text:
# Complex structures on some Stiefel manifolds

## 1. Introduction

The Stiefel manifolds $`V_k(^{n+1})`$ of orthonormal $`k`$-frames in $`^{n+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{2h}(^{n+1})`$ of oriented orthonormal real $`2h`$-frames in $`^{n+1}`$ appear in the classical work of H.-C. Wang  as examples of compact manifolds that admit an infinite family of inequivalent homogeneous complex structures, described by a real parameter. The class of homogeneous manifolds with this property, all non-kählerian, includes also compact simple Lie groups, studied in this respect almost simultaneously by H. Samelson . More recently, both Wang’s and Samelson’s work inspired remarkable constructions of both homogeneous and inhomogeneous hypercomplex structures on some classes of manifolds that include $`V_2(^{n+1})`$: , .

The aim of this note is to present a simple construction of an infinite family of homogeneous complex structures - this time described by a complex parameter - on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$, $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)/Sp(1)`$, the latter two manifolds being special Stiefel with respect to the geometry of the Cayley numbers. This construction was suggested by our work on the geometry of the zero level set of some moment maps defined on the quaternionic projective space , where some diagrams involve these Stiefel manifolds and a definition on them of a complex structure in the Calabi-Eckmann spirit is quite natural.

The construction of a complex structure on the total space of an induced Hopf $`S^1`$-bundle over a Sasakian manifold is classical. Locally, one makes the product between the Sasakian structure of the base manifold and the standard one of the circle. By a similar technique, one can produce a hypercomplex structure on the total space of a framed $`S^1`$-bundle over a 3-Sasakian manifold, and this is the way to obtain the uncountably many hypercomplex structures on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ .

In Proposition 2.1 below we carry on a similar construction, but using one of the Sasakian structures in the the standard $`3`$-Sasakian structure of the unit sphere $`S^3`$ that is the fiber of an induced Hopf bundle over a Sasakian manifold.

This construction can be applied to some Sasakian manifolds that turn out to be the zero level sets of some moment maps defined on the quaternionic projective space. Again, the Sasakian structures are here induced by that of a sphere, now $`S^{2N+1}`$, by means of appropriate induced Hopf circle bundles. With these Sasakian manifolds as base spaces, our method provides a complex structure on the Stiefel manifolds $`V_2(^{n+1})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$, $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)/Sp(1)`$ (Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 5.1). But then, it is not difficult to see that such a complex structure is not unique: since everything is defined by means of induced Hopf bundles, a parallelization is induced on the fibers of a bundle in Hopf surfaces. For the simplest case, of $`V_2(^{n+1})`$, this bundle is just the projection $`V_2(^{n+1})Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ to the corresponding Grassmannian. Thus on the fibers $`S^3\times S^1`$ one can choose any complex structure that insures the integrability of the defined almost complex structure on the whole total space. The family of complex structures on $`S^3\times S^1`$ that is studied in  has this property.

As already recalled, $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ admits also a family of generally inhomogeneous hypercomplex structures that contains a subfamily of homogeneneous hypercomplex structures depending on a real parameter . As a comparison with them, we can say that all complex structures in our family (now described by a complex parameter), project to the complex Kähler structure of $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$. Thus, since this latter complex structure is not compatible with the quaternion Kähler structure of this Grassmannian, it follows that any of our complex structures on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ is non-compatible with its standard hypercomplex structures described in  and .

Acknowledgement.  We thank Paul Gauduchon for suggesting us to use also non-standard complex structures on our fibers $`S^3\times S^1`$.

## 2. A complex structure on some induced Hopf $`S^3`$-bundle

In this paragraph we present the key technical steps for what follows.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`B`$ be a compact real submanifold of $`P^n`$ and let $`\pi :PB`$ be the principal $`S^3`$-bundle induced over $`B`$ by the Hopf bundle $`S^{4n+3}P^n`$. If $`B`$ admits a Sasakian structure $`(\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,g^B)`$, then one can endow $`P`$ with an almost Hermitian structure.

###### Proof.

We let $`P`$ have the natural pulled back metric $`g`$ with respect to which $`\pi `$ becomes a Riemannian submersion with totally geodesic fibers (, Theorem 9.59). For any $`X𝒳(B)`$ we denote with $`X^{}`$ its horizontal lift on $`P`$. Let $`\xi _1`$, $`\xi _2`$, $`\xi _3`$ be the unit Killing vector fields which give the usual $`3`$-Sasakian structure of $`S^3`$ (namely, if we think about $`S^3`$ as embedded in $`^4`$, $`\xi _1(x)=ix`$, $`\xi _2(x)=jx`$, $`\xi _3(x)=kx`$ where $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$ are the unit imaginary quaternions) and let $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$, $`\eta _3`$ be their duals with respect to the canonical metric of $`S^3`$. We regard the $`\xi _i`$ as vector fields on $`P`$. Let $`\widehat{\eta }_i`$ be their dual forms with respect to the metric $`g`$; their restrictions to any fibre coincide with the $`\eta _i`$. The usual splitting of $`TP𝒱`$ into vertical and horizontal parts is now refined to

$$TP\text{span}\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3\}\text{span}\{\xi ^{}\}^{},$$

where $`^{}`$ represents the horizontal vector fields orthogonal to $`\xi ^{}`$. We now define an almost complex structure $`J`$ on $`P`$ by:

* $`J\xi _1=\xi _2,J\xi _2=\xi _1`$,
* $`J\xi _3=\xi ^{},J\xi ^{}=\xi _3`$,
* $`JX^{}=(\phi X)^{}`$ for any $`X𝒳(B)`$ orthogonal to $`\xi `$.

As for $`X\xi `$, $`X^{}`$ is a section of $`^{}`$ and the restriction of $`\phi `$ to $`\xi ^{}`$ is an endomorphism of $`\xi ^{}`$, the last item in the definition is consistent. One easily shows that $`J^2=1`$ and is compatible with $`g`$. ∎

To study the integrability of $`J`$ we first compute its Nijenhuis tensor field:

$$[J,J](A_1,A_2)=[A_1,A_2]+J[JA_1,A_2]+J[A_1,JA_2][JA_1,JA_2],A_1,A_2𝒳(P).$$

As in , we analyse separately the different possible positions of $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$. We recall that, due to the tensorial character of $`[J,J]`$, when dealing with horizontal vector fields it is enough to work with basic ones whereas we always can take the $`\xi _i`$ as vertical fields.

1. Let first $`A_1=X^{}`$, $`A_2=Y^{}`$. The bracket of two basic fields $`X^{},Y^{}`$ decomposes as

$$[X^{},Y^{}]=[X^{},Y^{}]^{}+\widehat{\eta }([X^{},Y^{}])\xi ^{}+\text{vertical part}.$$

where the  denotes the $`^{}`$ part. By $`\pi `$-corelation, $`[X^{},Y^{}]=[X,Y]^{}^{}`$. Moreover, the usual formula for the exterior derivative of a one-form $`d\widehat{\eta }(A_1,A_2)=A_1(\widehat{\eta }(A_2))A_2(\widehat{\eta }(A_1))\widehat{\eta }([A_1,A_2])`$ combined with $`\widehat{\eta }(X^{})=\widehat{\eta }(Y^{})=0`$ (as $`X\xi `$ implies $`X^{}\xi ^{}`$), we have

$$\widehat{\eta }([X^{},Y^{}])=d\widehat{\eta }(X^{},Y^{}).$$

The vertical part of $`[X^{},Y^{}]`$ must be of the form $`_{i=1}^3a_i([X^{},Y^{}])\xi _i`$. Making the scalar product of (2) with $`\xi _j`$, we find that $`a_i=\widehat{\eta }_i`$. Hence

$$[X^{},Y^{}]=[X^{},Y^{}]^{}d\widehat{\eta }(X^{},Y^{})\xi ^{}d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},Y^{})\xi _i.$$

Similarly we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [JX^{},Y^{}]& =[(\phi X)^{},Y^{}]=[\phi X,Y]^{}^{}\hfill \\ & d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},Y^{})\xi ^{}d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},Y^{})\xi _i,\hfill \\ \hfill J[JX^{},Y^{}]& =(\phi [\phi X,Y])^{}{}_{}{}^{}+d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},Y^{})\xi _3\hfill \\ & d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},Y^{})\xi _2+d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},Y^{})\xi _1d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},Y^{})\xi ^{}\hfill \\ \hfill J[X^{},JY^{}]& =(\phi [X,\phi Y])^{}{}_{}{}^{}+d\widehat{\eta }(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\xi _3\hfill \\ & d\widehat{\eta }_1(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\xi _2+d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\xi _1d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\xi ^{},\hfill \\ \hfill [JX^{},JY^{}]& =[\phi X,\phi Y]^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})\xi ^{}d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})\xi _i\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence we find

(2.1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,& J](X^{},Y^{})=[\phi X,\phi Y]^{}^{}\hfill \\ & \left\{d\widehat{\eta }(X^{},Y^{})d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi ^{}\hfill \\ & +\left\{d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_1(X^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi _1\hfill \\ & +\left\{d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},Y^{})d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},Y^{})d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi _2\hfill \\ & +\left\{d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi _3\hfill \end{array}$$

As we know $`[\phi X,\phi Y]+2d\eta (X,Y)\xi =0`$ (this is the normality condition of the Sasakian structure of $`B`$) the horizontal lift of this (null) tensor field is zero, hence also its component in $`^{}`$ is zero. But this is precisely $`[\phi X,\phi Y]^{}^{}`$.

On the other hand, on any Sasakian manifold one has:

$$d\eta (X,Y)=g(X,\phi Y),\phi ^2X=X+\eta (X)\xi $$

hence $`d\eta (X,\phi Y)+d\eta (\phi X,Y)=0`$ and $`d\eta (\phi X,\phi Y)d\eta (X,Y)=0`$. By horizontally lifting these equations we get $`d\widehat{\eta }(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})+d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},Y^{})=0`$ and $`d\widehat{\eta }((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }(X,Y)=0`$. Hence (2.1) reduces to:

(2.2)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,& J](X^{},Y^{})=\hfill \\ & \left\{d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi ^{}\hfill \\ & +\left\{d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_1(X^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi _1\hfill \\ & +\left\{d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},Y^{})d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},Y^{})d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})\right\}\xi _2\hfill \\ & +\left\{d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},Y^{})\right\}\xi _3\hfill \end{array}$$

We note that $`d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},Y^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},(\phi Y)^{})=0`$ iff $`d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},Y^{})=0`$ (because we can lift $`\phi `$ to $`P`$ by defining $`\widehat{\phi }X^{}=(\phi X)^{}`$ and then $`\widehat{\phi }`$ satisfies $`(\widehat{\phi })^2X^{}=X^{}+\widehat{\eta }(X^{})\xi ^{}`$).

Hence, in order to annihilate the $`\xi ^{}`$ and $`\xi _i`$ components, it is enough to impose the condition:

(2.3)
$$d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})=d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},Y^{}).$$

2. We now consider the case $`A_1=X^{}`$, $`A_2=\xi ^{}`$ ($`X\xi `$). Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,J](X^{},\xi ^{})& =[X^{},\xi ^{}]+J[JX^{},\xi ^{}]+J[X^{},J\xi ^{}][JX^{},J\xi ^{}]=\hfill \\ & =[X^{},\xi ^{}]+J[(\phi X)^{},\xi ^{}]J[X^{},\xi _3]+[(\phi X)^{},\xi _3]\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we note two wellknown facts :

a) On any Riemannian submersion the bracket between a vertical field and a basic field is vertical. Hence the brackets $`[X^{},\xi _3]`$ and $`[(\phi X)^{},\xi _3]`$ are vertical.

b) For any connection in a principal bundle, the bracket between a horizontal field and a vertical one is horizontal.

As $`PB`$ is an induced $`S^3`$ Hopf bundle, the horizontal distribution of the submersion $``$ is also the horizontal distribution of a $`sp(1)`$-connection (note that in , when dealing with framed circle bundles, not necessarily induced bundles, this had to be adopted as a hypothesis). Consequently, $`[X^{},\xi _3]=[(\phi X)^{},\xi _3]=0`$.

It remains to compute the first two terms in the expression of $`[J,J](X^{},\xi ^{})`$. We have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X^{},\xi ^{}]& =[X,\xi ]^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},\xi ^{})\xi _i,\hfill \\ \hfill [(\phi X)^{},\xi ^{}]& =[\phi X,\xi ]^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})\xi _i,\hfill \\ \hfill J[(\phi X)^{},\xi ^{}]& =(\phi [\phi X,\xi ])^{}^{}\hfill \\ & d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})\xi _1+d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})\xi _2d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})\xi _3.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,J](X^{},& \xi ^{})=([X,\xi ]+\phi [\phi X,\xi ])^{}^{}d\widehat{\eta }_3((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})\xi ^{}\hfill \\ & +(d\widehat{\eta }_2((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})d\widehat{\eta }_1(X^{},\xi ^{}))\xi _1(d\widehat{\eta }_1((\phi X)^{},\xi ^{})+d\widehat{\eta }_2(X^{},\xi ^{}))\xi _2\hfill \\ & d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},\xi ^{})\xi _3\hfill \end{array}$$

We recall that on a Sasakian manifold $`\phi \xi =0`$. Thus we can add to the first paranthesis the terms $`[X,\phi \xi ][\phi X,\phi \xi ]`$ obtaining $`([X,\xi ]+\phi [\phi X,\xi ]+\phi [X,\phi \xi ][\phi X,\phi \xi ])^{}^{}`$ = $`([\phi ,\phi ](X,\xi ))^{}{}_{}{}^{}=0`$ by the normality condition on $`B`$.

Hence, in order to have $`[J,J](X^{},\xi ^{})=0`$ it is enough to ask

(2.4)
$$d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},\xi ^{})=0,X\xi $$

3. We now choose $`A_1=X^{}`$ and $`A_2=\xi _i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). For $`i=1`$ (the other case is completely similar) we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,J](X^{},\xi _1)& =[X^{},\xi _1]+J[JX^{},\xi _1]+J[X^{},J\xi _1][JX^{},J\xi _1]=\hfill \\ & =[X^{},\xi _1]+J[(\phi X)^{},\xi _1]J[X^{},\xi _2][(\phi X)^{},\xi _2]=0\hfill \end{array}$$

because (see above) all the brackets are both vertical and horizontal.

4. For $`A_1=X^{}`$ and $`A_2=\xi _3`$ we find:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,J](X^{},\xi _3)& =[X^{},\xi _3]+J[JX^{},\xi _3]+J[X^{},J\xi _3][JX^{},J\xi _3]=\hfill \\ & =J[X^{},\xi ^{}][(\phi X)^{},\xi ^{}]\hfill \end{array}$$

The horizontal component of the reamining two brackets is $`([\phi [X,\xi ][\phi X,\xi ])^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},\xi ^{})\xi _{}`$. By normality, $`\eta (X)=0`$, $`\phi \xi =0`$ and $`d\eta (\phi X,\xi )=0`$ we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0=[\phi ,\phi ]& (\phi X,\xi )+2d\eta (\phi X,\xi )=[\phi X,\xi ]+\phi [\phi ^2X,\xi ]+\phi [\phi X,\phi \xi ][\phi ^2X,\phi \xi ]\hfill \\ & =[\phi X,\xi ]+\phi [X+\eta (X)\xi ,\xi ]=[\phi [X,\xi ][\phi X,\xi ]\hfill \end{array}$$

We deduce that $`([\phi [X,\xi ][\phi X,\xi ])^{}{}_{}{}^{}=0`$, hence, as $`d\widehat{\eta }_3(X^{},\xi ^{})=0`$ according to (2.4), the horizontal part of $`[J,J](X^{},\xi _3)`$ is zero. Moreover, the same equation (2.4) annihilates the vertical components.

5. Direct computation shows that in the remaining ”mixed” case $`[J,J](\xi _i,\xi ^{})=0`$ if $`[\xi _i,\xi ^{}]=0`$ ($`i=1,2,3)`$. As these brackets are vertical, their annulation is equivalent with $`\widehat{\eta }_k([\xi _i,\xi ^{}])=0`$, $`k=1,2,3`$. Again using the expression of $`d\widehat{\eta }_k`$ we see that we have to consider the condition:

(2.5)
$$d\widehat{\eta }_k(\xi _i,\xi ^{})=0i,k=1,2,3.$$

6. We are left with the computation of $`[J,J]`$ on vertical fields. Obviously $`[J,J](\xi _1,\xi _2)=0`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [J,J](\xi _1,\xi _3)& =[\xi _1,\xi _3]+J[J\xi _1,\xi _3]+J[\xi _1,J\xi _3][J\xi _1,J\xi _3]\hfill \\ & =[\xi _1\xi 3]+J[\xi _2,\xi _3]+J[\xi _1,\xi ^{}][\xi _2,\xi ^{}]\hfill \\ & =2\xi _2+2J\xi _1+J[\xi _1,\xi ^{}][\xi _2,\xi ^{}]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

by (2.5). The case $`A_1=\xi _2`$, $`A_2=\xi _3`$ is similar. Summing up we have proved:

###### Proposition 2.2.

The following conditions are sufficient for the almost complex structure defined in Proposition 2.1 to be integrable:

1) $`d\widehat{\eta }_k(\xi _i,\xi ^{})=0i,k=1,2,3.`$

2) $`d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},\xi ^{})=0`$, for any $`X\xi `$ and $`i=1,2,3`$.

3) $`d\widehat{\eta }_i((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})=d\widehat{\eta }_i(X^{},Y^{})`$ for any $`X,Y\xi `$ and $`i=1,2,3`$.

Observe now that $`d\widehat{\eta }_k`$ can be identified as the vertical parts of the curvature form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the $`sp(1)`$ connection $``$. Moreover:

###### Proposition 2.3.

$``$ is an $`sp(1)`$ connection if and only if the vector fields $`\xi _i`$ are Killing on $`(P,g)`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $``$ is a connection iff for any $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ and any vertical $`V`$, the brackets $`[X,V]`$ are horizontal. As any horizontal field is of the form $`aX^{}+b\xi ^{}`$, we have $`[a\xi ^{}+bX^{},V]=a[\xi ^{},V]V(a)\xi ^{}+b[X^{},V]V(b)X^{}`$ hence $`[a\xi ^{}+bX^{},V]`$ is horizontal iff $`[\xi ^{},V]`$ and $`[X^{},V]`$ are horizontal. We can take $`V=\xi _i`$. The above two brackets are surely vertical, thus they will be horizontal iff they are zero.

Let us compute the Lie derivative of the metric $`g`$ on the total space in the direction $`\xi _i`$. We obtain successively:

$$(_{\xi _i}g)(X^{},\xi ^{})=\xi _ig(X^{},\xi ^{})g([\xi _i,X^{}],\xi ^{})g(X^{},[\xi _i,\xi ^{}]=0$$

because $`g(X^{},\xi ^{})=0`$ and the brackets in the last two terms are vertical.

$$(_{\xi _i}g)(X^{},Y^{})=\xi _ig(X^{},Y^{})g([\xi _i,X^{}],Y^{})g(X^{},[\xi _i,Y^{}]=0$$

as $`g(X^{},Y^{})`$ does not depend on vertical directions and again because the brackets in the last two terms are vertical.

$$(_{\xi _i}g)(X^{},\xi _k)=\xi _ig(X^{},\xi _k)g([\xi _i,X^{}],\xi _k)g(X^{},[\xi _i,\xi _k]$$

Here $`g(X^{},\xi _k)=0`$, $`[\xi _i,\xi _k]2ϵ_{ikj}\xi _j`$ and $`g(X^{},\xi _j)=0`$. Hence

$$(_{\xi _i}g)(X^{},\xi _k)=g([\xi _i,X^{}],\xi _k)=\widehat{\eta }_k([\xi _i,X^{}])=d\widehat{\eta }_k(\xi _i,X^{}).$$

$$(_{\xi _i}g)(\xi ^{},\xi _k)=g([\xi _i,\xi ^{}],\xi _k)=\widehat{\eta }_k([\xi _i,\xi ^{}])=d\widehat{\eta }_k(\xi _i,\xi ^{}).$$

We obtained that $`\xi _i`$ are Killing fields iff $`[\xi _i,X^{}]`$ and $`[\xi _1,\xi ^{}]`$ are horizontal. ∎

¿From the proof we also obtained that condition 1) of the above proposition is assured. We can finally give the integrability condition of the constructed $`J`$ in terms of curvature properties of $``$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

The almost complex structure in Proposition 2.1 is integrable if the curvature form of the $`sp(1)`$ connection $``$ satisfies the conditions:

* $`\mathrm{\Omega }((\phi X)^{},(\phi Y)^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }(X^{},Y^{})`$ for any $`X,Y\xi `$ and $`i=1,2,3`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X^{},\xi ^{})=0`$, for any $`X\xi `$ and $`i=1,2,3`$.

We may observe that the stated conditions express the compatibility between the Sasakian structure of the base (which is not induced by the immersion of $`B`$ in $`P^n`$) and the bundle structure of $`PB`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

(i) The Kähler form $`\omega `$ of $`(P,g,J)`$ is non-closed, and indeed it does not satisfy any of the Gray-Hervella conditions besides the integrability of $`J`$. A similar computation proves that $`L_\xi ^{}J=L_{\xi _3}J=0`$, thus $`\xi ^{}`$ and $`\xi _3`$ are infinitesimal automorphisms of the constructed complex structure.

(ii) We note also that by its definition the complex structure $`J`$ on $`P`$ depends on the choice of a the $`3`$-Sasakian structure of $`S^3`$. Different choices of the $`3`$-Sasakian triples $`\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3\}`$ define complex structures that are conjugated in $`End(TP)`$. More informations about the dependence of $`J`$ on the chosen parallelization of $`S^3`$ are given in §4 for the case of $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$.

(iii) Although the construction of $`J`$ does not use explicitely the induced Hopf bundle, the construction doesn’t work for merely Riemannian submersions with fibres $`S^3`$: one needs a canonical way of choosing the parallelization of $`S^3`$ in order to avoid monodromy problems.

## 3. The zero level sets of two moment maps

Consider now the two maps

$$\mu :^{n+1}Im,\nu :^{n+1}Im^3,$$

defined in the coordinates $`h=[h_0:h_1:\mathrm{}:h_n]`$ of $`^{n+1}`$ by

$$\mu (h)=\underset{a=0}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{h}_aih_a,\nu (h)=(\underset{a=0}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{h}_aih_a,\underset{a=0}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{h}_ajh_a,\underset{a=0}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{h}_akh_a),$$

and recall that $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ can be interpreted as the moment maps associated to the diagonal action of $`U(1)`$ and of $`Sp(1)`$ on the 3-Sasakian sphere $`S^{4n+3}^{n+1}`$ fibering over $`P^n`$. The corresponding quaternion Kähler reductions are the quaternion Kähler Wolf spaces $`SU(n+1)/S(U(n1)\times U(2))Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`SO(n+1)/(SO(n3)\times SO(4))\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})`$, respectively (cf. for example ).

We proved in  the following:

###### Proposition 3.1.

(i) $`\mu ^1(0)`$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of the induced Hopf $`S^1`$-bundle via the Plücker embedding $`Gr_2(^{n+1})P^N`$, and consequently a Sasakian metric is induced on $`\mu ^1(0)`$ by the Plücker embedding of this Grassmannian.

(ii) The zero level set $`\nu ^1(0)`$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of the induced Hopf $`S^1`$-bundle over the Fano manifold $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}`$, by means of the embeddings $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}Gr_2(^{n+1})P^N`$, the first of which is defined by regarding $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}`$ as the space of totally isotropic two-planes in $`^{n+1}`$. Thus an induced Sasakian metric is obtained on $`\nu ^1(0)`$.

Since both $`\mu ^1(0)`$ and $`\nu ^1(0)`$ can be shown to be simply connected, the first statement both of (i) and of (ii) is a consequence of the following observation: Let $`\pi :PB`$ be a principal circle bundle with simply connected $`P`$ over a smooth complex algebraic projective submanifold $`B`$ of $`P^N`$ with $`H^2(B,)`$. Then $`P`$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of the induced Hopf bundle of $`S^{2N+1}P^N`$, via the embedding $`BP^N`$. In the case of $`\mu ^1(0)`$, the submanifold $`B`$ is the Grassmannian $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ and its Plücker embedding is used in $`P^N`$, $`N=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)1`$. As for $`\nu ^1(0)`$, it is also an induced Hopf $`S^1`$-bundle but over the twistor space $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}`$ of the quaternion Kähler real Grassmannian $`\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})`$. This twistor space is a complex submanifold of $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ . On the other hand, the composition of the fiberings

$$\nu ^1(0)\stackrel{S^1}{}Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}\stackrel{S^2}{}\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})$$

is a $`SO(3)`$-bundle which endows $`\nu ^1(0)`$ with a $`3`$-Sasakian structure via the inversion theorem 4.6 of .

## 4. Applications to Stiefel manifolds

If we regard the Stiefel manifolds $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$ as homogeneous manifolds, we immediately recognize them as total spaces of the induced bundles $`S^3S^{4n+3}P^n`$ over $`\mu ^1(0)`$, respectively. The conditions stated in Theorem 2.1 are verified for these bundles (cf. ). This gives the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

A family of uncountably many homogeneous complex structures on the Stiefel manifolds $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$ can be obtained by combining the Kähler-Einstein structures of $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}`$ with any of the complex structure on the Hopf surface $`^2\{0\}/(z\lambda z`$), given by all choices of $`\lambda ^{},|\lambda |>1`$.

###### Proof.

A standard complex structure on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$ is obtained by applying Proposition 2.1 and Theorem 2.1 to the highest vertical arrows in the diagram:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})& & V_2(^{n+1})& & S^{4n+3}& \\ S^3& & S^3& & S^3& \\ \nu ^1(0)& & \mu ^1(0)& & P^n& S^{2N+1}\hfill \\ S^1& & S^1& & & \hfill \\ Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}& & Gr_2(^{n+1})& & P^N& \\ S^2& & & & & \\ \stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})& & & & & \end{array}$$

where Proposition 3.1 is applied to zero level sets $`\mu ^1(0)`$ and $`\nu ^1(0)`$ to obtain their induced Sasakian structures on them.

The same diagram tells that $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_4(^{n+1})`$ are bundles in Hopf surfaces $`S^3\times S^1`$ over the complex Kähler-Einstein manifolds $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ and $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^{n+1})}`$, respectively. On all these fibers $`S^3\times S^1`$ a simultaneous parallelization is induced by a choice of a 3-Sasakian structure on $`S^{4n+3}`$ and a Sasakian structure on $`S^{2N+1}`$. From this point of view, the above mentioned complex structure on the Stiefel manifold is by construction given by the choice of the standard complex structure on the fibers $`S^3\times S^1`$ and by the lift of the complex structure of the Kähler-Einstein bases. The integrability of the whole complex structure was insured by the computations described above.

Observe now that these same computations, leading to $`[J,J]=0`$, can be carried out even if the complex structure on the fibers is not defined in the standard way (i.e. $`J\xi _1=\xi _2,J\xi _2=\xi _1,J\xi _3=\xi ^{},J\xi ^{}=\xi _3`$), but according to formulas like:

$`J\xi _1=\xi _2,`$ $`J\xi _2=\xi _1`$
$`J\xi ^{}=\alpha \xi ^{}+\beta \xi _3,`$ $`J\xi _3=\gamma \xi ^{}+\delta \xi _3,`$
where the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha ,\beta \\ \gamma ,\delta \end{array}\right)`$, whose entries are real and constant, has trace $`0`$ and determinant $`1`$. The complex structures defined in this way on $`S^3\times S^1=^2\{0\}/(z\lambda z)`$ correspond to all the possible choices of the generator $`\lambda ^{}=\{0\},|\lambda |>1`$, and it can be shown that all these complex structures on the Hopf surface are inequivalent (cf. , p. 142-143). ∎

Note that these complex structures on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ project to the complex structure with respect to which the symmetric Grassmannian $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ is Kählerian. But this Grassmannian also has a quaternion Kähler structure which does not contain the Kähler structure (*i.e.* whilst the Kähler metric coincides with the quaternion-Kähler one, the complex structure compatible with the Kähler metric is not a section of the quaternion bundle). On the other hand, it is the quaternion Kähler structure of the Grassmannian $`Gr_2(^{n+1})`$ that produces, *via* the associated homogeneous 3-Sasakian manifold and its deformations, the hypercomplex structures on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ , . This gives the following:

###### Corollary 4.1.

The constructed complex structures on $`V_2(^{n+1})`$ are non-compatible with its standard hypercomplex structure.

## 5. Two special cases

More complex structures on Stiefel manifolds can be obtained by looking at the following exceptional cases. Observe that the group $`G_2`$ can be regarded as the ”special” Stiefel manifold of coassociative orthonormal 4-frames $`(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)`$ in $`^7`$. This means that the corresponding 4-plane has an orthogonal complement that is an associative 3-plane, *i.e.* closed under the vector product of $`^7`$. This follows easily from the references , p. 252, , p.115. The second reference states in fact that $`G_2V_3^\varphi (^7)`$, the latter being the Stiefel manifold of orthonormal 3-frames $`(e_1,e_2,e_4)`$ such that, with respect to the product of Cayley numbers, $`e_4e_1e_2`$. Of course such 3-frames are in one-to-one correspondence with coassociative 4-frames via $`(e_1,e_2,e_4)(e_1,e_2,e_1e_2,e_4)`$. The Stiefel manifold $`G_2`$ fibers in Hopf surfaces $`S^3\times S^1`$ over the flag manifold $`G_2/U(2)^+`$, twistor space of the quaternion Kähler submanifold $`G_2/SO(4)`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^7)`$.

Also related to the geometry of Cayley numbers, one can consider the ”special” Stiefel manifold of Cayley 4-frames in $`^8`$, *i.e.* orthonormal 4-frames spanning 4-planes in $`^8`$ that are closed under the double cross-product (cf. again , p. 261, , p. 118). The Stiefel manifold of Cayley 4-frames is easily recognized to be the homogeneous space $`Spin(7)/Sp(1)`$, fibering again in Hopf surfaces over the twistor space of the Grassmannian of Cayley 4-planes $`Spin(7)/(Sp(1)\times Sp(1)\times Sp(1))/_2)`$. This latter manifold is a quaternion Kähler submanifold of $`\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^8)`$.

This discussion extends to the homogeneous 3-Sasakian bundles and yields the following two diagrams of submanifolds considered in more detail in . The first diagram is:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}V=G_2& & \stackrel{~}{V}_4(^7)& & V_2(^7)& & S^{27}^7\hfill \\ S^3& & S^3& & S^3& & S^3\hfill \\ G_2/Sp(1)^+& & \nu ^1(0)& & \mu ^1(0)& & P^6\hfill \\ S^1& & S^1& & S^1& & \\ G_2/U(2)^+& & Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^7)}& & Gr_2(^7)& & \\ S^2& & S^2& & & & \\ G_2/SO(4)& & \stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^7),& & & & \end{array}$$

where the + sign appearing in the left column corresponds to a choice that is significant for the structure of the two homogeneous manifolds $`G_2/Sp(1)^+`$ and $`G_2/U(2)^+`$, cf. , p. 164.

Similarly, one gets a second diagram by considering Cayley 4-frames and Cayley 4-planes in $`^8`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}V=\frac{Spin(7)}{Sp(1)}& & \stackrel{~}{V}_4(^8)& & V_2(^8)& & S^{31}^8\hfill \\ S^3& & S^3& & S^3& & S^3\hfill \\ \frac{Spin(7)}{Sp(1)\times Sp(1)}& & \nu ^1(0)& & \mu ^1(0)& & P^7\hfill \\ S^1& & S^1& & S^1& & \\ \frac{Spin(7)}{(Sp(1)\times Sp(1)\times U(1))/_2}& & Z_{\stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^8)}& & Gr_2(^8)& & \\ S^2& & S^2& & & & \\ \frac{Spin(7)}{(Sp(1)\times Sp(1)\times Sp(1))/_2}& & \stackrel{~}{Gr}_4(^8).& & & & \end{array}$$

These two diagrams, combined with Proposition 2.1 and Theorem 2.1, give:

###### Corollary 5.1.

An uncountable family of homogeneous complex structures is obtained on the special Stiefel manifolds $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)/Sp(1)`$, by regarding them as induced Hopf bundles of $`S^{27}P^6`$ and of $`S^{31}P^7`$ over the Sasakian submanifolds $`G_2/Sp(1)^+P^6`$, $`\frac{Spin(7)}{Sp(1)\times Sp(1)}P^7`$, respectively.


format: text

text:
# Nambu-Goldstone mechanism at finite temperature in the imaginary-time and real-time formalism

## I Introduction

In the research on spontaneous symmetry breaking at finite temperature \[1-6\], besides the central problem of phase transition and critical behavior of a system, theoretical exploration of the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism \[7-8\] at finite temperature is certainly quite significant for deeper understanding of spontaneous symmetry breaking \[9-11\]. When symmetry breaking is induced dynamically by fermion condensates, the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model with four-fermion interactions may be a simple and physically clear laboratory for this research . The key point of such research lies in verifying existence of the Nambu-Goldstone bosons as products of spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. determining the masses of relevant scalar and pseudoscalar bound states consisting of fermions and antifermions. For the sake of examining the mass-difference effect of constituent fermions in a bound state, we prefer the Schwinger-Dyson equation approach of the Green functions to the auxialiary scalar field method which was extensively used in research on models of the NJL form .
Based on above strategy, we have researched the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism at finite temperature in the real-time formalism of thermal field theory in two models of the NJL form \[10-11\]. It was shown that the Goldstone theorem is true rigorously if the constituent fermions of a bound state have the same masses, otherwise it is only valid approximately at low energy scales. The mass difference between the fermions and the antifermions in a bound state could lead to that the Higgs boson has doubled masses and some would-be Goldstone bosons will no longer be massless rigorously. However, it should be indicated that in obtaining the above results we have used a special definition of the propagators for relative scalar bound states. Although the effects induced by the mass difference of the fermions are negligible when the momentum cut-off is very large, we still want to know if the above results represent general conclusions of a thermal field theory, or some of them is only due to the use of the special definition of the propagators for scalar bound states in the real-time formalism there.
To clarify this problem, in this paper, based on the same strategy as above, we will reexamine the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism at finite temperature first in the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field theory and then also in the real-time formalism but by means of some redefined physical propagators for scalar bound states . We will again take the one-generation fermion condensate scheme of electroweak symmetry breaking and work by the Schwinger-Dyson equation in the fermion bubble diagram approximation.
The paper is arranged as follows. In Sec. II we give the Lagrangian of the model and the gap equation at finite temperature in the imaginary-time formalism. In Sec. III we will first calculate the Matsubara propagator for scalar bound state, then continue analytically it for the energy of the bound state from discrete frequency to physical values and determine the physical mass of the scalar bound state. In Secs. IV and V. the same procedure will be applied to pseudoscalar and charged-scalar bound states. In Sec. VI we will derive the redefined physical propagators for scalar bound states in the real-time formalism and compare the results obtained in the two formalisms. Finally in Sec. VII our conclusions follow.

## II Gap equation in imaginary-time formalism

In the one-generation fermion condensate scheme of electroweak symmetry breaking, the one generation of $`Q`$ fermions form a $`\mathrm{SU}_L(2)\times \mathrm{U}_Y(1)`$ doublet $`(U,D)`$ and are assigned in the representation $`R`$ of the color group $`\mathrm{SU}_c(3)`$ with the dimension $`d_Q(R)`$. The symmetry breaking is induced by the effective four-fermion Lagrangian among the $`Q`$ fermions below some high momentum scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$_{4F}=_{4F}^S+_{4F}^P+_{4F}^C,$$
(1)
where the neutral scalar couplings

$$_{4F}^S=\frac{1}{4}\underset{Q,Q^{}}{}g_{Q^{}Q}(\overline{Q^{}}Q^{})(\overline{Q}Q)$$
(2)
with

$$g_{Q^{}Q}=g_{Q^{}Q^{}}^{1/2}g_{QQ}^{1/2},Q,Q^{}=U,D,$$
(3)
the neutral pseudoscalar couplings

$$_{4F}^P=\frac{1}{4}\underset{Q,Q^{}}{}g_{Q^{}Q}^{}(\overline{Q^{}}i\gamma _5Q^{})\overline{Q}i\gamma _5Q)$$
(4)
with

$$g_{Q^{}Q}^{}=(1)^{I_Q^{}^3I_Q^3}g_{Q^{}Q},Q,Q^{}=U,D,$$
(5)
and the denotation $`I_Q^3`$ being the third component of the weak isospin of the $`Q`$ fermions, and the charged scalar couplings

$$_{4F}^C=\frac{G}{2}(\overline{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+U)(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D)$$
(6)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}\phi \pm (\mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{sin}\phi )\gamma _5],`$

$$G=g_{UU}+g_{DD},\mathrm{cos}^2\phi =g_{UU}/G,\mathrm{sin}^2\phi =g_{DD}/G.$$
(7)
$`_{4F}`$ can also be expressed by

$$_{4F}=\frac{G}{4}\left[(\varphi _S^0)^2+(\varphi _P^0)^2+2\varphi ^+\varphi ^{}\right],$$
(8)
where

$`\varphi _S^0=\mathrm{cos}\phi (\overline{U}U)+\mathrm{sin}\phi (\overline{D}D),`$

$`\varphi _P^0=\mathrm{cos}\phi (\overline{U}i\gamma _5U)\mathrm{sin}\phi (\overline{D}i\gamma _5D),`$

$$\varphi ^{}=(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D),\varphi ^+=(\overline{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+U)$$
(9)
are, respectively, the configurations of the physical neutral scalar, neutral pseudoscalar, and charged scalar bound states. In the imaginary-time (Euclidean) field theory, we will use the conventional time-space coordinate $`(\tau =it,\stackrel{}{x})`$, the four-momentum

$$\overline{p}=(\overline{p}^0,\overline{p}^i)=(ip^0,p^i)$$
(10)
and the $`\gamma `$-matrices in spinor space

$$\overline{\gamma }^0=i\gamma ^0,\overline{\gamma }^i=\gamma ^i,\gamma _5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3=\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1\overline{\gamma }^2\overline{\gamma }^3$$
(11)
which submit to the anticommulation relations

$$\{\overline{\gamma }^\mu ,\overline{\gamma }^\nu \}=2\delta ^{\mu \nu },\{\overline{\gamma }^\mu ,\gamma _5\}=0,$$
(12)
where $`\gamma ^\mu (\mu =0,1,2,3)`$ are the ordinary $`\gamma `$-matrices in the real-time (Minkowski) field theory. In this way, the propagator in the momentum space for the $`Q`$ fermion with mass $`m_Q`$ and chemical potential $`\mu _Q`$ will be expressed by

$$\frac{m_Q\overline{\mathit{}}_Q}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2}=S_Q(i\omega _n+\mu _Q,\stackrel{}{l}),\omega _n=\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{T},\overline{\mathit{}}_Q=\overline{\gamma }^\mu \overline{l}_Q^\mu ,\overline{l}_Q^\mu =(\omega _n+i\mu _Q,\stackrel{}{l})$$
(13)
and the Feynman rule, for example, corresponding to the four-fermion couplings in $`_{4F}^S`$, will be $`g_{Q^{}Q}/2`$.
The derivation of the gap equation is similar to that made in the real-time formalism , the main change is to replace the integral of the loop energy by the sum of Matsubara frequency. Therefore when assuming the thermal expectation value $`_{Q=U,D}g_{QQ}\overline{Q}Q_T0`$ we will obtain the mass of the $`Q`$ fermion

$$m_Q(T,\mu )m_Q=\frac{1}{2}g_{QQ}^{1/2}\underset{Q^{}=U,D}{}g_{Q^{}Q^{}}^{1/2}\overline{Q^{}}Q^{}_T,$$
(14)
which will lead to the relation

$$m_Q/g_{QQ}^{1/2}=m_Q^{}/g_{Q^{}Q^{}}^{1/2}$$
(15)
and the gap equation at finite temperature $`T`$,

$$1=\underset{Q=U,D}{}g_{QQ}I_Q,$$
(16)
with

$`I_Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_Q}}\overline{Q}Q_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_Q(R)}{2m_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{tr}(m_Q\overline{\mathit{}}_Q)}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\omega _{Ql}^2}},`$ (18)
$$\omega _{Ql}^2=\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2.$$
(19)
To find the frequency sum here and later, we define the Fourier transform

$$\frac{1}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\omega _{Ql}^2}=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _n\tau }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)$$
(20)
with $`\beta =1/T`$ and the inverse formula

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)=T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i\omega _n\tau }\frac{1}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\omega _{Ql}^2}.$$
(21)
The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)`$ in Eq. (2.20) obeys the antiperiodicity condition

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau \beta ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)$$
(22)
and can be calculated by the formula

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{C_1C_2}}𝑑zf(z)\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}(zi\mu _Q),`$

$$f(z)=e^{i(zi\mu _Q)\tau }\frac{1}{z^2+\omega _{Ql}^2},$$
(23)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ represent the integral paths $`\mathrm{}+i(\mu _Q\epsilon )+\mathrm{}+i(\mu _Q\epsilon )`$ and $`+\mathrm{}+i(\mu _Q+\epsilon )\mathrm{}+i(\mu _Q+\epsilon )`$ respectively in complex $`z`$ plane. The result is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)=\frac{1}{2\omega _{Ql}}\{[1n(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)]e^{(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)\tau }n(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)e^{(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)\tau }\},$$
(24)
where the denotations

$$n(\omega _{Ql}\pm \mu _Q)=1/\left[e^{\beta (\omega _{Ql}\pm \mu _Q)}+1\right]$$
(25)
has been used. Obviously, it can be obtained from Eqs. (2.20) and (2.23) that

$`T{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\omega _{Ql}^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau =0,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _{Ql}}}[1n(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)]`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dl^0}{2\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _{Ql}^2+i\epsilon }}2\pi \delta (l_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _{Ql}^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)\right],`$ (28)
with the definition

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)=\frac{\theta (l^0)}{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (l^0\mu _Q)]+1}+\frac{\theta (l^0)}{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (l^0+\mu _Q)]+1}.$$
(29)
Substituting Eq. (2.25) into Eq. (2.17), we can express the gap equation (2.16) by

$$1=\underset{Q=U,D}{}g_{QQ}2d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\frac{i}{l^2m_Q^2+i\epsilon }2\pi \delta (l^2m_Q^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)\right],$$
(30)
which is precisely the expression of the gap equation in the real-time formalism . It should be indicated that such identity of the gap equation in the two formalism depend on the fact that the equation comes from the two-point Green function and is determined by the loops bounded by a single fermion propagator. Equation (2.16) or (2.27), as has been shown , could be satisfied only at the temperature $`T`$ below the electroweak symmetry restoration temperature $`T_c`$. Therefore, in the following discussions we will always assume $`T<T_c`$ and the gap equation being obeyed.

## III Scalar bound state in the imaginary-time formalism

Since a bound state is formed by the four-fermion interactions, its propagator must correspond to a four-point amputated Green function. Thus in the imaginary-time formalism, the propagator for a scalar bound state can be calculated by means of the four-point amputated functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{Q^{}Q}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ for the transition from $`(\overline{Q}Q)`$ to $`(\overline{Q^{}}Q^{})`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{2\pi m}{T},m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}$$
(31)
represent the Matsubara frequency of the scalar bound state and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is its three dimension momentum. Based on the scalar four-fermion couplings $`_{4F}^S`$ in Eq. (2.2), in the fermion bubble diagram approximation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{Q^{}Q}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ must obey the algebraic equations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{Q^{}Q^{\prime \prime }}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})[\delta _{Q^{\prime \prime }Q}N_{Q^{\prime \prime }}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})g_{Q^{\prime \prime }Q}]=g_{Q^{}Q}/2,$$
(32)
where $`2N_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ is the contribution of the $`Q`$ fermion loop with scalar coupling vertices and

$$N_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{d_Q(R)}{2}\frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{tr}S_Q(i\omega _n+\mu _Q,\stackrel{}{l})S_Q(i\omega _ni\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mu _Q,\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(33)
Equations (3.2) have the solutions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{Q^{}Q}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{g_{Q^{}Q}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})},$$
(34)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=1\underset{Q=U,D}{}g_{QQ}N_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(35)
The propagator for the scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$ shown in Eq. (2.9) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=G/2\mathrm{\Delta }(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(36)
By means of Eqs. (2.13), (2.12) and (3.3), we find

$$N_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=I_Q+2d_Q(R)\frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n}{}\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2)2m_Q^2(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)\mathrm{\Omega }_m\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p}}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Q)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_Q^2]}.$$
(37)
From Lorentz invariance, in the imaginary-time formalism, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ should be a function of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2)`$, thus must obey the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(+i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(38)
From Eqs. (3.6) and (3.5), the same constraint on $`N_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ is implied and this will lead to the equality

$`{\displaystyle d^3lT\underset{n}{}\frac{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)\mathrm{\Omega }_m\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p}}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Q)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_Q^2]}}`$ (40)
$`={\displaystyle d^3lT\underset{n}{}\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2)/2}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Q)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_Q^2]}}.`$
As a result, we obtain

$$N_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=I_Q\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2+4m_Q^2)K_Q^T(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}),$$
(41)
where

$$K_Q^T(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=2d_Q(R)\frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}A_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l}),$$
(42)
$$A_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})=T\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\omega _{Ql}^2}\frac{1}{(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Q)^2+\omega _{Ql+p}^2},$$
(43)
$$\omega _{Ql+p}^2=(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_Q^2.$$
(44)
By means of Eqs. (2.19), (2.23) and the formula

$$T\underset{n}{}e^{i\omega _n(\tau \tau ^{})}=\delta (\tau \tau ^{}),$$
(45)
we can find out the frequency sum (3.12) and obtain

$`A_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\tau }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql+p},\mu _Q)`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1n(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}\mu _Q)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\omega _{Ql}+\omega _{Ql+p}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}+\mu _Q)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p}}}`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}\mu _Q)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\omega _{Ql}+\omega _{Ql+p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1n(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}+\mu _Q)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p}}}\},`$
where $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\beta )=1`$ has been used. Substituting Eq. (3.10) into Eqs. (3.5) and (3.6) and considering the gap equation (2.16), we obtain the propagator for scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$ in the imaginary-time formalism

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=G/\underset{Q}{}g_{QQ}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2\stackrel{}{p}^24m_Q^2)K_Q^T(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(49)
The imaginary-time propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ is defined at discrete values $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_m(m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{})`$ in the imaginary axis on the complex energy $`p^0`$ plane. The analytic continuation to physical real values of energy can be made by the replacement

$$i\mathrm{\Omega }_mp^0+i\epsilon p^0,\epsilon =0_+.$$
(50)
This means that one can rotate the integral path from the imaginary axis on the complex $`p^0`$ plane clockwise to the real axis without meeting any singularities. As will be seen later, all the results derived from Eq. (3.17) will at least automatically reproduce the expressions of the causal propagators obtained in usual zero temperature field theory when $`T=0`$, and this fact justifies the continuation. Under the analytic continuation (3.17), we will have the substitutions

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2)p_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{p}^2+i\epsilon =p^2+i\epsilon ,$$
(51)
$$A_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})A_Q(p^0,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})=A_Q(p,\stackrel{}{l}),$$
(52)
where

$`A_Q(p,\stackrel{}{l})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1n(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}\mu _Q)}{p^0+\omega _{Ql}+\omega _{Ql+p}i\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _{Ql}+\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}+\mu _Q)}{p^0+\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p}i\epsilon \eta (\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p})}}`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}\mu _Q)}{p^0\omega _{Ql}+\omega _{Ql+p}+i\epsilon \eta (\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1n(\omega _{Ql}\mu _Q)n(\omega _{Ql+p}+\mu _Q)}{p^0\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p}+i\epsilon }}\},`$
with the definition

$$\eta (\omega _{Ql}\omega _{Ql+p})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& \mathrm{if}\omega _{Ql}>\omega _{Ql+p},\\ 1,& \mathrm{if}\omega _{Ql}<\omega _{Ql+p},\end{array},$$
(55)
and from Eq. (3.11),

$$K_Q^T(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})K_Q^T(p)=2d_Q(R)\frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}A_Q(p,\stackrel{}{l}).$$
(56)
For making a comparison between the results obtained in the imaginary-time and in the real-time formalism, we may change $`A_Q(p,\stackrel{}{l})`$ into an integral representation. In fact, by the formula

$$\frac{1}{X+i\epsilon }=\frac{X}{X^2+\epsilon ^2}i\pi \delta (X)$$
(57)
and the definition (2.26), we can write

$`A_Q(p,\stackrel{}{l})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dl^0}{2\pi }\frac{i}{[l_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _{Ql}^2+i\epsilon ][(l^0+p^0)^2\omega _{Ql+p}^2+i\epsilon ]}}`$ (60)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑l^0\left\{\frac{\delta (l_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _{Ql}^2)}{(l^0+p^0)^2\omega _{Ql+p}^2+i\epsilon }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)+\frac{\delta [(l^0+p^0)^2\omega _{Ql+p}^2]}{l_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _{Ql}^2+i\epsilon }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _Q)\right\}}`$
$`+i2\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑l^0[\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0+p^0)+\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0p^0)]\delta (l_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _{Ql}^2)\delta [(l^0+p^0)^2\omega _{Ql+p}^2]\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)}.`$
Applying Eqs. (3.18), (3.22) and (3.24) to Eq. (3.16) and considering the existence of a more factor $`i`$ in a four-point function after the analytic continuation we obtain the physical propagator for scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ $``$ $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_mp^0+i\epsilon p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`iG/{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}g_{QQ}(p^24m_Q^2+i\epsilon )K_Q^T(p),`$ (62)
where

$$K_Q^T(p)=K_Q(p)+H_Q(p)iS_Q^I(p)$$
(63)
In Eq. (3.26) the functions

$`K_Q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{id^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(l^2m_Q^2+i\epsilon )[(l+p)^2m_Q^2+i\epsilon ]}}`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_Q(R)}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+M_Q^2}{M_Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+M_Q^2}}\right),M_Q^2=m_Q^2p^2x(1x),`$ (65)
with the four-dimension Euclidean momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$H_Q(p)=4\pi d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\left\{\frac{(l+p)^2m_Q^2}{[(l+p)^2m_Q^2]^2+\epsilon ^2}+(pp)\right\}\delta (l^2m_Q^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q),$$
(66)
and

$`S_Q^I(p)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_Q^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_Q^2]}`$ (68)
$`[1\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0+p^0)\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0p^0)][\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _Q)].`$
When deriving the expression (3.29), we have used the equality $`S_Q^I(p)=S_Q^I(p)`$ coming from the equality $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$. It should be indicated that the expressions (3.26) -(3.29) for $`K_Q^T(p)`$ are true for both $`\omega _{Ql}>\omega _{Ql+p}`$ and $`\omega _{Ql}<\omega _{Ql+p}`$ in Eq. (3.20) of $`A_Q(p,\stackrel{}{l})`$. By means of the relation

$$g_{QQ}/G=m_Q^2/\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2$$
(69)
derived from Eq. (2.15), we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2/{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}(p^24m_Q^2+i\epsilon )m_Q^2K_Q^T(p)`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2/{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}(p^24m_Q^2+i\epsilon )m_Q^2[K_Q(p)+H_Q(p)iS_Q^I(p)].`$ (71)
It is indicated that the term containing $`S_Q^I(p)`$ in Eq. (3.31) will make the pole of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ possibly become complex. In addition, $`K_Q(p)`$ in Eq.(3.27) can also be complex when $`p^2>4m_Q^2`$. Denote $`K_Q(p)=K_{Qr}(p)iK_{Qi}`$ with $`K_{Qi}>0`$ and let

$`{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2K_{Qr}(p)=k_r,{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2K_{Qi}(p)=k_i,{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2H_Q(p)=h,{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2S_Q^I(p)=s^I,`$

$$\underset{Q}{}m_Q^4K_{Qr}(p)=\stackrel{~}{k}_r,\underset{Q}{}m_Q^4K_{Qi}(p)=\stackrel{~}{k}_i,\underset{Q}{}m_Q^4H_Q(p)=\stackrel{~}{h},\underset{Q}{}m_Q^4S_Q^I(p)=\stackrel{~}{s}^I.$$
(72)
We can obtain from Eq. (3.31) the equation to determine the mass of $`\varphi _S^0`$

$$m_{\varphi _S^0}^2=p^2=4\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}_r+\stackrel{~}{h}i(\stackrel{~}{k}_i+\stackrel{~}{s}^I)}{k_r+hi(k_i+s^I)}.$$
(73)
In the special case when only single-flavor $`Q`$ fermions exist (e.g. in the top-quark condensate scheme ) or all the $`Q`$ fermions are mass degenerate, we will have the real $`m_{\varphi _S^0}^2=p^2=4m_Q^2`$. In the other cases, the solution of $`p^2`$ (or say $`p^0`$) will be complex. Denote $`p^0=p_r^0+ip_i^0`$, then Eq. (3.33) will become

$$(p_r^0+ip_i^0)^2\stackrel{}{p}^2=[a(p)+ib(p)]|_{p^2=m_{\mathrm{\Phi }_S^0}^2}$$
(74)
with

$`a(p)=4{\displaystyle \frac{(k_r+h)(\stackrel{~}{k}_r+\stackrel{~}{h})+(k_i+s^I)(\stackrel{~}{k}_i+\stackrel{~}{s}^I)}{(k_r+h)^2+(k_i+s^I)^2}},`$

$$b(p)=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{k}_r+\stackrel{~}{h})(k_i+s^I)(k_r+h)(\stackrel{~}{k}_i+\stackrel{~}{s}^I)}{(k_r+h)^2+(k_i+s^I)^2}.$$
(75)
It is easy to find from Eq. (3.35) that $`b(p)0`$ for the cases with both single-flavor and mass-degenerate $`Q`$ fermions and $`b(p)`$ could be very small if the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the $`K_Q(p)`$ is very large. Thus we can define the squared mass of $`\varphi _S^0`$ by the solution of the real part of Eq. (3.34), i.e.

$$m_{\varphi _S^0}^2=p_r^2=a(p_r)=4\frac{(k_r+h)(\stackrel{~}{k}_r+\stackrel{~}{h})+(k_i+s^I)(\stackrel{~}{k}_i+\stackrel{~}{s}^I)}{(k_r+h)^2+(k_i+s^I)^2}|_{p=p_r}.$$
(76)
Since $`K_{Qr}(p)`$ and $`H_Q(p)`$ is real and positive , and based on the expression (3.29), the same is true to $`S_Q^I(p)`$, we can deduce the mass inequalities from Eq. (3.36)

$$2(m_Q)_{\mathrm{min}}m_{\varphi _S^0}2(m_Q)_{\mathrm{max}}$$
(77)
where $`(m_Q)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`(m_Q)_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are respectively the minimal and the maximal mass of the $`Q`$ fermions. When $`0m_Um_D0`$, only the signs of inequality are left in Eq. (3.37). In this case, if we set $`m_D=\alpha m_U(\alpha >0)`$, then the numerator of $`b(p)`$ in Eq. (3.35) will become $`(\alpha ^2\alpha ^4)m_U^6[(K_{Ur}+H_U)(K_{Di}+S_D^I)(K_{Dr}+H_D)(K_{Ui}+S_U^I)]`$. Considering the inequalities in Eq. (3.37) and that the imaginary parts $`K_{Qi}(p)=0`$ and $`S_Q^I(p)=0`$ when $`p^2<4m_Q^2`$, we can obtain that whether $`\alpha <1(m_D<m_U)`$ or $`\alpha >1(m_D>m_U)`$ always have $`b(p)>0`$. This means that $`p^0`$ will contain an positive imaginay part

$$p_i^0\frac{b(p_r)}{2p_r^0},$$
(78)
hence the amplitude associated with the scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$ will get a growth factor $`\mathrm{exp}(p_i^0t)`$. In other words, owing to the mass difference between massive $`U`$ and $`D`$ fermions, the scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$ will encounter some effect of fluctuation. It should be mentioned that such amplitude growth factor of $`\varphi _S^0`$ always exists in the case with unequal non-zero masses of the two flavors of fermions in a one-generation fermion condensate model even if let the temperature $`T0`$. At finite temperature, it is only modified by thermal effect and displays itself more plainly. However, such fluctuation effect of $`\varphi _S^0`$ is physically completely negligible considering that $`b(p_r)`$ will be extremely small if the momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the zero temperature loops is large enough and that $`\varphi _S^0`$ generally has a finite decay life in a real model.

## IV Neutral pseudoscalar bound state in the imaginary-time formalism

The propagator for a neutral pseudoscalar bound state can be calculated by the four-point amputated Green functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{Q^{}Q}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ for the transition from $`(\overline{Q}i\gamma _5Q)`$ to $`(\overline{Q^{}}i\gamma _5Q^{})`$. Based on the pseudoscalar four-fermion coupling $`_{4F}^P`$ \[Eq. (2.4)\], in the fermion bubble diagram approximation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{Q^{}Q}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ will obey the algebraic equations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{Q^{}Q^{\prime \prime }}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})[\delta _{Q^{\prime \prime }Q}N_{Q^{\prime \prime }5}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})g_{Q^{\prime \prime }Q}^{}]=g_{Q^{}Q}^{}/2,$$
(79)
where $`2N_{Q5}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ is the contribution of the $`Q`$ fermion loop with pseudoscalar coupling vertices and

$$N_{Q5}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{d_Q(R)}{2}\frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{tr}[i\gamma _5S_Q(i\omega _n+\mu _Q,\stackrel{}{l})i\gamma _5S_Q(i\omega _ni\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mu _Q,\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})].$$
(80)
Similar to Eqs. (3.2), Eqs. (4.1) have the solutions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{Q^{}Q}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{g_{Q^{}Q}^{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})}$$
(81)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=1\underset{Q=U,D}{}g_{QQ}N_{Q5}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(82)
The propagator in the imaginary-time formalism for the pseudoscalar bound state $`\varphi _P^0`$ shown in Eq. (2.9) is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=G/2\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(83)
By means of Eqs. (2.13), (2.12) and (4.2), we find

$`N_{Q5}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`I_Q+2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n}{}\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2)(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)\mathrm{\Omega }_m\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p}}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _Q)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_Q^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Q)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_Q^2]}}`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`I_Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2)K_Q^T(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (85)
where Eq. (3.9) has been used. Substituting Eq. (4.6) into Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5) and considering the gap equation (2.16), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=G/(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2\stackrel{}{p}^2)\underset{Q}{}g_{QQ}K_Q^T(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(86)
Then, by the analytic continuation to physical real energy $`p^0`$ similar to that made for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$, we obtain the physical propagator for pseudoscalar bound state $`\varphi _P^0`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`iG/(p^2+i\epsilon ){\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}g_{QQ}K_Q^T(p)`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2/(p^2+i\epsilon ){\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2K_Q^T(p),`$ (88)
where Eq.(3.30) has been used and $`K_Q^T(p)`$ is still given by Eqs. (3.26)-(3.29). The expression (4.8) indicates that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ has a single pole at $`p^2=0`$ thus $`\varphi _P^0`$ is a massless neutral pseudoscalar Goldstone boson. In addition, since when $`p^2=0`$, $`H_Q(p)=0`$ and $`S_Q^I(p)=0`$ in $`K_Q^T(p)`$, we also have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)=i\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2/(p^2+i\epsilon )\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2K_Q(p),\mathrm{if}p^20,$$
(89)
which has the same form as the propagator for $`\varphi _P^0`$ at $`T=0`$, except that $`m_Q`$ now implies the dynamical mass of the $`Q`$ fermions at temperature $`T`$ . These results are independent of the mass-difference between the two flavors of fermions.

## V Charged scalar bound states in the imaginary-time formalism

By Eq. (2.9), the configuration of the charged scalar bound state is $`\varphi ^{}=(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D)`$, thus the four-point amputated function for the transition from $`(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D)`$ to $`(\overline{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+U)`$ will simply correspond to the propagator for $`\varphi ^{}`$ (as well as its hermitian conjugate $`\varphi ^+`$). Based on $`_{4F}^C`$ in Eq. (2.6), the imaginary-time propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ for $`\varphi ^{}`$ obeys the algebraic equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{G}{2}+GL(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}),$$
(90)
from which we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=G/2[1GL(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})],$$
(91)
where $`2L(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ represents the contribution of the fermion loops bounded by a $`U`$ fermion and a $`D`$ fermion propagator with a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ coupling vertex, i.e. we have

$$GL(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})=G\frac{d_Q(R)}{2}\frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n}{}\frac{\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(m_U\overline{\mathit{}}_U)\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(m_D\overline{\mathit{}}_D\overline{\overline{)}p})]}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _U)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_U^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _D)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_D^2]}$$
(92)
with

$$\overline{p}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(93)
The trace in Eq. (5.3) can be expressed by

$`a=\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(m_U\overline{\mathit{}}_U)\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(m_D\overline{\mathit{}}_D\overline{\overline{)}p})]=4\overline{l}_U(\overline{l}_D+\overline{p})+8{\displaystyle \frac{m_U^2m_D^2}{m_U^2+m_D^2}},`$

where we have used Eqs. (2.7) and (3.30). It can be further written by either

$`aa_U`$ $`=`$ $`4\{(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _D)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_D^2[\omega _n+i\mu _U+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i(\mu _D\mu _U)][\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i(\mu _D\mu _U)]`$ (95)
$`(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})\stackrel{}{p}+m_D^2(m_U^2m_D^2)/(m_U^2+m_D^2)\}`$
or

$$aa_D=4\{(\omega _n+i\mu _U)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_U^2+(\omega _n+i\mu _U)[\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i(\mu _D\mu _U)]+\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p}+m_U^2(m_D^2m_U^2)/(m_U^2+m_D^2)\}.$$
(96)
From these expressions we obtain

$`GL(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_Q(R)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n}{}\frac{g_{UU}a_U+g_{DD}a_D}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _U)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_U^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _D)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_D^2]}}`$ (97)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Q=U,D}{}}g_{QQ}I_Q+2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}T\underset{n}{}}`$ (99)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(g_{DD}g_{UU})\{(\omega _n+i\mu _U)[\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i(\mu _D\mu _U)]\}+\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p}g_{UU}\{[\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i(\mu _D\mu _U)]^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2\}}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _U)^2+\stackrel{}{l}^2+m_U^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _D)^2+(\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{p})^2+m_D^2]}},`$
where the result coming from Eq. (3.30)

$$g_{UU}m_D^2g_{DD}m_U^2=0$$
(100)
has been used. Substituting Eq. (5.8) into Eq. (5.2) and considering the gap equation (2.16), we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`G/4d_Q(R){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}}(\{(g_{DD}g_{UU})i\mu _U(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Di\mu _U+\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p})g_{UU}[(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Di\mu _U)^2+\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{}{p}}]\}`$ (102)
$`A_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})+(g_{DD}g_{UU})(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _Di\mu _U)B_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})),`$
where the Matsubara frequency sums

$$A_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})=T\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _U)^2+\omega _{Ul}^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _D)^2+\omega _{Dl+p}^2]},$$
(103)
$$B_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})=T\underset{n}{}\frac{\omega _n}{[(\omega _n+i\mu _U)^2+\omega _{Ul}^2][(\omega _n+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+i\mu _D)^2+\omega _{Dl+p}^2]}.$$
(104)
By menas of the similar method to calculate $`A_Q(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})`$ in Eq. (3.12), we can express

$$A_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\tau }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ul},\mu _U)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Dl+p},\mu _D),$$
(105)
$`B_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\tau }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ul},\mu _U)\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Dl+p},\mu _D)`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`i\mu _UA_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})+D_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})`$ (107)
with the results

$`\begin{array}{c}A_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})\\ D_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})\end{array}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}i\omega _{Ul}\\ 1\end{array}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega _{Ul}\omega _{Dl+p}}}`$ (110)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1n(\omega _{Ul}+\mu _U)n(\omega _{Dl+p}\mu _D)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m(\mu _D\mu _U)+\omega _{Ul}+\omega _{Dl+p}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _{Ul}+\mu _U)n(\omega _{Dl+p}+\mu _D)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m(\mu _D\mu _U)+\omega _{Ul}\omega _{Dl+p}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(\omega _{Ul}\mu _U)n(\omega _{Dl+p}\mu _D)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m(\mu _D\mu _U)\omega _{Ul}+\omega _{Dl+p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1n(\omega _{Ul}\mu _U)n(\omega _{Dl+p}+\mu _D)}{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m(\mu _D\mu _U)\omega _{Ul}\omega _{Dl+p}}}].`$
In the derivation of Eq. (5.14) we have used the antiperiodicity condition (2.21) of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau ,\omega _{Ql},\mu _Q)`$.
For analytic continuation of the definition region of the propagator for $`\varphi ^{}`$ from $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to the real axis of $`p^0`$, we will make the replacement

$$i\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mu _D\mu _Up^0+i\epsilon p^0,\epsilon =0_+,$$
(111)
considering that the charged scalar bound state $`\varphi ^{}=(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D)`$ composed of the $`U`$ antifermions and the $`D`$ fermions may have the chemical potential $`\mu _D\mu _U`$. Correspondingly, we will have the following substitutions:

$$A_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})A_c(p,\stackrel{}{l}),D_c(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{l})D_c(p,\stackrel{}{l}).$$
(112)
For the purpose of making a comparison between the results in the imaginary-time formalism and in the real-time formalism, we will express $`A_c(p,\stackrel{}{l})`$ and $`D_c(p,\stackrel{}{l})`$ respectively by an integral over the real $`l^0`$. In this way, it is found that

$$A_c(p,\stackrel{}{l})=\frac{dl^0}{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{A}_c(p,l^0,\stackrel{}{l}),$$
(113)
$$D_c(p,\stackrel{}{l})=\frac{dl^0}{2\pi }il^0\stackrel{~}{A}_c(p,l^0,\stackrel{}{l}),$$
(114)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_c(p,l^0,\stackrel{}{l})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(l^2m_U^2+i\epsilon )[(l+p)^2m_D^2+i\epsilon ]}}`$ (118)
$`+2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta (l^2m_U^2)}{(l+p)^2m_D^2+i\epsilon }}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)+2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2]}{l^2m_U^2+i\epsilon }}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)`$
$`+i4\pi ^2\delta (l^2m_U^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2][\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0+p^0)+\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0p^0)]`$
$`[\theta (\omega _{Ul}\omega _{Dl+p})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)+\theta (\omega _{Dl+p}\omega _{Ul})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)].`$
By means of Eqs (5.10), (5.14) and (5.16)-(5.19), we can analytically continue the imaginary-time propagator for $`\varphi ^{}`$ to physical propagator, i.e.

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(i\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\varphi ^{}(p)$$
(119)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`iG/4d_Q(R){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3l}{(2\pi )^3}}\{[(g_{DD}g_{UU})\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{p}+g_{UU}(p^2+i\epsilon )]A_c(p,\stackrel{}{l})+(g_{DD}g_{UU})ip^0D_c(p,\stackrel{}{l})\}`$ (120)
$`=`$ $`iG/4d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}[(g_{UU}g_{DD})lp+g_{UU}(p^2+i\epsilon )]\stackrel{~}{A}_c(p,l^0,\stackrel{}{l})}`$ (121)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}m_Q^2/4d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}[(m_U^2m_D^2)lp+m_U^2(p^2+i\epsilon )]\stackrel{~}{A}_c(p,l^0,\stackrel{}{l})},`$ (122)
where Eq. (3.30) has been used once again. Substituting Eq. (5.20) into Eq. (5.22) and using the formula (3.23), we finally obtain the physical propagator for the charged scalar bound state $`\varphi ^{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)=i/\left\{(p^2+i\epsilon )\left[K_{UD}(p)+H_{UD}(p)\right]+E_{UD}(p)i(p^2\overline{M}^2)S_{UD}^I(p)\right\},$$
(123)
where

$$\overline{M}^2=(m_U^2m_D^2)^2/(m_U^2+m_D^2),$$
(124)
$`K_{UD}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_Q(R)}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{m_U^2(1x)+m_D^2x}{m_U^2+m_D^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+M_{UD}^2(p)}{M_{UD}^2(p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+M_{UD}^2(p)}}\right],`$ (126)
$`M_{UD}^2(p)=m_U^2(1x)+m_D^2xp^2x(1x),`$
$$H_{UD}(p)=4\pi d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\{\frac{(l+p)^2m_D^2}{[(l+p)^2m_D^2]^2+\epsilon ^2}\delta (l^2m_U^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)+(pp,m_Um_D,\mu _U\mu _D)\},$$
(127)
$`E_{UD}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{m_U^2m_D^2}{m_U^2+m_D^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}}`$ (129)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{[(l+p)^2m_U^2][(l+p)^2m_D^2]}{[(l+p)^2m_D^2]^2+\epsilon ^2}}\delta (l^2m_U^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)(pp,m_Um_D,\mu _U\mu _D)\},`$
$`S_{UD}^I(p)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_U^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2]}`$ (132)
$`\{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)2[\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0+p^0)+\theta (l^0)\theta (l^0p^0)]`$
$`[\theta (\omega _{Ul}\omega _{Dl+p})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)+\theta (\omega _{Dl+p}\omega _{Ul})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)]\}.`$
As for the key question under what condition $`\varphi ^{}`$ could be massless bound states, we can answer it in two cases
(1) $`m_U=m_D=m_Q`$. For the mass-degenerate $`U`$ and $`D`$ fermions, we will have $`K_{UD}(p)=K_Q(p)`$, $`H_{UD}(p)=H_Q(p)`$, $`S_{UD}^I(p)=S_Q^I(p)`$, $`E_{UD}(p)=0`$, and $`\overline{M}^2=0`$, thus

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)=i/(p^2+i\epsilon )\left[K_Q(p)+H_Q(p)iS_Q^I(p)\right].$$
(133)
Eq. (5.29) implies that $`p^2=0`$ is the single pole of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ hence $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^+`$ are both massless scalar bound states and can be identified with the charged Nambu-Goldstone bosons. As was indicated in Sec. III, when $`p0`$, no pinch singularity could emerge from $`S_Q^I(p)`$.
(2) $`m_Um_D`$. For the mass-nondegenerate $`U`$ and $`D`$ fermions, we will have $`E_{UD}0`$ and $`\overline{M}^20`$, thus the pole of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ will be determined by the equation

$$p^2=\frac{E_{UD}(p)+i\overline{M}^2S_{UD}^I(p)}{K_{UD}(p)+H_{UD}(p)iS_{UD}^I(p)}.$$
(134)
Hence, the masses of $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^+`$ at finite temperature are not equal to zeros. However, as long as the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`K_{UD}(p)`$ is large enough, the single pole of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ could still be approximately at $`p^2=0`$. On the other hand, when $`p^2=0`$ and $`p^0=|\stackrel{}{p}|0`$, both $`E_{UD}(p)`$ and $`S_{UD}^I(p)`$ in the numerator of the right-handed side of Eq. (5.30) approach to zeros. Therefore, at low energy scales it is still possible that $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^+`$ are considered as approximate massless bound states and identified with the charged Nambu-Goldstone bosons.

## VI Physical propagators for scalar bound states in the real-time formalism

The propagators for scalar bound states in the real-time formalism were discussed in Ref. . However, the propagators are defined there by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{Q^{}1Q1}(p)(B=S,P)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{11}(p)`$ respectively for neutral scalar, pseudoscalar and charged scalar bound states which are the four- point amputated functions for the transition between the physical field configurations e.g. $`(\overline{Q}Q)^{(1)}`$ and $`(\overline{Q^{}}Q^{})^{(1)}`$ etc.. These definitions can give the main physical features of the bound states including their masses but also lead some extra result, e.g. a neutral scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$ could have double masses due thermal fluctuation. In addition, the resulting expressions of the propagators for $`\varphi _S^0`$,$`\varphi _P^0`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ have quite explicit difference with Eqs. (3.31), (4.8) and (5.23) obtained here in the imaginary-time formalism. For seeking a closer correspondence between the physical propagators for the above scalar bound states in the real-time and the imaginary-time formalism, following Ref., we will redefine the physical propagators for $`\varphi _S^0`$, $`\varphi _P^0`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ by diagonalization of corresponding matrix propagators. These matrix propagators have in fact been obtained in Ref. .

First let us deal with the case of the neutral scalar bound state. By Eqs. (3.3) and (3.7) in Ref., the matrix of the four-point amputated functions for the transition from $`(\overline{Q}Q)^{(a)}`$ and $`(\overline{Q^{}}Q^{})^{(b)}`$ can be expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{Q^{}bQa}(p)=\frac{g_{Q^{}Q}}{G}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^0ba}(p),Q^{},Q=U,D,b,a=1,2$$
(135)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^0ba}(p)(b,a=1,2)`$ is the matrix propagator for the neutral scalar bound state $`\varphi _S^0`$ given in Eq. (2.9), its explicit form is

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^011}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^012}(p)\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^021}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^022}(p)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i_Qm_Q^2}{[p^2(k+h)4(\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{h})]^2+(p^2s4\stackrel{~}{s})^2(p^2r4\stackrel{~}{r})^2}}`$ (137)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(p^2i\epsilon )(k+h+is)4(\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{h}+i\stackrel{~}{s})& i(p^2r4\stackrel{~}{r})\\ i(p^2r4\stackrel{~}{r})& (p^2+i\epsilon )(k+his)+4(\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{h}i\stackrel{~}{s})\end{array}\right)`$
In Eq. (6.2) the denotations $`k`$, $`h`$, $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ have been given by Eq.(3.32) and

$$s=\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2S_Q(p),r=\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2R_Q(p),\stackrel{~}{s}=\underset{Q}{}m_Q^4S_Q(p),\stackrel{~}{r}=\underset{Q}{}m_Q^4R_Q(p)$$
(138)
where $`K_Q(p)`$ and $`H_Q(p)`$ are expressed by Eqs. (3.27) and (3.28) and

$$S_Q(p)=4\pi ^2d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_Q^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_Q^2][\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _Q)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _Q)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)],$$
(139)
and

$$R_Q(p)=2\pi ^2d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_Q^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_Q^2]\mathrm{sin}2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)\mathrm{sin}2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _Q).$$
(140)
with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _Q)`$ given by Eq. (2.26). In deriving Eq. (6.2), the gap equation (2.27) in the real-time formalism has been used. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^0ba}(p)(b,a=1,2)`$ can be diagonalized by a thermal matrix $`M_S`$, i.e.

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^011}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^012}(p)\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^021}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^022}(p)\end{array}\right)=M_S^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)\end{array}\right)M_S^1$$
(141)
where

$$M_S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _S& \mathrm{sinh}\theta _S\\ \mathrm{sinh}\theta _S& \mathrm{cosh}\theta _S\end{array}\right)$$
(142)
with

$$\mathrm{cosh}\theta _S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{S}{\sqrt{S^2R^2}}+1\right)^{1/2},\mathrm{sinh}\theta _S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{S}{\sqrt{S^2R^2}}1\right)^{1/2}$$
(143)
and

$$S=p^2s4\stackrel{~}{s},R=p^2r4\stackrel{~}{r}$$
(144)
We indicate that since $`S_Q(p)\pm R_Q(p)0`$  and $`S_Q(p)=R_Q(p)=0`$ when $`p^2<4m_Q^2`$, it can be deduced that $`S^2R^2=_Qm_Q^2(p^24m_Q^2)(S_Q+R_Q)_Q^{}m_Q^{}^2(p^24m_Q^{}^2)(S_Q^{}R_Q^{})0`$ no matter what value $`p^2`$ could take. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ in Eq. (6.6) will be identified with the physical propagator for $`\varphi _S^0`$ in the real-time formalism and has the expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)=i\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2/\{[(p^2+i\epsilon )[k+his\sqrt{1R^2/S^2}]4[\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{h}i\stackrel{~}{s}\sqrt{1R^2/S^2}]\}$$
(145)
On the other hand, by means of Eq. (3.32), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ in Eq. (3.31) can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)=i\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2/[(p^2+i\epsilon )(k+his^I)4(\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{h}i\stackrel{~}{s}^I)]$$
(146)
Comparing Eq. (6.10) with Eq. (6.11), we find that the physical propagators for $`\varphi _S^0`$ in the two formalisms now have quite similar form, except that the replacements $`s\sqrt{1R^2/S^2}s^I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}\sqrt{1R^2/S^2}\stackrel{~}{s}^I`$ in the imaginary parts of their denominators must be made when transiting from the real-time formalism to the imaginary-time formalism. It has been known for some time that for an amputated Green function, the results calculated in the two formalisms of thermal field theory have generally some difference . In present case, we note that the difference appears only in imaginary parts of the denominators of the propagators which does not affects the main physical conclusions from the propagators. This means that all the conclusions of the mass of $`\varphi _S^0`$ deduced from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ in Sec. 3 remain to be valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$, including that the possible fluctuation effect of the amplitude of $`\varphi _S^0`$ is also kept qualitatively. In particular, by redefinding the physical propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ for $`\varphi _S^0`$ by diagonalization of corresponding matrix propagator, we no longer meet the problems of doubling of $`m_{\varphi _S^0}`$ originated from the definition of the propagator for $`\varphi _S^0`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _S^011}(p)`$. We also point out that the imaginay parts of the denominators of both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ may be identical and equal to zeros if $`0p^2<4(m_Q)_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$, where $`(m_Q)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the smallest mass of the $`Q`$-fermions. In that case, we have real $`k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$, and $`s=\stackrel{~}{s}=r=\stackrel{~}{r}=0`$ thus $`S=R=0`$ and $`s^I=\stackrel{~}{s}^I=0`$ because the $`\delta `$-function product factor $`\delta (l^2m_Q^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_Q^2]`$ in the integrand of each $`S_Q(p)`$ and $`R_Q(p)`$ will become zero if $`0p^2<4m_Q^2`$. In the other case the imaginary parts of the denominators of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ will generally different. We note that , different from the case of the gap equation, the appearance of such difference here is related to the fact that we are dealing with the four-point amputated functions which are determined by the loops bounded by two fermion propagators. The difference could be technically attributed to different order of analytic continuation of a Green function for discrete Matsubara frequencies in the two formalisms . But it is more possible  that appearance of the difference is due to that we are calculating different functions e.g. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ in the two formalisms. However, it should be pointed out that at present the two formalisms of thermal field theory are not used as usual, by the terminology in Ref.. First, in the imaginary-time formalism, owing to the analytic continuation (3.17) used, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ is now a time-ordered i.e. physical propagator, not a retarded one. Thus it is not difficult to understand why $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ may have almost identical expressions except the imaginary parts in their denominators. Next, we note that in the fermion bubble approximation, the amputated four-point functions induced by the four-fermion interactions are essentially determined by one fermion loops, and the calculations of them may formally be reduced the ones of usual two-point functions, but the former is rather different from the latter. This is because we are dealing with problem of the scalar bound states whose propagators correspond to only pure amputated functions without external particle legs. In this case, the thermal matrix $`M_S`$ \[Eqs. (6.7) and (6.8)\] which diagonalizes the amputated four-point functions matrix (6.6) in the real-time formalism is different from the thermal matrix of a free scalar particle and can only be considered as an ”effective” one in the case of bound states. Obviously, some more work is needed before any definite relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _S^0}(p)`$ is found, for instance, by some more formal calculations. At present, it seems to be premature for us be able to make a judgement on that in which circumstances, which proper function should be considered. Hence an alternative and more realistic way to treat such difference between the two formalisms is to compare the results obtained by respectively using the propagators in the two formalisms in the same physical problem and examine whether the difference indeed give some physically unequal description or not.

Next we turn to the case of pseudoscalar bound state mode and make similar discussions. By means of Eqs. (4.3) and (4.4), the matrix of the four-point amputated functions for the transition from $`(\overline{Q}i\gamma _5Q)^{(a)}`$ to $`(\overline{Q^{}}i\gamma _5Q^{})^{(b)}`$ can be expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{Q^{}bQa}(p)=\frac{g_{}^{}{}_{Q^{}Q}{}^{}}{G}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^0ba}(p),Q^{},Q=U,D,b,a=1,2$$
(147)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^0ba}(p)(b,a=1,2)`$ is the matrix propagator for the neutral pseudoscalar bound state $`\varphi _P^0`$ in Eq. (2.9) and has the following explicit expression

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^011}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^012}(p)\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^021}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^022}(p)\end{array}\right)=\frac{i_Qm_Q^2}{[(p^2)^2+\epsilon ^2][(k+h)^2+s^2r^2]}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(p^2i\epsilon )(k+h+is)& ip^2r\\ ip^2r& (p^2+i\epsilon )(k+his)\end{array}\right)$$
(148)
The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^0ba}(p)(b,a=1,2)`$ can be diagonalized by a thermal matrix $`M_P`$, i.e.

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^011}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^012}(p)\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^021}(p)& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\varphi _P^022}(p)\end{array}\right)=M_P^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)\end{array}\right)M_P^1$$
(149)
where

$$M_P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _P& \mathrm{sinh}\theta _P\\ \mathrm{sinh}\theta _P& \mathrm{cosh}\theta _P\end{array}\right)$$
(150)
with

$$\mathrm{cosh}\theta _P=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{s}{\sqrt{s^2r^2}}+1\right)^{1/2},\mathrm{sinh}\theta _s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{s}{\sqrt{s^2r^2}}1\right)^{1/2}$$
(151)
Here we again have $`s^2r^20`$ due to $`S_Q(p)\pm R_Q(p)0`$ . The physical propagator for $`\varphi _P^0`$ in the real-time formalism will become

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)=i\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2/(p^2+i\epsilon )[k+his\sqrt{1r^2/s^2}]$$
(152)
It can be compared with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$, the propagator for $`\varphi _P^0`$ in the imaginary-time formalism which, by Eqs. (4.8), (3.26) and (3.23), will have the expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)=i\underset{Q}{}m_Q^2/(p^2+i\epsilon )(k+his^I)$$
(153)
We see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ have very similar expression except that in the imaginary parts of their denominators the replacement $`s\sqrt{1r^2/s^2}s^I`$ must be made when transiting from the real-time formalism to the imaginary-time formalism. Such difference does not change the main physical conclusion reached from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$: $`\varphi _P^0`$ is a massless neutral pseudoscalar particle and can be identified with a Nambu-Goldstone boson of electroweak symmetry breaking. We also note that when $`0p^2<4(m_Q)_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ will be real and idetical since $`s=r=s^I=0`$ in this case. In particular, when $`p^20`$, both have the same form as the propagator for $`\varphi _P^0`$ at $`T=0`$.

Lastly we apply the parallel discussions to the charged scalar bound state mode. By Eqs. (5.3) and (5.4) in Ref. , the matrix of the four-point amputated functions for the transition from $`(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D)^{(a)}`$ to $`(\overline{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+U)^{(b)}`$ is just the matrix propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{ba}(b,a=1,2)`$ for $`\varphi ^{}=(\overline{U}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}D)`$ and its elements can be expressed as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{11}(p)=i{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2i\epsilon )[K_{UD}(p)+H_{UD}(p)+iS_{UD}(p)]+E_{UD}(p)i\overline{M}^2S_{UD}(p)}{\{p^2[K_{UD}(p)+H_{UD}(p)]+E_{UD}(p)\}^2+(p^2\overline{M}^2)^2[S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)]}}=[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{22}(p)]^{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{12}(p)=\frac{e^{\beta (\mu _U\mu _D)/2}(p^2\overline{M}^2)R_{UD}(p)}{\{p^2[K_{UD}(p)+H_{UD}(p)]+E_{UD}(p)\}^2+(p^2\overline{M}^2)^2[S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)]}=e^{\beta (\mu _U\mu _D)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{21}(p)$$
(154)
where $`\overline{M}^2`$, $`K_{UD}(p)`$, $`H_{UD}(p)`$ and $`E_{UD}(p)`$ have been given by Eqs. (5.24)-(5.27) respectively, and by Eqs. (5.11) and (5.12) in Ref. , we have

$`S_{UD}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2d_Q(R){\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_U^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2]}`$ (156)
$`\left\{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)\right\},`$
$$R_{UD}(p)=2\pi ^2d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_U^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2]\mathrm{sin}2\theta (l^0,\mu _U)\mathrm{sin}2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D).$$
(157)
By means of a thermal matrix $`M_C`$, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{ba}(b,a=1,2)`$ can be diagonalized, i.e.

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{11}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{12}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{21}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}^{22}\end{array}\right)=M_C^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{R}^{\varphi ^{}}{}_{}{}^{}(p)\end{array}\right)M_C^1$$
(158)
where

$$M_C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _C& e^\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\theta _C\\ e^\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\theta _C& \mathrm{cosh}\theta _C\end{array}\right)$$
(159)
with

$$\alpha =\beta (\mu _U\mu _D)/2,\mathrm{cosh}\theta _C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{S_{UD}(p)}{\sqrt{S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)}}+1\right]^{1/2},\mathrm{sinh}\theta _C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{S_{UD}}{\sqrt{S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)}}1\right]^{1/2}$$
(160)
It is easy from Eqs. (6.20) and (6.21) to verify that

$$S_{UD}(p)\pm R_{UD}(p)=4\pi ^2d_Q(R)\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (l^2m_U^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2]\mathrm{sin}^2[\theta (l^0,\mu _U)\pm \theta (l^0+p^0,\mu _D)]0.$$
(161)
thus we must have $`S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)0`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ in Eq. (6.22) is now defined as the physical propagator for $`\varphi ^{}`$ in the real-time formalism and can be expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)=i/\left\{(p^2+i\epsilon )[K_{UD}(p)+H_{UD}(p)]+E_{UD}(p)i(p^2\overline{M}^2)\sqrt{S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)}\right\}$$
(162)
It has very similar form to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ in Eq. (5.23), the propagator for $`\varphi ^{}`$ in the imaginary-time formalism, but for the transition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ we must make the replacement $`\sqrt{S_{UD}^2(p)R_{UD}^2(p)}S_{UD}^I(p)`$ in the imaginary parts of their denominators. Obviously, all the conclusions coming from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ will be the same as those from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ in Sec.V. When $`m_U=m_D=m_Q`$ and $`\mu _U=\mu _D=\mu _Q`$, we will have $`E_{UD}=\overline{M}^2=0`$, $`K_{UD}=K_Q`$, $`H_{UD}=H_Q`$, $`S_{UD}=S_Q`$, and $`R_{UD}=R_Q`$, thus we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)=i/(p^2+i\epsilon )\left[K_Q(p)+H_Q(p)i\sqrt{S_Q^2(p)R_Q^2(p)}\right]$$
(163)
which has identical form to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\varphi _P^0}(p)`$ in this case. The thermal matrix element

$`\mathrm{cosh}\theta _C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[S_Q(p)/\sqrt{S_Q^2(p)R_Q^2(p)}+1\right]^{1/2}`$

will also coincide with $`\mathrm{cosh}\theta _P`$. In addition, it can be proven that

$$\delta (l^2m_U^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m_D^2]=0,\mathrm{when}(m_Um_D)^2p^2<(m_U+m_D)^2,$$
(164)
thus $`S_{UD}(p)`$, $`R_{UD}(p)`$ and $`S_{UD}^I(p)`$ are all equal to zeroes and these will make $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\varphi ^{}(p)`$ become identical in this case.

## VII Conclusions

In the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field theory we have reexamined the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking at finite temperature in a one-generation fermion condensate scheme and compared the results with those obtained in the real-time formalism through some redefined physical propagators for scalar bound states. By means of the Schwinger-Dyson equation in the fermion bubble diagram approximation, it is obtained that the propagators for scalar bound states have very similar forms in the two formalisms, except that the imaginary parts of the denominators of the propagators have some differences when the momenta squared of the bound states are within some given ranges. However, these differences do not change the common essential conclusions reached in the two formalisms. These conclusions are as follows.
1) When the two flavors of the one generation of fermions are mass-degenerate, at the temperature $`T`$ below the symmetry restoration temperature $`T_c`$, one may obtain a composite Higgs boson $`\varphi _S^0`$ with mass $`2m_Q`$, a composite neutral pseudoscalar Nambu-Goldstone boson $`\varphi _P^0`$ and two composite charged Nambu-Goldstone bosons $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^+`$. Thus the Goldstone theorem representing the spontaneous breaking of electroweak group $`SU_L(2)\times U_Y(1)U_Q(1)`$ is valid rigorously in this case.
2) When one of the two flavors of fermions are massless, we can obtain the same $`\varphi _S^0`$ and $`\varphi _P^0`$ as ones in 1), but the charged scalar bound states $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^+`$ will no longer be rigorously massless and they could be considered approximately massless only if the momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is very large and the considered energy scales are low. This means that the Goldstone theorem at finite temperature is only approximately valid at low energy scales.
3) When the two flavors of fermions have unequal nonzero masses, besides the conclusions in 2) keeping to be valid, it seems that we will meet the possible fluctuation effect of the Higgs boson’s amplitude originated from the imaginary part of its propagator’s pole. However, it has been argued that such effect is compeletely negligible, if the momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is sufficiently large.
The above conclusions imply that, as far as the discussed Nambu-Goldstone mechanism in this model is concerned, the two formalisms of thermal field theory give physically equivalent description. In particular, by the redefinition of physical propagators in the real-time formalism, the extra result of the Higgs mass being doubled which originates from the definition of physical propagator of $`\varphi _S^0`$ by 11 element of its matrix propagator has automatically disappeared.
Our calculations also show that, the gap equation, which comes from two-point amputated functions and is determined by the loops bounded by a single fermion propagator, is identical in the two formalisms without the need of analytic continuation. However, the propagator for scalar bound states , when defined by four-point amputated functions and calculated in the fermion bubble diagram approximation, are determined by the loops bounded by two fermion propagators, will could have some differences in the imaginary parts of their denominators in the two formalisms. Such differences have close relation to the introduction of the ghost fields to cancel the pinch singularities in the real-time formalism and it seems that they could technically be attributed to different order of analytic continuation for the discrete Matsubara frequencies in the two formalisms . However, a greater possibility is that such differences reflect that we are calculating different functions in the two formalisms. This problem needs to be researched further, especially with the bound state propagators being involved in. Before any definite relation between the propagators in the two formalisms is found, we may still respectively use the propagators in the two formalisms in the same physical problem and compare the results obtained, as has been made in this paper. Although the differences between the propagators do not predict any actually different physical effect in the model discussed here, whether, where and how they could do that is an interesting problem deserving of being researched further.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and by Grant No. LWTZ-1298 of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.