text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

In this paper we present a theory of cosmology that is based on Einstein’s general relativity theory. The theory is formulated in terms of directly measured quantities, i.e. distances, redshifts and the matter density of the universe.

The general-relativistic theory of cosmology started in 1922 with the remarkable work of A. Friedmann , who solved the Einstein gravitational field equations and found that they admit non-static cosmological solutions presenting an expanding universe. Einstein, believing that the universe should be static and unchanged forever, suggested a modification to his gravitational field equations by adding to them the so-called cosmological term which can stop the expansion.

Soon after that E. Hubble  found experimentally that the far-away galaxies are receding from us, and that the farther the galaxy the bigger its velocity. In simple words, the universe is indeed expanding according to a simple physical law that gives the relationship between the receding velocity and the distance,

$$\text{v}=H_0\text{R}.$$
$`(1.1)`$
Equation (1.1) is usually referred to as the Hubble law, and $`H_0`$ is called the Huble constant. It is tacitly assumed that the velocity is proportional to the actual measurement of the redshift $`z`$ of the receding objects by using the non-relativistic relation $`z=v/c`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum.

The Hubble law does not resemble standard dynamical physical laws that are familiar in physics. Rather, it is a cosmological equation of state of the kind one has in thermodynamics that relates the pressure, volume and temperature, $`pV=RT`$ . It is this Hubble’s equation of state that will be extended so as to include gravity by use of the full Einstein theory of general relativity. The obtained results will be very simple, expressing distances in terms of redshifts; depending on the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$ we will have accelerating, constant and decelerating expansions, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$, respectively. But the last two cases will be shown to be excluded on physical evidence, although the universe had decelerating and constant expansions before it reached its present accelerating expansion stage. As is well known the standard FRW cosmological theory does not deal directly with Hubble’s measured quantities, the distances and redshifts. Accordingly, the present theory can be compared directly with important recent observations made by astronomers which defy expectations.

In Sections 2 and 3 we review the standard Friedmann and Lemaître models. In Section 4 we mention some points in those theories. In Section 5 we present our cosmological theory written in terms of distances and redshifts, whereas Section 6 is devoted to the concluding remarks.

## II Review of the Friedmann Models

Before presenting our theory, and in order to fix the notation, we very briefly review the existing theory . In the four-dimensional curved space-time describing the universe, our spatial three-dimensional space is assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. Co-moving coordinates, in which $`g_{00}=1`$ and $`g_{0k}=0`$, are employed . Here, and throughout our paper, low-case Latin indices take the values 1, 2, 3 whereas Greek indices will take the values 0, 1, 2, 3, and the signature will be $`(+)`$. The four-dimensional space-time is split into $`13`$ parts, and the line-element is subsequently written as

$$ds^2=dt^2dl^2,dl^2={}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{kl}^{}dx^kdx^l=g_{kl}dx^kdx^l,$$
$`(2.1)`$
and the $`3\times 3`$ tensor $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{kl}^{}g_{kl}`$ describes the geometry of the three-dimensional space at a given instant of time. In the above equations the speed of light $`c`$ was taken as unity.

Because of the isotropy and homogeneity of the three-geometry, it follows that the curvature tensor must have the form

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{mnsk}^{}=K\left[{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{ms}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{nk}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{mk}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{ns}^{}\right],$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`K`$ is a constant, the curvature of the three-dimensional space, which is related to the Ricci scalar by $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R=6K`$ . By simple geometrical arguments one then finds that

$$dl^2=\left(1r^2/R^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
$`(2.3)`$
where $`r<R`$. Furthermore, the curvature tensor corresponding to the metric (2.3) satisfies Eq. (2.2) with $`K=1/R^2`$. In the “spherical” coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ we thus have

$$g_{11}=\left(1r^2/R^2\right)^1.$$
$`(2.4)`$
$`R`$ is called the radius of the curvature (or the expansion parameter) and its value is determined by the Einstein field equations.

One then has three cases: (1) a universe with positive curvature for which $`K=1/R^2`$; (2) a universe with negative curvature, $`K=1/R^2`$; and (3) a universe with zero curvature, $`K=0`$. The $`g_{11}`$ component for the negative-curvature universe is given by

$$g_{11}=\left(1+r^2/R^2\right)^1,$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`r<R`$. For the zero-curvature universe one lets $`R\mathrm{}`$.

In this theory one has to change variables in order to get the solutions of the Einstein field equations according to the type of the universe. Accordingly, one makes the substitution $`r=R\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ for the positive-curvature universe, and $`r=R\mathrm{sinh}\chi `$ for the negative-curvature universe. The time-like coordinate is also changed into another one $`\eta `$ by the transformation $`dt=Rd\eta `$. The corresponding line elements then become:

$$ds^2=R^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
$`(2.6a)`$
for the positive-curvature universe,

$$ds^2=R^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
$`(2.6b)`$
for the negative-curvature universe, and

$$ds^2=R^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
$`(2.6c)`$
for the flat three-dimensional universe. In the sequel, we will see that the time-like coordinate in our theory will take one more different form.

The Einstein field equations are then employed in order to determine the expansion parameter $`R(\eta )`$. In fact only one field equation is needed,

$$R_0^0\frac{1}{2}\delta _0^0R+\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _0^0=8\pi GT_0^0,$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, and $`c`$ was taken as unity. In the Friedmann models one takes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and in the comoving coordinates used one easily finds that $`T_0^0=\rho `$, the mass density. While this choice of the energy-momentum tensor is acceptable in standard general relativity and in Newtonian gravity, we will argue in the sequel that it is not so for cosmology. At any rate, using $`\rho \left(t\right)=M/2\pi ^2R^3`$, where $`M`$ is the “mass” and $`2\pi ^2R^3`$ is the “volume” of the universe, one obtains

$$3\left[\left(dR/dt\right)^2+1\right]/R^2=4GM/\pi R^3+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(2.8a)`$
or, in terms of $`\eta `$ along with taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$,

$$3\left[\left(dR/d\eta \right)^2+R^2\right]/R=4GM/\pi .$$
$`(2.9a)`$
The solution of this equation is

$$R={}_{}{}^{}R\left(1\mathrm{cos}\eta \right),$$
$`(2.10a)`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{}R=2GM/3\pi `$, and from $`dt=Rd\eta `$ we obtain

$$t={}_{}{}^{}R\left(\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta \right).$$
$`(2.11a)`$
Equations (10a) and (11a) are those of a cycloid, and give a full representation for the expansion parameter of the universe. Fig. 2.1 shows a plot of $`R`$ as a function of $`t`$. At $`t=0`$, $`\pm 2\pi {}_{}{}^{}R`$, $`\pm 4\pi {}_{}{}^{}R`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, etc., $`R(t)`$ vanishes; that is, the universe contracts to a point. Since the density will become very large when this is about to happen, our approximate expression for the energy-momentum tensor will fail. We should also keep in mind that the classical Einstein equation becomes inapplicable at very high densities. It is therefore not clear exactly what happens at the singular points of Fig. 2.1, and we do not know whether the universe actually has the periodic behavior suggested by this figure.

Similarly, one obtains for the negative-curvature universe the analog to Eqs. (2.8a) and (2.9a),

$$3\left[\left(dR/dt\right)^21\right]/R^2=4GM/\pi R^3+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(2.8b)`$
$$3\left[\left(dR/d\eta \right)^2R^2\right]/R=4GM/\pi ,$$
$`(2.9b)`$
the solution of which is given by

$$R={}_{}{}^{}R\left(\mathrm{cosh}\eta \eta \right),$$
$`(2.10b)`$
$$t={}_{}{}^{}R\left(\mathrm{sinh}\eta \eta \right).$$
$`(2.11b)`$
Fig. 2.2 shows $`R`$ as a function of $`t`$. The universe begins with a big bang and continues to expand forever. As $`t\mathrm{}`$, the universe gradually becomes flat. Again, the state near the singularity at $`t=0`$ is not adequately described by our equations.

Finally, for the universe with a flat three-dimensional space the Einstein field equations yield the analog to Eqs. (2.8a) and (2.9a),

$$3\left(dR/dt\right)^2/R^2=4GM/\pi R^3+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(2.8c)`$
$$3\left(dR/d\eta \right)^2/R=4GM/\pi .$$
$`(2.9c)`$
As a function of $`t`$, the solution is

$$R=\left(3GM/\pi \right)^{1/3}t^{2/3}.$$
$`(2.10c)`$
This function is plotted in Fig. 2.3. As $`t\mathrm{}`$, the four-geometry tends to become flat.

## III Lemaître Models

An extension of the Friedmann models was carried out by Lemaître, who considered universes with zero energy-momentum but with a non-zero cosmological constant. While these models are of interest mathematically they have little, if any, relation to the physical universe because we know that there is baryonic matter. The behavior of the universe in this model will be determined by the cosmological term; this term has the same effect as a uniform mass density $`\rho _{eff}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/4\pi G`$, which is constant in space and time. A positive value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponds to a negative effective mass density (repulsion), and a negative value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponds to a positive mass density (attraction). Hence, we expect that in the universe with a positive value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the expansion will tend to accelerate; whereas in a universe with negative value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the expansion will slow down, stop, and reverse.

The equations of motion for $`R(t)`$ have been derived in Section 2, but here it will be assumed that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ whereas the energy-momentum tensor appearing in Eq. (2.7) to be zero. For the positive-curvature universe one obtains the analog to Eq. (2.8a),

$$3\left[\left(dR/dt\right)^2+1\right]/R^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
$`(3.1a)`$
From equation (3.1a) one immediately concludes that $`1+\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2/3`$ cannot be negative. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, and that the value of $`R`$ can never be less than $`(3/\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/2}`$, i.e. the radius of curvature cannot be zero which excludes the possibility of a big bang.

The integration of Eq. (3.1a) yields,

$$R\left(t\right)=\left(3/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\right)^{1/2}t\right]$$
$`(3.2a)`$
where $`t`$ was taken zero when $`R`$ has its minimum value. Fig. 3.1, curve (a), shows a plot of $`R`$ as a function of $`t`$. As is seen, for $`t>0`$ the universe expands monotonically, and as $`t`$ increases, $`R`$ increases too and the universe becomes flat.

Similarly, one obtains for the negative-curvature universe the analog to Eq. (3.1a),

$$3\left[\left(dR/dt\right)^21\right]/R^2=\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(3.1b)`$
the integration of which gives,

$$R\left(t\right)=\left(3/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\right)^{1/2}t\right],$$
$`(3.2b)`$
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, and

$$R\left(t\right)=\left(3/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\right)^{1/2}t\right]$$
$`(3.2c)`$
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. These functions are plotted in Fig. 3.1, curves (b) and (c), respectively. It will be noted that both universes begin with a big bang at $`t=0`$. The first of these curves expands monotonically, whereas the second one oscillates. In our actual universe, the mass density near the singularity at $`t=0`$ was extremely large, and hence this model cannot be used to describe its behavior near this time.

Finally, for the universe with a flat three-dimensional space the Einstein field equations yield the analog to Eq. (3.1a),

$$3\left(dR/dt\right)^2/R^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
$`(3.1c)`$
This equation has meaning only for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, and it has the solution

$$R\left(t\right)=R\left(0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\right)^{1/2}t\right].$$
$`(3.2d)`$
This universe expands exponentially. This model, described by Eq. (3.2d), is usually called the de Sitter universe.

## IV Remarks of the Standard Theory

To conclude the discussion on the Friedmann and Lemaître universes, we briefly discuss the case in which both the matter density and the cosmological constant are not zero. It will be noted that exact solutions of the differential equations describing the expansion of the universe in that case, given by Eqs. (2.8), are not known. These general models can be thought of as a combination of the Friedmann and Lemaître models.

Consider a universe that begins with a big bang. At an early time, the universe must have been very dense, and we can neglect the cosmological term. Hence, we have approximately a Friedmann universe. As the universe expands and the mass density decreases, the cosmological term will become more important. In the Friedmann models of zero and negative curvature, the universe expands monotonically and the decrease in mass density is monotonic too. The cosmological term will ultimately dominate the behavior of the universe, and it gradually turns into an empty Lemaître universe with zero or negative curvature. In the case of negative curvature with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, the expansion will stop at some later time, reverses and finally ends up in a re-contracting universe of negative curvature.

In the case of a Friedmann universe with a positive curvature, the mass density reaches minimum when the radius of curvature is at its maximum. Hence, the cosmological term will dominate the behavior of the universe only if it is sufficiently large compared with the minimum mass density. The critical value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E=(\pi /2GM)^2`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$, then the Friedmann universe with positive curvature gradually turns into an expanding Lemaître universe with positive curvature (Fig. 4.1). In the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$, the transition is never completed and the expansion stops at a constant value of $`R=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_E^{1/2}`$. This static universe is called the Einstein universe. The universe at this value of $`R`$, however, is not stable. Any perturbation in $`R`$ leads either to monotonic expansion (toward an empty Lemaître model) or to contraction (toward a contracting Friedmann universe).

In the final analysis, it follows that the expansion of the universe is determined by the so-called cosmological parameters. These can be taken as the mass density $`\rho `$, the Hubble constant $`H`$ and the deceleration parameter $`q`$. In the following we give a brief review of these parameters and the relationship between them. In the rest of the paper we will concentrate on the theory with dynamical variables that are actually measured by astronomers: distances, redshifts and the mass density.

Equations (2.8) can be written as

$$3\left(H^2+k/R^2\right)=8\pi G\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(4.1)`$
where $`k=1`$, $`0`$, or $`1`$, for the cases of positive, zero, or negative curvature, respectively. Using Eq. (4.1) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$, one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=1+k/H^2R^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2.$$
$`(4.2)`$
It follows from these equations that the curvature of the universe is determined by $`H`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or equivalently, $`H`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }>1\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2,$$
$`(4.3a)`$
for positive curvature,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }<1\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2,$$
$`(4.3b)`$
for negative curvature, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=1\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2,$$
$`(4.3c)`$
for zero curvature.

The deceleration parameter is defined as

$$q\left[1+\left(1/H^2\right)dH/dt\right],$$
$`(4.4)`$
and it can be shown that

$$q=\mathrm{\Omega }/2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2.$$
$`(4.5)`$
Using Eq. (4.5) we can eliminate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from Eqs. (4.3) and obtain

$$3\mathrm{\Omega }/2>1+q,$$
$`(4.6a)`$
for positive curvature,

$$3\mathrm{\Omega }/2<1+q,$$
$`(4.6b)`$
for negative curvature, and

$$3\mathrm{\Omega }/2=1+q,$$
$`(4.6c)`$
for zero curvature.

It is worthwhile mentioning that one of the Friedmann theory assumptions is that the type of the universe is determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$, which requires that the sign of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }1)`$ must not change throughout the evolution of the universe so as to change the kind of the universe from one to another. That means in this theory, the universe has only one kind of curvature throughout its evolution and does not permit going from one curvature into another. In other words the universe has been and will be in only one form of expansion. It is not obvious, however, that this is indeed a valid assumption whether theoretically or experimentally. As will be shown in the sequel, the universe has actually three phases of expansion, and it does go from one to the second and then to the third phase.

In the combined Friedmann-Lemaître theory discussed above in which both the matter density and the cosmological constant are not zero, nevertheless, the theory does permit the change of sign of the decelerating parameter $`q`$, as can be seen from Fig. 4.1. There exist no equations, however, that describe this kind of transfer from one type of universe to another.

## V Cosmological Theory in Terms of Distance and Redshift

A new outlook at the universe expansion can be achieved and is presented here. The new theory has the following features: (1) It gives a direct relationship between distances and redshifts. (2) It is fully general relativistic. (3) It includes two universal constants, the speed of light in vacuum $`c`$, and the Hubble time in the absence of gravity $`\tau `$ (might also be called the Hubble time in vacuum). (4) The redshift parameter $`z`$ is taken as the time-like coordinate. (5) The energy-momentum tensor is represented differently by including in it a term which is equivalent to the cosmological constant. And (6) it predicts that the universe has three phases of expansion: decelerating, constant and accelerating, but it is now in the stage of accelerating expansion phase after having gone through the other two phases.

Our starting point is Hubble’s cosmological equation of state, Eq. (1.1). One can keep the velocity $`v`$ in equation (1.1) or replace it with the redshift parameter $`z`$ by means of $`z=v/c`$. Since R$`=(x_1,\text{ }x_2,\text{ }x_3)`$, the square of Eq. (1.1) then yields

$$c^2H_0^2z^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2\right)=0.$$
$`(5.1)`$
Our aim is to write our equations in an invariant way so as to enable us to extend them to curved space. Equation (5.1) is not invariant since $`H_0^1`$ is the Hubble time at present. At the limit of zero gravity, Eq. (5.1) will have the form

$$c^2\tau ^2z^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2\right)=0,$$
$`(5.2)`$
where $`\tau `$ is Hubble’s time in vacuum, which is a universal constant the numerical value of which will be determined in the sequel by relating it to $`H_0^1`$ at different situations. Equation (5.2) provides the basis of a cosmological special relativity and was investigated extensively \[11-16\].

In order to make Eq. (5.2) adaptable to curved space we write it in a differential form:

$$c^2\tau ^2dz^2\left(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2\right)=0,$$
$`(5.3)`$
or, in a covariant form in flat space,

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =0,$$
$`(5.4a)`$
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the ordinary Minkowskian metric, and our coordinates are $`(x^0,\text{ }x^1,\text{ }x^2,\text{ }x^3)=(c\tau z,\text{ }x_1,\text{ }x_2,\text{ }x_3)`$. Equation (5.4a) expresses the null condition, familiar from light propagation in space, but here it expresses the universe expansion in space. The generalization of Eq. (5.4a) to a covariant form in curved space can immediately be made by replacing the Minkowskian metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ by the curved Riemannian geometrical metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =0,$$
$`(5.4b)`$
obtained from solving the Einstein field equations.

Because of the spherical symmetry nature of the universe, the metric we seek is of the form

$$ds^2=c^2\tau ^2dz^2e^\lambda dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
$`(5.5)`$
where co-moving coordinates, as in the Friedmann theory, are used and $`\lambda `$ is a function of the radial distance $`r`$. The metric (5.5) is static and solves the Einstein field equation (2.7). When looking for static solutions, Eq. (2.7) can also be written as

$$e^\lambda \left(\lambda ^{}/r1/r^2\right)+1/r^2=8\pi GT_0^0,$$
$`(5.6)`$
when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is taken zero, and where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$.

In general relativity theory one takes for $`T_0^0=\rho `$. So is the situation in Newtonian gravity where one has the Poisson equation $`^2\varphi =4\pi G\rho `$. At points where $`\rho =0`$ one solves the vacuum Einstein field equations and the Laplace equation $`^2\varphi =0`$ in Newtonian gravity. In both theories a null (zero) solution is allowed as a trivial case. In cosmology, however, there exists no situation at which $`\rho `$ can be zero because the universe is filled with matter. In order to be able to have zero on the right-hand side of Eq. (5.6) we take $`T_0^0`$ not as equal to $`\rho `$ but to $`\rho \rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c`$ is chosen by us now as a constant given by $`\rho _c=3/8\pi G\tau ^2`$.

The introduction of $`\rho _c`$ in the energy-momentum tensor might be regarded as adding a cosmological constant to the Einstein field equations. But this is not exactly so, since the addition of $`\rho _c`$ to $`T_0^0`$ means also fixing the numerical value of the cosmological constant and is no more a variable to be determined by experiment. At any rate our reasons are philosophically different from the standard point of view, and this approach has been presented and used in earlier work .

The solution of Eq. (5.6), with $`T_0^0=\rho \rho _c`$, is given by

$$e^\lambda =1\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)r^2/c^2\tau ^2,$$
$`(5.7)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$. Accordingly, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ we have $`g_{rr}=\left(1r^2/R^2\right)^1`$, where

$$R^2=c^2\tau ^2/\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right),$$
$`(5.8a)`$
exactly equals to $`g_{11}`$ given by Eq. (2.4) for the positive-curvature Friedmann universe that is obtained in the standard theory by purely geometrical manipulations (see Sect. 2). If $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, we can write $`g_{rr}=\left(1+r^2/R^2\right)^1`$ with

$$R^2=c^2\tau ^2/\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right),$$
$`(5.8b)`$
which is equal to $`g_{11}`$ given by Eq. (2.5) for the negative-curvature Friedmann universe. In the above equations $`r<R`$.

In Fig. 5.1 a plot of $`R`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, according to Eqs. (5.8), is given. One can interpret $`R`$ as the boundary of the universe within which matter can exist, although it is not necessarily that the matter fills up all the space bounded by $`R`$.

Moreover, we know that the Einstein field equations for these cases are given by Eqs. (2.8) which, in our new notation, have the form

$$\left[\left(dR/dz\right)^2+c^2\tau ^2\right]/R^2=\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right),$$
$`(5.9a)`$
$$\left[\left(dR/dz\right)^2c^2\tau ^2\right]/R^2=\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right).$$
$`(5.9b)`$
As is seen from these equations, if one neglects the first term in the square brackets with respect to the second ones, $`R^2`$ will be exactly reduced to their values given by Eqs. (5.9).

The expansion of the universe can now be determined from the null condition $`ds=0`$, Eq. (5.4b), using the metric (5.5). Since the expansion is radial, one has $`d\theta =d\varphi =0`$, and the equation obtained is

$$dr/dz=c\tau \left[1+\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)r^2/c^2\tau ^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
$`(5.10)`$
The second term in the square bracket of Eq. (5.10) represents the deviation from constant expansion due to gravity. For without this term, Eq. (5.10) reduces to $`dr/dz=c\tau `$ or $`dr/dv=\tau `$, thus $`r=\tau v+`$constant. The constant can be taken zero if one assumes, as usual, that at $`r=0`$ the velocity should also vanish. Accordingly we have $`r=\tau v`$ or $`v=\tau ^1r`$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, namely when $`\rho =\rho _c`$, we have a constant expansion.

The equation of motion (5.10) can be integrated exactly by the substitutions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\chi =\alpha r/c\tau ;& \mathrm{\Omega }>1,\end{array}$$
$`(5.11a)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sinh}\chi =\beta r/c\tau ;& \mathrm{\Omega }<1,\end{array}$$
$`(5.11b)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha =\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)^{1/2},& \beta =\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
$`(5.12)`$
For the $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ case a straightforward calculation, using Eq. (5.11a), gives

$$dr=\left(c\tau /\alpha \right)\mathrm{cos}\chi d\chi ,$$
$`(5.13)`$
and the equation of the universe expansion (5.10) yields

$$d\chi =\alpha dz.$$
$`(5.14a)`$
The integration of this equation gives

$$\chi =\alpha z+\text{constant}.$$
$`(5.15a)`$
The constant can be determined, using Eq. (5.11a). For at $`\chi =0`$, we have $`r=0`$ and $`z=0`$, thus

$$\chi =\alpha z,$$
$`(5.16a)`$
or, in terms of the distance, using (5.11a) again,

$$\begin{array}{cc}r\left(z\right)=\left(c\tau /\alpha \right)\mathrm{sin}\alpha z;& \alpha =\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
$`(5.17a)`$
This is obviously a decelerating expansion.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, using Eq. (5.11b), then a similar calculation yields for the universe expansion (5.10)

$$d\chi =\beta dz,$$
$`(5.14b)`$
thus

$$\chi =\beta z+\text{constant}.$$
$`(5.15b)`$
Using the same initial conditions used above then give

$$\chi =\beta z,$$
$`(5.16b)`$
and in terms of distances,

$$\begin{array}{cc}r\left(z\right)=\left(c\tau /\beta \right)\mathrm{sinh}\beta z;& \beta =\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
$`(5.17b)`$
This is now an accelerating expansion.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ we have, from Eq. (5.10),

$$d^2r/dz^2=0.$$
$`(5.14c)`$
The solution is, of course,

$$r\left(z\right)=c\tau z.$$
$`(5.17c)`$
This is a constant expansion.

It will be noted that the last solution can also be obtained directly from the previous two ones for $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$ by going to the limit $`z0`$, using L’Hospital lemma, showing that our solutions are consistent. It will be shown later on that the constant expansion is just a transition stage between the decelerating and the accelerating expansions as the universe evolves toward its present situation.

Figure 5.2 describes the Hubble diagram of the above solutions for the three types of expansion for values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from 100 to 0.24. The figure describes the three-phase evolution of the universe. Curves (1) to (5) represent the stages of decelerating expansion according to Eq. (5.17a). As the density of matter $`\rho `$ decreases, the universe goes over from the lower curves to the upper ones, and it does not have enough time to close up to a big crunch. The universe subsequently goes to curve (6) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, at which time it has a constant expansion for a fraction of a second. This then followed by going to the upper curves (7) and (8) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$ where the universe expands with acceleration according to Eq. (5.17b). A curve of this kind fits the present situation of the universe. For curves (1) to (4) in the diagram we use the cut off when the curves were at their maximum (or the same could be done by using the cut off as determined by $`R`$ of Fig. 5.1). In Table 5.1 we present the cosmic times with respect to the big bang and the cosmic radiation temperature for each of the curves appearing in Fig. 5.2.

In order to decide which of the three cases is the appropriate one at the present time, we have to write the solutions (5.17) in the ordinary Hubble law form $`v=H_0r`$. To this end we change variables from the redshift parameter $`z`$ to the velocity $`v`$ by means of $`z=v/c`$ for $`v`$ much smaller than $`c`$. For higher velocities this relation is not accurate and one has to use a Lorentz transformation in order to relate $`z`$ to $`v`$. A simple calculation then shows that, for receding objects, one has the relations

$$z=\left[\left(1+v/c\right)/\left(1v/c\right)\right]^{1/2}1,$$
$`(5.18a)`$
$$v/c=z\left(z+2\right)/\left(z^2+2z+2\right).$$
$`(5.18b)`$
We will assume that $`vc`$ and consequently Eqs. (5.17) have the forms

$$r\left(v\right)=\left(c\tau /\alpha \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha v/c\right),$$
$`(5.19a)`$
$$r\left(v\right)=\left(c\tau /\beta \right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\beta v/c\right),$$
$`(5.19b)`$
$$r\left(v\right)=\tau v.$$
$`(5.19c)`$
Expanding now Eqs. (5.19a) and (5.19b) and keeping the appropriate terms, then yields

$$r=\tau v\left(1\alpha ^2v^2/6c^2\right),$$
$`(5.20a)`$
for the $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ case, and

$$r=\tau v\left(1+\beta ^2v^2/6c^2\right),$$
$`(5.20b)`$
for $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$. Using now the expressions for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, given by Eq. (5.12), in Eqs. (5.20) then both of the latter can be reduced into a single equation

$$r=\tau v\left[1+\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)v^2/6c^2\right].$$
$`(5.21)`$
Inverting now this equation by writing it in the form $`v=H_0r`$, we obtain in the lowest approximation for $`H_0`$ the following:

$$H_0=h\left[1\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)v^2/6c^2\right],$$
$`(5.22)`$
where $`h=\tau ^1`$. Using $`vr/\tau `$, or $`z=v/c`$, we also obtain

$$H_0=h\left[1\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)r^2/6c^2\tau ^2\right]=h\left[1\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)z^2/6\right].$$
$`(5.23)`$
Consequently, $`H_0`$ depends on the distance, or equivalently, on the redshift. As is seen, $`H_0`$ has meaning only for $`r0`$ or $`z0`$, namely when measured locally, in which case it becomes $`h`$.

## VI Concluding Remarks

In recent years observers have argued for values of $`H_0`$ as low as 50 and as high as 90 km/sec-Mpc, some of the recent ones show $`80\pm 17`$ km/sec-Mpc \[18-26\]. There are the so-called “short” and “long” distance scales, with the higher and the lower values for $`H_0`$ respectively . Indications are that the longer the distance of measurement the smaller the value of $`H_0`$. By Eqs. (5.22) and (5.23) this is possible only for the case in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, namely when the universe is at an accelerating expansion. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the Hubble diagrams for the predicted by theory distance-redshift relationship for the accelerating expanding universe at present time, whereas figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the experimental results \[28-29\].

Our estimate for $`h`$, based on published data, is $`h8590`$ km/sec-Mpc. Assuming $`\tau ^185`$ km/sec-Mpc, Eq. (5.23) then gives

$$H_0=h\left[11.3\times 10^4\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)r^2\right],$$
$`(6.1)`$
where $`r`$ is in Mpc. A computer best-fit can then fix both $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

To summarize, a new general-relativistic theory of cosmology has been presented in which the dynamical variables are those of Hubble’s, i.e. distances and redshifts. The theory describes the universe as having a three-phase evolution with a decelerating expansion, followed by a constant and an accelerating expansion, and it predicts that the universe is now in the latter phase. As the density of matter decreases, while the universe is at the decelerating phase, it does not have enough time to close up to a big crunch. Rather, it goes to the constant expansion phase, and then to the accelerating stage.

The idea to express cosmological theory in terms of directly-measurable quantities, such as distances and redshifts, was partially inspired by Albert Einstein’s favourite remarks on the theory of thermodynamics in his Autobiographical Notes .

We wish to thank Professor Michael Gedalin for his help in preparing the diagrams.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 2.1 Radius of curvature of the positive-curvature Friedmann universe as a function of time. The curve is a cycloid.
Fig. 2.2 Radius of curvature of the negative-curvature Friedmann universe as a function of time.
Fig. 2.3 Radius of curvature of the flat Friedmann universe as a function of time.
Fig. 3.1 Radius of curvature of the empty Lemaître universes as a function of time. (a) Positive-curvature model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. (b) Negative-curvature model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. (c) Negative-curvature model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. (d) Flat model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$.
Fig. 4.1 Radius of curvature of a nonempty Lemaître universe, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$.
Fig. 5.1 A plot of $`R`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ according to equations (5.8). $`R`$ is the boundary of the universe withinwhich matter can exist, although it is not necessarily that the matter fills up all the space bounded by $`R`$.
Fig. 5.2 Hubble’s diagram describing the three-phase evolution of the universe according to Einstein’s general relativity theory. Curves (1) to (5) represent the stages of decelerating expansion according to $`r(z)=(c\tau /\alpha )\mathrm{sin}\alpha z`$, where $`\alpha =(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{1/2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$, with $`\rho _c`$ a constant, $`\rho _c=3/8\pi G\tau ^2`$, and $`c`$ and $`\tau `$ are the speed of light and the Hubble time in vacuum (both universal constants). As the density of matter $`\rho `$ decreases, the universe goes over from the lower curves to the upper ones, but it does not have enough time to close up to a big crunch. The universe subsequently goes to curve (6) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, at which time it has a constant expansion for a fraction of a second. This then followed by going to the upper curves (7)-(8) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$ where the universe expands with acceleration according to $`r(z)=(c\tau /\beta )\mathrm{sinh}\beta z`$, where $`\beta =(1\mathrm{\Omega })^{1/2}`$. One of these last curves fits the present situation of the universe.
Fig. 5.3 Hubble’s diagram of the universe at the present phase of evolution with accelerating expansion.
Fig. 5.4 Hubble’s diagram describing decelerating, constant and accelerating expansions in a logarithmic scale.
Fig. 5.5 Distance vs. redshift diagram showing the deviation from a constant toward an accelerating expansion. \[Sourse: A. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)\].
Fig. 5.6 Relative intensity of light and relative distance vs. redshift. \[Sourse: A. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)\].

| Curve No. | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | Time in units of $`\tau `$ | Time (sec) | Temperature (K) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 100 | $`3.1\times 10^6`$ | $`1.1\times 10^{12}`$ | 1114.0 |
| 2 | 25 | $`9.8\times 10^5`$ | $`3.6\times 10^{13}`$ | 279.0 |
| 3 | 10 | $`3.0\times 10^4`$ | $`1.1\times 10^{14}`$ | 111.0 |
| 4 | 5 | $`1.2\times 10^3`$ | $`4.4\times 10^{14}`$ | 56.0 |
| 5 | 1.5 | $`1.3\times 10^2`$ | $`4.7\times 10^{15}`$ | 17.0 |
| 6 | 1 | $`3.0\times 10^2`$ | $`1.1\times 10^{16}`$ | 11.0 |
| 7 | 0.5 | $`1.3\times 10^1`$ | $`4.7\times 10^{16}`$ | 6.0 |
| 8 | 0.245 | 1.0 | $`3.6\times 10^{17}`$ | 2.7 |

Table 5.1 The cosmic times with respect to the big bang and the cosmic temperature for each of the curves appearing in Fig. 5.2. The calculations are made using a Lorentz-like transformation that relates physical quantities at different cosmic times when gravity is extremely weak .


format: text

text:
# Stable Equivalence of Knots on Surfaces and Virtual Knot Cobordisms

## 1 Introduction

Virtual knots were defined in  via diagrams. These capture the combinatorial structure of Gauss codes and provide interesting examples that contrast with classical knot theory. They were used in  to study invariants of finite type. The combinatorial nature of virtual knots, however, has caused difficulty in attempts to generalize classical invariants.

A bijective relation between virtual knots and certain knots on surfaces, called abstract knots was given . In this paper, we give an alternate geometric interpretation of virtual knots, called stable equivalence of knots on surfaces. Our interpretation enables us to introduce notions of cobordisms for virtual knots, for example. In particular, we classify link homology of virtual links, and use sliceness to distinguish virtual knots from classical knots as applications.

The paper is organizes as follows. In Section 2, we define stable equivalence. Relations to abstract knots and virtual knots are established in Section 3. Cobordisms for virtual knots are defined and studied in Section 4. Applications are given in Sections 5.

## 2 Stable equivalence of knots on surfaces

Let $`𝒟`$ be the set of all pairs $`(F,D)`$ such that $`F`$ is a compact oriented surface and $`D`$ is a link diagram on $`F`$. For two elements $`(F_1,D_1)`$ and $`(F_2,D_2)`$ of $`𝒟`$, by $`(F_1,D_1)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_2,D_2)`$ we mean that there exists a compact oriented surface $`F_3`$ and orientation-preserving embeddings $`f_1:F_1F_3`$, $`f_2:F_2F_3`$ such that $`f_1(D_1)`$ and $`f_2(D_2)`$ are related by Reidemeister moves on $`F_3`$ (Fig. 1).

###### Definition 2.1

Stable Reidemeister equivalence on $`𝒟`$ is an equivalence relation on $`𝒟`$ generated by the relation $`\stackrel{𝑒}{}`$; that is, two elements $`(F,D)`$ and $`(F^{},D^{})`$ of $`𝒟`$ are stably Reidemeister equivalent, denoted by $`(F,D)(F^{},D^{})`$, if there exists a sequence $`(F,D)=(F_1,D_1)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_2,D_2)\stackrel{𝑒}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_n,D_n)=(F^{},D^{})`$.

For example, let $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ be a torus $`S^1\times S^1`$ and let $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ be simple closed curves in the torus such that $`D_1`$ is null-homotpic and $`D_2`$ is not. It is easily seen that $`(F_1,D_1)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_2,D_2)`$ does not hold. However, $`(F_1,D_1)(F_2,D_2)`$. Consider an element $`(F,D)𝒟`$ such that $`F=S^1\times [1,1]`$ and $`D=S^1\times \{0\}`$. Then $`(F_1,D_2)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F,D)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_2,D_2)`$.

We note that for an element $`(F,D)𝒟`$, a quandle $`Q(D)`$ and a group $`G(D)`$ are defined diagramatically in the usual way in knot theory. These are preserved under stable Reidemeister equivalence.

Let $`𝒞`$ be the set of all pairs $`(F,C)`$ such that $`F`$ is a compact oriented surface and $`C`$ is generic closed curves on $`F`$. (Generic means that $`C`$ is immersed and the singularities are transverse double points.) By $`(F_1,C_1)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_2,C_2)`$ we mean that there exists a compact oriented surface $`F_3`$ and orientation-preserving embeddings $`f_1:F_1F_3`$, $`f_2:F_2F_3`$ such that $`f_1(C_1)`$ and $`f_2(C_2)`$ are homotopic in $`F_3`$.

###### Definition 2.2

Stable equivalence on $`𝒞`$ is an equivalence relation on $`𝒞`$ generated by the relation $`\stackrel{𝑒}{}`$.

A natural map

$$\pi :𝒟𝒞$$

sending a knot diagram to its underlying immersed curve induces a map

$$\pi _{}:𝒟/_{}𝒞/_{}.$$

The map $`\pi _{}`$ is well-defined since homotopy of curves is generated by Reidemeister-type moves — more precisely the projection of the Reidemeister moves.

## 3 Virtual knots and abstract knots

###### Definition 3.1

() A virtual link diagram consists of generic closed curves in $`𝐑^2`$ such that each crossing is either a classical crossing with over- and under-arcs, or a virtual crossing without over or under information. Let $`𝒱`$ be the set of virtual link diagrams. The virtual Reidemeister equivalence is an equivalence relation on $`𝒱`$ generated by the Reidemeister moves depicted in Fig. 2. Put $`VL=𝒱/_\stackrel{𝑣}{}`$, where $`\stackrel{𝑣}{}`$ is the virtual Reidemeister equivalence. Each element of $`VL`$ is called a virtual link.

If the given set of curves of a diagram is connected (i.e, the diagram consists of a single component curve), then it is called a virtual knot diagram. The set of virtual knot diagrams are denoted by $`𝒱𝒦`$, and the set of equivalence classes are denoted by $`VK=𝒱𝒦/_\stackrel{𝑣}{}`$, whose elements are called virtual knots.

It is known that there is a bijection between $`VK`$ and the set of Gauss codes (or Gauss diagrams) modulo Reidemeister moves defined in the Gauss code level, . (Refer to  for Gauss codes and Reidemeister moves on them.)

Let $`𝒜`$ be the subset of $`𝒟`$ consisting of $`(F,D)`$ such that $`|D|`$ is a deformation retract of $`F`$, where $`|D|`$ is the underlying immersed curve in $`F`$. See Fig. 3 (5). For $`(F_1,D_1),(F_2,D_2)𝒜`$, by $`(F_1,D_1)\stackrel{ae}{}(F_2,D_2)`$ we mean that there exists a closed connected oriented surface $`F_3`$ and orientation-preserving embeddings $`f_1:F_1F_3`$, $`f_2:F_2F_3`$ such that $`f_1(D_1)`$ and $`f_2(D_2)`$ are related by Reidemeister moves on $`F_3`$.

###### Definition 3.2

() An abstract link diagram is an element of $`𝒜`$. Abstract Reidemeister equivalence, denoted by $`\stackrel{𝑎}{}`$, is an equivalence relation on $`𝒜`$ generated by the relation $`\stackrel{ae}{}`$. Put $`AL=𝒜/_\stackrel{𝑎}{}`$, whose elements are abstract links .

###### Theorem 3.3

() There is a map (which we call skimming process)

$$\varphi :𝒱𝒜$$

that induces a bijection

$$\varphi :VLAL.$$

An abstract link diagram is regarded as a disk-band surface such that there is a usual crossing in each disk and a proper arc in each band, see Fig. 3 (4). Fig. 3 is an illustration of the skimming process, see  for the definition.

The inclusion map

$$\iota :𝒜𝒟$$

induces a map

$$\iota _{}:AL𝒟/_{}.$$

###### Proposition 3.4

The map $`\iota _{}:AL𝒟/_{}`$ is a bijection.

Proof. For $`(F,D)𝒟`$, let $`N(D)`$ be a regular neighborhood of $`|D|`$ in $`F`$. Then $`(N(D),D)`$ is an abstract link diagram, which we denote by $`\mathrm{Abs}(F,D)`$. Since $`\mathrm{Abs}(F,D)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F,D)`$, we see that the map $`\iota _{}`$ is surjective. Suppose that two abstract link diagrams $`(F,D)`$ and $`(F^{},D^{})`$ are stably Reidemeister equivalent. There exists a sequence $`(F,D)=(F_1,D_1)\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_2,D_2)\stackrel{𝑒}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_{n1},D_{n1})\stackrel{𝑒}{}(F_n,D_n)=(F^{},D^{})`$. Then we have a sequence $`(F,D)=(F_1,D_1)\stackrel{ae}{}\mathrm{Abs}(F_2,D_2)\stackrel{ae}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{ae}{}\mathrm{Abs}(F_{n1},D_{n1})\stackrel{ae}{}(F_n,D_n)=(F^{},D^{})`$. Thus $`(F,D)\stackrel{𝑎}{}(F^{},D^{})`$ and the map $`\iota _{}`$ is injective. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we see that $`VL`$, $`AL`$, $`𝒟/_{}`$ and the set of Reidemeister equivalence classes of Gauss codes are mutually equivalent.

## 4 Link homology and concordance of virtual links

We recall the definition of knotted surface diagrams . A knotted surface diagram $`K`$ is a generically and properly mapped surface in a $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ such that the double point curves are given crossing information. Thus $`K`$ has isolated branch and triple points and double curves. Along each double curve, one of the two sheets involved is over-sheet, the other is the under-sheet, and the under-sheet is broken (interior of small neighborhood removed). At a triple point, there are top, middle, and bottom sheets. Such a diagram is considered to be a projection of an embedding of a surface in $`M\times [0,1]`$. On the boundary, we have a classical knot diagram on a surface $`M`$.

###### Definition 4.1

Let $`(F_i,D_i)`$, $`i=0,1`$, be two elements of $`𝒟`$ such that $`D_i`$ consists of $`n`$ components $`D_i^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ for a positive integer $`n`$. Then $`(F_0,D_0)`$ and $`(F_1,D_1)`$ are called virtually link-homologous if there exists a compact oriented $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ and a knotted surface diagram $`S`$ in $`M`$ with the following properties.

(1) $`F_0F_1M`$, where $`F_1`$ denotes $`F_1`$ with its orientation reversed.

(2) $`S`$ is a knotted surface diagram of an oriented surface with $`n`$ components $`S^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that $`S^j=D_0^jD_1^j`$ for all $`j`$.

###### Definition 4.2

Two elements $`(F_i,D_i)`$ ($`i=0,1`$) of $`𝒟`$ as above, are called virtually link-concordant (or simply concordant if no confusion occurs) if there exists a compact oriented $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ and a knotted surface diagram $`S`$ in $`M`$ with the following properties.

(1) $`F_0F_1M`$.

(2) $`S`$ is a knotted surface diagram of an oriented surface with $`n`$ components $`S^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that $`C^j=D_0^jD_1^j`$ and each $`S^j`$ is an annulus.

###### Lemma 4.3

If two elements $`(F,D)`$ and $`(F^{},D^{})`$ of $`𝒟`$ are stably equivalent, then they are virtually link-concordant, and hence virtually link-homologous.

Proof. It is sufficient to prove that if $`(F,D)\stackrel{e}{}(F^{},D^{})`$ then $`(F,D)`$ and $`(F^{},D^{})`$ are virtually link-concordant. Let $`f:FG`$ and $`f^{}:F^{}G`$ be embeddings into a surface $`G`$ such that $`f(D)`$ and $`f(D^{})`$ are related by Reidemeister moves in $`G`$. Let $`M=G\times [0,1]`$ and regard $`f:FG\times \{0\}`$ and $`f^{}:F^{}G\times \{1\}`$, and identify $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ with the subsets $`f(F)`$ and $`f^{}(F^{})`$ of $`M`$ respectively, so that $`FF^{}M`$. Reidemeister moves between $`f(F)`$ and $`f^{}(F^{})`$ in $`G`$ yield a knotted surface diagram of an annulus in $`G\times [0,1]`$ such that the type I, II, and III moves correspond to branch points, minimal points of double point curves, and triple points (cf. ), respectively. Hence the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 4.4

The virtual link-concordance and the virtual link-homology are well-defined for elements of $`𝒟/`$.

###### Lemma 4.5

Let $`(F_0,D_0)`$ and $`(F_1,D_1)`$ be elements of $`𝒟`$. They are virtually link-homologous if and only if one is obtained from the other by a sequence of moves depicted in Fig. 4 together with Reidemeister moves.

Proof. Let $`(F_0,D_0)`$ and $`(F_1,D_1)`$ be virtually link-homologous via a knotted surface diagram $`S`$ in a $`3`$-manifold $`M`$. In the following, we regard $`S`$ as the underlying generic surface without crossing information for considerations of Morse critical points. Let $`h:M[0,1]`$ be a smooth map such that $`h(F_0)=0`$ and $`h(F_1)=1`$. We may assume (after a small perturbation if necessary) that $`h`$ satisfies the following conditions.

(1) $`h`$ is transverse at $`0`$ and $`1`$.

(2) $`h`$ is generic on $`M`$, $`M`$, and $`S`$, and on all the self intersections and singularities of $`M`$, $`M`$, and $`S`$.

Thus $`h`$ has isolated Morse critical points on all the sets listed in (2), at distinct critical values. The sigularities on $`S`$ gives Reidemeister moves, and the move listed in Fig. 4 bottom. Specifically, the type I, II, and III moves correspond to branch points, minimal/maximal points of double point curves, and triple points. The minimal/maximal points and saddle points of $`S`$ corresponds to bottom left and right, respectively, of Fig. 4. The Morse critical points as handle moves are listed in Fig. 4 top and middle. The critical points of $`M`$ are maxima/minima (the top left entry) or saddle points (the top right). From the point of view of the boundary $`1`$-manifold, they correspond to handles of indices $`0/2`$ and $`1`$, respectively. The critical points of Int$`M`$ are similar, and depicted in the second row left and right. Theorem follows as these exhaust generic singularities and critical points. $`\mathrm{}`$

Similarly, we have

###### Lemma 4.6

Let $`(F,D)`$ and $`(F^{},D^{})`$ be elements of $`𝒟`$. They are virtually link-concordant if and only if one is obtained from the other by a sequence of Reidemeister moves and moves depicted in Fig. 4, such that the moves satisfy the following condition: the sequence of moves form surface diagrams whose underlying surfaces are annuli.

###### Definition 4.7

Let $`(F,D)`$ be an element of $`𝒟`$ such that $`D`$ is a link diagram with $`n`$ components, $`D_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The linking number between the $`j`$ and $`k`$th components, denoted by $`\text{Link}(D_j,D_k)`$ is the number of crossings between $`D_j`$ and $`D_k`$ where $`D_j`$ is over and $`D_k`$ is under-arc respectively, counted with signs.

This linking number is the same as the virtual linking number $`\text{vlk}(D_j,D_k)`$ in the sense of  under the correspondence between virtual links and links on surfaces via skimming process.

###### Example 4.8

In the first row of Fig. 5, virtual pseudo-Hopf links are depicted. The images of them by the skimming process (in the second row) are abstract pseudo-Hopf links. They are positive if the crossings are positive (right figure); otherwise negative (left). The component containing the upper crossing is called an upper component and the other a lower component. Let $`D=D_1D_2`$ be a positive abstract pseudo-Hopf link such that $`D_1`$ is upper and $`D_2`$ is lower, then $`\text{Link}(D_1,D_2)=1`$ and $`\text{Link}(D_2,D_1)=0`$.

###### Proposition 4.9

Virtual link-homology classes of the elements of $`𝒟`$ are completely classified by pairwise linking numbers.

Proof. Bt Lemma 4.5 and the definition, the linking numbers are invariants of link homology. We prove the converse. Since $`(F,D)𝒟`$ and $`\mathrm{Abs}(F,D)`$ are virtually link-homologous and have the same linking numbers, we may assume that $`(F,D)`$ is an abstract link diagram. Eliminate each crossing point of $`D`$ as in Fig. 6, and we have a split sum of a trivial abstract link diagram and some abstract pseudo-Hopf links. We cap off each component of the trivial abstract link diagram. The remainder is a union of abstract pseudo-Hopf links.

For each $`j`$ and $`k`$ with $`jk`$, collect abstract pseudo-Hopf links whose upper components come from $`D_j`$, the $`j`$th component of $`D`$, and the lower components come from $`D_k`$. In this family, a pair of positive and negative abstract pseudo-Hopf links are canceled as in Fig. 7. (For simplicity, the figure is drawn in terms of virtual link diagrams. Apply the skimming process to obtain the moves in terms of the abstract pseudo-Hopf links.) So we have $`|\text{Link}(D_j,D_k)|`$ copies of abstract pseudo-Hopf links whose signs are the same with the sign of $`\text{Link}(D_j,D_k)`$.

Collect abstract pseudo-Hopf links whose upper and lower components come from the $`j`$th component of $`D`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. If necessary, applying Reidemeister moves of type I, we may assume that the number of positive crossings of $`D_j`$ and the negative crossings of $`D_j`$ were the same. Then we can eliminate the abstract pseudo-Hopf links in this family as in Fig. 7. This implies the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.10

For any $`(F,D)𝒟`$, there is an oriented $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ and an oriented surface diagram $`G`$ in $`M`$ such that $`M=F`$ and $`G=D`$.

Proof. Perform a smoothing at each crossing of $`D`$ to obtain disjoint simple closed curves $`D^{}`$ on $`F`$. A smoothing is realized as a branch point. Specifically, regard $`D`$ as lying on $`F\times \{0\}`$ and $`D^{}`$ on $`F\times \{1\}`$, then there is an oriented knotted surface diagram $`S`$ with a branch point corresponding to each smoothing, such that $`S=DD^{}`$. We cap off each component of $`D^{}`$ by attaching a $`2`$-handle. Then we have a desired $`M`$ and $`G`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

A classical link diagram $`D`$ on $`𝐑^2`$ is regarded as an element of $`𝒟`$ by considering $`(E,D)`$, where $`E`$ is a large 2-disk in $`𝐑^2`$ containing $`D`$ inside.

###### Corollary 4.11

Two classical link diagrams are virtually link-homologous if and only if the classical links represented by them are link-homologous in classical sense.

Proof. Link homology classes in classical sense are classified by linking numbers, whose definition match that of the linking numbers for elements of $`𝒟`$. The above proposition, then, implies this corollary. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 4.12

An abstractly spanning surface of $`(F,D)𝒟`$ is a surface $`G`$ as in Lemma 4.10. The spanning genus of $`(F,D)𝒟`$, denoted by $`\text{Span-g}(F,D)`$, is the minimal genus of all abstractly spanning surfaces for $`(F,D)`$.

###### Lemma 4.13

If two elements $`(F,D)`$ and $`(F^{},D^{})`$ are stably equivalent, then $`\text{Span-g}(F,D)=\text{Span-g}(F^{},D^{})`$.

Proof. This is a consequence of Lemma 4.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.14

Other kinds of genera of interest are defined as follows. A closed realization of $`(F,D)𝒟`$ is an embedding of $`F`$ to a closed oriented surface $`G`$. The supporting genus of $`(F,D)𝒟`$, denoted by $`\text{Supp-g}(F,D)`$, is the minimal genus of such closed oriented surfaces $`G`$, cf. . The ground genus of $`(F,D)𝒟`$, denoted by $`\text{Ground-g}(F,D)`$, is the minimal of $`\text{Supp-g}(F^{},D^{})`$ such that $`(F^{},D^{})`$ is stably equivalent to $`(F,D)`$.

## 5 Slice curves on surfaces and Kauffman’s example

Virtual link-concordance on $`𝒟`$ is naturally defined similarly for $`𝒞`$ simply ignoring the crossing informations. Lemma 4.3 holds for $`𝒞`$ under such a definition, and thus the virtual link-concordance is well-defined for $`𝒞/`$.

###### Definition 5.1

If $`(F,D)𝒟`$ or $`(F,C)𝒞`$ is virtually concordant to the unlink in the plane, then it is called slice.

By the remark before the definition, we have

###### Proposition 5.2

Sliceness for $`𝒞`$ is an invariant under stable equivalence: Suppose that $`(F,C)(F^{},C^{})`$. Then $`(F,C)`$ is slice if and only if $`(F^{},C^{})`$ is slice.

In , a necessary condition for sliceness of immersed closed curves in a surface was given.

###### Theorem 5.3

() The pair $`(F,C)`$ in Fig. 8 is not slice.

Figure 8 is different from the example given in . However it has the same Gauss code with that in  and hence it is not slice.

In , L. Kauffman gave two problems:

1. Is the virtual knot diagram in Fig. 9 (1) virtually Reidemeister equivalent to a classical knot diagram? (The quandle and the group are the same as those of a trivial knot diagram.)
2. Is the universe (Fig. 9 (2)) of the virtual knot irreducible?

Here a universe of a virtual knot diagram is a virtual knot diagram without imformation of over/under crossings for real crossings (do not confuse them with virtual crossings). Virtual Reidemeister moves for the universes of virtual knot diagrams are defined by ignoring over/under information for real crossings. The universe of a virtual knot is reducible if it is transformed into the universe of a classical knot diagram by virtual Reidemeister moves.

###### Proposition 5.4

The virtual knot in Fig. 9 (1) is not virtually Reidemeister equivalent to a classical knot diagram.

Proof. We have a map

$$\rho =\pi \iota \varphi :𝒱𝒜𝒟𝒞$$

which induces a map

$$\rho =\pi _{}\iota _{}\varphi :VLAL𝒟/_{}𝒞/_{}.$$

The virtual knot diagram in Fig. 9 (1) is mapped to $`(F,C)𝒞`$ in Fig. 8. This is not slice (by Theorem 5.3). On the other hand, any classical knot diagram, which is regared as an element of $`𝒟`$ by considering it is on a large 2-disk in $`𝐑^2`$, is mapped to an element of $`𝒞`$ which is slice. Since sliceness is invariant under stably equivalence on $`𝒞`$, we see that the virtual knot is not virtually Reidemeister equivalent to a classical knot diagram. $`\mathrm{}`$

Alternate proofs are given in  and .

###### Proposition 5.5

The universe in Fig. 9 (2) is not equivalent to the universe of a classical knot diagram.

Proof. The map

$$\pi :𝒱𝒮𝒱$$

sending a virtual link diagram to its universe induces a map

$$\pi _{}:VLSVL,$$

where $`𝒮𝒱`$ is the set of universes of virtual link diagrams and $`SVL`$ is the set of equivalence classes. It is not difficult to see that the map $`\rho :VL𝒞/_{}`$ factors through $`SVL`$; namely, when we put $`f=\iota _{}\varphi `$, there is a map $`f^{}`$ which makes the following diagram commutative.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}VL& \stackrel{f}{}& 𝒟/_{}\\ \pi _{}& & \pi _{}\\ SVL& \underset{f^{}}{}& 𝒞/_{}.\end{array}$$
(1)
The universe in Fig. 9 (2) is not equivalent to the universe of a classical link diagram, because their images under $`f^{}`$ are distinguished in $`𝒞/_{}`$ by sliceness. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# A chiral crystal in cold QCD matter at intermediate densities?

## I Introduction

The understanding of QCD under extreme conditions is among the main frontiers in strong interaction physics. In particular, the finite-density and zero-temperature regime has reattracted considerable attention lately, after it has been realized that early perturbative estimates for color-superconducting gaps at large chemical potential are exceeded by up to two orders of magnitude towards smaller densities . Such BCS-type pairing energies are in fact comparable to the (’constituent’) quark mass gap in the QCD vacuum, $`M_q`$ 0.35-0.4 GeV, and have triggered new interest in observable consequences of quark matter formation within the core of neutron stars (unfortunately, in high energy heavy-ion collision large entropy production renders the access to this regime unlikely).

The focus on the occurrence of various superconducting phases is motivated by the standard BCS instability of the Fermi surface for arbitrarily weak particle-particle ($`p`$-$`p`$) interactions. Under certain conditions, however, the particle-hole ($`p`$-$`h`$) channel might also become competitive. Here, a kinematic singularity in the corresponding Greens function only develops in (effectively) 1+1 dimensional systems, and at a total pair momentum of $`Q=2p_F`$ ($`p_F`$: Fermi momentum), known as Peierls instability . In higher dimensions it can nevertheless be relevant provided the interaction is strong enough. One variant of $`p`$-$`h`$ instabilities are ’spin-density waves’ as originally proposed by Overhauser  for specific electronic materials (for a review see ). The analogue in the context of QCD, so called ’chiral density waves’, has first been discussed by Deryagin et al. . Using perturbative one-gluon exchange (OGE) at asymptotically high densities it was shown that the Overhauser-type pairing prevails over the BCS instability in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit ($`N_c`$: number of colors). This is due to the fact that the BCS bound states, being color non-singlet, are dynamically suppressed by 1/$`N_c`$ as compared to the (colorless) Overhauser ones. More recently, Shuster and Son  revisited this mechanism for finite $`N_c`$ and including Debye screening in the gluon propagator. As a result, the chiral density wave dominates only for a very large number of colors, $`N_c=𝒪(10^3)`$. These findings have been confirmed in an analysis of coupled BCS/Overhauser equations using different arguments . One concludes that instabilities in the $`p`$-$`h`$ channel are not relevant for real QCD at asymptotic densities.

The situation, however, can be very different if the interaction strength between the quarks is substantially increased (to be referred to below as the strong coupling regime). A well-known example is the Nambu-Jona Lasinio (NJL) description of chiral symmetry breaking in the QCD vacuum (associated with the constituent quark mass gap and the build-up of the chiral condensate), which requires a (minimal) critical coupling to occur. At finite density, the same (attractive) interaction is operative in the scalar-isoscalar $`p`$-$`h`$ channel. It’s coupling strength is in fact augmented by a factor of $`(N_c1)`$ over the (most attractive) scalar diquark channel. On the other hand, geometric factors act in its disfavor: unlike the BCS gap, which uniformly covers the entire Fermi surface, the chiral density wave appears in form of ‘patches’, their number depending on the symmetry of the presumed crystal. The purpose of the present paper is to study the interplay between Overhauser and BCS pairing, including different crystal structures, within the strong coupling regime. The focus is thus on quark matter at intermediate densities, i.e., large enough for the system to be in the quark phase, but small enough to support nonperturbative interactions. This should roughly correspond to chemical potentials in the range $`\mu _q`$ 0.4-0.6 GeV, translating into baryon densities of 3.5-12 $`\rho _0`$ (where $`\rho _0`$=0.16 fm-3 denotes normal nuclear matter density).***The chiral crystal phase we are investigating is not to be confused with another crystal phase discussed in 1980’s related to $`p`$-wave pion condensation  and later interacting skyrmions . Those works have addressed nuclear matter at lower densities, in which the chiral condensate $`<\overline{q}q>`$ is only slightly perturbed from its vacuum value and basically uniform in space, while the periodic structure is driven by pion fields.

The article is organized as follows. In Sect. II we start by introducing the Nambu-Gorkov type matrix propagator formalism that will subsequently be applied to obtain the gap equations for the coupled BCS-Overhauser problem; special attention is given to the single-quark spectra in the Overhauser ground state. In Sect. III we solve these equations using the aforementioned variants of nonperturbative interactions, i.e., somewhat schematic NJL-type as well as microscopic instanton-induced forces, for the slightly idealized case of two massless flavors and three colors. In Sect. IV we summarize and discuss the relevance of our results for real QCD.

## II Nambu-Gorkov Formalism and Coupled Gap Equations

### A BCS Pairing

A standard framework to address multiple instabilities in interacting many-body systems is provided by the Nambu-Gorkov formalism. Here, propagators are constructed as matrices combining all potential condensate channels via off-diagonal elements (see, e.g., ref. ), which automatically incorporates the interplay/coexistence of the various phases.

For the familiar BCS case one adopts the following ansatz for the full propagator:

$$\widehat{G}_{BCS}(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Delta };\mu _q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_kc_k^{}& c_kc_k\\ c_k^{}c_k^{}& c_k^{}c_k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}G(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Delta })& \overline{F}(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Delta })\\ F(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Delta })& \overline{G}(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Delta })\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The gap equation is then derived by formulating the pertinent Dyson equation,

$$\widehat{G}_{BCS}=\left[\widehat{G}_0^1\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_0^1& \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }& \overline{G}_0^1\end{array}\right)^1,$$
(2)
which has the formal solution

$$\widehat{G}_{BCS}=\frac{1}{G_0^1\overline{G}_0^1\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{G}_0^1& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}& G_0^1\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(i)\alpha _{pp}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}F(p_0,\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(4)
represents the (off-diagonal) ’selfenergy’ contribution induced by $`p`$-$`p`$ pairing (with an appropriate 4-fermion coupling constant $`\alpha _{pp}`$), and

$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_0ϵ_k+i\delta _{ϵ_k}}}`$ (5)
$`\overline{G}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_0+ϵ_k+i\delta _{ϵ_k}}}`$ (6)
are the free particle propagator and its conjugate at finite chemical potential (with $`ϵ_k=\omega _k\mu _q`$ and infinitesimal $`\delta _{ϵ_k}=|\delta |\mathrm{sgn}(ϵ_k)`$ according to the sign of $`ϵ_k`$). Inserting the expression for the anomalous Greens function from eq. (3),

$$F(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(k_0ϵ_k+i\delta _{ϵ_k})(k_0+ϵ_k+i\delta _{ϵ_k})\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(7)
into the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, eq. (4), yields the gap equation. Notice that the pole structure of $`F(k)`$ always ensures a nonvanishing contour for the energy integration.

### B Overhauser Pairing

On the same footing one can analyze pairing in the particle-hole channel at finite total pair momentum $`Q`$. In the mean-field approximation (MFA)This approximation is equivalent to the weak coupling approximation in band structure calculations where higher intra-band mixing is suppressed., the full Greens function and Dyson equation in the presence of a single stationary wave take the form

$`\widehat{G}_{Ovh}(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma ;\mu _q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_kc_k^{}& c_kc_{k+Q}^{}\\ c_{k+Q}c_k^{}& c_{k+Q}c_{k+Q}^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}G(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma )& \overline{S}(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma )\\ S(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma )& G(k_0,\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma )\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{G}_0^1\widehat{\sigma }\right]^1,`$ (13)
which has the formal solution

$$S(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma )=\frac{\sigma }{(k_0ϵ_k+i\delta _{ϵ_k})(k_0ϵ_{k+Q}+i\delta _{ϵ_{k+Q}})\sigma ^2}$$
(14)
and gives the ensuing gap equation from the definition of the pairing ’selfenergy’,

$$\sigma =(i)\alpha _{ph}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}S(p_0,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{Q},\sigma ).$$
(15)
Notice that here the energy contour integration receives nonvanishing contributions only if

$$ϵ_pϵ_{p+Q}\sigma ^2<0,$$
(16)
which means that the two poles in $`p_0`$ have to be in distinct (upper/lower) halfplanes, i.e., one particle (above the Fermi surface) and one hole (below the Fermi surface) are required to participate in the interaction. This condition reflects on the particle-hole symmetry caused by the nesting of the Fermi surface in the presence of the induced wave. We stress again that an important difference to the BCS gap equation resides in the fact that (for 2 or more spatial dimensions) one is not guaranteed a solution for arbitrarily small coupling constants since the $`p`$-$`h`$ Greens function $`S`$ does not develop a kinematic singularity (as mentioned in the introduction this is very reminiscent to the QCD vacuum case of particle-antiparticle pairing across the Dirac sea).

At finite densities, the formation of a condensate carrying nonzero total momentum $`Q`$ is associated with nontrivial spatial structures, i.e., crystals, characterized by a ’lattice spacing’ $`a=2\pi /Q`$. In three dimensions a more complete description thus calls for the inclusion of additional wave vectors. In general, the $`p`$-$`h`$ pairing gap can be written as

$$\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})=\underset{j}{}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _{j,n}e^{in\stackrel{}{Q}_j\stackrel{}{r}},$$
(17)
where the $`\stackrel{}{Q}_j`$ correspond to the (finite) number of fundamental waves, and the summation over $`|n|>1`$ accounts for higher harmonics in the Fourier series. The matrix propagator formalism allows for the treatment of multiple waves through an expansion of the basis states according to

$$\widehat{G}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c_kc_k^{}& c_kc_{k+Q_x}^{}& c_kc_{k+Q_y}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ c_{k+Q_x}c_k^{}& c_{k+Q_x}c_{k+Q_x}^{}& c_{k+Q_x}c_{k+Q_y}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ c_{k+Q_y}c_k^{}& c_{k+Q_y}c_{k+Q_x}^{}& c_{k+Q_y}c_{k+Q_y}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
In practice the expansion has to be kept finite. The possibility of additional BCS pairing is straightforwardly incorporated into eq. (18) by extending the latter with the off-diagonal states from eq. (1).

In what follows we will consider up to $`n_w=6`$ waves in three orthogonal directions with $`Q_x=Q_y=Q_z`$ and $`n=\pm 1`$, characterizing a cubic crystal through three standing waves with the fundamental modes (for simplicity we will also assume the magnitude of the various Overhauser condensates to be equal, i.e., $`\sigma _j\sigma `$). The important new features that arise through introducing additional states become already apparent in the simplest extension to 2 condensates. In this case one has for the (coupled) gap equation(s)

$`\sigma _x`$ $`=`$ $`(i)\alpha _{ph}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\sigma _xG_0^1(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_y)}{G_0^1(\stackrel{}{p})G_0^1(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_x)G_0^1(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_y)\sigma _x^2G_0^1(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_y)\sigma _y^2G_0^1(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_x)}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`(i)\alpha _{ph}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\sigma _xG_0(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_x)}{G_0^1(\stackrel{}{p})\sigma _x^2G_0(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_x)\sigma _y^2G_0(\stackrel{}{p}+Q_y)}}`$ (20)
(and an equivalent one for $`\sigma _y`$ by interchanging $`xy`$). For finite $`\sigma _y`$ additional possibilities for the nonvanishing of the energy contour integration appear through an extra zero of the third-order polynomial in the denominator of the full propagator in eq. (20). This enlarges the integration region and can be interpreted as interference effects between the patches (or waves). Diagrammatically this can be understood as an additional insertion of the $`\sigma _y`$ condensate on a particle (or hole) line of energy $`ϵ_p`$. Note that a priori it is not clear whether such interferences are constructive or destructive, that is, give a positive or negative contribution to the right-hand-side (rhs) of eq. (20).

In the propagators $`G_0`$ contributions from antiparticles have been neglected. This should be a reasonable approximation in the quark matter phase at sufficiently large $`\mu _q`$, i.e., after the usual (non-oscillating particle-antiparticle) chiral condensate has vanished. At the same time, since we base our analysis on nonperturbative forces, the applicable densities are bounded from above. Taken together, we estimate the range of validity for our calculations to be roughly given by 0.4 GeV $`\text{ }<\mu _q\text{ }<`$ 0.6 GeV. This coincides with the regime where, for the physical current strange quark mass of $`m_s0.14`$ GeV, the two-flavor superconductor might prevail over the color-flavor locked (CFL) state so that our restriction to $`N_f=2`$ is supported.

### C Spectrum in the Overhauser Case

The poles of the mean-field propagators discussed above provide the quasiparticle excitations in both the BCS and Overhauser case. In the former, the spectrum consists of gapped particles and holes. In the latter case, the physical interpretation is rendered more subtle by the presence of a standing wave. To keep the analysis transparent, we will discuss analytic results in 1+1 dimension and proceed to a numerical evaluation in 3+1 dimensions.

In 1+1 dimension, the quasi-particle excitations following from the pole condition for the propagator in the Overhauser case, eq. (14), have energies

$$ϵ_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_k+ϵ_{kQ})\pm \sqrt{(ϵ_kϵ_{kQ})^2+\sigma ^2}$$
(21)
with $`ϵ_k=|k|\mu _q`$ and $`Q=2\pi /a`$. This spectrum can be understood if we note that the quarks are moving in a self-induced potential $`V(x)=2\sigma \mathrm{cos}(Qx)`$ through the stationary wave. Indeed, in the presence of such a potential the spectrum is banded with $`|k|\pi /a`$ representing the first Brillouin Zone ($`BZ`$-1). In weak coupling the spectrum is mostly free except at $`k=0,\pm \pi /a`$ where band-mixing is large. For $`\mu _q<Q`$ we can ignore most of the band mixing except for the lowest one near the edge of $`BZ`$-1. Degenerate perturbation theory gives readily

$`\left|\begin{array}{cc}k_0ϵ_k& \sigma \\ \sigma & k_0ϵ_{kQ}\end{array}\right|=0,`$ (24)
in agreement with (21). The $`2\times 2`$ character of (24) follows from mixing between two bands. As foot-noted above, it is analogous to the MFA where the band-mixing is treated in the extended description commonly used in weak-coupling band-structure calculations.

The quasiparticles of energy $`ϵ_{}`$ are characterized by a standing wave $`\psi _{}(x)\mathrm{cos}(\pi x/a)`$, and those of energy $`ϵ_+`$ are characterized by a standing wave $`\psi _+(x)\mathrm{sin}(\pi x/a)`$ near the edge of the Brillouin zone. The energy is substantially lowered by the standing wave $`\psi _{}(x)`$ with a probability density in opposite phase to the potential. The standing wave $`\psi _+(x)`$ corresponds to a probability density in phase with the potential, hence substantially more expensive energetically. At the edge of the zone, the two states are gapped by $`2\sigma `$. Clearly, the lowest energy state is reached by filling only those states corresponding to $`E_{}`$, that is by setting the Fermi energy at the gap. The ensuing state is an insulator.

In higher dimensions, the band-mixing becomes more intricate. However, in the weak-coupling approximation and for Fermi momenta in the vicinity of $`Q/2`$, higher intra-band mixing is small and we may just use the extended band-structure description which is equivalent to our mean-field treatment. The quasiparticle spectra $`ϵ_k^j`$ ($`j=0,\mathrm{},n_w`$) follow numerically from the poles of the propagator.Again, $`n_w`$ refers to the number of plane waves retained in $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{x})`$ with $`n_w/2`$ being typically the number of standing waves. Fig. 1 shows an example of 4 waves in $`\pm x`$ and $`\pm y`$ directions for the canonical value of the wave vector, $`Q=2p_F`$, with ($`\sigma _x=\sigma _y>0`$) and without ($`\sigma _x=\sigma _y=0`$) interactions. One clearly recognizes the formation of the gap close to the degeneracy point (level crossing) in the non-interacting case, which happens in the vicinity of the Fermi surface. For $`Q=p_F`$ (fig. 2) energy gain arises from an appreciable pushing down of the lowest level which lies rather deep within the Fermi sea. This is (partially) counteracted by an upward push of the upper branch which also corresponds to occupied states. Thus one expects the most beneficial configuration to be when the Fermi surface lies in between split levels.

### D Energy Budget and Periodicity

Solutions of the gap equations correspond to extrema (minima) in the energy density with respect to (wrt) the gap $`\sigma `$. However, solutions may exist for several values of the wave vector $`Q`$. To determine the minimum in the latter quantity, one has to take recourse to the explicit form of the free energy density. In MFA,

$`V_3\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _q,Q,\sigma )={\displaystyle d^3x\left(\frac{\sigma ^2(x)}{2\lambda }+q^{}(i\alpha 2\sigma (x)q)\right)},`$ (25)
where $`V_3`$ is the 3-volume. The first contribution removes the double counting from the fermionic contribution in the mean-field treatment. Retaining only the particle contribution (i.e., neglecting antiparticles), the free energy simplifies to

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _q,Q,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pot}(\mu _q,Q,\sigma )+\mathrm{\Omega }_{kin}(\mu _q,Q,\sigma )`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_w}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C(N_c,N_f)}{\lambda }}\sigma _j^2\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n_w}{}}}2N_cN_f{\displaystyle \underset{BZ1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}}ϵ_k^j\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ_k^j)`$ (27)
with color/flavor coefficients $`C(N_c,N_f)`$ which will depend on the concrete form of the pairing interaction. To avoid double counting the integration for the kinetic energy part is restricted to $`BZ`$-1 as defined by the momentum regions $`[\stackrel{}{Q}_j/2,\stackrel{}{Q}_j/2]`$ (as well as $`|\stackrel{}{k}|k_F`$). This amounts to a folding of the various branches into $`BZ`$-1 and enforces the explicit lattice periodicity onto the free energy. This point is illustrated in fig. 3 for the free case ($`\sigma 0`$) along one spatial direction. For fixed chemical potential smaller wave vectors require the inclusion of an increasing number of branches to correctly saturate the available states within the Fermi sea (through a multiple folding until the Fermi surface is reached). E.g., for $`\mu _q3Q/2`$ the lowest two harmonics with $`k_x\pm Q_x`$ suffice. Above, the next two higher harmonics with $`k_x\pm 2Q_x`$ are necessary to encompass the occupied energy states within $`BZ`$-1 up to $`\mu _q5Q/2`$, and so forth. When using additional waves in other spatial directions similar criteria hold (albeit more complicated due to nontrivial angular dependencies).

Solutions of the gap equations in general support different pairs of $`\{\sigma ,Q\}`$; the combination that minimizes $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _q,Q,\sigma )`$ is the thermodynamically favored one. Note that the gap equations are not subject to explicit momentum restrictions since off-shell momenta of arbitrary magnitude can in principle contribute.

As a simple example, (27) can be explicitly computed in 1+1 dimensions by recalling that the Fermi surface coincides with the gap, i.e., $`\omega _{k_F}=\mu _q=k_F=Q/2`$. Specifically, the contribution from the Fermi sea is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{kin}=\rho ϵ_F\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{1+\xi ^2}+\xi ^2\mathrm{ln}(\xi +\sqrt{1+\xi ^2})\right)\right),`$ (28)
with $`\xi =\sigma /Q`$ and a density $`\rho =dk_F/\pi `$ where $`d`$ is the overall degeneracy. In MFA, the induced standing wave is $`\sigma (x)=2\sigma \mathrm{cos}(Qx)`$, and the double counting in the Fermi sea is removed by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pot}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\sigma ^2(x)}{2\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\lambda }}.`$ (29)
The minimum value of $`\sigma `$ can be obtained in this case analytically by minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{kin}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{pot}`$.

## III Nonperturbative Forces and Results

For the actual calculations we need to specify the quantum numbers of the pairing channels. To do so we take guidance from low- (or zero-) density phenomenology encoded in effective 4-point interactions. In the particle-hole channel the strongest attraction is in the ’$`\sigma `$’ channel given by (including exchange terms )

$$_{mes}^\sigma =\frac{\lambda }{8N_c^2}(q\overline{q})^2,$$
(30)
whereas in the particle-particle channel it is believed to be the scalar diquark in the color-antitriplet channel (which, in fact, arises from a Fierz-transformation of (30)),

$$_{diq}^{\overline{3}}=\frac{\lambda }{8N_c^2(N_c1)}(q^TC\gamma _5\tau _2\lambda _A^aq)(\overline{q}\tau _2\lambda _A^a\gamma _5C\overline{q}^T)$$
(31)
($`C`$: charge conjugation matrix, $`\lambda _A^a`$: antisymmetric color matrices, $`\tau _2`$: SU(2)-flavor matrix). For practical use the effective vertices have to be supplemented with ultraviolet cutoffs. In the following we will consider two variants thereof and discuss the pertinent results for the coupled Overhauser/BCS equations.

### A NJL Treatment

In a widely used class of Nambu-Jona Lasinio models the ultraviolet behavior of the pointlike vertices is regulated by 3- or 4-momentum multipole formfactors (or even sharp $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-functions). We here employ a dipole form,

$$F(p)=\left(\frac{\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }^2+p^2}\right)^\nu $$
(32)
($`\nu =2`$), for each in- and outgoing quark line with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$ GeV as a typical ’chiral’ scale (variations within such parametrizations do not affect our qualitative conclusions in this section). The coupling constant $`\lambda =67`$ fm2 is calibrated to a constituent quark mass of $`M_q=0.4`$ GeV in vacuum. Note that there is no well-defined way of introducing density dependencies into the interaction. Since at finite $`\mu _q`$ the relevant quark interactions occur at the Fermi surface, a formfactor of type (32) implies the loss of interaction strength with increasing $`p_F`$.

This schematic treatment has been shown to yield robust results for 2-flavor BCS pairing with gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.1`$ GeV at quark chemical potentials around 0.5 GeV . Including now the $`p`$-$`h`$ pairing as outlined in the previous section we find only rather fragile evidence for the emergence of chiral density waves (at $`\mu _q=0.4`$ GeV): for wave vectors $`Q_x0.150`$ GeV the rhs of the Overhauser gap equation supports solutions with gaps around $`5`$ MeV. The smallness of $`Q_x`$ in fact requires six waves (with $`k\pm nQ_x`$, $`n`$=1,2,3) to fill all states within the Fermi sphere. Somewhat more robust solutions are obtained when increasing the 4-fermion coupling constant. E.g., with a vacuum constituent quark mass of $`M_q=0.5`$ GeV, which implies $`\lambda =73`$ fm2, the minimum solution emerges for $`Q_x0.2`$ GeV and $`\sigma 20`$ MeV. However, the gain in the total free energy is very small: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.297310^3`$ GeV-4 as compared to the free Fermi gas value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.296910^3`$ GeV-4 (to be contrasted with the BCS ground state for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{BCS}(\mu _q=0.4\mathrm{GeV})1.37510^3`$ GeV-4 at a pairing gap of $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.13`$ GeV).

We also checked that the incorporation of waves in other spatial directions does not lead to further energy gain.

### B Instanton Approach at Finite Chemical Potential

A more microscopic origin of effective 4-fermion interactions is provided within the instanton framework. In the finite-density context it has previously been employed to study the competition between the chiral condensate and two-flavor superconducting quark matter in refs. . Let us briefly recall some elements of the approach. The starting point is the QCD partition function in instanton approximation,

$$𝒵_{inst}(\mu _q)=\frac{1}{N_+!N_{}!}\underset{I=1}{\overset{N_+,N_{}}{}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_In(\rho _I)e^{S_{int}^{gluon}}\left[det(i\overline{)}Di\mu _q\gamma _4)\right]^{N_f},$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I=\{\mathrm{\Theta }_I,\rho _I,z_I\}`$ denote the collective coordinates (color, size and position) of the instanton solutions and $`n(\rho _I)`$ their individual weight. To extract effective quark interactions one reintroduces quark fields in a way that is compatible with the fermionic determinant of the previous equation ,

$$𝒵_{inst}(\mu _q)=𝒟\psi 𝒟\psi ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left[d^4x\psi ^{}(i\overline{)}i\mu _q\gamma _4)\psi \right]\frac{d\lambda _\pm }{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\lambda _\pm Y_\pm +N_\pm \left(\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{N_\pm }{\lambda _\pm V_4}\right]1\right)\right],$$
(34)
and an additional auxiliary integration over $`\lambda _\pm `$ has been introduced to exponentiate the effective (2$`N_f`$)-fermion vertices $`Y_\pm `$. For two flavors the latter are given by

$`\lambda _\pm Y_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\pm {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4p_1d^4p_2}{(2\pi )^{16}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(k_1+p_1k_2p_2)}`$ (36)
$`\times \left[\psi ^{}^{}(p_1,\mu _q)\gamma _\pm \tau _a^{}(k_1,\mu _q)\psi \right]\left[\psi ^{}^{}(p_2,\mu _q)\gamma _\pm \tau _a^{}(k_2,\mu _q)\psi \right]`$
with $`\gamma _\pm =(1\pm \gamma _5)`$, flavor matrices $`\tau _\alpha =(\stackrel{}{\tau },i)`$ and the instanton formfactors $`(p,\mu _q)=(p+i\mu _q)^{}\phi (p,\mu _q)^+`$, which are matrices in Dirac space, adopting the notation of ref. , i.e., $`x^\pm x_\mu \sigma _\mu ^\pm `$ with $`\sigma _\mu ^\pm (\pm \stackrel{}{\sigma },1)`$. Since the fermionic determinant has been approximated by its zero-mode part, the formfactors are entirely determined by the Fourier-transformed quark zero-mode wave functions,

$`\varphi _{I,A}(p,\mu _q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}\varphi _{I,A}(x,\mu _q)}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\phi (p,\mu _q)^\pm \chi _{R,L}`$ (38)
with $`\varphi (x,\mu _q)`$ satisfying the Dirac equation in the background of an (anti-) instanton,

$$\overline{)}D_{I,A}\varphi _{I,A}(x)=0.$$
(39)
The explicit form of $`\phi _\mu (p,\mu _q)`$ can be found in refs. .

As before we preselect the potential condensation channels as the scalar-isoscalar $`p`$-$`h`$ and $`p`$-$`p`$ ones which, after solving the (matrix) Dyson equation, yields the coupled gap equations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i)\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}B(p;\mu _q)F(p;\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)}`$ (40)
$`\left(\sigma _x+5\delta \sigma _x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i)\lambda }{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}A(p,Q_x;\mu _q)}S_x(p;\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)`$ (41)
$`\left(\sigma _{3,x}10\delta \sigma _x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i)\lambda }{N_c}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}A(p,Q_x;\mu _q)S_x(p;\mathrm{\Delta }0,\sigma _{3,j},Q_j).`$ (42)
Here, $`\delta \sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _{3,j}`$ denotes the difference in the Overhauser gaps for quarks of color 1,2 ($`\sigma _j`$) or color 3 ($`\sigma _{3,j}`$) which, respectively, do (eq. (41)) or do not (eq. (42)) participate in the diquark pairing (once $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. In principle, the wave vectors in the color-1,2 and color-3 channels could also be different when minimizing the free energy. However, the actual solutions for $`\sigma _j`$ and $`\sigma _{3,j}`$ turn out to be very close to each other even in the presence of large BCS gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so that the generically very smooth dependence on the $`Q_j`$ should not cause appreciable deviations between the two color sectors. Under our simplifying assumption that the momentum moduli $`|Q_j|`$ (as well as the associated gap parameters $`\sigma _j`$) of the Overhauser pairing are of equal magnitude the additional $`(2n_w2)`$ gap equations for the other $`p`$-$`h`$ channels are equivalent to (41) and (42). The explicit form of the propagators is given by

$`S_x(p,\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)`$ $`=`$ $`A(p,Q_x;\mu _q)\sigma _x(p,Q_x)G_0(p+Q_x)D(p,\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)`$ (43)
$`F(p,\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)`$ $`=`$ $`B(p;\mu _q)\mathrm{\Delta }(p)\overline{G}_0(p)D(p,\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)`$ (44)
with

$$D(p,\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _j,Q_j)=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(p)^2\overline{G}_0(p)G_0^1(p)+\underset{j}{}\sigma _j(p,Q_j)^2G_0(p+Q_j)\right]^1.$$
(45)
The functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ represent the (square of the) instanton form factors (normalized to one in vacuum) acting on each fermion line entering/exiting a vertex, and we have introduced the notation $`\sigma _j(p;Q_j)\sigma _jA(p;Q_j)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }B(p)`$. The integration variable $`\lambda \lambda _\pm `$ plays the role of an effective coupling constant, which, however, is not a priori fixed. Rather, its value is found from minimization of the free energy via a saddle point condition, which reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{V}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda Y_++Y_{},`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}[2N_c^2{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4N_c(N_c1)\mathrm{\Delta }^2],`$ (47)
where $`Y_++Y_{}`$ denotes the ground state expectation value of the interaction vertices with potential condensates. Thus the magnitude of the gaps itself governs the effective coupling to the instantons. In the present treatment the instanton density $`N/V`$ is assumed to be constant.§§§This assumption is motivated by the observation that the free energy associated with the instanton vacuum (background) is rather large compared to interaction corrections arising in the finite-density quark sector. It is corroborated by explicit calculations in the ’cocktail model’ of ref. , where the grand potential has been minimized explicitly over both the properties of the instanton ensemble as well as quark Fermi sphere: the resulting variations in the total $`N/V`$ where found to be at the few percent level. However, the assertion of constant $`N/V`$ can imply unphysical behavior when the system is driven towards very large or very small pairing gaps. The final result for the free energy at the minimum then becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _q)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}𝒵}{V}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{kin}(\mu _q)+\frac{N}{V}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\lambda }{(N/V)}\right],$$
(48)
indicating that the potential (second) term favors small values for $`\lambda `$, whereas the kinetic (first) term exhibits the usual decrease with increasing values for the gaps/condensates (and thus for $`\lambda `$). We should also point out that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _q)`$ is only determined up to an overall constant which is associated with the nonperturbative vacuum energy of about $`0.5`$ GeV/fm3 (or, equivalently, bag pressure $`P`$$`>`$0). This term is encoded in the scale dependence of the argument in the logarithm (note that $`\lambda `$ and $`N/V`$ have different dimensions), which we have not assessed here since it is not relevant for our analysis (this will be the origin of positive values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _q)`$ encountered below).

Before we come to the numerical solutions of the gap equations let us recall the specific density dependence of the instanton formfactors, cf. fig. 4. At fixed energy (upper panel) the strength of the interaction is clearly concentrated at the Fermi surface: the falloff with three-mometum sets in only above $`pp_F`$. On the other hand, as a function of (Euclidean) energy the strength is reduced starting from $`p_4=0`$ (see lower panel). These features reflect that the instanton zero-modes, which mediate the interaction, operate across the Fermi surface, i.e., at zero energy but at 3-momenta equal to the Fermi momentum. This behavior is quite distinct from the schematic (density-independent) NJL forces employed in the previous section. Already at this point one can anticipate the Overhauser pairing to be more competitive than in the NJL treatment.

For the evaluation of the kinetic part of the free energy as given in eq. (27) a complication arises from the fact that the the instanton formfactors are defined in Euclidean space. We therefore approximated the gaps entering into the integral for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{kin}`$ by their zero-energy values retaining the 3-momentum dependence, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p})=\mathrm{\Delta }B(p_4=0,\stackrel{}{p})`$, and equivalently for $`\sigma `$. It turns out that this approximation is consistent in the sense that the resulting extrema in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are in line with the solutions of the gap equations (which are solved in Euclidean space with the full 4-momentum dependence of the formfactors). Other choices for fixing $`p_4`$ do not comply with this criterium.

If not otherwise stated, the subsequent calculations have been performed for a total instanton density of $`N/V=1`$ fm-4 which in vacuum translates into a constituent quark mass of $`M_q=0.34`$ GeV. The search for simultaneous solutions to the gap equations (40), (41) and (42) together with the selfconsistency condition on the coupling, eq. (47), is illustrated in fig. 5. The upper two curves represent the values for $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _3`$ that simulatneuosly solve the two Overhauser gap eqs. (41) and (42) at given BCS gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (plotted on the abscissa). The lower curve indicates the values for $`\sigma `$ that solve the BCS gap eq. (40) for given $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (using the value for $`\sigma _3`$ from the upper curve to fix the coupling $`\lambda `$). Thus a coexistence state of Overhauser and BCS pairing would be signalled by the crossing of the two lower lines. As mentioned above no such state is found; the only physical solutions correspond to the crossing points of the upper (full or dashed) curve with the $`y`$-axis (Overhauser state with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, $`\sigma =\sigma _3`$ finite) and of the lower (dashed-dotted) curve with the $`x`$-axis (BCS state with $`\sigma =\sigma _3=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.225`$ GeV; the discrepancy of about 15% (less at higher $`\mu _q`$) with refs.  reflects the accuracy when neglecting antiparticle states).

The question then is which one is thermodynamically favored. The BCS solution is unique ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.225`$ GeV) and gives a total free energy of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{BCS}(\mu _q=0.4\mathrm{GeV})=2.310^3`$ GeV4 (up to a constant which is not relevant here, as discussed above).

The situation is more involved for the Overhauser configurations. Let us start with the ’canonical’ case where the momentum vector of the chiral density waves is fixed at twice the Fermi momentum, $`Q=2p_F`$. In fig. 6 the resulting minimized free energy (corresponding to solutions of eq. (41)) is displayed as function of the number of included waves. The Overhauser solutions are not far above the BCS groundstate, with a slight energy gain for an increased number of waves.

However, one can further economize the energy of the Overhauser state by exploiting the freedom associated with the wave vector $`Q`$ (or, equivalently, the periodicity of the lattice). For $`Q>2p_F`$ the free energy rapidly increases. On the other hand, for $`Q<2p_F`$ more favorable configurations are found. To correctly assess them one has to include the waves in pairs $`|k\pm Q_j|`$ of standing waves (i.e., $`n_w=2,4,6,\mathrm{}`$) to ensure that the occupied states in the Fermi sea are saturated within the first Brillouin Zone (cf. fig. 3). The lowest-lying state we could find at $`\mu _q=0.4`$ GeV occurs for one standing wave with $`Q_{min}0.5`$ GeV and $`\sigma 0.21`$ GeV with a free energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }2.310^3`$ GeV4, practically degenerate with the BCS solution. In solid state physics the breaking of translational invariance in one spatial direction is typically associated with ’liquid crystals’, i.e., 2-dimensional layers of (uniform) liquid separated by periodic spacings of $`a=2\pi /Q`$. In our case, $`a2.5`$ fm. The minimum in the wave vector is in fact rather shallow, as seen from the explicit momentum dependence of the free energy displayed in fig. 7.

Finally we confront in fig. 8 the density dependence of the free energies (upper panel) and pairing gaps (lower panel) in the minimum of the BCS and $`n_w`$=2,6 Overhauser states. Again we see that over the applicable $`\mu _q`$-range the solutions are close in energy, with (almost) degenerate minima for the $`n_w`$=2-’liquid crystal’ and the BCS ground state at the lower densities of $`\rho _B4\rho _0`$. Towards higher densities, where the gaps and thus the strength of the effective instanton interactions decrease, the BCS solution becomes relatively more favorable. This confirms once more that in the 3+1 dimensions the Overhauser pairing can only compete for sufficiently strong coupling. We should also note that for both the $`n_w`$=2- and $`n_w`$=6-case as displayed the optimal momentum vector of the pertinent standing waves stays at approximate values of $`Q_j5p_F/4`$ and $`5p_F/3`$, respectively.

## IV Concluding Remarks

Employing a standard Nambu-Gorkov (matrix) propagator approach we have performed an analysis of competing instabtilities in the particle-particle and particle-hole channel for three-color, two-flavor QCD at moderate quark densities. As an essential ingredient we used nonperturbative forces (strong coupling) and preselected the potential condensation channels with guidance from low-energy hadron phenomenology, i.e., both the diquark as well as the quark-hole pairing were evaluated in their scalar-isoscalar channels. The corresponding coupled gap equations do not seem do support simultaneous nontrivial solutions. Needless to say that our calculations might be further improved by including higher standing waves through a larger class of crystalline symmetries (polyhedron structures). Also, our mean-field approximation may be extended to account for higher intra-band mixings when $`2\mu _q>Q`$.

This not withstanding, an important outcome of our calculation is that the individual (separate) solutions for the BCS and Overhauser ground states are quite close in energy, indicating the importance of particle-hole instabilities when using interaction strengths as typical for low-energy hadronic binding. This becomes particularly evident when comparing schematic NJL interactions with microscopic instanton forces: whereas the former are reduced in magnitude with increasing density (entailing a relative suppression of the Overhauser pairing), the density-dependent instanton form factors essentially preserve their strength at the Fermi surface rendering the Overhauser pairing competitive. Indeed, with a somewhat larger instanton-density of $`N/V=1.4`$ fm-4, corresponding to a vacuum constituent quark mass of $`M_q=0.41`$ GeV, the Overhauser solution reaches below the BCS one. On the other hand, if we were to minimally account for strange quarks, the instanton interaction (being a 6-quark vertex) in the $`ud`$ sector would lose about 60% of its strength due to the reduced strange-quark mass ($`m_s`$ 0.15 GeV as opposed to $`M_s0.45`$ GeV in vacuum) in closing-off the strange quark line. Some of this loss might be recovered once strange quarks themselves participate in the Overhauser pairing. Our findings are to be contrasted with earlier calculations based on perturbative OGE at high densities where an extremely large number of colors was required for the Overhauser pairing (i.e., a chiral density wave) to overcome the BCS instability.

Finally, a remark about the relevance of our results for neutron stars is in order. Here, quark matter is believed to reside mostly in a mixed phase, with significant charge separation between quark and nuclear components. The quark core, however, also exhibits charge asymmetry due to the finite strange quark mass. Consequently, quark matter should have appreciably different up- and down-quark chemical potentials, which suppresses the flavor-singlet diquark ($`ud`$) pairing . On the other hand, such a suppression does not apply to the (flavor-singlet) particle-hole channels of type $`uu^1`$, $`dd^1`$, which suggests that isopin asymmetric quark matter provides additional favor to the chiral crystal.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank M. Alford, G. Carter, K. Rajagopal and A. Wirzba for useful discussions. This work was supported by DOE grant No. DE-FG02-88ER40388.