text:
# The Scalar Sector and the 𝜂→3𝜋 problem

## 1 Introduction

At very large energy scales, the asymptotic freedom of QCD guarantees that a controlled perturbation expansion is a practical tool. At very low energy scales, for example close to the threshold of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. the running QCD coupling constant is expected to be large and perturbation theory is not expected to work. Fortunately, a controlled expansion based on an effective theory with the correct symmetry structure- Chiral Perturbation Theory\- seems to work reasonably well. The new information about Strong Interactions which this approach reveals is closely related to the spectrum and flavor ”family” properties of the lowest lying pseudoscalar meson multiplet and was, in fact, essentially known before QCD.

Clearly it is important to understand how far in energy above threshold the Chiral Perturbation Theory program will take us. To get a rough estimate consider the experimental data for the real part of the $`I=J=0`$ $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude, $`R_0^0`$ displayed in Fig. 1. The chiral perturbation series should essentially give a polynomial fit to this shape, which up to about 1 GeV is crudely reminiscent of one cycle of a sine curve.

Now consider polynomial approximations to one cycle of the sine curve with various numbers of terms. These are illustrated in Fig. 2. Note that each succesive term departs from the true sine curve right after the preceding one. It is clear that something like eight terms are required for a decent fit. This would correspond to seven loop order of chiral perturbation theory and seems presently impractical.

## 2 Need for light scalar mesons

Thus an alternative approach is indicated for going beyond threshold of pi pi scattering up to about 1 GeV. The data itself suggests the presence of s-wave resonances, the lowest of which is denoted the ”sigma”. Physically, one then expects the practical range of chiral perturbation theory to be up to about 450-500 MeV, just before the location of this lowest resonance. In the last few years there have been studies  by many authors which advance this picture. All of them are ”model dependent” but this is probably inevitable for the strongly coupled regime of QCD. For example , in a framework where the amplitude is computed from a non linear chiral Lagrangian containing explicit scalars as well as vectors and pseudoscalars, the fit shown in Fig. 1 emerges as a sum of four pieces: i. the current algebra ”contact” term, ii. the $`\rho `$ exchange diagram iii. a non Breit Wigner $`\sigma (560)`$ pole diagram and exchange, iv. an $`f_0(980)`$ pole in the background produced by the other three. It is not just a simple sum of Born graphs but includes the approximate unitarization features of the non Breit Wigner shape of the sigma and a Ramsauer Townsend mechanism which reverses the sign of the $`f_0(980)`$. Also note that i. and ii. provide very substantial background to the sigma pole, partially explaining why the sigma does not ”jump right out” of various experimental studies. Qualitative agreement with this approach is obtained by K-matrix unitarization of the two flavor linear sigma model  and three flavor linear sigma model  amplitudes.

Workers on scalar mesons entertain the hope that, after the revelations about the vacuum structure of QCD confirmed by the broken chiral symmetric treatment of the pseudoscalars, an understanding of the next layer of the ”strong interaction onion” will be provided by studying the light scalars. An initial question is whether the light scalars belong to a flavor $`SU(3)`$ multiplet as the underlying quark structure might suggest. Apart from the $`\sigma (560)`$, the $`f_0(980)`$ and the isovector $`a_0(980)`$ are fairly well established. This leaves a gap concerning the four strange- so called kappa- states. This question is more controversial than that of the sigma state . In the unitarized non linear chiral Lagrangian framework one must thus consider $`piK`$ scattering. In this case the low energy amplitude is taken to correspond to the sum of a current algebra contact diagram, vector $`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$ exchange diagrams and scalar $`\sigma (560)`$, $`f_0(980)`$ and $`\kappa (900)`$ exchange diagrams. The situation in the interesting $`I=1/2`$ s-wave channel turns out to be very analogous to the $`I=0`$ channel of s-wave $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. Now a non Breit Wigner $`\kappa `$ is required to restore unitarity; it plays the role of the $`\sigma (560)`$ in the $`\pi \pi `$ case. It was found that a satisfactory description of the 1-1.5 GeV s-wave region is also obtained by including the well known $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ scalar resonance, which plays the role of the $`f_0(980)`$ in the $`\pi \pi `$ calculation. As in the case of the sigma, the light kappa seems hidden by background and does not jump right out of the initial analysis of the experimental data.

Thus the nine states associated with the $`\sigma (560)`$, $`\kappa (900)`$, $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ seem to be required in order to fit experiment in this chiral framework. What would their masses and coupling constants suggest about their quark substructure if they were assumed to comprise an SU(3) nonet ? Clearly the mass ordering of the various states is inverted compared to the ”ideal mixing” scenario which approximately holds for most meson nonets. This means that a quark structure for the putative scalar nonet of the form $`N_a^bq_a\overline{q}^b`$ is unlikely since the mass ordering just corresponds to counting the number of heavier strange quarks. Then the nearly degenerate $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ which must have the structure $`N_1^1\pm N_2^2`$ would be lightest rather than heaviest. However the inverted ordering will agree with this counting if we assume that the scalar mesons are schematically constructed as $`N_a^bT_a\overline{T}^b`$ where $`T_aϵ_{acd}\overline{q}^c\overline{q}^d`$ is a ”dual” quark (or anti diquark). This interpretation is strengthened by consideration  of the scalars’ coupling constants to two pseudoscalars. Those couplings depend on the value of a mixing angle, $`\theta _s`$ between $`N_3^3`$ and $`(N_1^1N_2^2)/\sqrt{2})`$. Fitting the coupling constants to the treatments of $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ scattering gives a mixing angle such that $`\sigma N_3^3+`$ ”small”; $`\sigma `$(560) is thus a predominantly non-strange particle in this picture. Furthermore the states $`N_1^1\pm N_2^2`$ now would each predominantly contain two extra strange quarks and would be expected to be heaviest. Four quark pictures of various types have been sugggested as arising from spin-spin interactions in the MIT bag model, unitarized quark models and meson-meson interaction models.

There seems to be another interesting twist to the story of the light scalars. The success of the phenomenological quark model suggests that there exists, in addition, a nonet of “conventional” p-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ scalars in the energy region above 1 GeV. The experimental candidates for these states are $`a_0(1450)(I=1)`$, $`K_0^{}(1430)(I=1/2)`$ and for $`I=0`$, $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$. These are enough for a full nonet plus a glueball. However it is puzzling that the strange $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ isn’t noticeably heavier than the non strange $`a_0(1450)`$ and that they are not lighter than the corresponding spin 2 states. These and another puzzle may be solved in a natural way if the heavier p-wave scalar nonet mixes with a lighter $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ nonet of the type mentioned above. The mixing mechanism makes essential use of the ”bare” lighter nonet having an inverted mass ordering while the heavier ”bare” nonet has the normal ordering. A rather rich structure involving the light scalars seems to be emerging. At lower energies one may consider as a first approximation, ”integrating out” the heavier nonet and retaining just the lighter one.

## 3 Effect of light scalars in $`\eta 3\pi `$

Historically, this isospin violating process has been important as a relatively clean test of the effective chiral Lagrangian approach and as a source of information on the quark mass difference $`m_dm_u`$. As for the experimental status, the shape of the Dalitz plot for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode agrees with chiral models. The experimental width for this mode  is $`267\pm 25`$ eV. On the other hand, the tree level chiral result (which might be expected to be accurate to within 25 per cent or so) is $`106`$ eV while the one loop theoretical number  is $`160\pm 50`$ eV. A correction due to final state interactions, but outside the chiral perturbation expansion, yields  $`209\pm 20`$ eV,

In ref. we studied the effects of light scalars at tree level for this still interesting reaction. The calculation used a chiral Lagrangian of pseudoscalars, vectors and scalars, with the scalar masses and coupling constants taken from ref. mentioned above and from. We included non minimal derivative terms of pseudoscalars but will only describe here the results for the minimal pseudoscalar model with scalars and neglect of vectors. The 16 Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The ”driving mechanism” for this decay is the non zero value of $`m_dm_u`$ which results in isospin violating bilinear pseudoscalar terms $`\eta ,\eta ^{}\pi ^0`$, bilinear scalar terms $`f_0.f_0^{}a_0^0`$ as well as the quadrilinear term in (a) of Fig.3.

The pseudoscalar diagrams in Fig. 3 (with the minimal chiral Lagrangian) predict a width of 106 eV for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode. A priori one might expect important contributions from the sigma exchange diagrams in (a),(b) and (c) of Fig. 4, since the $`\sigma (560)`$ propagators will not be too far from their mass shells. However the signs are such that these three leading scalar contributions almost cancel each other. The net result is a total increase of the tree width by about 13 per cent to about 120 eV. This is based on the fits we obtained for the coupling constants which appear. As discussed in section IV of  there may be some room to increase this, owing to the delicate partial cancellations. The result is in the right direction but does illustrate that some care is needed in treating this simple looking reaction.

We are grateful to M. Harada, P. Herrera-Siklody and F. Sannino for very helpful discussions. We would like to thank Professors K. Yamawaki, Y. Kikukawa and M. Harada for all their hard work in organizing this stimulating conference. The work of A. A-R. and J.S. has been supported in part by the US DOE under contract DE-FG-02-85ER 40231. D.B. wishes to acknowledge support from the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) under DOE Contract No. DE-AC05-84ER40150. The work of A.H.F. has been supported by grants from the State of New York/UUP Professional Development Committee, and the 2002 Faculty Grant from the School of Arts and Sciences, SUNY Institute of Technology.


format: text

text:
# Internal structure of preformed Cooper pairs

## I Introduction

High-temperature cuprate superconductors show remarkable deviations from Fermi liquid behaviour in their normal state, in particular in the underdoped region. One of the most striking features is the opening of a pseudogap above the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$ and below another temperature, $`T^{}`$, that increases when the doping is reduced. This pseudogap appears to have the same angular dependence and magnitude as the superconducting gap below $`T_c`$, with which it seems to merge at the phase transition. In the pseudogap region, thermodynamic quantities and transport coefficients also deviate from Fermi liquid behaviour. To explain these anomalies, different scenarios can be invoked. One of them is based on the formation in the pseudogap region of incoherent Cooper pairs, also called “preformed” pairs. At a lower temperature, phase coherence is established among these pairs leading to the superconducting transition. In this respect, the superconducting transition can be regarded almost as a Bose condensation of preformed Cooper pairs, while the BCS behaviour, in which the formation of the Cooper pairs and their condensation occur at the same temperature, is recovered as one approaches the overdoped region. The fact that the low temperature coherence length is much shorter in the underdoped regime is consistent with the picture of preformed pairs well localized in space. In this framework, it is interesting to investigate the structure of these preformed pairs.

In the superconducting state, the Cooper pairs can be characterized by the so-called “pair-size” $`\xi _{pair}`$, which is obtained from the pair correlation function for particles paired with opposite spins. In the zero temperature limit, this reduces to the modulus square of the anomalous Green function. This definition can be generalized to be valid in the pseudogap region, where the anomalous Green function is zero.

We base our calculations on the two-dimensionale attractive Hubbard model with an attraction acting either on electrons on the same lattice site or on neighbouring sites. Analytic and numerical work has shown that such a model can decribe the formation of electronic pairs of $`s`$ wave and $`d`$ wave, respectively, and the transition to the superconducting state. Going beyond the weak coupling limit, the formation af a pseudogap above the transition temperature is found. In order to describe the internal structure of preformed pairs in underdoped high-temperature superconductors we study the Green function for the operator which creates a pair of particles whose partners are at a certain relative distance, and study how this internal distance varies as a function of temperature, interaction strength and density of particles. To this end, we will consider a Bethe-Salpeter approach and introduce a $`T`$matrix formalism, which takes into account the relevant interaction channel of repeated two-particle scattering.

In the next section we give an overview of our theoretical approach. In the case of a dilute system of charge carriers, which is of interest to us, the simplest approximation to the Bethe-Salpeter equation allows to separate the center of mass motion of a pair from its internal degree of freedom. The former is described by the standard two-particle $`T`$matrix. The imaginary part of the latter is essentially the spectral function of a pair with momentum $`𝐏`$, but it does not give any information about the internal structure of the pair. The dependence of the pair propagator on the internal distance between the partners of the pair shows up in what we call the ”pair structure function” $`g_P(𝐏,𝝆)`$, which gives essentially the probability for the two partners of a pair, with a given center of mass momentum $`𝐏`$, of being at the distance $`𝝆`$ from each other. We present and discuss our numerical results in section III, where we show the influence of various parameters, such as temperature, chemical potential and interaction strength, on $`g_P`$ .The main conclusions from our work are summarized in section IV. In Appendix A we discuss the form of the one-electron spectral functions in the pseudogap region and in Appendix B we relate our pair structure function to the total number of preformed pairs which is usually introduced in the framework of the Landau-Ginzburg description of the superconducting phase transition.

## II Theoretical description of the pairs

We consider an extended attractive two-dimensional Hubbard model given by the Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>,\sigma }{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+h.c.){\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}U(ij)n_in_j`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(n_i+n_i)`$ (2)
where $`t`$ is the hopping parameter between nearest neighbor sites and $`U(ij)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ is an attractive interaction coupling the electronic density $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ at two different sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. All our calculations are performed in the grand-canonical ensemble, using the chemical potential $`\mu `$, rather than the electronic density, as a parameter.

The Hubbard model has been analysed by many authors, using various kinds of approximation techniques, in order to describe the instability leading to superconductivity and to investigate the influence of the attractive interaction on the electronic properties, both above and below the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$. By increasing the strength of the attraction, it is possible to follow the evolution of a variety of physical quantities in a cross-over between a BCS-like behaviour to a scenario where superconductivity can be related to the condensation of preformed pairs. Our present objective consists in analysing, in the framework of (1), the structure of the preformed pairs in the normal state for $`T>T_c`$, in the domain where simulations show the formation of a pseudogap. One of the current interpretations of this unusual feature in the cuprates precisely invokes the presence of preformed electronic pairs, existing up to a temperature $`T^{}`$, that can be substantially higher than $`T_c`$. The question of the structure of the pairs below $`T_c`$ will be treated elsewhere.

Let us consider the operator

$$Q^{}(𝐫_{ij},𝝆_{ij})=c_i^{}c_j^{},$$
(3)
defined on the lattice sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ with coordinates $`𝐱_i`$ and $`𝐱_j`$, which creates a pair of electrons with opposite spins. We define the center of mass coordinate of the pair $`𝐫_{ij}`$ and the relative distance $`𝝆_{ij}`$, as:

$`𝐫_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐱_i+𝐱_j)`$ (4)
$`𝝆_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐱_i𝐱_j.`$ (5)
Although $`Q^{}`$ and its adjoint do not satisfy the canonical commutation relations for independent particles, they can be used in order to describe electronic pair correlations through the dynamic correlation function:

$`\chi (𝐫_{ij},𝝆_{ij},t;𝐫_{rs},𝝆_{rs},t^{})=(i)`$ (6)
$`\times T\left[Q(𝐫_{ij},𝝆_{ij},t)Q^{}(𝐫_{rs},𝝆_{rs},t^{})\right],`$ (7)
where $`T`$ denotes the time ordering operator. Manifestly, $`\chi `$ is a two-electron Green’s function $`G_2`$

$$G_2(1,2;1^{},2^{})=T\left[c(1)c(2)c^{}(2^{})c^{}(1^{})\right],$$
(8)
with a special choice of arguments (the numbers $`i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{}`$ are a shorthand notation for the generalized coordinates $`𝐱_i,t_i,\sigma _i`$ of space, time and spin variables):

$$\chi (𝐫_{ij},𝝆_{ij},t;𝐫_{rs},𝝆_{rs},t^{})=iG_2(𝐱_i,t;𝐱_j,t;𝐱_r,t^{};𝐱_s,t^{}).$$
(9)
A simple and convenient approximation for evaluating $`G_2`$ for a system described by the Hamiltonian (1) consists in solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation:

$`G_2(1,2;1^{},2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`G(1,1^{})G(2,2^{})G(1,2^{})G(2,1^{})`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`iG(1,\underset{¯}{1})G(2,\underset{¯}{2})U(\underset{¯}{1}\underset{¯}{2})G_2(1,2;\underset{¯}{1},\underset{¯}{2})`$ (11)
taking into account only repeated scattering events between two electrons (thus restricting our analysis to low density systems) and expressing $`G_2`$ in term of the “full” one-electron Green’s function $`G`$ and of the attraction potential $`U`$. Here and in the following we use imaginary time arguments, $`0ti\beta ,\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/(k_BT)`$, with the corresponding time-ordering. We also adopted in (10) the convention for which the bar under two identical arguments denotes integration over space and time.

Introducing the special choice of variables needed for the pair correlation (9) into the general Bethe-Salpeter equation (10) and denoting the dynamic correlation function (6) by $`\chi (𝐫_{ij}𝐫_{rs},𝝆_{ij},𝝆_{rs},tt^{})\chi (𝐫_i,𝝆_j,𝝆_l,t)`$ (where now $`𝐫_i=𝐢a`$ and $`𝝆_j=𝐣a`$ are discrete vectors, that represent the distance among two sites on a (square) lattice of constant $`a`$), one obtains

$`\chi (𝐫_i,𝝆_j,𝝆_l,t)`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒢(𝐫_i,𝝆_j𝝆_l,t)+i{\displaystyle 𝑑t^{}\underset{m}{}\underset{k}{}}`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`𝒢(𝐫_i𝐫_m,𝝆_j𝐫_k,tt^{})U(𝐫_k)`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\chi (𝐫_m,𝐫_k,𝝆_l,t^{})`$ (14)
where $`𝒢`$ is the particle-particle bubble:

$$𝒢(𝐫_i,𝝆_j,t)=G(𝐫_i+\frac{𝝆_j}{2},t)G(𝐫_i\frac{𝝆_j}{2},t),$$
(15)
describing the motion of two independent particles whose properties have been renormalized by the interaction. The spin indices have been omitted, since we are interested in the particular configuration of opposite spin of the partners of the pairs, and the interaction is independent of the spin variable, so that no spin-flip processes have to be considered.

We now apply a Fourier transformation with respect to the variable $`𝐫_i`$ \- corresponding to the difference between the center of mass coordinates in $`\chi `$ \- to equation (12), introducing the center of mass momentum $`𝐏`$, and we go from imaginary time to (bosonic) Matsubara frequencies $`z_\nu `$. This yields

$`\chi (𝐏,𝝆_j,𝝆_k,z_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒢(𝐏,𝝆_j𝝆_k,z_\nu )+i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}U(𝐫_i)`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`𝒢(𝐏,𝝆_j𝐫_i,z_\nu )\chi (𝐏,𝐫_i,𝝆_k,z_\nu ).`$ (17)
For a local attraction $`U(𝐫)=U_0\delta (𝐫)`$ equation (16) becomes algebraic and $`\chi `$ can immediately be related to the particle-particle bubble function $`𝒢`$ (see below). When the interaction has a finite spatial extension, which is needed for treating $`d`$-wave pairing, one has either to solve the integral equation (16) or to introduce a separable form for the Fourier transform of $`U`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐤𝐤^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}e^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐱_l}U(𝐱_l)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}U_\lambda \varphi _\lambda (𝐤)\varphi _\lambda ^{}(𝐤),`$ (19)
$`\varphi _\lambda `$ being the various characteristic shape functions of the potential (the limit of the local potential can be retrieved by taking only the mode $`\varphi _\lambda =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$). In this more general case, equation (16) is replaced by

$`\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆^{},z_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}e^{i𝐤(\rho \rho ^{})}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )+i{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}U_\lambda `$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}e^{i𝐤𝝆}\varphi _\lambda ^{}(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}e^{i𝐤^{}𝝆^{}}F_\lambda (𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu ),`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )`$ is the Fourier transform of the particle-particle bubble (15) with respect to the the center of mass position $`𝐫`$, internal distance $`𝝆`$ and time, and $`F_\lambda `$ is an intermediate-step quantity obtained from the convolution of the Fourier transform of the dynamic correlation function $`\chi `$ with respect to the variables $`𝝆_i`$ and $`𝝆_j`$, and the characteristic shape function of the potential:

$`F_\lambda (𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}\varphi _\lambda (𝐤^{}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i𝐤𝝆_i}e^{i𝐤^{}𝝆_j}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`\chi (𝐏,𝝆_i,𝝆_j,z_\nu ).`$ (24)
In the following, we will select one value of $`\lambda `$ and treat two cases separately:

* s-wave pairing: $`\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$;
* d-wave pairing: $`\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)=\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$,

where we have assumed the lattice constant to be $`a=1`$.

We will finally aim at the following quantities:

1. the usual two-particles T-matrix $`T(𝐏,z_\nu )`$, which contains all the details of the interaction but does not show any dependence on the internal distance $`𝝆_i`$ between the partners of the “pair”. This quantity is given by

$$T(𝐏,z_\nu )=\frac{U_\lambda }{1iU_\lambda _𝐤|\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)|^2\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )};$$
(25)
2. the spectral function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐏,𝝆,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of a pair with center of mass momentum $`𝐏`$, energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and internal distance $`𝝆`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐏,𝝆,\mathrm{\Omega })=Im\{\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆,\mathrm{\Omega }+i0^+)\};$$
(26)
3. the “pair structure function” $`g_P(𝐏,𝝆)`$, that gives the internal structure of a pair having momentum $`𝐏`$ and internal distance $`𝝆`$:

$$g_P(𝐏,𝝆)=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }N_B(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐏,𝝆,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(27)
$`N_B`$ being the Bose-Einstein distribution function.

The equations (20) and (23) can now be solved in two steps. First, taking the double Fourier transform of (20) one can relate $`F`$ to the Fourier transform of the “bubble” $`𝒢`$ with respect to the variable $`𝝆`$:

$$F_\lambda (𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )=\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)\frac{T(𝐏,z_\nu )}{U_\lambda }\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu ).$$
(28)
Inserting this result into (20) yields:

$`\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆,z_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒢(𝐏,\mathrm{𝟎},z_\nu )+T(𝐏,z_\nu )`$ (29)
$`\times `$ $`\widehat{𝒢}(𝐏,𝝆,z_\nu )\widehat{𝒢}(𝐏,𝝆,z_\nu ),`$ (30)
with a “bubble” weighted by the form function $`\varphi _\lambda `$:

$$\widehat{𝒢}(𝐏,𝝆,z_\nu )=\underset{k}{}e^{i𝐤𝝆}\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤,z_\nu ).$$
(31)
The two-fold effect of the interaction potential is clearly visible in this result. On one hand, it leads to a “renormalized” one-electron propagator $`G`$ and thus to a bubble $`𝒢`$ describing the motion of two independent “renormalized” quasi-particles. On the other hand, the $`T`$-matrix represents the scattering processes that finally lead to the formation of the preformed pairs. Following expression (27) we can thus construct a function, $`g_P^0`$, that represents the internal structure of two independent particles with center of mass momentum $`𝐏`$ and which is given by the first term in (29):

$`g_P^0(𝐏,𝝆)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }N_B(\mathrm{\Omega })Im\{\chi ^0(𝐏,𝝆,𝝆,z_\nu )|_{z_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }+i0^+}\}}`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }N_B(\mathrm{\Omega })Im\{𝒢(𝐏,\mathrm{𝟎},z_\nu )|_{z_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }+i0^+}\}}.`$ (33)
Being independent of $`𝝆`$, this contribution forms a constant “background” to the structure of $`g_P`$, resulting from the direct two-particles scattering. For this reason, we subtract this background contribution from $`g_P`$, so that instead of the defintion (26) we will use the ”rescaled”:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐏,𝝆,\mathrm{\Omega })=Im\{\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆,\mathrm{\Omega }+i\eta )\chi ^0(𝐏,0,\mathrm{\Omega }+i\eta )\}.$$
(34)
However, one has to bear in mind that possible negative values of $`g_P`$ simply mean a reduction of the number of corresponding pairs with respect to this independent particle background.

We do not attempt a fully self-consistent calculation of $`G`$ \- and thus of $`𝒢`$ \- and $`\chi `$. Rather, we approximate the one-electron spectral function in the pseudogap regime we are interested in by a BCS-like form with a finite linewidth $`\gamma `$. The corresponding result for $`𝒢`$ is derived in Appendix A.

In the following section we will discuss the general behavior and present numerical results for the $`T`$matrix and the pair structure function for the $`s`$ and $`d`$wave pairing symmetries.

## III Numerial results

Our numerical calculations are based on the tight-binding spectrum resulting from the kinetic energy part of the Hamiltonian in (1) with a nearest neighbor hopping $`t`$ in two dimensions. We use the total bandwidth $`W=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}t`$ as our energy unit. The zero of the energy is in the centre of the band. Assuming that the underdoped cuprates with a pronounced pseudogap are situated in an intermediate coupling regime of the attractive Hubbard model  we chose an interaction strength $`U`$ is of the order of $`0.5W`$. Numerical simulations  of the attractive Hubbard model with a local interaction of this strength in two dimensions point to a critical temperature $`T_c`$ on the order of $`0.01W`$ *for s-wave symmetry*. This result has to be taken as a qualitative indication, since it is not clear whether quantum Monte Carlo calculations can really represent correctly the Kosterlitz-Thouless-type (KT) phase transition that is expected in two dimensions. From Quantum Monte Carlo calculations, the gap value in the s-wave case for the interaction strength half of the bandwidth, is of the order of $`t/2`$.

Based on these numerical results from simulations, we choose a gap parameter value for which the critical temperature is approximately $`0.2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the $`s`$wave case. In the $`d`$wave case, however, the interaction strength should be of order of the bandwidth to obtain reasonable values for the critical temperature, and still maintain the proportion between the critical temperature and the value of the pseudogap approximately equal to $`0.2`$.

In order to incorporate the effect of the finite lifetime of the pair excitations without washing out the effect of the pseudogap, we choose the finite linewidth $`\gamma `$ (see Appendix A) to be of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$. In this way, in fact, one can still see rather sharp features in the pseudogap region, while for bigger values of $`\gamma `$ they are strongly reduced.

The relevant temperature interval of the pseudogap regime is determined in the framework of our description of pairing. In the usual T-matrix approximation, which results from the Bethe-Salpeter equation (10), the superconducting instability occurs at the temperature where the “Thouless criterion” is fulfilled:

$$T^1(𝐏=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},z_\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(35)
i.e., where pairs with zero centre of mass momentum begin to form a true bound state. This is a “mean-field-like” criterion that corresponds to our approach to pair structure, which is, of course, less precise than KT, but the latter would require to go more deeply into the analysis of phase fluctuations.

In Figure 1 we show the effect of temperature on the real and the imaginary parts of the T-matrix $`T(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{\Omega }+i0^+)`$ for the case $`𝐏=0`$. As the temperature approaches the transition value, the peaks in the real and imaginary part of the $`T`$ matrix become sharper, and move toward $`\omega =0`$. The inverse of the width of the imaginary part peak can be interpreted as the lifetime of the preformed pairs. We obtain for the lifetime the values $`25,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.5},`$ and $`1.8`$, for $`T/T_C`$ equals to $`1.5`$, $`3`$ and $`6`$, respectively. The lifetime is expressed in unit of the inverse of the Fermi energy $`E_F`$, where $`E_F=\mu E_{bottom}`$ and $`E_{bottom}`$ is the bottom of the band energy value.

For our calculation, we will then consider the two temperature ratio: $`T/T_c=1.5`$ and $`T/T_c=3`$ to constrast the cases in which the quasiparticle features are more or less pronounced.

We study the behaviour of the function $`g_P`$ for variuos values of the pair internal momentum. Moreover, we also investigate the influence of temperature, chemical potential and interaction strength on the shape of $`g_P`$.

For comparison, we will also show the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for $`s`$ and $`d`$wave interaction symmetries. Although the pair structure function is defined on a lattice, we present it as a continuous function, as a guideline for the eye to follow its dependence on the relative distance.

### A $`s`$wave pairing

We begin by considering the simplest case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, in order to show the general tendence of the pair-structure function without the complication of the influence of the pseudogap on the pairs. In Figure 2, we show a typical set of curves for $`s`$wave symmetry pairing for the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. The function is calculated for the relative distance directed along the $`x`$ axis in the Brillouin zone. In the $`s`$wave case, however, the pair structure function is isotropic, reflecting the spatial symmetry of the order parameter, so that $`g_P(𝐏,𝝆_x)`$ is representative of the behaviour along the other directions. Moreover, the pair structure function depends mainly on the modulus of the centre of mass momentum, while the variations of the direction of $`𝐏`$ have no relevance for $`g_P`$. As can be easily seen, the effect of increasing pair internal momentum is to reduce the number of pairs and to shrink their size (which can be seen as a sort of “relativistic length contraction”). It is apparent that the extension of the pairs in all the cases here considered is of the order of the lattice constant. The effect of the temperature on the distribution function is seen by comparing Figure 2a and 2b. As expected, raising the temperature reduces the number of pairs. A slight decrease of the avarage extension of the pair can also be observed. We notice also that increasing the temperature tends to wash out the difference of population of pairs with different internal momentum. In fact, due to the increase of the kinetic energy for particle, it becames easier to form pairs with finite center of mass momentum, so that the number of the pairs with $`𝐏0`$ increases, even if the net effect of increasing temperature is to lower the total number of pairs.

In Figure 2c we show $`g_P`$ for a different value of the chemical potential $`\mu `$. The comparison is made with Figure 2a, at a fix temperature ratio with respect to the critical one: $`T/T_c=1.5`$. As the chemical potential moves up from the bottom of the band (i.e. for increasing density, but still in the limit of validity of our $`T`$matrix approximation), the number of pairs increases, while the size of the pair slightly decreases. Fixing the chemical potential and for a stronger interaction, we can observe that the number of pairs increases, while their spatial extension does not vary appreciably (Figure 2d).

We present now the results for the pseudogap region, i.e. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ (Figure 3). The effect of a pseudogap opening in the single particle spectrum is to increase the number of pairs and to enlarge their size for zero internal momentum, while for finite value of $`𝐏`$ it seems that the opening of a pseudogap suppress the pairing, as one can see comparing Figures 2a and 3a. As already mentioned, we choose the parameters for the pseudogap region from the results of Monte Carlo simulation. The dependence of the (pseudo)gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the chemical potential and on the interaction has been stated by fixing the relative magnitude of the critical temperature and the pseudogap amplitude to be the one tipical for cuprates.

As we noticed, the opening of a pseudogap strongly depresses the number of pairs having a finite momentum. This behaviour becomes even more evident when the strength of the interaction increases (Figure 3d), which in turn implies a bigger value of the pseudogap. A part from the different behaviour at finite momentum, the qualitative dependence of the pair distribution function on the parameters in presence of a pseudogap does not differ from the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. Also, we have not found any substantial variation of the avarage internal distance of the pairs by varying the interaction strength. This is in part due to the fact that we confine our study to the pseudogap region, so that the range of variation for the interaction strength is not sufficient to crossover from Bose-Einstein condensation to BCS behaviour. In Figure (4) we show the variation of the pair internal distance with respect to variation of the interaction strength for the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, where we have normalized the pair structure function to its zero internal distance value, as we want to emphasize the trend of the functions. As it can be easily seen, the internal distance has doubled as $`U`$ has passed from $`0.6W`$ to $`0.2W`$.

This evolution is similar to what has been obtained by Paredes and Cirac  for a system of bosonic atoms in an optical lattice, which is mapped into a fermionic system via a Jordan-Wigner transformation with a local attraction $`V`$. The pairs are formed according to a variational wave function, whose spatial extension changes by changing the attraction strength, and results in localized pairs for large value of $`V`$, and delocalized pairs for small $`V`$.

In the context of cuprate supercondutors, it is interesting also to consider the extended $`s`$wave symmetry, which has been recently proposed to explain some experiments. In Figure 5 we present the pair structure function calculated in the pseudogap region for $`\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)=\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y`$. We can see that in this case the maximum of the distribution is shifted from zero internal distance to a finite distance of the order of one lattice constant. However, the effects of the variation of the parameters on the pair structure function are the same as in the full gapped $`s`$wave.

### B $`d`$wave pairing

The $`d`$wave case does not differ too much in the qualitative behaviour from the previous cases. Nevertheless, in the $`d`$wave case, $`g_P`$ vanishes for zero internal distance, as it should be from the symmetry of the interaction and of the pseudogap parameter, and has its maximum at a distance of the order of a lattice constant, slightly higher than the extended $`s`$wave case. The fact that the pairs have again typically the size of a lattice constant is a consequence of our nearest neighbor type of attraction. As for the $`s`$wave case, we first analize the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ (Figure 6). Besides the general features alreaady mentioned, we can see that a secondary peak appears in the zero momentum distribution function at a distance of three or four lattice constant. Moving pairs show a slight contraction and they are less numerous than pairs at rest. As the temperature is raised, the distribution function is suppressed for $`P=0`$ and enhanced for $`P0`$, as in the $`s`$wave case (compare Figure 6a and 6b).

By lowering the interaction strength (Figure 6a and 6d), the number of pairs with internal momentum $`𝐏`$ tends to diminish strongly. Moving the chemical potential more inside the band (Figure 6a and 6c) has as a result an enhancement of the number of pairs. In this case, the increase in the population of pairs with finite momentum is remarkable, in contrast to the behaviour obtained when the interaction strength is changed, when no noticeable change in the relative populations for different $`𝐏`$ appears. The result obtained by varying the chemical potential can be attributed to a greater avarage kinetic energy due to the spatial confinement of the particle at higher densities. The form of $`g_P`$ shows the typical Friedel oscillations, the wave length of which depends on electronic density (as can be seen when changing the value of $`\mu `$).

The opening of a pseudogap (Figure 7a) strongly enhances the number of pairs for total momentum $`P=0`$, while suppresses the number of pairs with $`P0`$. No change in the pair size is instead noticeable. Another fact to be noticed is that when a gap opens we need to move toward stronger interaction value in order to have a reasonable value for the transition temperature. This is due to the fact that a finite value of the interaction in the 2D Hubbard model is needed for the $`d`$wave case to have a bound state in the related two-body problem. Moreover, the Friedel oscillations are in this case hidden by the oscillation of the $`d`$wave symmetry of pseudogap parameter, of typical period $`\pi /a`$.

As expected, we obtained that the $`d`$-wave pairs are elongated in the direction of the coordinate axis, whereas their width shrinks to zero for $`𝝆`$ along the diagonal ($`\rho _x=\rho _y`$) (see Figure 8). As in the $`s`$wave case, the pair structure function is not very sensitive to the direction of $`𝐏`$, but depends only on its magnitude.

The effects of temperature and interaction strength on the pair structure function are not different in the general behaviour from the case with no pseudogap. To increase the chemical potential depresses strongly the zero momentum pair distribution. On the contrary, the populations of pairs with finite momentum increase. To explain this enhancement, we can invoke the same explanation as in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ case (namely, the increase of kinetic energy due to confinement). We can also note a decrease of the avarage extension of the pair, as the secondary peak in the pair structure function in figure 7c has almost completely disappeared. It is to note, however, that the total number of pairs seems to decrease with increasing chemical momentum, despite the fact that the total number of particles is higher. This could be attributed to a breakdown of our $`T`$matrix approximation, or to the fact that we are approaching a region in which the pseudogap is closing.

## IV Discussion

In this work, we have investigated the internal structure of preformed pairs in the pseudogap region of high temperature superconductors. We assume that this region can be described by an attractive Hubbard model. In this framework, we have studied the Green function for the operator which creates a pair of particles whose partners are at a certain relative distance. We applied the Bethe-Salpeter approach and introduce a $`T`$matrix formalism, which takes into account the relevant interaction channel of repeated two-particle scattering. Our calculations show that in a system described by an attractive Hubbard model, the opening of a pseudogap in the one particle spectrum increases the probability of finding two particles at a distance of the order of the lattice spacing, with respect to the case in which no gap is present. We have also found that in the range of values that we have considered for the parameters (and that should correspond to the pseudogap region) the average extension of the pair is of the order of a lattice constant. The interparticle distance does not change appreciably by varying the interaction strength, but this is not too surprising since we have not investigated the BCS limit of our model, where the pseudogap region is believed not to be present. Nevertheless, in the broken symmetry phase the dependence of $`\xi _{pair}`$ at $`T=0`$ on the interaction strength is instead quite strong, such that one could presume that the anomalous Green functions might in fact bear the major effect to the extension of the pair. The effect of increasing temperature is to reduce the total number of preformed pairs and to shorten their internal distance. Also, by increasing the avarage kinetic energy of the particle, it changes the relative weight of the populations corresponding to different centre of mass momentum $`𝐏`$, depressing the one with $`𝐏=0`$ more than the ones with $`𝐏0`$. The influence of the chemical potential on the pair distribution function reflects the influence of the density of particles. It is not surprising, then, that moving the chemical potential more inside the band (i.e., for higher densities) increases the number of pairs with higher momentum: the kinetic energy of the particle should in fact increase as well, and so does the avarage momentum of the pairs, since the number of pairs for a given momentum is given by the integral over the internal distance of the pair structure function (see Appendix B).

One interesting question concerns the connection between the preformed pairs and the structure of Cooper pairs below $`T_c`$. We in fact expect to recover in the broken symmetry phase the usual BCS to Bose-Einstein condensation behaviour, which obviously affects also the average internal pair distance.

Another interesting observation related to the pair correlation function, which is equivalent to our pair structure function integrated over all the centre of mass momenta, is the fact that in the broken symmetry phase it is connected to the correlation energy. This energy, in turn, plays a key role in the thermodynamics of the phase transition itself. The real space picture of this pair correlation function, reported in  looks similar to what we obtained for $`g_P(P,𝝆)`$ above $`T_c`$ both for $`s`$ and $`d`$wave case as can be seen by comparing with Figure 8 (we point out that in contrast to reference , we reported the values of the pair structure function not only on the lattice sites, but also on intermediate positions).

Besides this aspect related to superconductors, another possible relevance for the internal structure of Cooper pairs is in the very active field of systems of ultracold atoms. In fact, while it is very difficult to measure the internal structure of the Cooper pairs in a superconductor, due to the very complicated structure of the cuprates, in the case of atoms trapped in optical lattice it is possible to carefully control all the parameters for the interaction among particles. Moreover, it should be possible to actually measure the extension of the Cooper pairs, for example, by analyzing the response to a Raman laser which couples to the internal states of the pair, as suggested in .

In order to make a more meaningful comparison with the cited papers dealing with the superconducting phase, we should however calculate the pair structure function below $`T_c`$. That will be the subject of a successive work.

We thank S. Sharapov, P. Pieri and G. C. Strinati for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Competence Centre ”MaNEP” of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

## A Spectral function in the pseudogap region

To mimic the presence of a pseudogap, we consider the form of the BCS Green function with a finite linewidth. Due to the absence of long range order the “anomalous” BCS Green function is zero. We have then:

$$G(𝐤,z)=\frac{1}{z\xi (𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐤)}{z\xi (𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}},$$
(A1)
where $`\xi (𝐤)=2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ is the single particle disperion, $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the excitation lifetime and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ is the pseudogap. It is possible to rewrite (A1) in terms of the quasiparticles excitation energy, that is $`E(𝐤)=\sqrt{\xi ^2(𝐤+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐤)}`$:

$`G(𝐤,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z+\xi (𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(z+E(𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma })(zE(𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma })}}`$ (A2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_𝐤^2}{zE(𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_𝐤^2}{z+E(𝐤)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$
where $`u_𝐤^2=(E(𝐤)+\xi (𝐤))/(2E(𝐤))`$ and $`v_𝐤^2=(E(𝐤)\xi (𝐤))/(2E(𝐤))`$. From (A2) we can deduce the form of the spectral function:

$$A(𝐤,z)=\frac{1}{\pi }\left(\frac{u_𝐤^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(zE(𝐤))^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+\frac{v_𝐤^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(z+E(𝐤))^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right).$$
(A3)
The particle-particle bubble can be written in term of the spectral function of the single particle Green functions:

$`𝒢(𝐏,𝐤,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z_\nu }{}}G(𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐏}{2}},z_\nu )G(𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{𝐏}{2}},zz_\nu )`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}A(𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐏}{2}},\omega ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}A(𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{𝐏}{2}},\omega ^{})`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_F(\omega )+f_F(\omega ^{})1}{z\omega \omega ^{}}}.`$
Replacing the expression for the single particle spectral function (A3) into the previous equation and performing the substitution $`z\mathrm{\Omega }+i\delta `$, we can obtain the expression for the spectral function of the particle-particle bubble $`I(𝐏,𝐤,\mathrm{\Omega })`$:

$`I(𝐏,𝐤,\mathrm{\Omega })Im𝒢(𝐏,𝐤,\mathrm{\Omega }+i\delta )=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{u_1^2u_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }(E_1+E_2))^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2v_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }+(E_1+E_2))^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^2v_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }(E_1E_2))^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2u_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }+(E_1E_2))^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}),`$ (A5)
where we used the shorthand notation $`1=𝐤+𝐏/2`$ and $`2=𝐤𝐏/2`$. The parameter that enters our calculations and that mimics the pseudogap is then the linewidth $`\gamma =2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the excitation described by the particle-particle bubble.

## B Number of preformed pairs

In this Appendix we relate the definition of the pair correlation function (6) to the number $`N_{c.p.}`$ of fluctuating Cooper pairs above $`T_c`$. If the analysis is carried out close enough to the critical temperature, one can define the density of fluctuating Cooper pairs starting from the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory. Above $`T_c`$, the order parameter $`\psi (𝝆)`$ has a fluctuating origin and depends on spatial coordinates even in the absence of magnetic field. The fluctuating thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(fl)}`$ is then:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(fl)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(s)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle }d𝐫[ϵ\psi (𝐫)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\alpha }}\psi (𝐫)^4`$ (B1)
$`+`$ $`\eta _D\psi (𝐫)^2]`$ (B2)
where $`ϵ=\mathrm{ln}(T/T_c)1`$, $`\alpha =1/(4m\eta _D)`$ and $`\eta _D`$ is the phenomenological GL constant. The GL order parameter undergoes equilibrium fluctuations which, close enough to the transition temperature, can be described by a probability distribution:

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{(fl})]=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\alpha }{T}\underset{𝐤}{}(ϵ+\eta _Dk^2)\psi _𝐤^2]$$
(B3)
where Fourier transform of the order parameter with respect to the spatial variables has been carried out. The average value for the square of the fluctuating GL order parameter is then:

$$|\psi _𝐤^{(fl)}|^2=\frac{|\psi _𝐤|^2𝒫(𝐤)d|\psi _𝐤|^2}{𝒫(𝐤)d|\psi _𝐤|^2}.$$
(B4)
The number of fluctuating Cooper pairs $`N_{c.p.}`$ is determined by the average value of the square of the GL order parameter modulus:

$$N_{c.p.}=\underset{𝐤}{}|\psi _𝐤^{(fl)}|^2\mathrm{exp}i(𝐤𝐫)_{𝐫0}.$$
(B5)
The number of fluctuating Cooper pairs has been obtained measuring the Knight shift and the nuclear spin relaxation under magnetic field by Zheng and co-workers. These quantities reflect indeed the pseudogap behaviour, and their reduction above $`T_c`$ is strongly magnetic field dependent accordingly to a scaling relation that depends on the effects of the Cooper pair density fluctuations.

To relate the definition (B5) to our pair correlation function (6), we consider the partition function for the Hamiltonian (1). For the sake of simplicity, we consider the case of on-site interaction $`U(ij)=U\delta _{i,j}`$, where $`\delta `$ is the Kronecker delta function. By means of a Hubbard-Stratonovic transformation we can rewrite the partition function in term of the classical field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )`$ and its complex conjugate:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Tre^{\beta H}=Tre^{\beta H_0}𝒯{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _0^{i\beta }}`$ (B6)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏}{}}|U|^1|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )|^2+(Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )+`$
$`+`$ $`Q_0(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏,\tau ))]d\tau ,`$
where $`𝒯`$ is the time-ordering operator and $`Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )`$ is the Fourier transform with respect to spatial coordinates and time of the local pairing operator defined in (3) for $`i=j`$. $`H_0`$ is the non interacting part of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ (Eq. 1).

In order to obtain the two-particle Green function we are interested in, we introduce the source field, $`\eta (𝐏,\tau )`$ and its complex conjugate, which couples to the pairing operator, to obtain the action term (replacing the exponent of (B6)):

$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{i\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏}{}}|U|^1|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )|^2+Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )(\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )+`$ (B7)
$`+`$ $`\eta (𝐏,\tau ))+Q_0(𝐏,\tau )(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏,\tau )+\eta ^{}(𝐏,\tau ))d\tau .`$
If we now differenciate the partition function $`Z`$ with respect to the fields $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, we obtain the Green function for the local pairing operator:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta ^{}(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta (𝐏,\tau )}}\mathrm{log}Z_{\eta =0,\eta ^{}=0}`$ $`=`$ (B8)
$`=T[Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )`$ $`Q_0(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})].`$ (B9)
We can now define a new field: $`\xi (𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )+\eta (𝐏,\tau )`$, so that Eq. (B7) becomes:

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{i\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏}{}}|U|^1|\xi (𝐏,\tau )\eta (𝐏,\tau )|^2+`$ (B10)
$`+`$ $`Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )\xi (𝐏,\tau )+Q_0(𝐏,\tau )\xi ^{}(𝐏,\tau )d\tau .`$
Differentiating $`Z`$ again with respect to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ we obtain the equality:

$`T\left[Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )Q_0(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})\right]_{\tau ^{}=\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏^{},\tau )}{U^2}}`$ (B11)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{|U|}},`$ (B12)
where we have set $`\tau ^{}=\tau `$ in order to discuss the relation among this expression and the equation for the number of Cooper pairs derived from the (time independent) GL theory. Above the critical temperature, the fluctuating GL order parameter is proportional to the classical field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )`$ we have introduced. Equation (B11) essentially confirms formula (B5), which represents the number of fluctuating Cooper pairs that have *a fixed distance* between the components, namely $`𝝆=0`$ for an on-site interaction.

We want now calculate the Green function for the $`Q`$ operator for an internal distance $`𝝆`$. To this end, we must insert in (B6) a source field that depends on $`𝝆`$, namely $`\eta (𝐏,𝝆,\tau )`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{i\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏}{}}|U|^1|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )|^2+Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )`$ (B13)
$`+`$ $`Q_0(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏,\tau ){\displaystyle \underset{𝝆}{}}(Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )\eta (𝐏,𝝆,\tau )`$
$`+`$ $`Q(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )\eta ^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau ))d\tau .`$ (B14)
The correlation function $`\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆^{},t)`$ can be obtained by differentiating with respect to the source fields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta ^{}(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta (𝐏,𝝆,\tau )}}\mathrm{log}Z`$ $`_{\eta =0,\eta ^{}=0}=`$ (B15)
$`=T[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )`$ $`Q(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})].`$ (B16)
In order to obtain the relation between (B15) and the classical field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we perform a second order cumulant expansion for the trace over electronic degrees of fredoom in $`Z`$. The odd power terms of the expansion vanish. We then obtain:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Z_0{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i_0^{i\beta }\underset{𝐏}{}|U|^1|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )|^2d\tau \right]}`$ (B17)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏,𝐏^{}}{}C(𝐏,\tau ;𝐏^{},\tau ^{})d\tau d\tau ^{}}\right],`$
where:

$`C(𝐏,\tau ;𝐏^{},\tau ^{})=`$ (B18)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝝆,𝝆^{}}{}}T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})\right]_c\eta (𝐏,𝝆,\tau )\eta ^{}(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝝆}{}}T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q_0(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})\right]_c\eta (𝐏,𝝆,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝝆^{}}{}}T\left[Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )Q(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})\right]_c\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )\eta ^{}(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})+`$
$`+T\left[Q_0^{}(𝐏,\tau )Q_0(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})\right]_c\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏^{},\tau ^{})+h.c..`$
$`\mathrm{}_c`$ is the second order cumulant, which in our case coincides with the avarage over $`H_0:\mathrm{}_0`$. Applying the definition (B15) to the expression (B17), we obtain:

$`T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})\right]_2=`$ (B20)
$`T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})\right]_0+{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau ^{\prime \prime }𝑑\tau ^{\prime \prime \prime }\underset{𝐏^{\prime \prime },𝐏^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}`$
$`\times T\left[Q^{}(𝐏^{\prime \prime },0,\tau ^{\prime \prime })Q(𝐏^{},𝝆^{},\tau ^{})\right]_0T[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )`$ (B21)
$`\times Q(𝐏^{\prime \prime \prime },0,\tau ^{\prime \prime \prime })]_0\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏^{\prime \prime },\tau ^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏^{\prime \prime \prime },\tau ^{\prime \prime \prime })_2.`$ (B22)
The trace $`\mathrm{}_2`$ is taken over the second order cumulant expansion of the total Hamiltonian.

We specialize the equation (B20) to the case $`𝐏=𝐏^{}`$ and $`𝝆=𝝆^{}`$, and apply Wick’s theorem to the trace over $`H_0`$. Recalling the definition of the dynamic correlation function $`\chi `$ (Eq. 6) and of the particle-particle bubble $`𝒢`$ (Eq. 15), we can make the following identification:

$`T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q(𝐏,𝝆,\tau ^{})\right]_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆,\tau \tau ^{})`$ (B23)
$`T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q(𝐏,𝝆,\tau ^{})\right]_0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢(𝐏,\mathrm{𝟎},\tau \tau ^{})`$ (B24)
$`T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,0,\tau )Q(𝐏,𝝆,\tau ^{})\right]_0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢(𝐏,𝝆,\tau \tau ^{}).`$ (B25)
Performing a Fourier transformation with respect to time, we finally recover from equation (B20) the result obtained with a Bethe-Salpeter approach:

$`\chi (𝐏,𝝆,𝝆,z_\nu )=`$ (B26)
$`=i{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{iz_\nu \tau }T\left[Q^{}(𝐏,𝝆,\tau )Q(𝐏,𝝆,0)\right]_2}`$ (B27)
$`=i𝒢(𝐏,\mathrm{𝟎},z_\nu )+𝒢(𝐏,𝝆,z_\nu )𝒢(𝐏,𝝆,z_\nu )`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{U}{1iU_𝐤\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )}},`$ (B28)
where the Fourier transform of the trace of the classical fields calculated with respect to the second order cumulant expansion distribution has been identified with the $`T`$matrix:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{iz_\nu \tau }\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐏,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐏,0)_2}`$ $`=`$ $`iT(𝐏,z_\nu )`$ (B29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iU}{1iU_𝐤\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐏,𝐤;z_\nu )}}.`$ (B30)
Equation (B26) is equivalent to (29) for the case of a local potential (i.e. $`\varphi _\lambda (𝐤)=1`$).

Expression (B26) calculated for $`𝝆=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is equivalent to the r.h.s. of equation (B11). This shows again that the number of Cooper pairs calculated via eq. (B5) gives the number of Cooper pairs with *fixed* internal distance, i.e. zero internal distance for an on-site potential.


text:
# Ghosts in a Mirror

## I Introduction

Recently some authors have discussed scalar fields with negative kinetic energies (NKE) Carroll ; Gibbons ; Nojiri . In Carroll  the authors have studied these fields in connection to the dark matter problem in the universe. Also, since observational evidence does not exclude cosmological models with the pressure to density ratio $`<1`$, various models with negative densities were studied recently by several groups negative .

In Gibbons , to motivate these studies, it was argued that one may find several physical examples, such as Lifshitz transitions in condensed matter physics or an unusual dispersion relation for rotons in liquid helium, suggesting that the NKE may appear in nature. Also, negative energy densities may appear in quantum particle creation processes in curved backgrounds Candelas  or in squeezed states of the electromagnetic fields Slusher . Their appearance, however, signals usually the unhealthy vacuum instability. Therefore, if the time scale of this instability is too short, the matter cannot serve as viable candidate for the dark energy component Carroll . A different reasoning towards NKE, however, may be applied if one approaches the cosmological singularity problem.

One believes that the emergence of spacetime singularities in General Relativity suggests the breakdown of the theory at its natural scales. At these scales one expects the quantum corrections to take a leading role and save the situation. Different approaches to regularize the singularity have been undertaken. Phenomenologically, and in the light of all the standard singularity theorems, what appears to be the simplest way to tackle the singularity problem is to allow for negative energy densities, and probably some degree of anisotropy and/or inhomogeneity. This would produce the repulsive gravity effects and may smoothen the singularity. Phenomenologically, again, one can associate the negative energy densities with the back reaction of the quantum fluctuations, so that the idea in itself is not that ridiculous. Thus, allowing for NKE may prove to be an interesting approach to spacetime singularities in General Relativity. Here, the problem of the vacuum instability should be irrelevant, and even may become a blessing, for if these exotic fields decay rapidly, after having smoothed the singularity, this well could be a reason as to why we live in a ghost-free world. Consequently, it is worthwhile to have a closer look at some geometries produced by such fields, and we suggest here that one should keep her/his eyes wide open, just in case.

We will be especially interested in dynamical spacetimes in this setting, some static solutions in the ghost sector were presented elsewhere Gibbons ; Gibbons-Rasheed . Just to concentrate on the simplest examples we consider the energy-momentum tensor of a massless scalar field in the following form,

$$T_{\mu \nu }=ϵ(2\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\phi _{,\alpha }\phi ^{,\alpha }),$$
(1)
which is derived from the Lagrangian

$$=2ϵ\phi _{,\alpha }\phi ^{,\alpha },$$
(2)
and where $`\phi `$ is a scalar, $``$ is the Ricci scalar and $`ϵ`$ may take values $`1`$ and $`1`$. Our metric signature convention is $`(,+,+,+)`$. When $`ϵ=1`$, the energy-momentum tensor is of a standard form, while $`ϵ=1`$ stands for the ghost field.

## II HOMOGENEOUS ANISOTROPIC MODELS

Our starting point is the family of Kantowski-Sachs metrics. We choose these space-times because they combine both the non-trivial curvature as well as the effects of anisotropy. We should note, moreover, that we couldn’t find any other non-pathological, dynamical homogeneous and isotropic spacetime with the ghost fields.

With the energy-momentum tensor given by (1) we find the following formal solution to the Einstein field equations,

$`ds^2=({\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{t}}k)^\alpha dt^2+({\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{t}}k)^\alpha dr^2`$
$`+t^2({\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{t}}k)^{1\alpha }(d\theta ^2+f_k(\theta )^2d\varphi ),`$ (3)
with the scalar field given by

$$\phi (t)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1\alpha ^2}{ϵ}}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{2\eta }{t}k\right).$$
(4)
Here $`k`$ is spatial curvature $`(k=1,0,1)`$, and

$$f_k(\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill & k=1,\hfill \\ \theta \hfill & k=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}\theta \hfill & k=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Now, for $`ϵ=1`$ and $`|\alpha |<1`$, we recover the usual Einstein-dilaton solution given, for example, in AF-VM .

When $`ϵ=1`$ one must continue the scalar field analytically in order to finish with a real field and a non-pathological metric. In this case one may obtain real solutions simply by considering the case $`|\alpha |>1`$. When $`\alpha =0`$, however, we must continue analytically the $`log`$ function. It follows, thus, that it is only possible to obtain real solutions in the homogeneous case when $`k0`$. On the other hand, when certain amount of inhomogeneity is introduced the extension of $`k=0`$ solutions is also possible. We will discuss these cases in the next section.

The two ghost solutions with $`\alpha =0`$ are:

* $`k=1`$

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+dr^2(\eta ^2+t^2)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),`$
$`\phi (t)=\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{t}}\right),`$
* $`k=1`$

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+dr^2+(\eta ^2+t^2)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),`$
$`\phi (t)=\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{t}}\right).`$

The solution (II) is just the Gibbons-Rasheed’s massless “ghost” wormhole Gibbons-Rasheed  with $`t`$ now being the spacelike and $`r`$ the timelike co-ordinates. The solution (II), however, represents a *non-singular* anisotropic universe with open spatial sections. Its volume expansion $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is :

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{2t}{\eta ^2+t^2}.$$
(8)
The volume deformation reads:

$$\sigma =\frac{t}{\sqrt{3}(\eta ^2+t^2)}$$
(9)
The average scale factor $`a(t)=(\eta ^2+t^2)^{1/6}`$, behaves as $`at^{1/3}`$ for $`\left|t\right|>>\eta `$, proper of a stiff fluid.

The non-singular universe is flat and static as $`t\mathrm{}`$, with the vanishing scalar field. It collapses towards a flat universe at $`t=0`$, where the scalar stabilizes to a constant, and then expands again to a flat universe as $`t\mathrm{}`$, with the vanishing scalar field. The solution (II) is definitely too crude to represent even a toy cosmology. But imagine, that the massless scalar field with the NKE is supplemented by an ordinary matter, or by a potential as in Carroll . Then, it may be possible that the evolution of the model at different stages is dominated by either the ghost field or by ordinary matter. Near the singularity, the kinetic terms always dominate the potential, and therefore the short period of the ghost domination may give rise to a regular solution. There could also be situations where both ingredients will just conspire to produce a cosmological constant, as in Gibbons , during some epoch. Such a model could then be an interesting test bench to address the singularity, inflation and the coincidence problem at one go. The realistic model building, however, is far beyond the scope of the present paper.

In a different setting, one can make a connection between the solution (II) and the singularity problem in low energy string cosmology. The related models are those of the pre-Big Bang scenario (for a review see, Lidsey ; Gasperini ). One of the main difficulties in these models is the smooth exit from the pre-Big Bang into the post-Big Bang regime. The possibilities of the smooth transitions in the context of the lowest-order effective string action were discussed in Risi . There it was concluded that the transitional singularities at $`t=0`$ can be avoided for anisotropic backgrounds provided one accepts the sources with negative energy densities. The solution (II) therefore represents an exact evolution of such a model near $`t=0`$.

## III Inhomogeneous solutions

When $`k=0`$, the spatially flat case, the two dimensional line element $`(d\theta ^2+\theta ^2d\varphi ^2)`$ can be cast into an explicitly flat form: $`dx^2+dy^2`$. In this case the analytical continuation of the scalar field simply does not exist. We, therefore, will allow for a certain degree of inhomogeneity and consider the following form of the plane symmetric solutions,

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}e^{f(t,z)}(dt^2+dz^2)+t(dx^2+dy^2).$$
(10)
It should be noted that the discussion here can be generalized in a straightforward manner to any $`G_2`$ spacetime with two commuting spacelike Killing vectors by introducing transversal gravitational degrees of freedom in the following form $`(e^{P(t,z)}dx^2+e^{P(t,z)}dy^2)`$. The off-diagonal terms may also be included. For the sake of clarity, however, we stick to a simple plane symmetric case, which we feel is sufficient to make our point.

Assuming the geometry (10) the Klein-Gordon equation reads

$$\phi _{,tt}+\frac{1}{t}\phi _{,t}\phi _{,zz}=0,$$
(11)
and when $`\phi (t,z)`$ is the solution of this equation, the metric function $`f(t,z)`$ can be obtained by quadratures:

$`f_{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵt(\phi _{,t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\phi _{,z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (12)
$`f_{,z}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ\phi _{,t}\phi _{,z}.`$ (13)
Again, if $`ϵ`$ is $`1`$ we are dealing with the standard scalar field, and when $`ϵ=1`$ it is a ghost. Thus, the NKE solutions are related to the positive kinetic energy solutions by $`ff`$ transformation.

We consider now two possible solutions to (11):

$$\phi _1=b\text{arccosh}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right),|z|t$$
(14)
and

$$\phi _2=b\text{arccos}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right),|z|t.$$
(15)
Note that $`\phi _1`$ relates to $`\phi _2`$ by $`bib`$ transformation even though they “operate” in two different, mirror, regions of spacetime. The positive energy solutions of Einstein equations for $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ are:

$$ds^2[1]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}(\frac{z^2}{t}t)^{2b^2}(dt^2+dz^2)+t(dx^2+dy^2),$$
(16)
for $`|z|t`$, and

$$ds^2[2]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}(t\frac{z^2}{t})^{2b^2}(dt^2+dz^2)+t(dx^2+dy^2),$$
(17)
for $`|z|t`$. It is amazing, however, that the positive and the negative energy solutions interchange when the kinetic energy sign flips over and the power $`2b^2`$ is even: the negative energy solution for $`\phi _1`$, is given by the line element (17), while the negative energy solution for $`\phi _2`$ is given by (16). Therefore, the same geometry (16) is induced by either the normal scalar field in region $`|z|t`$, or by a ghost field in its mirror region $`|z|t`$. The same applies to (17).

Now, for the solution (16) Ricci scalar is

$$=2b^2t^{3/2}(\frac{z^2}{t}t)^{2b^2},$$
(18)
and, for the solution (17),

$$=2b^2t^{3/2}(t\frac{z^2}{t})^{2b^2}.$$
(19)
Therefore, the solutions (17) are singular at $`t=z`$, but (16) are not. Of course, there happen to be singularities at $`t=0`$ in these expressions, but these are not of our interest in this section. We have further checked the other curvature scalars for (16), such as square and the cube of the Ricci and the Riemann tensors and found those regular at $`t=z`$. The possibility then arises, to continue the solution (16) as it stands into the region $`|z|<t`$, by flipping the sign of the action. The spacetime could have looked as depicted in fig. 2 below.

The picture looks quite unexpected. One has equivalent geometry on both sides of the mirror line $`z=t`$, produced by the standard scalar field in the region II, while the same geometry in the region I is produced by a ghost. Technically this happens because the pure imaginary transformation of the scalar field $`\phi _1`$ into $`\phi _2`$ produces a real scalar field in a mirror region. It is tempting to call such scalar fields as mirror-ghosts. A different pair of scalar fields which solve the equation (11) and have the mirror ghost properties are $`\phi =b/\sqrt{t^2z^2}`$ and $`\phi =b/\sqrt{z^2t^2}`$.

On a closer inspection of the geometry, described by the fig. 2, one finds that the co-ordinates $`t`$ and $`z`$ are not that appropriate to describe the situation. It is convenient to introduce the following chart $`t=u^n+v^n`$ and $`z=u^nv^n`$, where $`n=1/(12b^2)`$ Feinstein , and since we have insisted that $`2b^2`$ is even, the power $`n`$ must be negative. It is then easy to see that the surface $`z=t`$ corresponds to $`v^n=0`$ and it cannot be reached by a physical observer in a finite proper time. Thus the two regions are *worlds apart* for their internal observers. The “mirror” and the “real” world do not mix up!111The idea of mirror worlds was introduced many years ago by Yu. Kozarev, L. Okun and E. Pomeranchuck Pomeranchuk . Glashow Glashow  has shown that the particles of the two worlds cannot interact. It is interesting that we come to a similar conclusion and from a completely different direction.

We now consider inhomogeneous evolution with nontrivial spatial curvature. To do so, we generalize the $`\alpha =0`$ solutions of the previous section using the following anzatz:

$$ds^2=dudv+R^2(u,v)(d\theta ^2+f_k(\theta )^2d\varphi ^2).$$
(20)
with $`f_k(\theta )`$ as defined in Eqn. (5).

With the energy-momentum tensor given by (1) we find the following solution:

$`\phi (u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{ϵ}}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1\sqrt{ϵ}p)kvu}{(1+\sqrt{ϵ}p)kvu}}\right],`$ (21)
$`R^2(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[(1ϵp^2)k^2v^22kvu+u^2],`$ (22)
where the parameter $`p`$ represents the strength of the scalar field. For $`k=1`$ and $`ϵ=1`$ the solution reduces to the one found by Roberts Roberts . It was further thoroughly investigated by various authors in connection with the spherically symmetric scalar field collapse (see, for example, ONT ). In the standard scalar field case, the $`k=0`$ solutions are flat spacetimes written in plane wave co-ordinates. While, the $`k=1`$ represents scalar field collapse/expansion with open geometry where one does not expect black hole formations since the trapped surfaces, if formed, are non-compact. Thus, in the $`k=1`$ case one either has a naked singularity or a regular collapse/expansion similar to the case of $`k=1`$ ONT .

We now consider the phantom solutions ($`ϵ=1`$). These are given by

$$\phi (u,v)=\text{arctan}\left(\frac{pkv}{kvu}\right).$$
(23)
One can see that the scalar field remains regular everywhere. As a consequence, the scalar curvature is also regular everywhere, but in the geometrical centre $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$:

$$=\frac{8k^2p^2uv}{[p^2k^2v^2+(kvu)^2]^2}.$$
(24)
The higher order curvature invariants behave in a similar way. It is further informative to look at the character of the gradient of the area coordinate $`R(u,v)`$, i.e., $`R_\alpha (u,v)R^\alpha (u,v)`$ Senovilla , which is given by

$$R_\alpha R^\alpha =kk^2\frac{p^2uv}{p^2k^2v^2+(kvu)^2}$$
(25)
The character of the gradient of the area coordinate tells one about trappedness of the surfaces. It follows, that for a given $`k`$, the character of the area gradient never changes the sign (this doesn’t happen in the non-ghost case where the area gradient is parameter $`p`$\- sensitive). Note, that the change $`k=1`$ to $`k=1`$ corresponds to a change $`vv`$, or, in $`t`$ and $`r`$ co-ordinates ($`t=u+v`$ and $`r=uv`$) to an $`rt`$ interchange, exactly as in the homogeneous cases (II), (II). Therefore, the solutions with $`k=1`$ should be seen as dynamical generalizations of the Gibbons-Rasheed worm hole Gibbons-Rasheed , and in fact if looked at carefully in ($`t,r`$) coordinates represent a time sequence of static worm holes. The solutions with $`k=1`$ are inhomogeneous generalizations of the solution (II). This interpretation is further stressed by the behaviour of the area gradient, being globally timelike (or null) in the cosmological case, and globally spacelike (or null) in the case of $`k=1`$.

One can as well look at the scalar curvature singularity at $`u=0`$ $``$ $`v=0`$ in $`t`$ and $`r`$ coordinates. The singularity occurs at $`R(t,r)=0`$. In the $`k=1`$ case this surface is given by the equation $`r^2+p^2(tr)^2/4=0`$, while in the $`k=1`$ case, it is $`t^2+p^2(tr)^2/4=0`$. Therefore, the singularity occurs at $`t=r=0`$.

One may interpret the $`k=1`$ solution along the lines of ONT . These, then represent non-singular ghost field collapse. The ghost fields should be thought of as imploding from the past null infinity, ($`u\mathrm{}`$). One can easily check that the scalar field vanishes on $`v=0`$ and is constant along $`u=0`$ null hypersurfaces. The mass function vanishes on both and so does the flux across these null hypersurfaces. Therefore, one can match $`v<0`$ and $`u>0`$ regions with flat spacetime ONT , avoiding singularities. We note that the parameter $`p`$ plays no essential role here.

## IV Conclusions

We have looked at various geometries produced by massless scalar fields both with the positive and the negative kinetic energies. In the homogeneous case, we have shown the existence of non-singular anisotropic solution with open spatial sections and NKE. Assuming inhomogeneous plane symmetry we have found mirror images with exactly the same geometry in different regions of spacetime produced by the scalar fields with positive (in one region) and the negative (in the other) kinetic energies. We have shown, however, that the physical observers from the positive energy region cannot reach the phantom geometry in a finite proper time. We have further generalized the self-similar scalar field dynamical solutions to include both the nontrivial curvature and the negative NKE. These generalize the static ghost worm hole solution to the dynamical case ($`k=1`$), and the homogeneous anisotropic universe to the inhomogeneous one ($`k=1`$). The generalizations introduce singularities which can, probably, be removed by cutting and pasting methods. In particular, if one interprets these solutions as a phantom scalar field collapse, the singularities can be easily removed.

There seems to be much prejudice and suspicion against fields with NKE, especially, due to their possible vacuum instability. The stability is important, however, depending on which problem is to be addressed. If we approach the cosmological singularity, the decay of the fields with NKE should not pose conceptual difficulties. One needs these fields just for short times to smoothen the singularity, and when this is achieved they may as well decay: the ghost appears and then disappears, leaving the world ghost-free. It would be interesting to see whether the phenomenological approach considered here can be obtained from field/string theories, we leave this, however, for future works.

## V Acknowledgements

We are grateful to José Senovilla for helpful discussions and valuable comments. A.F. was supported by the University of the Basque Country Grants 9/UPV00172.310-14456/2002, and The Spanish Science Ministry Grant 1/CI-CYT 00172. 310-0018-12205/2000. S.J. acknowledges support from the Basque Government research fellowship.