text:
# Nonequilibrium Campbell length: probing the vortex pinning potential

## Abstract

The $`AC`$ magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda (T,H,j)`$ was measured in presence of a macroscopic $`DC`$ (Bean) supercurrent, $`j`$. In single crystal BSCCO below approximately 28 K, $`\lambda (T,H,j)`$ exhibits thermal hysteresis. The irreversibility arises from a shift of the vortex position within its pinning well as $`j`$ changes. It is demonstrated that below a new irreversibility temperature, the nonequilibrium Campbell length depends upon the ratio $`j/j_c`$. $`\lambda (T,H,j)`$ increases with $`j/j_c`$ as expected for a non-parabolic potential well whose curvature decreases with the displacement. Qualitatively similar results are observed in other high-$`T_c`$ and conventional superconductors.

The $`AC`$ penetration depth $`\lambda `$ is an extremely sensitive probe of the vortex state. Models for the small-amplitude $`AC`$ response usually assume a uniform distribution of vortices and a parabolic effective potential well . However, experiments often probe a nonequilibrium flux profile. In this case, $`\lambda `$ may depend not only upon $`H`$ and $`T`$ but also upon the Bean supercurrent $`j`$ arising from a gradient of vortex density. In this paper we show that a finite $`j`$ produces a hysteretic $`AC`$ response whenever the pinning potential is non-parabolic. In contrast to most experiments, the irreversibility discussed here occurs with temperature while the applied field is held constant. Thermal hysteresis is observed in several materials, but we focus on BSCCO. In all our experiments $`H_{ac}`$ ($`5`$ mOe) $`H_{dc}H_{c2}`$ where the excitation field does not modify the average vortex distribution and we can ignore vortex core contribution to $`\lambda `$.

Vortices transmit the perturbation caused by a small $`AC`$ field as either compressional or tilt waves, depending upon the geometry of the experiment . If the amplitude of the $`AC`$ field is small, the elastic restoring force is: $`F=\alpha u`$, where $`u`$ is the vortex displacement caused by a small $`AC`$ current and $`\alpha `$ is the Labusch parameter. The latter incorporates, self - consistently, both the pinning and the elastic forces. The $`AC`$ penetration depth is then given by $`\lambda ^2=\lambda _L^2+\lambda _C^2`$ where $`\lambda _C`$ is the Campbell penetration depth . The Campbell length is $`\lambda _C=\sqrt{C_{xx}/\alpha }`$, where $`C_{xx}`$ is the appropriate elastic modulus ($`C_{11}`$ for compression or $`C_{44}`$ for tilt, $`C_{44}C_{11}B^2/4\pi `$) . Unlike earlier versions based on the local pinning force , these formulae are also good approximations for a non-local elastic response with dispersive $`\alpha (k)`$ . It is also possible to incorporate flux creep and flux flow effects . These effects, however, do not result in thermal irreversibility of $`\lambda (T,H,j)`$. In this paper, we explore the simplest generalization of the elastic model. In the presence of a macroscopic $`DC`$ Bean current, $`j`$, the Lorentz force biases the mean vortex position away from the pinning potential minimum. The Campbell depth is then determined by the small - amplitude response near this new bias point. If the dependence of the pinning potential upon vortex displacement $`u`$ is non-parabolic, then changes in either $`j`$ or the critical current $`j_c`$ will result in changes of the Campbell length. If $`j`$ relaxes via flux creep or $`j_c`$ changes with temperature, the Campbell length will then show a small, but observable thermal hysteresis.

Let $`V(x)`$ describe the shape of the pinning potential with $`x=r/r_p`$, where $`r`$ is the vortex displacement and $`r_p`$ is the effective pinning radius, $`r_p\xi `$ for a quenched disorder pinning at low temperatures ( see Fig. 1). The Lorentz force due to $`j`$ causes a dimensionless vortex displacement $`x_0`$ determined from the condition: $`dV/dx=Bj/r_pc=\alpha _0(j/j_c)`$, where $`\alpha _0Bj_c/cr_p`$. Upon application of a small $`AC`$ field, the restoring force acting on a vortex in the vicinity of $`x_0`$ is $`F(u)\alpha u+O(u^2)`$ where $`u=xx_0`$. It is assumed that $`j`$ does not change during an $`AC`$ field cycle. The restoring elastic constant is then $`\alpha =d^2V/dx^2|_{x=x_0}`$. For a parabolic potential, $`\alpha =\alpha _0=const`$ and does not depend on $`j`$. For a more general form of the potential we take into account a cubic term in $`V(x)`$ in the vicinity of $`x_0`$. A Labusch parameter obtained from the Taylor expansion of the restoring force $`F=dV/dx`$ around $`x_0`$ can be written as $`\alpha =\alpha _0(1\beta x_0)`$, where $`\beta `$ is a dimensionless constant. Positive $`\beta `$ describes pinning potential $`V(x)`$ saturating at large $`x_0`$, while negative $`\beta `$ corresponds to a potential whose curvature increases with the increase of $`x_0`$. The saturation of a volume pinning force, corresponding to $`\beta >0`$, was discussed by Brandt on the basis of the results of numerical simulations . Saturation also holds for weak collective pinning. A saturating potential provides a smooth crossover to the flux flow regime, where the penetration depth diverges (for zero viscosity). Negative $`\beta `$ could be realized for pinning by columnar defects. Assuming $`\left|\beta x_0\right|1`$ (small deviation of $`V(x)`$ from parabolic form) we obtain for the vortex displacement due to current $`j`$: $`x_0j/j_c`$, which gives $`\alpha =\alpha _0(1\beta j/j_c)`$. The linear $`AC`$ response in the presence of a Bean current $`j`$ is then described by:

$$\lambda ^2\left(j\right)\lambda _L^2+\frac{\lambda _C^2\left(0\right)}{1\beta j/j_c}$$
(1)
If pinning is weak and magnetic relaxation is fast, as is typical for high-$`T_c`$ superconductors , the term $`\beta j/j_c`$ is small. Equation (1) then reduces to:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \lambda \left(j\right)\lambda \left(0\right)=\beta \frac{\lambda _C^2\left(0\right)}{2\lambda \left(0\right)}\frac{j}{j_c}$$
(2)
Equations (1) and (2) predict that a non-parabolic potential results in an explicit dependence of $`\lambda `$ on $`j`$. For a saturating potential ($`\beta >0`$), $`\lambda (j)`$ is predicted to be larger than $`\lambda (j=0)`$. For a potential in which the curvature increases with $`x`$ ($`\beta <0`$) $`\lambda (j)`$ would be smaller than $`\lambda (j=0)`$. Finally, $`\lambda `$ should depend upon the ratio $`j/j_c`$ rather than on $`j`$ alone. We now address each of these three points experimentally and conclude that in typical high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, $`\lambda (j/j_c)`$ always increases with the increase of a ratio $`j/j_c`$ thus providing evidence for a saturating pinning potential.

The penetration depth was measured with an 11 MHz tunnel-diode driven LC resonator  operating in a 3He refrigerator. An external $`DC`$ magnetic field (0-7 kOe) was applied using a compensated superconducting magnet. An $`AC`$ excitation field ($`5`$ mOe) was applied parallel to the $`DC`$ field. For platelet superconducting samples with both $`AC`$ and $`DC`$ magnetic fields applied perpendicular to largest face, an analysis was given in Ref. . When $`\lambda `$ is much less than any sample dimension, the resonance frequency shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=f(T)f(T_{min})`$ of the oscillator is proportional to a change in the penetration depth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda (T)\lambda (T_{min})`$ via $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=G\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$, where $`G`$ is a calibration constant . The sample could be moved in and out of the sense coil, thus allowing for both in situ background subtraction and calibration . The noise level, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f/f_010^9/\sqrt{Hz}`$ permitted a resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{ac}0.5`$ Å for typical samples.

The behavior to be described was observed in a variety of superconducting single crystals including YBaCuO ($`T_c93`$ K), BiSrCaCuO ($`T_c90`$ K), PrCeCuO ($`T_c21`$ K), and (BEDT) organic ($`T_c`$ 12 and 9.5 K) as well as conventional Nb polycrystalline sample ($`T_c=9.27`$ K). These properties of the pinning potential persist despite large differences in $`T_c`$, symmetry of the order parameter, anisotropy and the sign of charge carriers.

Observation of thermal irreversibility: Figure 2 presents a series of temperature sweeps corresponding to different ratios of $`j/j_c(T)`$ for a BSCCO single crystal. In the first experiment (solid line $`123`$), the sample was cooled in zero field to 1.5 K, a $`DC`$ field of 260 Oe was applied (after first ramping to -7 kOe to insure complete penetration), and the sample was then warmed ($`12`$) and then cooled back to 1.5 K ($`23`$). Figure 1 shows the corresponding trajectory of the system in its pinning potential well. Once the temperature exceeded a value $`T_{irr}(H)`$, $`j(t)`$ relaxed rapidly and subsequent cooling and warming traces ($`232`$) were perfectly reversible. This curve corresponds to motion near bottom of the pinning well where both $`j`$ and $`\beta `$ are small and $`\lambda (T)`$ reflects changes in $`j_c(T)`$ or, equivalently, the height of the well. We refer to the ($`232`$) curve as the ”reversible” curve. It is identical to that obtained in a direct field-cooled experiment at the same field. $`T_{irr}(H)`$ represents a vortex ”annealing” or low-$`T`$ irreversibility temperature for the described experiment. In our case, $`T_{irr}(260Oe)`$ = 28 K, which is close to the temperature at which several changes in vortex structure are often observed . This temperature is well below the usual irreversibility (and melting) temperature determined from magnetization measurements .

The irreversible effects are quite small, $`40`$ Hz - between marks 1 and 3, Fig. 2. The full frequency shift from the lowest temperature up to $`T_c`$ is about $`10^3`$ times larger. The same sample, measured using a Quantum Design MPMS SQUID magnetometer, showed a diamagnetic Meissner signal of $`<8\times 10^5`$ emu. Thus, hysteresis in $`\lambda (T,j)`$ is equivalent to a change in magnetization $`10^7`$ emu. To resolve the shape of a hysteresis curve a sensitivity better than $`10^8`$ emu is needed. The effect is even smaller on smaller PCCO samples, where a similar estimation gives $`10^9`$ emu for the magnitude of the effect. This sensitivity is difficult to achieve in commercial AC susceptometers, but measurements of large ceramic high-$`T_c`$ samples should, in principle, be able to resolve the irreversibility.

Logarithmic relaxation of $`\lambda (j)`$: If Eq. (1) is correct, $`\lambda (j)`$ should relax along with $`j`$, due to thermally activated flux creep. Figure 3 shows the time dependence of $`\lambda (T,H,t)\lambda (T,H,t_0)`$ at $`T=2`$ K in BSCCO single crystal. The sample was cooled in zero field, after which $`H_{dc}=500`$ Oe was applied. Since the temperature was constant $`j_c(T)`$ did not change but $`\lambda (t)`$ decreased logarithmically with time. The decrease in $`\lambda (t)`$ was independent of the sign of $`j`$ (i.e., if the field was reduced after ramping up to a large value). By contrast, the flat curve shows $`\lambda (t)`$ after field cooling in 500 Oe to the same temperature. No noticeable relaxation was observed.

Dependence upon $`j/j_c`$: In the next experiment, illustrated in Fig. 2, the sample was cooled to $`T=12`$ K and, after ramping to -7 kOe to ensure a complete flux penetration, a 260 Oe field was applied (point 4 in Fig. 2) The sample was then cooled to 1.5 K ($`45`$) and warmed ($`542`$) above $`T_{irr}(H)`$. Again, upon subsequent cooling and warming ($`232`$), $`\lambda (T)`$ remained on the reversible curve and coincided with the reversible curve obtained in the first experiment described above. We interpret this measurement as follows. When a $`DC`$ magnetic field is turned on at $`T_{ZFC}=12`$ K, $`j`$ is determined by $`U(j/j_c(T))=T_{ZFC}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }t/t_0)`$, where $`t_0`$ is the characteristic relaxation time and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the experimental time-window . When the temperature decreases, $`j_c`$ increases and the activation energy $`U(j/j_c)`$ increases, thus prohibiting vortices from thermally activated motion and essentially freezing the value of $`j`$. If $`\lambda `$ were dependent only on $`j`$, it would have remained constant from mark 4 to mark 5, Fig. 2. The fact that it decreases implies a parametric change in the pinning potential: when $`j_c`$ increases, $`j/j_c`$ decreases and by Eq. 1, the Campbell length decreases. When the temperature is again increased ($`54`$) $`j(T)`$ remains frozen at its value originally set at $`T_{ZFC}`$ (mark 4) and $`\lambda (T)`$ retraces the preceding cooling ($`45`$) curve reversibly. Above $`T_{ZFC}`$ K, the activation energy $`U(j/j_c)`$ becomes low enough for $`j`$ to once again relax. Then, $`\lambda (T)`$ decreases until contribution of the reversible curve becomes dominant.

Tilt contribution to the signal, $`\lambda _{44}`$: In the configuration used here (magnetic field normal to the conducting planes of a thin platelet), the magnetic field penetrates both from sides and from the top and bottom surfaces. In the Meissner state, this was demonstrated by solving numerically the London equation and testing the results experimentally . In the presence of vortices, penetration from sides, $`\lambda _{11}`$, is mediated by compressional waves, whereas penetration from the top and bottom faces is due to tilt waves, $`\lambda _{44}`$ . For thin enough samples, the latter contribution must dominate the former as we now show experimentally. In Fig. 4, the sample was zero-field cooled to $`T=1.5`$ K and a 260 Oe magnetic field, less than a field of full penetration, was applied (mark $`1`$ in Fig. 4). This produced a partially-penetrated state where only a fraction of the sample interior was filled with vortices, as illustrated by solid lines in the Bean profile shown in Fig. 4. Upon warming, $`j`$ decreased and vortices filled the sample. If most of the signal comes from the top and bottom surfaces, the penetration depth must increase as vortices fill the sample. Only when vortices reach the sample center should the signal decrease in accordance with Eq.(1). Exactly this behavior was observed on the curve starting at point $`1`$ in Fig. 4. The sample was then cooled from above $`T_c`$ in zero field to 1.5 K. H was then ramped down to -7 kOe and then returned back to +260 Oe, producing the fully penetrated state shown by the dotted and solid lines in Fig. 4. The resulting curve beginning at $`2`$ is shown in Fig. 4. $`\lambda (T)`$ decreased monotonically upon warming, indicating that tilt motion of vortices penetrating the top and bottom surfaces constituted the primary signal contribution.

Although the Campbell length in a uniform state depends upon $`B`$, the observed hysteresis depends explicitly upon $`j/j_c`$. (A weak implicit $`B`$dependence may arise through $`j/j_c(B)`$). This fact is demonstrated in Fig. 5 where we compare $`\lambda (T)`$ measured at the same final value of applied field, $`H=260`$ Oe applied at 1.5 K. The solid symbols correspond to the initial application of a - 7 kOe magnetizing field while the open ones correspond to + 7 kOe magnetizing field. Both fields were then ramped to $`H=+260`$ Oe before measurements began. These field changes were sufficient for full flux penetration. The corresponding flux profiles are shown schematically in Fig. 5. The value of $`B`$ throughout the sample was much different for these two starting conditions, but the thermal hysteresis curves are essentially identical, demonstrating that the hysteresis in $`\lambda _C`$ is directly related to $`j/j_c`$, not B. The small differences at elevated temperatures could be attributed to the differences in $`j/j_c(B)`$.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that thermal hysteresis of the $`AC`$ penetration depth can be attributed to changes in $`j/j_c`$ according to Eq.(1). The effect is observable only for a non-parabolic pinning potential that, as follows from our measurements, saturates with displacement. We identify a new low temperature irreversibility line above which thermal hysteresis vanishes. A comprehensive study of $`T_{irr}(H)`$ in conventional and layered superconductors will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

Acknowledgments: We thank V. Geshkenbein, A. Koshelev, V. Vinokur, A. Gurevich, J. R. Clem and E. H. Brandt for useful discussions and communications. Work at UIUC was supported by Science and Technology Center for Superconductivity Grant No. NSF-DMR 91-20000. Work at The University of Tokyo is supported by CREST and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan. Work at Argonne National Lab supported by U.S. DOE-BES Contract No. W-31-109- ENG-38 and NSF-STCS Contract No. DMR 91-20000.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

WITHDRAWN


text:
# Multifrequency Observations of the Virgo Blazars 3C 273 and 3C 279 in CGRO Cycle 8

## Introduction

We report on simultaneous multifrequency observations of the prominent Virgo blazars 3C 273 and 3C 279 during CGRO Cycle 8. Because both blazars are known $`\gamma `$-ray sources, which have been detected by the CGRO experiments several times before, we proposed for simultaneous CGRO (OSSE, COMPTEL) and RXTE high-energy observations. The prime goal was to simultaneously measure their high-energy spectra from about 2.5 keV to 30 MeV. Because of the shortage of spark chamber gas, the EGRET experiment is hardly available anymore and therefore was not requested in the proposals. After the proposed simultaneous high-energy observations were approved and scheduled, additional simultaneous observations were performed from ground-based observers extending the energy range of the campaigns to lower energies.

In this paper we report first observational results of the campaigns with emphasis on the X- and $`\gamma `$-ray part. In particular we present the measured X- to $`\gamma `$-ray spectra of both sources.

## Observations

The multifrequency observations were carried out between 1999 January 5 and February 2. The observational strategy was that both blazars are within the COMPTEL field-of-view for the whole 4 weeks reaching the optimal sensitivity for the $`\gamma `$-ray observations, and OSSE observes simultaneously each source for 2 weeks. Within these two-week OSSE periods, three RXTE pointings were scheduled for each source covering simultaneously the X- and hard X-ray part of the spectrum and providing information on the X-ray variability. To supplement these high-energy observations both sources were simultaneously observed in different optical and radio bands. On 1999 January 15 the optical flux of 3C 279 reached a high level which – after some discussion – triggered target-of-opportunity (ToO) observations of this source. This resulted in a switch-on of EGRET which led to EGRET observations of both quasars during roughly the second half of the campaigns. Because of the 3C 279 ToO, the OSSE 3C 273 observation was stopped after one week, and OSSE observed 3C 279 again. These EGRET and OSSE ToO observations of 3C 279 are property of a different CGRO proposal and therefore their results are not reported here. The detailed high-energy observational log is given in Table 1.

## Results

### 3C 273

3C 273 is significantly detected in all observed low-energy (radio, optical) bands. At high energies the quasar is significantly detected in X- and hard X-rays by RXTE from about 2.5 to $``$100 keV, showing a power-law spectrum with a photon index (E) $`\alpha `$ of 1.6. OSSE detects the source in the one-week observation at a significance level of $``$5$`\sigma `$. Therefore its spectrum had to be rebinned severely to reach two significant spectral points. COMPTEL detects the blazar in the sum of the 4-week observation at the $``$5$`\sigma `$ level. However, despite the COMPTEL detection at MeV-energies, EGRET – covering only half of the COMPTEL observation time – does not detect 3C 273 at energies above 100 MeV. The combined – more or less simultaneous – high-energy spectrum of 3C 273 is shown in Figure 1. The well-known bending (e.g. Lichti95 , Montigny97 ) at MeV-energies is visible. The most surprising result however, is the non-detection by EGRET at high-energy $`\gamma `$-rays, despite the COMPTEL detection at MeV-energies. This requires a strong spectral turnover between 30 and 100 MeV, and might hint at different generation mechanisms for the MeV and $`>`$100 MeV photon populations.

### 3C 279

3C 279 is significantly detected at the radio and optical bands, showing strong time variability and flaring activity in the optical. At X-rays the blazar is significantly observed up to 20 keV by the RXTE/PCA, and is detected in hard X-rays between 20 and 50 keV by RXTE/HEXTE with a significance of about 5$`\sigma `$. The RXTE/PCA spectrum is well fitted by a single power-law model with an index $`\alpha `$ of 1.6. At higher energies the detection significances become marginal. OSSE found 3$`\sigma `$-evidence for the source only at their lower energies (near 100 keV), and COMPTEL – also at the 3$`\sigma `$ level – only at their upper energies. At energies above 100 MeV EGRET has significantly detected 3C 279 (), however these data are not reported here. The measured X- to $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum of 3C 279 is given in Figure 2. It shows that 3C 279 was observed in a bright $`\gamma `$-ray state. The flux at the COMPTEL upper energies is at the same level as measured during the two previous $`\gamma `$-ray high states in 1991 and 1996 (Figure 3). The spectral power-law shape measured from $``$2.5 to 20 keV can – according to the current state of analysis – be extrapolated up to 30 MeV without any obvious breaks or bendings. This suggests that this part of the spectrum, which is considered to be non-thermal inverse-Compton radiation, is emitted by a single emission component or mechanism.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Bose atoms in magnetic traps can be cooled down to ultralow temperatures where Bose–Einstein condensation takes place. There exists numerous literature, both theoretical and experimental, devoted to this subject (see reviews ).

The Bose condensation occurs when the thermal wavelength of atoms, $`\lambda \sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}^2/m_0k_BT}`$, becomes larger than the mean interparticle distance, $`a`$. At the same time, the effective radius of an atom, $`a_0`$, has to be much smaller than the interatomic distance in order that strong hard–core repulsion would not disturb much the motion of colliding particles. When the thermal wavelength is such that

$$\lambda aa_0,$$

atoms are mutually correlated and a coherent state develops.

In the system under equilibrium, condensed atoms are in the ground state. Recently , the idea was advanced of the possibility to create non–ground–state condensates corresponding to excited coherent modes of trapped atoms. This can be done by imposing, in addition to the trapping potential, a time–dependent field whose oscillation frequency is adjusted to be in resonance with the transition frequency between the ground–state level and a chosen excited level. In this report, we present the results of investigation of the population dynamics in a coherent system of trapped atoms, driven by a resonance field. As it turned out, the dynamics of such a system is quite nontrivial and is rather different from the population dynamics of two–level optical systems. Thus, unusual effects, that can be called critical, are found when a small variation of system parameters results in a drastic change of the population dynamics.

## 2 Population Dynamics

Consider the Bose gas of neutral atoms at ultralow temperatures, when all atoms are in a condensed state. The wave function of coherent atoms is obtained from the nonlinear Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\phi }{t}=\left[\widehat{H}(\phi )+V_{res}\right]\phi ,$$
(1)
in which $`\widehat{H}(\phi )`$ is a nonlinear Hamiltonian and $`V_{res}`$ is a resonance field. The gas is assumed to be diluted, and the interatomic interactions are shape independent and can be modelled by the contact potential

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_s}{m_0}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}),$$

where $`m_0`$ is atomic mass and $`a_s`$ is the scattering length. Then the nonlinear Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}(\phi )=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}\stackrel{}{}^2+U(\stackrel{}{r})+A|\phi |^2,$$
(2)
where $`U`$ is a trapping potential and

$$A\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi \mathrm{}^2\frac{a_s}{m_0}N,$$

represents the effective interaction for $`N`$ confined particles. The resonance field can be taken in the form

$$V_{res}=V(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{cos}\omega t.$$
(3)
Let us note that the nonlinear Schrödinger equation is an exact equation of coherent states . Contrary to this, if $`\phi `$ is treated as the order parameter associated with the condensate, then Eq. (1) is an approximate equation corresponding to the mean–field approach at zero temperature. Such an approximate equation is often called the Gross–Ginzburg–Pitaevskii equation \[5–7\].

The stationary solutions of Eq. (1), if the time–dependent field is absent, are $`\phi _n\mathrm{exp}(iE_nt/\mathrm{})`$ with $`\phi _n`$ and $`E_n`$ defined by the eigenvalue problem

$$\widehat{H}(\phi _n)\phi _n=E_n\phi _n.$$
(4)
The eigenfunctions $`\phi _n`$, labelled by a multi–index $`n`$, are stationary coherent modes. The transition frequencies $`\omega _{mn}`$ between two energy levels are given by the difference

$$\mathrm{}\omega _{mn}E_mE_n.$$
(5)
Assuming that at the initial time $`t=0`$, all atoms are in the ground–state coherent mode, we have the initial condition

$$\phi (\stackrel{}{r},0)=\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(6)
And let then the resonant field (3) be switched on, with a frequency $`\omega `$ being in resonance, or almost in resonance, with the transition frequency

$$\omega _{j0}\frac{E_jE_0}{\mathrm{}}$$
(7)
between the ground state and a chosen energy level $`j`$. The corresponding quasiresonance condition is

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }{\omega _{j0}}\right|1,\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega \omega _{j0}.$$
(8)
The solution of the time–dependent equation (1) can be presented as an expansion

$$\phi (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{n}{}c_n(t)\phi (\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}E_nt\right)$$
(9)
over the coherent modes $`\phi _n(\stackrel{}{r})`$. Combining Eqs. (1) and (9), we find a system of equations for the coefficients $`c_n(t)`$. This system can be simplified in the resonance approximation giving

$$\frac{dc_0}{dt}=i\alpha n_jc_0\frac{i}{2}\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega t}c_j,$$

$$\frac{dc_j}{dt}=i\alpha n_0c_j\frac{i}{2}\beta ^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega t}c_0,$$
(10)
where

$$n_i(t)|c_i(t)|^2$$
(11)
is the population of the level $`i`$, and a new notation is introduced for the interaction amplitude

$$\alpha \frac{A}{\mathrm{}}|\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})|^2|\phi _j(\stackrel{}{r})|^2𝑑\stackrel{}{r}$$
(12)
as well as for the transition amplitude

$$\beta \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\phi _0^{}(\stackrel{}{r})V(\stackrel{}{r})\phi _j(\stackrel{}{r})𝑑\stackrel{}{r}.$$
(13)
Because at the initial time all atoms are in the ground state, the initial conditions to Eqs. (10) are

$$c_0(0)=1,c_j(0)=0.$$
(14)
Since the quantities $`c_0`$ and $`c_j`$ are complex, Eqs. (10) are to be complemented by the equations for the complex conjugate $`c_0^{}`$ and $`c_j^{}`$ or by the equations for the populations (11). The latter equations are

$$\frac{dn_0}{dt}=\mathrm{Im}\left(\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega t}c_0^{}c_j\right),$$

$$\frac{dn_j}{dt}=\mathrm{Im}\left(\beta ^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega t}c_j^{}c_0\right),$$
(15)
with the initial conditions

$$n_0(0)=1,n_j(0)=1.$$
(16)
In addition, the normalization condition

$$n_0(t)+n_j(t)=1$$
(17)
holds true. The derivation of Eqs. (10)–(17) was expounded in detail in Ref. .

The system of nonlinear differential equations (10) and (15) can be solved analytically by means of the averaging technique  yielding for the populations

$$n_0=1\frac{|\beta |^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2},n_j=\frac{|\beta |^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }t}{2},$$
(18)
in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an effective frequency given by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\left[\alpha (n_0n_j)\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \right]^2+|\beta |^2.$$
(19)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an equivalent for the Rabi frequency, although one has to keep in mind that it is actually not a fixed frequency but a function of time defined by Eqs. (18) and (19). The solutions (18), for $`|\beta |<\alpha `$, give a qualitative picture of complicated nonlinear oscillations of the populations (11). In the limit $`|\beta |\alpha `$, these solutions become asymptotically exact.

Equations (15) show that if in some moment of time the pumping resonance field (3) is switched off, then after this the populations $`n_0`$ and $`n_j`$ remain constant at their instantaneous values. This suggests the way of creating mixtures of coherent modes with different spatial configurations, and even pure excited coherent modes. Such excited coherent modes will not, of course, last for ever. Their lifetime is defined by the total lost rate $`\gamma _j`$ caused by atomic collisions. The same, actually, concerns the ground–state condensate whose lifetime is defined by the corresponding lost rate $`\gamma _0`$. The lost rates due to binary collisions can be presented as

$$\gamma _j=\lambda _{jj}N^2n_j^2|\phi _j(\stackrel{}{r})|^4𝑑\stackrel{}{r}+\lambda _{j0}N^2n_jn_0|\phi _j(\stackrel{}{r})|^2|\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})|^2𝑑\stackrel{}{r},$$

$$\gamma _0=\lambda _{00}N^2n_0^2|\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})|^4𝑑\stackrel{}{r}+\lambda _{0j}N^2n_0n_j|\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})|^2|\phi _j(\stackrel{}{r})|^2𝑑\stackrel{}{r},$$
(20)
where $`\lambda _{ij}`$ are the corresponding relaxation coefficients. The lost rates due to ternary collisions can be presented in the similar way. The ternary loss rates are usually much smaller than the binary ones .

The approximate solutions (18) and (19), obtained by the averaging method, give us a general understanding of the excitation procedure. However, Eqs. (18) and (19) define the level populations not explicitly but through a connected system of equations. In order to study the dynamics of the populations (11) explicitly, and also not to be limited by the averaging–technique approximation, we return back to the evolution equations (10), which we solve numerically. For numerical analysis, it is convenient to measure time in units of $`\alpha ^1`$ and to introduce dimensionless quantities

$$b\frac{|\beta |}{\alpha },\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }{\alpha }.$$

The results of numerical calculations for several values of parameters are presented in Figs. 1 to 6.

It turned out, that the dynamics of the populations is rather nontrivial and exhibits a kind of critical effects when an anomalous coherent oscillation of the state populations suddenly appears. The latter occur on the critical line defined approximately as $`b_c=0.5\delta `$. Outside the critical line, the populations oscillate according to the sine–squared law, as in Fig.1. Approaching the critical line, for instance by changing the detuning, the period of oscillations suddenly increases by a jump, with the top of $`n_j`$ and, respectively, the bottom of $`n_0`$, becoming flat. Thus, the slight change of the detuning, from $`\delta =0.11`$ in Fig.1 to $`\delta =0.11017478`$ in Fig.2, results in an abrupt period doubling. And the following small shift of the detuning to $`\delta =0.11017479`$ results again in the period being approximately doubled, with the qualitative change of the time–dependence: Each second downward cusp between two adjacent oscillations of $`n_j`$ overturns up becoming an upward cusp, which yields to an effective period doubling, as is seen from comparing Figs. 2 and 3. The further increase of the detuning drives the system away from the critical line resulting in the decrease of the oscillation period and in the oscillation behaviour again more resembling the sine–squared shape, as in Figs. 4 and 5. The overall picture is qualitatively the same, when we cross the critical line at other values of the parameters $`b`$ and $`\delta `$. Thus, Fig.6 shows the time behaviour of the populations at $`b=0.499`$ and $`\delta =0.001001002`$ being on the critical line. Figure 6 is similar to Fig. 2, except that the oscillation amplitudes are different, being equal to different values of $`b`$.

In practice, the value of $`b`$, which is the dimensionless expression for the transition amplitude (13), depends on the resonant field (3). The spatial part of the latter can be chosen to have different forms. For example, in the consideration of a mixture of two Bose condensates of 87Rb atoms in two internal hyperfine states, en effective potential forcing the excitation of a first antisymmetric mode was linear , due to the spatial separation of the condensate components. In our scheme, the potential $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$ can be arbitrary.

## 3 Conclusion

We presented the analysis of temporal behaviour of spatial coherent modes excited by a resonant field realizing the oscillatory modulation of the trapping potential. Such a procedure of using the resonant pumping field suggests the way of creating mixtures of coherent spatial modes in arbitrary proportions, including the formation of pure excited coherent modes.

There exists the critical line connecting the values of the transition amplitude and detuning at which the dynamics of fractional populations suddenly changes. The qualitative and sharp change in the population dynamics reminds critical phenomena occurring in equilibrium systems. It is possible to construct an effective stationary system describing the averaged behaviour of populations satisfying the original evolution equations. The effective averaged system displays critical behaviour at the critical line which corresponds to that observed for the nonequilibrium system. Effective critical indices can also be defined. The detailed study of the critical dynamics is presently under investigation and will be published elsewhere. The possibility of exciting various coherent modes of Bose atoms can be important in the context of realizing different spatial modes of atom lasers \[11–15\].

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to financial support from the São Paulo State Research Foundation (Fapesp) and the program Pronex.

Figure captions

Fig.1. The populations of the excited coherent mode (solid line) and of the ground–state mode (dashed line) as functions of time for $`b=0.4`$ and $`\delta =0.11`$.

Fig.2. The critical dynamics of the populations for $`b=0.4`$ and $`\delta =0.11017478`$.

Fig.3. Overturning of the downward cusps of $`n_j`$ upward, with the period of oscillations being approximately doubled, occuring at $`b=0.4`$ and $`\delta =0.11017479`$.

Fig.4. The time dependence of the populations outside the critical line, with $`b=0.4`$ and $`\delta =0.12`$.

Fig.5. The fractional population oscillations for $`b=0.4`$ and $`\delta =0.2`$.

Fig.6. The critical population dynamics for $`b=0.499`$ and $`\delta =0.001001002`$. As in all previous figures, solid line corresponds to $`n_j`$ and the dashed one to $`n_0`$.


text:
# A microscopic derivation of Special Relativity: simple harmonic oscillations of a moving space-time lattice

## Reference

 Einstein, A., 1905, Annalen der Physik, 18, 891.

## Figure Caption

The space-time lattice of stationary ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and moving ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) observers are illustrated here for the case of distance measurements. The ‘tickmarks’ of the ruler of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are marked as the topmost set of black dots. The rod to be measured is the short bar immediately beneath, and is at rest with respect to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Observer $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ measures the length of this rod while in motion, by simultaneously acquiring data on the positions of the front and rear end of the rod. It is postulated that effectively $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is using a moving set of ‘tickmarks’, and if microscopically these are connected by ‘elastic springs’ which can extend while in motion, the ‘tickmarks’ widen as depicted in the lower half of the diagram. Consequently $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ obtains a smaller value for the length of the rod.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Chiral symmetry is broken in the vacuum of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). At temperatures of about 150 MeV, lattice QCD calculations indicate that chiral symmetry is restored . The order of the phase transition depends on the mass of the non-strange up and down quarks, $`m_um_d`$, and the mass of the strange quark, $`m_s`$ . In nature, $`m_um_d10`$ MeV and $`m_s100`$ MeV . At temperatures on the order of 150 MeV, heavier quark flavors do not play an essential role.

For $`N_f`$ massless quark flavors, the QCD Lagrangian has a $`SU(N_f)_r\times SU(N_f)_{\mathrm{}}\times U(1)_A`$ symmetry. In the vacuum, a non-vanishing expectation value of the quark condensate, $`\overline{q}_{\mathrm{}}q_r0`$, spontaneously breaks this symmetry to the diagonal $`SU(N_f)_V`$ group of vector transformations, $`V=r+\mathrm{}`$. For $`N_f=3`$, the effective, low-energy degrees of freedom of QCD are the scalar and pseudoscalar mesons. Since mesons are $`q\overline{q}`$ states, they fall in singlet and octet representations of $`SU(3)_V`$.

The $`SU(N_f)_r\times SU(N_f)_{\mathrm{}}\times U(1)_A`$ symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian is also explicitly broken by nonzero quark masses. For $`MN_f`$ degenerate quark flavors, a $`SU(M)_V`$ symmetry is preserved. If $`M<N_f`$, the mass eigenstates are mixtures of singlet and octet states. For instance, in the pseudoscalar meson sector, this mixing occurs between the $`\eta `$ and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, with the $`\eta `$ meson being mostly octet and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson being mostly singlet, with a mixing angle of about -10 to -20 degrees .

As shown by ’t Hooft , instantons also break the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry explicitly to $`Z(N_f)_A`$ . For the low-energy dynamics of QCD, however, this discrete symmetry is irrelevant.

Pisarski and Wilczek  discussed the order of the chiral transition using renormalization group arguments in the framework of the linear sigma model. This model is the effective theory for the low-energy degrees of freedom of QCD and incorporates the global $`SU(N_f)_r\times SU(N_f)_{\mathrm{}}\times U(1)_A`$ symmetry, but not the local $`SU(3)_c`$ color symmetry. They found that, for $`N_f=2`$ flavors of massless quarks, the transition can be of second order, if the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is explicitly broken by instantons. It is driven first order by fluctuations, if the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is restored at $`T_c`$. For $`N_f=3`$ massless flavors, the transition is always first order. In this case, the term which breaks the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry explicitly is a cubic invariant, and consequently drives the transition first order. In the absence of explicit $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking, the transition is fluctuation-induced of first order.

In nature, the chiral symmetry of QCD is explicitly broken by nonzero quark masses. In this case, one has to resort to numerical calculations to determine the order of the chiral transition. At present, however, lattice QCD data have not unambiguously settled this issue. For physical values of the quark masses, calculations with staggered fermions  favor a smooth crossover transition, while calculations with Wilson fermions  predict the transition to be first order.

As an alternative to lattice QCD calculations, one can also use the linear sigma model to make predictions on the order of the phase transition in QCD. Furthermore, various symmetry-breaking scenarios can be more easily investigated than on the lattice. Studying the linear sigma model at nonzero temperature, however, requires many-body resummation schemes, because infrared divergences cause naive perturbation theory to break down .

For $`N_f=2`$, effective chiral models for QCD have been studied extensively, because in this case $`SU(2)_r\times SU(2)_{\mathrm{}}`$ is isomorphic to $`O(4)`$, and $`O(N)`$ models  in general are particularly amenable to many-body approximations at nonzero temperature. For an incomplete list of references, see , where some of us (J.T.L. and D.H.R.) studied the $`O(N)`$ model in the Hartree and large–$`N`$ approximations.

For $`N_f=3`$, many-body resummation schemes become considerably more involved due to the larger number of degrees of freedom. The $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ linear sigma model  was previously studied at nonzero temperature in . The genuine problem of these approaches is that they employ methods related to the standard loop expansion to compute the effective potential. At nonzero temperature, the loop expansion is known to fail in the case of spontaneously broken symmetry, since it generates imaginary masses for the particles. The physical reason for this failure is that contributions from thermal excitations to the masses are neglected. This can be amended by self-consistent resummation schemes like the mean-field or the Hartree approximation. In , one of us (J.S.-B.) studied the linear sigma model in the mean-field approximation.

In this work, we study the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ linear sigma model in the Hartree approximation. We derive this approximation systematically from the Cornwall–Jackiw–Tomboulis (CJT) formalism . Thus, we extend previous work for $`N_f=2`$  to $`N_f=3`$. We study possible patterns of symmetry breaking in the vacuum and its subsequent restoration at nonzero temperature. We focus on both the cases where chiral symmetry is and where it is not explicitly broken by nonzero quark masses. Lattice QCD data indicate that the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly becomes small near the chiral transition . Therefore, we also study the influence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly on symmetry restoration at nonzero temperature.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ linear sigma model. In Sec. III, the possible patterns of symmetry breaking in the vacuum are discussed. Section IV is devoted to the vacuum properties of the model at tree level. In Sec. V, we derive the gap equations for the condensates and the masses in Hartree approximation via the CJT effective potential. Numerical results are presented in Sec. VI. We conclude this work in Sec. VII with a summary of our results.

We use the imaginary-time formalism to compute quantities at nonzero temperature. Our notation is

$$_kf(k)T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}f(2\pi inT,𝐤),_xf(x)_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau d^3𝐱f(\tau ,𝐱).$$
(1)
We use units $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$. The metric tensor is $`g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+,,,)`$. Throughout this work, all latin subscripts are adjoint $`U(3)`$ indices, $`a=0,\mathrm{},8`$, and a summation over repeated indices is understood.

## II The Linear Sigma Model for Three Flavors

The Lagrangian of the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ linear sigma model is given by

$`(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\lambda _1\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right]^2\lambda _2\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`c\left[\mathrm{Det}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+\mathrm{Det}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right)\right]+\mathrm{Tr}\left[H(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\right].`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a complex $`3\times 3`$ matrix parametrizing the scalar and pseudoscalar meson nonets,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=T_a\varphi _a=T_a(\sigma _a+i\pi _a),$$
(5)
where $`\sigma _a`$ are the scalar fields and $`\pi _a`$ are the pseudoscalar fields. The $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`H`$ breaks the symmetry explicitly and is chosen as

$$H=T_ah_a,$$
(6)
where $`h_a`$ are nine external fields. $`T_a=\widehat{\lambda }_a/2`$ are the generators of $`U(3)`$, where $`\widehat{\lambda }_a`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices with $`\widehat{\lambda }_0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. The $`T_a`$ are normalized such that $`\mathrm{Tr}(T_aT_b)=\delta _{ab}/2`$ and obey the $`U(3)`$ algebra with

$`[T_a,T_b]`$ $`=`$ $`if_{abc}T_c,`$ (8)
$`\{T_a,T_b\}`$ $`=`$ $`d_{abc}T_c,`$ (9)
where $`f_{abc}`$ and $`d_{abc}`$ for $`a,b,c=1,\mathrm{},8`$ are the standard antisymmetric and symmetric structure constants of $`SU(3)`$ and

$$f_{ab0}0,d_{ab0}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ab}.$$
(10)
In Eq. (2), $`m^2`$ is the tree-level mass of the fields in the absence of symmetry breaking, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are the two possible quartic coupling constants, and $`c`$ is the cubic coupling constant. In four dimensions, the cubic and the two quartic terms are the only relevant $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ invariant operators.

The terms in the first line of Eq. (2) are actually invariant under the larger group of $`U(3)_r\times U(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry transformations,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }U_r\mathrm{\Phi }U_{\mathrm{}}^{},U_{r,\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega _{r,\mathrm{}}^aT^a\right).$$
(11)
Introducing $`\omega _{V,A}^a\left(\omega _r^a\pm \omega _{\mathrm{}}^a\right)/2`$, the right- and left-handed symmetry transformations can be alternatively written as vector, $`V=r+\mathrm{}`$, and axial vector, $`A=r\mathrm{}`$, transformations. It is then obvious that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a singlet under $`U(1)_V`$ transformations $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _V^0T^0)`$. This $`U(1)_V`$ is the $`U(1)`$ of baryon number conservation and thus always respected. The terms in the first line of Eq. (2) are therefore invariant under $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}\times U(1)_ASU(3)_V\times U(3)_A`$.

The determinant terms correspond to the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly in the QCD vacuum. As shown by ’t Hooft , they arise from instantons. These terms are invariant under $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}SU(3)_V\times SU(3)_A`$ transformations, but break the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry of the Lagrangrian explicitly. The last term in Eq. (2) breaks the axial and possibly the $`SU(3)_V`$ vector symmetries explicitly. The patterns of explicit symmetry breaking will be discussed in detail in Sec. III.

The $`\sigma _a`$ fields are members of the scalar ($`J^P=0^+`$) nonet and the $`\pi _a`$ fields are members of the pseudoscalar ($`J^P=0^{}`$) nonet,

$`T_a\sigma _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}a_0^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\sigma _8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma _0& a_0^{}& \kappa ^{}\\ a_0^+& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}a_0^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\sigma _8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma _0& \overline{\kappa }^0\\ \kappa ^+& \kappa ^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma _8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma _0\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
$`T_a\pi _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\pi _8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\pi _0& \pi ^{}& K^{}\\ \pi ^+& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\pi _8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\pi _0& \overline{K}^0\\ K^+& K^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\pi _8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\pi _0\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
Here, $`\pi ^\pm (\pi _1\pm i\pi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi _3`$ are the charged and neutral pions, respectively. $`K^\pm (\pi _4\pm i\pi _5)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`K^0(\pi _6+i\pi _7)/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\overline{K}^0(\pi _6i\pi _7)/\sqrt{2}`$ are the kaons. In general, because the strange quark is much heavier than the up or down quarks, the $`\pi _0`$ and the $`\pi _8`$ are admixtures of the $`\eta `$ and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson.

The situation with the scalar nonet is not as clear. The parity partner of the pion is the $`a_0(980)`$ meson, i.e., $`a_0^\pm (\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`a_0^0\sigma _3`$. We identify the parity partner of the kaon with the $`\kappa `$ meson \[now referred to as $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ in \]. Finally, in general the $`\sigma _0`$ and the $`\sigma _8`$ are admixtures of the $`\sigma `$ \[now also referred to as $`f_0(4001200)`$\] and $`f_0(1370)`$ mesons. \[Instead of the $`f_0(1370)`$ meson, one could have chosen the $`f_0(980)`$ meson. However, as we shall see in Sec. IV, in the linear sigma model the mass of this state is closer to the $`f_0(1370)`$.\] For details concerning the phenomenological status of the scalar nonet, see, for instance .

In principle, there is the possibility that the scalar particles are not diquark states, but formed from two quarks and two antiquarks . Then we would associate the $`\kappa `$ with the $`\kappa (900)`$ discovered in $`\pi K`$ scattering . Determining the vacuum properties of the linear sigma model, cf. Sec. IV, the mass of the $`\kappa `$ turns out to be between that of the $`\kappa (900)`$ and the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$, while its width  is closer to the observed width of the $`\kappa (900)`$.

Symmetry breaking gives the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field a vacuum expectation value,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }T_a\overline{\sigma }_a.$$
(21)
Shifting the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field by this vacuum expectation value, the Lagrangian can be rewritten as ,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[_\mu \sigma _a^\mu \sigma _a+_\mu \pi _a^\mu \pi _a\sigma _a(m_S^2)_{ab}\sigma _b\pi _a(m_P^2)_{ab}\pi _b\right]`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`\left(𝒢_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}_{abcd}\overline{\sigma }_d\right)\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c3\left(𝒢_{abc}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}_{abcd}\overline{\sigma }_d\right)\pi _a\pi _b\sigma _c`$ (23)
$``$ $`2_{abcd}\sigma _a\sigma _b\pi _c\pi _d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_{abcd}(\sigma _a\sigma _b\sigma _c\sigma _d+\pi _a\pi _b\pi _c\pi _d)U(\overline{\sigma }),`$ (24)
where

$$U(\overline{\sigma })=\frac{m^2}{2}\overline{\sigma }_a^2𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_a\overline{\sigma }_b\overline{\sigma }_c+\frac{1}{3}_{abcd}\overline{\sigma }_a\overline{\sigma }_b\overline{\sigma }_c\overline{\sigma }_dh_a\overline{\sigma }_a$$
(25)
is the tree-level potential and $`\overline{\sigma }_a`$ is determined on the tree level by

$$\frac{U(\overline{\sigma })}{\overline{\sigma _a}}=m^2\overline{\sigma }_a3𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_b\overline{\sigma }_c+\frac{4}{3}_{abcd}\overline{\sigma }_b\overline{\sigma }_c\overline{\sigma }_dh_a=0.$$
(26)
The coefficients $`𝒢_{abc}`$, $`_{abcd}`$, and $`_{abcd}`$ are given by

$`𝒢_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{6}}\left[d_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(\delta _{a0}d_{0bc}+\delta _{b0}d_{a0c}+\delta _{c0}d_{ab0}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}d_{000}\delta _{a0}\delta _{b0}\delta _{c0}\right],`$ (28)
$`_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{4}}\left(\delta _{ab}\delta _{cd}+\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}+\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{8}}\left(d_{abn}d_{ncd}+d_{adn}d_{nbc}+d_{acn}d_{nbd}\right),`$ (29)
$`_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{4}}\delta _{ab}\delta _{cd}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{8}}\left(d_{abn}d_{ncd}+f_{acn}f_{nbd}+f_{bcn}f_{nad}\right).`$ (30)
The tree-level masses, $`(m_S^2)_{ab}`$ and $`(m_P^2)_{ab}`$ are given by

$`(m_S^2)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\delta _{ab}6𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_c+4_{abcd}\overline{\sigma }_c\overline{\sigma }_d,`$ (32)
$`(m_P^2)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\delta _{ab}+6𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_c+4_{abcd}\overline{\sigma }_c\overline{\sigma }_d.`$ (33)
In general, these mass matrices are not diagonal. Consequently, the fields ($`\sigma _a`$, $`\pi _a`$) in the standard basis of $`U(3)`$ generators are not mass eigenstates. Since the mass matrices are symmetric and real, diagonalization is achieved by an orthogonal transformation,

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i`$ $`=`$ $`O_{ia}^{(S)}\sigma _a,`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`O_{ia}^{(P)}\pi _a,`$ (36)
$`\left(\stackrel{~}{m}_{S,P}^2\right)_i`$ $`=`$ $`O_{ai}^{(S,P)}\left(m_{S,P}^2\right)_{ab}O_{bi}^{(S,P)}.`$ (37)
## III Patterns of symmetry breaking

In this section, we discuss possible patterns of symmetry breaking in the vacuum. We begin with the most symmetric case, i.e., with the minimum number of nontrivial couplings, and then successively reduce the symmetry.

1. $`H=0`$, $`c=0`$, $`\lambda _2=0`$: For $`m^2>0`$, the symmetry group is $`O(18)`$, on account of

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _a^2+\pi _a^2).$$
(38)
The physics of the $`O(N)`$ model has been studied extensively in the past  and so we shall restrict ourselves in the following to $`\lambda _20`$. Here, we only mention that for $`m^2<0`$, the $`O(18)`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken to $`O(17)`$ and there are 17 Goldstone bosons.
2. $`H=0`$, $`c=0`$, $`\lambda _20`$: For $`m^2>0`$, the Lagrangian has a global $`SU(3)_V\times U(3)_A`$ symmetry. For $`m^2<0`$, Eq. (25) shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ develops a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value, and the $`U(3)_A`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken. By the Vafa–Witten theorem , only the axial symmetries can be spontaneously broken, while the vector symmetries remain intact. One can distinguish two cases :

1. $`\lambda _2>0`$. $`SU(3)_V\times U(3)_A`$ is broken to $`SU(3)_V`$, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$ and the appearance of 9 Goldstone bosons which comprise the entire pseudoscalar nonet, i.e., the pions, the kaons, the $`\eta `$, and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. The nine massive scalar particles fall into irreducible representations of $`SU(3)_V`$. Since the mesons consist of a quark (a $`[\mathrm{𝟑}]`$ of $`SU(3)_V`$) and an antiquark (a $`[\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}]`$), these representations are a singlet and an octet, because $`[\mathrm{𝟑}]\times [\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}]=[\mathrm{𝟏}]+[\mathrm{𝟖}]`$. The mass of the singlet, the $`\sigma `$ meson, is in general different from the (degenerate) masses of the octet particles.
    2. $`\lambda _2<0`$. $`SU(3)_V\times U(3)_A`$ is broken to $`SU(2)_V\times U(2)_A`$, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{diag}(0,0,1)`$ and 10 Goldstone bosons.
3. $`H=0`$, $`c0`$, $`\lambda _20`$: The symmetry is $`SU(3)_V\times SU(3)_A`$. A non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ spontaneously breaks this symmetry to $`SU(3)_V`$, with the appearance of 8 Goldstone bosons, which is the complete pseudoscalar octet. The ninth Goldstone boson of case 2(a), the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, becomes massive and thus is no longer a Goldstone boson, because the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is already explicitly broken. The masses of the scalar particles behave as in case 2(a). Note that from Eq. (25), $`m^2<0`$ is no longer required for spontaneous symmetry breaking when $`c0`$.
4. $`H0`$, $`c=0`$, $`\lambda _20`$: In QCD, this corresponds to non-vanishing quark masses, but vanishing $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must carry the quantum numbers of the vacuum, only $`h_0`$, $`h_3`$, and $`h_8`$ can be nonzero. One can distinguish three cases:

1. $`h_00`$, $`h_3=h_8=0`$. All quark masses are equal, i.e., $`m_u=m_d=m_s`$. In this case, the $`U(3)_A`$ axial symmetry is explicitly broken, i.e., the 9 Goldstone bosons of case 2(a) become (mass degenerate) pseudo-Goldstone bosons. The $`SU(3)_V`$ symmetry remains intact and the scalars follow the classification as discussed in case 2(a).
    2. $`h_00`$, $`h_3=0`$, $`h_80`$. Only the non-strange flavors are degenerate in mass, i.e., $`m_u=m_dm_s`$. Besides the explicitly broken $`U(3)_A`$ symmetry, $`SU(3)_V`$ is explicitly broken to $`SU(2)_V`$. For the scalar particles, the following applies. If there was ideal flavor mixing, i.e., the physical particles are also eigenstates of flavor, one particle is an $`s\overline{s}`$ state (the $`f_0`$ meson), while all others contain at least one non-strange quark or antiquark. The latter then fall into irreducible representations of $`SU(2)_V`$. For the scalar particles containing no strange quark or antiquark, a quark (a $`[\mathrm{𝟐}]`$ of $`SU(2)_V`$) couples with an antiquark (a $`[\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}]`$) to form the $`\sigma `$ meson singlet and the $`a_0`$ meson triplet, since $`[\mathrm{𝟐}]\times [\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}]=[\mathrm{𝟏}]+[\mathrm{𝟑}]`$. The strange scalar particles have only one quark in a $`[\mathrm{𝟐}]`$ or a $`[\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}]`$ representation, and therefore fall into doublets of $`SU(2)_V`$. The $`\kappa ^+`$ and $`\kappa ^0`$ mesons form a $`[\mathrm{𝟐}]`$, while the $`\kappa ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\kappa }^0`$ mesons form a $`[\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}]`$. Because the masses of quarks and antiquarks are identical, these two doublets are mass degenerate. In nature, however, flavor mixing is not ideal and the $`f_0`$ meson has a $`q\overline{q}`$ admixture, just as the $`\sigma `$ meson has an $`s\overline{s}`$ admixture. For the pseudoscalars, only the four non-strange pseudo-Goldstone bosons, the pions and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, are degenerate in mass. The kaons and the $`\eta `$ meson both have different masses. Since the pions are non-strange $`q\overline{q}`$ states, and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is degenerate in mass with the pions, it follows that it is also a non-strange $`q\overline{q}`$ state. Then, the $`\eta `$ meson is a pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state, i.e., flavor mixing is ideal in the pseudoscalar sector.
    3. $`h_00`$, $`h_30`$, $`h_80`$. Here, $`SU(3)_V`$ is completely broken. Even the non-strange pseudo-Goldstone bosons are no longer completely degenerate in mass.
5. $`H0`$, $`c0`$, $`\lambda _20`$: Now, from the $`U(3)_ASU(3)_A\times U(1)_A`$ symmetry, the $`U(1)_A`$ is explicitly broken by instantons. Again, there are three cases:

1. $`h_00`$, $`h_3=h_8=0`$. In this case, the remaining $`SU(3)_A`$ axial symmetry is explicitly broken, i.e., the 8 Goldstone bosons of case 3 become (mass degenerate) pseudo-Goldstone bosons. As above, the $`SU(3)_V`$ symmetry remains intact. The scalar particles behave as in case 4(a).
    2. $`h_00`$, $`h_3=0`$, $`h_80`$. Besides the explicitly broken $`SU(3)_A`$ symmetry, $`SU(3)_V`$ is explicitly broken to $`SU(2)_V`$. The scalar and pseudoscalar particles behave as in case 4(b), except that the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson mass is different from the pion mass because of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. Then, flavor mixing is no longer ideal in the pseudoscalar sector.
    3. $`h_00`$, $`h_30`$, $`h_80`$. This is the case realized in nature, although violation of isospin $`SU(2)_V`$ is small (the charged and the neutral pions are almost degenerate in mass).

In the following, we shall restrict ourselves to studying cases 2(a), 3, 4(b), and 5(b). The first two cases are interesting because they represent the idealized scenario where the quark masses are zero, i.e., the chiral limit. The last two cases are close to the situation in nature where quark masses break the chiral symmetry explicitly. Lattice QCD data indicate that the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly becomes small for large temperatures . This motivates our interest in cases 2(a) and 4(b), see also . Since isospin $`SU(2)_V`$ violation is rather small in nature, it is sufficient and easier to study case 5(b) instead of 5(c).

## IV Condensates and masses in the vacuum

In this section, we establish the vacuum properties of the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ model in the various cases selected above. In contrast to the previous section, it is now easier to begin with the most asymmetric case 5(b). This is the case closest to nature and therefore it is natural to use the experimental values for the meson masses and decay constants as input to determine the coupling constants. The linear sigma model has six parameters, $`m^2`$, $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, $`c`$, $`h_0`$, and $`h_8`$. It therefore requires six experimentally known quantities as input. We choose $`m_\pi `$, $`m_K`$, $`f_\pi `$, $`f_K`$, the average squared mass of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons, $`m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2`$, and $`m_\sigma `$. The other masses, $`m_{a_0}`$, $`m_\kappa `$, $`m_{f_0}`$, the difference $`m_\eta ^2m_\eta ^{}^2`$, and the mixing angles are then predicted.

In the other cases, nature does not provide us with information about the masses and the decay constants. In case 4(b), $`c=0`$, and we need to specify only five input parameters. It turns out that we do not need to fix $`m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^2`$, because $`m_\eta ^{}=m_\pi `$, and the mass of the $`\eta `$ meson is predicted as well.

The cases 2(a) and 3 correspond to the chiral limit which is not realized in nature. Therefore, in principle one should not use experimental values for the masses and decay constants to fix the parameters $`m^2`$, $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, and, in case 3, $`c`$. For the sake of definiteness, however, we use the following tentative generalizations of experimental data. We use the pion decay constant, $`f_\pi `$, extrapolated to the chiral limit, the $`\sigma `$ meson mass, and, in case 3, the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson mass. \[In case 2(a), $`m_\eta ^{}=m_\pi =0`$.\] For the final input parameter, since the scalar octet is degenerate in mass when the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry is not explicitly broken, we use an average of the experimental values for the masses of the scalar octet.

### A Explicit chiral symmetry breaking with $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly

The vacuum expectation value is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=T_0\overline{\sigma }_0+T_8\overline{\sigma }_8`$. The equations for the condensates $`\overline{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_8`$ read

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left[m^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2\right]\overline{\sigma }_0+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2\sqrt{6}}}+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\sigma }_8\right]\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (40)
$`h_8`$ $`=`$ $`\left[m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2\right]\overline{\sigma }_8.`$ (41)
The PCAC relations (see Appendix) determine the values of the condensates from the pion and kaon decay constants, $`f_\pi `$, $`f_K`$,

$`\overline{\sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi +2f_K}{\sqrt{6}}},`$ (43)
$`\overline{\sigma }_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(f_\pi f_K\right).`$ (44)
We use the experimental values $`f_\pi =92.4`$ MeV, $`f_K=113`$ MeV .

The nonzero elements of the scalar mass matrix are

$`\left(m_S^2\right)_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}c\overline{\sigma }_0+\left(3\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (46)
$`\left(m_S^2\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_S^2\right)_{22}=\left(m_S^2\right)_{33}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2+\sqrt{2}\lambda _2\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (48)
$`\left(m_S^2\right)_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_S^2\right)_{55}=\left(m_S^2\right)_{66}=\left(m_S^2\right)_{77}`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (50)
$`\left(m_S^2\right)_{88}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2\sqrt{2}\lambda _2\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+3\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (51)
$`\left(m_S^2\right)_{08}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_S^2\right)_{80}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}+2\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\sigma }_8\right]\overline{\sigma }_8.`$ (52)
While the masses of the $`a_0`$ and the $`\kappa `$ mesons are given by the (11) and (44) elements of the mass matrix, $`m_{a_0}^2(m_S^2)_{11}`$, $`m_\kappa ^2(m_S^2)_{44}`$, the $`\sigma `$ and $`f_0`$ meson masses are obtained by diagonalizing the (08) sector of the mass matrix. According to Eq. (II),

$`m_\sigma ^2`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_S^2)_0=(m_S^2)_{00}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _S+(m_S^2)_{88}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _S+2(m_S^2)_{08}\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\mathrm{sin}\theta _S,`$ (54)
$`m_{f_0}^2`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_S^2)_8=(m_S^2)_{00}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _S+(m_S^2)_{88}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _S2(m_S^2)_{08}\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\mathrm{sin}\theta _S,`$ (55)
where the scalar mixing angle $`\theta _S`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _S=\frac{2(m_S^2)_{08}}{(m_S^2)_{00}(m_S^2)_{88}}.$$
(56)
The pseudoscalar mass matrix is given by

$`\left(m_P^2\right)_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}c\overline{\sigma }_0+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3}}\right)\left(\overline{\sigma }_0^2+\overline{\sigma }_8^2\right),`$ (58)
$`\left(m_P^2\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_P^2\right)_{22}=\left(m_P^2\right)_{33}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`m^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}\lambda _2\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{6}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (60)
$`\left(m_P^2\right)_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_P^2\right)_{55}=\left(m_P^2\right)_{66}=\left(m_P^2\right)_{77}`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`m^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (62)
$`\left(m_P^2\right)_{88}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}\lambda _2\overline{\sigma }_0\overline{\sigma }_8+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_8^2,`$ (63)
$`\left(m_P^2\right)_{08}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_P^2\right)_{80}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda _2\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\sigma }_8\right]\overline{\sigma }_8.`$ (64)
While the mass of the pion and the kaon are given by the (11) and (44) elements of the mass matrix, $`m_\pi ^2(m_P^2)_{11}`$, $`m_K^2(m_P^2)_{44}`$, the $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`\eta `$ meson masses are obtained by diagonalizing the (08) sector of the mass matrix. According to Eq. (II),

$`m_\eta ^{}^2`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_P^2)_0=(m_P^2)_{00}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _P+(m_P^2)_{88}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _P+2(m_P^2)_{08}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P\mathrm{sin}\theta _P,`$ (66)
$`m_\eta ^2`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_P^2)_8=(m_P^2)_{00}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _P+(m_P^2)_{88}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _P2(m_P^2)_{08}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P\mathrm{sin}\theta _P,`$ (67)
where the pseudoscalar mixing angle $`\theta _P`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _P=\frac{2(m_P^2)_{08}}{(m_P^2)_{00}(m_P^2)_{88}}.$$
(68)
The explicit symmetry breaking terms, $`h_0`$ and $`h_8`$, are determined from Eqs. (IV A), (IV A), (60), and (62) as

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(m_\pi ^2f_\pi +2m_K^2f_K\right),`$ (70)
$`h_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(m_\pi ^2f_\pi m_K^2f_K\right).`$ (71)
Using the experimental pion and kaon masses, one obtains $`h_0=(286.094\mathrm{MeV})^3`$ and $`h_8=(310.960\mathrm{MeV})^3`$.

Comparing Eqs. (41) and (50) reveals

$$h_8=m_\kappa ^2\overline{\sigma }_8,$$
(72)
i.e., the mass of the $`\kappa `$ meson is predicted to be $`m_\kappa =1124.315`$ MeV, which is about 21% smaller than the experimental value. The average $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson mass squared determines $`\lambda _2`$

$$\lambda _2=\frac{3\left(2f_Kf_\pi \right)m_K^2\left(2f_K+f_\pi \right)m_\pi ^22\left(m_\eta ^{}^2+m_\eta ^2\right)\left(f_Kf_\pi \right)}{\left[3f_\pi ^2+8f_K(f_Kf_\pi )\right](f_Kf_\pi )}.$$
(73)
For $`m_\eta ^{}^2+m_\eta ^2=(1103.625\mathrm{MeV})^2`$, one obtains $`\lambda _2=46.484`$.

The difference of the pion and kaon masses squared and $`\lambda _2`$ determine $`c`$,

$$c=\frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{f_Kf_\pi }\lambda _2\left(2f_Kf_\pi \right)=4807.835\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(74)
Now, also the mass of the $`a_0`$ meson is fixed,

$$m_{a_0}^2=m_\kappa ^2+(f_Kf_\pi )\left[c\lambda _2(2f_K+f_\pi )\right]=(1028.707\mathrm{MeV})^2,$$
(75)
which is about 4% larger than the experimental value. The pseudoscalar mixing angle is $`\theta _P=5^\mathrm{o}`$. This angle determines the individual $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson masses to be $`m_\eta =539.008`$ MeV and $`m_\eta ^{}=963.046`$ MeV. These values are surprisingly close to the experimental ones; the $`\eta `$ meson is about 2% lighter and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is about 0.6% heavier than in nature.

Finally, $`\lambda _1`$ is determined by fixing either the mass of the $`\sigma `$ or the $`f_0`$ meson; the other mass, the scalar mixing angle, $`\theta _S`$, and $`m^2`$ are then given by solving a nonlinear equation for the fixed mass. Here, we choose $`m_\sigma =600`$ MeV to yield $`\lambda _1=1.400`$ and $`m_{f_0}=1221.113`$ MeV, about 11% smaller than the experimental value. The scalar mixing angle is $`\theta _S=19.859^\mathrm{o}`$, and $`m^2=(342.523\mathrm{MeV})^2`$.

### B Explicit chiral symmetry breaking without $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly

In the absence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly, $`c=0`$, the condensate equations (40) and (41) and the equations for the scalar and pseudoscalar mass matrices (IV A) and (IV A) simplify. Equations (IV A) and (IV A), however, remain the same and thus yield the same values for $`\overline{\sigma }_0`$, $`\overline{\sigma }_8`$, $`h_0`$, and $`h_8`$ as above. The mass of the $`\kappa `$ meson is still given by Eq. (72) and is the same as above.

The differences begin with the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, which is now identical to the pion mass, since the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly is absent. Furthermore, $`\lambda _2`$ is given by the kaon and pion masses and decay constants,

$$\lambda _2=\frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{(2f_Kf_\pi )(f_Kf_\pi )}=82.470.$$
(76)
This then determines the mass of the $`\eta `$ meson,

$$m_\eta ^2=m_\pi ^2+2\lambda _2f_K(f_Kf_\pi )=(634.818\mathrm{MeV})^2,$$
(77)
and the $`a_0`$ meson,

$$m_{a_0}^2=m_\kappa ^2\lambda _2\left(2f_K^2f_\pi f_Kf_\pi ^2\right)=(850.387\mathrm{MeV})^2.$$
(78)
The pseudoscalar mixing angle is given by $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _P=2\sqrt{2}`$, or $`\theta _P=35.264^\mathrm{o}`$. This corresponds to ideal flavor mixing.

As before, $`\lambda _1`$ is given by solving the equation for the $`\sigma `$ meson mass, which in turn yields the $`f_0`$ meson mass, the scalar mixing angle, and $`m^2`$. For $`m_\sigma =600`$ MeV we find $`\lambda _1=4.550`$, $`m_{f_0}=1341.367`$ MeV, $`\theta _S=31.326^\mathrm{o}`$, and $`m^2=(503.551\mathrm{MeV}^2)`$.

### C Chiral limit with $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly

In this case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=T_0\overline{\sigma }_0`$. Using $`h_a=0`$ and the explicit form for the $`𝒢_{abc}`$ and $`_{abcd}`$, the equation for the condensate at the tree level (40) simplifies to

$$0=\left[m^2\frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}\overline{\sigma }_0+\left(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{3}\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2\right]\overline{\sigma }_0.$$
(79)
From the PCAC relations (see Appendix), we now obtain $`\overline{\sigma }_0=\sqrt{3/2}f_\pi `$. Lattice QCD data indicate a linear behavior of $`f_\pi `$ with the quark mass, $`f_\pi am_q+b`$ . Extrapolating these data to the chiral limit, $`m_q0`$ (as appropriate for $`H=0`$), one obtains $`f_\pi =90`$ MeV.

The scalar and the pseudoscalar mass matrices are diagonal and have the particularly simple form

$`\left(m_S^2\right)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2\right]\delta _{ab}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}c2\lambda _1\overline{\sigma }_0\right)\overline{\sigma }_0\delta _{a0}\delta _{b0},`$ (81)
$`\left(m_P^2\right)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[m^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{6}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{3}}\right)\overline{\sigma }_0^2\right]\delta _{ab}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}c\overline{\sigma }_0\delta _{a0}\delta _{b0}.`$ (82)
On account of Eq. (79), the pseudoscalar octet, $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},8`$, is massless, as expected from group theory, see case 3 in Sec. III. The singlet, the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, is massive, because the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is explicitly broken by the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly,

$$m_\eta ^{}^2\left(m_P^2\right)_{00}=\frac{3}{2}cf_\pi .$$
(83)
If we use the experimental value of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson mass, $`c=6791.157`$ MeV.

The scalar particles fall into a singlet, the $`\sigma `$ meson, with mass

$$m_\sigma ^2\left(m_S^2\right)_{00}=m^2cf_\pi +\frac{3}{2}\left(3\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)f_\pi ^2,$$
(84)
and an octet comprising the $`a_0`$, $`\kappa `$, and $`f_0`$ mesons,

$$m_{a_0}^2\left(m_S^2\right)_{11}=m^2+\frac{c}{2}f_\pi +\frac{3}{2}\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)f_\pi ^2m_\sigma ^2+m_\eta ^{}^23\lambda _1f_\pi ^2\lambda _2f_\pi ^2+\frac{2}{3}m_\eta ^{}^2,$$
(85)
where the last identity follows from Eq. (79). This equation determines $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ for given $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_{a_0}`$, and $`m_\eta ^{}`$. As the octet is mass degenerate, we average the experimental values for $`m_{a_0}^2`$, $`m_\kappa ^2`$, and $`m_{f_0}^2`$, weighted by the respective isospin degeneracy, to obtain an average mass of $`m_{a_0}=1225.795`$ MeV. For the $`\sigma `$ meson we again take $`m_\sigma =600`$ MeV. This results in $`\lambda _1=9.291`$ and $`\lambda _2=110.046`$. Then, $`m^2`$ follows from any of the mass equations as $`m^2=(164.921\mathrm{MeV})^2`$.

Note that the scalar singlet is lighter than the scalar octet, but the pseudoscalar singlet is heavier than the pseudoscalar octet. This “inverted mass spectrum” for the scalar mesons relative to the pseudoscalar mesons  is a general feature in the presence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. It arises from the relative difference in sign of the terms $`𝒢_{abc}`$ in Eqs. (II).

### D Chiral limit without $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly

In this case, as the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is not explicitly broken, all nine pseudoscalar particles are massless. This is readily derived from Eqs. (79) and (82) when $`c=0`$.

The scalar particles again fall into a singlet, the $`\sigma `$ meson, with mass

$$m_\sigma ^2\left(m_S^2\right)_{00}=m^2+\frac{3}{2}\left(3\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)f_\pi ^2,$$
(86)
and an octet comprising the $`a_0`$, $`\kappa `$, and $`f_0`$ mesons,

$$m_{a_0}^2\left(m_S^2\right)_{11}=m^2+\frac{3}{2}\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\right)f_\pi ^2m_\sigma ^23\lambda _1f_\pi ^2\lambda _2f_\pi ^2,$$
(87)
where the last identity follows from Eq. (79) with $`c=0`$. This equation determines $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ for given $`m_\sigma `$ and $`m_{a_0}`$. We again use $`m_{a_0}=1225.795`$ MeV and $`m_\sigma =600`$ MeV. This results in $`\lambda _1=47.019`$ and $`\lambda _2=185.503`$. Then, $`m^2`$ follows from any of the mass equations, $`m^2=(424.264\mathrm{MeV})^2`$, which is negative, as required in this case for spontaneous symmetry breaking.

## V The Effective Potential in the Cornwall–Jackiw–Tomboulis formalism

The effective potential of the Cornwall–Jackiw–Tomboulis formalism  is

$`V[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]`$ $`=`$ $`U(\overline{\sigma })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _k}\left\{\left[\mathrm{ln}𝒮^1(k)\right]_{aa}+\left[\mathrm{ln}𝒫^1(k)\right]_{aa}\right\}`$ (88)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _k}\left[S_{ab}^1(k;\overline{\sigma })𝒮_{ba}(k)+P_{ab}^1(k;\overline{\sigma })𝒫_{ba}(k)2\delta _{ab}\delta _{ba}\right]+V_2[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫].`$ (89)
Here, $`U(\overline{\sigma })`$ is the tree-level potential of Eq. (25), and

$`S_{ab}^1(k;\overline{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\delta _{ab}+\left(m_S^2\right)_{ab},`$ (91)
$`P_{ab}^1(k;\overline{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\delta _{ab}+\left(m_P^2\right)_{ab},`$ (92)
are the tree-level propagators for scalar and pseudoscalar particles, with the respective mass matrices (II).

The expectation values for the scalar fields, $`\overline{\sigma }_a`$, and the full propagators for scalar, $`𝒮(k)`$, and pseudoscalar, $`𝒫(k)`$, particles are determined from the stationarity conditions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]}{\delta \overline{\sigma }_a}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (94)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]}{\delta 𝒮_{ab}(k)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (95)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]}{\delta 𝒫_{ab}(k)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (96)
With Eq. (89), the latter two can be written in the form

$`𝒮_{ab}^1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`S_{ab}^1(k;\overline{\sigma })+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ab}(k),`$ (98)
$`𝒫_{ab}^1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ab}^1(k;\overline{\sigma })+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}(k),`$ (99)
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ab}(k)`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V_2[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]}{\delta 𝒮_{ba}(k)}},`$ (101)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}(k)`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V_2[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]}{\delta 𝒫_{ba}(k)}},`$ (102)
are the self-energies for the scalar and pseudoscalar particles.

In general, $`V_2[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]`$ is the sum of all two-particle irreducible (2PI) diagrams, with all lines representing full propagators. Here, we restrict ourselves to the most simple class of 2PI diagrams, the double-bubble diagrams of Fig. 1, which is equivalent to the Hartree approximation. Explicitly,

$$V_2[\overline{\sigma },𝒮,𝒫]=_{abcd}\left[_k𝒮_{ab}(k)_p𝒮_{cd}(p)+_k𝒫_{ab}(k)_p𝒫_{cd}(p)\right]+2_{abcd}_k𝒮_{ab}(k)_p𝒫_{cd}(p).$$
(103)
Note that, in the Hartree approximation, $`V_2`$ is actually independent of $`\overline{\sigma }_a`$. Therefore, the stationarity conditions for the condensates are

$`h_a`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\overline{\sigma }_a3𝒢_{abc}\left\{\overline{\sigma }_b\overline{\sigma }_c+{\displaystyle _k}\left[𝒮_{cb}(k)𝒫_{cb}(k)\right]\right\}`$ (105)
$`+`$ $`4_{abcd}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{\sigma }_b\overline{\sigma }_c+{\displaystyle _k}𝒮_{cb}(k)\right]\overline{\sigma }_d+4_{bcad}\overline{\sigma }_d{\displaystyle _k}𝒫_{cb}(k).`$ (106)
Since the self-energies (V) are independent of momentum in the Hartree approximation, the Schwinger–Dyson equations (V) for the full propagators assume the simple form

$`𝒮_{ab}^1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\delta _{ab}+\left(M_S^2\right)_{ab},`$ (107)
$`𝒫_{ab}^1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\delta _{ab}+\left(M_P^2\right)_{ab},`$ (108)
where the scalar and pseudoscalar mass matrices in the Hartree approximation are given by

$`\left(M_S^2\right)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\delta _{ab}6𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_c+4_{abcd}\left[\overline{\sigma }_c\overline{\sigma }_d+{\displaystyle _k}𝒮_{cd}(k)\right]+4_{abcd}{\displaystyle _k}𝒫_{cd}(k),`$ (110)
$`\left(M_P^2\right)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\delta _{ab}+6𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_c+4_{abcd}\left[\overline{\sigma }_c\overline{\sigma }_d+{\displaystyle _k}𝒮_{cd}(k)\right]+4_{abcd}{\displaystyle _k}𝒫_{cd}(k).`$ (111)
In general, the mass matrices are not diagonal in the standard basis of $`U(3)`$ generators, see Sec. IV. Consequently, the propagators are also not diagonal in this basis. Physically, however, only mass eigenstates can propagate. Therefore, we have to diagonalize the propagators before we compute the loop integrals in Eqs. (106) and (V).

In the Hartree approximation, all particles are stable quasiparticles, i.e., the imaginary parts of the self-energies vanish. Therefore, the inverse propagators (107) and (108) are real-valued. They are also symmetric in the standard basis of $`U(3)`$ generators and thus diagonalizable via an orthogonal transformation. This transformation is given by Eq. (37), with the obvious replacements

$$\left(m_{S,P}^2\right)_{ab}\left(M_{S,P}^2\right)_{ab},\left(\stackrel{~}{m}_{S,P}^2\right)_i\left(\stackrel{~}{M}_{S,P}^2\right)_i.$$
(112)
In cases 2(a) and 3 in Sec. III, the mass matrices are diagonal at zero temperature, cf. Sec. IV, and are taken to be diagonal at nonzero temperature $`T`$ as well. In cases 4(b) and 5(b), they have off-diagonal elements in the (08) sector at zero temperature, and consequently also have off-diagonal contributions in this sector at nonzero temperature. In the latter case, diagonalization proceeds as in Eq. (37) with the replacements (112).

The propagator matrices are diagonalized by the same orthogonal transformation as their inverse. The loop integrals in Eqs. (106) and (V) are therefore computed, for example, as

$$_k𝒮_{ab}(k)=O_{ai}^{(S)}_k\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i(k)O_{bi}^{(S)},$$
(113)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i(k)`$ is the scalar propagator in the mass eigenbasis.

The loop integral in Eq. (113) requires renormalization. Renormalization of many-body approximation schemes is nontrivial , but does not change the results qualitatively. We therefore simply omit the vacuum contributions to the loop integrals and set

$$_k\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i(k)=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{ϵ_𝐤[(\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2)_i]}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{ϵ_𝐤[(\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2)_i]}{T}\right\}1\right)^1,$$
(114)
and similarly for the pseudoscalar loop integrals. Here, $`ϵ_𝐤[(\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2)_i]=\sqrt{𝐤^2+(\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2)_i}`$ is the relativistic energy of the $`i`$th scalar quasiparticle with momentum $`𝐤`$.

## VI Results

In this section, we discuss the numerical results at nonzero temperature for the four cases of interest.

### A Chiral limit

In Fig. 2(a), the masses are shown in the chiral limit with the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly, $`c0`$. This corresponds to case 3 of Sec. III, for which the zero-temperature properties were discussed in Sec. IV C. Accordingly, there are eight Goldstone bosons, the three pions, the four kaons and the $`\eta `$ meson, while the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson has a large mass due to the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. The scalar octet, comprising the three $`a_0`$ mesons, the four $`\kappa `$ mesons, and the $`f_0`$ meson, is mass degenerate, while the singlet, the $`\sigma `$ meson, has a different mass.

As the temperature increases, the scalar masses decrease while the pseudoscalar masses increase. The mass of the Goldstone bosons (the pseudoscalar octet) increases because the Hartree approximation does not respect Goldstone’s theorem at nonzero $`T`$ . We do not consider this to be a serious shortcoming: as shown in , supplementing the Hartree approximation with the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) cures this problem. The analogous treatment within the CJT formalism will be deferred to a forthcoming publication .

At some critical temperature, $`T_c170`$ MeV, there is a first order phase transition between the low-temperature phase where chiral symmetry is broken and the high-temperature phase where chiral symmetry is restored and all meson masses are equal. The exact numerical value of $`T_c`$ can be determined by computing the effective potential.

At the point where the condensates vanish, all masses become degenerate. The reason is that at this point the condensate equation enforces the constraint

$$0=\frac{c}{6\sqrt{6}}\left\{2_k\left[𝒮_{00}(k)𝒫_{00}(k)\right]\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}_k\left[𝒮_{aa}(k)𝒫_{aa}(k)\right]\right\},$$
(115)
which is fulfilled when all masses are equal.

In Fig. 2(b), the non-strange and strange condensates, $`\phi _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ and $`\phi _\mathrm{s}`$, respectively, are shown as a function of temperature. In the standard basis of $`U(3)`$ generators, these are defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\phi _{\mathrm{ns}}& 0& 0\\ 0& \phi _{\mathrm{ns}}& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\phi _\mathrm{s}\end{array}\right).$$
(116)
When $`\mathrm{\Phi }=T_0\overline{\sigma }_0`$, $`\phi _{\mathrm{ns}}=\sqrt{2/3}\overline{\sigma }_0`$, and $`\phi _\mathrm{s}=\overline{\sigma }_0/\sqrt{3}`$, i.e., $`\phi _\mathrm{s}=\phi _{\mathrm{ns}}/\sqrt{2}`$, as borne out by Fig. 2(b).

In Figs. 2(c,d), the masses and condensates are shown for the case without explicit $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking, $`c=0`$. This corresponds to case 2(a) of Sec. III. The zero-temperature properties were discussed in Sec. IV D. Now, there are nine Goldstone bosons, the three pions, the four kaons, the $`\eta `$, and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. The behavior of the scalar octet is similar to the previous case.

As the temperature increases, the behavior of the scalar and pseudoscalar masses is quite similar to the masses in Fig. 2(a), i.e., the scalar masses decrease and the pseudoscalar masses increase, until they become degenerate in a first order phase transition. The critical temperature for this transition, however, appears to be slightly lower than for $`c0`$. A notable difference between Figs. 2(a) and (c) is that the masses do not become degenerate continuously as the condensates vanish. The reason is that, for $`c=0`$, the above constraint equation (115) is absent. However, these phenomena are irrelevant for the thermodynamic properties of the model, as they occur in a region where the solutions are thermodynamically unstable and the stable solution has to be found from Maxwell’s construction for first order phase transitions.

Another interesting feature is that the mass of the $`\sigma `$ meson is proportional to the condensates. The reason for this is that the condensate equation and the equation for the $`\sigma `$ mass can be combined to give

$$M_\sigma ^2=\frac{8}{3}_{0000}\overline{\sigma }_0^2.$$
(117)
### B Explicit chiral symmetry breaking with $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly

In Fig. 3, we show the masses for the scalars (a), the pseudoscalars (b), the condensates (c), and the mixing angles (d) for explicit chiral symmetry breaking, including the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. The masses behave according to the discussion of case 5(b) in Sec. III. As the temperature increases, chiral symmetry is restored in a crossover transition and all masses become approximately degenerate. The temperature range of the crossover transition is $`220`$ MeV, i.e., about $`50`$ MeV higher than in the case where there is no explicit chiral symmetry breaking. A notable feature is that the $`\kappa `$ becomes lighter than the $`a_0`$ meson, and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson lighter than the kaon, at about $`240`$ MeV.

The non-strange and the strange condensates, $`\phi _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ and $`\phi _\mathrm{s}`$, are shown in Fig. 3(c). Note that the strange condensate decreases much more slowly with temperature than the non-strange condensate. Figure 3(d) shows the scalar and pseudoscalar mixing angles. At large temperatures, these approach $`\mathrm{arcsin}(1/\sqrt{3})35.264^\mathrm{o}`$. From Eq. (II),

$`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\sigma _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\sigma _8,`$ (119)
$`f_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\sigma _0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\sigma _8.`$ (120)
On the other hand,

$`\phi _{\mathrm{ns}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8,`$ (122)
$`\phi _\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8.`$ (123)
This shows that the $`\sigma `$ meson becomes an excitation of the non-strange condensate, i.e., a purely non-strange $`q\overline{q}`$ state. On the other hand, the $`f_0`$ meson is an excitation of the strange condensate and a pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state. Similarly, the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is purely non-strange and the $`\eta `$ meson is purely strange. This is what was referred to as ideal flavor mixing earlier.

The transition occurs at temperatures which are not significantly larger than the strange quark mass. Therefore, the explicit $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry breaking by the strange quark mass cannot be neglected and, at first, only the (approximate) $`SU(2)_r\times SU(2)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry is restored. This means that the pion becomes degenerate with the $`\sigma `$ meson, and the $`a_0`$ becomes degenerate with the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. (The $`\eta ^{}`$ is purely non-strange due to ideal flavor mixing.) However, due to the fact that the strange condensate decreases rather slowly with temperature, the explicit $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking term $`𝒢_{abc}\overline{\sigma }_c`$ in Eqs. (V) is not small. This causes the pion/$`\sigma `$ meson mass still to be different from the $`a_0/\eta ^{}`$ meson mass. Only when both condensates approach zero, the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is effectively restored and the masses of all non-strange particles become degenerate.

When the temperature becomes significantly larger than $`m_s`$, the (approximate) $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry is restored. Then, all scalar octet states become degenerate, likewise all pseudoscalar octet states become degenerate. If this happened when the explicit $`U(1)_A`$ breaking term was still large, then the complete pseudoscalar octet would become degenerate in mass with the scalar singlet, and the scalar octet degenerate in mass with the pseudoscalar singlet. As it turns out, however, the explicit $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking becomes small around the same point where the (approximate) $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry is restored.

### C Explicit chiral symmetry breaking without $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly

In Fig. 4, we show the masses for the scalars (a), the pseudoscalars (b), the condensates (c), and the mixing angles (d) for explicit chiral symmetry breaking in the absence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. The masses behave according to the discussion of case 4(b) in Sec. III. As the temperature increases, the chiral symmetry restoration crossover transition is much more rapid than in the previous case, and occurs at a slightly smaller temperature, $`200`$ MeV. A notable feature is the inverse mass ordering of the $`\eta `$ meson and the kaon. At small temperatures and above the transition, the masses of the pion and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson are the same. In the temperature range from about 50 to 210 MeV, however, they differ. We perceive this to be an artefact of the violation of Goldstone’s theorem in the Hartree approximation, cf. Fig. 2(c).

The melting of the condensates, Fig. 4(c), is similar to the previous case, Fig. 3(c). The mixing angles, Fig. 4(d), again approach ideal flavor mixing at large temperatures. The difference here, however, is that the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons are also ideally flavor-mixed at zero temperature, cf. Sec. IV B.

Due to the absence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly, once the (approximate) $`SU(2)_r\times SU(2)_{\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry is restored, the pion, the $`\eta ^{}`$, the $`a_0`$, and the $`\sigma `$ mesons simultaneously become degenerate in mass. (The $`\eta ^{}`$ meson belongs to this class of non-strange particles due to ideal flavor mixing.) Once the temperature becomes large compared to the strange quark mass, the masses of the strange mesons converge with those of the non-strange mesons.

## VII Conclusions

In this work, we computed properties of the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ linear sigma model in the Hartree approximation at nonzero temperature. We first classified possible patterns of symmetry breaking, with special attention to the cases where the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly is either absent or present, and the cases of zero, degenerate or nonzero, non-degenerate quark masses. We then determined the coupling constants from the vacuum values for the masses and the decay constants in the various cases of interest. We systematically derived the Hartree approximation within the CJT formalism. Within this approximation, we computed the masses of scalar and pseudoscalar particles, the non-strange and strange condensates, and the scalar and pseudoscalar mixing angles as a function of temperature. We checked that our results are consistent with the mean-field approximation employed in  to compute these quantities.

For the $`SU(N_f)_r\times SU(N_f)_{\mathrm{}}`$ model, in the case where the quark masses are zero, universality arguments predict the chiral symmetry restoring transition to be first order for $`N_f=3`$ and $`N_f=2`$ in the absence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly, and second order for $`N_f=2`$ in the presence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly . We find that the Hartree approximation correctly gives a first order transition in the case $`N_f=3`$. This is not necessarily an indication for the validity of this approximation, because earlier work has shown that it incorrectly predicts a first order transition when $`N_f=2`$ and the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly is present . The transition temperature is on the order of 170 MeV.

As expected, when the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly is absent, the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson becomes a Goldstone boson for zero quark masses. A surprising result is that then the $`\sigma `$ meson mass is directly proportional to the condensate.

For nonzero quark masses, $`m_u=m_dm_s`$, we find the transition to be a crossover transition, but for vanishing $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly the crossover region is much more narrow than in the presence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. In the chirally symmetric phase, the mixing angles approach the situation of ideal flavor mixing, i.e., the $`\sigma `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons are pure non-strange $`q\overline{q}`$ states, while the $`f_0`$ and the $`\eta `$ mesons are pure $`s\overline{s}`$ states.

As an outlook, the present framework can be used as an alternative to lattice QCD studies  to study the order of the chiral symmetry restoring transition as a function of the strange and non-strange quark masses . Moreover, other meson properties such as the decay widths and the spectral functions can be self-consistently computed at nonzero temperature . These properties can be experimentally investigated in relativistic nuclear collisions, for instance at Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider.

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Blum, D.E. Kharzeev, and R.D. Pisarski for valuable discussions. D.H.R. and J.S.-B. thank RIKEN, BNL and the U.S. Dept. of Energy for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work. D.H.R. thanks Columbia University’s Nuclear Theory group for continuing access to their computing facilities. J.T.L. thanks BNL’s Nuclear Theory group for support and hospitality during the completion of this work. J.T.L. is supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.

## Derivation of Eqs. (IV A)

The infinitesimal form of the $`SU(3)_r\times SU(3)_{\mathrm{}}\times U(1)_A`$ symmetry transformation (11) is

$$T^a\varphi ^aT^a\varphi ^ai\omega _V^a[T^a,T^b]\varphi ^b+i\omega _A^a\{T^a,T^b\}\varphi ^b.$$
(124)
For axial-vector transformations, $`\omega _V^a0`$, and the associated (axial-vector) Noether current is

$`𝒥_a^\mu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \left(_\mu \varphi _b\right)}}id_{abc}\varphi _c+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (125)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(^\mu \sigma _bi^\mu \pi _b\right)d_{abc}\left(\sigma _c+i\pi _c\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (126)
$`=`$ $`d_{abc}\left(\sigma _b^\mu \pi _c\pi _b^\mu \sigma _c\right).`$ (127)
Inserting this into the PCAC relation,

$$0|𝒥_a^\mu |\pi _aip^\mu f_a,$$
(128)
where $`f_a`$ is the decay constant corresponding to the field $`\pi _a`$, and shifting the scalar fields by their vacuum expectation values, $`\sigma _a\sigma _a+\overline{\sigma }_a`$, one obtains

$$f_a=d_{aab}\overline{\sigma }_b,$$
(129)
where one sums over the index $`b`$ but not over $`a`$.

In the case that $`\overline{\sigma }_0`$, $`\overline{\sigma }_80`$, one obtains for the pion and kaon decay constants

$`f_\pi `$ $``$ $`f_1=d_{11a}\overline{\sigma }_a=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_8,`$ (131)
$`f_K`$ $``$ $`f_4=d_{44a}\overline{\sigma }_a=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}}\overline{\sigma }_8.`$ (132)
In the case that $`\overline{\sigma }_8=0`$, this simplifies to $`f_\pi =f_K=\sqrt{2/3}\overline{\sigma }_0`$.