text:
# Correlation Time Scales in the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model

## Abstract

We investigate the dynamical behavior of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick mean field model of spin glasses by numerical simulation. All the time scales $`\tau _x`$ we have measured behave like $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau _x)N^ϵ`$, where $`N`$ is the number of spins and $`ϵ\frac{1}{3}`$. This is true whether the autocorrelation function used to define $`\tau _x`$ is sensitive to the full reversal of the system or not.

Today many features of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick mean field model of spin glasses  have been clarified. Probably most questions that still need investigations are related to the very interesting dynamics of the model (see for example ). Here, following Mackenzie and Young , we examine the equilibrium dynamics of the model. In this classic paper the authors gave numerical evidences, from systems with up to 192 spins, for the existence of a spectrum of relaxation times which diverge with the number of spins $`N`$ as $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau )N^{\frac{1}{4}}`$, and of a second, longer “ergodic” time scale $`\tau _{eg}`$ which is the time needed to turn over all the spins, with $`\overline{<\mathrm{ln}(\tau _{eg})>}N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. For doing that one looks both at processes that require a full reversal of all the spins and at processes that on the contrary are not sensitive to this phenomenon. In this letter, we establish that indeed all dynamical scales have the same behavior, compatible with barrier heights growing like $`N^ϵ`$, where $`ϵ0.3`$ close to the $`N^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ behavior suggested in  (see also the numerical simulations in ).

Let us start by giving some details about our simulation. We study systems with $`N=64`$, $`128`$, $`256`$, $`512`$, and $`1024`$ spins, with $`\pm 1`$ couplings. We first thermalize the system using the parallel tempering optimized Monte Carlo procedure  with a set of $`38`$ $`T`$ values in the range $`0.41.325`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.025`$). We perform $`400000`$ iterations (one iteration consists of one Metropolis sweep plus one tempering update cycle), and store the final well equilibrated configurations. Next we start updating these equilibrium configurations (more precisely the subset with $`T`$ = 0.4, 0.5 , …) with a simple Metropolis dynamics, and perform $`410^6`$ Metropolis sweeps. We have in all cases two replica and $`512`$ realizations of the disorder.

For each of these samples we compute the flip times $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _3`$. We define $`\tau _1^{(J)}`$ as the time after which, on a given sample $`J`$, the time dependent self-overlap

$$q(0,t)\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\sigma _i(0)\sigma _i(t)$$
(1)
has become smaller than $`+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{q^2_J},$$
(2)
where $`q^2_J`$, the usual square Parisi overlap, is computed during the second half of the thermalization run for the given sample. The time $`t`$ is measured in units of sweeps, with $`t=0`$ at the beginning of the Metropolis dynamics. We define analogously $`\tau _2`$ as the time it takes to $`q(0,t)`$ to decay from its initial value of $`1`$ down to $`0`$, and $`\tau _3`$ as the time it takes to $`q(0,t)`$ to decay down to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

We expect***Notice that while $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _3`$ are unambiguous signatures of the transition to the reversed part of the phase space, $`\tau _1`$ can be ambiguous, since depending on $`T`$ it can still characterize a transition in the short time regime or already an ergodic transition. The fact that the three $`\tau _i`$ turn out to be compatible gives further support to the existence of a single time scale exponent $`ϵ`$. $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _3`$ to obey the same scaling law. In the following we will try to check if an exponential scaling of the kind

$$\tau _{1,2,3}A_{1,2,3}\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha _{1,2,3}N^ϵ\right)$$
(3)
gives a good fit to the data, and we will try to determine $`ϵ`$.

We base our analysis on empirical medians for $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau )`$, i.e. we sort the 512 values of $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau )`$ as $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau ^{(0)})\mathrm{ln}(\tau ^{(1)})\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}(\tau ^{(511)})`$ (more precisely the 512 values of $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau )`$ averaged over the two replica) and define the median as $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau ^{(255)})`$. For large $`N`$ and small $`T`$, the probability distribution of $`\tau `$ has a very long tail (for large values of $`\tau `$), and in many cases we are not able to compute average values, since for some samples $`\tau `$ is larger than the number of sweeps performed. On the contrary, the median approach works, and allows a fair estimate. In all cases where we are also able to estimate the average value of $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau )`$, we find that it is very similar to the median value. Thanks to this approach we have been able to estimate $`\tau _1`$ on all our lattice sizes down to $`T=0.4`$, $`\tau _2`$ down to $`T=0.5`$ and $`\tau _3`$ down to $`T=0.6`$. Statistical errors have been computed using the usual bootstrap procedure.

The second decay time of interest is the time scale that governs the decay of, for example, the square (time-dependent) overlap. We monitor the decay of $`\overline{<q(0,t)>_J}`$ and of

$$q_c^2(t)\overline{<q^2(0,t)>_Jq^2_J},$$
(4)
and we call $`\tau _q`$ and $`\tau _{q_2}`$ the time scales that characterize the short time decay of these objects (see later for details about the exact definition).

Let us start by the results for $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _3`$. In figure (1) we plot one of our most successful fits of $`\tau _3`$: here we are at $`T=0.6`$, the fit is very good and we estimate

$$ϵ_{\tau _3}(T=0.6)=0.25\pm 0.04,$$
(5)
that can be compared to

$$ϵ_{\tau _1}(T=0.6)=0.20\pm 0.16,ϵ_{\tau _2}(T=0.6)=0.19\pm 0.07.$$
(6)
Our estimates for $`ϵ_{\tau _1}`$, $`ϵ_{\tau _2}`$ and $`ϵ_{\tau _3}`$ turn out to be very similar. The general pattern that emerges from these fit is of a very good consistency. Let us go in some more details. Fits to $`ϵ_{\tau _3}`$ (here, as we said, we wait for $`q`$ becoming negative and equal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) are available only down to $`T=0.6`$ (at lower $`T`$ values $`\tau _3`$ is too large and we are not able to estimate at all $`ϵ_{\tau _3}`$). For $`T`$ from $`0.6`$ up to $`0.8`$ the best fit is very stable with an exponent close to $`0.250.30`$. When going too close to the critical point the behavior becomes less clean. $`ϵ_{\tau _2}`$ (where we wait for $`q`$ becoming zero) can be determined down to $`T=0.5`$ ( $`\tau _2`$ is smaller than $`\tau _3`$). Here fluctuations are slightly larger than in the former case, but again up to $`T=0.8`$ the exponent fluctuates in the range $`0.20.3`$. In the $`ϵ_{\tau _1}`$ case (where we only wait for $`q`$ decreasing from $`1`$ down to $`+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) we succeed to get a good estimate down to $`T=0.4`$. Again here, for example, we estimate $`ϵ_{\tau _1}(T=0.4)0.25`$, and we get a quite stable fit in $`T`$. We remark that when $`T`$ approaches $`T_c`$ the estimates of $`ϵ_{\tau _{1,2,3}}`$ have large errors: $`\alpha `$ becomes very small (one expects $`\alpha 0`$ for $`TT_c`$) and the leading $`N^ϵ`$ behavior cannot be distinguished, with the present range of system sizes, from sub-leading corrections. It is also important to notice that our data fully confirm that different ways to estimate the correlation times (the $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$ $`\tau `$’s) lead to the same scaling behavior, with a scaling exponent close to $`0.3`$.

Let us notice here (and this is the focal point of this note, that we will discuss better in the following) that the result of equation (5) does not manifest, as opposite to the findings of , a scale of the order of $`\mathrm{exp}(cN^{\frac{1}{2}})`$. The scale we observe is governed by an exponent close to $`0.3`$.

We discuss now the measurements of correlation times that do not involve the reversal of all the spins. As an example we plot in figure (2) $`q_c^2(t)`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ at $`T=0.6`$, and in figure (3) the same quantity at $`T=0.4`$. The two figures exhibit two regimes separated by some crossover value $`t_{max}`$: a small time regime, where $`q_c^2(t)`$ decays slowly with $`\mathrm{ln}(t)`$, and a large t regime where $`q_c^2(t)`$ is very small. This is very suggestive of the existence of a whole spectrum of relaxation times, up to some maximal value $`t_{max}`$.

We have defined the correlation time $`\tau _{q_2}`$ by computing the time needed for $`q_c^2(t)`$ to decrease from the value $`0.25`$ to a threshold value $`𝒯`$ that we vary (reference  was looking directly to the moment in which $`q_c^2(t)`$ is close enough to zero)It is important to note that the ergodic correlation times $`\tau _i`$ and these $`\tau _{q_2}`$, $`\tau _q`$ are defined in very different ways, and none of them as a simple, bona fide coefficient of an exponential decay $`e^{t/\tau }`$. The fact that we find that they satisfy reasonable scaling laws shows that the definitions we use are well founded.. In the case of $`q_c^2(t)`$ we have used the two threshold values $`𝒯_1=0.125`$ and $`𝒯_2=0.050`$.

The exponents we estimate by best fits to the form (3) are again quite stable (even if in this case we have not been able to produce reliable error estimates) and, let us note right ahead, if any they are larger than the one estimated for the full reversal times $`\tau _{1,2,3}`$: we can be quite precise on the claim that the scenario where a slower time scale governs the full spin reversal while a faster time scale governs the valley to valley migration does not apply. As an example we plot in figure 4 the $`\tau _{q_2}`$ time as a function of $`N`$, and our best fit to the form (3) at $`T=0.4`$ and for a threshold $`𝒯_2=0.050`$: the estimated exponent is here $`0.38\pm 0.05`$. The exponent values are very stable when changing the value of the lower threshold, that is a very good sign. In the $`T`$ range $`0.50.8`$ the estimated value of $`ϵ`$ are in the range $`0.280.38`$, i.e. completely compatible with the value $`\frac{1}{3}`$ that is reasonable from a theoretical point of view (see for example ). The quality of the best fit degenerates again when $`T`$ becomes too close to $`T_c`$. It is maybe worth to stress here that the determination of the exponent $`ϵ`$ is a very difficult problem, exponentially more difficult than the usual determination of critical exponents, since here instead of a power behavior we are trying to fit an exponential to a power behavior: if $`\tau `$ is ranging over $`5`$ order of magnitudes (that would be more than acceptable for a power fit) its logarithm is ranging over half a decade only, that gives a poor basis for our fit to the exponential of a power law.

We have also measured $`q(t)`$, that we plot in figures 5 and 6 for $`T=0.6`$ and $`T=0.4`$ respectively. At large times $`q(t)`$ goes to zero, on the contrary we expect the initial decay to be governed from the same process that determines the decay of $`q_c^2(t)`$. It is also interesting to note that we are observing the expected plateau at the Edwards-Anderson value of the self-overlap, $`q_{EA}`$: with good approximation one estimates  $`q_{EA}(T=0.6)0.50`$ and $`q_{EA}(T=0.4)0.74`$. These two values coincide very well with the locations where on our larger lattice we see a plateau: this is very clear at $`T=0.4`$ in figure 6 and a bit less clean but also evident at $`T=0.6`$ in figure 5. The finite, large system, spends a long time at $`q_{EA}`$ before having $`q(t)0`$ because of the ergodic transition.

We have checked that by fitting with the same procedure used for $`q_c^2(t)`$, using this time the $`q`$ interval going from $`1`$ down to $`0.63`$ (we use a higher low threshold to stay far from the actual decay to zero). Things work well, and we fit a scaling exponent for the correlation times statistically compatible with the one obtained for $`q_c^2(t)`$. We show in figure 7 the analogous of figure 4, where the best fit gives $`ϵ_{\tau _q}=0.34\pm 0.02`$ (again, very well compatible with the value $`\frac{1}{3}`$). Consistent results (slightly lower, of the order of $`0.25`$) are obtained at higher $`T`$ values.

It is clear from the figures we have shown that $`q(t)`$ and $`q_c^2(t)`$ decay very slowly to zero, on a logarithmic scale. We try to be more quantitative in figure 8, where we show that the $`q_c^2(t)`$ data are very linear when plotted, for example, as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}(t)^\beta `$, with $`\beta =0.25`$: we do not consider that as a fair determination of $`\beta `$, since there is a large range of value of $`\beta `$ that make the plot linear. What we can claim is that $`\beta `$ is surely a small value, of the order of magnitude of $`0.25`$. At higher $`T`$ values we have the same kind of behavior.

In figure 9 we show, for our largest system, $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau _{q_2})`$ as function of $`T`$. The data are very well explained by the fact that we expect an Arrhenius like behavior, $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{A}{T})`$, with $`A(T_cT)`$ : a coefficient proportional to $`\frac{T_cT}{T}`$ fits indeed the data very well.

We can sketch a few conclusions. In the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick mean field model of spin glasses one single time scaling dictates the behavior of the correlations times related to the complete reversal of all spins and to the transitions through the different states that constitute the phase space: the speculation suggesting that one could get two different scaling laws is not founded. It is not easy to get precise values for the exponent that characterizes this exponential scaling, but all our findings are compatible with a $`ϵ=\frac{1}{3}`$ scaling: this is consistent with barriers scaling like $`N^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ . We have also been able to show that the connected squared overlap decays to zero with a power of the logarithm of the order of $`0.25`$ (and clearly not like a power law).

One of us (E.M.) warmly thanks the Service de Physique Théorique of CEA/Saclay and the Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Modèles Statistiques of Université Paris-Sud for the kind hospitality, during which part of this work was done. We thank Bernard Derrida, Giorgio Parisi, Felix Ritort and Marta Sales for useful conversations.


format: text

text:
# References

Algebraic-statistical approach to quantum mechanics

D.A.Slavnov

Department of Physics, Moscow State University,

Moscow 119899, Russia. E-mail: slavnov@theory2.npi.msu.su

## Abstract

It is proposed the scheme of quantum mechanics, in which a Hilbert space and the linear operators are not primary elements of the theory. Instead of it certain variant of the algebraic approach is considered. The elements of noncommutative algebra (observables) and the nonlinear functionals on this algebra (physical states) are used as the primary constituents. The functionals associate with results of a particular measurement.

It is suggested to consider certain ensembles of the physical states as quantum states of the standart quantum mechanics. It is shown that in such scheme the mathematical formalism of the standart quantum mechanics can be reproduced completely.

The majority of physicists has long hardened to the view that in the famous dispute of Bohr with Einstein about bases of quantum mechanics Bohr was right. Nevertheless, in proposed paper the attempt is done to advance in the direction, which was defended by Einstein . The basic thesis of Einstein was that: in the modern form the quantum theory is the quite correct statistical theory of ensembles of physical systems but it is not a theory of elementary processes. In this sense it is not a complete theory. See also  up over it.

The standart quantum mechanics (quantum mechanics of Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, von Neumann) is similar to thermodynamics in some sort. These sections of physics give the correct description of quantities averaged over the large ensembles of physical objects. In both cases it is possible to formulate postulates only for the ensembles (average quantities). On the basis of these postulates it is possible to construct the adequate theories.

However, it is known so far as it is a fruitful idea to consider the basic thermodynamic quantities as statistical the averages of more elementary quantities. Correspondingly it is very useful to consider that the laws of thermodynamics is not postulates but they are the consequences of the laws of statistical physics, which is grounded on probability theory and complex of the laws driving behaviour of elementary physical objects.

In the proposed paper the attempt is done to realize something similar in case of quantum mechanics. However, in contrast to of classical thermodynamics, here it is not supposed that the laws for elementary physical objects are identical to the laws of classical mechanics.

Instead of this statement we shall accept much weaker postulate of the algebraic approach to quantum theory : the elements of some algebra correspond to observable quantities. This phrase denotes only that observable quantities can be summed up, multiplied together, and multiplied by numbers. As all observable quantities are real, probably, it is possible to restrict oneself to a real algebra. The Jordan algebra of observables (see ) can set up a claim to this role. However, in this algebra the operation of multiplication is defined in a rather complicated manner, and there is no property of associativity. In this connection it seems to me justified to leave the framework of directly observable quantities and to consider their complex combinations, which further will be referred to as dynamical quantities.

Correspondingly we shall accept the first postulate.
To dynamical quantities there correspond elements of an involutive associative (generally) noncommutative algebra A, obeying: (i) for each element $`\widehat{R}\text{A}`$ there is the hermitian element $`\widehat{A}`$ $`(\widehat{A}^{}=\widehat{A})`$ that $`\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R}=\widehat{A}^2`$; (ii) if $`\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R}=0`$, then $`\widehat{R}=0`$.

Here and everywhere further it is supposed that the requirement of presence of the unity element $`\widehat{I}`$ is included in definition of algebra. The hermitian elements of algebra Acorrespond to observable quantities. The set of these elements will be designated $`\text{A}_+`$. We shall consider that all elements of the real linear space $`\text{A}_+`$ correspond to observables. Strictly speaking, it is not always valid since rules of superselection can exist. But we shall not consider this problem in the present paper.

We shall borrow the second postulate from the standart quantum mechanics.
Let be $`[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]0`$. Then a measurement of one of the observables (at least one) causes uncontrollable perturbation to the value of other observable.
It is usually used the expression —the observables are not simultaneously measurable — though this expression does not describe the phenomenon quite exactly.

In connection with this postulate commutative subalgebras of the algebra Awill play essential role in the further. Let us designate a maximal real commutative subalgebra of the algebra Aby Q ($`\text{Q}\{\widehat{Q}\}\text{A}_+`$). It is a algebra of the simultaneously measurable observables. If the algebra A is commutative (algebra of classical dynamical quantities), there is one such subalgebra. If the algebra A is noncommutative (algebra of quantum dynamical quantities), there a lot of such subalgebras. Moreover, the set of the subalgebras Q has potency of continuum. Really, already for algebra A with two not commuting hermitian generators $`\widehat{A}_1`$ and $`\widehat{A}_2`$ the real subalgebra $`\text{Q}_\alpha `$ with generator $`\widehat{B}(\alpha )=\widehat{A}_1\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\widehat{A}_2\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ will be algebra of type Q for everyone $`\alpha `$.

I remind of the definition of a spectrum $`\sigma (\widehat{A};\text{A})`$ of algebra A. The number $`\lambda `$ is a point of the spectrum of an element $`\widehat{A}`$ iff the element $`\widehat{A}\lambda \widehat{I}`$ has no an inverse one in the algebra A.

Generally speaking, the same element can have different spectrums in an algebra and in its subalgebra. However, for algebras of type Q the statement is valid (see ): $`\sigma (\widehat{Q};\text{Q})=\sigma (\widehat{Q};\text{A})`$ for everyone $`\widehat{Q}\text{Q}`$.

The hermitian elements of the algebra A are latent form of the observable quantities. The explicit form of the observable should be some number. In other words, for the representation of the explicit form of observables on hermitian elements of the algebra A some functional $`\phi `$ should be set: $`\phi (\widehat{A})=A`$ is a real number.The physically, the latent form of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$ becomes explicit as a result measurements. It means that the functional $`\phi (\widehat{A})`$ gives the value of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ which is obtained in a concrete (individual) measurement. We shall call this functional the physical state of the considered quantum object.

In an individual experiment the mutually commuting elements can be measured only. The sum and the product of observed data should correspond to the sum and the product of observables: $`\widehat{A}_1+\widehat{A}_2A_1+A_2`$, $`\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2A_1A_2`$.

Let us use the following definition (see ). Let B be complex (real) commutative algebra and $`\phi `$ is a linear functional on B. If

$$\phi (\widehat{B}_1\widehat{B}_2)=\phi (\widehat{B}_1)\phi (\widehat{B}_2)$$
(1)
for all $`\widehat{B}_1\text{B}`$ and $`\widehat{B}_2\text{B}`$, then the functional $`\phi `$ refers to as by a complex (real) homomorphism on algebra B. The functional, satisfying to equality (1), also refers to as by a multiplicative functional.

Let us accept the third postulate.

The physical state of a concrete quantum object is defined by the functional $`\phi (\widehat{A})(\widehat{A}\text{A}_+)`$, for which restriction on any subalgebra of type Q is a real homomorphism.

The functional $`\phi (\widehat{A})`$ has properties (see ):

$`/1/`$ $`\phi (0)=0;`$
$`/2/`$ $`\phi (\widehat{I})=1;`$
$`/3/`$ $`\phi (\widehat{A}^2)0;`$
$`/4/`$ $`\text{if }\lambda =\phi (\widehat{A}),\text{ then }\lambda \sigma (\widehat{A};\text{A});`$
$`/5/`$ $`\text{if }\lambda \sigma (\widehat{A};\text{A}),\text{ then }\lambda =\phi (\widehat{A})\text{ for some }\phi (\widehat{A}).`$
All these properties perfectly agree with results of individual experiments.

It seems natural additionally to require existence of an experiment (i.e. a functional $`\phi ()`$), which would separate various observables. In other words, it is valid the fourth postulate

$$\phi (\widehat{A}_1)=\phi (\widehat{A}_2)\text{ }\text{for all}\text{ }\phi ,\text{ }\text{iff}\text{ }\widehat{A}_1=\widehat{A}_2.$$

I note that in the standart quantum mechanics the more strong supposition is done: the observables coincide if all their average values coincide. In the standart quantum mechanics it is postulated also that the result of an individual measurement of an observable belongs to its spectrum. In the proposed approach it is obtained automatically (formula (S0.Ex4): /4/ and /5 /).

Only restriction of the functional $`\phi ()`$ on the subalgebras Qhas property of linearity , but the physical states are not linear functionals on the set $`\text{A}_+`$ .

Set of all physical states of the considered physical system can be called by phase space of this system. That is, a point of the phase space $`M`$ is a (nonlinear) functional $`\phi `$ on the set $`\text{A}_+`$.

Just as in case of the classical phase space, the point in $`M`$ can be given with the help of a set of real numbers (coordinates). This set can be constructed as follows. We select some subalgebra $`\text{Q}_1`$ (of type Q). Let $`G(\text{Q}_1)`$ be a set of generators of the algebra $`\text{Q}_1`$. The functional $`\phi `$ maps the set $`G(\text{Q}_1)`$ into the set $`S_1`$ of real numbers (points of the spectrum of the algebra A):

$$G(\text{Q}_1)\stackrel{\phi }{}S_1.$$
(3)
Further we select another subalgebra $`\text{Q}_2`$. If $`G(\text{Q}_1)\text{Q}_2\stackrel{~}{G}_1\mathrm{}`$, the elements of the set $`\stackrel{~}{G}_1`$ we take as subset of generators of the algebra $`\text{Q}_2`$. We expand this subset arbitrarily to have a complete set $`G(\text{Q}_2)`$ of generators of the algebras $`\text{Q}_2`$. Similarly to the formula (3)

$$G(\text{Q}_2)\stackrel{\phi }{}S_2.$$

Then, we build generators of the subalgebras $`\text{Q}_3`$, including in their composition the elements of the set $`[G(\text{Q}_1)G(\text{Q}_2)]\text{Q}_3`$. And so on.

If the algebra A is commutative (the classical physical system), the process will break at the first stage. And we shall obtain coordinates of the usual classical phase space. If the algebra A is noncommutative, a potency of the set of the subalgebras $`\text{Q}_i`$ is equal to the continuum. The process never will break. The set of the coordinates $`_iS_i`$ will be infinite. Moreover, the set of the coordinates will have a potency of the continuum. Each coordinate is a real point of the spectrum of the algebra A.

It is possible to see that the structure of a phase space of a quantum system is similar to the structure of a phase space of a classical real field. Therefore, Einstein ideas that one constituent of the base of the complete quantum theory should be classical fields of the general relativity, perhaps, are not absolutely motiveless.

Now we shall introduce a construction, which corresponds to pure state in the standart quantum mechanics. The functional $`\phi `$ maps a set $`\text{Q}=\{\widehat{Q}\}`$ (maximal commutative subalgebra) into the set of real numbers:

$$\{\widehat{Q}\}\stackrel{\phi }{}\{Q=\phi (\widehat{Q})\}.$$

For different functionals $`\phi _i()`$, $`\phi _j()`$ the sets $`\{\phi _i(\widehat{Q})\}`$, $`\{\phi _j(\widehat{Q})\}`$ can either differ or coincide. If for all $`\widehat{Q}\{\widehat{Q}\}`$ is valid $`\phi _i(\widehat{Q})=\phi _j(\widehat{Q})=Q`$, then we shall call physical functionals $`\phi _i()`$ and $`\phi _j()`$ as $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent functionals. Let $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ be the set of all $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent functionals. Let us call the set $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ a quantum state, and we shall designate it $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$. It is clear, that for unique fixing $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$ it is not necessary to fix the set of all observables $`\{\widehat{Q}\}`$. It is possible to restrict oneself to values of the functionals for generators of the algebras Q.

To the quantum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$ there corresponds a surface (infinite-dimensional, more precisely, the dimensionality has a potency of continuum) in phase space of the quantum system.

The physical state cannot be uniquely fixed. Really, in one experiment we can measure only mutually commuting observables. All these observables are elements of a certain set $`\{Q\}`$. But all $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent functionals have identical values on any observable $`\widehat{Q}\{Q\}`$. Therefore, with the help of the performed experiment we cannot distinguish one physical state from another if both of them belong to the set $`\{\phi \}_Q`$.

The second experiment will not help, as, generally speaking, in this experiment we shall deal with other physical state. Anyway, we do not have any physical possibility to reproduce safely the physical state, which we dealt in the first experiment with.

The most strict fixing of the physical state $`\phi `$, which can be realized practically, consists in assigning it to some set $`\{\phi \}_Q`$, i.e. to a certain quantum state. For this purpose it is sufficient to perform measurements of mutually commuting observables, it is possible to restrict oneself to corresponding generators only. In principle it can be done in one experiment.

Strictly speaking, it is valid only, when there are no identical particles in the physical system. The fact is that a measuring device does not distinguish, what of identical particles has hit it. Therefore, to keep validity of the statement of the previous paragraph, it is necessary to extend the definition of quantum state.

Let the physical system contain identical particles. Let $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ be a set of $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent functionals. We shall call a functional $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ weakly $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent to the functionals $`\{\phi \}_Q`$, if there is such set $`\{\widehat{Q}^{}\}`$, on which the functional $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ has the same values, what functionals $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ has on the set $`\{\widehat{Q}\}`$. The set $`\{\widehat{Q}^{}\}`$ should be a map of the set $`\{\widehat{Q}\}`$, in which the observables, concerning to one of the identical particles, are substituted by corresponding observables, concerning to another.

Now we call the set of all weakly $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent functionals a quantum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$. Further let us use label $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ for the set of all weakly $`\{Q\}`$-equivalent functionals, and we shall omit the word ”weakly” at definition of the equivalence.

Thus, in essence we can not have the complete information about a physical state of a concrete physical object. The maximal observable and controllable information on the physical object is concentrated in the quantum state.

Actually, it is possible to obtain the information about a membership of the physical state of the concrete object to the intersection of two quantum states (see ). However, this information always concerns the state, in which the object was in past and left not by completely controlled manner.

It follows from this words that we always have the inexact information about the initial physical state of a concrete quantum object. Therefore, even under the strictly deterministic laws of evolution we can do only probabilistic predictions for values of the majority of observables. The situation is quite similar to what takes place in statistical physics.

The quantum phase space has potency of continuum. Beforehand we have no special possibilities to organize experiment so that the preassigned physical state appeared in it. Therefore, probability of appearance of the investigating quantum object in a preassigned physical state is equal to zero. It follows from here, the probability is equal to zero that in two different experiments we shall meet two identical physical states. Moreover, in anyone finite or denumerable set of experiments the probability of meeting two identical physical states is equal to zero. Certainly, it does not signify that such event is impossible. Nevertheless, we can consider that in different experiments we always deal with different physical states.

We use certain positions of probability theory. Let us consider a phase space (set of physical states) as a general set and each measurement of observable as a trial (term of probability theory). We shall consider experiment, in which the measured value of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ is no more $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, i.e. $`\phi (\widehat{A})=A\stackrel{~}{A}`$, as event $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$.

This event is not unconditioned. In quantum theory there is a specific constraint: one trial is not to be event for measurement of two noncommuting observables. The probability of event $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is determined by the structure of phase space and mentioned constraint. Let this probability be equal $`P(\stackrel{~}{A})`$.

Let us consider sample of $`n`$ mutually independent random trials. By definition, the probability of appearance of the event $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in each of these trials is equal to $`P(\stackrel{~}{A})`$. Let the event $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ occur in this sample $`k_n`$ times. Then, by definition, $`k_n/n`$ is a probability of appearance of the event $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in the sample. Over the Bernoulli theorem (see ) the quantity $`k_n/n`$ converges over probability to $`P(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Thus, the quantity, to which $`k_n/n`$ at $`n\mathrm{}`$ converges over probability, is a probability of appearance of the event $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in any denumerable sample of independent random trials. This probability is identical at all such samples and is equal to $`P(\stackrel{~}{A})`$. It determines the probability measure $`\mu (\phi )(\phi (\widehat{A})\stackrel{~}{A})`$ on any such sample.

Let us use the Khintchine’s theorem (see ), formulated in the terms, which are used in the present paper.

Let $`A_1=\phi _1(\widehat{A}),\mathrm{},A_n=\phi _n(\widehat{A})`$ be a sequence of values of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$ in the mentioned sample of physical states. Everyone $`A_i`$ has the same distribution $`(P(\stackrel{~}{A}))`$ and the finite expectation $`<A>`$. Then the aleatory variable $`\overline{A}_n=(A_1+\mathrm{}+A_n)/n`$ converges over probability to $`<A>`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Thus,

$$<A>=\text{P-}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\left(\phi _1(\widehat{A})+\mathrm{}+\phi _n(\widehat{A})\right)=𝑑\mu (\phi )\phi (\widehat{A}).$$
(4)
In the right-hand side it is necessary to integrate over denumerable random sample.

Denumerable random sample, which contains all measurement of quantity of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$, we shall call a set of relevant states for $`\widehat{A}`$ and we shall designate $`[\phi ]^{\widehat{A}}`$. Similarly, we shall define a set of relevant states for an observable $`\widehat{B}`$. Let $`[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]0`$, then the observables $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ should be measured in different experiments. As the sets $`[\phi ]^{\widehat{A}}`$ and $`[\phi ]^{\widehat{B}}`$ are denumerable, the probability of their intersection is equal to zero. Therefore, for relevant states the constraint is fulfilled automatically with probability, equal to unity.

All reasonings remain in force, if the events satisfy a certain additional constraint. In particular, (it is of special interest): under test all physical states belong to a certain quantum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q=\{\phi \}_Q`$.

In this case the formula (4) will be rewritten as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{A})=\text{P-}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\left(\phi _1(\widehat{A})+\mathrm{}+\phi _n(\widehat{A})\right)=_{\{\phi \}_Q^{\widehat{A}}}𝑑\mu _Q(\phi )\phi (\widehat{A}).$$
(5)
Here $`\{\phi \}_Q^{\widehat{A}}=\{\phi \}_Q[\phi ]^{\widehat{A}}`$ $`\phi _i\{\phi \}_Q^{\widehat{A}}`$.

The formula (5) defines a functional (quantum average) on the set $`\text{A}_+`$. The totality of quantum experiments uniquely testifies in favour of what we should accept the fifth axiom.

A functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q()`$ is linear on the set $`\text{A}_+`$.
It means

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{A}+\widehat{B})=\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{A})+\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{B})\text{ and in that case, when }[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]0.$$

In the standart quantum mechanics the similar statement is a consequence of three postulates:

(j) to each observable $`\widehat{A}`$ there corresponds a linear operator $`𝒜`$ in some Hilbert space;

(jj) if the operators $`𝒜`$ and $``$ correspond to observables $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$, the operator $`𝒜+`$ (simultaneous measurability $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ is not necessary) corresponds to the observable $`\widehat{A}+\widehat{B}`$;

(jjj) the average value of an observable is equal to expectation of the corresponding operator.

Any one of these statements does not follow uniquely from the experimental facts. Other matter, they do not contradict the totality of the experimental data and allow to construct the perfectly working mathematical formalism of the standart quantum mechanics, .

Any element $`\widehat{R}`$ of the algebra A can uniquely be represented in form $`\widehat{R}=\widehat{A}+i\widehat{B}`$, where $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}\text{A}_+`$. Therefore, it is possible to extend the functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q()`$ up to the linear functional on the algebra A: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{R})=\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{A})+i\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{B})`$.

Let $`\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R}=\widehat{A}^2\{\widehat{Q}\}`$ ($`\widehat{A}\text{A}_+`$). If $`\phi \{\phi \}_Q`$, then $`\phi (\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R})=A^2`$. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R})=A^2=\phi (\widehat{A}^2)|_{\phi \{\phi \}_Q^{\widehat{A}}}.$$

From here

$$\widehat{R}^2\underset{Q}{sup}\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R})=\underset{\phi [\phi ]^{\widehat{A}}}{sup}\phi (\widehat{A}^2)>0,\text{ if }\widehat{R}0.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q()`$ is a positive linear functional, the Cauchy-Bunkyakovsky-Schwarz inequality is valid

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{R}^{}\mathrm{SS})\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\mathrm{SS}^{}\widehat{R})\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R})\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(\mathrm{SS}^{}\mathrm{SS}).$$

Therefore, (see ), for $`\widehat{R}`$ the postulates for norm of the element $`\widehat{R}`$ are fulfilled: $`\widehat{R}+\mathrm{SS}\widehat{R}+\mathrm{SS}`$, $`\lambda \widehat{R}=|\lambda |\widehat{R}`$, $`\widehat{R}^{}=\widehat{R}`$.

The algebra A become Banach space after extension over norm $``$. Since $`\phi ([\widehat{A}^2]^2)=[\phi (\widehat{A}^2)]^2`$, then $`\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R}=\widehat{R}^2`$, i.e. the algebra A is $`C^{}`$-algebra. Taking into account the formula (S0.Ex4) /2/, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q()`$ is a positive linear functional on $`C^{}`$-algebra, satisfying the normalizing condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(I)=1`$. Therefore, according to the Gelfand-Naumark-Segal construction (see ), the functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q()`$ canonically generates a Hilbert space and the representation of the algebra A by linear operators in this Hilbert space. In other words, in the proposed approach it is possible to reproduce the mathematical formalism of the standart quantum mechanics completely.

At will, the previous reasonings can be viewed as an underpinning of the postulates of the standart quantum mechanics, necessary for construction of its formalism. I shall note that the postulates, accepted in the present paper, are related to experiment more direct, than postulates of the standart quantum mechanics. Such only mathematical notions as vectors of Hilbert space (wave functions) and functionals in Hilbert space are not the primary elements of the theory in the proposed approach. They arise only at the second stage. The primary elements are the observables and physical states, which are related directly to the results of the experiment. It is possible to consider that they are connected with the material structure of the investigated quantum object and do not depend on the observer (see ).

As opposed to that, the quantum states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q()`$ have some subjective element. The matter is that one physical state can belong to different quantum states $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ and $`\{\phi \}_P`$. That is, $`\phi \{\phi \}_Q\{\phi \}_P`$, where the states $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ are classified by values of the set $`\{\widehat{Q}\}`$ of mutually commuting observables $`\widehat{Q}`$, and $`\{\phi \}_P`$ are classified by values of observables $`\widehat{P}\{\widehat{P}\}`$. The observables $`\widehat{Q}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ do not commute among themselves. Then depending on what set ($`\{\widehat{Q}\}`$ or $`\{\widehat{P}\}`$) we shall choose for the classification, the physical state $`\phi `$ will be referred either to the quantum state $`\{\phi \}_Q`$ or to the quantum state $`\{\phi \}_P`$. This subjective component in quantum state is the origin of the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox . The variant of experiment, proposed Bohm  for demonstrating the paradox, looks as follows.

Let a spin-zero particle decay into two particles $`A`$ and $`B`$ with spins 1/2 which scatter at large distance. Let us measure a projection of spin onto the axis $`z`$ for the particle $`A`$. Let the result will be $`S_z(A)`$. Then, using the conservation law, we can state that for the particle $`B`$ the projection of spin onto the axis $`z`$ is equal $`S_z(B)=S_z(A)`$ with absolute probability. Therefore we should consider that the particle $`B`$ will be in the quantum state with fixed projection of spin onto axis $`z`$ ( $`S_z(B)=S_z(A)`$) after measurements of spin of the particle $`A`$. However, for the particle $`A`$ we could measure the projection of spin onto axis $`x`$. Let the result be $`S_x(A)`$. Then we could assert that after of such measurement the particle $`B`$ will be in the quantum state with fixed projection of spin $`S_x(B)=S_x(A)`$.

Thus, by his wish the observer ”drives” the particle $`B`$ either into the quantum state $`\{\phi \}_{S_z(A)}`$, or into the quantum state $`\{\phi \}_{S_x(A)}`$, without acting on the particle $`B`$ physically in any way.

The authors of the paper  estimated that such situation indicates incompleteness of quantum mechanics, since the following requirements are broken: (k) every element of the physical reality must have a copy in the complete physical theory; (kk) if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there is an element of reality corresponding to this quantity.

Bohr  declaimed against this statement. Bohr supposed that the quantum particles $`A`$ and $`B`$ can not be considered as separate realities even when they have ceased to interact. In this sense the quantum theory essentially differs from classical one. In the classical theory, if the object negligibly weakly interacts with other objects, it can be studied as a separate reality. In the Bohr quantum theory it is not so.

The approach to quantum mechanics, proposed in the present paper, does not contradict the requirements, formulated in the paper . The copy, appearing in the requirement (k), is the physical state of each particle. The reality, which figures in the requirement (kk), will exist, if the physical state of each quantum object is uniquely determinated by its material structure. Such guess well agrees with the proposed approach (see ).

Thus, in the proposed approach the paradox does not arise. At any way of measurement of spin of the particle $`A`$ the physical state of the particle $`B`$ (the objective reality) will be same $`\phi \{\phi \}_{S_z(A)}\{\phi \}_{S_x(A)}`$. The various quantum states of the particle $`B`$ arise due to a subjective choice by the observer of a device for measurement of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$.

It is seen from this example that the physical state $`\phi `$ can be considered as a specific hidden parameter. On the one hand, a particular physical state $`\phi `$ corresponds to a concrete event. In this sense it is a parameter. On the other hand, the physical state cannot be fixed uniquely with the help of experiment; it is possible only to establish its membership in this or that ensemble (quantum state). In this sense $`\phi `$ is a hidden parameter.

After the works of von Neumann hidden parameters have got bad reputation in quantum mechanics. In the famous monography  von Neumann asserts that the models with hidden parameters are incompatible with the basic postulates of quantum mechanics.

As such basic postulates of quantum mechanics von Neumann accepts, in particular, the postulates (j) and (jj). From these postulates he has made a deduction that any quantum-mechanical ensemble has dispersion. That is, in this ensemble not all average squares of observables are equal to squares of average corresponding quantities. In the monography  it is proved that such ensemble cannot be decomposed into zero-dispersion subensembles, as they simply do not exist. In return, it follows from here that introducing of hidden parameters is impossible .

However, in the proposed approach the postulates (j) and (jj) are absent. The corresponding statements are valid not for observables (elements of algebra), but only for their representations, which are generated by the functionals of a special form (quantum average). The von Neumann’s reasoning is invalid for a physical state. A physical state is zero-dispersion ”subensemble” comprising one element. Its existence is not forbidden since ”average” values of observables over such ensemble are defined by the nonlinear functional $`\phi ()`$. By virtue of nonlinearity of the functional $`\phi ()`$ the physical state is not related to any representation of algebra of observables. Therefore, on physical states the observables are not representable by linear operators on a Hilbert space and the postulates ($`j`$, $`jj`$, $`jjj`$) can not be formulated for them.

In fact, in the monography  it is shown that the linearity of a state is in the conflict with causality and the hypothesis about the hidden parameters. Herefrom von Neumann has made a deduction that causality is absent at the microscopic level, and the causality occurs due to averaging over large number of noncausal events at the macroscopic level.

The approach, formulated in the present work, allows to solve the same conflict in the opposite way. It is possible to suppose that there is causality at the level of the single microscopic phenomenon and the linearity is absent. The linearity of the (quantum) state occurs due to averagings over quantum ensemble. The transition from the single phenomenon to quantum ensemble replaces the initial determinism by probabilistic interpretation.

Besides von Neumann’s reasoning, there is one more argument, not less famous, against schemes with hidden parameters, it is Bell inequality . The Bell has proved that if in a quantum system there are hidden parameters, the particular combination of correlation functions satisfies the certain inequality. The experiment does not confirm such deduction, and it agrees with results of the standart quantum mechanics. For the proof of the Bell inequality it is essential that the hidden parameters, appearing in the different correlation functions, have identical ranges.

In the proposed approach the analogs of these ranges are the sets of states, relevant for corresponding observables. In the different correlation functions there are the noncommuting observables. Therefore, probability of intersection of the corresponding sets of relevant states is equal to zero. It follows from here that the probability of validity of the Bell inequality is equal to zero in our case. In more detail this problem is surveyed in paper .

At axiomatic construction of theory a rather difficult problem frequently exists, whether there are nontrivial models satisfying the formulated postulates. It is known that in the axiomatic approach to quantum theory of the field this problem is very painful. However, in the case, considered in present paper, this problem is solved simply.

The standart quantum mechanics represents huge amount of such models. It is possible to consider any of them, for example, the harmonic oscillator. In this system it is known the Hilbert space of quantum states and the set $`\stackrel{~}{\text{A}}_+`$ of the selfajoint linear operators which are the observables. Over linearity this set is extend up to a complex algebra $`\stackrel{~}{\text{A}}`$. This algebra satisfies all postulates, which the algebra of dynamical quantities A should satisfy.

The structure of the sets $`\stackrel{~}{\text{A}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{A}}_+`$ is completely known. Therefore, in principle, we can find all maximal real commutative subalgebras. In these subalgebras we shall choose the systems of generators, as at construction of the coordinates in the phase space. Further we shall find spectrums of all the generators. Over the points of these spectrums, using property (S0.Ex4) /5/, we shall construct functionals $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$. Its restriction on each maximal subalgebra must realize a real homomorphism. These functionals will have properties of the physical states $`\phi `$. Thus, we can construct the set of all physical states for the given physical system.

To construct probability measure on this space, more precisely, on its subspaces, corresponding to each quantum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$, it is possible as follows. We shall calculate probability to detect the value $`A`$ of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ in the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$ over formulas of the standart quantum mechanics, using corresponding vectors of the Hilbert space. The Gelfand-Naumark-Segal construction ensures validity of this operation. After that we shall calculate probability to detect all values of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$, which satisfy the condition $`A\stackrel{~}{A}`$. This probability will be the probability measure $`\mu _Q(\phi )\left(\phi (\widehat{A})\stackrel{~}{A},\phi \{\phi \}_Q^{\widehat{A}}\right)`$.

In present paper the kinematic and statistical problems of quantum mechanics are surveyed only. It has allowed to do without any suppositions about form of the interaction in quantum mechanics.

It is possible to incorporate in the proposed scheme of quantum mechanics the dynamics, which describes not only unitary temporal evolution of quantum ensembles (interaction of the second sort, over terminologies of von Neumann ), but also interaction with measuring device (interaction of the first sort). Within the framework of this dynamics the wave-corpuscle dualism and collapse of a quantum state can be explained.

The variant of such dynamics is described in paper . However for construction of such dynamics it is required more detailed suppositions about the structure of the quantum object. These suppositions have considerably less general character, than what are made in present paper. They can seem by much more disputable.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We shall consider massless quarks of three colours and two different flavours. At zero density the theory is invariant under the group $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. We shall disregard in the sequel further invariances under $`U(1)`$, not essential for the following derivations. The model we shall consider is based on the approximation: $`m_1=m_u0,m_2=m_d0`$ and large $`m_s`$, of the full QCD theory with three flavours.

At higher densities we introduce two chemical potentials, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ for the two species, with (assuming $`\mu _1\mu _2`$)

$$\mu _1\mu _2=\delta \mu \mu =\frac{\mu _1+\mu _2}{2}.$$
(1)
Physical situations with $`\delta \mu 0`$ are the most likely to occur in nature. For example, the so-called glitches of neutron stars  (see also ) should be studied in this hypothesis. More generally, it is theoretically important, independently of applications, to study in detail each single phase of the QCD phase-diagram, which implies the analysis for generic values of $`\delta \mu `$. This note is devoted to the construction of an effective theory for the physically interesting case $`\delta \mu 0`$ . Before describing our formalism, let us start however with a brief review of the $`\delta \mu =0`$ case.

QCD in the limit $`\delta \mu =0,\mu \mathrm{},T=0`$ has been first studied in  and subsequently by a number of authors , who have shown that a phenomenon of colour superconductivity takes place. Effects of this phase should most likely be seen in astrophysical contexts, for instance in connection with magnetic fields in quark matter , quark star oscillations , cooling of neutron stars , and supernova neutrinos .

The origin of the superconducting (BCS) phase can be traced back to the vacuum expectation value of the operator

$$\psi _{i\alpha }^TC\psi _{j\beta },$$
(2)
($`\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3`$ colour indices; $`i,j=1,2`$ flavour indices) that, for $`\mu `$ sufficiently large, is non vanishing. If $`\psi `$ is used to represent a left-handed two-component Weyl spinor and $`C=i\sigma _2`$, one gets indeed:

$$ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }ϵ_{ij}<\psi _{i\alpha }^TC\psi _{j\beta }>=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ^{\gamma 3}.$$
(3)
The right handed field satisfies the same relation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$). The condensate (3) breaks the original symmetry group $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ down to

$$SU(2)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R.$$
(4)
The chiral group remains unbroken, while the original colour symmetry group is broken to $`SU(2)_c`$, with generators $`T^A`$ corresponding to the generators $`T^1,T^2,T^3`$ of $`SU(3)_c`$. Therefore three gluons remain massless whereas the remaining five acquire a mass. There are no Nambu-Goldstone Bosons. The effective theory to describe this situation has been discussed in  (the three massless flavor case was studied in ).

The microscopic dynamics results from a mechanism analogous to the formation of an electron Cooper pair in a BCS superconductor. At $`T=0`$ the only QCD interactions are those involving fermions near the Fermi surface. Quarks inside the Fermi sphere cannot interact because of the Pauli principle, unless the interactions involve large momentum exchanges. In this way the quarks can escape the Fermi surface, but these processes are disfavoured, as large momentum transfers imply small couplings due to the asymptotic freedom property of QCD. Even though interactions of fermions near the Fermi surface involve momenta of the order of $`\mu `$, their effects are not necessarily negligible. As a matter of fact, even a small attractive interaction between fermions near the Fermi surface and carrying opposite momenta can create an instability and give rise to coherent effects. This is what really happens  and the result is the formation of a diquark condensate, as expressed by (3). We stress again that the only relevant fermion degrees of freedom are therefore those near the Fermi surface.

This picture holds also for $`\delta \mu 0`$ provided $`\delta \mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$. On the other hand, for $`\delta \mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, the picture changes significantly. The analysis in  shows that there exist two values of $`\delta \mu `$, $`\delta \mu _1`$ and $`\delta \mu _2`$, such that, for

$$\delta \mu (\delta \mu _1,\delta \mu _2),$$
(5)
the high density quark-gluon matter is in a phase characterized by the breaking of translational and rotational invariance, due to the presence of a scalar and a vector condensate. This phenomenon is called crystalline colour superconductivity of QCD and the relative phase is named LOFF phase, from the initials of the authors  who have studied a similar phase in quantum electrodynamics. The LOFF phase, is energetically favoured as compared to the BCS phase if (5) holds. The authors of ref.  find $`\delta \mu _1=0.71\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\delta \mu _2=0.744\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`\mu =0.4GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=40MeV`$.

The aim of the present note is to present an effective lagrangian approach to this phase. By integrating out the negative energy fermion fields and the gluons and introducing velocity-dependent positive energy quark fields we shall first obtain an effective theory where the effective quark fields are basically free, but possess a Majorana mass term breaking translational and rotational invariance. This term arises from the presence of a scalar and a vector condensate, as discussed in . This lagrangian represents an extension of the results of  to the crystalline colour superconductive phase. We shall then couple the theory to the field which describes the Nambu-Goldstone boson arising by the breaking of the above mentioned symmetries. The integration of the fermion degrees of freedom eventually leads to an effective theory containing as dynamical fields only the NGB field.

## 2 Effective theory near the Fermi surface

To start with, we extend the approach of Ref.  to the two flavour case. We allow $`\delta \mu 0`$. If $`p_j`$ is the momentum of the quark having flavour $`j`$, we write:

$$p_j=\mu _jv+\mathrm{}_j.$$
(6)
Here $`v^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v})`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the Fermi velocity. Since we wish to describe excitations near the Fermi surface, we shall limit the functional integration in the generating functional to fermion fields satisfying

$$|\mathrm{}_j|<\mu _j.$$
(7)
Therefore, introducing fields $`\psi _\pm `$, corresponding to positive and negative energies for the massless left-handed Weyl fermion of flavour $`j`$ in the chemical potential $`\mu _j`$, we have

$`\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}e^{i\mu _jvx}{\displaystyle _{\left|\mathrm{}_j\right|<\mu _j}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\mathrm{}_j}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{i\mathrm{}_jx}\psi _\stackrel{}{v}(\mathrm{}_j)=`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}e^{i\mu _jvx}\left[\psi _+(x)+\psi _{}(x)\right],`$ (9)
where

$$\psi _\pm (x)=\frac{1\pm \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}}{2}_{\left|\mathrm{}\right|<\mu _j}\frac{d^4\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i\mathrm{}x}\psi _\stackrel{}{v}(\mathrm{}).$$
(10)
Here $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}`$ means an average over the Fermi velocities and

$$\psi _\pm (x)\psi _{\pm ,\stackrel{}{v}}(x)$$
(11)
are velocity-dependent fields. The meaning of this decomposition is that the negative energy fields $`\psi _{}`$ can be expressed in terms of the positive energy ones through the formula

$$\psi _{}=\frac{1}{2\mu _j}\gamma _0\overline{)}_T\psi _+,$$
(12)
which results from the equations of motion, and therefore can be integrated out. Here

$`\overline{)}_T`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \gamma _T^\mu `$ (13)
$`\gamma _T^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\lambda \left(2g^{\mu \lambda }V^\mu \stackrel{~}{V}^\lambda V^\lambda \stackrel{~}{V}^\mu \right)`$ (14)
and

$`V^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(1,+\stackrel{}{v})`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(1,\stackrel{}{v}).`$ (16)
Eliminating $`\psi _{}`$ results in an effective theory which at the lowest order is described by the lagrangian :

$$_0=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\left(\psi _+^{}iV^\mu _\mu \psi _+\frac{1}{2\mu _j}\psi _+^{}\left(\overline{)}_T\right)^2\psi _+\right)+(LR).$$
(17)
The term $`1/\mu _j`$ is in general non leading and can be neglected, which we will do in the sequel111In  it has been shown that it contributes to the Meissner gluon mass in the colour flavour locking phase of QCD . Since we are not interested here in the calculation of the gluon mass arising from the colour breaking of 2-flavour QCD we can neglect it altogether; for a more complete discussion on this see . We have not included in the previous expression the gluon fields which play no role in the subsequent discussion.. We note explicitly that the fields appearing in this equation depend on the same velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ because of the Riemann Lebesgue lemma. Off-diagonal contributions would have the form:

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_2}{}e^{i\mu _j(\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{x}}\psi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}_2}^{}iV\psi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}_1}+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
that give negligible contributions in the large chemical potential limit, due to the rapid oscillations of the exponential function.

It is useful to use a different basis for the fermion fields. We introduce:

$`\psi _{+,i\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{A=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sigma _A)_{i\alpha }}{\sqrt{2}}}\phi _+^A(i,\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ (19)
$`\psi _{+,13}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _+^4`$ (20)
$`\psi _{+,23}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _+^5,`$ (21)
where $`\sigma _A`$ are the Pauli matrices for $`A=1,2,3`$ and $`\sigma _0=1`$. Here clearly $`\phi _+^A`$ are positive energy, velocity dependent fields:

$$\phi _+^A\phi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}}^A.$$
(22)
We also introduce

$$\phi _{}^A\phi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}}^A.$$
(23)
$`\phi _\pm ^A`$ should not be confused with the positive and negative energy fields; they are both positive energy fields, but are relative to opposite velocities.

The lagrangian $`_0`$ can therefore be written as follows:

$$_0=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\underset{A=0}{\overset{5}{}}\phi _+^A(iV)\phi _+^A+(LR).$$
(24)
Using the fact that the average over velocities is symmetric we write:

$$_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\underset{A=0}{\overset{5}{}}\left(\phi _+^A(iV)\phi _+^A+\phi _{}^A(i\stackrel{~}{V})\phi _{}^A\right).$$
(25)
Introducing now

$$\chi ^A=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _+^A\\ \\ C\phi _{}^A,\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
the lagrangian can be written as follows:

$$_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\underset{A=0}{\overset{5}{}}\chi ^A\left(\begin{array}{cc}iV& 0\\ 0& i\stackrel{~}{V}\end{array}\right)\chi ^A.$$
(27)
## 3 Crystalline colour superconductive phase

As shown in  the vacuum state is characterized by a non vanishing expectation value of a lagrangian term breaking translational and rotational invariance. The appearance of this condensate is a consequence of the fact that for $`\mu _1\mu _2`$, and in a given range of $`|\mu _1\mu _2|`$ , the formation of a Cooper pair with a total momentum

$$\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{}{q}$$
(28)
is energetically favoured in comparison with the normal BCS state, if (5) is satisfied. There are actually two condensates, one with the two quarks in a spin zero state (scalar condensate) and the other one characterized by total spin 1 (vector condensate). In the BCS state the quarks forming the Cooper pair have necessarily $`S=0`$; as a matter of fact, since the quarks have opposite momenta and equal helicities, they must be in an antisymmetric spin state. This not true if the total momentum is not zero and the two quarks can have both $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$.

The possible form of these condensates is discussed in ; in particular the geometric properties of the crystalline phase have been assumed to arise from a simple plane wave behaviour of the condensate $`e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}`$, though more complicated structures are possible. We shall limit our analysis to the simplest case; to begin with, we consider the lagrangian term relative to the scalar condensate. We shall write it as follows:

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}}{2}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}ϵ_{ij}\psi _{i\alpha }^T(x)C\psi _{i\beta }(x)(LR)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(29)
Here $`\psi (x)`$ are positive energy left-handed fermion fields. We introduce velocity dependent positive energy fields $`\psi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}_i;i\alpha }`$ having flavour $`i`$; neglecting the non-leading negative-energy fields we have:

$`_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}}{2}}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}\times `$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_2}{}}ϵ_{ij}ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}e^{i\mu (\stackrel{}{v}_1+\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{x}+i\frac{\delta \mu }{2}(\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{x}}\psi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}_i;i\alpha }(x)C\psi _{+,\stackrel{}{v}_j;j\beta }(x)`$
$`(LR)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$
Because of the Riemann-Lebesgue theorem, in the $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ limit, the only non vanishing term in the sum corresponds to $`\stackrel{}{v}_1+\stackrel{}{v}_2=0`$. Putting $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{v}_1=\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ and

$$\psi _{+,\pm \stackrel{}{v}_i;i\alpha }(x)\psi _{\pm \stackrel{}{v}_i;i\alpha }(x),$$
(33)
we have:

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}}{2}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}ϵ_{ij}ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}\psi _{+\stackrel{}{v};i\alpha }(x)C\psi _{\stackrel{}{v};j\beta }(x)(LR)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(34)
This term can be written as follows:

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{v}}^{(s)}(\stackrel{}{x})}{2}ϵ_{ij}ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}\psi _{+\stackrel{}{v};i\alpha }(x)C\psi _{\stackrel{}{v};j\beta }(x),$$
(35)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{v}}^{(s)}(\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}.$$
(36)
It is clear that this term violates translation and rotation invariance, since $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is fixed. It also breaks colour symmetry from $`SU(3)_c`$ down to $`SU(2)_c`$.

The term corresponding to the vector condensate in the lagrangian can be written as follows:

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{v}}^{(v)}(\stackrel{}{x})}{2}\sigma _{ij}^1ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}\psi _{+\stackrel{}{v};i\alpha }(x)C(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{n})\psi _{\stackrel{}{v};j\beta }(x),$$
(37)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{v}}^{(v)}(\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}.$$
(38)
Here $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{q}/|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ is the direction corresponding to the total momentum carried by the Cooper pair. Also this term, besides colour symmetry, breaks translation and rotation invariance.

In the basis introduced in the previous section, the effective lagrangian is

$``$ $`=`$ $`_0+_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}+_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}=`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{A=0}{\overset{5}{}}}\chi ^A\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\delta _{AB}V& \mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}& i\delta _{AB}\stackrel{~}{V}\end{array}\right)\chi ^B,`$ (43)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}^{(s)}+(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n})\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}^{(v)}.$$
(44)
Correspondingly, the effective action in momentum space reads:

$$S=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}\underset{A,B=0}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4\mathrm{}^{}}{(2\pi )^4}\chi ^A(\mathrm{}^{})D_{AB}^1(\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{})\chi _B(\mathrm{}),$$
(45)
where $`D_{AB}^1(\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{})`$ is the inverse propagator given by:

$`D_{AB}^1(\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{})=`$ (46)
(47)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V\mathrm{}\delta _{AB}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{})& \mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}+\delta \mu v+2q)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}\delta \mu v2q)& \stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{}\delta _{AB}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{})\end{array}\right).`$ (50)
Here we have defined $`q^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{q})`$ and we have used $`\psi _{}^TC\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{n}\psi _+=\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}\psi _{}^TC\psi _+`$ . The matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}^{(s)}`$ is diagonal:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}^{(s)}=\delta _{AB}\mathrm{\Delta }_A^{(s)}$$
(51)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{(s)}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)},\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{(s)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{(s)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_3^{(s)}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)},\mathrm{\Delta }_4^{(s)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_5^{(s)}=0.$$
(52)
On the other hand one has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}^{(v)}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(53)
From these equations one can derive the quark propagator, given by

$`D_{AB}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })=`$ (54)
(55)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{C}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{}\delta _{AC}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })& \mathrm{\Delta }_{AC}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }+\delta \mu v+2q)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{AC}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }\delta \mu v2q)& V\mathrm{}\delta _{AC}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })\end{array}\right)\times `$ (58)
$`\left((V\mathrm{})(\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{})𝚫^2\right)_{CB}^1`$ (59)
with $`𝚫_{AB}^2={\displaystyle \underset{C}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{AC}\mathrm{\Delta }_{CB}`$. One can observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{4B}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{5B}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{A4}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{A5}=0`$. Therefore the propagator for both the fields $`\chi ^{4,5}`$ is simply given by

$$D(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(V\mathrm{})^1\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})& 0\\ 0& (\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{})^1\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})\end{array}\right).$$
(60)
As for the other four fields $`\chi ^A`$, $`A=0,\mathrm{},3`$, we proceed as follows. Let us put

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)},\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)};$$
(61)
we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_0& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_1\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_0& i\mathrm{\Delta }_1& 0\\ 0& i\mathrm{\Delta }_1& \mathrm{\Delta }_0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_1& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_0\end{array}\right).$$
(62)
We note that the explicit appearance of the factor $`i`$ in the Majorana mass matrix implies the breaking of charge conjugation according to its standard definition. However there is invariance under the following combined operations: take the complex conjugation, and send $`\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}`$, as it follows noticing that, correspondingly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$.

The mass matrix can be made diagonal by going from the basis $`\chi ^A`$ to the new basis $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^A`$ defined as follows

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \chi ^0+\mathrm{sin}\theta \chi ^3`$ (63)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\chi ^1i\chi ^2)`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\chi ^1+i\chi ^2)`$ (65)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \chi ^0+\mathrm{cos}\theta \chi ^3,`$ (66)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2}}}`$. In the new basis, the propagator for the fields $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^A`$, $`A=0,\mathrm{},3`$, is given by

$`D_{AB}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})& M_A\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}+\delta \mu v+2q)\\ M_A\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}\delta \mu v2q)& V\mathrm{}\delta ^4(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})\end{array}\right)\times `$ (69)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{AB}}{(V\mathrm{})(\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{})M_A^2}}`$ (70)
where

$`M^A`$ $`=`$ $`(M^0,M^1,M^2,M^3)=`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`(+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2},(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_1),(\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_1),\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2}).`$ (73)
One can note the mass differences between these states arising from the combined action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$.

## 4 Effective lagrangian for the phonon

Let us consider again the breaking terms given by $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}`$, that is

$`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}+_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}=`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}ϵ_{ij}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}\sigma _{ij}^1\right]ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}\psi _{+\stackrel{}{v};i\alpha }C\psi _{\stackrel{}{v};j\beta }`$ (78)
$`(LR).`$
This condensate breaks explicitly rotations and translations, however the discussion of the number of NGB’s in the case of space symmetries is a subtle one due to the particular group structure. In fact rotations and translations cannot be considered transformations breaking the symmetries of the theory in an independent way. This is because a translation plus a rotation is physically equivalent to a translation. We have two sources of space-time symmetry breaking in (78), one arising from the exponential term, which breaks both translation and rotation invariance, and another one in the vector condensate (only rotation invariance is broken in this term). These two breakings are locked as the direction of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the exponential term coincides with the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ of the vector condensate. Let us discuss the consequences of this situation more closely.

Let us first consider spatial rotations and the vector condensate. We take the $`z`$-axis pointing along the direction of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. We define the three-vector

$$(\stackrel{}{R})_i=R_i(\xi _1,\xi _2)=(e^{i(\xi _1L_1+\xi _2L_2)/f_R})_{i3}$$
(79)
with $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ the generators of the rotation group in the spin 1 representation, i.e.

$$(L_i)_{jk}=iϵ_{ijk}$$
(80)
and $`\xi _1`$, $`\xi _2`$ are fields. It follows from the orthogonality of the rotation matrices that

$$|\stackrel{}{R}|^2=1.$$
(81)
Moreover we assume

$$\stackrel{}{R}_0=\stackrel{}{n}.$$
(82)
Since the fields $`R_i`$ transforms as a vector under rotations, it follows that the rotational symmetry is restored by the substitution:

$$\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{R}.$$
(83)
Let us now consider the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{exp}(2iq\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x})`$ in (78), which breaks both rotational and translational invariance. Notice that the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\delta \mu vx)`$ does not break translation and rotation symmetries, since it comes from a field redefinition in a lagrangian which was originally invariant. As we have discussed, we can deal with rotations by the substitution $`\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{R}`$, i.e. by the replacement:

$$e^{2iq\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{2iq\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{x}}.$$
(84)
As it stands, however, this factor still breaks the translational invariance, since, under a translation $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}=\stackrel{}{x}+\stackrel{}{a}`$ it transforms as

$$e^{2iq\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{2iq\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{x}+2iq\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{a}}$$
(85)
In order to make the exponential term invariant we introduce therefore a new function $`TT(x)`$ such that under translations

$$TT2q\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{R};$$
(86)
if we write the exponential term as follows

$$e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{2iq\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{x}+iT},$$
(87)
then it becomes invariant under both translation and rotations. Let us consider now the combination

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=2q\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{x}+T=2\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}+\varphi /f,$$
(88)
with

$$\varphi /f=2q(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{n})\stackrel{}{x}+T.$$
(89)
The function $`\varphi `$ acts as the phonon (Nambu-Goldstone boson) field associated to the breaking of the space symmetry. Under a translation $`\stackrel{}{a}`$

$$\varphi /f\varphi /f2\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{a},$$
(90)
and under an infinitesimal rotation $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}+\delta \stackrel{}{x}`$,

$$\varphi /f\varphi /f2\stackrel{}{q}\delta \stackrel{}{x}.$$
(91)
moreover the classical phonon field has to satisfy the condition of being a small fluctuation, i.e.

$$|\varphi |f.$$
(92)
Had we considered only the scalar condensate there would be no need to discuss the field $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ any longer, as only the combination $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ would be relevant. The presence of the vector condensate forces to introduce the field $`\stackrel{}{R}`$, as we have seen in eq. (83); however, the condition (92) tells us that the fields $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ and $`T`$ are strictly related. In fact, in order to maintain $`\varphi `$ small, one has to compensate the fluctuations of $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ (that are amplified at large distances by the factor $`\stackrel{}{x}`$) with large fluctuations of $`T`$. This means that the degrees of freedom described by $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ are not independent of $`T`$. We can describe this dependence by writing

$$\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }}{|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }|},$$
(93)
which satisfies (81,82). We note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an auxiliary field while the dynamical field is $`\varphi `$; as a matter of fact, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\varphi `$ differ by the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x},\varphi _0=0.$$
(94)
In conclusion, the interaction term with the NGB field is contained in

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}\times `$ (95)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}ϵ_{ij}+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{R})\sigma _{ij}^1\right]ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}\psi _{i,\alpha ,\stackrel{}{v}}C\psi _{j,\beta ,\stackrel{}{v}}`$ (97)
$``$ $`(LR).`$ (99)
Notice that we have neglected the breaking of the colour symmetry, which has been considered elsewhere . At the first order in the fields one gets the following three-linear coupling:

$`_{\varphi \psi \psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\varphi }{2f}}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}ϵ_{ij}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}\sigma _{ij}^1\right]ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}\psi _{i,\alpha ,\stackrel{}{v}}C\psi _{j,\beta ,\stackrel{}{v}}`$ (104)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4fq}}e^{2i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{v}}{}}e^{i\delta \mu \stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{v}\left[\stackrel{}{}\varphi \stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{}\varphi )\right]\mathrm{\Delta }^{(v)}\sigma _{ij}^1ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}\psi _{i,\alpha ,\stackrel{}{v}}C\psi _{j,\beta ,\stackrel{}{v}}`$
$`(LR).`$
Through a bosonization procedure similar to the one employed in , one can derive an effective lagrangian for the NGB field. The effective lagrangian must contain only derivative terms. Polynomial terms are indeed forbidden by translation invariance, since $`\varphi `$ is not an invariant field (see eq. (89)). In order to write the kinetic terms is better to use the auxiliary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which behaves as a scalar under both rotations and translation. To avoid the presence of polynomial terms in the phonon lagrangian one has to exclude polynomial terms in the auxiliary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as well; therefore the lagrangian should be constructed only by derivative terms. However since the expectation value of the gradient of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\stackrel{}{q}`$, we cannot limit the expansion in the spatial detivatives of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to any finite order. A real spatial derivative expansion can be made only for the phonon field $`\varphi `$. With this in mind the most general invariant lagrangian will contain a tower of space-derivative terms:

$$(\varphi ,_\mu \varphi )=\frac{f^2}{2}\left[\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n(|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }|^2)^n\right].$$
(105)
It can be observed that, because of the definition of $`\stackrel{}{R}`$, no other vector is available besides $`\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (for instance $`\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }=|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }|`$). In this lagrangian $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be thought as a function of the phonon field $`\varphi `$.

Since

$$|\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }|^2=4q^2+\frac{4q}{f}\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{}\varphi +\frac{1}{f^2}|\stackrel{}{}\varphi |^2,$$
(106)
and similar for higher powers, at the lowest order in the derivatives of the phonon field $`\varphi `$ we get, neglecting a constant term:

$$(\varphi ,_\mu \varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\left[\dot{\varphi }^2v_{}^2|\stackrel{}{}_{}\varphi |^2v^2\left(4qf\stackrel{}{}_{}\varphi +|\stackrel{}{}\varphi |^2\right)\right],$$
(107)
where $`\stackrel{}{}_{}\varphi =\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{}\varphi `$ and $`v_{}^2`$, $`v^2`$ are constants. Notice that the linear term gives rise to a surface contribution. Also, the lagrangian (105), expressed in terms of the true scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is rotational and translational invariant. On the other hand, in order to define a bona fide field we have to extract from $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ its space-dependent vacuum expectation value. This implies that the phonon field $`\varphi `$ does not behave as a scalar field under translations and rotations (see eqs. (90) and (91)). As a consequence, the gradient expansion made in eq. (107) seems to lack rotational invariance. However this is not really true, since it is not difficult to check that in eq. (107) the sum of the two terms proportional to $`v^2`$ is rotational invariant, whereas the variation of the term proportional to $`v_{}^2`$ is compensated by the variation of a third order term in the spatial derivatives. The lack of rotational invariance appears only order by order in the gradient expansion. This should not be too surprising. In fact we can draw an analogy with the chiral case. The analogue of the chiral field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is here the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ whereas the pion corresponds to the phonon. Expanding the chiral lagrangian in terms of the pion field we lack, order by order, chiral invariance, just because the pion transforms non linearly under chiral rotations. The same happens in the present case. Therefore, the physical consequence of the extraction of the expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an anisotropy in the dispersion relation for the phonon field.

## 5 Conclusions

We have constructed the effective lagrangian decribing the expected crystalline colour superconductive phase (LOFF phase) in high density and low temperature QCD with two massless flavors. The LOFF  phase has been considered of possible astrophysical interest. It certainly deserves theoretical study as one of the components of the QCD phase diagram. The effective lagrangian we have constructed here extends previous results  to the crystalline phase. The construction is done by first integrating out the gluons and the negative energy (with respect to the Fermi sphere) fermions and describing positive energy fermions by velocity-dependent fields. The effective quarks behave as free fields with a Majorana mass term, breaking (besides colour, to be dealt with as in ) translational and rotational invariance. The theory is then coupled to the phonon arising from the spontaneous breaking of space symmetries. Finally one can integrate over the fermions leaving as dynamical fields only the phonon field.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank Krishna Rajagopal for enlightening advices which have helped us very much in giving the final form to this paper.