text:
# Boundary conditions at a fluid – solid interface

The principal theme of this paper is a study of the nature of the boundary conditions (BC) of fluid flow past a solid surface, a crucial ingredient in any continuum fluid mechanical calculation. The BC cannot be deduced from the continuum differential equations themselves, and it is often not easy to determine them experimentally. While the normal component of the fluid velocity must vanish at an impermeable wall for kinematic reasons, the parallel component, when extrapolated toward the wall, may match that of the wall only at some distance $`\zeta `$ away from it. This phenomenon is known as slip and $`\zeta `$ is the slip length . Since the pioneering work of Maxwell , it has been recognized that the scale of $`\zeta `$ for a simple dilute gas is set by the mean free path $`\lambda `$ of the fluid molecules, with an O(1) proportionality constant for a thermalizing wall. However, for a specularly reflecting wall, the proportionality constant could become large and lead to large slip. In the limit of low fluid density, $`\rho `$, $`\lambda `$ becomes large suggesting that $`\zeta `$ would be large as well. Furthermore, in this limit the continuum approximation need not hold, and it is hard to glean the nature of the BC without a detailed knowledge of the influence of the fluid-solid interaction . This is indeed the situation for micro-electro-mechanical systems  which operate in the Knudsen regime, in which $`\lambda `$ can be larger than the system size. Earlier molecular dynamics (MD) studies have indicated substantial velocity slip for repulsive walls and deviations in hydrodynamic velocity profiles near the wall on lowering $`\rho `$ .

In our MD simulations, we find that the flow profile in the middle of a channel does indeed correspond to that predicted by continuum theory, but we observe a range of behaviors near the walls. Our work provides a molecular basis for the large variability in the amount of slip observed experimentally . We find that $`\zeta `$ is an excellent descriptor of the boundary conditions, independent of the channel width and the nature of the flow. Even at high densities, significant slip is induced on weakening the wall-fluid attraction. In the low $`\rho `$ subcontinuum regime, a large $`\zeta `$ is found in virtually all cases, except for a chain molecule liquid and a strongly attractive wall. These two distinct classes of behavior lead to predictions amenable to experimental test. First, in a pressure driven flow, the speed with which fluid is transported shows a maximum as $`\rho `$ is varied for all the large slip situations and none when the slip length remains small. Second, this maximum speed should scale linearly with the channel width for the large-slip case, but should scale quadratically (as in a dense fluid) for the small slip situation. Finally, our results indicate a strong link between the degree of slip at low $`\rho `$ and the nature of fluid organization in the vicinity of the channel walls. In addition, we find analogous behavior in calculations of thermal slip, which arises when the two bounding walls of a channel are held at different temperatures .

In order to elucidate the BC as one lowers $`\rho `$ from the dense liquid to the dilute gas regime, we consider a channel geometry and adopt the parametrization of Thompson and Robbins . There are two parallel walls in the $`xy`$ plane and $`N`$ fluid atoms between the walls. Periodic BC are imposed along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. In the monatomic case, two fluid atoms separated by a distance $`r`$ interact with the Lennard-Jones potential $`V_{LJ}(r)=4ϵ\left[(\frac{r}{\sigma })^{12}(\frac{r}{\sigma })^6\right]`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the size of the repulsive core. As in Ref. , the potential is truncated at $`2.2\sigma `$ (and shifted). The MD studies are performed at a temperature $`T=1.1ϵ/k_B`$, which is just above the liquid-gas coexistence region for this model. The characteristic MD time unit $`\tau _0=\sqrt{m\sigma ^2/ϵ}`$, where $`m`$ is the atomic mass, is O(1 ps) for typical fluids. The walls are constructed from two  planes of an fcc lattice (96 atoms at each wall, with lattice constant $`0.85\sigma `$), with wall atoms tethered to fixed lattice site by a harmonic spring with a large spring constant. For the narrowest channel studied here, the fluid atoms were confined to a volume $`13.6\sigma \times 5.1\sigma `$ in the $`xy`$ plane and $`L_0=12.75\sigma `$ between the inner faces of the walls. The wall-fluid interactions are modelled by a distinct Lennard-Jones potential $`V_{wf}(r)=16ϵ\left[(\frac{r}{\sigma })^{12}A(\frac{r}{\sigma })^6\right]`$. The parameter $`A`$ determines the properties of the wall and varies between 1 and 0, corresponding to attractive and repulsive walls, respectively. Our earlier studies  of collisions between fluid molecules and this wall have quantitatively confirmed that $`A`$=1 corresponds to a purely thermal wall, and $`A`$=0 to a purely specular one.

The chain molecules comprising the polymeric fluid are composed of $`n=10`$ Lennard-Jones atoms each. The consecutive atoms along the chain are tethered by the FENE potential , $`V_{FENE}=\kappa /2log[1(r/r_0)^2]`$, where $`\kappa =30ϵ`$ and $`r_0=1.5\sigma `$, which together with $`V_{LJ}`$ keeps these atoms around $`r=\sigma `$ apart. This system is studied at $`T=1.6ϵ/k_B`$, which is above the liquid-vapor critical point, and the molecular diameter is small compared to the channel width (the radius of gyration of a molecule does not exceed $`1.7\sigma `$). For either fluid, the equations of motion were integrated using a fifth-order predictor-corrector algorithm . The spatial averaging was carried out in slabs of width $`\sigma /4`$ parallel to the $`z`$-axis. The high dilution data points were time averaged over 3 million $`\tau _0`$ to reduce the noise. The results given here were obtained with a Langevin thermostat , but a Nose-Hoover thermostat  was found to yield virtually identical data. The $`T`$-dependent noise was applied in all directions during equilibration and only in the $`y`$-direction when data were collected. In the studies of thermal slip, the thermostat is applied only to the wall atoms, where we assign $`T=1.1ϵ/k_B`$ to one wall and $`T=1.3ϵ/k_b`$ to the other, and determine the variation of $`T`$ across the channel.

The density profiles for the thermal slip simulation of the monatomic fluid are shown in Figure 1, for the attractive wall case ($`A`$=1). One can identify several layers near the wall, but at the center of the channel the profile becomes smooth. The value of density in the center, $`\rho `$, is used in the remaining plots as a measure of the fluid density. (A layered density profile is also characteristic of both monatomic and polymeric fluids without an imposed temperature gradient ). The density profile is asymmetric, as illustrated by the behavior of the density difference in the second layers between the cold and hot sides, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _2=\rho _{2c}\rho _{2h}`$, shown in the inset of Figure 1.

For both kinds of fluids, with and without a temperature gradient, the density in the first layer is largely $`\rho `$-independent, as shown in the top two panels of Figure 2 for the uniform-$`T`$ case. There is, however, a noticeable difference in the behavior of the second layer. In the monatomic case, the density in the second layer undergoes a steady buildup from a negligible value, when $`\rho `$=0.004$`\sigma ^3`$ (corresponding to $`N`$=100, where 96 atoms coat the walls and the remaining 4 move essentially ballistically within the channel), to a saturation value when $`\rho `$ becomes large. In the polymeric case, on the other hand, the second layer is almost fully constructed even at $`\rho `$=0.002$`\sigma ^3`$ and then its density varies only in a minor way. Thus the effective boundaries for the monatomic fluid undergo rapid transformation as a function of $`\rho `$, in contrast to the behavior of the chain molecule fluid.

The top and bottom panels of Figure 3 describe viscous and thermal slip, respectively, for the monatomic fluid. The velocity profile of the top panel was obtained for Couette flow. The central region has the expected hydrodynamic behavior – a linear velocity profile with constant shear stress for Couette flow, and a parabolic velocity profile with a linear shear for gravity-driven flow (not shown). While the temperature profiles in the thermal gradient case are remarkably similar to the velocity profiles in Couette flow, the dependence of the thermal slip length (defined analogously to the velocity slip length) on $`\rho `$ is non-monotonic in a way that reflects the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _2`$. As seen in the middle panel of Figure 4 for $`A`$=1, the slip is a minimum at $`\rho 0.2\sigma ^3`$, just where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _2`$ is maximal (see inset of Figure 1). Generally, the profiles predicted by continuum theory are seen either to persist to a point close to the wall (no slip), or else to terminate sooner, with a rapid change in profile around the second layer. It is the latter situation which is associated with slip, and it arises at very low $`\rho `$ in most cases. Recently, Travis and Gubbins  have performed MD studies of velocity profiles for $`A=\frac{1}{4}`$ in gravity driven flows in a different parameter range: liquid densities, much narrower wall separation O(4$`\sigma `$), and with an acceleration an order of magnitude larger than used here. Presumably due to these differences, these authors obtained triple peaked velocity profiles with large contributions to the flow from the first layers.

The precise definition of the slip length $`\zeta `$ is given in terms of the position, $`z_0`$, at which the extrapolated fluid velocity reaches that of the wall (non-zero in the Couette case), as measured relative to the inner layer of the wall atoms. $`\zeta `$ is taken to be positive for $`z_0`$ outside of the channel and negative otherwise. Figure 4 summarizes our results on viscous and thermal $`\zeta `$ for monatomic and chain molecules. Viscous slip was studied in Couette and gravity driven flows and at various channel widths (two shown). We find a large variation in boundary conditions on changing the material parameters, in agreement with experimental observations . However, the value of $`\zeta `$ is found to be transferable in that it neither depends on the kind of flow nor on the channel width. For a range of high $`\rho `$ values for the monatomic fluid with wall interaction $`A`$=1, $`\zeta `$ is roughly equal to the negative of the distance between the wall and the second layer. At low $`\rho `$, however, there is a rapid $`1/\rho `$ growth and a large slip.

The slip length is a sensitive function of the properties of the wall. When $`A`$=0, there is large slip even at high fluid densities, which is qualitatively consistent with the scenario of specular collisions with the wall. It is also reminiscent of the large slip found in MD studies of a nonwetting droplet on a solid surface  However, for intermediate values of $`A`$ there is a complicated crossover behavior, as illustrated by the $`\zeta `$$`\rho `$ curve for $`A=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{3}{8}`$. In Ref. , a universal relationship between $`\zeta `$ and shear stress was found in the dense fluid regime on varying $`V_{wf}`$. Our large $`\rho `$ data on $`\zeta `$ can similarly be collapsed by rescaling but our control of $`V_{wf}`$ is through the parameter $`A`$ as opposed to the amplitude of the full potential. The latter situation  would lead to a vanishing of the channel confinement in the zero amplitude limit.

The right-hand panel of Figure 4 shows that the variation of the viscous slip length $`\zeta `$ with $`\rho `$ for chain molecules is more sensitive to $`A`$ than for monatomic fluids. For $`A=1`$, $`\zeta `$ becomes most negative as $`\rho `$ tends to zero, while for $`A=\frac{1}{4}`$, $`\zeta `$ is large and positive even at high $`\rho `$ (20.6$`\sigma `$ for $`\rho =0.79\sigma ^3`$). This result is qualitatively consistent with the MD results  on hexadecane in the vicinity of a solid surface, and with experiments on thin polymeric film drainage .

For monatomic fluids, the fluid velocity in the middle of the channel in a gravity driven flow exhibits a maximum as a function of $`\rho `$ . In contrast, the bottom panel of Figure 2 shows that, for chain molecules and $`A`$=1, the dependence of $`v_{max}`$ on $`\rho `$ is monotonic even though the viscosity at low $`\rho `$ is substantially similar for the $`n=1`$ and $`n=10`$ fluids (data not shown). The large $`\rho `$ behavior of $`v_{max}`$ is dictated by the viscous effects associated with a dense fluid. The increase in $`v_{max}`$ with $`\rho `$ at low $`\rho `$ for the monatomic case originates in the active reconstruction of the second layer. In contrast, for the chain molecule fluid, the organization near the walls remains largely unchanged (the chain molecules of the first two layers are stuck to the wall) so that viscous effects dominate the behavior of $`v_{max}`$ even at small densities.

In summary, the two modes of behavior of $`\zeta `$ as $`\rho `$ decreases to a small value, rapid growth or approach to a constant, are seen to be associated with distinctly different dependences of $`v_{max}`$ on $`\rho `$. They also appear to be linked to the presence or absence of a density buildup in the second layer. Strikingly, the apparent complexity and non-universality of the BC is due to the microscale fluid physics in the vicinity of the solid interface.

This work was supported by KBN (Grant No. 2P03B-146-18), NASA, an NSF MRSEC grant, and the Petroleum Research Fund administered by the American Chemical Society.

Figure captions

FIG. 1 Density profiles for the monatomic fluid undergoing thermal slip for walls with $`A`$=1. The tethering centers of the molecules comprising the inner wall are at the edges of the figure, and the values of density at the center of the channel, $`\rho `$, are indicated next to the histograms. The peak which is the closest to the wall denotes the first layer, and the second corresponds to the second maximum plus the elevated bin next to it. The inset shows the difference in the densities of the second layers in the vicinities of the cold and hot walls (the subscripts $`2c`$ and $`2h`$, respectively) as a function of the central density.

FIG. 2. The top two panels show the density, $`\rho _i\sigma ^3`$, in the first ($`i`$=1, square symbols) and second ($`i=2`$, circular symbols) layers for the indicated values of $`A`$. The top and middle panels are for the simple and polymeric fluids, respectively. The bottom panel shows the velocity of the polymeric fluid in the center of the channel vs. $`\rho `$, in gravity driven flow with $`g=0.01ϵ/m\sigma `$. $`L_0`$ refers to a channel of standard size and $`2L_0`$ corresponds to channels with twice the width. In all cases, the statistical errors are negligible.

FIG. 3. Top: Velocity profiles in Couette flow for various $`\rho `$, in the narrowest channel with attractive walls; the upper and lower walls move with velocities $`\pm 0.1\sigma /\tau _0`$, respectively. The slip length for the high $`\rho `$ case is -1.7$`\sigma `$. Bottom: The temperature profile in the thermal slip problem. The open and closed circles correspond to $`\rho `$=0.773 and 0.004 $`\sigma ^3`$ respectively. For $`\rho `$=0.193$`\sigma ^3`$, only the central slope is indicated.

FIG. 4. $`\zeta `$ (measured in units of $`\sigma `$) vs. $`\rho `$ for viscous and thermal slip phenomena, for various values of $`A`$. The horizontal lines labeled I and II indicate the locations of the first and second layers, respectively. In all panels, triangles correspond to a channel of doubled width, and the remaining symbols are for the standard width. In the left and right panels, the solid and open symbols correspond to $`\zeta `$, as determined from Couette and gravity driven (acceleration 0.01$`ϵ/m\sigma `$), flows respectively.


format: text

text:
# Coexistence of 0 and 𝜋 states in Josephson junctions*footnote **footnote *Shorter version, without Figs. 6,7,8, is submitted to Phys. Rev. B, October 19. 2000.

## I Introduction

A number of possibilities to obtain negative coupling between two superconductors in a Josephson junction have been proposed. The negative sign of the Josephson current corresponds to the coupling energy minimum at the phase difference $`\pi `$ between the superconducting electrodes. In superconducting rings containing an odd number of such $`\pi `$ shifts, the flow of spontaneous supercurrent may lead to anomalous flux quantization. This has been confirmed in experiments with high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors, where the negative coupling is due to $`d`$-wave symmetry of the superconducting order parameter. Also, reversing the direction of the supercurrent appears to be observed in out-of-equilibrium mesoscopic superconducting structures. Recently, a metastable $`\pi `$ state has been observed in 3He weak links.

The possibility of $`\pi `$ coupling through a barrier containing paramagnetic impurities has been proposed first by Bulaevskii et al., and in superconductor/ferromagnet/superconductor (S/F/S) metallic weak links by Buzdin at al. Subsequently, the progress in fabrication of S/F multilayers has motivated considerable experimental and theoretical investigations of $`\pi `$ coupling. Theory of proximity coupled S/F superlattices in the dirty limit, and of atomic-scale S/F superlattices with tunneling between S and F layers, is well established. A clear evidence of $`\pi `$ coupling, which has been sought in several S/F systems from the oscillations of the critical temperature, predicted in Refs.  and , now appears to be established unambiguously. Recently, another evidence of $`\pi `$ state is found in the nonmonotonic variation of the critical current in S/F/S junctions.

The modified Andreev reflection at S/F interfaces has been explored theoretically, both for $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave superconductors, and experimentally. The Josephson current in $`s`$-wave superconductor/ferromagnetic insulator/superconductor (S/FI/S) junctions has been calculated in several papers, whereas more recent works deal with $`d`$-wave S/F/S and F/I/S junctions, and with the general case of unconventional superconductor junctions with ferromagnetic barrier.

At low temperature the Andreev reflection is dominant, and the ferromagnetic barrier may induce a characteristic anharmonic current-phase relation with new nodes in $`I(\varphi )`$. The similar type of anharmonicity may appear in $`d`$-wave pinhole junctions, or in S/I/S junctions, as found experimentally in the grain-boundary Josephson junctions in high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors.

In this paper we present new consequences of the modified Andreev reflection in S/F/S junctions. We show that coexisting stable and metastable $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states appear in the vicinity of a critical strength of the ferromagnetic barrier influence, Sec. II. This coexistence leads to new modes of the magnetic flux penetration in superconducting loops interrupted by a single ferromagnetic junction (rf SQUID), or two junctions (dc SQUID), Sec. III and IV, respectively. Section V contains a brief summary and discussion.

## II Current-phase relation

We consider an S/F/S junction with a ferromagnetic metal barrier of thickness $`d`$ and constant exchange energy $`h`$. Both superconducting and ferromagnetic metals are assumed clean, with same dispersion relations and with same Fermi energies. The pair potential variation is taken as a step function: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ in the barrier, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\varphi /2)`$ in superconducting electrodes, where $`\varphi `$ is the phase difference at the junction.

The Josephson current density is calculated within the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity,

$$𝐣(𝐫)=2ie\pi N(0)k_BT\underset{\omega _n}{}𝐯_0\frac{g_{}+g_{}}{2},$$
(1)
where $`𝐯_0`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the angular averaging over the Fermi surface, and $`N(0)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level. The quasiclassical normal Green’s functions $`g_\sigma (𝐫,𝐯_\mathrm{𝟎},\omega _n)`$, where $`\sigma =,`$, and $`\mathrm{}\omega _n=\pi k_BT(2n+1)`$, are calculated from the Eilenberger equations in the previous paper.

For $`s`$-wave pairing in superconducting electrodes and transparent interfaces between two metals, the normal Green’s function in the barrier is

$$g_\sigma =\frac{\omega _n\mathrm{cos}\chi /2+i\sqrt{\omega _n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}\mathrm{sin}\chi /2}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}\mathrm{cos}\chi /2+i\omega _n\mathrm{sin}\chi /2},$$
(2)
where

$$\chi =\varphi \frac{Z}{\mathrm{cos}\phi }\frac{2i\omega _nd}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}_0\mathrm{cos}\phi }$$
(3)
for $`\sigma =,`$ respectively, and

$$Z=\frac{2hd}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}_0}$$
(4)
is the parameter measuring the ferromagnetic barrier influence, $`\phi `$ being the angle between the direction of $`\mathrm{v}_0`$ and the axis perpendicular to the barrier. For $`Z=0`$, the Green’s function, Eq. (2.2), has the well known form for S/N/S junction.

For spherical Fermi surface, the Josephson current through the barrier of area $`S`$, $`I=jS`$, is

$$I=\frac{\pi k_\mathrm{B}T}{2eR_\mathrm{N}}\underset{\omega _n,\sigma }{}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{Im}[g_\sigma (u)+g_\sigma (u)]}{u^3}du,$$
(5)
where $`u=1/\mathrm{cos}\phi `$, and the normal resistance is given by $`R_\mathrm{N}^1=e^2\mathrm{v}_0N(0)S`$. The temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ is approximated by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)\mathrm{tanh}\left(1.74\sqrt{T_\mathrm{c}/T1}\right),$$
(6)
where $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is the critical temperature of superconducting electrodes.

The current-phase relation $`I(\varphi )`$ is calculated numerically as a function of $`\varphi `$, $`T`$ and of parameters measuring the influence of the ferromagnetic barrier, $`Z`$ and $`d`$. The results, illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2 for fixed thickness of the barrier, $`d=0.25\xi _0(0)`$, where $`\xi _0(0)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{v}_0/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)`$ is the BCS coherence length at zero temperature, remain practically unchanged for any barrier thickness $`d0.1\xi _0(0)`$ at fixed $`Z`$.

The ground state phase difference $`\varphi _{\mathrm{gs}}`$ is determined from the minimum of the S/F/S junction energy

$$W(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }_0^\varphi I(\varphi ^{})d\varphi ^{},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum, Fig. 3.

At high temperature, $`T/T_\mathrm{c}>0.9`$, the current-phase relation is quite close to

$$I=\pm I_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(8)
where $`\pm `$ signs correspond to $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ junction, respectively. The amplitude of oscillations in $`I(\varphi )`$ decreases when $`Z`$ increases from zero to the critical value $`Z_\mathrm{c}1`$. For $`Z>Z_\mathrm{c}`$, the supercurrent flow in the opposite direction (Fig. 1(a)), and $`I_\mathrm{c}`$ starts to increase. This is the signature of the $`\pi `$ junction with ground state phase difference $`\varphi _{\mathrm{gs}}=\pi `$, Fig. 3(a).

At low temperature, for clean and transparent normal metal barrier, the Andreev reflection is dominant, and deviations from the sinusoidal $`I(\varphi )`$ law are pronounced. In the S/F/S case, due to the influence of the exchange interaction in the barrier, the current-phase relation is even more anharmonic. Positive for small $`Z`$, where $`0`$ state is stable, the sign of $`I(\varphi )`$ for $`\varphi 0`$ is negative for large $`Z`$, where $`\pi `$ state is stable, and multinode oscillations in $`I(\varphi )`$ appear in the vicinity of $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$, Fig. 1(b). In the latter case, there are stationary states $`I(\varphi )=0`$, $`I^{}(\varphi )>0`$ both for $`\varphi =0`$ ($`2\pi `$) and $`\varphi =\pi `$. One of these states is stable, and the other is metastable. For example, at $`T/T_\mathrm{c}=0.1`$ for $`Z=0.9`$ the metastable state is $`\varphi =\pi `$, $`\varphi =0`$ being the stable state, and vice versa  for $`Z=1.1`$, Fig. 3(b). Zero and $`\pi `$ states are equally stable at $`Z=Z_\mathrm{c}`$. While $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$ is practically temperature and barrier thickness independent, the interval of the coexistence of $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states, $`Z_\mathrm{c}^{}ZZ_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$, rapidly decreases with increasing temperature. For $`d/\xi _0(0)=0.25`$, $`Z_\mathrm{c}=1.03`$ and the coexistence interval is $`0.1Z1.5`$ at $`T=0`$, while $`Z_\mathrm{c}=1.05`$ and the coexistence interval is $`1.02Z1.08`$ at $`T/T_c=0.9`$.

The appearence of the $`\pi `$ junction for $`1<Z<4`$ is also manifested in the nonmonotonous dependence of the critical current $`I_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{max}|I(\varphi )|`$ on $`Z`$ at given $`T`$, Fig. 2. For $`Z>4`$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{gs}}=0`$ again, and near $`Z4`$ metastable states would appear as well. However, large $`Z`$ would induce the decoupling of S electrodes. For fixed $`h`$, such a nonmonotonic variation of the critical current as a function of the barrier thickness $`d`$ has been observed in Nb/Al/Gd/Al/Nb junctions. The same effect is also predicted for the atomic-scale S/F superlattices.

Recently measured $`I(\varphi )`$ in 3He weak links are of the same form as the curves in Fig. 1(b) for $`Z<1`$, corresponding to the metastable $`\pi `$ state. In $`d`$-wave S/F/S junctions, stable and metastable states may also coexist due to the exchange interaction. However, in this case the ground state phase differences can vary from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$, depending not only on $`Z`$ and $`T`$, but also on the crystal orientation of the superconducting electrodes.

## III Single-junction loop

When S/F/S junction is a part of a superconducting loop (rf SQUID), the ground state is determined by minimizing the SQUID free energy

$$W(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }\left[_0^\varphi I(\varphi ^{})d\varphi ^{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi L}(\varphi \varphi _\mathrm{e})^2\right],$$
(9)
where $`\varphi _\mathrm{e}=2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ represents the normalized external magnetic flux through the loop, and $`L`$ is the inductance. Therefore, the total magnetic flux through the loop $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )\varphi `$ is related to the external flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}`$ by

$$LI(\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}=0.$$
(10)
For $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}=0`$, and for $`Z`$ sufficiently large ($`\pi `$ junction), there is a flow of spontaneous supercurrent, with nonmonotonic dependence on the normalized inductance

$$l=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}LI_\mathrm{c}.$$
(11)
Note that when $`n\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0n+1`$, where $`n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0+n.`$

From Eqs. (5) and (10) $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ is calculated numerically. The results are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5 for several values of $`l`$ and $`Z`$, for $`d=0.25\xi _0(0)`$.

At high temperature, $`T/T_\mathrm{c}>0.9`$, for $`l>1`$ and $`Z<Z_c`$ the double-well SQUID energy gives stable and metastable solutions of Eq. (10), equally stable at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0.5`$. Corresponding flux jump between $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_00`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$ is indicated by vertical line linking the stable solutions, Fig. 4(a). In experiments, the hysteretic loops enclosing these lines are usually seen. For $`\pi `$ junctions, $`Z>Z_c`$, Fig. 4(b), there is only one stable solution with $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_00.5`$, and flux jumps at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$ and $`1`$, without hysteresis. For $`l1`$, the effect of supercurrents in the loop is negligible, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}`$ for any $`Z`$.

At low temperature, similar results are obtained only in the limiting cases of normal metal and strong ferromagnet barriers. For $`Z=0`$ and $`l1`$, there is the usual integer flux quantization, Fig. 5(a). For $`Z=3`$ and $`l1`$, there is the half-integer flux quantization, Fig. 5(d), $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ being nonhysteretic in contrast to the previous case. Corresponding free energies are illustrated in Fig. 6. New features appear for $`Z`$ close to $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$, related to the presence of stable and metastable minima of the triple-well SQUID energy, Figs. 6(b) and 6(c). For relatively small inductance, $`l<10`$, the SQUID has two degenerate configurations: the nearly zero– and one-half– fluxoid state, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0<0.5`$, and the nearly one-half– and one– fluxoid states, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0>0.5`$, as shown in Fig. 7. For example, at $`T/T_c=0.1`$, for $`0.4Z1.4`$ and $`l<10`$, new hysteretic jumps of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are found, from $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_00.5`$ in the interval $`0<\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0<0.5`$, and from $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_00.5`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$ in the interval $`0.5<\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0<1`$, Figs. 5(b) and 5(c). This anomalous periodicity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ resemble to the usual one, Fig. 5(a), scaled by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$.

## IV Two-junction loop

For a loop containing two S/F/S junctions (dc SQUID) the total phase difference is $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$, where $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are the phase differences at the first and the second junction, respectively. In the ground state, the magnetic flux through the loop $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ is calculated from two coupled equations

$$I_1(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)+I_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)=I_\mathrm{e}$$
(12)
and

$$L_1I_1(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)L_2I_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}=0,$$
(13)
where $`I_\mathrm{e}`$ is the external current, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )\varphi _{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. As expected, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ dependence for dc SQUID in the absence of the external current, $`I_\mathrm{e}=0`$, is similar to that for rf SQUID.

At high temperature, $`T/T_\mathrm{c}>0.9`$, and for two $`0`$ junctions, $`Z_1<Z_\mathrm{c}`$, $`Z_2<Z_\mathrm{c}`$, or two $`\pi `$ junctions, $`Z_1>Z_\mathrm{c}`$, $`Z_2>Z_\mathrm{c}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ dependence is qualitatively the same as in a hysteretic single $`0`$ junction loop, Fig. 4(a). For one $`0`$ junction and one $`\pi `$ junction, the two-junction loop behaves as a nonhysteretic single $`\pi `$ junction loop, Fig. 4(b).

At low temperature, outside the coexistence interval of $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states, for two $`0`$ junctions, $`Z_1<Z_\mathrm{c}^{}`$, $`Z_2<Z_\mathrm{c}^{}`$, or for two $`\pi `$ junctions, $`Z_1>Z_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$, $`Z_2>Z_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$, the two-junction loop behaves as a hysteretic single $`0`$ junction loop. For one $`0`$ junction, and one $`\pi `$ junction, $`Z_1<Z_\mathrm{c}^{}`$, $`Z_2>Z_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$ or vice versa, the two-junction loop behaves as a nonhysteretic single $`\pi `$ junction loop. For example, at $`T/T_c=0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ curves for $`Z_1=Z_2=0`$ and $`Z_1=Z_2=3`$ would be practically the same as in Fig. 5(a), and for $`Z_1=0`$ and $`Z_2=3`$ as in Fig. 5(d), if $`L_1=L_2`$, the first junction normalized inductance $`l_1=(2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }_0)I_{\mathrm{c1}}L_1`$ corresponding to $`l`$ of a single-junction loop. When $`Z`$, for at least one of the junctions, lies within the coexistence interval, $`Z_\mathrm{c}^{}<Z<Z_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$ new jumps between the stable solutions appear for sufficiently small inductance, similarly to the single-junction loop. For example, at $`T/T_c=0.1`$ and for $`L_1=L_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ curves for $`Z_1=0`$ and $`Z_2=0.9`$ are the same as in Fig. 5(b), and for $`Z_1=0`$ and $`Z_2=1.1`$, as in Fig. 5(c), see Fig. 8. Magnetic flux penetration in the case when metastable states exist in both junctions is illustrated for $`Z_1=1.1`$ and $`Z_2=0.9`$ in Fig. 9(a).

For nonzero external current, up to its maximum value $`I_{\mathrm{ec}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_e)I_{\mathrm{c1}}+I_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ curves are similar to those for $`I_\mathrm{e}=0`$, the flux through the loop becoming closer to the external flux. However, when $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states coexist, for high external current flux jumps appear for any inductance, as illustrated for $`I_\mathrm{e}=I_{\mathrm{ec}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ in Fig. 9(b).

In general, $`I_{\mathrm{ec}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ curves have characteristic dips at the same positions as the jumps in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$ curves. Three typical cases at low temperature are illustrated in Fig. 10 for one period of $`I_{\mathrm{ec}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$. For two $`0`$ junction loop, there is the usual $`I_{\mathrm{ec}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_e)`$ dependence, with a single dip at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0.5`$, Fig. 10(a). For one $`0`$ and one $`\pi `$ junction, there are two dips at the ends of the period, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$ and $`1`$, Fig. 10(b). New characteristic behavior is obtained when there is the coexistence of $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states in one of the junctions at least: $`I_{\mathrm{ec}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_e)`$ curve has three maxima and two central dips at the flux jumps positions in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{e})`$, Fig. 10(c).

## V Summary and discussion

The ground state phase difference $`\varphi _{\mathrm{gs}}`$ in $`s`$-wave S/F/S junctions is always $`0`$ or $`\pi `$. In the vicinity of the critical strength of the ferromagnetic barrier influence $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$, where $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states are equally stable, the characteristic multinode anharmonicity of $`I(\varphi )`$ implies the coexistence of stable $`0`$ and metastable $`\pi `$ state for $`Z_\mathrm{c}^{}ZZ_\mathrm{c}`$, or vice versa for $`Z_\mathrm{c}ZZ_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$. For $`Z<Z_\mathrm{c}^{}`$ and for $`Z>Z_{\mathrm{c}^+}`$ only stable states exist, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{gs}}=0`$, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{gs}}=\pi `$, respectively. The interval of $`Z`$, where the metastable states appear, rapidly decreases with increasing temperature, whereas $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$ is practically unchanged.

Stable and metastable states can also coexist in $`d`$-wave S/F/S junctions, in contrast to $`d`$-wave non-magnetic junctions where the similar anharmonicity of the current-phase relation does not lead to the metastable states.

The peculiar low temperature behavior of clean and transparent S/F/S junctions is due to the modification of the Andreev reflection by the exchange interaction in the ferromagnet. The effects of the barrier interfacial nontransparency, and of the scattering on impurities, neglected in this paper, suppress the Andreev reflection. As a consequence, anharmonicity of the current-phase relation becomes less pronounced, the value of $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$ changes, and the metastability region narrows. However, when these effects are relatively weak, they do not change the above results qualitatively. We also expect that the suppression of the pair potential near the interfaces, not included in the present non-selfconsistent calculation, would not destroy the metastable states neither.

The coexistence of $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ states in the S/F/S-junction leads to the coexistence of integer and half-integer fluxoid configurations in SQUIDs, corresponding to the minima of the triple-well potential energy, and generating two flux jumps per one external flux quantum. This is the case when $`Z`$ is close to $`Z_\mathrm{c}`$ in rf SQUID, and at least in one of the junctions in dc SQUID. Another feature is the multipeak dependence of the dc SQUID critical current on the external magnetic flux.

In conclusion, experimental investigation of the predicted new manifestation of the modified Andreev reflection is desirable. Beside possible device applications, e.g. quantum computing, the coexistence of integer and half-integer flux quantum configuration in S/F/S junction SQUIDs could be also used for the experimental study of the quantum superposition of macroscopically distinct states.


text:
# Hair from the Isolated Horizon Perspective

## I Introduction

The vast majority of analytical work on black holes in general relativity centers around event horizons in globally stationary spacetimes. Even when this is a natural starting point, it is not entirely satisfactory from a physical viewpoint. For instance, the collapse to form a black hole, black hole mergers, etc. are situations not described by stationary solutions. In recent years, a new framework tailored to consider situations in which the black hole is in equilibrium (nothing falls in), but which allows for the exterior region to be dynamical, has been developed. This Isolated Horizons (IH) formalism is now in the position of serving as starting point for several applications, from the extraction of physical quantities in numerical relativity to quantum entropy calculations.

The basic idea is to consider space-times with an interior boundary (to represent the horizon), satisfying quasi-local boundary conditions ensuring that the horizon remains ‘isolated’. Although the boundary conditions are motivated by geometric considerations, they lead to a well defined action principle and Hamiltonian framework. Furthermore, the boundary conditions imply that certain ‘quasi-local charges’, defined at the horizon, remain constant ‘in time’, and can thus be regarded as the analogous of the global charges defined at infinity in the asymptotically flat context. The isolated horizons Hamiltonian framework allows to define the notion of Horizon Mass $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as function of the ‘horizon charges’. In the Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton systems considered originally, the horizon mass satisfies a Smarr-type formula and a generalized first law in terms of quantities defined exclusively at the horizon (i.e. without any reference to infinity).

The introduction of non-linear matter fields like the Yang-Mills field brings unexpected subtleties to the formalism. Firstly, the Horizon Mass can no longer be written in terms of a Smarr formula and the first law has to be reconsidered. Second, the IH formalism seems to be robust enough to allow for new results even in the static sector of the theory under consideration. The purpose of this short note is to review these results and to direct to the relevant literature where details can be found. The structure of this note is as follows. In Section II we consider the first law. In Sec. III we state the uniqueness and completeness conjectures in terms of quasi-local charges. In Sec. IV we discuss a formula relating black holes and solitons of the theory. We end with a summary in Section V

## II The First Law

An isolated horizon is a non-expanding null surface generated by a (null) vector field $`l^a`$. The IH boundary conditions imply that the acceleration $`\kappa `$ of $`l^a`$ ($`l^a_al^b=\kappa l^b`$) is constant on the horizon $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. However, the precise value it takes on each point of phase space (PS) is not determined a-priori. On the other hand, it is known that for each vector field $`t_o^a`$ on spacetime, the induced vector field $`X_{t_o}`$ on phase space is Hamiltonian if and only if there exists a function $`E_{t_o}`$ such that $`\delta E_{t_o}=\mathrm{\Omega }(\delta ,X_{t_o})`$, for any vector field $`\delta `$ on PS. This condition can be re-written as,

$$\delta E_{t_o}=\frac{\kappa _{t_o}}{8\pi G}\delta a_\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{work}\mathrm{terms}$$
(1)
Thus, the first law arises as a necessary and sufficient condition for the consistency of the Hamiltonian formulation. Thus, the allowed vector fields $`t^a`$ will be those for which the first law holds. Note that there are as many ‘first laws’ as allowed vector fields $`l^a\widehat{}=t^a`$ on the horizon. However, one would like to have a Physical First Law, where the Hamiltonian $`E_{t_o}`$ be identified with the ‘physical mass’ $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the horizon. This amounts to finding the ‘right $`\kappa `$’. This ‘normalization problem’ can be easily overcome in the EM system. In this case, one chooses the function $`\kappa =\kappa (a_\mathrm{\Delta },Q_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ as the function that a static solution with charges $`(a_\mathrm{\Delta },Q_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has. However, for the EYM system, this procedure is not as straightforward. At present, there are two viewpoint towards this issue: i) If one wants to have a ‘global normalization’ for $`l^a`$ valid on all PS, and therefore, a ‘canonical horizon mass’ $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then one has to restrict the allowed variations $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$ to certain directions tangent to some preferred ‘leaves’ on phase space. ii) One abandons the notion of a globally defined horizon mass, but then the first law is valid for arbitrary variations $`\delta `$ on PS. At present both viewpoints seem to be complementary.

## III Conjectures

The general prescription for arriving at an explicit expression for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, for general isolated horizons, involves the fixing of the quantity $`\kappa `$ as function of the horizon parameters. For this, one requires some input from the Static solutions. The first requirement is that there be no ambiguities. Thus we have to conjecture that ($`C1`$): All static BH solutions are characterized by its horizon parameters arising from the ‘isolated horizon’ framework. In theories where no hair is present, as is the case of the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton system, the number of ‘quasi-local charges’ equals the number of parameters at infinity labeling the static solutions. Thus, stating a uniqueness conjecture in this theory is insensitive as to whether one is postulating it in terms of quantities at infinity (the standard viewpoint), or in terms of ‘quasi-local charges’. Our proposal is that, for general theories, one should state the postulate in terms of purely quasi-local quantities. In the EYM system, the quasi-local charges are $`a_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the horizon area, $`Q_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the horizon electric and magnetic charges respectively. In this case the first conjecture $`C1`$ reads: Given a triple of parameters $`(a_\mathrm{\Delta },Q_\mathrm{\Delta },P_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for which a Static solution exists, then the solution is unique. Note that this provides for a way to formulate uniqueness statements regarding black holes that was absent in the theories that admit hairy solutions.

However, this is not sufficient in order to have the Isolated Horizon framework working for the EYM system to the same extent that it works, say, for the Einstein Vacuum, EM, and EM-Dilaton systems. In order to achieve that, we would need to have a canonical normalization of $`\kappa `$ for all the values of the Isolated Horizon parameters. In the previously mentioned cases this canonical choice is given by the existence of static (and spherically symmetric) Black Hole solutions for all isolated horizon values of the parameters.

For the case of the EYM system, in the regime of staticity and spherical symmetry there are, given a fixed value of $`a_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, only a discrete set of values of $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which there are black hole solutions. Moreover, within this regime there are no Black Hole solutions for any value of $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }1,0`$ and $`Q_\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Thus if we want to have any hope that the Conjecture might be true we must formulate it outside this restrictive regime. Indeed the fact that in EYM systems there are static Black Hole solutions that are not spherically symmetric, already shows us that we must go beyond the SSS regime. In fact the solutions alluded above are axially symmetric, instead of spherically symmetric, but seem to share, with the SSS solutions, the discreetness of the allowed values of $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus we have to go beyond this regime as well. In fact there are strong indications (see for example the discussion in) that we must go beyond the static regime, and pose the conjecture in a broad enough setting that would still allow one to single out, for a given choice of IH charges, a particular black hole solution and thus a canonical normalization of $`\kappa `$. This would be of course the class of stationary black hole solutions, where we would have to keep track also of the angular momentum, both at infinity $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ and at the horizon $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The completeness conjecture would thus be: $`C2`$: For every value of the Isolated Horizon parameters $`a_\mathrm{\Delta },P_\mathrm{\Delta },Q_\mathrm{\Delta },J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which a space-time can be constructed, there exist also a stationary Black Hole Solution with the same value of the parameters, now characterizing the Killing Horizon.

## IV Hair and Solitons

By considering the Hamiltonian formulation for Isolated black holes in the Static sector, we are lead to a formula relating HHM and ADM mass of the colored BH solutions with the ADM mass of the Solitons of the theory.

This result is arrived at by the use a general argument from symplectic geometry that states that, within each connected component of the Static space embedded in the space of isolated horizons, the value of the Hamiltonian $`H_t`$ remains constant. In particular, it implies that its value is independent of the radius $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the horizon. Thus, by considering the limit $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, we and arrive at the following unexpected relation,

$$M_{\mathrm{ADM}}^{(n)}(r_\mathrm{\Delta })=M_{\mathrm{BK}}^{(n)}+\frac{1}{2}_0^{r_\mathrm{\Delta }}\beta ^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{r})d\stackrel{~}{r}.$$
(2)
where $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}^{(n)}(r_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the ADM mass of the $`n`$ colored black hole as function of $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`M_{\mathrm{BK}}^{(n)}`$ is the ADM mass of the $`n`$ soliton, and $`\beta ^{(n)}=2r_\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa ^{(n)}`$. The second term at the RHS of Eq.(2) is the Horizon Mass $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Another point provided by this type of analysis relates to the issue of the stability: It is only when $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}>M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that the solution can be unstable. One very clear example of this is given by the magnetic RN solution, which can be considered within both the Einstein Maxwell (EM) theory and the EYM theory. This solution is stable within EM but unstable within EYM. We can understand this surprising fact in terms of the different values that the Horizon Mass $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ takes within each theory. Let us then suggest a ‘rule of thumb’ for finding potentially unstable solutions, motivated by the EYM system. In the static family of solutions, consider the limit $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. We have three possibilities: i) We arrive at a regular solution with zero energy (i.e. Minkowski). This indicates that the whole family, labeled by $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is stable; ii) There is a minimum allowed value of $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponding to zero surface gravity. In this case, we can not conclude anything, and; iii) In the limit one finds a regular solution with positive energy (a soliton different from the vacuum). In this case, the whole family of solutions (including the soliton) is potentially unstable. For a complete discussion of stability based on energetic considerations see.

## V discussion

Let us summarize. We have studied the extension of the Isolated Horizon formalism to include the EYM system and found that it provides a powerful tool for studying some classical aspects of the theory already at the Static level. In particular, we found an unexpected relation between the ADM mass of a static spherical black hole solutions, its Horizon mass and the ADM mass of the corresponding solitonic solution, and a novel way to consider the potential instability of black holes. We have also seen that the IH formalism provides a framework in which uniqueness (‘no-hair’) conjectures can be posed, something that was absent in the standard framework based in charges at infinity.

## Acknowledgments

This work was in part supported by DGAPA-UNAM grant No IN121298, and by CONACyT grants J32754-E and 32272-E.


text:
# ON SUPERFLUID PHASES OF COLD DECONFINED QCD MATTER AT MODERATE BARYON DENSITY

## I Introduction

In QCD we trust. Consequently, not far above a critical confinement-deconfinement baryon density $`n_c5n_{nucl.matter}`$ and at low temperatures $`T`$ the deconfined QCD matter should be a rather strongly interacting quantum many-colored-quark system. Its detailed actual behavior in the considered region of the QCD phase diagram depends solely upon the details of the effective interactions relevant there.

It is natural to assume that the strong gluon interactions dress the tiny quark masses $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ (we restrict our discussion to the case of two light flavors) into a common larger effective mass $`m_{}`$, and become weak. Residual interaction between the effective massive (quasi)quark excitations $`\psi _{\alpha A}^a`$ ($`a`$-color, $`\alpha `$-Dirac, $`A`$-flavor $`SU(2)`$ indices) can bona fide be described by appropriate short-range (approximately contact) four-fermion interactions $`_{int}`$. Both $`m_{}`$ and $`_{int}`$ are to be fixed experimentally. Some parts of $`_{int}`$ have, however, a solid theoretical justification: (i) The instanton-mediated interaction of t’Hooft

$$^I=K_I[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\psi )^2]$$
(1)
(ii) The Debye-screened chromoelectric one-gluon exchange interaction

$$^D=K_D(\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a\psi )^2,$$
(2)
The resulting effective Lagrangian

$$_{eff}=\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m_{}+\mu \gamma _0)\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{a\mu \nu }F^{a\mu \nu }+_{int}$$
(3)
in which the gluon interactions are treated perturbatively (and neglected in the lowest approximation) defines a relativistic version of the Landau Fermi-liquid concept.

By assumption, $`_{eff}`$ is exactly $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_V\times O(3)`$ invariant. There is no approximate chiral $`SU(2)`$ symmetry of (3) which could be broken spontaneously. Hence, there should be no light Nambu-Goldstone (NG) pions in dense and cold deconfined phase(s) of QCD. It would be also misleading to think of $`\psi `$ and $`m_{}`$ as of the constituent quark and of the constituent mass. There is nothing they might constitute.

At present, there are no experimental data, either real or the lattice ones which would check our assumption, although they are both heavily needed. For our at best semi-quantitative considerations the assumption is not, however, essential. An alternative picture is that in the cold deconfined QCD matter the $`u,d`$ quarks stay approximately massless at the Lagrangian level as they were in the confined phase. Discussion of the superfluid phases presented below applies also to this case. On top of that it is, however, mandatory to ask (and answer) how the (approximate) chiral symmetry is realized in this case.

The cold and dense deconfined QCD matter should exist in the interiors of the neutron stars, and optimistically also in the early stages of the relativistic heavy-ion collisions studied experimentally with much effort at present. In the following we will present arguments that the matter governed by (3) should exist below certain critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the order of 100 MeV in some of several distinct superfluid phases exhibiting the quantum behavior on macroscopic scales.

## II Cooper instability

When scaling the fermion momenta in dense, low-T quantum many-fermion systems, both non-relativistic and relativistic, towards the Fermi surface, all interactions but one become irrelevant. This implies that such systems should behave thermodynamically as a corresponding noninteracting gas of fermions with the effective mass. For example, the specific heat of such systems should grow linearly with temperature. Such a behavior is indeed observed in the non-relativistic low-$`T`$ electron gas in metals, and in the liquid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. We are not aware of any experimental data in the relativistic systems.

The four-fermion interaction attracting fermions with the opposite momenta at the Fermi surface is the only exception: Even if arbitrarily small, it causes the (Cooper) instability of the perturbative ground state with respect to spontaneous condensation of the fermion Cooper pairs with opposite momenta into a more energetically favorable ground state. The new ground state, being by construction and by definition translationally invariant, has in the simplest case of the ordinary Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superconductor the property

$$\psi _\alpha ^+(x)(\sigma _2)_{\alpha \beta }\psi _\beta ^+(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }0$$
(4)
It exhibits clearly the spontaneous breakdown of the $`U(1)`$ phase symmetry generated by the operator of the particle number, $`N=d^3x\psi _\alpha ^+\psi _\alpha `$.

In the pre-BCS era the properties of superconductors were successfully described by beautiful phenomenological theories: (i) The Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory associated to the ordered phase an order parameter - doubly charged ($`e^{}=2e,m_{eff}=2m_{}`$) complex scalar field developing a nonzero ground-state expectation value, $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$. The supercurrent follows easily from the gauge-invariant kinetic term in the free energy

$$_{GL}^{kin}=\frac{1}{2m_{eff}}[(i\stackrel{}{}+e^{}\stackrel{}{A})\mathrm{\Phi }]^+(i\stackrel{}{}+e^{}\stackrel{}{A})\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(5)
A derivation of GL from BCS provided by Gor’kov implies in particular $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>\mathrm{\Delta }`$. (ii) Long before the GL theory F. London postulated his famous equations (see Eqs.(7), (8) below) arguing as follows: ”… the equations at which we have arrived are distinguished by their simplicity and symmetry in such a way that we could hardly avoid writing them down.” Their form follows from the GL theory by simple replacement $`\mathrm{\Phi }<\mathrm{\Phi }>`$. Lorentz-invariant quantum-field theory version of the GL theory is notoriously known as the Higgs (H) model.

The BCS ground state acts as the Fock’s vacuum of the Bogolubov-Valatin (BV) true fermionic quasiparticles having the specific dispersion law

$$E_\stackrel{}{k}=\sqrt{\xi _\stackrel{}{k}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(6)
in which the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\xi _\stackrel{}{k}`$ are self-consistently fixed by the interaction. The quantities $`\xi _\stackrel{}{k}`$ are simply related to the perturbative form of the electron dispersion law $`\stackrel{}{k}^2/2m`$. The (super)current $`\stackrel{}{ȷ}_s`$ acquires the form ”$`\stackrel{}{ȷ}_s=(e^2/m_{eff})|<\mathrm{\Phi }>|^2\stackrel{}{A}`$” where $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the gauge potential, in contrast with the normal conductivity current $`\stackrel{}{ȷ}_n=\sigma \stackrel{}{E}`$ ($`\sigma `$ is the conductivity). The quotation marks abbreviate a shorthand notation for the gauge-invariant London equations

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{ȷ}_s}{t}=(e^2/m_{eff})|<\mathrm{\Phi }>|^2\stackrel{}{E}$$
(7)
$$rot\stackrel{}{ȷ}_s=(e^2/m_{eff})|<\mathrm{\Phi }>|^2\stackrel{}{B}$$
(8)
Below a critical temperature $`T_c1K`$ at which the spontaneous condensation of Cooper pairs sets in the quasifermion dispersion law (6) results in a abrupt change of the behavior of the specific heat on $`T`$ from linear to the exponential one. Another robust manifestation of superconductivity characterized by the condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Meissner effect: Magnetic field penetrates into the superconductor only within a London penetration length $`\lambda _L=(m_{eff}/e^2|<\mathrm{\Phi }>|^2)^{1/2}`$. Operationally this phenomenon follows immediately from the Maxwell equation $`rot\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{ȷ}_s`$ combined with Eq.(8): $`(^2\lambda _L^2)\stackrel{}{B}=0`$. The equation (7) accounts for perfect conductivity i.e., for stationary electric currents in absence of electric fields.

Analogous, but more sophisticated phenomena take place below $`1mK`$ in electrically neutral Landau Fermi liquid of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. We do not sharply distinguish between superconductivity and superfluidity in many-fermion systems. The superconductor is a superfluid having the perturbative long-range gauge interactions switched on. Superfluidity in many-boson systems (for example in $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$) is, however, an entirely different story.

## III Isotropic color-triplet superconductor

In the cold and dense deconfined QCD matter governed by (3) the situation is physically very much the same as that in an electron Fermi liquid. The differences are rather technical: (i) Characteristic energies given by the chemical potential of the order of hundreds of $`MeV`$ require the relativistic description. (ii) The quarks carry, besides spin, also the flavor and the color. Consequently, in comparison with (4) there are more possibilities for the local superfluid condensates in accord with the Pauli principle. (iii) The gauge fields are both Abelian (photon) and non-Abelian (gluons). (iv) The origin of the effective interactions is different.

The most energetically favorable superfluid phase is for the realistic interactions $`_{int}`$ characterized by the condensate

$$\overline{\psi }_{\alpha aA}(x)ϵ^{ab3}(\tau _2)_{AB}(\gamma _5C)_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\beta bB}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(9)
In a self-explanatory notation $`C`$ is the matrix of charge conjugation. The condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to the ground-state expectation value $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^3>`$ of a GLH order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c(x)`$ which transforms as a color triplet, isospin singlet, spin zero complex field. Properties of this phase (and of its 3-flavor relative) are elaborated in the literature in most detail with several different interactions taken into account. Of interest are in particular: (i) form of the quasiquark dispersion law; (ii) properties of the NG excitations which must be present due to the fact that the ground state in (9) breaks the global $`SU(3)_c`$ down to $`SU(2)_c`$; (iii) the fate of gluons if their interaction is switched on.

(i) It follows from (9) that only the quarks of two colors participate in Cooper pairing, while the third one remains intact. Consequently, its dispersion law remains $`ϵ_{\stackrel{}{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=(|\stackrel{}{p}|\pm \mu )^2+m_{}^2`$. The form of the dispersion law of the BV quasiquarks is

$$E(\stackrel{}{p})^2=(ϵ(\stackrel{}{p})\pm \mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2$$
(10)
where $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m_{}^2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy gap fixed by the ”gap equation”

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }K\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{(ϵ(\stackrel{}{p})+\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{(ϵ(\stackrel{}{p})\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}\right]$$
(11)
In Eq.(11) $`K`$ is proportional to the coupling constant of the four-fermion interaction responsible for pairing. The UV divergence of the integral is eliminated by introducing a formfactor which mimics the asymptotic freedom. This phase is certainly interesting from the phenomenological point of view: In the alternative scenario the instanton- mediated interaction (1) gives rise simultaneously to the numerically acceptable spontaneous chiral symmetry breakdown, and to the phenomenologically interesting gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the order of $`100MeV`$. The corresponding critical temperature is given by the universal BCS formula $`\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c=\pi \mathrm{exp}(\gamma )`$, where $`\gamma 0.5772`$ is the Euler’s constant.

(ii) It also follows from (9) that this condensate breaks down spontaneously the $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_V`$ global symmetry of the Lagrangian (3) down to $`SU(2)_c`$ (the gauge interactions switched off). According to the Goldstone theorem there must exist 5+1 gapless collective excitations in the spectrum. Clearly, they can only be excited by the quark bilinears. Their quantum numbers can be found with the help of the Goldstone commutator (Q abbreviates the corresponding generators)

$$[Q,\overline{\psi }\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }]=\overline{\psi }_aϵ^{ab3}\tau _2\gamma _5C\overline{\psi }_b$$
(12)
Not surprisingly, the NG quark bilinear combinations have the form ($`A=2,5,7`$ , $`ϵ^{ab3}=i(\lambda _2)^{ab}`$)

$$\overline{\psi }\lambda _A\tau _2\gamma _5C\overline{\psi }\pm H.c.$$
(13)
.

(iii) If the gauge fields are switched on, and if they couple via the quasiquark loops to the NG bosons, the originally massless gauge bosons acquire masses by the Schwinger-Anderson mechanism. Corresponding calculations are rather involved, and they were done only recently. In the GLH effective-field theory description of this color-superconducting phase the corresponding Higgs effect with a complex color-triplet scalar field is elementary : The gauge fields $`A_a^\mu `$ stay massless for $`a=1,2,3`$, and they acquire masses $`m_a^2=g^2|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2`$ and $`m_a^2=\frac{4}{3}g^2|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2`$ for $`a=5,6,7`$ and $`a=8`$, respectively.

## IV The remaining three condensates

Phase II is characterized by the condensate

$$\overline{\psi }_{\alpha aA}(x)(\tau _3\tau _2)_{AB}(\gamma _5C)_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\beta bB}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_a\delta _{ab}$$
(14)
As a previous one, also the condensate (14) characterizes a relativistic isotropic superfluid: in both cases the quark bilinears look like the Lorentz scalars. Equation (14) corresponds to the ground-state expectation value of a GLH order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Iab}(x)`$ which transforms as a color sextet, isospin triplet, spin zero complex field.

It is clearly possible to invent such an effective interaction which favors namely this phase. In real QCD nobody knows. (This statement does not apply to the case of very high densities where the one-gluon exchange dominates, and its color-sextet channel is known to be repulsive.) To the best of our knowledge the details of this phase were not elaborated, although the generic form of its excitations it is easy to guess. The phase is interesting mainly by spontaneous breakdown of the isospin symmetry. Since there is nobody who might ”eat” them, the two corresponding gapless collective NG excitations remain in the physical spectrum, and become thermodynamically important.

Phase III is characterized by the condensate

$$\overline{\psi }_{\alpha aA}(x)(\tau _2)_{AB}(\gamma _0\gamma _3C)_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\beta bB}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_a\delta _{ab}$$
(15)
It corresponds to the ground-state expectation value of a GLH order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab\mu \nu }(x)`$ which transforms as a color sextet, isospin singlet, antisymmetric tensor field describing spin 1.

Phase IV is characterized by the condensate

$$\overline{\psi }_{\alpha aA}(x)(\tau _3\tau _2)_{AB}ϵ^{ab3}(\gamma _0\gamma _3C)_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\beta bB}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(16)
In its GLH description the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{I\mu \nu }^a(x)`$ transforms as a color triplet, isospin triplet, antisymmetric tensor field describing spin 1. Remark: We speak of the order parameters as transforming as the Lorentz scalars or antisymmetric tensors, respectively. It is, however, tacitly assumed that the derivative terms in their corresponding GLH Lagrangians are only $`O(3)`$ invariant.

Phases III and IV are the anisotropic color superconductors, and they are most probably interesting primarily from the theoretical point of view. They exhibit spontaneous breakdown of the rotational symmetry like ferromagnets. In relativistic systems this is certainly not a very frequent phenomenon. It is possible only at finite density which itself breaks explicitly the Lorentz invariance. The less symmetry the more fragile the ordered phase is expected to be. Therefore, these phases should have very low $`T_c`$. For an illustration we present just the form of the BV quasiquark dispersion laws (i = 1,2) exhibiting nicely spontaneous breakdown of the rotational symmetry:

$$E_i^2(\stackrel{}{p})=ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{p})+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+\mu ^2\pm 2\sqrt{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{p})\mu ^2+(p_1^2+p_2^2+m_{}^2)|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}$$
(17)
## V Conclusions

During the past two years so many interesting features of the color superconductors were pointed out and elaborated on that it is impossible to even mention them all. With apologies to those omitted in conclusion I consider appropriate to discuss briefly two beautiful theoretical ideas:

(i) Color-flavor locking (CFL). Variational analysis of a model with $`SU(3)_c`$ and exact global $`SU(3)`$ chiral symmetry reveals the following pattern of spontaneous symmetry breaking: There is a superfluid condensate corresponding to the lowest energy which ’locks’ three groups $`SU(3)`$ i.e., c, L, R together in such a way that only their diagonal $`SU(3)`$ subgroup (c + L + R ) remains unbroken. This is interesting by itself for there is a spontaneous chiral symmetry breakdown without $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ condensate. Properties of the low-energy excitations in this deconfined phase are quite peculiar for they closely resemble hadrons of the confined phase: (1) There are 8+1 baryons excited by the quasiquark fields, all having the chiral symmetry breaking gap in their spectrum, and the integer charges. (2) There are 8+1 massive vector particles excited by the gauge fields, all having integer charges. (3) There are 8+1 massless pseudoscalar collective excitations with integer charges. (4) The electric charge corresponds to a particular linear combination of the diagonal $`SU(3)`$ generators in flavor and color spaces.

(ii) There is a new type of solution of the gap equation in the case of very high densities. In the standard case of moderate densities considered in Sect.3 the generic form of the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the effective coupling constant $`K`$ which is related to the gauge coupling constant $`g`$ as $`K=g^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu exp(\frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi ^2}{2g^2\mu ^2})$$
(18)
This is the characteristic BCS result.

As pointed out by Son and confirmed by others the case of very high densities is different. The exchange of unscreened magnetic gluons yields the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ upon the small coupling constant $`g`$ in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu g^5exp(\frac{3\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}g})$$
(19)
This effect can provide numerically larger gaps than in previous estimates $`\mathrm{\Delta }100MeV`$ based on (18).

It is gratifying to observe that our beloved QCD has a corner in its phase diagram full of new phenomena associated with the existence of ordered quantum phases of the superfluid type. Moreover, there are good reasons to expect that these phases can be described theoretically from the first principles.

Let us assume optimistically that some sort of color superconductivity or superfluidity does exist in the interiors of the neutron stars, and also in some events in the relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Due to the macroscopic quantum nature of these phases it is perhaps justified to speculate that their experimental signatures might be brighter than those of the ’ordinary’ quark-gluon plasma above a superfluid $`T_c`$.

## VI Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the organizers for generous hospitality extended to him in La Thuile.The work was supported by the grant GACR 202/0506.


text:
# References

Zero-point field induced mass
vs. QED mass renormalization

Giovanni Modanese111e-mail address: giovanni.modanese@unibz.it California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics
366 Cambridge Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306 and University of Bolzano – Industrial Engineering
Via Sernesi 1, 39100 Bolzano, Italy

To appear in the proceedings of the 18th Advanced ICFA Beam Dynamics Workshop on ”Quantum Aspects of Beam Physics”, Capri, Italy, October 15-20, 2000

## Abstract

Haisch and Rueda have recently proposed a model in which the inertia of charged particles is a consequence of their interaction with the electromagnetic zero-point field. This model is based on the observation that in an accelerated frame the momentum distribution of vacuum fluctuations is not isotropic. We analyze this issue through standard techniques of relativistic field theory, first by regarding the field $`A_\mu `$ as a classical random field, and then by making reference to the mass renormalization procedure in Quantum Electrodynamics and scalar-QED.

A general property of vacuum fluctuations in any relativistic theory is the Lorentz invariance of their frequency spectrum. This is true for quantum field theories and also for “stochastic” field theories – those models in which the use of commuting fields supplemented by a suitable stochasticity principle allows to re-obtain most results of the full quantum field theories . In any case, it is required that all observers, independently of their relative motion, see the same fluctuations spectrum.

However, it has been known for a long time (since the work by Unruh and Davies ) that an accelerated observer will see a different spectrum of the vacuum fluctuations, corresponding to an apparent non-zero temperature. The temperature is a function of the acceleration: $`T_a=a/(2\pi ck)`$. This effect offers a method of principle for detecting absolute acceleration.

Since the acceleration has a definite direction and versus, one also expects that the accelerated observer will notice an anisotropy in the distribution of the vacuum fluctuations. For the electromagnetic field such anisotropy corresponds to a Poynting vector which does not vanish on the average, and to a radiation pressure which is not exactly balanced in all directions. This physical interpretation is well justified in Stochastic Electrodynamics, where the zero-point field is regarded as a real random field, whose effects can only be observed in the presence of some cause of inhomogeneity or anisotropy. As a consequence of the unbalanced radiation pressure, any accelerated observer feels a resistance to its acceleration. It has been shown by Haisch and Rueda  that this resistance is proportional to acceleration and has therefore the typical property of inertia. To this end, they considered a sequence of Lorentz transformations between the accelerated system and local co-moving inertial systems.

The idea that the inertia of matter could be the result of its interaction with vacuum fluctuations is appealing from the logical point of view, because in this approach it is not necessary to start from an equation of motion for the observer which already contains an inertial term.

In other words, while any classical Lagrangian and any wave equation (or field equation in the case of second quantization) is an evolution of Newton’s second law $`𝐅=m𝐚`$, in the approach mentioned above inertia follows from the anisotropic radiation pressure. In this way, inertia appears as a consequence of the third law, i.e., of momentum conservation, and ultimately of translation invariance.

There is, of course, a problem with the size of the accelerated particle. The part of the vacuum fluctuations spectrum acting upon the particle depends on its size; only for finite (non-zero) size can the “inertial effect” be finite. The standard approach to this kind of vacuum effects in QED is to consider point-like, structureless particles, and re-absorb infinite contributions to their self-mass into the “bare mass” through the renormalization procedure.

Now, it is interesting to compare the results of the “radiation pressure” approach, based only upon momentum conservation, with those of standard relativistic field theories with “built in” second Newton law. What happens if we introduce finite cut-offs in the field theoretical expressions for the self-mass $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$? One finds that the result depends much on the spin of the particles. For scalar particles, it is possible to introduce a cut-off in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, set the bare mass to zero and interpretate somehow the physical mass as entirely due to vacuum fluctuations – except for the problem that the “natural” cut-offs admitted in QFT (supersymmetry scale, GUT scale, Planck scale) all correspond to very large masses. For spin 1/2 particles (QED with fermions) one obtains a relation between bare mass and renormalized mass which is compatible both with the observed electron mass and with a finite cut-off, but only if the bare mass is not zero. Below we shall give the explicit expressions for the scalar and spinor case. Before that, however, let us make a short premise and consider a semiclassical approximation.

Effective mass of charged particles in a thermal or stochastic electromagnetic field.

Let us consider charged particles with bare mass $`m_0`$ immersed in a thermal or stochastic background $`A_\mu (x)`$. For scalar particles described by a quantum field $`\varphi `$, the Lagrangian density is of the form

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{}(P^\mu eA^\mu )\varphi (P_\mu eA_\mu )\frac{1}{2}m_0^2|\varphi |^2$$
(1)
and contains a term $`e^2\varphi ^{}A_\mu A^\mu \varphi `$, which after averaging on $`A_\mu `$ can be regarded as a mass term for the field $`\varphi `$. Take, for instance, the Coulomb gauge: The effective squared mass turns out to be equal to $`m^2=m_0^2+e^2|𝐀(𝐱)|^2`$.

For homogeneous black body radiation at a given temperature $`T`$, the average is readily computed . One has

$$|𝐀|^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{u_\omega }{\omega ^2}$$
(2)
where $`u_\omega `$ is the Planck spectral energy density. By integrating one finds that the squared mass shift is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=const.\sqrt{\alpha }kT`$ (the constant is adimensional and of order 1). This mass shift can be significant for a hot plasma. If the plasma is dense, the average $`|𝐀(𝐱)|^2`$ will be itself defined in part by fluctuations and correlations in the charge density . Therefore the mass shift for one kind of particles in the plasma depends in general on which other particles are present.

We can also insert into eq. (2) the Lorentz-invariant spectrum of vacuum fluctuations (see ; this is valid both for Stochastic Electrodynamics and QED). In this case the integral diverges, and a frequency cut-off is needed (compare our discussion above). Alternatively, one can introduce in the integral an adimensional weight function $`\eta (\omega )`$ peaked at some “resonance” frequency $`\omega _0`$. In this way, one finds that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m\omega _0`$ in natural units ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). Haisch and Rueda have proposed  to set $`\omega _0\omega _{Compton}`$ for the electron, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }mm_e`$.

In conclusion, field theory offers a quite straightforward method to evaluate the influence of a classical random background on effective mass. This appears to work, however, only for scalar particles. The Dirac Lagrangian is linear with respect to the field $`A_\mu `$, therefore it is impossible to obtain a mass term for spinors by averaging over the electromagnetic field.

The case of QED and relation to mass renormalization.

For a quantized electromagnetic field the simple considerations above are not applicable. One must compute the propagator of the charged particles taking into account QED corrections. It is found that the pole of the propagator (giving the physical mass) is shifted, due to the effect of vacuum fluctuations.

Before mass renormalization, the full scalar propagator has the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(p)=\frac{1}{p^2m_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(m^2)+i\epsilon }$$
(3)
where $`m_0`$ is the “bare” mass and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)`$ represents the sum of all possible connected vacuum polarization diagrams. In the Feynman renormalization procedure, which appears to be the most suitable for our purposes, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)`$ is Taylor-expanded and the mass renormalization condition

$$m_0^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }(m^2)=m^2$$
(4)
is imposed, where $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(m^2)`$ are diverging quantities, but their difference is finite.

An alternative view, corresponding to the idea of inertia as entirely due to vacuum fluctuations, is the following: set $`m_0=0`$, impose a physical cut-off $`M`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and compute $`m`$ from (4). For scalar QED, one finds in this way that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is of the order of the cut-off.

In QED with spinors the mass renormalization condition involves a logarithm :

$$mm_0=\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2,M)\right]_{\sqrt{p^2}=m}=m_0\frac{3\alpha }{4\pi }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{m_0^2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(5)
Therefore $`m_0`$ must be non-zero. For an estimate, let us rewrite the cut-off in natural units as $`M=10^\xi `$ $`cm^1`$ and set $`m/m_0k>1`$ (i.e., vacuum fluctuations increase the mass by a factor $`k`$). Eq. (5) becomes

$$k1=\frac{3\alpha }{2\pi }\left(\xi \mathrm{ln}10\mathrm{ln}m+\mathrm{ln}k+\frac{1}{4}\right)$$
(6)
Let us apply this to the electron ($`m0.510^{10}`$ $`cm^1`$), taking the Planck mass as cut-off ($`\xi 33`$). Solving with respect to $`k`$ we find that $`k1.19`$ – a quite moderate renormalization effect, after all. For smaller cut-offs, $`k`$ turns out to be closer to 1.

Acknowledgments \- This work was supported in part by the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics via grant CIPA-MG7099. The author is grateful to V. Hushwater and A. Rueda for useful discussions.