format: text

text:
# Jordan–Wigner fermionization for spin–1/2 systems in two dimensions: A brief review

## I Introductory remarks

A mapping of the spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ operators onto Fermi operators by means of the Jordan–Wigner transformation was used by Lieb, Schultz and Mattis  to introduce the exactly solvable one–dimensional spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`XY`$ model. Later the famous Onsager’s solution for the two–dimensional Ising model was reproduced by using the Jordan–Wigner transformation for the transfer matrix of that model . The Jordan–Wigner transformation is the essential ingredient of the studies of the statistical mechanics properties of quantum spin chains . Much effort has been devoted to generalize the fermionization procedure for two  and three  dimensions. In the present paper we review the Jordan–Wigner transformation in two dimensions as well as some existing applications of this mapping for the spin system theory.

We shall consider a spin model consisting of $`N=N_xN_y`$ ($`N_x\mathrm{}`$, $`N_y\mathrm{}`$) spins $`\frac{1}{2}`$ on a square lattice of the size $`L_xL_y`$ ($`L_x\mathrm{}`$, $`L_y\mathrm{}`$) governed by the Heisenberg Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}J𝐬_𝐢𝐬_𝐣+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}hs_𝐢^z`$ (1)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}J\left(𝐬_{i,j}𝐬_{i+1,j}+𝐬_{i,j}𝐬_{i,j+1}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}hs_{i,j}^z.`$ (2)
Here $`𝐢,𝐣`$ denotes all different nearest neighbouring sites at the square lattice, $`J`$ is the exchange interaction between the neighbouring sites, $`h`$ is the external field. The isotropic Heisenberg interaction consists of the isotropic $`XY`$ part and the Ising part

$`𝐬_𝐢𝐬_𝐣=\left(s_𝐢^xs_𝐣^x+s_𝐢^ys_𝐣^y\right)+s_𝐢^zs_𝐣^z`$ (3)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(s_𝐢^+s_𝐣^{}+s_𝐢^{}s_𝐣^+\right)+\left(s_𝐢^+s_𝐢^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(s_𝐣^+s_𝐣^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right),`$ (4)
where we have introduced the spin raising and lowering operators $`s^\pm =s^x\pm \text{i}s^y`$ and $`s^z=s^+s^{}\frac{1}{2}`$. It is important to note that the operators $`s^+`$, $`s^{}`$ obey the Fermi commutation rules at the same site

$`\{s_𝐢^{},s_𝐢^+\}=1,\{s_𝐢^+,s_𝐢^+\}=\{s_𝐢^{},s_𝐢^{}\}=0`$ (5)
and the Bose commutation rules at different sites $`𝐢𝐣`$

$`[s_𝐢^{},s_𝐣^+]=[s_𝐢^+,s_𝐣^+]=[s_𝐢^{},s_𝐣^{}]=0.`$ (6)
The aim of the Jordan–Wigner trick is to transform the spin variables into pure fermion variables.

We start the paper by giving a short reminder of the Jordan–Wigner transformation in one dimension (Section II). Then we discuss the extensions for two dimensions suggested by M. Azzouz  (Section III), Y. R. Wang  (Section IV), and E. Fradkin  (Section V). The mean–field–like treatment of the Jordan–Wigner fermions for the isotropic $`XY`$ model is discussed in detail in Section VI. The consideration of a model with Ising term in fermionic language is given separately in Section VII. Finally, we summarize some of the results obtained using this approximate approach and comment on a comparison with the results derived using other methods (Section VIII).

## II The Jordan–Wigner transformation in one dimension

With the help of the Jordan–Wigner transformation we introduce instead of the operators $`s^+`$, $`s^{}`$ satisfying (5), (6) the operators $`c^+`$, $`c`$ satisfying the Fermi commutation rules (both at the same and different sites) in terms of which the Hamiltonian of the isotropic $`XY`$ chain is a bilinear form and the Ising interaction yields the products of four Fermi operators. Explicitly the Jordan–Wigner transformation reads

$`c_n^+=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _n}s_n^+,c_n=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _n}s_n^{},s_n^+=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _n}c_n^+,s_n^{}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _n}c_n,`$ (7)
$`\alpha _n=\pi {\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}n_j,n_j=c_j^+c_j.`$ (8)
The signs in the exponents and the order of the multipliers (first line in (7)) are not important. To get the operator $`c_n`$ ($`c_n^+`$) we must multiply $`s_n^{}`$ ($`s_n^+`$) by the exponent containing a sum of $`n_j`$ at all previous sites $`0jn1`$ as can be seen from (7) and is shown symbolically in Fig. 1.

To demonstrate how the transformation (7) works we need the following equations for Fermi operators

$`c_j^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}=c_j^+,\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}c_j^+=c_j^+,c_j\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}=c_j,\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}c_j=c_j,`$ (9)
which can be easily obtained since

$$\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}=1+\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j+\frac{1}{2!}\left(\text{i}\pi \right)^2c_j^+c_j+\mathrm{}=1c_j^+c_j+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi }c_j^+c_j=12c_j^+c_j.$$

From (9) one finds that

$`\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_n^+c_n}c_l=c_l\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_n^+c_n},\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_n^+c_n}c_l^+=c_l^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_n^+c_n},`$ (10)
if $`nl`$, but

$`\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_l^+c_l}c_l=c_l\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_l^+c_l},\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_l^+c_l}c_l^+=c_l^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_l^+c_l}.`$ (11)
Besides,

$`\text{e}^{2\text{i}\pi c_l^+c_l}=1.`$ (12)
Let us show that the commutation rules for the spin raising and lowering operators $`s^+`$, $`s^{}`$ (7) are given by (5), (6) if $`c^+`$, $`c`$ are Fermi operators. At the same site we find

$`s_n^{}s_n^+=c_n\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _n}\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _n}c_n^+=c_nc_n^+,s_n^+s_n^{}=c_n^+c_n,s_n^+s_n^+=c_n^+c_n^+=0,s_n^{}s_n^{}=c_nc_n=0,`$ (13)
and as a result Eq. (5) becomes evident. At different sites $`n`$ and $`n+m`$ (without any loss of generality $`m>0`$) we have

$`s_n^{}s_{n+m}^+=c_n\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{l=n}^{n+m1}c_l^+c_l}c_{n+m}^+=c_nc_{n+m}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{l=n}^{n+m1}c_l^+c_l},`$ (14)
$`s_{n+m}^+s_n^{}=c_{n+m}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{l=n}^{n+m1}c_l^+c_l}c_n=c_{n+m}^+c_n\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{l=n}^{n+m1}c_l^+c_l},`$ (15)
etc. which immediately yields Eq. (6).

Let us write down the transformed Hamiltonian. Besides $`s_j^+s_j^{}=c_j^+c_j`$ (13) we have

$`s_j^+s_{j+1}^{}=c_j^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}c_{j+1}=c_j^+c_{j+1},s_j^{}s_{j+1}^+=c_j\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi c_j^+c_j}c_{j+1}^+=c_jc_{j+1}^+,`$ (16)
and as a result the one–dimensional spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg Hamiltonian (1), (3) becomes

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\left(c_j^+c_{j+1}c_jc_{j+1}^+\right)+J\left(c_j^+c_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(c_{j+1}^+c_{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}h\left(c_j^+c_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (17)
It is clear now to what extent the Jordan–Wigner transformation simplifies further statistical mechanics calculations. A nontrivial in spin language isotropic $`XY`$ chain transforms into tight–binding spinless fermions and further rigorous treatment becomes possible. For the anisotropic $`XY`$ chain the operators $`c_j^+c_{j+1}^+`$, $`c_jc_{j+1}`$ enter Eq. (17) besides, and therefore the Bogolyubov transformation is required in addition. The Ising term leads to an interaction between the Jordan–Wigner fermions, however, the low–energy properties may be analysed using the bosonization techniques . While interesting only in the low–energy physics of $`s>\frac{1}{2}`$ spin chains one may represent the spin–$`s`$ operators as a sum of $`2s`$ spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ operators and then, making use of the Jordan–Wigner representation for the latter operators, proceed in fermionic language.

## III The Jordan–Wigner transformation in two dimensions (M. Azzouz, 1993)

Consider the spin model (1) on a square lattice (Fig. 2).

Two coordinates $`i`$ and $`j`$ are taken at the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes, respectively, to specify a given site.

M. Azzouz defined  the extended Jordan–Wigner transformation as

$`s_{i,j}^{}=c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _{i,j}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _{i,j}}c_{i,j},s_{i,j}^+=c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _{i,j}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _{i,j}}c_{i,j}^+,`$ (18)
$`\alpha _{i,j}=\pi \left({\displaystyle \underset{d=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{f=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n_{d,f}+{\displaystyle \underset{f=0}{\overset{j1}{}}}n_{i,f}\right),n_{d,f}=c_{d,f}^+c_{d,f}`$ (19)
(compare with Eqs. (7)). The signs in the exponents in (18) (and the order of the multipliers in the first line in (18)) are not important. Let us show that the introduced transformation (18) enables one to construct a fermion representation for two–dimensional spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ models.

We start with the commutation rules. At the same site one has

$`s_{q,p}^{}s_{q,p}^+=c_{q,p}\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _{q,p}}\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _{q,p}}c_{q,p}^+=c_{q,p}c_{q,p}^+,s_{q,p}^+s_{q,p}^{}=c_{q,p}^+c_{q,p},s_{q,p}^+s_{q,p}^+=c_{q,p}^+c_{q,p}^+,s_{q,p}^{}s_{q,p}^{}=c_{q,p}c_{q,p},`$ (20)
and the Fermi type commutation rules remain unchanged. To illustrate how transformation (18) works in the case of different sites let us consider, for example, two sites $`q,p`$ and $`q,p+m`$, $`m>0`$. Then, similarly to Eq. (14) one finds

$`s_{q,p}^{}s_{q,p+m}^+=c_{q,p}\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{f=p}^{p+m1}n_{q,f}}c_{q,p+m}^+=c_{q,p}c_{q,p+m}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{f=p}^{p+m1}n_{q,f}},`$ (21)
$`s_{q,p+m}^+s_{q,p}^{}=c_{q,p+m}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{f=p}^{p+m1}n_{q,f}}c_{q,p}=c_{q,p+m}^+c_{q,p}\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi _{f=p}^{p+m1}n_{q,f}}`$ (22)
(we have used an analogue of Eqs. (10), (11) in two dimensions) and hence the operators $`s_{q,p}^{}`$ and $`s_{q,p+m}^+`$ commute if the operators $`c_{q,p}`$ and $`c_{q,p+m}^+`$ anticommute. Following the same reasoning one can check the rest of the commutation rules.

Consider further the transformed spin Hamiltonian. Let us treat somewhat more general nearest neighbour interactions than the one in Eq. (1). Namely, we assume different values of interaction in different directions on a square lattice as shown in Fig. 3.

(Evidently, we can perform the fermionization presented below for a completely nonuniform model characterized by a set of intersite interactions $`\{\mathrm{},J_{i,j;i+1,j},\mathrm{};\mathrm{},J_{i,j;i,j+1},\mathrm{}\}`$.) If $`J=J^{}=J_{}=J_{}^{}`$ one faces the uniform square lattice. To examine the effects of interchain interactions in quasi–one–dimensional systems one may consider the case $`J_{},J_{}^{}J,J^{}`$ (with $`J`$ not equal to $`J^{}`$ if the dimerised chain is considered). If $`J_{}^{}J,J^{},J_{}`$ one has a model of interacting two–leg ladders. In the limiting case of $`J_{}^{}=0`$ (the noninteracting two–leg ladders) the model may be reduced to a one–dimensional system with interactions extending over the nearest sites.

We begin with the isotropic $`XY`$ interaction (see Fig. 4).

Inserting (18) into (1), (3) one finds

$`H_{XY}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(J_{i,j;i+1,j}\left(s_{i,j}^{}s_{i+1,j}^++s_{i,j}^+s_{i+1,j}^{}\right)+J_{i,j;i,j+1}\left(s_{i,j}^{}s_{i,j+1}^++s_{i,j}^+s_{i,j+1}^{}\right)\right)`$ (23)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(J_{i,j;i+1,j}(c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi \left(_{f=j}^{\mathrm{}}n_{i,f}+_{f=0}^{j1}n_{i+1,f}\right)}c_{i+1,j}^++c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi \left(_{f=j}^{\mathrm{}}n_{i,f}+_{f=0}^{j1}n_{i+1,f}\right)}c_{i+1,j})`$ (24)
$`+J_{i,j;i,j+1}(c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi n_{i,j}}c_{i,j+1}^++c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi n_{i,j}}c_{i,j+1}))`$ (25)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(J_{i,j;i+1,j}(c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi \left(_{f=j+1}^{\mathrm{}}n_{i,f}+_{f=0}^{j1}n_{i+1,f}\right)}c_{i+1,j}^++c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi \left(_{f=j+1}^{\mathrm{}}n_{i,f}+_{f=0}^{j1}n_{i+1,f}\right)}c_{i+1,j})`$ (26)
$`+J_{i,j;i,j+1}(c_{i,j}c_{i,j+1}^++c_{i,j}^+c_{i,j+1}))`$ (27)
(to get the last equality we have used an analogue of Eq. (9) in two dimensions). After introducing the notations

$`\varphi _{i,i+1}(j)=\pi \left({\displaystyle \underset{f=j}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n_{i,f}+{\displaystyle \underset{f=0}{\overset{j1}{}}}n_{i+1,f}\right),`$ (28)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{i,i+1}(j)=\pi \left({\displaystyle \underset{f=j+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n_{i,f}+{\displaystyle \underset{f=0}{\overset{j1}{}}}n_{i+1,f}\right),`$ (29)
$`\phi _{j,j+1}(i)=\pi n_{i,j}`$ (30)
the Hamiltonian (23) becomes as follows

$`H_{XY}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(J_{i,j;i+1,j}(c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\varphi _{i,i+1}(j)}c_{i+1,j}^++c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\varphi _{i,i+1}(j)}c_{i+1,j})`$ (31)
$`+J_{i,j;i,j+1}(c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _{j,j+1}(i)}c_{i,j+1}^++c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _{j,j+1}(i)}c_{i,j+1}))`$ (32)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(J_{i,j;i+1,j}(c_{i,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{i,i+1}(j)}c_{i+1,j}^++c_{i,j}^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{i,i+1}(j)}c_{i+1,j})`$ (33)
$`+J_{i,j;i,j+1}(c_{i,j}c_{i,j+1}^++c_{i,j}^+c_{i,j+1})).`$ (34)
Eq. (31) can be viewed as the Hamiltonian of a two–dimensional tight–binding–like spinless fermions with the hopping amplitudes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{i,j;i+1,j}\text{e}^{\text{i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{i,i+1}(j)}`$ (35)
in the $`x`$ direction and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{i,j;i,j+1}`$ (36)
in the $`y`$ direction. Those hoppings depend in a complicated way on a configuration of the ‘intermediate’ sites. Their complexity explains how the isotropic $`XY`$ model becomes difficult to examine in two dimensions in comparison with an obvious analysis in one dimension.

There are no difficulties in rewriting the Ising interaction in fermionic language

$`H_Z={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(J_{i,j;i+1,j}\left(s_{i,j}^+s_{i,j}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(s_{i+1,j}^+s_{i+1,j}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+J_{i,j;i,j+1}\left(s_{i,j}^+s_{i,j}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(s_{i,j+1}^+s_{i,j+1}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right)`$ (37)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(J_{i,j;i+1,j}\left(c_{i,j}^+c_{i,j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(c_{i+1,j}^+c_{i+1,j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+J_{i,j;i,j+1}\left(c_{i,j}^+c_{i,j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(c_{i,j+1}^+c_{i,j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right)`$ (38)
and the interaction with an external field

$`H_f={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}h\left(s_{i,j}^+s_{i,j}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}h\left(c_{i,j}^+c_{i,j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (39)
Formulas (31), (37), (39) realize the fermionic representation of the spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic Heisenberg model on a square lattice (1), (3).

## IV The Jordan–Wigner transformation in two dimensions (Y. R. Wang, 1991)

Let us turn back to the Jordan–Wigner transformation in one dimension (7) using this case as a guideline and define a particle–annihilation operator as

$`d_𝐢=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}s_𝐢^{},\alpha _𝐢={\displaystyle \underset{𝐣(𝐢)}{}}B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}n_𝐣,`$ (40)
where $`B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}`$ is the c–number matrix element, $`n_𝐣=d_𝐣^+d_𝐣`$. A particle–creation operator is given by

$`d_𝐢^+=s_𝐢^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}s_𝐢^+,`$ (41)
whereas the inverse to Eqs. (40), (41) formulas read

$`s_𝐢^{}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}d_𝐢=d_𝐢\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢},`$ (42)
$`s_𝐢^+=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}d_𝐢^+=d_𝐢^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}.`$ (43)
We want the introduced operators $`d^+`$, $`d`$ to obey the Fermi type commutation rules. They are indeed the Fermi operators at the same site due to Eq. (5). Consider further two different sites $`𝐢𝐣`$. Assuming that $`d^+`$, $`d`$ are Fermi operators one finds

$`[s_𝐢^+,s_𝐣^{}]=\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}d_𝐢^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐣}d_𝐣\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐣}d_𝐣\text{e}^{\text{i}\alpha _𝐢}d_𝐢^+`$ (44)
$`=\text{e}^{\text{i}n_𝐣B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}}d_𝐢^+\text{e}^{\text{i}n_𝐢B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}d_𝐣\text{e}^{\text{i}n_𝐢B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}d_𝐣\text{e}^{\text{i}n_𝐣B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}}d_𝐢^+.`$ (45)
Since

$$\text{e}^{\text{i}n_𝐣B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}}=1+\left(\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}}1\right)n_𝐣,\text{e}^{\text{i}n_𝐢B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}=1+\left(\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}1\right)n_𝐢$$

one can easily proceed in calculation of the r.h.s. of Eq. (44) finally arriving at

$`[s_𝐢^+,s_𝐣^{}]=\left(1+\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}}\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}\right)d_𝐢^+d_𝐣.`$ (46)
The result equals to $`0`$ (as it should for the commutator of the operators $`s^+`$ and $`s^{}`$ attached to different sites) if

$`\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}.`$ (47)
Thus we assume that $`B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}`$’s in (40), (41), (42), (43) satisfy relation (47) that yields the spin commutation relations for $`s^+`$, $`s`$ (5), (6) if $`d^+`$, $`d`$ are Fermi operators.

Y. R. Wang suggested  the following choice for $`B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}`$. Consider two complex numbers

$`\tau _𝐢=i_x+\text{i}i_y`$ (48)
and

$`\tau _𝐣=j_x+\text{i}j_y,`$ (49)
which correspond to the sites $`𝐢=i_x𝐧_x+i_y𝐧_y`$ and $`𝐣=j_x𝐧_x+j_y𝐧_y`$, respectively. Here $`𝐧_x`$ and $`𝐧_y`$ are the unit vectors directed along $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes, respectively. Assume that

$`B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}=\text{arg}\left(\tau _𝐣\tau _𝐢\right).`$ (50)
Evidently

$`\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐢}}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\text{arg}\left(\tau _𝐢\tau _𝐣\right)}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\left(\text{arg}\left(\tau _𝐣\tau _𝐢\right)\pm \pi \right)}=\text{e}^{\text{i}B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}},`$ (51)
that is the required condition (47). Since $`\tau _𝐢\tau _𝐣=|\tau _𝐢\tau _𝐣|\text{e}^{\text{i}\text{arg}\left(\tau _𝐢\tau _𝐣\right)}`$ Eq. (50) can be rewritten in the form

$`B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}=\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau _𝐣\tau _𝐢\right),`$ (52)
and hence the introduced transformations (40), (41), (42), (43) contains

$`\alpha _𝐢={\displaystyle \underset{𝐣(𝐢)}{}}\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau _𝐣\tau _𝐢\right)n_𝐣.`$ (53)
It is worth noting that the transformation of M. Azzouz (18) can also be written as Eqs. (42), (43) with

$`B_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}=\pi \left(\mathrm{\Theta }(i_xj_x)\left(1\delta _{i_x,j_x}\right)+\delta _{i_x,j_x}\mathrm{\Theta }(i_yj_y)\left(1\delta _{i_y,j_y}\right)\right)`$ (54)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function, and a necessary condition for having spin to fermion mapping (47) fulfilled.

The advantage of the choice of Y. R. Wang (53) becomes clear when one tries to introduce an approximate treatment of the transformed Hamiltonian. After inserting (42), (43) into (1), (3) one finds

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{𝐢,𝐣}(d_𝐢^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\left(\alpha _𝐣\alpha _𝐢\right)}d_𝐣+d_𝐢\text{e}^{\text{i}\left(\alpha _𝐢\alpha _𝐣\right)}d_𝐣^+)`$ (55)
$`+J_{𝐢,𝐣}(d_𝐢^+d_𝐢{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(d_𝐣^+d_𝐣{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}))+{\displaystyle }_𝐢h(d_𝐢^+d_𝐢{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (56)
Note that

$`\alpha _𝐣\alpha _𝐢={\displaystyle _𝐢^𝐣}\text{d}𝐫𝐀(𝐫)`$ (57)
where $`𝐀(𝐫)=_𝐫\alpha _𝐫`$ and hence

$`𝐀(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{}{r_x}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝐫^{}(𝐫)}{}}n_𝐫^{}\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}\left(r_x^{}r_x+\text{i}\left(r_y^{}r_y\right)\right)\right)𝐧_x`$ (58)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_y}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝐫^{}(𝐫)}{}}n_𝐫^{}\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}\left(r_x^{}r_x+\text{i}\left(r_y^{}r_y\right)\right)\right)𝐧_y`$ (59)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐫^{}(𝐫)}{}}n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(r_y^{}r_y\right)𝐧_x\left(r_x^{}r_x\right)𝐧_y}{\left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)^2}}`$ (60)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐫^{}(𝐫)}{}}n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐧_z\times \left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)}{\left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)^2}}.`$ (61)
The crucial approximation to proceed is to make the change in (58)

$`n_𝐫n_𝐫=s_𝐫^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (62)
Here the angular brackets denote the thermodynamical canonical average with the Hamiltonian (1). Thus, we have postulated the mean–field description of the phase factors in (55). A similar treatment was adopted in Refs. . Apparently, assuming further in (62) that $`s_𝐫^z=0`$ one should suppose that $`h=0`$ (although in Refs.  the uniform magnetic field was included into the Hamiltonian). In principle Eq. (62) simplifies the problem drastically since one faces a tight–binding spinless fermions on a square lattice. However, in practice it is hard to proceed because of nonuniformity of that model.

The Hamiltonian (55), (57), (58), (62) describes the (charged) spinless fermions moving in a plane in an external uniform (classical) magnetic field which is perpendicular to the plane. Due to (62) $`n_𝐫^{}`$ can be taken out from the summation and in the continuum limit the vector potential of the field $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ can be written  in the following form

$`𝐀(𝐫)=n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫^{}(𝐫)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐧_z\times \left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)}{\left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)^2}}`$ (63)
$`=n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_0}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{L_x}{2}}^{\frac{L_x}{2}}}\text{d}r_x^{}{\displaystyle _{\frac{L_y}{2}}^{\frac{L_y}{2}}}\text{d}r_y^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐧_z\times \left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)}{\left(𝐫^{}𝐫\right)^2}}`$ (64)
$`=\mathrm{}=n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{S_0}}𝐧_z\times 𝐫,`$ (65)
where $`S_0`$ is the area of the elementary plaquette in the plane (see Fig. 5)

and $`L_x=L_y=L\mathrm{}`$. The corresponding magnetic field $`𝐇(𝐫)`$ immediately follows from Eq. (63)

$`𝐇(𝐫)=\text{rot}𝐀(𝐫)=n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{S_0}}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}𝐧_x& 𝐧_y& 𝐧_z\\ \frac{}{x}& \frac{}{y}& \frac{}{z}\\ r_y& r_x& 0\end{array}\right|=n_𝐫^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{S_0}}𝐧_z,`$ (69)
so that $`𝐀(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}𝐇(𝐫)\times 𝐫`$. The flux per elementary plaquette equals to

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=𝐇(𝐫)S_0𝐧_z=2\pi n_𝐫^{}=\pi .`$ (70)
The vector potential $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ (63) shown schematically in Fig. 5 is not convenient to be concerned with. Because of the gauge invariance one may perform a gauge transformation introducing a new vector potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)`$ which yields the same flux per elementary plaquette $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\pi `$. Namely, assume that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)`$ is such that

$`\alpha _{i+1,j}\alpha _{i,j}={\displaystyle _{i,j}^{i+1,j}}\text{d}𝐫\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)=\pi ,`$ (71)
whereas

$`\alpha _{i+1,j+1}\alpha _{i+1,j}=\alpha _{i,j+1}\alpha _{i+1,j+1}=\alpha _{i,j}\alpha _{i,j+1}=0`$ (72)
(see Fig. 6). From Eqs. (71), (72) one finds that

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}𝐫\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)}=\pi ,`$ (73)
and on the other hand

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}𝐫\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)}={\displaystyle \text{d}𝐒\text{rot}\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)}={\displaystyle \text{d}𝐒𝐇(𝐫)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (74)
and hence the flux per elementary plaquette $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ remains equal to $`\pi `$.

Let us turn back to the Hamiltonian (55). Only now we are in position to proceed with the statistical mechanics analysis. Within the frames of the introduced mean–field treatment of the phase factors (71), (72) the Hamiltonian (55) can be rewritten as

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{𝐢,𝐣}\left(d_𝐢^+d_𝐣d_𝐢d_𝐣^+\right)+H_Z+H_f,`$ (75)
where even for initially uniform lattice $`J=J^{}=J_{}=J_{}^{}`$ in the Hamiltonian $`H_{XY}`$ one has

$`J_{i,j;i+1,j}=J,J_{i,j;i,j+1}=J,J_{i+1,j;i+2,j}=J,J_{i+1,j;i+1,j+1}=J`$ (76)
etc. (see Fig. 6).

As can be seen from Eqs. (75), (76) the isotropic $`XY`$ model can be examined now without making any other additional approximations since it corresponds to a model of tight–binding spinless fermions on a bipartite square lattice (see Section VI). Conversely, the Heisenberg model requires further approximations to proceed because of the interaction between spinless fermions (see Section VII).

## V The Jordan–Wigner transformation in two dimensions (E. Fradkin, 1989)

The Fermi–Bose correspondence in two dimensions, i.e., the Jordan–Wigner transformation for two–dimensional spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ systems on a lattice, was discussed even earlier , however, without applications to the theory of concrete spin models. Consider a system of spinless fermions, i.e., a matter field, $`a(𝐫)`$ on the sites of a square lattice (Fig. 7)

and gauge field $`A_x(𝐫)`$, $`A_y(𝐫)`$ on the links of the lattice (Fig. 7). The Hamiltonian of the system is

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}\left(a^+(𝐫)\text{e}^{\text{i}A_x(𝐫)}a(𝐫+𝐧_x)+a^+(𝐫)\text{e}^{\text{i}A_y(𝐫)}a(𝐫+𝐧_y)+\text{h.c.}\right)`$ (77)
with the constraint

$`a^+(𝐫)a(𝐫)=\theta \left(A_y(𝐫+𝐧_x)A_y(𝐫)A_x(𝐫+𝐧_y)+A_x(𝐫)\right),`$ (78)
where $`\theta `$ is the parameter which will be defined later. E. Fradkin showed  that the gauge field can be eliminated at the expense of a change in the commutation relations of the matter field. Namely, introducing  the Jordan–Wigner operators $`\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)`$ which obey

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫^{})\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)=\delta _{𝐫^{},𝐫}\text{e}^{\frac{\text{i}}{2\theta }}\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫^{})`$ (79)
with $`\frac{1}{2\theta }=\pi `$ the Hamiltonian (77) is

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫+𝐧_x)+\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫+𝐧_y)+\text{h.c.}\right).`$ (80)
Eq. (80) is easily recognized as the Hamiltonian of the spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic $`XY`$ model on a square lattice with exchange interaction between nearest sites $`J=2t`$ and the correspondence $`s_𝐫^+=\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)`$, $`s_𝐫^{}=\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫)`$, $`s_𝐫^z=\stackrel{~}{a}^+(𝐫)\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐫)\frac{1}{2}`$.

Further discussions on the extension of the Jordan–Wigner transformation to three– or more–dimensional cases can be found in Ref. .

## VI 2D $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic $`XY`$ model

Let us show how the two–dimensional Jordan–Wigner transformation with the mean–field treatment of the phase factors can be used in the theory of spin models. As a result we come to an approximate approach to the study of 2D quantum spin models.

We begin with the 2D isotropic $`XY`$ model ($`H_Z=H_f=0`$) considering for concreteness the case of $`J=J^{}`$, $`J_{}=J_{}^{}`$. In accordance with (75), (76) we start from

$`H_{XY}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(J\left(1\right)^{i+j}\left(d_{i,j}^+d_{i+1,j}d_{i,j}d_{i+1,j}^+\right)+J_{}\left(d_{i,j}^+d_{i,j+1}d_{i,j}d_{i,j+1}^+\right)\right)`$ (81)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\left(\mathrm{}a_{i,j}^+b_{i+1,j}+a_{i,j}b_{i+1,j}^++b_{i+1,j}^+a_{i+2,j}b_{i+1,j}a_{i+2,j}^++\mathrm{}\right)`$ (82)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{}\left(\mathrm{}+a_{i,j}^+b_{i,j+1}a_{i,j}b_{i,j+1}^++b_{i+1,j}^+a_{i+1,j+1}b_{i+1,j}a_{i+1,j+1}^++\mathrm{}\right),`$ (83)
where, to emphasize a bipartite character of the square lattice that appeared, we have introduced notations $`a_{i,j}=d_{i,j}`$, $`b_{i+1,j}=d_{i+1,j}`$ etc..

Notwithstanding the fact that we have an approximate theory, it contains the exact result in 1D limit if one puts in Eq. (81) either $`J_{}=0`$ or $`J=0`$ coming to a system of noninteracting chains extended in either horizontal or vertical direction, respectively. In the latter case Eq. (81) corresponds to a system of noninteracting chains each with the $`XY`$ part of the Hamiltonian (17)

$`H_{XY}(i)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{}\left(d_{i,j}^+d_{i,j+1}d_{i,j}d_{i,j+1}^+\right).`$ (84)
In the former case one gets a system of noninteracting chains each with the Hamiltonian

$`H_{XY}(j)=\left(1\right)^j{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\left(1\right)^i\left(d_{i,j}^+d_{i+1,j}d_{i,j}d_{i+1,j}^+\right)`$ (85)
and to recover the 1D limit explicitly the transformation

$`d_{i,j}^+=\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi \psi _i}f_i^+,d_{i+1,j}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi \psi _{i+1}}f_{i+1},\mathrm{},\psi _0=0,\psi _{i+1}=\psi _i+i`$ (86)
(e.g., $`d_{0,j}^+=f_0^+`$, $`d_{1,j}^+=f_1^+`$, $`d_{2,j}^+=f_2^+`$, $`d_{3,j}^+=f_3^+`$ etc.) should be performed.

After the Fourier transformation

$`d_{i,j}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_xN_y}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_x,k_y}{}}\text{e}^{\text{i}\left(k_xi+k_yj\right)}d_{k_x,k_y}`$ (87)
etc. or in short

$`d_𝐢={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\text{e}^{\text{i}𝐤𝐢}d_𝐤,d_𝐢^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\text{e}^{\text{i}𝐤𝐢}d_𝐤^+,d_𝐤={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}\text{e}^{\text{i}𝐤𝐢}d_𝐢,d_𝐤^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢}{}}\text{e}^{\text{i}𝐤𝐢}d_𝐢^+,`$ (88)
$`k_x={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N_x}}n_x,n_x={\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2}}+1,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2}}1,k_y={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N_y}}n_y,n_y={\displaystyle \frac{N_y}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{N_y}{2}}+1,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{N_y}{2}}1,`$ (89)
$`\{d_{𝐤_1},d_{𝐤_2}^+\}=\delta _{𝐤_1,𝐤_2},\{d_{𝐤_1},d_{𝐤_2}\}=\{d_{𝐤_1}^+,d_{𝐤_2}^+\}=0`$ (90)
($`N_x`$, $`N_y`$ are even), the Hamiltonian (81) becomes

$`H_{XY}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\left(\text{i}J\mathrm{sin}k_x\left(b_𝐤^+a_𝐤a_𝐤^+b_𝐤\right)+J_{}\mathrm{cos}k_y\left(b_𝐤^+b_𝐤a_𝐤^+a_𝐤\right)\right)`$ (91)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}|E_𝐤|\left(\mathrm{cos}\gamma _𝐤\left(b_𝐤^+b_𝐤a_𝐤^+a_𝐤\right)+\text{i}\mathrm{sin}\gamma _𝐤\left(b_𝐤^+a_𝐤a_𝐤^+b_𝐤\right)\right)`$ (92)
where we have used the notations

$`b_𝐤^+=d_{k_x,k_y}^+,a_𝐤=d_{k_x\pm \pi ,k_y\pm \pi },\mathrm{},`$ (93)
$`E_𝐤=J_{}\mathrm{cos}k_y+\text{i}J\mathrm{sin}k_x=|E_𝐤|\text{e}^{\text{i}\gamma _𝐤},`$ (94)
$`|E_𝐤|=\sqrt{J_{}^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y+J^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x},\mathrm{cos}\gamma _𝐤={\displaystyle \frac{J_{}\mathrm{cos}k_y}{|E_𝐤|}}\mathrm{sin}\gamma _𝐤={\displaystyle \frac{J\mathrm{sin}k_x}{|E_𝐤|}}.`$ (95)
The Hamiltonian (91) can be rewritten as

$`H_{XY}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{}_{}{}^{}|E_𝐤|(\mathrm{cos}\gamma _𝐤(b_𝐤^+b_𝐤a_𝐤^+a_𝐤)+\text{i}\mathrm{sin}\gamma _𝐤(b_𝐤^+a_𝐤a_𝐤^+b_𝐤))`$ (96)
where the prime denotes that $`𝐤`$ varies in the region shown in Fig. 8b.

At last one introduces the operators

$`\alpha _𝐤=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _𝐤}{2}}b_𝐤+\text{i}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _𝐤}{2}}a_𝐤,\beta _𝐤=\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _𝐤}{2}}b_𝐤\text{i}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _𝐤}{2}}a_𝐤,`$ (97)
$`\{\alpha _{𝐤_1},\alpha _{𝐤_2}^+\}=\delta _{𝐤_1,𝐤_2},\{\beta _{𝐤_1},\beta _{𝐤_2}^+\}=\delta _{𝐤_1,𝐤_2},\{\alpha _{𝐤_1},\beta _{𝐤_2}^+\}=\{\beta _{𝐤_1},\alpha _{𝐤_2}^+\}=0,`$ (98)
etc. to get from Eq. (96) the final form of the 2D spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic $`XY`$ model Hamiltonian in fermionic language within approximation (62)

$`H_{XY}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤}^{}\left(\alpha _𝐤^+\alpha _𝐤\beta _𝐤^+\beta _𝐤\right),`$ (99)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤=|E_𝐤|=\sqrt{J^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}0.`$ (100)
It is easy now to calculate the thermodynamic functions of the spin model which correspond to Eq. (99). For example, the ground state energy per site is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{N}}={\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\pi |k_x|}^{\pi |k_x|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}\sqrt{J^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}`$ (101)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}\sqrt{J^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}.`$ (102)
In 1D limit ($`J_{}=0`$ or $`J=0`$) Eq. (101) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}|J\mathrm{sin}k_x|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}|J_{}\mathrm{cos}k_y|={\displaystyle \frac{|J|}{\pi }}`$ (103)
that is the well known exact result.

It is remarkable to note that the Hamiltonian (99) (and hence the ground state energy per site (101)) arises also for the 2D spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg model and is known as the uniform flux ($`n_𝐫=\frac{1}{2}`$) solution .

## VII 2D $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg model

In the remainder of the paper we consider the 2D spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ isotropic Heisenberg model (1), (3) treating the phase factors which appear after making use of the 2D Jordan–Wigner transformation within the frames of the mean–field approximation (62). The Heisenberg model besides the $`H_{XY}`$ term (81) includes the $`H_Z`$ term which contains

$`d_𝐢^+d_𝐢d_𝐣^+d_𝐣{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_𝐢^+d_𝐢{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_𝐣^+d_𝐣+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$ (104)
Thus, the Jordan–Wigner spinless fermions interact and further approximations are required. The first term in (104) can be changed by

$`d_𝐢^+d_𝐢d_𝐣^+d_𝐣d_𝐢^+d_𝐢d_𝐣^+d_𝐣+d_𝐢^+d_𝐢d_𝐣^+d_𝐣d_𝐢^+d_𝐢d_𝐣^+d_𝐣`$ (105)
$`+d_𝐢^+d_𝐣d_𝐢d_𝐣^++d_𝐢^+d_𝐣d_𝐢d_𝐣^+d_𝐢^+d_𝐣d_𝐢d_𝐣^+`$ (106)
$`=d_𝐢^+d_𝐢n_𝐣+d_𝐣^+d_𝐣n_𝐢n_𝐢n_𝐣`$ (107)
$`+d_𝐢^+d_𝐣\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{𝐢,𝐣}}d_𝐢d_𝐣^+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐣,𝐢}\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{𝐣,𝐢}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐣,𝐢}\text{e}^{\text{i}\left(\theta _{𝐢,𝐣}+\theta _{𝐣,𝐢}\right)},`$ (108)
where we have introduced the notation

$`d_𝐢d_𝐣^+=\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{𝐢,𝐣}}=d_𝐣^+d_𝐢.`$ (109)
In accordance with (105) there may be four ways to treat the Ising interaction, i.e. assuming either

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}=0,m=s_𝐣^z=n_𝐣{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=0`$ (110)
or

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}0,m=0`$ (111)
or

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}=0,m0`$ (112)
or

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}0,m0.`$ (113)
The first possibility (110) yielding the uniform flux solution was considered in the previous Section (Eqs. (99), (101)).

Let us consider the second possibility (111). In such a case the Ising term becomes

$`H_Z={\displaystyle \underset{𝐢,𝐣}{}}J_{𝐢,𝐣}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{𝐢,𝐣}}d_𝐢^+d_𝐣\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐣,𝐢}\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{𝐣,𝐢}}d_𝐢d_𝐣^++\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐢,𝐣}\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐣,𝐢}\text{e}^{\text{i}\left(\theta _{𝐢,𝐣}+\theta _{𝐣,𝐢}\right)}\right),`$ (114)
where to get the in–phase flux solution one puts

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j;i+1,j}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+1,j;i,j}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+1,j;i+2,j}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+2,j;i+1,j}=Q,`$ (115)
$`\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i,j;i+1,j}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i+1,j;i,j}}=1,\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i+1,j;i+2,j}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i+2,j;i+1,j}}=1,`$ (116)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j;i,j+1}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j+1;i,j}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+1,j;i+1,j+1}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+1,j+1;i+1,j}=P,`$ (117)
$`\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i,j;i,j+1}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i,j+1;i,j}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i+1,j;i+1,j+1}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\theta _{i+1,j+1;i+1,j}}=1`$ (118)
(see Fig. 9)

and the parameters $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are calculated self–consistently (see Eqs. (126), (127) below). Now the Heisenberg model Hamiltonian only slightly differs from that of the $`XY`$ model (81) becoming

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\left(1+2Q\right)\left(\mathrm{}a_{i,j}^+b_{i+1,j}+a_{i,j}b_{i+1,j}^++b_{i+1,j}^+a_{i+2,j}b_{i+1,j}a_{i+2,j}^++\mathrm{}\right)`$ (119)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{}\left(1+2P\right)\left(\mathrm{}+a_{i,j}^+b_{i,j+1}a_{i,j}b_{i,j+1}^++b_{i+1,j}^+a_{i+1,j+1}b_{i+1,j}a_{i+1,j+1}^++\mathrm{}\right)`$ (120)
$`+NJQ^2+NJ_{}P^2.`$ (121)
Acting along the line described in the Section VI one finds that

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤}^{}\left(\alpha _𝐤^+\alpha _𝐤\beta _𝐤^+\beta _𝐤\right)+NJQ^2+NJ_{}P^2,`$ (122)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤=\sqrt{J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}0.`$ (123)
The ground state energy per site is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}\sqrt{J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}`$ (124)
$`+JQ^2+J_{}P^2,`$ (125)
where the parameters $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are determined from the conditions $`\frac{}{Q}\frac{E_0}{N}=0`$ and $`\frac{}{P}\frac{E_0}{N}=0`$, i.e.,

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{J\mathrm{sin}^2k_x\left(1+2Q\right)}{\sqrt{J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}}}`$ (126)
and

$`P={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{J_{}\mathrm{cos}^2k_y\left(1+2P\right)}{\sqrt{J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}}}.`$ (127)
Treating the Ising term (105) within assumptions (112) or (113) one assumes the Néel order with the sublattice magnetizations $`m`$ and $`m`$

$`n_{i,j}=n_{i+1,j+1}=\mathrm{}=m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},n_{i,j+1}=n_{i+1,j}=\mathrm{}=m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (128)
(see Fig. 10).

(The given assumption, by the way, apparently contradicts the mean–field approximation (62) for the phase factors; this inconsistency, however, to our best knowledge has not yet been discussed.) Therefore, case (112), i.e., the uniform flux with the Néel order, is called the Néel flux solution and case (113), i.e., the in–flux with the Néel order, is called the in–phase Néel flux solution. In the latter case the Hamiltonian reads

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\left(1+2Q\right)\left(\mathrm{}a_{i,j}^+b_{i+1,j}+a_{i,j}b_{i+1,j}^++b_{i+1,j}^+a_{i+2,j}b_{i+1,j}a_{i+2,j}^++\mathrm{}\right)`$ (129)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{}\left(1+2P\right)\left(\mathrm{}+a_{i,j}^+b_{i,j+1}a_{i,j}b_{i,j+1}^++b_{i+1,j}^+a_{i+1,j+1}b_{i+1,j}a_{i+1,j+1}^++\mathrm{}\right)`$ (130)
$`+J\left(\mathrm{}ma_{i,j}^+a_{i,j}+mb_{i+1,j}^+b_{i+1,j}+mb_{i+1,j}^+b_{i+1,j}ma_{i+2,j}^+a_{i+2,j}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (131)
$`+J_{}\left(\mathrm{}ma_{i,j}^+a_{i,j}+mb_{i,j+1}^+b_{i,j+1}+mb_{i+1,j}^+b_{i+1,j}ma_{i+1,j+1}^+a_{i+1,j+1}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (132)
$`+NJQ^2+NJ_{}P^2+N\left(J+J_{}\right)m^2.`$ (133)
Performing the Fourier transformation (88) one gets

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}((2(J+J_{})m+\text{i}J(1+2Q)\mathrm{sin}k_x)b_𝐤^+a_𝐤`$ (134)
$`+\left(2\left(J+J_{}\right)m\text{i}J\left(1+2Q\right)\mathrm{sin}k_x\right)a_𝐤^+b_𝐤`$ (135)
$`+J_{}(1+2P)\mathrm{cos}k_y(b_𝐤^+b_𝐤a_𝐤^+a_𝐤))`$ (136)
$`+NJQ^2+NJ_{}P^2+N\left(J+J_{}\right)m^2`$ (137)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{}_{}{}^{}((2(J+J_{})m+\text{i}J(1+2Q)\mathrm{sin}k_x)b_𝐤^+a_𝐤`$ (138)
$`+\left(2\left(J+J_{}\right)m\text{i}J\left(1+2Q\right)\mathrm{sin}k_x\right)a_𝐤^+b_𝐤`$ (139)
$`+J_{}(1+2P)\mathrm{cos}k_y(b_𝐤^+b_𝐤a_𝐤^+a_𝐤))`$ (140)
$`+NJQ^2+NJ_{}P^2+N\left(J+J_{}\right)m^2,`$ (141)
where $`b_𝐤^+=d_{k_x,k_y}^+`$, $`a_𝐤=d_{k_x\pm \pi ,k_y\pm \pi }`$, etc.. Introducing the operators

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤=a_𝐤\text{e}^{\text{i}\delta _𝐤},\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤^+=a_𝐤^+\text{e}^{\text{i}\delta _𝐤},\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤=b_𝐤,\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤^+=b_𝐤^+;`$ (142)
$`2\left(J+J_{}\right)m\pm \text{i}J\left(1+2Q\right)\mathrm{sin}k_x=\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x}\text{e}^{\pm \text{i}\delta _𝐤}`$ (143)
and then the operators

$`\alpha _𝐤=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _𝐤}{2}}\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤+\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _𝐤}{2}}\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤,\beta _𝐤=\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _𝐤}{2}}\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _𝐤}{2}}\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤;`$ (144)
$`\mathrm{cos}\omega _𝐤={\displaystyle \frac{J_{}\left(1+2P\right)\mathrm{cos}k_y}{|E_𝐤|}},\mathrm{sin}\omega _𝐤={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x}}{|E_𝐤|}},`$ (145)
$`|E_𝐤|=\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}`$ (146)
one gets the final form of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian in fermionic language

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤}^{}\left(\alpha _𝐤^+\alpha _𝐤\beta _𝐤^+\beta _𝐤\right)+NJQ^2+NJ_{}P^2+N\left(J+J_{}\right)m^2`$ (147)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤=|E_𝐤|0`$ defined by Eq. (144).

The ground state energy per site which follows from (147) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_y}{2\pi }}\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}`$ (148)
$`+JQ^2+J_{}P^2+\left(J+J_{}\right)m^2,`$ (149)
where the values of the introduced parameters are determined by minimizing $`\frac{E_0}{N}`$ (148) with respect to $`Q`$, $`P`$ and $`m`$

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}𝐤}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\frac{J\mathrm{sin}^2k_x\left(1+2Q\right)}{\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}}},`$ (150)
$`P={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}𝐤}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\frac{J_{}\mathrm{cos}^2k_y\left(1+2P\right)}{\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}}},`$ (151)
$`2m={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}𝐤}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}\frac{2\left(J+J_{}\right)m}{\sqrt{4\left(J+J_{}\right)^2m^2+J^2\left(1+2Q\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+J_{}^2\left(1+2P\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2k_y}}}.`$ (152)
The Néel flux solution (see Eq. (112)) is given by Eqs. (129), (147), (144), (148), (152) in which $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are equal to zero.

## VIII The 2D $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg model: A comparison of some results

In the final Section we want to list out some problems of the two–dimensional spin models theory which were attacked with the exploiting of the 2D Jordan–Wigner transformation.

The 2D antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model with $`J=J^{}=J_{}=J_{}^{}`$ (without external field) was considered in Refs. . The main results obtained concern the ground state energy , the specific heat  and the Raman spectrum . A comparison with some experimental data for La<sub>2</sub>CuO<sub>4</sub> was given.

In Ref.  the effects of the interchain interaction on the one–dimensional spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model were examined. For this purpose the Heisenberg model with $`J=J^{}`$, $`J_{}=J_{}^{}`$ was considered and the in–phase Néel flux solution was analysed at zero temperature. The author found that the one–dimensional limit is singular, i.e. the staggered magnetization $`m0`$ ($`2m=0.513`$) when $`J_{}+0`$ (although we know from exact results that for the antiferromagnetic chain $`m=0`$). In the other limiting case $`J=J_{}`$ the theory based on the fermionization procedure yields $`2m=0.778`$ (the spin wave result is $`2m=0.6`$; more accurate calculations predict $`m=0.3074`$ (see Ref. )). The result of Ref.  stays somewhat separately in the estimate of the value of $`\frac{J_{}}{J}`$ at which the staggered magnetization appears. Different theories predict $`\frac{J_{}}{J}`$ from $`0`$ to $`0.2`$ (for details see Ref. ). Ref.  predicts $`\frac{J_{}}{J}=0`$, moreover $`2m`$ jumps from zero to $`0.513`$ for any infinitesimally small $`\frac{J_{}}{J}`$.

The antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on a ladder within the frames of the in–phase Néel phase solution (the ground state energy, the singlet–triplet energy gap) was discussed in Ref. . The effects of the interladder interaction and magnetic field on the susceptibility at nonzero temperatures were studied in Ref. .

A consideration of the spin–Peierls state under magnetic field was reported in Ref. . A study of the stepped spin–Peierls transition for the quasi–one–dimensional $`XY`$ and Heisenberg models using the 2D Jordan–Wigner transformation was reported in Refs. . The 2D Jordan–Wigner transformation was applied for a study of the zero temperature spin–Peierls transition for the quasi–one–dimensional $`XY`$ and Heisenberg systems in Ref. . In particular, the phase diagram between the dimerised and uniform states in the parameter space of interchain interaction and spin–lattice coupling was constructed.

Many more problems may be considered within the frames of the 2D Jordan–Wigner fermionization approach. Probably, the 2D Jordan–Wigner transformation should be of more use for the 2D spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`XY`$ models since for such models no further approximations (except the mean–field–like treatment of the phase factors) are required. Besides, a more sophisticated treatment of the phase factors is desirable.

The author acknowledges the kind hospitality of the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden in the end of 1999 when the paper was launched. He thanks J. Richter (Magdeburg University) for the kind hospitality in the summer of 2000 when the main part of the paper was prepared and discussed. Special thanks go to T. Krokhmalskii, T. Verkholyak, O. Zaburannyi and V. Derzhko for helpful comments and suggestions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In these last years, our understanding of QCD at extreme conditions, in particular at high baryon density and low temperature, has been considerably advanced and these extensive developments are amply discussed in some recent reviews.

Our starting point is a simple observation that at sufficiently high density characterized by a chemical potential $`\mu 0`$, quark matter is a color superconductor similar to the standard Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superconductivity of metals. Thus like a Cooper electron pair, the pairing of up and down light quarks either by gluon exchange or by instanton-induced would lead to a diquark condensation $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ which breaks the color symmetry $`SU_c(3)`$ down to an unbroken $`SU_c(2)`$ color subgroup.

We are in the so called two flavors superconductivity $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝐒𝐂`$ phase with two flavors ($`i,j=1,2`$ stand for up and down quarks) linked by their three colors ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =1,2,3`$) to form a quark bilinear combination $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma =\epsilon ^{ij}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }q_i^\alpha q_j^\beta `$ which behaves as a Lorentz scalar-isoscalar complex field belonging to a fundamental representation of the $`SU_c(3)`$ group as an $`\overline{3}`$ color antitriplet. Its nonzero vacuum expectation value designating the diquark condensate takes the form

$$q_i^\alpha q_j^\beta \epsilon ^{ij}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma .$$
(1)
QCD gauge invariance implies that the composite $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma `$ field couples to the eight gluons $`G^a`$ via the covariant derivative $`(_\rho )_\alpha ^\beta =_\rho \delta _\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{ig}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{G}_\rho ^\mathrm{a}(\lambda ^\mathrm{a}/2)_\alpha ^\beta `$ in which $`\lambda ^a`$ denote the Gell-Mann matrices of $`SU_c(3)`$. Since color is spontaneously broken by the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, five among the eight $`G^a`$ gluons become massive via the Anderson-Higgs-Meissner mechanism, the other three gluons belonging to the unbroken $`SU_c(2)`$ color subgroup remain massless, as it should be.

Furthermore when electromagnetism is switched on, the covariant derivative $`_\rho `$ has an additional $`\mathrm{ieA}_\rho (\tau ^\mathrm{c})`$ term, $`\tau ^c`$ is the charge flavor matrix defined later in (7). Due to the color symmetry breaking, the colorfull gluons $`G^a`$ and the colorless photon $`A`$ are necessarily mixed together. The mixing asises from the diquark condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ inserted in all possible ways as depicted in Figs.I. This case cannot happen to QCD at zero density since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being proportional to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ like $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{exp}(3\pi ^2/\sqrt{2}\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s})`$ according to, and tends to zero as $`\mu 0`$. The gluon-photon mixing allows us to define a ”physical” mass-eigenstate gluon $`\stackrel{~}{G^a},a=4,\mathrm{},8`$ as a linear combination of two gauge-eigenstates with necessarily the photon $`A`$ as one inevitable component. Thus

$$\stackrel{~}{G^a}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _aG^a\mathrm{sin}\theta _aA,$$
(2)
the mixing angle $`\theta _a`$ is function of the condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the strong QCD coupling constant $`\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}`$ and the quark electromagnetic coupling constants $`\mathrm{eQ}_\mathrm{j}`$ (Q$`{}_{u}{}^{}=2/3`$ and Q$`{}_{d}{}^{}=1/3)`$ as will follow below. The orthogonal combination

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _aA+\mathrm{sin}\theta _aG^a$$
(3)
is the ”rotated” physical photon in the $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝐒𝐂`$ phase. The $`a=8`$ gluon case associated with the diagonalized $`\lambda ^8`$ matrix has been considered in.

The situation is very similar to the standard electroweak interactions in which the massive $`Z`$ weak neutral boson is a linear combination of two gauge boson eigenstates, i.e. the hypercharge isosinglet $`B`$ is mixed with the third component $`W^3`$ of the $`SU_L(2)`$ isotriplet $`𝐖`$ to build up the $`Z`$, thus

$$Z=\frac{g}{\sqrt{g^2+g^{}^2}}W^3\frac{g^{}}{\sqrt{g^2+g^{}^2}}B,$$
(4)
the ratio $`g^{}/\sqrt{g^2+g^{}^2}`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, where $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle. Neither the $`W^3`$ nor the $`B`$ has a well-defined mass, only their mixture $`Z`$ is a mass-eigenstate by the diagonalization procedure.

The gluon-photon mixing ($`\theta _a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$) shares with the standard electroweak interactions ($`\theta _W`$, $`Z`$) and the BCS superconductivity a common crucial point: respectively in these three phenomena, gauge symmetries are spontaneously broken with nonzero vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{u}^\alpha \mathrm{d}^\beta \mathrm{d}^\alpha \mathrm{u}^\beta 0`$ of the up-down diquark, $`v0`$ of the elementary scalar Higgs field and $`e^{}e^{}0`$ of the Cooper electron pair.

We also note that in the standard electroweak interactions, the decays of $`Z`$ come from those of both $`W^3`$ and $`B`$. For instance the $`Z`$ decaying into a neutrino pair is due only to its $`W^3`$ component, and the decay of $`Z`$ into a right-handed electron pair is due only to its $`B`$ part. Similarly, a massive gluon $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ could decay electromagnetically into $`e^++e^{}`$ via its photon component as shown by (2), otherwise this process is strictly forbidden in non dense media (chemical potential $`\mu =0`$). This lepton pair production by copious gluons in quark matter may provide a remarkable signature of the $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝐒𝐂`$ phase transition in neutron star cores and perhaps under certain circumstances in heavy ion collisions.

Our next task is devoted to an estimate of the gluon mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_G`$, its mixing angle and its lepton pair decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{G}e^++e^{})`$. We will see that this lepton pair, with a small invariant mass about 90 MeV and an extremely narrow width is definitely distinct from the continuum Drell–Yan background and the leptonic decays of the well-known vector mesons $`\rho (770),\omega (782)`$ with their peaks and tails modified by medium effects.

## 2 Gluon, Photon Masses and their Mixing

The traditional way to estimate the photon and gluon masses as well as their mixing in dense matter is to consider their self-energies via their corresponding polarization tensors $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }`$. The calculational method adopted here follows from. The Lagrangian for gluon and photon interacting with quarks may be put in the form

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{G}_\rho ^\mathrm{a}𝒥_\rho ^\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{eA}_\rho \mathrm{J}_\rho ^\mathrm{c}.$$
(5)
The quark currents $`𝒥_\rho ^a`$ for QCD and $`J_\rho ^c`$ for QED, respectively coupled to the gluon $`G_\rho ^a`$ and the photon $`A_\rho `$ with the coupling constants $`\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}`$, are given by

$$𝒥_\rho ^a=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^A(\gamma _\rho \lambda ^a)\mathrm{\Psi }_B,\mathrm{and}J_\rho ^c=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^A(\gamma _\rho \tau ^c)\mathrm{\Psi }_B,$$
(6)
where $`\tau ^c`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ charge matrice in the flavor space that we introduce together with another antisymmetric $`\epsilon `$ matrix,

$$\tau ^c=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Q}_u& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{Q}_d\end{array}\right),\epsilon =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The quark-quark pairing term of the effective Lagrangian for the quarks in the condensate may be written as

$$_{\mathrm{quark}}=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_A+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^A\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^B\mathrm{\Delta }_{BA},$$
(8)
the indices $`A,B`$ stand collectively for $`i,j`$ flavors, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ colors, and $`𝒜,`$ Dirac spinor indices on which operates $`\gamma _5𝒞`$, $`𝒞=\mathrm{i}\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$ being the charge conjugation operator. Thus $`A=(i,\alpha ,𝒜),B=(j,\beta ,)`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}=\left(\gamma _5𝒞\right)_𝒜\epsilon _{ij}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^\gamma ,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{AB}=\gamma _0\mathrm{\Delta }_{AB}^{}\gamma _0.$$
(9)
As an example, let us consider in some details the gluon-photon mixing manifested through the correlation function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma G^a}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma G^a}(xy)0|T\left[𝒥_\rho ^a(x)J_\sigma ^c(y)\right]|0=0\left|T\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^A(x)(\gamma _\rho \lambda ^a)_A^B\mathrm{\Psi }_B(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^C(y)(\gamma _\sigma \tau ^c)_C^D\mathrm{\Psi }_D(y)\times \mathrm{exp}\mathrm{dz}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{KL}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{z})+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{z})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LK}}\right]\right\}\right|0.$$
(10)
The development of the exponential to second order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ leads to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma G^a}(xy)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{dz}\mathrm{du}0\left|\mathrm{T}\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{x})(\gamma _\rho \lambda ^\mathrm{a})_\mathrm{A}^\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{x})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{y})(\gamma _\sigma \tau ^\mathrm{c})_\mathrm{C}^\mathrm{D}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{y})\times \left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{KL}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{z})+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{z})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LK}}\right]\times \left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{MN}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{u})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{u})+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{u})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{u})\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NM}}\right]\right\}\right|0,$$
(11)
which can be rewritten as

$$(\gamma _\rho \lambda ^a)_A^B(\gamma _\sigma \tau ^c)_C^D\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{KL}\mathrm{\Delta }_{NM}\times \mathrm{dz}\mathrm{du}0\left|\mathrm{T}\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{x})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{x})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{y})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{y})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{z})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{u})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{u})\right\}\right|0.$$
(12)
When the Wick’s theorem for the time-order products is applied to the above equation and the Fourier transformation in momentum space is made, we get three following contributions written in a rather compact form and depicted respectively by the three diagrams of Figs.I. They are

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times (\lambda ^a)_A^B\mathrm{\Delta }_{BC}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{CD}(\tau ^c)_D^A,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\times (\lambda ^a)_A^B(\tau ^c)_B^C\mathrm{\Delta }_{CD}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{DA},\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\times (\lambda ^a)_A^B\mathrm{\Delta }_{BC}(\tau ^c)_D^C\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{DA},$$
(13)
the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ with $`n=1,2,3`$ are obtained from the three corresponding quark loop integrations, an overall factor $`(\mathrm{eg}_\mathrm{s})`$ must be included. After some algebraic manipulations, we get

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma G^a}(p)=\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{Tr}(\tau ^\mathrm{c})\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \left(\lambda ^\mathrm{a}\right)_\alpha ^\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\beta \right)\left[\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(1)}(\mathrm{p})+\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}(\mathrm{p})+\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})\right],$$
(14)
where

$$U_{\rho \sigma }^{(1)}(p)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{d}^4\mathrm{k}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _\rho \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})\gamma _\sigma \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{k})\right],\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}(\mathrm{p})=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{d}^4\mathrm{k}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _\rho \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})\gamma _\sigma \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{k})\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{k})\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{k})\right],\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{d}^4\mathrm{k}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _\rho \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})\gamma _\sigma \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{k})\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{k})\right],$$
(15)
and $`S(k)`$ in (15) being the quark propagator. Similarly we obtain for the photon-photon and gluon-gluon self-energy tensors the following expressions:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma \gamma }(p)=2\mathrm{e}^2\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[(\tau ^\mathrm{c})^2\right]\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha \right)\left[\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(1)}(\mathrm{p})+\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}(\mathrm{p})\right]\mathrm{Tr}\left(\tau ^\mathrm{c}\epsilon \tau ^\mathrm{c}\epsilon \right)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha \right]\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})\right\},$$
(16)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{G^aG^b}(p)=2\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}^2\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\lambda ^\mathrm{a}\lambda ^\mathrm{b}\right]\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha \right)\left[\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(1)}(\mathrm{p})+\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}(\mathrm{p})\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})\right]+\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \left(\lambda ^\mathrm{a}\lambda ^\mathrm{b}\right)_\alpha ^\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\beta \left[\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}(\mathrm{p})\right]+\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \left(\lambda ^\mathrm{b}\lambda ^\mathrm{a}\right)_\alpha ^\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\beta \left[\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})\mathrm{U}_{\rho \sigma }^{(1)}(\mathrm{p})\right]\right\}.$$
(17)
It remains to compute the loop integrations

$$U_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}(p)=\left(g_{\rho \sigma }\frac{p_\rho p_\sigma }{p^2}\right)U^{(n)}(p).$$

We estimate them at zero temperature, $`\mu =0`$, and get for $`p=0`$ :

$$U_{\rho \sigma }^{(1)}(0)=U_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}(0)=Ug_{\rho \sigma },U_{\rho \sigma }^{(3)}(0)=Vg_{\rho \sigma },$$
(18)
with

$$U=\frac{1}{2}V=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+m^2}{m^2}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the momentum cut-off and m being the effective quark mass. The three polarization tensors $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma G^a}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{G^aG^b}`$ obtained above in (14), (16) and (17) give the following terms to the Lagrangian of the gauge-eingenstates $`A`$ and $`G^a`$ :

$$_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[m_\gamma ^2(A_\rho )^2+m_a^2(G_\rho ^a)^2+f_aA_\rho G_\rho ^a\right],$$
(20)
for any gluon $`a=4\mathrm{}8`$. We find

$$m_\gamma ^2=4\mathrm{e}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|\left\{2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left[(\tau ^\mathrm{c})^2\right]\mathrm{U}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\tau ^\mathrm{c}\epsilon \tau ^\mathrm{c}\epsilon \right]\mathrm{V}\right\},\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{a}^2=4\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}^2\left\{|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|\mathrm{Tr}\left[(\lambda ^\mathrm{a})^2\right](2\mathrm{U}\mathrm{V})+2\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \left[(\lambda ^\mathrm{a})^2\right]_\alpha ^\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\beta \left(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{U}\right)\right\},\mathrm{f}_\mathrm{a}=2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \left[\lambda ^\mathrm{a}\right]_\alpha ^\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\beta \mathrm{Tr}(\tau ^\mathrm{c})\left(2\mathrm{U}+\mathrm{V}\right).$$
(21)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma `$ can be always made real and arranged along the third color axis ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma =\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _\gamma ^3)`$ without loosing any generality, it turns out from (19), (20) and (21) that

$$m_4=m_5=m_6=m_7=\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}m_8M_G,$$
(22)
in agreement with, so in the following only a common $`M_G`$ is kept.

The $`_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ in (20) may be conveniently put in a diagonalized form with the ”physical” mass-eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$; their respective masses are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_G`$:

$$_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma ^2(\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho )^2+\stackrel{~}{M}_G^2(\stackrel{~}{G}_\rho )^2\right].$$
(23)
The mass-eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are linear combinations of the gauge-eigenstates $`A`$ and $`G`$ through

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=A\mathrm{cos}\theta +G\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\stackrel{~}{G}=A\mathrm{sin}\theta +G\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(24)
where the mixing angle $`\theta `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{M_G^2m_\gamma ^2}{\sqrt{(M_G^2m_\gamma ^2)^2+f^2}}\right].$$
(25)
Moreover, since $`M_G^2,m_\gamma ^2`$ and $`f`$ are all proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, by factorization the mixing angle $`\theta `$ depends only on the ratio $`\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}`$ and not on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The well-defined masses of the mass-eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_G^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[M_G^2+m_\gamma ^2+\sqrt{(M_G^2m_\gamma ^2)^2+f^2}\right],\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma ^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[M_G^2+m_\gamma ^2\sqrt{(M_G^2m_\gamma ^2)^2+f^2}\right].$$
(26)
Since the parameter $`f`$ is definitely nonzero from (21), let us remark that the mixing angle $`\theta `$ never vanishes no matter how small $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma `$ is, including its zero value. It turns out that in some particular case, the mixing parameter $`f`$ could happen to be $`2M_Gm_\gamma `$, then $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma =0`$, the ”rotated” physical photon $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ could be massless even in dense matter, although its associated gauge-eigenstate photon $`A`$ has $`m_\gamma 0`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =m_\gamma /\sqrt{M_G^2+m_\gamma ^2}e/\sqrt{\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}^2+\mathrm{e}^2}`$. This situation is just as in the standard electroweak interactions where neither the weak $`T_3`$ nor the hypercharge $`Y`$ cancels the Higgs vacuum expectation value $`v`$ but only does their linear combination $`Q=T_3+Y/2`$. The symmetry generated by $`Q`$ is therefore unbroken, thus making the photon massless and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W=g^{}/\sqrt{g^2+g^{}^2}`$. Similarly here, a linear combination of the color $`T_8`$ and the electric charge $`Q`$ is left unbroken, making $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma =0`$. There is an one to one correspondence between the color superconductivity and the standard electroweak interactions: $`(\stackrel{~}{G},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })(Z,\gamma )`$, $`(G,\gamma )(W^3,B)`$, $`(\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s},\mathrm{e})(\mathrm{g},\mathrm{g}^{})`$.

Numerical values for the masses $`\stackrel{~}{M}_G,\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma `$ depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu )`$, the strong QCD coupling constant $`\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}`$, and the $`U,V`$ terms, the latter presumably have a smooth dependence on $`\mu `$. Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }200`$ MeV at $`\mu 300`$ MeV and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}^2/4\pi 0.6`$, we get $`\stackrel{~}{M}_G90`$ MeV which is consistent with other evaluations. Our value of 90 MeV is only an order of magnitude estimate, with large uncertainties.

We also note from (21) that $`m_\gamma /M_G\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}1`$, hence (25) and (26) imply that both $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ are small, in particular

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{\mathrm{e}}{2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{s}}0.032.$$
(27)
As given by (24), the $`\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{}`$ decay mode of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is due to its photon component which carries a $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$ coefficient. Its decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{})`$ is computed to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{})=\frac{\mathrm{e}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{12\pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{M}}_\mathrm{G}\left(1+\frac{2\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{e}^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{M}}_\mathrm{G}^2}\right)\sqrt{1\frac{4\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{e}^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{M}}_\mathrm{G}^2}}\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{36\alpha _\mathrm{s}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{M}}_\mathrm{G}0.27\mathrm{KeV}4\times 10^{17}/\mathrm{sec}.$$
(28)
To estimate the corresponding B$`(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{})`$ branching ratio

$$\mathrm{B}(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}\mathrm{all})},$$

we assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{all})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{q}+\overline{\mathrm{q}})\alpha _s\stackrel{~}{M}_G/3`$. Thus B$`(\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{})\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2/12\alpha _\mathrm{s}^210^5`$.

## 3 Summary and Outlook

As is well- known, statistical treatment of QCD indicates that at high densities, the quarks and gluons will become deconfined, leading to a new state of matter, the so-called Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP). This plasma is however ephemeral and soon hadronizes into mesons and baryons so the problem is to find out what are the QGP distinctive signatures. Candidates for these signatures as amply discussed in the literature (see for instance,) are strangeness enhancement, J/$`\psi `$ suppression, enhancement in the continuum low mass region 250 MeV $`<M_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}<`$ 700 MeV of the lepton pair invariant mass $`M_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ spectra, $`\mathrm{}^\pm `$ stands for both muon and electron. See also for astrophysical signatures.

We suggest here that another signature of the phase transition is provided by an extremely narrow peak at the $`e^+e^{}`$ invariant mass $`M_{e^+e^{}}90`$ MeV.

In summary, at high density with the chemical potential $`\mu 0`$, the QCD color symmetry is spontaneously broken by the formation of a diquark condensate. This is similar to the BCS superconductivity for which no matter how weak is the attractive interaction between electrons due to phonic vibrations, the Cooper electron pair condensate breaks the QED gauge symmetry, thus giving a Meissner mass to the photon. Furthermore, because of the diquark condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, the mixing parameter $`f`$ in (22) is shown to be definitely nonzero, therefore the gluon and photon must necessarily mix inside a massive gluon $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, exactly as in the standard electroweak interactions where the vacuum expectation value $`v0`$ of the elementary Higgs field necessarily mix the gauge-eigenstates $`W^3`$ and $`B`$ to build up the mass-eigenstate weak neutral $`Z`$ boson. The $`B`$ component of the resulting $`Z`$ is responsible for its unusual decay into right-handed electron + left-handed positron $`Ze_\mathrm{R}^{}+e_\mathrm{L}^+`$, as well the $`W^3`$ component of $`Z`$ is responsible of the $`Z\nu +\overline{\nu }`$ mode.

Similarly, the photon component of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ implies the existence of the $`\mathrm{𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑦}\mathrm{𝑙𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐}\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑢𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦}`$. The gluon-photon mixing scheme which yields $`\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{}`$ seems to provide a remarkable signature for the color superconductivity phase transition. Because of the small gluon mass $``$ 90 MeV, only the decay $`\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{}`$ is available, the other mode $`\mu ^++\mu ^{}`$ is absent, in contrast to the Drell–Yan continuum dileptons $`\mathrm{}^++\mathrm{}^{}`$ spectra emanating from the usual sources such as quark + antiquark annihilation, quark +gluon Compton scattering, gluon+gluon fusion, supplemented by medium effects on known vector mesons $`\rho (770),\omega (782)`$. In the gluon-photon mixing mechanism, the $`\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{}`$ spectrum has only one sharp peak at low mass $``$ 90 MeV. Although the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\mathrm{e}^++\mathrm{e}^{}`$ branching ratio is small $`10^5`$, however since gluons are so abundant in quark matter, this remarkable leptonic gluon decay mode may be hopefully observable.

Finally we remark that with a diquark condensate, when the electroweak interactions are considered together with QCD, the $`Z`$ neutral boson, like the photon, should also mix with the gluon, hence the mode $`\stackrel{~}{G}\nu +\overline{\nu }`$ could occur. Its amplitude is however $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }/M_Z\right)^2`$ power-suppessed, otherwise the gluonic decay into invisible neutrinos, manifested by a ”missing-energy” reaction, would be another surprising signature of the quark matter phase transition.

Also at sufficiently high density for which the strange quark mass may be neglected ($`\mu m_s`$), we are in the so called color-flavor locking phase $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐅𝐋}`$ with three massless flavors locked to their three colors, the basics of purely leptonic decays of strongly-interacting massive gluons remain unchanged.

Acknowledgment\- One of us (N.V.H.) would like to express his sincere thank to the National Council for Natural Science of Vietnam for financial support to this work.


text:
# Anti-de Sitter-type 2+1 spacetime of a charged rotating mass

## Acknowledgements

A.A.G. acknowledges a partial support from the CONACyT (Mexico) Project 32138E; N.V.M. thanks CINVESTAV IPN for hospitality during his visit there when this work was done.