text:
# Ferromagnetic superconductivity driven by changing Fermi surface topology

## I Introduction

The predominance of spin singlet superconductors over their triplet counterparts has, in part, lead to the belief that superconductivity and magnetism are mutually exclusive—the upper critical field of a singlet superconductor is bounded by the Pauli paramagnetic limit. One might expect that a ferromagnet would be the natural stage for spin triplet superconductivity, where we could overcome Pauli limiting effects. But, until recently, there were no examples of ‘ferromagnetic superconductivity’ (FMSC)—the coexistence of itinerant ferromagnetism (FM) and superconductivity (SC) in a single bulk phase flouquet\_2002a . This situation has changed with the observation of FMSC in UGe2 saxena\_2000a , URhGe aoki\_2001a  and ZrZn2 pfleiderer\_2001a . The behaviour of these materials is an example of a more general phenomenon; the observation of a novel state on the border of magnetism at low temperatures. By supressing magnetic order by some control parameter, be it electron/hole density lohneysen\_2000a  or external pressure mathur\_1998a  physicists are now able to access regimes where magnetic fluctuations become quantum critical.

We choose here to concentrate on the case of UGe2, because whilst SC is only measurable in the ferromagnetic state (in common with URhGe and ZrZn2), UGe2 seems to posess particularly low electronic dimensionality, uniaxial magnetisation, and revealing features in the temperature-pressure phase diagram which we now review.

In Fig. 1 we show the temperature-pressure phase diagram for UGe2, with the Curie temperature $`T_C`$ (supressed to zero at pressure $`p_c`$) and superconducting transition temperature $`T_{SC}`$ indicated saxena\_2000a ; huxley\_2001a ; tateiwa\_2001a . Another feature, $`T_x`$ is also shown. This $`T_x`$ shows up in measurements of lattice expansion oomi\_1993a , as a jump in the low temperature $`T^2`$ component of the resistivity saxena\_2000a , as a small enhancement in specific heat tateiwa\_2001a , as a kink in resistivity tateiwa\_2001a  and as a change in the character of the Fermi surface as measured in de Haas van Alphen experiments terashima\_2001a . Most importantly for this work, $`T_x`$ also appears as a slight jump in magnetisation tateiwa\_2001a  which is sharpened at lower temperatures such that the low temperature moment has a step at pressure $`p_x`$ in addition to the step at the quantum phase transition pressure, $`p_c`$ (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, we note the close proximity of the $`T_x(p)`$ line to the peak in $`T_{SC}`$.

Most theories which describe ferromagnets close to a quantum phase transition have predicted that the superconducting transition temperature, $`T_{SC}`$ should be at least as high in the paramagnetic state as it is in the ferromagnetic state. These theories have considered a electronically three-dimensional ferromagnet, either magnetically isotropic fay\_1980a  or uniaxial roussev\_2001a . Where theoretical models have predicted an enhancement of $`T_{SC}`$ in the ferromagnetic regime, their basis seems unjustified in the case of UGe2. Kirkpatrick and coworkers kirkpatrick\_2001a  have predicted an enhancement of the superconducting $`T_{SC}`$ due to the coupling of magnons to the longitudinal magnetic susceptibility. However, the ferromagnetic state of UGe2 is so magnetically anisotropic that the presence of transverse magnons seems an unlikely primary explanation for the enhancement of $`T_{SC}`$—at 4.2K and an external magnetic field of 4T, the magnetisation along the easy axis is about 20 to 30 times that along either of the other crystallographic axes onuki\_1992a . Other authors have drawn their inspiration from bandstructure calculations. Bandstructure analyses shick\_2001a ; yamagami\_1993a ; tejima\_2001a  of UGe2 seem to indicate that lowering temperature sparks the evolution of a quasi-two-dimensional majority carrier Fermi surface sheet below $`T_C`$. Furthermore there is the possibility that large sections of the quasi-two-dimensional Fermi surface may be parallel, making it almost one-dimensional. Until now, this low-dimensional magnetism has pushed authors in the direction of postulating the existence of a charge- or spin-density-wave state (CDW or SDW) below $`T_x`$ saxena\_2000a ; huxley\_2001a , sometimes by analogy with the $`\alpha `$ phase of uranium. Watanabe and Miyake watanabe\_2001a  have postulated that the interplay of CD or SD fluctuations at high wavevector will couple to the magnetisation, $`M`$ in such a way as to enhance it at some critical value, $`M_x`$111By coupling high wavevector fluctuations to the $`𝐪=0`$ mode, Watanabe and Miyake’s model is reminiscent of the spin-bag mechanism of nodeless superconductivity proposed by Schrieffer et al. in the context of the cuprates schrieffer\_1989a .. However, spin density fluctuations have yet to be observed in neutron experiments on UGe2.

We turn to the low dimensional bandstructure for a different effect. The key idea will be that in a ferromagnet, somewhat uniquely, the magnetisation acts as a tuning parameter which can subtly change the topology of the anisotropic Fermi surfaces of different spin species. By contrast, in a rigid band picture of a paramagnetic metal, the Fermi surface is fixed. The added topological possibilities for a ferromagnet should be viewed as a useful tool—and as a reason for observing the enhancement of features, such as $`T_{SC}`$, within the ferromagnetic phase. This paper is planned as follows: firstly, we show that an electronic density of states (DOS) which has two peaks can reproduce the two steps in the observed low temperature magnetisation. We then show that the necessary form of DOS arises naturally from a low (quasi-one-) dimensional bandstructure and that the magnetisation resulting from this bandstructure has a jump in the ferromagnetic state which is coincident with the maximum in a superconducting instability, mediated by spin fluctuations.

## II Model

The simplest Stoner theory of magnetism is long-known to be inadequate in describing the temperature dependence of the magnetisation even of magnetically isotropic, electronically 3-dimensional ferromagnets, where spin fluctuations have to be taken into account. There, a fluctuation-averaged equation of state method, in the spirit of Lonzarich and Taillefer lonzarich\_1985a  or Yamada yamada\_1993a  would be a improved model of magnetism at finite temperature, where we expect the temperature dependence of $`M`$ to arise from the fluctuation response, rather than just the Fermi functions included in Stoner theory. The pronounced magnetic anisotropy of UGe2 might ordinarily simplify matters, as the consequent absence of transverse spin modes will make a Stoner approach more valid, especially at low temperatures. However the reduced electronic dimensionality of UGe2 will probably heighten the importance of spin fluctuations at finite temperatures.

We therefore circumvent finite temperature concerns by employing a zero temperature Stoner theory, with the first aim being to reproduce the step in $`M(p)`$ at $`p_x`$. We consider the action of pressure to be akin to that of varying the exchange energy, $`I`$ in a Stoner model of the one-electron energy of separated majority (say, $``$) and minority (say, $``$) spin sheets: $`E_{k\sigma }=ϵ_k\pm IM(,+).`$ In this description, the occupation of each spin sheet $`\sigma `$ is $`n_\sigma =_{ϵ_b}^{\mu _\sigma }\rho (ϵ)𝑑ϵ`$, where $`M=\frac{1}{2}(n_{}n_{})`$. Here $`ϵ_b`$ is the bottom of the band, and spin $`\sigma `$ occupies energy states up to $`\mu _\sigma `$. The DOS is given by $`\rho (ϵ)`$. We consider the total number of spins, $`n_{}+n_{}=N`$ to be fixed. The chemical potential, $`\mu _\sigma `$ of each spin sheet is therefore completely determined by the particular magnetisation and chosen electron number. The total energy density of the electron system is

$`F[M]={\displaystyle _{ϵ_b}^\mu _{}}ϵ\rho (ϵ)𝑑ϵ+{\displaystyle _{ϵ_b}^\mu _{}}ϵ\rho (ϵ)𝑑ϵ`$
$`+I\left({\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4}}M^2\right)g\mu _BHM,`$ (1)
where we have included a term for the presence of an external magnetic field, $`H`$.

Most phenomenological expansions of this energy density have included terms even in $`M`$, up to order $`M^6`$. This can give one first order transition in $`M(I)`$. However, we are looking for an additional transition, corresponding to $`p_x`$, and believed to be first order pfleiderer\_2001b , although there is some controversy over this terashima\_2002a . To have the possibility of an additional first order transition, we need the next even term in the Landau free energy expansion, thus obtaining an $`M^8`$ theory shimizu\_1982a . We now show that a DOS with two peaks generically brings about the $`M^8`$ term in $`F[M]`$ by allowing a scenario where the global magnetisation can change rapidly, twice. We begin by taking a one-band DOS comprised of two Lorenztians, normalised such that the maximum number of electrons of each spin in the band is 1:

$$\rho (ϵ)=\frac{\rho _0(ϵ)}{_{ϵ_B}^{ϵ_T}\rho _0(ϵ)𝑑ϵ}$$
(2)
where

$$\rho _0(ϵ)=1+\frac{1}{a(ϵb)^2+1}+\frac{1}{a(ϵ+b)^2+1},$$
(3)
where we can vary $`a`$ to adjust the sharpness of the two humps and $`b`$ to adjust their position. The humps are symmetric with respect to the zero energy and are centred on $`\pm b`$. We minimise $`F[M]`$, given by Eq. 1 with respect to magnetisation, $`M`$ to obtain the variation of $`M`$ with respect to the Stoner exchange, $`I`$. In Figure 2 we show plots of $`M(I)`$ for three sets of parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$, in each case setting the bottom and top, $`ϵ_B`$ and $`ϵ_T`$ of the band to be $`2`$ and $`+2`$ respectively.

For each set of parameters, we show the effect of varying the paramagnetic Fermi level, that is to say, the number of spins, $`N`$ in the system, in the neighbourhood of half-filling. This places the paramagnetic Fermi level, $`\mu _{EF}`$ between the two DOS peaks. On increasing the exchange term, $`I`$, the spin sea is polarised and the majority Fermi level moves up from that of the paramagnetic state and the minority level moves down. The onset of ferromagnetism is governed by the usual Stoner criterion, $`I\rho (\mu _{EF})=1`$ in the case of a second order onset, or by the finite-magnetisation Stoner criterion fazekas\_1999a  for a first order onset:

$$\frac{2IM}{\mu _{}\mu _{}}=1.$$
(4)
The finite magnetisation criterion holds for all $`M`$ once the system is polarised, irrespective of the order of the onset. Each Fermi level feels the effect of the density of states peaks at different $`I`$, as long as the paramagnetic Fermi level is off-centre with respect to the two DOS peaks. The main result is that, by making the density of states peaks sufficiently sharp and close together, we can obtain two magnetic transitions, one from the paramagnetic state and another within the ferromagnetic state. If the DOS peaks are too far apart, a saturated magnetic state is favoured; if the peaks are too smooth, the transitions in $`M(I)`$ are weakened and if the starting paramagnetic level is too close to the half-way point between the two peaks ($`N`$ too close to 1) then only one transition is observed. Therefore, to observe two transitions, the paramagnetic filling level should be between the DOS peaks, but off-centre with respect to them.

### II.1 Bandstructure phenomenology

Having shown that a double-humped DOS is perhaps key to understanding the magnetic properties of UGe2 at low temperatures, we now set about working towards a tight-binding picture of the bandstructure of this compound which can reproduce both its magnetic and superconducting properties. There have been two major efforts towards bandstructure calculations of UGe2. The first, originally on a crystal structure with an incorrect space group was performed by Yamagami et al. yamagami\_1993a  and has since been revised tejima\_2001a . This produced spin-separated Fermi sheets in the ferromagnetic state, centred on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point, with the majority sheet strongly nested. The second approach, already mentioned, has been an LDA $`+U`$ method, by Shick and Pickett shick\_2001a , using $`U`$ as a fitting parameter for the zero temperature, ambient pressure magnetisation. Again, strongly nested Fermi sheets were obtained, but they were of mixed spin type and the sheet considered by those authors as being most important for superconductivity is centred on the crystallographic $`M`$ point in their model. Furthermore, there was initial disagreement on the direction of the nesting vector $`𝐐`$ relative to the easy axis of magnetisation $`𝐚`$ — both are ‘in-plane’, but Yamagami considered $`𝐐𝐚`$ whilst Shick found $`𝐐𝐚`$. In summary, we take the following minimal, but key ingredients in our model:

* quasi-one-dimensional bandstructure (crucial to what follows)
* strong uniaxial magnetic anisotropy and
* spin-split Fermi sheets (even in the LDA $`+U`$ work shick\_2001a , there is a large exchange splitting, of the order of 1 $`eV`$).

In our model, we utilise the interaction potential for spin fluctuation mediated pairing in the ferromagnetic state, as derived by Fay and Appel fay\_1980a . We also follow their sign convention, namely that an attractive potential between like spins is positive. The interaction potential is heavily dependent on the Lindhard response, $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ for the bandstructure under consideration:

$$V_{\sigma \sigma }(𝐪)=\frac{I^2\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)}{1I^2\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)},$$
(5)
where $`I`$ is again the repulsive Hubbard-type contact interaction acting between opposite spins and $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ is given by

$$\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)=\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{f_\sigma ^{(0)}(𝐤)f_\sigma ^{(0)}(𝐤+𝐪)}{ϵ(𝐤+𝐪)ϵ(𝐤)};$$
(6)
$`f_\sigma ^{(0)}(𝐤)`$ being the Fermi occupation function for spin $`\sigma `$ which is at chemical potential $`\mu _\sigma `$ ($`\mu _\sigma `$ is defined previously). According to our chosen interaction mechanism, Eq. 5, a large $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ might naively be expected to lead to an enhanced $`T_{SC}`$. However, the subtlety here is that the interaction potential in the ferromagnetic state mixes longitudinal susceptibilities of majority and minority spin sheets so the effect is not so clear-cut. We recall that in the free electron model, only in electronic dimensions less than two, there can be a peak in $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ at non-zero $`𝐪`$ gruner\_1994a . In that case, we might expect that when one sheet of the Fermi surface is at optimal nesting, then perhaps $`V_{\sigma \sigma }(𝐪)`$ will be highest. The problem with this argument is that a $`V_{\sigma \sigma }(𝐪)`$ dominated by high-$`𝐐`$ modes would normally lead to very weak triplet pairing and in tight-binding approaches, finite $`𝐪`$ peaks in $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ are possible in two and three dimensions.

The approach we take is to look for density of states-driven superconductivity, where the large density of states giving rise to the magnetisation step at $`M_x`$ is also able to enhance superconductivity in the ferromagnetic state. In tight-binding theory in two dimensions and lower, the peak in the density of states comes from the presence of a van Hove singularity. The simplest, familiar tight-binding bandstructure for the cuprates is of the form

$$ϵ(𝐤)=\alpha _x\mathrm{cos}k_x\beta \mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\alpha _y\mathrm{cos}k_y$$
(7)
with $`\alpha _x=\alpha _y=1`$ and $`\beta `$ less than 1. This corresponds to equal nearest neighbour hopping in each of the two dimensions, and includes the next-nearest neighbour term, $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$. This structure, as shown in Figure 3(a), has one van Hove singularity and is therefore of little use in studying the magnetic properties of UGe2—as we have already found, we require two density of states peaks. However, as we will now show, if we now reduce the amplitude of the $`\mathrm{cos}k_y`$ term, we cross over into quasi-one-dimensions and begin to lift the degeneracy of the van Hove contours, giving two of the them, with adjustable separation.

The most common quasi-1D bandstructure in the literature is probably

$$ϵ(𝐤)=\alpha _x\mathrm{cos}k_x\alpha _y\mathrm{cos}k_y$$
(8)
which is used to describe some organic superconductors. Here, $`\alpha _x`$ is 1 and $`\alpha _y`$ is less than 1 and the model corresponds to nearest neighbour hopping in each of the two dimensions. This bandstructure has two van Hove contours (see Figure 3(b) and hence two density of states peaks. Thus, on tuning our magnetisation, we can observe in both spin types the transition through a van Hove singularity in the density of states at the Fermi level, provided, as stated before, that our paramagnetic Fermi level is between the two peaks in the density of states. The problem arises that when the peaks are close enough together to cause an effect in the magnetisation curves, the variation of the DOS in between them is not very rapid. This leads to a weakening of the transitions in $`M(I)`$ as found with a slowly varying Lorentzian DOS in the last section.

However, if we assume a quasi-one-dimensional dispersion of the form

$$ϵ(𝐤)=\alpha _x\mathrm{cos}k_x\beta \mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\gamma \mathrm{cos}2k_x\delta \mathrm{cos}3k_x$$
(9)
with $`\alpha _x=1`$ and $`\beta `$,$`\gamma `$, and $`\delta `$ all less than unit magnitude, we will be able to explore the possibility of two, first order jumps in $`M(I)`$.

The higher harmonics in the principal direction $`k_x`$ and the next-nearest term, $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$ which appear in Eq. 9 are not unreasonable in a system which we know to be strongly one-dimensional in character. The nearest neighbour term in $`k_y`$ has been reduced to zero. As shown in Figure 3(c), this dispersion relation yields two van Hove contours (and hence maxima in electronic density of states), and also goes through a perfect nesting scenario.222It is worth noting that, on scanning through energy in quasi-one-dimensions, optimal nesting (which is also the density of states minimum) does not coincide with the van Hove point (the density of states maximum). This is because optimal nesting in quasi-1D results from a Fermi surface consisting of parallel lines, each parallel to one axis of the Brillouin zone, as shown by the blue lines in Figure 3(c). By contrast, the optimal nesting Fermi surface of a two-dimensional square lattice in a nearest-neighbour tight-binding model is a diamond shape, with parallel surfaces at 45 degrees to the Brillouin zone axes. As shown in Figure 3(a), this Fermi surface also corresponds to the van Hove point and density of states maximum. We note that our choice of bandstructure is based on an extrapolation from the one point ($`T=0`$, $`p=0`$) of the phase diagram calculated in Refs. shick\_2001a ; yamagami\_1993a ; tejima\_2001a , with the idea being that there should be strong nesting present at full magnetisation in our model, to match the bandstructure calculations. Indeed, the high energy contours of this dispersion are fairly well nested (Figure 3(c)). To achieve a magnetically saturated state which does not completely fill the band, we require less than half-filling of the band in the paramagnetic state, a requirement which is in line with the demands of the $`M(I)`$ profile from Section II. Our choice of bandstructure will ultimately help to link $`p_x`$, the maximum in $`T_{SC}`$ and the mass enhancement observed in de Haas van Alphen measurements. First we concentrate on the magnetisation as a function of Stoner exchange, $`I`$.

## III Results

### III.1 Two jumps in magnetisation from a tight-binding bandstructure

Taking the quasi-one-dimensional bandstructure given by Eq. 9 and varying parameters $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\delta `$, we obtain the variation of zero temperature magnetisation with exchange interaction $`I`$ as we did for Lorentzian densities of states.333Setting $`\alpha _x`$ to 1 in Eq. 9 and varying $`I`$ is equivalent to varying the quantity $`I^{}=I/\alpha _x`$, as can be seen from the form of the free energy in Eq. 1. The effect of increasing pressure is to increase, probably most strongly, the hopping parameter $`\alpha _x`$. This suppresses ferromagnetism, as it reduces $`I^{}`$. We show plots of $`M(I)`$ since $`I=I^{}`$ here. In Figure 4, we present $`M(I)`$ for different total numbers of electrons, $`N`$ below half-filling in the case of four different sets of tight-binding parameters. In each case, the paramagnetic Fermi level sits in between the two peaks in the DOS. Initial polarisation at $`I_c`$ (labelled by analogy with $`p_c`$ in experiment) is first order—this is due to the minority sheet approaching the lower van Hove peak as polarisation commences.

There are several features to be noted from the plots in Fig. 4. Firstly, as in Fig. 2, if $`N`$ is below half-filling, a second magnetic transition can occur when the majority spin sheet feels the effect of the upper peak in the DOS. However, when N is too close to half filling, or when the dip between the two density of states peaks is too sharp, we get only one first order transition, which can even be straight to saturation magnetisation. Once again, in order to observe the two transitions seen in UGe2, one should have a paramagnetic Fermi level which is off-centre with respect to two DOS peaks. Secondly, the upper transition (which we henceforth label $`I_x`$ by analogy with $`p_x`$ from experiment), can either be to finite magnetisation (and either first order or beyond the first order critical point) or can be first order to saturation magnetisation. According to Eq. 5, a transition to saturation magnetisation would naturally kill any magnetically-mediated superconductivity due to the lack of one spin species. Thus we turn our attention to an upper transition not of saturating nature, and which could be first order, or close to first order, as the latter would allow the Fermi surface sheet configurations to be explored as the magnetisation is tuned by temperature or pressure, allowing the presence of sharp peaks in the density of states to be observed in measurements such as heat capacity and resistivity.

The above considerations make the second example in Fig. 4 a most useful candidate, as we have the option of the upper transition being first order or close to first order, depending on $`N`$, and the magnetisation does not saturate at the upper transition. Henceforth, we take $`\beta =0.7`$, $`\gamma =0.03`$ and $`\delta =0.03`$.

Interestingly, the magnetic phase diagram in the $`N,I`$ plane seems to contain a line of first order transitions corresponding to $`I_x(N)`$. This line terminates at a critical point at a value of $`N`$ of about 0.76. For values of $`N`$ below this, the transition in $`M(I)`$ is smooth and can be described as close to first order. This is perhaps best seen in Figure 5(a), where we show the longitudinal susceptibility, $`\chi `$ as a function of $`I`$ for $`\beta =0.7`$, $`\gamma =0.03`$ and $`\delta =0.03`$, taking different values of $`N`$. We take the longitudinal susceptibility from the Stoner forms:

$`\chi _{para}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\mu _{EF})}{1I\rho (\mu _{EF})}},`$ (10)
$`\chi _{ferro}={\displaystyle \frac{2\rho (\mu _{})\rho (\mu _{})}{\rho (\mu _{})+\rho (\mu _{})2I\rho (\mu _{})\rho (\mu _{})}}`$ (11)
in the paramagnetic (Fermi level $`\mu _{EF}`$) and ferromagnetic states, respectively. As seen in Figure 5(a), the susceptibility at $`I_x`$ grows as we move closer to the critical point; the resulting (approximate) phase diagram in $`(N,I)`$ space is shown in Figure 5(b).

### III.2 Magnetic field effects

It has also been found that the features associated with $`T_x`$ and $`T_c`$ can be recovered at pressures above $`p_x`$ and $`p_c`$ respectively by the application of a magnetic field. In our model, this metamagnetism arises as a direct consequence of having spin-split Fermi surfaces, with the spin species being governed by number conservation and the free energy of the form given in Eq. 1. As shown in Fig. 6, turning on the magnetic field, $`H`$, pushes both the magnetisation jump at $`I_c`$ (the Curie transition) and at $`I_x`$ (within the ferromagnetic state) to lower values of $`I`$, or equivalently, higher pressures. Both the predicted $`M(I)`$ curves and the resulting phase diagram in $`H,I`$ space bear a striking resemblance to recent experimental data pfleiderer\_2001b . We should point out that the calculated $`H,I`$ phase diagram was obtained by looking for the maximum in the gradient of the magnetisation for each $`M(I)`$ plot in field. The first order nature of both transitions is softened with decreasing $`I`$—corresponding to going to higher pressures. Experimentally, such softening is not observed at pressures reached this far, as can be seen from Figure 6(b). We indicate where the magnetic transition in our model is no longer first order by a dotted line on the $`H,I`$ phase diagram.

### III.3 Superconductivity and the zero-temperature phase diagram

From the heavy nature of the quasiparticles alone, we expect strong coupling theory to be required to gain a true estimate of $`T_{SC}`$ in UGe2. However, we can gain useful information on the form of the phase diagram from examining the zero temperature, weak-coupling properties of our model. We note here that, without a reliable model of $`M(T)`$, it is impossible to construct the usual $`T_{SC}`$ equation in the BCS theory in the ferromagnetic state, as here we have an example of a temperature-dependent potential—the changing magnetisation alters the spin-dependent interaction.

A reasonable estimate of the strength of triplet pairing can be gained from examining the relative magnitudes of the mass renormalisation parameter $`\lambda _Z`$ and interaction parameter $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, defined as

$`\lambda _Z={\displaystyle \frac{_{FS}_{FS^{}}d^2kd^2k^{}V_{}(𝐤𝐤^{})}{_{FS}d^2k}},`$ (12)
$`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{_{FS}_{FS^{}}d^2kd^2k^{}V_{}(𝐤𝐤^{})\eta (𝐤)\eta (𝐤^{})}{_{FS}d^2k\eta ^2(𝐤)}},`$ (13)
where each integration is over the Fermi surface ($`FS`$) either in $`𝐤`$ or $`𝐤^{}`$ space. The term $`\eta (𝐤)`$ is the angular part of the superconducting order parameter. In the above we are following the notation adopted by Monthoux and Lonzarich monthoux\_2001a  and restrict ourselves to examine majority spin triplet pairing, using $`V_{}(𝐪)`$. The choice of order parameter should naturally reflect the symmetry properties of the UGe2 crystal structure. Such considerations should lead us to examine non-unitary states machida\_2001a ; fomin\_2001a , but here for simplicity we consider as an example the states $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}(k_x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}(k_y)`$, anticipating that which state is favoured may change as the majority Fermi surface is tuned through $`p_x`$, making the transition from being open to being closed. The favoured state is determined by which $`\eta (𝐤)`$ gives a larger positive value of $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

There is a caviat at this stage. The sharpness of the van Hove singularities is useful in providing the magnetisation behaviour shown in Section III.1. However, as can be readily seen from Eq. 5, it can also lead to a switching of the sign of the pair interaction from attraction to repulsion at zero $`𝐪`$ if the density of states at the van Hove point is too high. This is because $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪=0)=\rho (\mu _\sigma )`$. With the presence of a strict low dimensional van Hove singularity (an infinity in the DOS) at zero temperature, the quantity $`\rho (\mu _{})\rho (\mu _{})`$ will be greater than 1 when the majority Fermi level reaches the van Hove point.

There are several possible routes to softening the van Hove singularity. One would be to introduce a small amount of disorder into the model. Another would be to transfer the calculation to three electronic dimensions, rather than the current two, but that is computationally time-consuming. Here we take a simpler approach, calculating all $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ at a small finite temperature $`(k_BT=0.045)`$, retaining the original zero-temperature value of $`I`$ for each magnetisation examined. This procedure maintains the order of the magnetic transition at $`I_x`$, although it does mean that the effective density of states, $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪=0)`$ is inconsistent with that used to find $`M(I)`$. $`\chi _{\sigma \sigma }^{(0)}(𝐪)`$ is calculated on a $`40`$ by $`40`$ grid for $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ points in the Brillouin zone. The agreement is close away from the van Hove regions.

In order to have two first order magnetic phase transitions (see Fig. 5(b)), we take $`N=0.77`$ in what follows, and examine majority sheet, spin triplet superconductivity. The final refinement to the model comes in the form of adjusting the $`𝐪`$-dependence of $`I`$ at this stage. Until now, we have considered a $`𝐪`$-independent Stoner factor which arises from on-site repulsion of like-spin electrons. However, $`I`$ should really convey some of the physics of electron-electron interactions at finite distances, and so, in calculations of the superconducting potential, we convert to the following form:

$$I\frac{I}{1+\xi q^2}$$
(14)
which effectively reduces high-$`𝐪`$ modes in the system, in line with the ferromagnetism of the real compound. This is the simplest, first approximation of such effects.

In Fig. 7 we show a measure of the superconducting interaction strength, $`\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+\lambda _Z}`$, for various values of $`\xi `$, our Stoner ‘structure factor’. The term $`1+\lambda _Z`$ measures the mass renormalisation—this is shown separately in Fig. 8.

Of course, $`\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+\lambda _Z}`$ is not the full story when one considers how the superconducting transition temperature $`T_{SC}`$ should behave as a function of $`I`$. Roughly speaking, $`T_{SC}\omega _ce^{(\frac{1+\lambda _Z}{\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }})}`$ (see, for example, Fay and Appel fay\_1980a ) and there is substantial variation of $`\omega _c`$, the paramagnon energy with $`I`$, especially when soft magnetic modes are present. The paramagnon energy can be expanded as

$$\omega _c\zeta q(\chi ^1+cq^2),$$
(15)
where $`\zeta `$ and $`c`$ are temperature dependent parameters, equivalent to $`\gamma `$ and $`c`$ in the work of Lonzarich lonzarich\_1997a . As developed by Brinkman and Engelsberg brinkman\_1968a  and implemented by Fay and Appel, the $`\omega _c`$ prefactor will substantially reduce superconductivity at the ferromagnetic $`I_c`$ and the same argument should apply around the secondary transition at $`I_x`$, although in both cases this effect is more drastic for a second order magnetic transition (where the susceptibility diverges, i.e. $`\chi ^10`$) than for the first order cases here. What remains important, therefore, is the stable region of superconductivity in the ferromagnetic state, where $`\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+\lambda _Z}`$ is approximately flat and high, especially for higher Stoner structure factor, $`\xi `$.

We might reasonably ask what it is that enhances superconductivity in the region between $`I_x`$ and $`I_c`$. In this range of $`I`$, the majority Fermi level sits between the two van Hove peaks, and an examination of the $`𝐪`$ dependence of the interaction potential, Eq. 5 reveals that there is a region of high, sustained zero $`𝐪`$ pairing for $`I_c<I<I_x`$sandeman\_2002b  At both $`I_c`$ and $`I_x`$, $`V(𝐪)`$ is broad and high around $`𝐪=0`$. Outwith the region $`I_c<I<I_x`$ the pairing potential is smaller and more localised around zero $`𝐪`$. Furthermore, in the region between $`I_c`$ and $`I_x`$, the mass renormalisation, represented by $`\lambda _Z`$ is also approximately flat and high. This mass enhancement, shown in Fig. 8 compares well with the high effective mass plateau found in de Haas van Alphen measurements on the ferromagnetic state between pressures $`p_c`$ and $`p_x`$.

Lastly we note that the order parameter, $`\eta (𝐤)`$ favoured on tuning $`I`$, changes as we go through $`I_x`$. This makes sense from the point of view of the Fermi surface topology, as depicted in Figure 9. $`\eta (𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}(k_y)`$ is favoured when the majority spin sheet is open—for all $`I<I_x`$—and the $`\mathrm{sin}(k_x)`$ order parameter becomes favoured for the closed surfaces for $`I>I_x`$. As already stated, these are overly simplified gap functions, so this change of symmetry may well be more gradual or masked in a non-unitary representation.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have proposed that the unusual phase diagram of UGe2 is a result of a novel tuning of the Fermi surface topology by the magnetisation of the ferromagnetic state. We have constructed a model for this which illustrates how superconductivity, the tunable magnetization features and the quasiparticle mass are related by a twin-peak density of states feature, consistent with experiment. Indeed, the twin-peak DOS feature is also apparent in the most recent LDA $`+U`$ calculations of the non-magnetic state shick\_2002a .

We have first looked for an explanation of the two transitions in the low temperature magnetisation of UGe2. We have shown how a density of states with two peaks as a function of energy will give rise generically to a zero temperature magnetisation which has two transitions as the ratio of Stoner exchange energy to bandwidth is tuned. We have demonstrated how this interesting form of DOS arises when the bandstructure is quasi-one-dimensional, as is believed to be the case for UGe2.

We are thus able to propose a mechanism for the asymmetry of the superconducting $`T_{SC}`$ with respect to the magnetic quantum phase transition associated with the Curie temperature, shifting the focus of our attention away from $`p_c`$ towards $`p_x`$ as the magnetic transition point of interest with regard to superconductivity. In our model, a large density of states at the majority spin Fermi surface is associated with the $`T_x`$ transition and is also driving superconductivity. This causes superconductivity to be favoured in the ferromagnetic state relative to the paramagnetic state in a natural and previously overlooked way, and could also be a reason for the enhancement of superconductivity in the ferromagnetic state of other materials. We further note that, in a real system, the presence of impurities will probably enhance further the relative tendency to formation of the superconducting state in the ferromagnetic phase.

There is also a straightforward explanation in the band magnetism scenario for the observed metamagnetic behaviour and a large, constant mass enhancement between $`I_x`$ and $`I_c`$, consistent in form with de Haas van Alphen measurements. Potentially we may have a reason for the disappearance of dHvA signal between $`p_x`$ and $`p_c`$, which would here be due to the Fermi surface becoming open. However, we should note that only one set of authors have observed such disappearance of dHvA signal settai\_2002a .

KGS wishes to thank C. Bergemann, J. Flouquet, A.D. Huxley, S.R. Julian, A.A. Katanin, D.E. Khmelnitskii, P.B. Littlewood, A.J. Millis, P. Monthoux, C. Pfleiderer, S.S. Saxena, T. Schmidt, M. Sigrist and T. Terashima for useful discussions. Financial support was supplied by the EPSRC.


format: text

text:
# THE WEYL TENSOR AND EQUILIBRIUM CONFIGURATIONS OF SELF–GRAVITATING FLUIDS

## 1 Introduction

Since the publication of Penrose’work , there has been an increasing interest in the possible role of Weyl tensor (or some function of it) in the evolution of self-gravitating systems ( and references therein). This interest is reinforced by the fact that (at least) for spherically symmetric distributions of fluid, the Weyl tensor may be expressed exclusively in terms of the density contrast and the local anisotropy of the pressure , which in turn are known to affect the fate of gravitational collapse .

In this work we shall consider spherically symmetric fluid configurations which are initially in equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium), and we shall look for necessary and sufficient conditions to leave such regime. Usually, these conditions are expressed through the adiabatic index, (or some function of it) which indicates the variation of pressure with density, for a given fluid element ( see  and references therein).

As we shall see here, such departure from equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium) is allowed if and only if, the Weyl tensor within the fluid distribution , changes with respect to its value in the initial (equilibrium or quasi–equilibrium) state.

There is however two possible exceptions for this. One is represented by the “inflationary” equation of state $`\rho +p=0`$. The other situation when our result does not apply, corresponds to the case when then system leaving the equilibrium enters into dissipative regime and $`\kappa T/\tau (\rho +p)=1`$, where $`\kappa `$,$`T`$ and $`\tau `$ denote respectively the thermal conduction, the temperature and the thermal relaxation time. Both situations imply from the “dynamical” point of view, that the effective inertial mass of any fluid element vanish (see  and references therein).

The above mentioned result is reminiscent , in some sense, of a one recently obtained , regarding the conditions for a transition from a non-dissipative to a dissipative regime in a FRW-flat model. Indeed in that case, the Weyl tensor is always zero, and such transition is only allowed if $`\kappa T/\tau (\rho +p)=1`$.

The manuscript is organized as follows.In the next section we give the expressions for the field and transport equations, and for the Weyl tensor. In Section III the conditions for the departure from equilibrium (and quasiequilibrium) are found. Finally in the last Section the results are discussed.

## 2 Field and Transport equations

### 2.1 Field equations

We consider spherically symmetric distributions of collapsing fluid, which for sake of completeness we assume to be anisotropic, undergoing dissipation in the form of heat flow, bounded by a spherical surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The line element is given in Schwarzschild-like coordinates by

$$ds^2=e^\nu dt^2e^\lambda dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(1)
where $`\nu (t,r)`$ and $`\lambda (t,r)`$ are functions of their arguments. We number the coordinates: $`x^0=t;x^1=r;x^2=\theta ;x^3=\varphi `$.

The metric (1) has to satisfy Einstein field equations

$$G_\mu ^\nu =8\pi T_\mu ^\nu $$
(2)
which in our case read :

$$8\pi T_0^0=\frac{1}{r^2}+e^\lambda \left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\lambda ^{}}{r}\right)$$
(3)
$$8\pi T_1^1=\frac{1}{r^2}+e^\lambda \left(\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{\nu ^{}}{r}\right)$$
(4)
$`8\pi T_2^2=8\pi T_3^3=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\nu }{4}}\left(2\ddot{\lambda }+\dot{\lambda }(\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu })\right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{4}}\left(2\nu ^{\prime \prime }+\nu ^2\lambda ^{}\nu ^{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)`$
$$8\pi T_{01}=\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{r}$$
(6)
where dots and primes stand for partial differentiation with respect to t and r respectively.

In order to give physical significance to the $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ components we apply the Bondi approach .

Thus, following Bondi, let us introduce purely locally Minkowski coordinates ($`\tau ,x,y,z`$)

$$d\tau =e^{\nu /2}dtdx=e^{\lambda /2}drdy=rd\theta dz=rsin\theta d\varphi $$

Then, denoting the Minkowski components of the energy tensor by a bar, we have

$$\overline{T}_0^0=T_0^0\overline{T}_1^1=T_1^1\overline{T}_2^2=T_2^2\overline{T}_3^3=T_3^3\overline{T}_{01}=e^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}T_{01}$$

Next, we suppose that when viewed by an observer moving relative to these coordinates with velocity $`\omega `$ in the radial direction, the physical content of space consists of an anisotropic fluid of energy density $`\rho `$, radial pressure $`P_r`$, tangential pressure $`P_{}`$ and radial heat flux $`\widehat{q}`$. Thus, when viewed by this moving observer the covariant tensor in Minkowski coordinates is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho & \widehat{q}& 0& 0\\ \widehat{q}& P_r& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& P_{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& P_{}\end{array}\right)$$

Then a Lorentz transformation readily shows that

$$T_0^0=\overline{T}_0^0=\frac{\rho +P_r\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}+\frac{2Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{(1\omega ^2)^{1/2}}$$
(7)
$$T_1^1=\overline{T}_1^1=\frac{P_r+\rho \omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}\frac{2Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{(1\omega ^2)^{1/2}}$$
(8)
$$T_2^2=T_3^3=\overline{T}_2^2=\overline{T}_3^3=P_{}$$
(9)
$$T_{01}=e^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}\overline{T}_{01}=\frac{(\rho +P_r)\omega e^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}}{1\omega ^2}\frac{Qe^{\nu /2}e^\lambda }{(1\omega ^2)^{1/2}}(1+\omega ^2)$$
(10)
with

$$Q\frac{\widehat{q}e^{\lambda /2}}{(1\omega ^2)^{1/2}}$$
(11)
Note that the velocity in the ($`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$) system, $`dr/dt`$, is related to $`\omega `$ by

$$\omega =\frac{dr}{dt}e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}$$
(12)
At the outside of the fluid distribution, the spacetime is that of Vaidya, given by

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M(u)}{}\right)du^2+2dud^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(13)
where $`u`$ is a time-like coordinate such that $`u=constant`$ is (asymptotically) a null cone open to the future and $``$ is a null coordinate ($`g_{}=0`$). It should be remarked, however, that strictly speaking, the radiation can be considered in radial free streaming only at radial infinity.

The two coordinate systems ($`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$) and ($`u,,\theta ,\varphi `$) are related at the boundary surface and outside it by

$$u=tr2Mln\left(\frac{r}{2M}1\right)$$
(14)
$$=r$$
(15)
In order to match smoothly the two metrics above on the boundary surface $`r=r_\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$, we have to require the continuity of the first fundamental form across that surface. As result of this matching we obtain

$$\left[P_r\right]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left[Qe^{\lambda /2}\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}\right]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left[\widehat{q}\right]_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(16)
expressing the discontinuity of the radial pressure in the presence of heat flow, which is a well known result .

Next, it will be useful to calculate the radial components of the conservation law

$$T_{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =0$$
(17)
After tedious but simple calculations we get

$$\left(8\pi T_1^1\right)^{}=\frac{16\pi }{r}\left(T_1^1T_2^2\right)+4\pi \nu ^{}\left(T_1^1T_0^0\right)+\frac{e^\nu }{r}\left(\ddot{\lambda }+\frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}\frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }}{2}\right)$$
(18)
which in the static case becomes

$$P_r^{}=\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}\left(\rho +P_r\right)+\frac{2\left(P_{}P_r\right)}{r}$$
(19)
representing the generalization of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkof equation for anisotropic fluids .

### 2.2 Transport equations

As it is well known, the Maxwell-Fourier law for the radiation flux, usually assumed in the study of stars interiors, leads to a parabolic equation (diffusion equation) which predicts propagation of perturbation with infinite speed (see  and references therein). This simple fact is at the origin of the pathologies  found in the approaches of Eckart  and Landau  for relativistic dissipative processes.

To overcome such difficulties, different relativistic theories with non-vanishing relaxation times have been proposed in the past . The important point is that all these theories provide a heat transport equation which is not of Maxwell-Fourier type but of Cattaneo type , leading thereby to a hyperbolic equation for the propagation of thermal perturbation.

Accordingly we shall describe the heat transport by means of a relativistic Israel-Stewart equation  , which reads

$$\tau \frac{Dq^\alpha }{Ds}+q^\alpha =\kappa P^{\alpha \beta }\left(T_{,\beta }Ta_\beta \right)\tau u^\alpha q_\beta a^\beta \frac{1}{2}\kappa T^2\left(\frac{\tau }{\kappa T^2}u^\beta \right)_{;\beta }q^\alpha $$
(20)
where $`\kappa `$, $`\tau `$, $`T`$, $`q^\beta `$ and $`a^\beta `$ denote thermal conductivity, thermal relaxation time, temperature, the heat flow vector and the components of the four acceleration, respectively. Also, $`P^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the projector onto the hypersurface orthogonal to the four velocity $`u^\alpha `$.

In our case this equation has only two independent components, which read, for $`\alpha =0`$

$$\tau e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\left(Q\dot{\omega }+\dot{Q}\omega +Q\omega \dot{\lambda }\right)+\tau \left(Q^{}\omega ^2+Q\omega \omega ^{}+\frac{Q\omega ^2\lambda ^{}}{2}\right)$$

$$+\frac{\tau Q\omega ^2}{r}+Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}=\frac{\kappa \omega ^2\dot{T}e^{\nu /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}\frac{\kappa \omega T^{}e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}$$

$$\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}\frac{\kappa T\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}\frac{1}{2}Q\omega \left(e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\dot{\tau }+\omega \tau ^{}\right)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\tau Q\omega \left[e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\left(\frac{\omega \dot{\omega }}{1\omega ^2}+\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{2}\right)+\left(\frac{\omega ^{}}{1\omega ^2}+\frac{\nu ^{}\omega }{2}\right)\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\tau Q\omega \left[\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\dot{\kappa }+\omega \kappa ^{}\right)+\frac{2}{T}\left(e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\dot{T}+\omega T^{}\right)\right]$$

$`+\left(\tau Qe^{(\lambda \nu )/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T\omega e^{\nu /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}\right)`$ $`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega \dot{\lambda }}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }}{1\omega ^2}}\right)`$
$`+\left(\tau Q{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}\right)`$ $`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega ^{}}{1\omega ^2}}`$ (21)
and for $`\alpha =1`$

$$\tau e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\left(\dot{Q}+\frac{Q\dot{\lambda }}{2}+\frac{Q\omega ^2\dot{\lambda }}{2}\right)+\tau \omega \left(Q^{}+\frac{Q\lambda ^{}}{2}\right)$$

$$+\frac{\tau Q\omega }{r}+Qe^{\lambda /2}\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}=\frac{\kappa \omega \dot{T}e^{\nu /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}\frac{\kappa T^{}e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}$$

$$\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}\frac{\kappa Te^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}\frac{1}{2}Q\left(e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\dot{\tau }+\omega \tau ^{}\right)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\tau Q\left[e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\left(\frac{\omega \dot{\omega }}{1\omega ^2}+\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{2}\right)+\left(\frac{\omega ^{}}{1\omega ^2}+\frac{\nu ^{}\omega }{2}\right)\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\tau Q\left[\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\dot{\kappa }+\omega \kappa ^{}\right)+\frac{2}{T}\left(e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}\dot{T}+\omega T^{}\right)\right]$$

$`+\left(\tau Q\omega e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa Te^{\nu /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}\right)`$ $`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega \dot{\lambda }}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }}{1\omega ^2}}\right)`$
$`+\left(\tau Q\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa Te^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}\right)`$ $`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega ^{}}{1\omega ^2}}`$ (22)
where the expressions

$$u^\mu =(\frac{e^{\nu /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}},\frac{\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(23)
$$q^\mu =Q(\omega e^{(\lambda \nu )/2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(24)
have been used.

### 2.3 The Weyl tensor

. For the next section we shall need the components of the Weyl tensor. Using Maple V, it is found that all non-vanishing components are proportional to

$`W{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}C_{232}^3`$ $`=`$ $`W_{(s)}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^3e^\nu }{12}}\left(\ddot{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }}{2}}\right)`$ (25)
where

$$W_{(s)}=\frac{r^3e^\lambda }{6}\left(\frac{e^\lambda }{r^2}\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{4}\frac{\nu ^2}{4}\frac{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{2}\frac{\lambda ^{}}{2r}+\frac{\nu ^{}}{2r}\right)$$
(26)
corresponds to the contribution in the static (and quasi–static) case . Also, the following expression relating the Weyl tensor through the source terms, may be found

$$W=\frac{4\pi }{3}_0^rr^3\left(T_0^0\right)^{}𝑑r+\frac{4\pi }{3}r^3\left(T_2^2T_1^1\right)$$
(27)
## 3 Leaving the equilibrium(quasiequilibrium)

Let us now consider a spherically symmetric fluid distribution which initially may be in either hydrostatic and thermal equilibrium (i.e. $`\omega =Q=0`$), or slowly evolving and dissipating energy through a radial heat flow vector.

Before proceeding further with the treatment of our problem, let us clearly specify the meaning of “slowly evolving”. That means that our sphere changes on a time scale which is very large as compared to the typical time in which it reacts on a slight perturbation of hydrostatic equilibrium. This typical time is called hydrostatic time scale. Thus a slowly evolving system is always in hydrostatic equilibrium (very close to), and its evolution may be regarded as a sequence of static models linked by (6).

As we mentioned before, this assumption is very sensible, since the hydrostatic time scale is usually very small.

Thus, it is of the order of $`27`$ minutes for the sun, $`4.5`$ seconds for a white dwarf and $`10^4`$ seconds for a neutron star of one solar mass and $`10`$ Km radius .

In terms of $`\omega `$ and metric functions, slow evolution means that the radial velocity $`\omega `$ measured by the Minkowski observer, as well as metric time derivatives are so small that their products and second order time derivatives may be neglected (an invariant characterization of slow evolution may be found in ).

Thus

$$\ddot{\nu }\ddot{\lambda }\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }\dot{\lambda }^2\dot{\nu }^2\omega ^2\dot{\omega }=0$$
(28)
As it follows from (6) and (10), $`Q`$ is of the order $`O(\omega )`$. Thus in the slowly evolving regime, relaxation terms may be neglected and (20) becomes the usual Landau-Eckart transport equation .

Then, using (28) and (18) we obtain (19), which as mentioned before is the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium for an anisotropic fluid. This is in agreement with what was mentioned above, in the sense that a slowly evolving system is in hydrostatic equilibrium.

Let us now return to our problem. Before perturbation, the two possible initial states of our system are characterized by:

1. Static

$$\dot{\omega }=\dot{Q}=\omega =Q=0$$
(29)
2. Slowly evolving

$$\dot{\omega }=\dot{Q}=0$$
(30)
$$QO(\omega )0(small)$$
(31)

where the meaning of “small” is given by (28).

Let us now assume that our system is submitted to perturbations which force it to depart from hydrostatic equilibrium but keeping the spherical symmetry.

We shall study the perturbed system on a time scale which is small as compared to the thermal adjustment time.

Then, immediately after perturbation (“immediately” understood in the sense above), we have for the first initial condition (static)

$$\omega =Q=0$$
(32)
$$\dot{\omega }\dot{Q}0(small)$$
(33)
whereas for the second initial condition (slowly evolving)

$$QO(\omega )0(small)$$
(34)
$$\dot{Q}\dot{\omega }0(small)$$
(35)
As we shall see below, both initial conditions lead to the same final equations.

Let us now write explicitly eq.(18). With the help of (7)–(10), we find after long but trivial calculations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_r^{}}{1\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega \omega ^{}\rho }{1\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega \omega ^{}P_r}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^2}}`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega ^3\omega ^{}\rho }{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^{}\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q\omega ^{}e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q\omega ^2\omega ^{}e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{3/2}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r^3}{r2m}}(\rho +P_r\omega ^2){\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{3/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi r^3}{r2m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\rho +P_r\right){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}+\left(P_rP_{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\rho +P_r\right)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r2m}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r^3}{r2m}}\left(P_r+\rho \omega ^2\right)\left(\rho +P_r\right){\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi r^3}{r2m}}(P_r+\rho \omega ^2){\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{3/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r^3}{r2m}}Q\omega e^{\lambda /2}(\rho +P_r){\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{3/2}}}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\nu }{8\pi r}}\left(\ddot{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }}{2}}\right)`$
which, when evaluated immediately after perturbation, reduces to

$$P_r^{}+\frac{\left(\rho +P_r\right)m}{r^2\left(12m/r\right)}+\frac{4\pi r}{\left(12m/r\right)}\left(P_r\rho +P_r^2\right)+\frac{2\left(P_rP_{}\right)}{r}=\frac{e^\nu }{8\pi r}\ddot{\lambda }$$
(37)
for both initial states.

On the other hand, an expression for $`\ddot{\lambda }`$ may be obtained by taking the time derivative of (6)

$`\ddot{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi re^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}[(\rho +P_r){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{1\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\nu }}{2}}+Qe^{\lambda /2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\nu }}{2}}`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\rho +P_r\right)\omega }{1\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }}{2}}+Qe^{\lambda /2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}\dot{\lambda }+\left(\dot{\rho }+\dot{P}_r\right){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{1\omega ^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\rho +P_r\right)\dot{\omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^2}}+\dot{Q}e^{\lambda /2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}}}`$
$`+`$ $`Qe^{\lambda /2}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \dot{\omega }\left(3\omega ^2\right)}{\left(1\omega ^2\right)^{3/2}}}]`$
which, in its turn, when evaluated after perturbation, reads

$$\ddot{\lambda }=8\pi re^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}\left[\left(\rho +P_r\right)\dot{\omega }+\dot{Q}e^{\lambda /2}\right]$$
(39)
replacing $`\ddot{\lambda }`$ by (39) en (37), we obtain

$$e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}R=\left(\rho +P_r\right)\dot{\omega }+\dot{Q}e^{\lambda /2}$$
(40)
where $`R`$ denotes the left-hand side of the TOV equation, i.e.

$`R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_r}{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi rP_r^2}{12m/r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P_rm}{r^2\left(12m/r\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r\rho P_r}{12m/r}}+`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho m}{r^2\left(12m/r\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(P_{}P_r\right)}{r}}`$
$`=`$ $`P_r^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{2}}\left(\rho +P_r\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\left(P_{}P_r\right)`$
The physical meaning of $`R`$ is clearly inferred from (41). It represents the total force (gravitational + pressure gradient + anisotropic term) acting on a given fluid element. Obviously, $`R>0/R<0`$ means that the total force is directed $`inward/outward`$ of the sphere.

Let us now turn back to thermal conduction equation (20). Evaluating its $`t`$-component (given by Eq.(21)) immediately after perturbation, we obtain for the first initial configuration (static), an identity. Whereas the second case (slowly evolving) leads to

$$\omega \left(T^{}+T\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}\right)=0$$
(42)
which is to be expected, since before perturbation, in the slowly evolving regime, we have according to Eckart-Landau (valid in this regime)

$$Q=\kappa e^\lambda \left(T^{}+\frac{T\nu ^{}}{2}\right)$$
(43)
Therefore, the quantity in bracket is of order $`Q`$. Then immediately after perturbation this quantity is still of order $`O(\omega )`$, which implies (42).

The corresponding evolution of the $`r`$-component of the equation (20) yields, for the initially static configuration

$$\tau \dot{Q}e^{\lambda /2}=\kappa T\dot{\omega }$$
(44)
where the fact has been used that after perturbation

$$Q=0T^{}=\frac{T\nu ^{}}{2}$$
(45)
For the second case, the $`r`$-component of heat transport equation yields also (44), since after perturbation the value of $`Q`$ is still given by (43), up to $`O(\omega )`$ terms.

Finally, combining (40) and (44) we obtain

$$\dot{\omega }=\frac{e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}R}{\left(\rho +P_r\right)}\times \frac{1}{\left(1\frac{\kappa T}{\tau \left(\rho +P_r\right)}\right)}$$
(46)
or,

$$e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}R=\left(\rho +P_r\right)\dot{\omega }\left(1\alpha \right)$$
(47)
with $`\alpha `$ defined by

$$\alpha \frac{\kappa T}{\tau \left(\rho +P_r\right)}$$
(48)
Let us first consider the $`\alpha =0`$ case. Then, (47) has the obvious “Newtonian” form

Force $`=`$ mass $`\times `$ acceleration

since, as it is well known, $`\left(\rho +P_r\right)`$ represents the inertial mass density and by “acceleration” we mean the time derivative of $`\omega `$. In this case ($`\alpha =0`$), an $`outward/inward`$ acceleration ($`\dot{\omega }>0/\dot{\omega }<0`$) is associated with an $`outwardly/inwardly`$ ($`R<0/R>0`$) directed total force (as one expects!).

However, in the general case ($`\alpha 0`$) the situation becomes quite different. Indeed, the inertial mass term is now multiplied by ($`1\alpha `$), so that if $`\alpha =1`$, we obtain that $`\dot{\omega }0`$ even though $`R=0`$. This decreasing of the “effective inertial mass density”( vanishing when $`\alpha =1`$), has been shown to occur in the general (non–spherical symmetric case) (see  and references therein)

Next, evaluating (25) immediatly after the system leaves the equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium) and using (39) and (40), (47) may be written as

$$3e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}\frac{\left[WW_{(s)}\right]}{2\pi r^4}=\left(\rho +P_r\right)\dot{\omega }\left(1\alpha \right)$$
(49)
Therefore, $`\dot{\omega }0`$ implies $`WW_{(s)}`$, and viceversa, unless either $`(\rho +P_r)=0`$ (in the non–dissipative case) or $`\alpha =1`$ (in the dissipative case),.

Next, assuming $`\dot{\omega }=0`$, it can be shown without difficulty, that

$$3e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}\frac{\frac{^n}{t^n}\left[WW_{(s)}\right]}{2\pi r^4}=\left(\rho +P_r\right)\frac{^n\omega }{t^n}\left(1\alpha \right)$$
(50)
for any $`n>1`$. Thus, unless either $`(\rho +P_r)=0`$ (in the non–dissipative case) or $`\alpha =1`$ (in the dissipative case), if the Weyl tensor does not change with respect to its value in the equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium ) state, the system will not abandon such state.

## 4 Conclusions

We have seen that any departure from equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium) of a spherically symmetric distribution of matter, is tightly controlled by changes in the Weyl tensor with respect to its value in equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium), as indicated by (49) and (50). As an obvious consequence of this, it follows that a conformally flat fluid distribution in state of equilibrium (or quasi–equilibrium) will depart from such state, only if it ceases to be conformally flat (except for the two cases already mentioned).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the last term in (20) is frequently omitted (the so-called “truncated” theory) . In the context of this work both components of this term vanish and therefore all results found above are independent of the adopted theory (Israel-Stewart or truncated).

## 5 Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial assistance under grant BFM2000-1322 (M.C.T. Spain) and from Cátedra-FONACIT, under grant 2001001789. .