also show that $`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}`$ depends on temperature as the longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ within logarithmic accuracy.

Diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS) are very interesting new materials, still not understood in full detail. Although it is well accepted that the origin of ferromagnetism in Ga1-xMnxAs, the most thoroughly studied DMS, is a hole-mediated effective interaction between the localized $`S=5/2`$ Mn spins, the appropriate description of this interaction, and a closely related question of the nature of hole carriers, are still controversial issues. Samples with the highest Curie temperatures show metallic behavior Potashnik01  and are well described by the valence-band hole-fluid model holefluid . On the other hand, for low Mn concentrations, i.e. when $`x`$ is less than about $`0.03`$, (Ga,Mn)As is insulating and the hole transport likely occurs in the Mn impurity band impurityband . The low-temperature conduction in this case is by phonon-assisted hopping.

Anomalous Hall Effect (AHE) has been an important characterization tool for itinerant ferromagnets Smit ; Luttinger58 ; Berger70  and played an important role in the experimental study of DMS ferromagnetism as well Ohno . Experimentally AHE is manifested as an additional term in the Hall resistivity of the sample, usually assumed to be proportional to the magnetization:

$$\varrho _{xy}=R_0B+R_sM.$$
(1)
Standard theories of AHE in metallic ferromagnets Smit ; Berger70  attribute it to the modification of impurity scattering in the presence of spin-orbit interactions. Recently, however, it was realized that a purely geometrical mechanism of AHE is possible MacDonald02 ; Millis99 ; Lyanda ; Nagaosa . In particular, a $`𝐤`$-space Berry phase theory of AHE MacDonald02  has been proposed, and applied specifically to (Ga,Mn)As in the metallic transport regime. This theory is very successful in describing AHE in metallic (Ga,Mn)As, and we believe that the Berry-phase mechanism of AHE should be relevant in general for all itinerant ferromagnets.

In this Letter we propose an analogous geometrical-phase theory of AHE in (Ga,Mn)As, but in the case when conduction is by hopping between strongly localized states in the impurity band, rather than through extended valence-band states. Our approach is based on a modified Holstein’s theory of the Hall effect in hopping conduction Holstein61  (for related work on AHE in colossal magnetoresistance manganites see Lyanda ).

We start from a model of spin-3/2 hole carriers, hopping between randomly distributed localizing centers (Mn acceptors) in the mean spin-splitting field of $`S=5/2`$ Mn local moments. The corresponding Hamiltonian is:

$$H_h=\underset{i\alpha }{}ϵ_ic_{i\alpha }^{}c_{i\alpha }\underset{i\alpha j\beta }{}t_{i\alpha j\beta }c_{i\alpha }^{}c_{j\beta }\underset{i\alpha \beta }{}𝐡𝝉_{\alpha \beta }c_{i\alpha }^{}c_{i\beta }.$$
(2)
Here $`i,j`$ label localized hole states at Mn acceptor sites, $`\alpha ,\beta =3/2,\mathrm{},3/2`$ are spin-3/2 indices, $`ϵ_i`$ are random on-site potentials, which model the random potentials localized holes feel due to Coulomb interactions with nearby charged Mn acceptors and As antisite defects, $`𝐡`$ is the spin-splitting mean field due the p-d exchange interaction between the hole- and localized Mn-spins, $`𝝉`$ is the spin-3/2 operator and $`t_{i\alpha j\beta }`$ is a spin-dependent hopping amplitude which we assume to be of the following form:

$$t_{i\alpha j\beta }=_{ij}\widehat{t}_{ij}^{}e^{iA_{ij}r_{ij}/\xi },$$
(3)
where $`\xi `$ is the localization length and $`A_{ij}=(e/2c)𝐁(𝐫_i\times 𝐫_j)`$ is a phase factor due to the external magnetic field $`𝐁`$ (we use $`\mathrm{}=1`$ units). In most of the following we will omit this factor. $`\widehat{t}=diag(t_{3/2},t_{1/2},t_{1/2},t_{3/2})`$ is a diagonal hopping matrix in the case when $`\widehat{r}_{ij}`$ is along the spin quantization direction and $`_{ij}`$ rotates the spin quantization axis from $`\widehat{z}`$ to $`\widehat{r}_{ij}`$. The hopping parameters $`t_{3/2}`$ and $`t_{1/2}`$ can be calculated microscopically Fiete02 . The fact that $`t_{3/2}t_{1/2}`$ is a direct consequence of the spin-orbit interactions.

We assume that the Fermi energy lies in the region where all states are strongly localized and thus the only possible conduction mechanism is through the phonon-assisted hopping. Thus hole-phonon interaction must be explicitly included in the model:

$`H_{hph}={\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha 𝐪}{}}v_𝐪^i(b_𝐪+b_𝐪^{})c_{i\alpha }^{}c_{i\alpha },`$
$`H_{ph}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\omega _𝐪b_𝐪^{}b_𝐪.`$ (4)
The full Hamiltonian is then given by

$$H=H_h+H_{hph}+H_{ph}.$$
(5)
Local transport properties of the system described by Eq.(5) can be most conveniently calculated using a combination of the usual linear-response theory and a perturbation expansion in powers of $`t_{i\alpha j\beta }/|ϵ_iϵ_j|`$, which is justified by our assumption that all states are localized Entin95 ; Galperin96 . Holstein Holstein61  was first to realize that to capture the (ordinary) Hall effect under hopping conduction conditions, one needs to consider processes where amplitudes of direct and indirect (through a third site) hops between two sites interfere. Such processes appear at third order in the perturbation theory in $`t_{i\alpha j\beta }/|ϵ_iϵ_j|`$, while the longitudinal hopping conductivity can be described by second-order terms. To capture AHE, one needs to consider third-order terms as well. Evaluating the linear response expression for the current $`I_{ij}`$ between two localized states Galperin96 , including terms of up to third order in the hopping amplitudes and up to second order in hole-phonon interaction, one obtains:

$$I_{ij}=G_{ij}V_{ij}+\underset{k}{}F_{ijk}(V_{ik}+V_{jk}).$$
(6)
Here $`V_{ij}=V_iV_j`$ is the electrochemical potential difference between the sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. $`G_{ij}`$ is an effective conductance between a pair of sites, which at low temperatures, such that $`|ϵ_iϵ_j|/T1`$, is given by:

$$G_{ij}=\frac{e^2\gamma _0}{T}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}|t_{i\alpha j\beta }|^2e^{ϵ_{i\alpha j\beta }/T}.$$
(7)
Here $`\gamma _0`$ is a constant, proportional to the phonon density of states and the square of the hole-phonon interaction matrix element, and we have introduced the following notation:

$`ϵ_{i\alpha j\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|ϵ_{i\alpha }|+|ϵ_{j\beta }|+|ϵ_{i\alpha }ϵ_{j\beta }|\right),`$
$`ϵ_{i\alpha }=ϵ_ih\tau _{\alpha \alpha }^z.`$ (8)
We have assumed in the above that $`𝐡=h\widehat{z}`$. Henceforth we will also assume that $`h`$ is sufficiently small, so that we can restrict ourselves to linear response effects with respect to $`h`$. In particular this means that we disregard the influence of spin splitting on the longitudinal conduction. We expect this to be a reasonable approximation at low Mn concentrations, when the magnetization is relatively small.

The first term in Eq.(6) thus represents the usual mapping of the hopping conduction problem onto a random resistor network Miller60 ; Shklovskii71 ; Langer71 . The second term in Eq.(6) contains the physics responsible for AHE. The quantity $`F_{ijk}`$ is given, in the low temperature limit, by the following expression:

$`F_{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\gamma _0^2}{8T}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}}\mathrm{}(t_{i\alpha j\beta }t_{j\beta k\gamma }t_{k\gamma i\alpha })[e^{(|ϵ_{k\gamma }|ϵ_{i\alpha k\gamma }ϵ_{k\gamma j\beta })/T}`$
$`+e^{(|ϵ_{i\alpha }|ϵ_{k\gamma i\alpha }ϵ_{i\alpha j\beta })/T}+e^{(|ϵ_{j\beta }|ϵ_{i\alpha j\beta }ϵ_{j\beta k\gamma })/T}].`$ (9)
Let us discuss the physical meaning of this equation. The process, that leads to the appearance of the term, proportional to $`F_{ijk}`$, in the expectation value of the current between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$, is a quantum interference process, where probability amplitudes of a direct hop between any two sites in a triad $`(i,j,k)`$ and an indirect hop (i.e. through the third site) interfere. Such a process requires the participation of at least two phonons, hence the factor $`\gamma _0^2`$. The crucial component of $`F_{ijk}`$ is the imaginary part of the product of three complex spin-dependent hopping amplitudes taken along the sides of the triangle formed by the sites $`i,j,k`$. It is directly related to the phase that a hole gains while hopping along a closed-loop three-site path. It is this phase that ultimately leads to the appearance of the macroscopic anomalous Hall conductivity. Note that if the mean spin splitting field $`h`$ is taken to zero, $`_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{}(t_{i\alpha j\beta }t_{j\beta k\gamma }t_{k\gamma i\alpha })`$ vanishes identically for any triad $`(i,j,k)`$. It is the presence of a macroscopic magnetization in the sample, or, in other words, broken time reversal symmetry, that results in a nonzero contribution from this term. Another important property of the third-order term in the current expectation value is that it leads to the appearance of a current between the sites $`i`$ and $`j`$, that is driven not by the potential difference on the bond $`(ij)`$, but by the potential differences on bonds $`(ik)`$ and $`(jk)`$. This property implies that the current, proportional to $`F_{ijk}`$, is on average transverse to the direction of the local electric field, as one would expect for the Hall current.

Eq.(6) reveals the microscopic origin of the AHE in the system. To obtain the anomalous Hall conductivity of a macroscopic sample, one needs to find a certain characteristic microscopic triad that determines the macroscopic conductivity. Since the distributions of both $`G_{ij}`$ and $`F_{ijk}`$ are very broad due to their exponential dependence on the random on-site potentials and Mn acceptor positions, the characteristic triad can not be obtained by a simple averaging over all possible triads. Instead, one needs to find a relationship between this generalized hopping conduction problem and a certain percolation problem, exactly like in the case of usual hopping conduction Shklovskii71 ; Langer71 . It is, however, not an easy task, due to a tensor nature of the transport brought about by the second term in Eq.(6). We believe that the best approach to this problem is the one used in Refs. Bryksin77 ; Pollak ; Galperin  to investigate the problem of ordinary Hall effect in hopping conduction regime. This approach starts from the assumption that the problem can be solved perturbatively in the second, Hall term in Eq.(6). This is certainly a valid assumption if one wants to find the Hall conductivity to first order in the magnetic field (or magnetization in our case). Thus one imagines the following two-step iterative procedure. Initially, the second term in (6) is put to zero and external electric field is applied to the network. One then solves Kirchhoff’s equations

$$\underset{j}{}G_{ij}V_{ij}^0=0$$
(10)
and finds voltages $`V_i^0`$ at all nodes. The external electric field is then turned off and the zeroth-order voltages are substituted in the Hall term of Eq.(6). The Kirchhoff’s equations at the second iteration take the following form:

$$\underset{j}{}G_{ij}V_{ij}=J_i^H,$$
(11)
where

$$J_i^H=\underset{jk}{}F_{ijk}(V_{ik}^0+V_{jk}^0),$$
(12)
i.e. now we have a network with external Hall currents $`J_i^H`$ flowing into every node. Thus the paradigm of the hopping Hall conduction in the approach we adopt is a random resistor network with external Hall currents Bryksin77 .

To actually obtain explicit analytical results using the above procedure, one needs to know the distribution of Hall currents $`J_i^H`$ in the network. We will use ideas from the percolation theory picture of hopping transport Shklovskii71 ; Langer71 ; Shklovskii74  to find this distribution. According to this picture, one can assume that all the hopping current in the network is carried by a percolating cluster of large conductances, such that for all conductances in the cluster $`G_{ij}G_c`$, where $`\mathrm{ln}G_c(T_0/T)^{1/4}`$ (we will limit our discussion to Mott’s variable-range-hopping type conduction, but our theory, with minor modifications, is applicable to other kinds of hopping transport as well). The longitudinal conductivity of the network is then given by $`\sigma _{xx}G_c/L`$, where $`L`$ is the correlation length of the cluster. The correlation length depends on temperature only as a power law Shklovskii74  and we will not calculate it explicitly. Following Refs. Bryksin77 ; Pollak ; Galperin , we now assert that the Hall conductivity in the system is associated exclusively with the current carrying backbone of the percolating cluster. The backbone can be visualized as a supernetwork of macrobonds and nodes, with typically three macrobonds intersecting at a node. The average distance between the nodes is $`L`$. Macrobonds can be assumed to be simply one-dimensional chains of conductances Shklovskii74 . It is then clear that the exponentially dominant Hall current sources will be located at the nodes of the percolating cluster backbone. Since the nodes are far away from each other, we may regard them as independent sources of the Hall emf. Thus the problem reduces to finding the Hall emf developed at a single isolated node of the backbone in response to the current flowing through the node Bryksin77 ; Pollak ; Galperin . Applying the above described two-step iterative procedure to a single node with an associated triad of sites shown in Fig.1, we obtain:

$`V^HV_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{13}J_2^HG_{12}J_3^H}{G_{13}G_{32}+G_{12}G_{23}+G_{31}G_{12}}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{IF_{123}}{G_{13}G_{32}+G_{12}G_{23}+G_{31}G_{12}}},`$
where $`V^H`$ is the Hall emf, $`I`$ is the current flowing through the node, and we have neglected unimportant numerical prefactors. Since the average distance between the nodes is $`L`$, the macroscopic Hall field in the sample is given by:

$$E^H=IL^1\frac{S_{123}F_{123}}{G_{13}G_{32}+G_{12}G_{23}+G_{31}G_{12}}_c,$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{}_c`$ denotes averaging over the on-site energies and intersite distances in the triad $`(1,2,3)`$, such that the condition

$$2r_{ij}/\xi +ϵ_{ij}/T\left(T_0/T\right)^{1/4}$$
(15)
is satisfied for every bond $`(ij)`$ in the triad Langer71  and $`S_{123}=\text{sgn}[𝐡(𝐫_{12}\times 𝐫_{13})]`$ accounts for the orientation of the triangle with respect to $`𝐡`$. Taking into account that the Hall current density is given by $`j^H=\sigma _{xx}E^H`$ and $`I=\sigma _{xx}L^2E`$, we obtain the following expression for the anomalous Hall conductivity Bryksin77 ; Pollak :

$$\sigma _{xy}^{AH}=L\sigma _{xx}^2\frac{S_{123}F_{123}}{G_{13}G_{32}+G_{12}G_{23}+G_{31}G_{12}}_c.$$
(16)
Let us write down the averaging explicitly as an integral over intersite distances and on-site energies:

$`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}=L\sigma _{xx}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}{\displaystyle _c}𝑑𝐫_{12}𝑑𝐫_{23}𝑑𝐫_{31}{\displaystyle _c}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝑑ϵ_3`$
$`\times \varrho (ϵ_1)\varrho (ϵ_2)\varrho (ϵ_3){\displaystyle \frac{S_{123}F_{123}}{G_{13}G_{32}+G_{12}G_{23}+G_{31}G_{12}}},`$ (17)
where $`𝒩`$ is a normalization factor. The densities of states $`\varrho (ϵ)`$ can be expanded around the Fermi energy $`\varrho (ϵ)\varrho _0+\frac{d\varrho _0}{dϵ}ϵ`$, since hopping is restricted to a narrow interval of order $`T(T_0/T)^{1/4}`$ around the Fermi energy. Substituting the expanded densities of states in Eq.(Anomalous Hall Effect in Ferromagnetic Semiconductors in the Hopping Transport Regime), one finds that the zeroth order term, proportional to $`\varrho _0^3`$, vanishes. The reason is that $`F_{123}`$ changes sign under the inversion of all the on-site energies, while the bond conductances $`G_{ij}`$ are invariant under this transformation. Thus we obtain:

$$\sigma _{xy}^{AH}=L\sigma _{xx}^2\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\varrho _0}{dϵ}\frac{S_{123}F_{123}(ϵ_1+ϵ_2+ϵ_3)}{G_{13}G_{32}+G_{12}G_{23}+G_{31}G_{12}}_c,$$
(18)
where the average is now over a uniform distribution of the on-site energies. Approximating the average of the quantity inside the angular brackets by its maximum value and expanding to first order in $`h`$, one finally obtains the following expression for the anomalous Hall hopping conductivity:

$$\sigma _{xy}^{AH}L\sigma _{xx}^2\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\varrho _0}{dϵ}\frac{hT}{e^2t_{3/2}}\left(T_0/T\right)^{1/4}e^{(T_0/T)^{1/4}},$$
(19)
where we have used the property that $`t_{3/2}t_{1/2}`$ in GaMnAs Fiete02 . Analogous calculation in the case of the ordinary Hall effect gives

$$\sigma _{xy}^{OH}L\sigma _{xx}^2\frac{B\xi ^2T}{cet_{3/2}}e^{(T_0/T)^{1/4}}.$$
(20)
Thus, the ratio of the ordinary and anomalous Hall conductivities is

$$\frac{\sigma _{xy}^{AH}}{\sigma _{xy}^{OH}}h\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\varrho _0}{dϵ}\frac{c}{eB\xi ^2}\left(T_0/T\right)^{1/4}.$$
(21)
Several concrete experimentally testable predictions follow from the above equations. First, according to (19), $`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}`$ is proportional to the derivative of the density of states at the Fermi energy. This means that the anomalous Hall conductivity can be expected to change sign as the Fermi level crosses the density-of-states maximum in the impurity band. This is in contrast to the ordinary Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}^{OH}`$ which has the same sign everywhere in the impurity band. Thus AHE can potentially be a very useful tool in elucidating the character of hole carriers in (Ga,Mn)As. The second prediction concerns the temperature dependence of $`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}`$. As seen from Eq.(19), the leading temperature dependence of the anomalous Hall conductivity is $`\sigma _{xy}^{AH}\mathrm{exp}[(T_0/T)^{1/4}]`$, i.e. it depends on temperature in the same manner as the longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$. The same is true for the ordinary Hall conductivity. This, in particular, means that the Hall resistivity $`\varrho _{xy}\varrho _{xx}`$ as a function of temperature, i.e. it diverges as $`T0`$. Thus our calculation is consistent with the view Entin95  that the transverse resistivity of the “Hall insulator” diverges at $`T0`$.

In conclusion we would like to point out that our theory seems to be consistent with recent magnetotransport experiments on digitally-doped GaMnAs samples Gwinn .

We are grateful for useful discussions with W. Allen, E. Gwinn, G. Fiete and E. Johnston-Halperin. We would especially like to thank D.D. Awschalom for his encouragement and support. This work was supported by DARPA/ONR N00014-99-1-1096, by the NSF under grant DMR-9985255 and by the Sloan and Packard foundations.


text:
# Gapless two-flavor color superconductor

## Abstract

A new, gapless two-flavor color superconducting phase that appears under conditions of local charge neutrality and $`\beta `$-equilibrium is revealed. In this phase, the symmetry of the ground state is the same as in the conventional two-flavor color superconductor. In the low-energy spectrum of this phase, however, there are only two gapped fermionic quasiparticles, and the other four quasiparticles are gapless. The origin and the basic properties of the gapless two-flavor color superconductor are discussed. This phase is a natural candidate for quark matter in cores of compact stars.

Sufficiently cold and dense quark matter is a color superconductor . The ground state is characterized by a condensate of Cooper pairs that are made of quarks with equal and opposite momenta. In this phase of matter, the SU(3)c color gauge group is broken (partially or completely) through the Anderson-Higgs mechanism. At asymptotic densities, this phenomenon was studied in detail from first principles in Refs. .

In general, quark matter at high baryon density has a rich phase structure, consisting of different normal and color-superconducting phases. Changing the baryon chemical potential, it should be possible to obtain phases in which either two or three of the lightest quark flavors participate in Cooper pairing.

At not very large densities, one gets quark matter made of only up and down quarks. If the Fermi momenta of different types of quarks are approximately the same, the up and down quarks will form Cooper pairs in the color-antitriplet, flavor-singlet, spin-zero channel . The corresponding ground state of matter is the so-called two-flavor color superconductor (2SC). In this phase, the color gauge group is broken by the Anderson-Higgs mechanism down to SU(2)c subgroup. With the conventional choice of the condensate pointing in the “blue” direction, one finds that the condensate consists of red up ($`u_r`$) and green down ($`d_g`$), as well as green up ($`u_g`$) and red down ($`d_r`$) diquark Cooper pairs. The other two quarks ($`u_b`$ and $`d_b`$) do not participate in pairing. This is the conventional picture of the 2SC phase .

At sufficiently large densities, i.e., when the value of the chemical potential exceeds the constituent (medium modified) mass of the strange quark, quark matter should consist of all three quark flavors. This opens the possibility for Cooper pairing between the three lightest quarks (up, down and strange). Depending on the value of the strange quark mass, as well as other parameters in the theory, one might get the color-flavor locked phase (CFL) , or even the more exotic crystalline phase  of quark matter. Besides that, it is also possible that up and down quarks form 2SC matter, while the strange quarks do not participate in pairing. We call this latter phase 2SC+s. Still another possibility is that the strange quarks by themselves form a color superconducting condensate. This will be then a spin-1 condensate .

It is natural to expect that some color superconducting phases may exist in the interior of compact stars. The estimated central densities of such stars might be as large as $`10\rho _0`$ (where $`\rho _00.15`$ fm-3 is the saturation density), while their temperatures should be in the range of tens of keV. These values are very encouraging.

Matter in the bulk of compact stars should be neutral with respect to electric as well as color charges. Also, such matter should remain in $`\beta `$-equilibrium. Satisfying these requirements may impose nontrivial relations between the chemical potentials of different quarks. In turn, such relations could substantially influence the pairing dynamics between quarks, for instance, by suppressing some color superconducting phases and by favoring others.

It was argued in Ref. , that the 2SC+s phase becomes less favorable than the CFL phase if the charge neutrality condition is enforced (note that the strange quark mass was chosen too small to allow the appearance of a pure 2SC phase in Ref. ). Therefore, one might speculate that only CFL quark matter could exist inside compact stars. In such a case, the outside hadronic layer of the star would make a direct contact with the CFL quark core through a separating sharp interface . The baryonic density and the energy density would have a jump (smoothed only over microscopic distances) at the interface. Of course, a mixed phase of hadronic and CFL matter is another possibility, but it does not seem to be favorable  (for other studies of the stars with CFL quark matter in their interior see Ref. ).

We should mention that the general conclusion of Ref.  was essentially confirmed in Ref.  where it was claimed that the 2SC+s could exist only in a narrow window (about $`10`$ to $`15`$ MeV wide) of baryon chemical potential around the midpoint $`\mu \mu _B/3450`$ MeV. For lower values of $`\mu `$, no neutral 2SC phase was found. In this Letter, however, we argue that a neutral 2SC phase does exist at lower values of $`\mu `$. It is a gapless rather than an ordinary 2SC phase. In particular, the conventional density relations between the pairing quarks, used in Ref. , are not valid in this new type of 2SC quark matter. This phase is rather unusual because it has the same symmetry of the ground state as the conventional 2SC phase, but the spectrum of its fermionic quasiparticles is very different.

It appears that the neutral gapless 2SC phase of quark matter has already been used in numerical studies of Refs.  (and, possibly, in Ref. ). Its special properties, however, have not been appreciated and have never been discussed before. In this Letter, we are going to explain the origin of this new phase and shed some light on its properties.

Let us start our analysis from discussing the quark model that we use. Without loosing generality, we assume that the strange quark is sufficiently heavy and does not appear at intermediate baryon densities under consideration (e.g., this might correspond to the baryon chemical potential $`\mu \mu _B/3`$ in the range between about $`350`$ and $`450`$ MeV). Then, in our study, we could use the simplest SU(2) Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model . The explicit form of the Lagrangian density reads:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m_0)q+G_S\left[(\overline{q}q)^2+(\overline{q}i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }q)^2\right]`$ (2)
$`+G_D\left[(i\overline{q}^C\epsilon ϵ^b\gamma _5q)(i\overline{q}\epsilon ϵ^b\gamma _5q^C)\right],`$
where $`q^C=C\overline{q}^T`$ is the charge-conjugate spinor and $`C=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$ is the charge conjugation matrix. The quark field $`qq_{i\alpha }`$ is a four-component Dirac spinor that carries flavor ($`i=1,2`$) and color ($`\alpha =1,2,3`$) indices. $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=(\tau ^1,\tau ^2,\tau ^3)`$ are Pauli matrices in the flavor space, while $`(\epsilon )^{ik}\epsilon ^{ik}`$ and $`(ϵ^b)^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{\alpha \beta b}`$ are antisymmetric tensors in flavor and color, respectively. We also introduce a momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and two independent coupling constants in the scalar quark-antiquark and scalar diquark channels, $`G_S`$ and $`G_D`$.

The values of the parameters in the NJL model are chosen as follows: $`G_S=5.0163`$ GeV-2 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6533`$ GeV . In this Letter, we consider only the chiral limit with $`m_0=0`$. As for the strength of the diquark coupling $`G_D`$, its value is taken to be proportional to the quark-antiquark coupling constant, i.e., $`G_D=\eta G_S`$ with a typical number for $`\eta `$ being around $`0.75`$ .

In $`\beta `$-equilibrium, the diagonal matrix of quark chemical potentials is given in terms of baryonic, electric and color chemical potentials,

$$\mu _{ij,\alpha \beta }=(\mu \delta _{ij}\mu _eQ_{ij})\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\mu _8\delta _{ij}(T_8)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(3)
where $`Q`$ and $`T_8`$ are generators of U(1)em of electromagnetism and the U(1)8 subgroup of the color gauge group. The explicit expressions for the quark chemical potentials read

$`\mu _{ur}=\mu _{ug}=\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu _e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _8,`$ (4)
$`\mu _{dr}=\mu _{dg}=\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _8,`$ (5)
$`\mu _{ub}=\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu _e{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu _8,`$ (6)
$`\mu _{db}=\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _e{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu _8.`$ (7)
The effective potential for quark matter at zero temperature and in $`\beta `$-equilibrium with electrons takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\frac{\mu _e^4}{12\pi ^2}+\frac{m^2}{4G_S}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4G_D}\underset{a}{}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}|E_a|,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is a constant added to make the pressure of the vacuum zero. This is the zero temperature limit of the potential derived in Ref. . The sum in Eq. (8) runs over all (6 quark and 6 antiquark) quasiparticles. The dispersion relations and the degeneracy factors of the quasiparticles read

$`E_{ub}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`E(p)\pm \mu _{ub},[\times 1]`$ (9)
$`E_{db}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`E(p)\pm \mu _{db},[\times 1]`$ (10)
$`E_{\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{[E(p)\pm \overline{\mu }]^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\pm \delta \mu ,[\times 2]`$ (11)
where the shorthand notations are $`E(p)\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$, $`\overline{\mu }(\mu _{ur}+\mu _{dg})/2=\mu \mu _e/6+\mu _8/3`$, and $`\delta \mu (\mu _{dg}\mu _{ur})/2=\mu _e/2`$.

In this study we concentrate exclusively on the 2SC phase of quark matter. The numerical study shows that the constituent quark mass $`m`$ is zero in this phase . Then by making use of the dispersion relations, we derive

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e^4}{12\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4G_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{ub}^4}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{db}^4}{12\pi ^2}}`$ (12)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2dp}{\pi ^2}}\left(\sqrt{(p+\overline{\mu })^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+\sqrt{(p\overline{\mu })^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right)`$ (13)
$``$ $`2\theta \left(\delta \mu \mathrm{\Delta }\right){\displaystyle _\mu ^{}^{\mu ^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2dp}{\pi ^2}}\left(\delta \mu \sqrt{(p\overline{\mu })^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right),`$ (14)
where $`\mu ^\pm \overline{\mu }\pm \sqrt{(\delta \mu )^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. Note that the physical thermodynamic potential that determines the pressure, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{phys}}=P`$, is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (14) after substituting $`\mu _8`$ , $`\mu _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that solve the color and electrical charge neutrality conditions, as well as the gap equation, i.e.,

$$n_8\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu _8}=0,n_Q\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu _e}=0,\text{and}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.$$
(15)
Let us assume that the solution to the color neutrality condition, $`\mu _8(\mu _e,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, is known for a given value of $`\mu `$. In practice, we construct this function using a numerical set of solutions. By substituting this solution into the potential in Eq. (14), one is left with a function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that depends only on two parameters, $`\mu _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this two-dimensional parameter space, the solution to each of the extra two conditions in Eq. (15) is a one-dimensional line. Graphically, this is shown in Fig. 1. Since both conditions should be satisfied simultaneously, one needs to find the intersection points of the corresponding lines.

First we discuss the neutrality condition, $`n_Q=0`$. The corresponding line of solutions in the two-dimensional parameter space is a monotonic, single valued function. In Fig. 1, it is represented by the thick dash-dotted line. This line of solutions consists of two branches in two qualitatively different regions of the parameter space that are separated by the line $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu _e/2`$. In the leading order approximation, this neutrality line is independent of the coupling constant $`G_D`$. This should be obvious from the derivation of the first two conditions in Eq. (15).

The line of solutions to the gap equation is most interesting. It is made of two different branches in two regions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mu _e/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mu _e/2`$, see Fig. 1. The upper is the main branch that exists down to $`\mu _e=0`$ (i.e., no mismatch in the Fermi surfaces of the up and down quarks). The lower branch appears only in a finite window of electric chemical potentials, and it merges with the upper one at a point on the line $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu _e/2`$. In Fig. 1, we show three solutions to the gap equation at $`\mu =400`$ MeV in three regimes with different coupling constants, corresponding to $`\eta =0.5`$, $`\eta =0.75`$, and $`\eta =1.0`$. \[The results look the same at all values of $`\mu `$.\] The three curves have qualitatively the same shape, but differ by overall scale factors. The difference in the overall scale has an important consequence. At weak coupling ($`\eta 0.7`$), there is no neutral 2SC phase because there is no intersection of the solution to the gap equation with the neutrality line, see $`\eta =0.5`$ solution in Fig. 1. At intermediate ($`0.7\eta 0.8`$) and strong ($`\eta 0.8`$) coupling, on the other hand, there is an intersection with the neutrality line at a point on the lower and upper branches, respectively. In these last two cases, neutral 2SC phases exist.

If the electric chemical potential were a free parameter, one would find that increasing its value leads to a first order phase transition . This is the result of the appearance of two competing local minima (at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$) of the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta },\mu _e=\text{const})`$ for a range of intermediate values of the parameter $`\mu _e`$. Note, that the location of the local maximum of the potential that lies between the two local minima is determined by the lower “unstable” branch of the solutions to the gap equation in Fig. 1. The first order phase transition happens at about $`\mu _e^{\mathrm{cr}}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the value of the gap at $`\mu _e=0`$ (this estimate is derived in the approximation of weak coupling ). From our discussion below, it will be clear that this first order phase transition is unphysical under the requirement of local neutrality of quark matter. This is because the transition typically happens between two types of matter with different, nonzero charge densities (e.g., positively charged color superconducting matter and negatively charged normal quark matter). It is worth mentioning, however, that this first order phase transition can get physical meaning in a globally neutral mixed phase of quark matter , and in some condensed matter systems where there is no analogue of the charge neutrality condition .

The three-dimensional view of the potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a function of two parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mu _e`$, is represented by a surface in Fig. 2. The results are plotted for $`\mu =400`$ MeV and for the diquark coupling with $`\eta =0.75`$. In this study, we are interested exclusively in locally neutral quark matter (mixed phases are discussed in Ref. ), and therefore we consider the potential only along the neutrality line (represented by a black solid line in Fig. 2).

The study shows that, for any coupling strength, such a potential of the neutral quark matter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta },\mu _e|_{n_Q=0})`$, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has one local minimum which is also the global one. In the regime of intermediate strength of diquark coupling (e.g., $`\eta =0.75`$), this minimum corresponds to a point on the lower branch of the solutions to the gap equation in Fig. 1 (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }68`$ MeV and $`\mu _e148.4`$ MeV). This may sound very surprizing because the points on the lower branch correspond to local maxima of the potential $`V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mu _e=\text{const})`$. To make this clear, we compare the effective potential calculated for a fixed value of $`\mu _e`$ with the potential defined along the neutrality line in Fig. 3. As we see, after enforcing the condition of charge neutrality, a local maximum of the former becomes a global minimum of the latter.

It is interesting to study the dependence of the diquark coupling constant on the properties of the potential of neutral matter. In the weakly coupled regime ($`\eta 0.7`$), the potential has the global minimum at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. This is in agreement with the fact that the neutrality line does not intersect the corresponding line of nontrivial solutions (e.g., $`\eta =0.5`$ case in Fig. 1). For intermediate values of the coupling ($`0.7\eta 0.8`$), the extremum at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ is a local maximum, while a minimum appears at $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, see solid curve in Fig. 3. In this case, the minimum corresponds to an intersection of the neutrality line with the lower branch of the solutions to the gap equation (e.g., $`\eta =0.75`$ case in Fig. 1). Finally, in the strong coupling regime ($`\eta 0.8`$), there is a nontrivial minimum which corresponds to an intersection of the neutrality line with the upper branch of the solutions (e.g., $`\eta =1.0`$ case in Fig. 1). The phase transition controlled by the coupling constant $`\eta `$ is a second order phase transition.

Here we argue that the regime of intermediate couplings describes a new, gapless phase of 2SC quark matter. This phase of superconducting quark matter possesses four gapless and only two gapped fermionic quasiparticles in its spectrum, see Eqs. (9)–(11). Recall that the ordinary 2SC phase (which, in fact, appears in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mu _e/2`$ in the strong coupling regime) has only two gapless and four gapped quasiparticles. The number of gapless modes changes when one crosses the line $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu _e/2`$. The quasiparticle dispersion relations, originating from the red and green quarks, as described by Eq. (11), are shown in Fig. 4. Each line corresponds to two degenerate quasiparticles. The dispersion relations of gapless blue quarks, given in Eqs. (9) and (10), are not shown in Fig. 4.

In ordinary 2SC matter (with a solution in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mu _e/2`$), there are two doublets of gapped modes: one with the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _e/2`$ and the other with the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mu _e/2`$. As one approaches the boundary between the regions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _e/2`$, the two quasiparticles of the first doublet with the smaller gap gradually become gapless. They also remain gapless in the phase with $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mu _e/2`$ (regime of intermediate coupling). This justifies the name “gapless 2SC phase”.

In the study of the CFL phase in Ref. , it was revealed that the number densities of the pairing quarks are equal. By applying the same arguments in the case of 2SC quark matter, one might expect to get similar relations for the number densities of red up and green down (as well as green up and red down) quarks. Moreover, these relations have been numerically confirmed for the 2SC phase of quark matter in the strongly coupled regime in Ref. . We find, however, that the number densities of pairing quarks are not always equal. In particular, they are not equal in the gapless 2SC phase, i.e., $`n_{ur}=n_{ug}n_{dr}=n_{dg}`$. This is directly related to the fact that the corresponding solution is found in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mu _e/2`$, where two extra gapless modes appear.

In conclusion, the analysis of this Letter confirms that the charge neutrality condition can strongly affect color superconducting quark matter, favoring some phases and disfavoring others. Moreover, as we argued, by imposing the charge neutrality condition, one can also obtain new stable phases of matter which could not exist otherwise. The gapless 2SC phase of quark matter is a beautiful example of such a new phase. The symmetry of its ground state is the same as that of the conventional 2SC phase. However, the energy spectrum of the fermionic quasiparticles in gapless 2SC matter is different: it has two additional gapless modes. We should note that this phase is very different from another example of gapless color superconductivity, discussed in Ref. , which is a metastable state of CFL quark matter. The gapless 2SC phase is a stable, neutral state of two-flavor quark matter.

In nature, gapless 2SC quark matter could exist in compact stars. Indeed, this phase is neutral with respect to electric and color charges and satisfies the $`\beta `$-equilibrium condition by construction. Of course, satisfying these requirements is necessary, but not sufficient. In order to decide whether the gapless 2SC phase is likely to appear inside stars, further detailed studies are needed.

We could speculate that the thermodynamic properties of the gapless 2SC phase should be closer to the properties of neutral normal quark matter rather than to those of strongly coupled 2SC matter. Qualitatively, this is expected from observing the relative shallowness of the effective potential in Fig. 3 defined along the neutrality line. It indicates that, for a given value of the baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$, the pressure difference of (neutral) normal and gapless 2SC quark matter is substantially smaller than the pressure difference of the normal quark and conventional 2SC phase, $`\delta P=(\overline{\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }/\pi )^2`$ .

Here we studied only the most general properties of the gapless 2SC phase of quark matter. By taking into account that this phase is a realistic candidate for matter inside compact star cores, it would be very interesting to study its other properties that could potentially affect some compact star observables. In particular, this includes magnetic properties, neutrino emissivities, and various transport properties of gapless 2SC matter.

Acknowledgements. The authors thank Prof. D.H. Rischke for stimulating discussions that triggered this study, as well as M. Hanauske and S. Rüster for useful comments and discussions. We would like to thank Prof. H. Stöcker for his kind hospitality at the Institut für Theoretische Physik. M.H. acknowledges the financial support from Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation, and the NSFC under Grant Nos. 10105005, 10135030. The work of I.A.S. was supported by Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) and by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).