text:
# A Diagrammatic Approach to Crystalline Color Superconductivity

## I Introduction and Summary

It is becoming widely accepted that at asymptotic densities the ground state of QCD with three massless quarks is the color-flavor locked (CFL) phase . This phase features a condensate of Cooper pairs of quarks which includes $`ud`$, $`us`$ and $`ds`$ pairs. The CFL phase persists for finite masses, and even for unequal masses, so long as the differences are not too large . It also persists in the presence of a nonzero electron chemical potential $`\mu _e`$, so long as $`\mu _e`$ is not too large . In the absence of any interaction (and thus in the absence of CFL pairing) either a quark mass difference or a nonzero $`\mu _e`$ pushes the Fermi momenta for different flavors apart, yielding different number densities for different flavors. In the CFL phase, however, the fact that the pairing energy is maximized when $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ number densities are equal enforces this equality . This means that if one imagines increasing either the strange quark mass $`m_s`$ or $`\mu _e`$, nothing happens until a first order phase transition, at which CFL pairing is disrupted, (some) quark number densities spring free under the accumulated tension, and a less symmetric state of quark matter is obtained .

We can study much of the physics of interest by focussing just on pairing between massless up and down quarks with chemical potentials

$`\mu _u`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mu }\delta \mu `$ (1)
$`\mu _d`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mu }+\delta \mu .`$ (2)
For $`0<\delta \mu <\delta \mu _1`$, the ground state is precisely that obtained for $`\delta \mu =0`$ . In this state, red and green up and down quarks pair, yielding four quasiparticles with superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ . And, the number density of red and green up quarks is the same as that of red and green down quarks. As $`\delta \mu `$ is increased from zero, this BCS state remains unchanged (and favored) because maintaining coincident Fermi surfaces maximizes the pairing and thus the gain in interaction energy. As $`\delta \mu `$ is increased further, the BCS state remains the ground state of the system only as long as its negative interaction energy offsets the large positive free energy cost associated with forcing the Fermi seas to deviate from their normal state distributions. In the weak coupling limit, in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\overline{\mu }1`$, the BCS state persists while $`\delta \mu <\delta \mu _1=\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\sqrt{2}`$ .

For $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _1`$, only very weak pairing between like-flavor quarks is possible . Near the unpairing transition, however, another phase intervenes. This is the “LOFF” state, first explored by Larkin and Ovchinnikov and Fulde and Ferrell in the context of electron superconductivity in the presence of magnetic impurities . Translating LOFF’s results to the case of interest, the authors of Ref.  found that for $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _1`$ it is favorable to form a state in which the $`u`$ and $`d`$ Fermi momenta are given by $`\mu _u`$ and $`\mu _d`$ as in the absence of interactions, and are thus not equal, but pairing nevertheless occurs. Whereas in the BCS state, obtained for $`\delta \mu <\delta \mu _1`$, pairing occurs between quarks with equal and opposite momenta, when $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _1`$ it is favorable to form a condensate of Cooper pairs with nonzero total momentum. This is favored because pairing quarks with momenta which are not equal and opposite gives rise to a region of phase space where each of the two quarks in a Cooper pair can be close to its Fermi surface, even when the up and down Fermi momenta differ, and such pairs can be created at low cost in free energy.LOFF condenates have also recently been considered in two other contexts. In QCD with $`\mu _u<0`$, $`\mu _d>0`$ and $`\mu _u=\mu _d`$, one has equal Fermi momenta for $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks and $`d`$ quarks, BCS pairing between them, and consequently a $`\overline{u}d`$ condensate . If $`\mu _u`$ and $`\mu _d`$ differ, and if the difference lies in the appropriate range, a LOFF phase with a spatially varying $`\overline{u}d`$ condensate results . Suitably isospin asymmetric nuclear matter may also admit LOFF pairing, as discussed recently in Ref. . Condensates of this sort spontaneously break translational and rotational invariance, leading to gaps which vary periodically in a crystalline pattern. If in some shell within the quark matter core of a neutron star (or within a strange quark star) the quark chemical potentials are such that crystalline color superconductivity arises, as occurs for a wide range of reasonable parameter values, rotational vortices may be pinned in this shell, making it a locus for glitch formation . Rough estimates of the pinning force suggest that it is comparable to that for a rotational vortex pinned in the inner crust of a conventional neutron star, and thus may yield glitches of phenomenological interest .

The authors of Ref.  studied crystalline color superconductivity in a simplified model with two flavors of quarks with chemical potentials (1) which interact via a four-fermion interaction with the quantum numbers of single gluon exchange. In the LOFF state, each Cooper pair has total momentum $`2𝐪`$ with $`|𝐪|1.2\delta \mu `$. The direction of $`𝐪`$ is chosen spontaneously. The LOFF phase is characterized by a gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a diquark condensate, but not by an energy gap: the quasiparticle dispersion relations vary with the direction of the momentum, yielding gaps which vary from zero up to a maximum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The condensate is dominated by those regions in momentum space in which a quark pair with total momentum $`2𝐪`$ has both members of the pair within $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of their respective Fermi surfaces. The gap equation which determines $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was derived in Ref.  using variational methods, along the lines of Refs. . This gap equation can then be used to show that crystalline color superconductivity is favored over no $`ud`$ pairing for $`\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2`$. Here, $`\delta \mu _20.754\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ if the coupling is weak  and if there is no interaction in angular momentum $`J=1`$ channels . For stronger coupling and for varying choices of interaction, $`\delta \mu _2`$ changes .

Crystalline color superconductivity is favored for $`\delta \mu _1<\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2`$. As $`\delta \mu `$ increases, one finds a first order phase transition from the ordinary BCS phase to the crystalline color superconducting phase at $`\delta \mu =\delta \mu _1`$ and then a second order phase transition at $`\delta \mu =\delta \mu _2`$ at which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decreases to zero. Analysis of the Ginzburg-Landau effective potential which describes physics near $`\delta \mu _2`$ shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta \mu _2\delta \mu )^{1/2}`$ for $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _2`$ . Because the condensation energy in the LOFF phase is much smaller than that of the BCS condensate at $`\delta \mu =0`$, the value of $`\delta \mu _1`$ is almost identical to that at which the naive unpairing transition from the BCS state to the state with no pairing would occur if one ignored the possibility of a LOFF phase. For all practical purposes, the LOFF gap equation is not required in order to determine $`\delta \mu _1`$. The LOFF gap equation is used to determine $`\delta \mu _2`$ and the properties of the LOFF phase . For example, it determines the coefficients in the Ginzburg-Landau effective potential valid near $`\delta \mu _2`$ .

The variational derivation of the gap equation for the crystalline color superconducting phase is somewhat cumbersome . One constructs a variational ansatz in which only quarks within a “pairing region” are allowed to pair, minimizes the free energy with respect to all variational parameters (two per mode in momentum, color, flavor and spin space), and obtains a self-consistency relation which may then be solved to obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The intricacy arises from the fact that the definition of the boundary of the pairing region involves $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself. A derivation in which one simply makes an ansatz for the quantum numbers of the condensate and then “turns a field-theoretical crank” and sees this intricate result emerge would be helpful both by virtue of being more straightforward and because the use of variational methods to obtain a gap equation is by now less familiar to many readers. We provide such a diagrammatic derivation here.

Furthermore, and as we explain at appropriate points in our presentation of the derivation in Sections II, III and IV, many generalizations are amenable to analysis using the formalism we present here:

* In Section V, we include the effects of nonzero temperature. We calculate the critical temperature $`T_c`$ above which the crystalline color superconducting condensate vanishes and show that for $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _2`$, $`T_c0.39\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as previously known .
* It should also be straightforward to generalize the analysis to include three flavors of quarks with differing masses, and thus to study the crystalline color superconducting phases expected where either $`\mu _e`$ or $`m_s`$ is just larger than that at which the CFL phase is lost . This, not the toy model we analyze here, is the case of physical interest.
* As in Ref. , we restrict our attention here to the simplest possible “crystal” structure, namely that in which the condensate varies like a plane wave. Wherever this condensate is favored over the homogeneous BCS condensate and over the state with no pairing at all (i.e. where $`\delta \mu _1<\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2`$) we expect that the true ground state of the system is a condensate which varies in space with some more complicated spatial dependence. The formalism we set up can be generalized to derive gap equations for, and hence to analyze and compare, condensates with arbitrary crystal structures in order to learn which one is favored.
* The diagrammatic analysis we present uses a point-like interaction between quarks, but the formalism is easily generalized to treat the exchange of a propagating gluon, as appropriate at asymptotically high densities. Even if such analyses, pioneered at $`\delta \mu =0`$ in Ref.  and since studied in considerable detail by many authors , are to date of quantitative value only at inaccessibly high densities , it would be very interesting to see crystallization occurring in a controlled analysis beginning directly from the QCD Lagrangian.

## II The Gap Equation for Crystalline Color Superconductivity

In the ordinary BCS phase, pairing between quarks with momentum $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩`$ is described in the standard Nambu-Gorkov formalism by introducing an eight-component field

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (p)\hfill \\ \overline{\psi }^T(p)\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(3)
such that, in this basis, the inverse quark propagator takes the form

$$S^1(p)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}p/+\mu \gamma _0& \overline{𝚫}(p)\\ 𝚫(p)& (p/\mu \gamma _0)^T\end{array}\right].$$
(4)
Here, $`\overline{𝚫}=\gamma _0𝚫^{}\gamma _0`$ and $`\overline{𝚫}`$ is a matrix with color, flavor and Dirac indices which have all been suppressed. The diagonal blocks correspond to ordinary propagation and the off-diagonal blocks reflect the possibility of “anomalous propagation” in the presence of a diquark condensate $`\psi (𝐱)\psi (𝐱)𝚫`$.

In the crystalline color superconducting phase, the condensate is made up of pairs of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks with momenta such that the total momentum of each Cooper pair is given by $`2𝐪`$ with $`|𝐪|1.2\delta \mu `$. The direction of $`𝐪`$ is chosen spontaneously. Such a condensate varies periodically in space, with wavelength $`\pi /|𝐪|`$:

$$\psi (𝐱)\psi (𝐱)𝚫e^{2i𝐪𝐱}.$$
(5)
The spatial dependence (5) is only the simplest possible choice. Wherever (5) is favored over both the ordinary BCS state and the state with no pairing at all, we expect that the true ground state of the system will include Cooper pairs with their respective $`|𝐪|`$’s taking on the same, energetically favored, value, but choosing one of several spontaneously selected directions. The result would be a condensate which varies in space like a sum of plane waves. For example, a cubic crystal arises as a sum of six plane waves. The favored crystal structure for the crystalline color superconductor is not known. In this paper, as in Ref. , we only consider the simplest possibility (5).

Although we expect that crystalline color superconductivity occurs whenever the mass difference or chemical potential difference between any two flavors of quarks is just larger than the maximum value which the standard BCS state can tolerate, for concreteness we shall follow Ref.  and only consider pairing between massless $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks with chemical potentials (1). In the condensate (5), $`u`$ quarks with momentum $`𝐩+𝐪`$ pair with $`d`$ quarks with momentum $`𝐩+𝐪`$. To describe this, we must use a modified Nambu-Gorkov spinor defined as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(p,q)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _u(p+q)\hfill \\ \psi _d(pq)\hfill \\ \overline{\psi }_d^T(p+q)\hfill \\ \overline{\psi }_u^T(pq)\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Note that flavor indices are now explicit, which will be convenient below. The central change we have made in going from (3) to (6) is to modify the momentum dependence. Note that by $`q`$ we mean the four-vector $`(0,𝐪)`$. The Cooper pairs have nonzero total momentum, but the ground state condensate (5) is static. The change from (3) to (6) can be seen as a change of basis. In the presence of a crystalline color superconducting condensate, anomalous propagation does not only mean picking up or losing two quarks from the condensate. It also means picking up or losing momentum $`2𝐪`$. If we tried to describe this using the original basis (3), the inverse quark propagator would no longer be diagonal in momentum space. The new basis (6) has been chosen so that the inverse quark propagator in the crystalline color superconducting phase is diagonal in $`p`$-space and is given by

$$S^1(p,q)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}p/+q/+\mu _u\gamma _0& 0& \overline{𝚫}(p,q)& 0\\ 0& p/q/+\mu _d\gamma _0& 0& \overline{𝚫}(p,q)\\ 𝚫(p,q)& 0& (p/q/\mu _d\gamma _0)^T& 0\\ 0& 𝚫(p,q)& 0& (p/+q/\mu _u\gamma _0)^T\end{array}\right].$$
(7)
$`2𝐩`$ is the relative momentum of the quarks in a given pair, and is different for different pairs. In the gap equation below, we shall integrate over $`p_0`$ and $`𝐩`$, as we sum the contribution of all pairs. $`2𝐪`$ is the center of mass momentum of every pair in the condensate; it is a constant and thus will not be integrated over. It is convenient to denote flavor indices explicitly in (7) because we are describing the situation where $`\mu _u\mu _d`$. It is straightforward to introduce different quark masses in Eq. (7), but then the calculations become more involved and we therefore defer this to a future publication. Note that the condensate is explicitly antisymmetric in flavor. Color and Dirac indices remain suppressed. As desired, the off-diagonal blocks describe anomalous propagation in the presence of a condensate of diquarks with momentum $`2𝐪`$. The choice of basis we have made is analogous to that introduced previously in the analysis of a crystalline quark-antiquark condensate. This work also points the way toward the generalization of (6) needed to handle a condensate which varies in space like a cubic crystal rather than the plane wave (5).

We wish to obtain the gap by solving the one-loop Schwinger-Dyson equation, given by

$$S^1(k,q)S_0^1(k,q)=ig^2\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^AS(p,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^BD_{AB}^{\mu \nu }(kp).$$
(8)
Here, $`D_{AB}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon propagator, $`S`$ is the full quark propagator, whose inverse is given by (7), and $`S_0`$ is the fermion propagator in the absence of interaction, given by $`S`$ with $`𝚫=0`$. $`S_0`$ looks unusual, because it depends on both $`k`$ and the “offset” $`𝐪`$. This is a consequence of our choice of basis (6), and would be a legitimate if perverse way to describe noninteracting fermions. This choice of basis is natural in the crystalline color superconducting phase. The vertices are defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _\mu \lambda ^A/2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \gamma _\mu \lambda ^A/2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (\gamma _\mu \lambda ^A/2)^T& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& (\gamma _\mu \lambda ^A/2)^T\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Note that in Eq. (8) we have chosen to work in Minkowski space. We will continue to work in Minkowski space until we obtain the gap equation itself, which we will then write in Euclidean space for computational convenience.

We defer the analysis of the crystalline color superconducting phase at asymptotically high densities to future work. In this paper, as in Ref. , we choose to caricature the interaction between quarks as a point-like four-fermion interaction with the quantum numbers of single-gluon exchange. This means that in (8), we make the replacement

$$g^2D_{AB}^{\mu \nu }3Gg^{\mu \nu }\delta _{AB}$$
(10)
where $`G`$, normalized as in Ref. , is a dimensionful coupling constant which parametrizes the strength of the interaction between quarks. Reasonable choices for $`G`$, motivated by zero density hadron phenomenology, yield a BCS gap on the order of 100 MeV at $`\overline{\mu }=400`$ MeV in the absence of any chemical potential difference $`\delta \mu `$ .

Once we have removed the gluon propagator from (8), we see that the right-hand side is independent of $`k`$. The left-hand side must therefore be independent of $`k`$ as well, meaning that $`𝚫`$ in (7) must be independent of $`p`$. $`𝚫`$ does depend on the common momentum of all the Cooper pairs, $`2𝐪`$. Choosing an ansatz for $`𝚫`$ is straightforward once we have understood that it must be independent of $`p`$. Single gluon exchange is attractive in the color-antisymmetric ($`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$), flavor antisymmetric, Lorentz scalar or pseudoscalar channels. Instanton effects favor the scalar condensate, and we therefore make the ansatz

$$𝚫^{\alpha \beta }(p,q)=ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}C\gamma _5\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(11)
for the gap matrix, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are color indices, running from 1 to 3, and $`C=i\gamma _0\gamma _2`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has no remaining indices and all the matrix structure has now been written explicitly. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does depend on $`|𝐪|`$, although we do not denote this dependence explicitly, but does not depend on $`p`$ or the direction of $`𝐪`$.

After some algebra (essentially the determination of $`S`$ given $`S^1`$ specified above), and upon suitable projection, the Schwinger-Dyson equation (8) reduces to a gap equation for the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ given (in Euclidean space) by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2G\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }w}{w^24\left[(|𝐩|^2(ip_0+\delta \mu )^2)(\overline{\mu }^2|𝐪|^2)+(𝐩𝐪+\overline{\mu }(ip_0+\delta \mu ))^2\right]}$$
(12)
where $`w=|𝐩|^2|𝐪|^2(ip_0+\delta \mu )^2+\overline{\mu }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$.

We analyze the gap equation (12) in Section IV. It will turn out to be close to, but not identical to, that derived in Ref. . The difference is that here we have kept the contributions of particles, holes, and antiparticles in the gap equation, whereas in Ref.  only particle-particle and hole-hole pairing was considered. Pairing in the crystalline color superconducting phase is dominated by those pairs in which both particles or both holes in a pair are near their respective Fermi surfaces. Indeed, it is the fact that such pairs exist even at nonzero $`\delta \mu `$ as long as $`|𝐪|\delta \mu `$ which explains why the crystalline color superconducting phase may be favored in the first place. We therefore expect that neglecting the contributions of the antiparticles in the gap equation, as was done in Ref. , should be a good approximation. Demonstrating this requires complicating the gap equation considerably at first, although it does eventually simplify as will be shown by the end of Section III. We shall see in Section IV that once the contributions of antiparticles have been eliminated, the gap equation we derive here agrees with that of Ref. .

## III Eliminating Antiparticles

In order to eliminate the (small) contribution of the antiparticles on the right-hand side of the gap equation, we shall need the projectors

$`P_+(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p}}{2}}`$ (13)
$`P_{}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p}}{2}}`$ (14)
with $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, where $`P_+`$ projects onto particle states and $`P_{}`$ projects onto antiparticle states. This allows us to separate the ansatz for $`𝚫`$ into those parts which include antiparticle pairing and those which do not. We replace the ansatz (11) by

$`𝚫^{\alpha \beta }(p,q)=ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}C\gamma ^5`$ $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_1P_+(pq)P_+(p+q)+\mathrm{\Delta }_2P_{}(pq)P_{}(p+q)`$ (15)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_3P_+(pq)P_{}(p+q)+\mathrm{\Delta }_4P_{}(pq)P_+(p+q)].`$ (16)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2,3,4}`$ are four (potentially different) gap parameters whose meaning we now explain. To understand each of the terms in (15), note that, for example,

$$C\gamma ^5P_+(pq)P_+(p+q)=P_+^T(p+q)C\gamma ^5P_+(p+q).$$

Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ describes pairing between particles (and not antiparticles) with momenta $`𝐩+𝐪`$ and $`𝐩+𝐪`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ describes antiparticle–antiparticle pairing, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ describe particle–antiparticle pairing, which is only possible for $`𝐪0`$. (For $`𝐪=0`$, the only projectors which occur are $`P_+(p)`$ and $`P_{}(p)`$, and $`P_+(p)P_{}(p)=0`$.)

With our point-like interaction, $`𝚫`$ must be independent of $`p`$. This requires

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\mathrm{\Delta }_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(17)
which restores the simple ansatz (11). It may seem perverse, but we now derive coupled gap equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2,3,4}`$, without assuming that they are equal. We do so for two reasons. First, in a future publication, we plan to restore the gluon propagator. In this context, $`𝚫`$ is not independent of $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2,3,4}`$ therefore need not all be the same. The exercise below therefore lays the groundwork for this future calculation. Second, and in the present context, we wish to eliminate all terms on the right-hand side of the gap equation which depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}`$, as they make only a small contribution. The reader not interested in details of this derivation can safely skip to Eqs. (32) and (34) and the discussion that follows them.

The Schwinger-Dyson equation (8) (using Eq. (10)) is an equation for the matrix $`𝚫`$:

$$𝚫(k,q)=3iG\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^A}{2}\right)^TS_{42}(p,q)\left(\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^A}{2}\right)$$
(18)
where $`S_{42}(k,q)`$ is the (4,2)-component of the fermion propagator found by inverting Eq. (7). After some algebra, we find

$$S_{42}(p,q)=(p/+q/\mu _u\gamma ^0)_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{T}𝚫(p,q)[p/q/+\mu _d\gamma ^0\overline{𝚫}(p,q)(p/+q/\mu _u\gamma ^0)_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{T}𝚫(p,q)]^1.$$
(19)
Upon inserting the ansatz (15) for $`𝚫(p,q)`$, we can rewrite (19) in terms of the gap parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2,3,4}`$. In order to display the resulting expressions, we must first define:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`p_0+\mu _d|𝐩𝐪|\mathrm{\Delta }_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta /2)+1/2\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{cos}\beta }{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}\mathrm{\Delta }_4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta /2)1/2\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{cos}\beta }{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}`$ (20)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`p_0+\mu _d+|𝐩𝐪|\mathrm{\Delta }_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta /2)+1/2\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{cos}\beta }{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}\mathrm{\Delta }_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta /2)1/2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{cos}\beta }{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}`$ (21)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_3}{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_4}{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}\right).`$ (22)
Here, the angle $`\beta `$ is defined as the angle between the up quark momentum $`𝐪+𝐩`$ and the down quark momentum $`𝐪𝐩`$ and is therefore given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\beta =\widehat{(𝐪+𝐩)}\widehat{(𝐪𝐩)}.$$
(23)
With these definitions, $`S_{42}(p,q)`$ becomes

$$S_{42}(p,q)=ϵ^{\alpha \beta 3}C\gamma _5T(p,q)$$
(24)
with

$`T(p,q)=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{B}{ABC^2+(AB)C\mathrm{cos}\beta }}`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_{}(p+q)P_{}(pq)`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_4}{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_+(p+q)P_{}(pq))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{ABC^2+(AB)C\mathrm{cos}\beta }}`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_{}(p+q)P_+(pq)`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_+(p+q)P_+(pq))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{ABC^2+(AB)C\mathrm{cos}\beta }}`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_{}(p+q)P_+(pq)P_+(p+q)`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_+(p+q)P_+(pq)P_{}(p+q)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}{p_0\mu _u+|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_{}(p+q)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}{p_0\mu _u|𝐩+𝐪|}}P_+(p+q))].`$
Noting that

$$\left(\frac{\lambda ^A}{2}\right)^T\lambda ^2\left(\frac{\lambda ^A}{2}\right)=\frac{2}{3}\lambda ^2,$$

we obtain the gap equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1P_+(k+q)P_+(kq)+\mathrm{\Delta }_2P_{}(k+q)P_{}(kq)`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3P_+(k+q)P_{}(kq)+\mathrm{\Delta }_4P_{}(k+q)P_+(kq)`$ $`=2iG{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\gamma _\mu T(p,q)\gamma ^\mu }.`$ (33)
Upon setting all the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s equal as in (17), the gap equation (32) yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2iG\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Tr}T(p,q).$$
(34)
When written explicitly, this is Eq. (12).

Using the definition of $`T(p,q)`$, we can easily identify the contributions of the four $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s to the right-hand side of the gap equation. Since we expect that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ terms, which describe particle-particle and hole-hole pairing, will give the dominant contributions to the gap integral, we now eliminate all terms in $`T(p,q)`$ which depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}`$. This means that the contribution of the antiparticles to the right-hand side of the gap equation has been eliminated. Note that we are not setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}=0`$. With a point-like interaction, all the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are in fact equal as in (17), and the left-hand side of the gap equation (32) is $`k`$-independent and equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The point is that the contributions of those terms on the right-hand side of (32) in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}`$ appear must be small, and we can therefore neglect them. In other words, once all integrations have been completed on the right-hand side, we would find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}`$ only occur multiplied by quantities which are small if $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu `$ is small. Dropping $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}`$ on the right-hand side before integration (but keeping them on the left-hand side) should therefore be a good approximation. The resulting gap equation can be written (in Euclidean space) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2G\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}{\left(p_0iE_1(𝐩)\right)\left(p_0+iE_2(𝐩)\right)}$$
(35)
where $`E_{1,2}(𝐩)`$ are defined as in Ref. :

$`E_1(𝐩)=`$ $`+\delta \mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|𝐩+𝐪||𝐩𝐪|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(|𝐩+𝐪|+|𝐩𝐪|2\overline{\mu }\right)^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}}`$ (36)
$`E_2(𝐩)=`$ $`\delta \mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|𝐩+𝐪||𝐩𝐪|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(|𝐩+𝐪|+|𝐩𝐪|2\overline{\mu }\right)^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}}`$ (37)
and $`\beta `$ is defined in Eq. (23). As we describe below, we have confirmed explicitly that the gap equation (35) is a good approximation to Eq. (12).

## IV Analyzing the Gap Equation

The energies $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ given in (36) arise in Ref. . There, we deduced that the right-hand side of the gap equation must be taken to vanish in those regions of $`𝐩`$-space where either $`E_1(𝐩)`$ or $`E_2(𝐩)`$ is negative via the following argument. In the region where $`E_1(𝐩)<0`$, it is free-energetically favorable to have unpaired $`u`$-quarks rather than pairs. Similarly, in the region where $`E_2(𝐩)<0`$, it is free-energetically favorable to have unpaired $`d`$-quarks rather than pairs. Because quarks do not pair in these “blocking regions” of momentum space, these regions do not contribute to the gap equation, which becomes an integral over those regions of momentum space wherein pairing occurs. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is set to zero, the blocking regions are simply described. They are the regions in $`𝐩`$-space where the $`u`$-quark state with momentum $`𝐩+𝐪`$ is within the $`u`$ Fermi sea while the $`d`$-quark state with momentum $`𝐩+𝐪`$ is outside the $`d`$ Fermi sea, or vice versa. In the presence of a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the boundaries of the blocking regions are given by $`E_1(𝐩)=0`$ and $`E_2(𝐩)=0`$ and therefore depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and are not simply determined by the locations of the noninteracting Fermi surfaces. The result of this analysis, presented in Ref. , is a variational procedure in which the boundaries of the blocking regions, and thus the specification of the variational ansatz itself, depend on the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is in turn obtained by solving a gap equation whose integrand is restricted by hand to vanish within said blocking regions.

In contrast to the intricacy of the variational approach, the physics of the blocking regions emerges from a completely straightforward analysis of the gap equation in the form we have derived above, namely Eq. (35). We simply do the $`p_0`$ integral by contour integration. There are two poles, both of which lie on the imaginary axis. Let us close the contour in the upper half plane. If $`E_1>0`$ and $`E_2>0`$, we pick up the pole at $`p_0=iE_1`$ which has a residue proportional to $`1/(E_1+E_2)`$. If $`E_1<0`$ and $`E_2>0`$, both poles are in the lower half plane, and the right-hand side of the gap equation vanishes. If $`E_1>0`$ and $`E_2<0`$, both poles are in the upper half plane, the residues from the two poles cancel, and the right-hand side of the gap equation again vanishes. (If we close the contour in the lower half plane, we obtain the same result upon noticing that we encircle no poles if $`E_1<0`$ and $`E_2>0`$ and two poles with cancelling residues for $`E_1>0`$ and $`E_2<0`$.) Thus, upon doing the $`p_0`$ integration we obtain the gap equation of Ref. :

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`2G{\displaystyle _{𝐩𝒫}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}{E_1(𝐩)+E_2(𝐩)}}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`2G{\displaystyle _{𝐩𝒫}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}{\sqrt{\left(|𝐩+𝐪|+|𝐩𝐪|2\overline{\mu }\right)^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}}}`$ (39)
where the “pairing region” $`𝒫`$ in $`𝐩`$-space is given by

$$𝒫=\{𝐩|E_1(𝐩)>0\mathrm{and}E_2(𝐩)>0\}.$$
(40)
Thus, a trivial exercise in residue calculus has reproduced the blocking regions, excluding from the gap equation those regions in momentum space where $`E_1(𝐩)`$ or $`E_2(𝐩)`$ is negative. Note that because $`E_1(𝐩)+E_2(𝐩)0`$, as can be seen from the definitions (36), there is no value of $`𝐩`$ for which both $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are negative. Note also that the gap equation is dominated by those regions in momentum space where $`E_1(𝐩)+E_2(𝐩)`$ is as small as possible, where the integrand in (38) is of order $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. These values of $`𝐩`$ are such that both members of a LOFF pair have momenta close to (within $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of) their respective Fermi surfaces. That is, $`|𝐩+𝐪|`$ is within $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`\mu _u`$ and $`|𝐩+𝐪|`$ is within $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`\mu _d`$.

For completeness, we sketch the analysis of (12), in which the contributions of antiparticle pairing to the gap equation have not been eliminated. The denominator of the integrand in (12) is a fourth order polynomial in $`p_0`$, so the gap equation can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2G\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }w}{\left(p_0iP_1(𝐩)\right)\left(p_0+iP_2(𝐩)\right)\left(p_0+i\overline{P_1}(𝐩)\right)\left(p_0i\overline{P_2}(𝐩)\right)}.$$
(41)
The analytical expressions for the poles $`P_1(𝐩)`$, $`P_2(𝐩)`$, $`\overline{P_1}(𝐩)`$, and $`\overline{P_2}(𝐩)`$ are complicated and uninformative. However, we have checked that for reasonable choices of parameters, the numerical values of $`P_1(𝐩)`$ and $`P_2(𝐩)`$ are very close to $`E_1(𝐩)`$ and $`E_2(𝐩)`$ and those of $`\overline{P_1}(𝐩)`$ and $`\overline{P_2}(𝐩)`$ are very close to the antiparticle energies

$`\overline{E_1}(𝐩)=`$ $`\delta \mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|𝐩+𝐪||𝐩𝐪|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(|𝐩+𝐪|+|𝐩𝐪|+2\overline{\mu }\right)^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}}`$ (42)
$`\overline{E_2}(𝐩)=`$ $`+\delta \mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|𝐩+𝐪||𝐩𝐪|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(|𝐩+𝐪|+|𝐩𝐪|+2\overline{\mu }\right)^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}}.`$ (43)
The analysis of (41) is analogous to that of (35). Wherever both $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are positive, the pole at $`p_0=iP_1`$ contributes, with residue proportional to $`1/(P_1+P_2)`$. The integral is dominated by the region where $`P_1+P_2`$ is close to zero. There is also a contribution from the pole at $`p_0=i\overline{P}_2`$, but the residue of this pole is nowhere large. For this reason, and because $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are numerically very close to $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, we find that (35), and thus (38) which was derived variationally in Ref. , is a good approximation to (41). For $`\overline{\mu }=400`$ MeV and $`G`$ chosen such that the BCS gap at $`\delta \mu =0`$ is $`100`$ MeV, we take $`\delta \mu `$ within the range where the crystalline color superconducting phase is favored  and choose a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which solves (35). We then find that the right-hand sides of (35) and (41) differ by about 20%. The discrepancy vanishes in the weak-coupling limit. (Note that eliminating the contribution of the pole at $`p_0=i\overline{P}_2`$ does not by itself reduce (41) to (35), although it does change the 20% discrepancy to a 1% discrepancy. Eliminating all the contributions of the antiparticles is more subtle, as we have seen.)

Although the expressions for the $`P(𝐩)`$’s are much more complicated than those for the $`E(𝐩)`$’s, the gap equation (41) actually turns out to be more easily solvable (by Mathematica) than (35), as we now explain. The blocking regions in (41) are regions wherein either $`P_1`$ or $`P_2`$ is negative, and are therefore bounded by surfaces on which $`P_1`$ or $`P_2`$ vanishes. Within these regions, there is no contribution from the $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ poles. The simplification which occurs in (41) is in the explicit expressions for the boundaries of the blocking regions. We simply set $`p_0=0`$ in the denominator of Eq. (12) and for each value of $`|𝐩|`$ we solve for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, the angle between $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{2\overline{\mu }\delta \mu \pm \sqrt{\left(|𝐩|^2|𝐪|^2\delta \mu ^2+\overline{\mu }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)^24(|𝐩|^2\delta \mu ^2)(\overline{\mu }^2|𝐪|^2)}}{2|𝐩||𝐪|}.$$
(44)
This allows one to implement the fact that the $`𝐩`$-integral is to be taken over all of $`𝐩`$-space except for the blocking regions via explicitly specified limits on the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ integral. In contrast, even though $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are simpler than $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, the dependence of the denominator in (35) on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is more complicated than that in (12), and the blocking regions can only be specified explicitly as roots of a quartic polynomial.

The calculation of $`\delta \mu _2`$ of Ref.  follows directly from Eq. (35), as does the value of $`|𝐪|`$, which is given to a very good approximation by that for $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _2`$. (One finds $`\delta \mu _2`$ by seeking the largest value of $`\delta \mu `$ for which there is a choice of $`|𝐪|`$ which yields a nonzero solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the gap equation (35) .) Our rederivation of (35) has several merits. First, as it begins with a Schwinger-Dyson equation rather than a variational wave function, it may appear more familiar. Second, the emergence of blocking regions is straightforward. Third, it is the basis for many generalizations: Quark masses can easily be introduced in (7), and the analogue of (12) can then be derived. The gluon propagator need not be replaced by a point-like interaction. This opens the way to a treatment of color superconductivity at asymptotically high density. Also, nontrivial crystal structures can be analyzed beginning with a Nambu-Gorkov propagator which admits “anomalous propagation” in which $`2𝐪`$ of momentum is gained or lost, for several different values of the vector $`2𝐪`$. Finally, the generalization to nonzero temperature is straightforward. To this we now turn.

## V Crystalline Color Superconductivity at Nonzero Temperature

We can now derive the gap equation for the LOFF state at nonzero temperature. We begin with Eq. (35). Using the standard formalism, we obtain the nonzero temperature gap equation by converting the $`p_0`$ integral into a sum over Matsubara frequencies. That is, with $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$, using the prescription

$$p_0\omega _n\mathrm{and}\frac{dp_0}{2\pi }T\underset{n}{}$$

we obtain the following equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2G\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\left(\omega _niE_1(𝐩)\right)\left(\omega _n+iE_2(𝐩)\right)}.$$
(45)
The sum may be evaluated by converting it into a contour integral:

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(\omega _niE_1)(\omega _n+iE_2)}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C𝑑z\frac{1}{T(e^{z/T}+1)}\frac{1}{(z+E_1)(zE_2)}$$

where the contour $`C`$ encircles the imaginary axis.Note that $`\frac{1}{T(e^{z/T}+1)}`$ has simple poles with unit residue at $`z=i\omega _n`$. We may deform the contour so that it encircles, with negative orientation, the poles off the imaginary axis. This gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T(e^{z/T}+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z+E_1)(zE_2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T(e^{E_2/T}+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_2+E_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T(e^{E_1/T}+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_2+E_1}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T(E_1+E_2)}}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{2T}}\right)+\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{2T}}\right)\right].`$
Upon using these identities in the finite-temperature gap equation Eq. (45), we obtain:

$$1=2G\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)}{E_1(𝐩)+E_2(𝐩)}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_1(𝐩)}{2T}\right)+\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_2(𝐩)}{2T}\right)\right].$$
(46)
Note that here the integration is performed over all of $`𝐩`$-space: there are no blocking regions at nonzero temperature. The blocking regions emerge in the limit $`T0`$ as follows: if $`E_1(𝐩)>0`$ and $`E_2(𝐩)<0`$, then $`\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{E_1(𝐩)}{2T})1`$ while $`\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{E_2(𝐩)}{2T})1`$, and the integrand vanishes. The same result holds if $`E_1(𝐩)<0`$ and $`E_2(𝐩)>0`$. If, however, $`E_1(𝐩)>0`$ and $`E_2(𝐩)>0`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_1(𝐩)}{2T}\right)+\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_2(𝐩)}{2T}\right)\right]1$$

reproducing the zero temperature gap equation Eq. (38). Note that even if our goal were just to understand physics at $`T=0`$ it may be of practical value to do calculations at several nonzero values of the temperature and then extrapolate to $`T=0`$. The reason is that at $`T=0`$, specifying the boundaries of $`𝒫`$ of (40), and thus the limits of integration, can be a numerical challenge. At any nonzero temperature, instead, no limits of integration need be specified. The $`\mathrm{tanh}`$ factors impose the required limits as $`T`$ gets small.

We shall present $`T0`$ results for parameters chosen as in Fig. 4 of Ref. , which we first recapitulate. We specify the four-fermion interaction by choosing the cutoff parameter, defined in Ref. , to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ GeV and requiring $`G`$ to be such that the BCS gap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=40`$ MeV at $`\delta \mu =0`$. We choose $`\overline{\mu }=400`$ MeV, and explore different values of $`\delta \mu `$. At $`T=0`$, we find nonzero solutions to the gap equation (38) for $`\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2=0.744\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Above $`\delta \mu _2`$, no pairing between $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks is possible. The crystalline color superconductor phase has lower free energy than the ordinary BCS phase as long as $`\delta \mu >\delta \mu _1=0.710\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where a first order phase transition occurs. A precise determination of $`\delta \mu _1`$ requires expressions for the free energy of both phases. The free energy of the crystalline color superconductor phase could be obtained from the gap equation along the lines described in Section 4.3 of Ref. . However, $`\delta \mu _1`$ is well approximated by the $`\delta \mu `$ at which the BCS and unpaired states have equal free energy, which turns out to be $`0.711\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ . At $`\delta \mu =\delta \mu _1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=7.8`$ MeV . For $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _2`$ from below, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes like $`(\delta \mu _2\delta \mu )^{1/2}`$ . The window $`\delta \mu _1<\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2`$ widens if the interaction includes attraction in the spin-one channel. We expect this window to widen at asymptotic density, where quarks interact by exchanging a propagating gluon.

In Fig. 1, we show the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the temperature $`T`$ at $`\delta \mu =\delta \mu _1`$. We find that the critical temperature above which the crystalline color superconductivity is lost is $`T_c=3.42`$ MeV, corresponding to $`T_c=0.44\mathrm{\Delta }(T=0)`$. In Fig. 2, we plot both $`T_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T=0)`$ as functions of $`\delta \mu `$, for $`\delta \mu _1<\delta \mu <\delta \mu _2`$. We find that the ratio $`T_c/\mathrm{\Delta }(T=0)`$ changes little, decreasing from 0.44 at $`\delta \mu _1`$ to $`0.39`$ for $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _2`$. This agrees with the previously known result that $`T_c/\mathrm{\Delta }(T=0)\sqrt{3/2\pi ^2}`$ for $`\delta \mu \delta \mu _2`$ . There are two a priori reasons why one may have questioned whether $`T_c`$ in the crystalline color superconducting phase would turn out to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T=0)`$. First, this phase is in fact gapless. There are directions in momentum space (which intersect the boundaries of the blocking regions) for which gapless excitations exist at zero temperature. One may wonder whether the presence of these gapless modes, which can be excited at arbitrarily low temperature, might lower $`T_c`$. Second, the condensation energy in the crystalline color superconductor phase is of order $`\overline{\mu }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4/\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2`$ , whereas that in the ordinary BCS phase is of order $`\overline{\mu }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2`$. One may therefore wonder whether the $`T_c`$ for crystalline color superconductivity scales differently with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It turns out, however, that the simplest expectation holds true: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap in the fermion spectrum in directions in momentum space along which pairing is maximized and destroying the condensate therefore requires a temperature $`T_c`$ which is of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with M. Alford. Research supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818. The work of KR is supported in part by a DOE OJI grant and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The work of JAB and JK is supported in part by DOD National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowships.


format: text

text:
# Limits on the cosmological abundance of supermassive compact objects from a search for multiple imaging in compact radio sources

## I Introduction

The possibility that a first generation of objects with masses comparable with those of globular clusters formed prior to galaxies has long been recognised Pee68 ; Car84 . Such Jeans–mass ($`10^{6.5}`$ M ) objects forming shortly after the decoupling of matter and radiation in the early universe could have evolved to black holes and it is possible that some of the dark matter could be in this, difficult to detect, form Car94 ; Car99 . Building on these ideas Gnedin & Ostriker Gne92  and Gnedin, Ostriker & Rees Gne95  explored a cosmogonic model in which the baryonic density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.15`$) is up to an order of magnitude higher than that inferred from primordial nucleosynthesis with the “excess” baryons being lost in the collapse of such Jeans–mass objects. It has also been conjectured that relic massive black holes might provide the seeds for quasars Fuk96 .

Press & Gunn Pre73  developed the idea of detecting supermassive compact objects (CO) by their gravitational lensing effects well before the actual discovery of gravitational lenses in 1979. They showed that in a universe filled with a mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`1`$, the probability of a distant source being detectably lensed by a supermassive CO is of order unity, while for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`<1`$, the probability decreases in direct proportion to the mass density. From this they drew the important conclusion that the fraction of distant galaxies that is lensed by CO directly measures $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ and, ignoring angular resolution effects, is independent of the mass $`M_{CO}`$ of the lenses. The latter property is simply understood. A given value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ can be made up of a large number of low–mass objects or a small number of high–mass ones; hence the number density $`n`$ of CO of a particular mass is proportional to $`1/M_{CO}`$. For point masses the gravitational lensing cross–section $`\sigma M_{CO}`$ Tur84  and hence the path length to lensing $`(1/n\sigma )`$ is independent of the lens mass. However, the average image separation measures $`M_{CO}`$ directly and is approximately independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CO}`$. These ideas were further developed by Nemiroff Nem89  and by Nemiroff & Bistolas Nem90 .

Since for a lens at a cosmologically significant distance the image separation is $`2\times 10^6(M_{CO}/M_{})^{1/2}`$ arcseconds, searching for Jeans–mass CO requires the milliarcsec (mas) resolution of Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). Kassiola, Kovner & Blandford (Kas91 ; hereafter KKB), used the lack of “millilensed” images in published VLBI maps of 48 compact radio sources, to place an upper limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`<0.4`$ (99.7% confidence) in the mass range $`10^7`$$`10^9`$ M. In a closely–related search Nemiroff Nem93  used the lack of secondary “echoes” of gamma ray bursts, which would also arise from millilensing, to rule out a closure density of supermassive CO. In this paper we describe a millilens search based on high-quality VLBI maps of 300 sources which extends KKB’s lower mass range to $`10^6`$ M and enables us to push their limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ for Jeans–mass objects down by a factor 15. This is the most stringent limit to date on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ for uniformly–distributed Jeans–mass objects and we discuss some cosmological implications of this result.

## II Selection of Lens Candidates

The parent sample was drawn from catalogues of compact radio sources which have been systematically observed by the authors with intercontinental VLBI arrays at a frequency of 5 GHz and a resolution $`1`$ mas; a significant fraction of these sources was also observed at 1.6 GHz. The catalogues, radio images and full description of the observations can be found in the following papers: the Pearson & Readhead VLBI Survey (PR; Pea88 ); the first Caltech–Jodrell Bank VLBI Survey (CJ1; Pol95 ; Tha95 ; Xu95 ); the second Caltech–Jodrell Bank VLBI Survey (CJ2; Tay94 ; Hen95 ). From these samples a large sub–set of 300 sources was selected on the basis of a “flat” integrated radio spectrum between 1.4 GHz and 5 GHz. In this context “flat” implies a source whose spectral index $`\alpha 0.5`$, where the flux density at a frequency $`\nu `$ is proportional to $`\nu ^\alpha `$. The sample thus selected contains nearly all the strongest flat–spectrum radio sources in the sky above declination $`35^{}`$.

Flat-spectrum radio sources are best–suited to a millilens search because they tend to be dominated by a single compact (sub–mas) “core”, which originates close to the massive central black hole in the nucleus of the background galaxy. The presence of two compact components (putative images) then provides a simple diagnostic of gravitational lensing by a point–like mass and genuine images will have well understood, simply–related, properties Tur84 . However great care has to be taken in choosing lens candidates since compact radio sources have a range of intrinsic structures which can confuse the selection process. Guided by a series of simulations we decided only to look for cases of multiple imaging of the compact core. It is much harder to be certain of recognising lensing effects on lower–brightness emission regions. We adopted the following quantitative selection criteria based on the Gaussian models listed in the original VLBI survey papers:

A candidate has to have two or more compact ($`<`$ 1 mas) components and the secondary component should be smaller than the primary. Because of the surface–brightness conserving property of lensing, weaker images are smaller images. However, conservative allowance was made for Gaussian model-fitting uncertainties by accepting some candidates in which the secondary had an area up to twice, and in a few cases three times, that of the primary. The separation of the primary and secondary components, $`1.5\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 50`$ mas. This is set by the VLBI resolution and field–of–view limitations and determines the mass range to which the search is sensitive. The upper limit on the separation was set by the practicalities of map–making at the time the VLBI surveys were made. The ratio of the flux densities of the core of the primary component and the secondary component is $``$ 40:1. At this level secondaries are detected with high signal–to–noise ratio.

Fifty lens candidates were selected of which six could immediately be ruled out from other published VLBI data.

## III Scrutiny of Lens Candidates

Since the brightness contrast between the core and all other emission regions in a radio source increases with increasing frequency, the simplest way to determine whether two or more of the components are compact, and have properties appropriate for lensed images, is to observe at a higher frequency and higher resolution than the original 5 GHz survey maps. The candidates were therefore all observed at 15 GHz using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). A minority of the candidates were also observed at one or more of the frequencies 1.6, 8.4 and 22 GHz. The observations and the radio maps will be described elsewhere.

Many of the candidates turned out to be core–jet sources in which the jet is faint but contains a “hot–spot”. The VLBA 15– and 22–GHz maps reveal the bright core and resolve the lower-brightness hot-spot. An example of such a candidate is shown in Figure 1. The 5 GHz map of 0740+768 shows a simple unresolved double source but the higher resolution 22–GHz map clearly shows that the compact core lies at the eastern (left) end with the other “jet-like” emission having markedly lower–brightness. Other candidates turned out to be Compact Symmetric Objects (CSOs)—an early ($`<10^4`$ years) high–luminosity phase of large double radio sources Rea96 . At high resolution CSOs often show a single central core straddled by a pair of outer “lobes” of significantly lower surface brightness; not only is there no detailed correspondence between sub–structures in the lobes but also their parities are incorrect for lensed images.

Component spectra can also be used to rule out candidates. For lensing on the present scales the time delay between the light paths ranges from a few seconds to a few hours, which is much shorter than the timescales between sets of VLBI observations. Lensed images must, therefore, brighten and fade together. A strong corollary is that lensed images must have identical radio spectra or, equivalently, their flux ratio must not be frequency–dependent. This argument should be used with care if one or both of the components is well resolved but we ruled out candidates with compact components if the flux ratios at different frequencies were inconsistent by $`\stackrel{>}{}30`$%.

Component motion is also an excellent discriminant. If the lens moves across the line of sight the relative separation of the images will change. For example a lens at $`z0.5`$, moving transversely with $`v1000`$ km s-1, will produce a relative image motion $`1\times 10^5`$ mas yr-1. This is much too small to be measurable with VLBI and thus, if relative motion is detected, the secondary cannot be a lensed image. In a separate follow–up programme for the PR and CJ VLBI surveys most of the sources have been observed more than twice over a period of several years Bri00 . Currently over 30 of our 50 candidates are known to show component motions greater than $`0.1`$ mas yr-1 and hence can be ruled out by this means as well.

All 50 candidates were ruled out, often for a combination of the reasons cited above, and we now use this null result to set quantitative limits on supermassive $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ for objects uniformly distributed throughout the universe.

## IV Limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$

We used the detection volume method introduced by Nemiroff Nem89  and developed in detail for the specific case of a VLBI search for point masses by KKB. We will, therefore, only make a few points specific to our search. The most important observational limit is the flux ratio $`R(<40:1)`$ which sets the maximum source–lens impact parameter and hence defines the basic detection volume. The usual definition of “strong” lensing Tur84  refers to images with a flux ratio of $`<7:1`$; our $`<40:1`$ flux ratio therefore corresponds to a configuration with a larger lens–to–source “impact parameter” and hence the cross-section for lensing is almost five times that normally assumed for lensing calculations. Each source is observed with an approximately fixed angular resolution and hence minimum image separation $`\delta (=1.5)`$ mas, and limited field–of–view $`\mathrm{\Delta }(=50)`$ mas, both of which act to truncate the detection volume. In effect $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ define the lower and upper limits of a mass range for which the truncation is small. Our search is sensitive to the mass range $`10^6`$ to $`10^8`$ M. For observations of a number of sources the individual detection volumes for each source can be summed to give a total detection volume. In the calculation of these volumes one needs to know the source redshifts and these are available for 270 out of the 300 sources in our sample; the mean redshift is 1.30 and 20% of the sources have redshifts $`2`$. For the remaining 30 sources we have assumed a distribution in redshift similar to that exhibited by the other 270. For the calculation of the angular size distances we took $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and, for direct comparison with KKB’s result we assumed an Einstein–de Sitter Universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1;\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$).

Our null result allows an upper limit to be placed on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ and Figure 2 shows the limit at the 95% confidence level as a function of CO mass. The limit is approximately constant from $`10^6`$ to $`10^8`$ M and in this mass range $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}0.013`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ was equal to 0.013 the “expected” number of lenses in the total detection volume associated with our 300 sources would be three and the fact that none are detected allows us to reject this hypothesis with 95% confidence. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ was equal to 0.026 then $`6`$ lenses would be expected and we can reject this higher mass density with 99.7% confidence.

These limits are conservative because gravitational lensing increases the observed flux density of a background source and hence lensed sources are drawn from a fainter source population than the unlensed sources; a flux–limited survey will contain more lenses than expected. Our null result therefore corresponds formally to a stronger limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ but the “magnification bias” associated with flat spectrum radio sources, especially for lens systems with high flux ratios, is of order unity Kin96  and we have therefore ignored this effect.

## V Discussion

KKB derived a limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ ($`10^7`$$`10^9`$ M) $`<0.4`$ (99.7% confidence); this corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`<0.2`$ (95% confidence). The lower mass limit is larger than ours since they took $`\delta 4`$ mas compared with our 1.5 mas. The upper mass limit derived by KKB is high since it is based on $`\mathrm{\Delta }=500`$ mas which is, in our view, optimistic; we used $`\mathrm{\Delta }=50`$ mas. Our null result implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}0.013`$ (95% confidence) in the mass range $`10^6`$ to $`10^8`$M which is about 15 times more stringent than KKB’s. The improvement arises from a combination of more sources (300 cf. 48), larger $`R`$ ($`<40:1`$ cf. $`<20:1`$) and hence larger lensing cross–section and a higher mean redshift for the parent sample (1.30 cf. 0.89). Our result allows the following conclusions to be drawn.

Uniformly distributed CO in the mass range $`10^6`$ to $`10^8`$ M do not make up more than $`1\%`$ of the closure density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}=1`$ which is strongly supported by the latest measurements of the angular spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Jaf00 . Similarly such CO do not make up more than $`3\%`$ of the Dark Matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}0.3`$ favoured by current observations. The favoured value of the baryon density from Big–Bang Nucleosynthesis is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019\pm 0.002`$ Bur99 . Taking a plausible value for $`h`$ (0.65) implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.045\pm 0.005`$ thus our 95% confidence limit implies that uniformly–distributed Jeans–mass CO do not make up more than about one third of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$.

A large population of uniformly–distributed $`10^{6.5}`$ M black holes is required by the cosmogonic model developed by Gnedin & Ostriker Gne92  and Gnedin, Ostriker & Rees Gne95 . This model predicts that up to $`5\%`$ of high redshift sources should be detectably lensed by such a population i.e. there should be up to 15 lenses in our sample. They are not observed and hence the model can be ruled out.

Perhaps the next interesting limit is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}0.005`$ which would constrain the contribution of supermassive CO to be no more than the baryonic contribution of presently observable stars and galaxies. To reach this limit about 1000 sources, with the same redshift distribution as the present sample, would have to be studied; this would be a time–consuming, but relatively straightforward, task.

We thank Silke Britzen for providing results prior to publication. The VLBA is the Very Long Baseline Array and is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory which is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.

Note added in proof: When this work was almost completed we became aware of the millilensing results of Nemiroff and collaborators (preceding PR Letter) using gamma ray bursts. Their work has produced limits on the CO abundance which are similar to ours.


text:
# Δ(1232) Isobar Excitations in Nuclear Many-Body Systems derived from various NN Interactions

## I Introduction

It has always been one of the basic challenges of theoretical nuclear physics to derive the basic properties of nuclei from realistic models of the nucleon-nucleon (NN) interactions. Very sophisticated approximation schemes have been developed to solve the many-body problem of strongly interacting nucleons. As examples we mention Brueckner hole-line expansion, the coupled-cluster or “exponential S” approach, the self-consistent evaluation of Greens functions, variational approaches using correlated basis functions and recent developments employing quantum Monte-Carlo techniques. (see e.g. the recent review  on these many-body approaches).

A major ingredient for such investigations is the definition of a realistic NN interaction. Here we define a realistic NN interaction to be a model for the nucleon nucleon interaction in which the parameters have been adjusted to obtain a very good fit of the experimental NN scattering data at energies up to the threshold for $`\pi `$ production. As examples for modern realistic interactions we refer to refs..

The central assumption of such investigations is that the nucleons can be considered as inert particles interacting by two-body forces, which are identical in the vacuum and in the nuclear medium. It is of course well known that nucleons are not elementary particles. At short distances, nucleons will polarize each other, which will lead to virtual excitations. These sub-nucleonic degrees of freedom are effectively taken into account in the realistic NN interaction as the parameters are adjusted to the data.

As an example we mention the processes of the type that two nucleons interact with each other exchanging a $`\pi `$ or $`\rho `$ meson leading to a $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ state. After the exchange of a second meson the two baryons may be returned into a $`NN`$ state such that this process contributes to the amplitude for elastic $`NN`$ scattering. A theoretical approach which accounts for interacting nucleons only parameterizes this process with intermediate isobar excitations by adjusting e.g. the coupling constant of the $`\sigma `$ meson in a One-Boson-Exchange model for the $`NN`$ interaction. If, however, the isobar configurations are included explicitely one finds that a large part of the medium range attraction in the $`NN`$ interaction originates from the coupling to the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ configurations.

Both kinds of models, with and without the explicit consideration of isobar configurations, yield essentially the interaction for two nucleons in the vacuum, since they are adjusted to reproduce the $`NN`$ phase shifts. Remarkable differences show up, however, if the different kinds of interactions are considered for the interaction of two nucleons inside a nuclear medium. While the exchange of the $`\sigma `$ meson is essentially the same in the vacuum and in the nuclear medium, the formation of virtual $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ configurations is suppressed in nuclear matter (due to Pauli effects and binding of the nucleons) as compared to the vacuum. This leads to a loss of attraction for the effective interaction of two nucleons in the medium, which results in a smaller calculated binding energy. This effect has been investigated by various groups using the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approximation, which means that correlations between nucleons are taken into account by means of the effective interaction, the $`G`$-matrix.

The isobar degrees of freedom may of course also be considered explicitely in the solution of the nuclear many-body problem, i.e. one allows for many-body wave functions which contain isobar configurations. Such investigations have been made e.g. for the three-nucleon problem and for nuclear matter. Presently, there is a renewed interest in the study of these isobar configurations in the nuclear wave function. One reason is the attempt to explore the isobar components in the nuclear wave function by means of different experiments. This includes the photoproduction of pions and the isobar current contribution to exclusive ($`e,e^{}NN`$) reactions. Another reason is the development of new models for the baryon-baryon interaction including isobar configurations.

In this study we would like to investigate the predictions for the isobar components in the nuclear wave functions derived from various models for the baryon-baryon interaction. We are going to compare the isobar amplitudes calculated for the Argonne $`V28`$ potential with those derived from a recent update of Model I in table B.1 of , which we will denote as Bonn2000. Both of these models are based on the meson exchange picture of the baryon-baryon interaction. This means that e.g. the transition potential $`NNN\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is dominated by the contribution from $`\pi `$ exchange. While the Bonn2000 approach considers the complete relativistic structure of this term, the $`V28`$ model reduces this $`\pi `$ exchange contribution to a local potential. This $`\pi `$ exchange contribution is supplemented by the $`\rho `$ exchange in the Bonn2000 model. The $`V28`$ approach on the other hand adds a phenomenological contribution of short range. In  it has been observed that the reduction of meson exchange interactions to the local approximation yields characteristic differences. Can such differences also be observed for the isobar contributions?

A quite different approach has recently been developed by the Salamanca group. They derive a NN interaction in the framework of the Chiral Quark Cluster (CQC) model. The problem of two interacting clusters (baryons) of quarks is solved by means of the resonating group method. The Pauli principle between the interacting quarks is an important source for the short-range repulsion of the NN interaction. At large distances the $`\pi `$ exchange between the quarks in the two clusters evolves to the $`\pi `$ exchange between two baryons. At shorter distances, however, this non-local model for the baryon-baryon interaction might yield results that are quite different from a meson-exchange picture. This Salamanca potential does not give such a perfect fit to the NN scattering phase shifts as the Bonn2000 or the $`V28`$. For the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ partial waves of the NN system, however, the agreement with the empirical data is rather good.

We are going to compare correlated two-baryon wave functions in the deuteron, $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ and infinite nuclear matter derived from these three models of the baryon-baryon interaction. While the deuteron wave functions are obtained from an exact diagonalization in momentum space, the wave functions for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ and nuclear matter are calculated in the framework of the “exponential S” approach, generalized to include isobar degrees of freedom and evaluated in momentum representation.

After this introduction we discuss some differences between the transition potentials for $`V28`$ and Bonn2000 in the next section. The wave functions of the deuteron derived from these three models are compared in section 3, while the correlation functions for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ and infinite nuclear matter are presented in section 4. A summary and conclusions are added in the final section.

## II Transition potentials in different models

The key for an understanding of isobar components in the many-body wave function of nuclear systems is the transition potential, i.e. the matrix elements of the baryon-baryon interaction connecting two-nucleon states to $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ configurations. A transition $`\text{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ implies the change of both spin and isospin from $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`\frac{3}{2}`$. As isospin conservation has to be fulfilled at each vertex, such a transition requires the emission or absorption of an isovector meson, if one is considering a meson-exchange model for the baryon-baryon interaction. The most important isovector meson contributing to such transitions is of course the pion. The $`\rho (770)`$ has a considerable effect, too, but mainly for large momentum transfers between the interacting baryons.

In this section we would like to compare the one-pion-exchange (OPE) contribution as it is included in the Bonn2000 interaction with the corresponding term in the Argonne $`V28`$ interaction. As an example we consider the transition potential $`NN\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, in particular we will focus the attention to the central component as it shows up in $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ partial waves. This OPE transition amplitude has been formulated in a helicity representation in which the quantisation axis of the particle spins are the directions of the relative momenta $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐪^{}`$ for the initial and final state, respectively :

$`𝐪^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}|V^\pi |𝐪\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}c(T)(q_\mu ^{}q_\mu )(q_\nu ^{}q_\nu )F_\pi ^2(𝐪^{}𝐪)`$ (2)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}(𝐪^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2})u^\mu (𝐪,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2})\overline{u}(𝐪^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1})u^\nu (𝐪,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1})}{\sqrt{(𝐪^{}𝐪)^2+m_\pi ^2}\left[\sqrt{(𝐪^{}𝐪)^2+m_\pi ^2}+m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N\right]}}\text{.}`$
$`c(T)`$ is the isospin factor that remains from isospin matrix elements and corresponds to $`c(T)=\sqrt{2}`$ in this channel. The energy denominator in this expression contains the masses of the pion $`m_\pi `$, the nucleon $`m_N`$ and the $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It deviates from a simple pion-exchange propagator, as it has been derived from time-dependent perturbation theory accounting for the mass difference between $`m_N`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The function $`F_\pi `$ represents the form factor for each $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex. The initial relative momentum $`q`$ and the final relative momentum $`q^{}`$ are chosen along the $`z`$ axis, $`q=(0,0,0,q)`$, and in the $`x`$-$`z`$-plane, $`q^{}=(0,q^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,q^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, respectively, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐪^{}`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B_i}`$ labels the helicity quantum numbers of the spinors. For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobars these spinors fulfil the Rarita-Schwinger equations and can be constructed explicitely by coupling a vector field (spin 1) and a Dirac field (spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$)

$$u_\mu (𝐪,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{\lambda ,s}{}C_{1\lambda \frac{1}{2}s}^{\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }}e_\mu (𝐪,\lambda )u(𝐪,s)\text{,}$$
(3)
with

$$e_\mu (𝐪,\lambda )=(\frac{\widehat{𝐞}_\lambda 𝐪}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{𝐞}_\lambda \frac{𝐪(\widehat{𝐞}_\lambda 𝐪)}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }(\sqrt{𝐪^2+m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+m_\mathrm{\Delta })})\text{,}$$
(4)
where the $`C_{1\lambda \frac{1}{2}s}^{\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in the notation of  and $`u(𝐩,s)`$ is a Dirac spinor in spin state $`s`$. $`\widehat{𝐞}_+`$, $`\widehat{𝐞}_0`$ and $`\widehat{𝐞}_{}`$ are the circular polarisation vectors.

From both the Dirac spinors for the nucleons and the Rarita-Schwinger spinors for the Deltas, the complex momentum structure is now removed by taking their value at $`𝐪=𝐪^{}=0`$. It is straightforward to obtain the helicity Feynman graph structure (2) for all $`2\times 2\times 4\times 4=64`$ combinations of helicity projection numbers in this ‘static’ approximation. Most of them can be derived from symmetry relations , and one only needs to evaluate 10 matrix elements explicitely.

The helicity amplitudes are then projected onto states with definite total relative angular momentum $`J`$:

$`<q^{}J^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}\left|V^\pi \right|qJ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}>`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}^J(\theta )<𝐪^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}\left|V^\pi \right|𝐪\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}>\text{.}`$ (5)
Here, $`d_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}^J(\theta )`$ are the reduced rotation matrices with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}`$. In the next step one performs the transformation into the basis of the partial wave states, in which orbital angular momentum $`L`$ and spin $`S`$ are coupled to $`J`$:

$`<q^{}{}_{}{}^{2S^{}+1}L_{J}^{NN}\left|V^\pi \right|q{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(2L^{}+1)(2L+1)}}{2J+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}{}}C_{L^{}0S^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}^{J\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}C_{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}}^{S^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}`$ (8)
$`<q^{}J^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N_2}\left|V^\pi \right|qJ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}>C_{\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}^{S\mathrm{\Lambda }}C_{L0S\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{J\mathrm{\Lambda }}\text{.}`$
The transformation coefficients have been taken from .

In order to compare these matrix elements for the transition potential in the Bonn2000 model with the corresponding one for the $`V28`$, we consider two approximations:

* In evaluating the helicity amplitudes of eq.(2) the non-relativistic static limit is considered, i.e. the Dirac spinors as well as the Rarita-Schwinger are considered for $`𝐪=𝐪^{}=0`$.
* The energy denominator in eq.(2) is replaced by the usual pion propagator by ignoring the mass difference $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N`$.

Using these approximations an analytical expression is obtained for

$`<q^{}{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{NN}\left|V^\pi \right|q{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{40}}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(𝐪^{}𝐪)^2+m_\pi ^2}}\right]F_\pi ^2(𝐪^{}𝐪)`$ (9)
that depends on the momentum transfer $`𝐪^{}𝐪`$ only. This means that the interaction is local. Transforming this expression for the central part of the transition potential into configuration space, we can identify a Yukawa term and a contact term, both multiplied by the form factor.

This expression can be compared with the local transition potential as defined for the Argonne $`V28`$ interaction,

$`<r{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{NN}\left|V^\pi \right|r{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}>`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }^2m_\pi }{12\pi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_\pi r}}{m_\pi r}}(1e^{cr^2})<{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{NN}\left|(𝐒_1𝐒_2)^{}(𝐓_1𝐓_2)^{}\right|{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}>\text{,}`$ (10)
with $`𝐒_i`$ and $`𝐓_i`$ denoting the transition operator for spin and isospin. Note that comparing this expression with the local approximation to the Bonn2000 model in (9), the contact term is removed and the form factor is replaced in $`V28`$ by a Gaussian cutoff to regularize the matrix elements for small interparticle distances.

Matrix elements of the one-pion-exchange (OPE) contribution to the transition potential in the partial wave $`<q^{}{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{NN}\left|V^\pi \right|q{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}>`$ for these different approaches are displayed in Fig. 1. The relative momentum of the NN pair $`q^{}`$ is fixed at $`100\text{MeV}`$ and the matrix elements are presented as a function of the relative momentum for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ state.

The mass difference $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N`$ in the pion propagator of (2) has a remarkable effect on the calculated transition potential. This can be seen in Fig. 1 from the comparison of the solid line (Bonn), which represents the complete OPE contribution in the Bonn2000 potential, with the long dashed line ($`\pi `$-range), which exhibits the results obtained after replacing the pion propagator of (2) by the conventional $`\pi `$ propagator. The inclusion of the mass difference $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N`$ leads to a quenching of the transition potential by about a factor two for small momenta, while the two curves approach each other at large values of $`q_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. This means that the inclusion of the mass difference leads to a transition potential that is generally weaker and of shorter range, a feature which has already been observed e.g. in .

If one furthermore employs the non-relativistic limit, one obtains the local representation of the OPE of (9), which is given in Fig. 1 by the dashed line (local). The removal of the relativistic features yields a sizeable effect at larger momenta in particular. The dashed dotted line (contact rem.) results from the expression of (9) if the contact term, the constant in the momentum representation, is ignored. The removal of this contact term has a very strong effect on the transition potential in this central partial wave with $`l=0`$. Only after removing this contact term, we obtain an OPE component of the Bonn potential, which is essentially identical to the OPE contribution in the Argonne V28 model.

The comparison of these various approximations in Fig. 1 makes it rather obvious that the different treatment of the OPE contribution to the $`NN\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition potential leads to quite different matrix elements in the relativistic Bonn model, defined in momentum space, as compared to the local treatment in the Argonne V28.

This OPE contribution is the most important ingredient to the transition potential in both models. The addition of the $`\rho `$ exchange in the case of the Bonn2000 model leads to minor although non-negligible modifications. This can be seen from the comparison of Fig. 1 with Fig. 2, which shows matrix elements of the total transition potential. Besides the results for the Bonn2000 and V28 models, this figure also shows the corresponding values for the quark model of the Salamanca group . We see again the huge differences between the V28 and the Bonn2000 model, which even lead to a difference in sign. From our discussion above we know that the main part of differences can be traced back to the different treatment of the OPE contribution.

The Salamanca Chiral Quark Cluster (CQC) model, which we study as a third example cannot be considered as an entirely realistic potential because it does not fit the $`P`$-phase shifts for NN scattering with good accuracy; the phase shifts in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ channels are reproduced very well, however. In the CQC model, the long-range interaction is generated by OPE as well. In the core region, the potential is determined by gluon exchange and the Pauli principle. The latter requires total antisymmetry of the six-quark wave function and this leads to a dependence of the baryon-baryon potential on the initial kinetic energy $`E_{in}`$ of two interacting nucleons. For the results displayed in Fig. 2 we assume a value $`E_{in}=0`$ for this energy.

The matrix elements for the transition potential of the Salamanca model exhibit values in between the two approaches discussed above. The shape is similar to the one of the Bonn potential, however, approaching the value of zero with increasing momenta much faster than the Bonn potential. This might be an indication that the Pauli effects in the quark model provide a much stronger cutoff at high momenta than the form factor used in the Bonn potential.

As another example we compare results obtained for these three models also for the case $`<q^{}{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{NN}\left|V\right|q{}_{}{}^{7}D_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}>`$ in Fig. 3. The differences between Bonn2000 and V28 can again be traced back to the different treatment of the OPE. For this partial wave, however, one does not obtain any contact term contribution. This implies that the V28 is stronger at small momenta as it ignores the mass difference $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N`$ in the pion propagator and weaker than Bonn2000 at high momenta because of the non-localities included in the Bonn model. The matrix elements for the Salamanca model are similar to those of the Bonn2000 potential at small momenta but exhibit features of a stronger cut-off at high momenta.

## III The wave functions of the deuteron

Solutions of the bound state two-particle problem have been obtained for the Argonne V28, the $`\text{Bonn}_{2000}`$ and the Salamanca CQC potential. The nucleonic part of the deuteron wave function contains components $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ partial waves. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom shall be taken into account explicitely, one has to extend the two coupled nucleonic channels by four $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ partial waves, namely $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{7}D_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}G_{1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. No $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states can occur because the deuteron is an isospin $`T=0`$ state and the isospins of $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cannot couple to zero. The problem to determine the baryonic wave function in the 6 coupled channels has been solved in a spherical box with radius $`R_{box}=20\text{fm}`$. The spherical Bessel functions with the boundary condition

$$j_l(k_{il}R_{box})=0$$

can be used to construct a complete basis of orthonormalized states for the bound state wave functions within the spherical box. The coupled channel Hamiltonian was calculated in this basis of momentum eigenstates of the box and diagonalised numerically. Up to 300 discrete momenta were needed to get stable results for the binding energy. The results for energies and the wave functions obtained with the Argonne V28 and the Salamanca potential are in good agreement with the values given in  and , respectively.

All $`NN`$ interactions, which we consider, are adjusted to fit the total energy of the deuteron, which can be written as a sum of the kinetic energy $`T_{total}`$ and potential energy $`V_{total}`$ with

$`T_{total}`$ $`=`$ $`NN^3S_1|T|NN^3S_1+NN^3D_1|T|NN^3D_1+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }|T|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`T_S^N+T_D^N+T^\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ (12)
Note that the term $`T^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sums up the kinetic energy from all partial wave components in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave function and includes the contribution from the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass difference. The potential energy can be split into

$`V_{total}`$ $`=`$ $`NN^3S_1|V|NN^3S_1+NN^3D_1|V|NN^3D_1+`$ (14)
$`2NN^3S_1|V|NN^3D_1+2NN|V|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }|V|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`=`$ $`V_{SS}^{NN}+V_{DD}^{NN}+V_{SD}^{NN}+V^{N\mathrm{\Delta }}+V^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}.`$ (15)
The contributions of these various terms to the energy of the deuteron are listed in table I, while the norm of the various partial wave contributions to the wave function are presented in table II for the three interaction models with inclusion of isobars. For a comparison table I also shows the result for two NN interaction models without the explicit treatment of isobar configurations: the Argonne potential model V14  and the charge-dependent Bonn potential .

Although the sum of these various energy contributions yields the same energy of the deuteron for all the interaction models, there are remarkable differences in the individual terms. The inclusion of isobar components in the wave function yields a contribution to the binding energy of -5.21 MeV, -6.75 MeV and -1.59 MeV for the V28, the Bonn2000 and the Salamanca interaction, respectively. This means that V28 and Bonn2000 predict an unbound deuteron, if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components in the wave function would be suppressed, while the Salamanca interaction leads to a much weaker contribution of the isobar configurations.

These differences also show up in the norm of the various partial wave components in the deuteron wave function listed in table II. Comparing these occupation probabilities one finds that all interactions predict the largest contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ probability in the $`{}_{}{}^{7}D_{1}^{}`$ partial wave. The largest probability for this partial wave is obtained for the V28 potential, while Bonn2000 and the Salamanca interaction in particular yield much smaller probabilities in this channel. The origin of these differences can be deduced from Fig. 4, which exhibits the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave functions. The Argonne potential leads to a wave function in the $`{}_{}{}^{7}D_{1}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ channel, which is of longer range than those derived from the other two interactions. The main reason for this feature is the fact that the OPE contribution to the $`NN\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition potential neglects the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass difference in the pion propagator (see (2)), which leads to a transition potential of longer range. Comparing the wave functions in this channel derived from the Bonn2000 and the Salamanca interaction, one observes that the latter is strongly suppressed at short relative distances as compared to the former, which supports the argument presented already in the comparison of the matrix elements of the interaction, that the quark model leads to a much stronger effective cut-off at short distances than the cut-offs used in the meson exchange model.

The most significant difference in the predictions for the isobar components of the wave function can be seen in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ channel. While the Bonn and Salamanca models yield occupation probabilities, which are of similar size as those for the $`{}_{}{}^{7}D_{1}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ channel, the probability for this channel derived from the V28 potential is much weaker. A qualitative difference can also be observed from the inspection of the wave function in this channel (see Fig. 4). The wave function obtained for the Bonn and Salamanca potential show a maximal amplitude for $`r0`$, while the corresponding wave function deduced from the V28 potential is suppressed at small relative distances. These differences in the wave function reflect the fact that the contact term in the OPE contribution to the transition potential (see (9) and discussion there) is removed in the local representation of the OPE in V28, while the non-local representation of the OPE in the other models keeps a strong short range component.

The comparison of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components in the deuteron wave function therefore reflects the main differences between the local approximation of the V28 and the non-local approaches of the Bonn and Salamanca model: The V28 contains a OPE component of longer range and suppresses the short range components much stronger than the other two models. Furthermore, the quark model approach leads to a stronger reduction than the typical cut-off that is used in the meson exchange models of the Bonn group. This leads to much weaker $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components in the deuteron wave function for the Salamanca model.

It is worth noting that the contributions of $`V_{SD}^{NN}`$ to the potential energy of the deuteron (see table I) are significantly larger for the local Argonne potentials V14 and V28, than for the various versions of the Bonn potential and the Salamanca potential. This observation suggests that the local representation of the tensor components of the NN interaction, in particular the contribution originating from $`\pi `$-exchange yields matrix elements which are significantly larger than those evaluated within the non-local approaches (see also ).

## IV Correlations in nuclear matter and $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$

The wave functions of many-body systems are studied in the framework of the coupled-cluster theory . In the coupled-cluster approach one starts assuming an appropriate Slater determinant $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and writes the exact eigenstate $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for the $`A`$-particle system as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^S\mathrm{\Phi }\text{,}$$
(16)
with $`S`$ an operator of the form

$$S=\underset{n=1}{\overset{A}{}}S_n\text{,}$$
(17)
where $`S_n`$ is an $`n`$-particle operator which can be written for the case of $`n=2`$

$$S_2=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\nu _1,\nu _2,\rho _1,\rho _2}{}\rho _1\rho _2|S_2|\nu _1\nu _2a_{\rho _1}^{}a_{\rho _2}^{}a_{\nu _2}a_{\nu _1}\text{.}$$
(18)
In this equation $`a_{\rho _i}^{}`$ stand for fermion creation operators in states which are unoccupied in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, while $`a_{\nu _i}`$ represent annihilation operators for the nucleon single-particle states which are occupied in the Slater determinant $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Note that the $`a_{\rho _i}^{}`$ may also represent the creation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar states. Therefore the $`S_2`$ amplitudes describe two-particle two-hole excitations relative to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ but also $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitations.

For our present investigation of nuclear matter we will assume $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be the Slater determinant defined in terms of plane waves, occupying all states with momenta up to the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ = 1.36 fm-1. As an example for a finite nucleus, we will also consider 16O. In this case we will assume $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be the Slater determinant, defined in terms of harmonic oscillator states ($`\mathrm{}\omega `$ = 14 MeV) with nucleons occupying the states of $`0s`$ and the $`0p`$ shell. If one assumes that these single-particle states represent an optimal single-particle basis, i.e. the amplitudes $`S_1`$ in (17) vanish, and ignores the contributions of linked $`n`$-particle correlations with $`n3`$ ($`S_n=0`$ for $`n3`$), one obtains integral equations for amplitudes

$$b_1b_2\left[k(lS)j\right]KLJ\tau |S_2|(\nu _1\nu _2)J\tau \text{,}$$
(19)
which are solved in momentum space. In this representation $`b_1b_2`$ stand for $`NN`$, $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states, $`k(lS)j`$ denote the momentum, spin and orbital quantum numbers for the partial wave basis of the relative motion of the two baryons. $`K`$ and $`L`$ represent the center of mass state and $`J`$ and $`\tau `$ refers to the total angular momentum and isospin of the pair of baryons.

The $`S_2`$ amplitudes can be considered as correlation functions describing the difference between the correlated and uncorrelated wave function of two particles in the nuclear medium. As the uncorrelated Slater determinant $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (16) does not contain any isobar components, the $`S_2`$ amplitudes can be interpreted directly as the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ component of the two-particle wave function, if $`b_1b_2`$ in (19) refer to $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states.

As typical examples for these correlation functions in nuclear matter, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components for the relative wave function of two baryons in a state with isospin $`\tau =0`$ and angular momentum $`j=1`$ are given in Fig. 5. These components correspond to the components of the deuteron wave function in the same partial waves displayed in Fig. 4. In fact, these isobar components of the wave function for a pair of baryons in nuclear matter is very similar to the deuteron wave function if one compares the partial wave with $`l=2`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave functions exhibit a tail of longer range in the case of the Argonne V28 interaction, which reflects the longer range of the $`NN\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition potential for this interaction as compared to the other two approaches. The Salamanca CQC approach yields amplitudes for these $`D`$-waves which are considerably smaller. All these amplitudes are enhanced as compared to the deuteron wave function, which reflects the larger density of the nuclear matter system.

The situation is a little bit different if one compares the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ component of the nuclear matter wave function with the corresponding part of the deuteron wave function. The results obtained for the V28 and the Bonn potential yield wave functions of rather similar shape in the deuteron and in nuclear matter also for this channel. The wave functions derived from the Salamanca CQC interaction are rather different in nuclear matter as compared to the deuteron. At short distances they even have a different sign. This reflects a large non-locality or momentum dependence of the short range component for the $`NN\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition potential derived in the CQC model.

In the nuclear many body systems one also observes bound states of two baryons in states with isospin $`\tau =1`$. As an example of such configurations we discuss $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components of two-particle wave functions in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ as displayed in Fig. 6. The comparison of the results obtained for the different interaction models leads to observations which are rather similar to those discussed for the states with $`\tau =0`$ above. The difference in the range of the transition potentials $`NNN\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for V28 and the other two interactions is not as significant as in the case of the $`NN\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (compare the discussion of the propagator in (2)), which leads to smaller differences in the tail of the $`{}_{}{}^{5}D_{0}^{}`$ $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave function than in the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ state. A very significant model dependence is obtained in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave function.

The isobar-isobar relative wave functions derived for nuclear matter and finite nuclei are rather similar. Therefore we display only one of these examples for each channel. This demonstrates that isobar admixtures correspond to correlations in the many-body wave function which are of short range. Therefore they are not very sensitive to surface effects in finite nuclei and a local density approximation should be appropriate to consider isobar effects in finite nuclei.

## V Conclusions

Three different models for the baryon-baryon interaction, which fit NN scattering data and explicitely account for isobar degrees of freedom have been considered. These are the local Argonne V28 potential, the Bonn2000 interaction model based on the relativistic meson exchange model and an interaction based on the Chiral Quark Cluster (CQC) model which has recently been developed by the Salamanca group . The isobar components in the wave function of the deuteron and nuclear many-body systems including nuclear matter and 16O as an example for a finite nucleus are evaluated. Significant differences are observed in the predictions from these models. These differences can be related to the assumptions made in determining the transition potential between $`NN`$, $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states. The V28 interaction model yields isobar wave functions of longer range than the other two. This can be traced back to the approximations which are made in reducing the $`\pi `$ exchange contribution of the transition potentials to a local form. The most significant differences are observed in partial waves with $`l=0`$ at small distances. A main source of the discrepancies in these partial waves is related to a removal of a contact term in the local interaction model. The Bonn2000 and Salamanca CQC model in particular exhibit important non-local features for the short range part of the interaction model. The Salamanca model predicts rather small isobar components in the nuclear many-body wave function. These different predictions for the isobar components in the many-body wave function could be very useful in distinguishing between different interaction models.

We thank D. Entem for providing us with the Salamanca CQC potential. Also we would like to thank him but also Francesca Samarucca and Ruprecht Machleidt for useful discussions. One of the authors (T.F.) would also like to thank the Dr.-Carl-Duisberg-Stiftung for supporting this work by a grant that enabled a stay at the Departament d’Estructura i Constituents de la Matèria in Barcelona, Spain. We would like also to acknowledge financial support from DGICYT (Spain) under contract PB98-1247 and from Generalitat de Catalunya under grant SGR2000-24.