text:
# Introducing Time Dependence into the Static Maxwell Equations

## I Introduction

The Maxwell equations in vacuum provide the theoretical framework for studying electromagnetism. Most of the undergraduate introductory-physics textbooks on Electricity and Magnetism (EM) start by introducing the basic observations made, prior to Maxwell, regarding electric charges and currents. The Maxwell equations are then ‘derived’ by unifying these observations into physical laws governing the space- and time evolution of the electric field $`𝐄`$ and the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ (for a non exhaustive list of representative textbooks, see Refs. ). The equations which one usually finds easier to motivate than others are the two divergence equations

$$𝐄=4\pi \rho ,$$
(1)
and

$$𝐁=0.$$
(2)
Eq. (1) is the differential form of Gauss’ law, relating the electric field $`𝐄`$ to its charge sources, where $`\rho `$ is the charge density. Eq. (2), for the magnetic field $`𝐁`$, expresses the non observation, and consequently the non existence of magnetic charges. One then proceeds to explain how magnetism is generated by currents rather than by charges, resulting in the magnetic-field Maxwell curl equation

$$\times 𝐁=\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐉,$$
(3)
whereas the electric field is curl free:

$$\times 𝐄=0.$$
(4)
The constant $`c`$ in Eq. (3) is the speed of light in vacuum. Equations (3) and (4) apply to static situations, where any time variation of the underlying charge density $`\rho `$ and current density $`𝐉`$, and hence of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ respectively, is excluded. Allowing for time dependence, the above Maxwell curl equations become

$$\times 𝐁=\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐉+\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐄}{t},$$
(5)
$$\times 𝐄=\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐁}{t}.$$
(6)
However, it turns out to be more problematic, and certainly less transparent, to motivate Eqs. (5,6) by the appropriate phenomena, e.g. adding the displacement current for ‘deriving’ Eq. (5) and electromagnetic induction experiments for ‘deriving’ Eq. (6). In particular, Galili and collaborators  have recently drawn attention to the subtleties involved in relating Faraday’s law to Maxwell’s equation (6).

The purpose of this note is to show that one may derive Eqs. (5,6) directly from Eqs. (1,2) using a minimum input of EM (the Lorentz force) and special relativity physics material that is within the scope of normal electromagnetism curriculum, by requiring that Eqs. (1,2), due to charge conservation, hold in any inertial coordinate frame. Specifically, we will require (i) a knowledge of and familiarity with the Lorentz force acting on a charge $`q`$ moving at an instantaneous velocity $`𝐯`$; and (ii) a knowledge of what a Lorentz four vector means, particularly for space-time $`(𝐫,ct)`$ and for momentum-energy $`(𝐩,E/c)`$, but also for the current-charge density four vector $`(𝐉,c\rho )`$, in terms of a Lorentz boost from one inertial frame to any other inertial one. Once the Maxwell equations (5,6) are derived from (1,2), the physics contents and phenomenology of these former equations can be easily and systematically unfolded within a regular undergraduate introductory physics course.

## II Auxiliary material

### A Lorentz transformation

A boost with velocity $`𝐕`$ is applied in the $`x`$ (longitudinal) direction, without affecting the $`y,z`$ transverse directions:

$$x^{}=\gamma (x\beta ct),ct^{}=\gamma (ct\beta x),$$
(7)
where $`\beta =V/c`$, $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$. From (7) one shows that the derivatives transform as follows:

$$\frac{}{x^{}}=\gamma \left(\frac{}{x}+\beta \frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}\right),\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t^{}}=\gamma \left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}+\beta \frac{}{x}\right).$$
(8)
The Lorentz transformation rule (7) applies also to the four momentum $`(𝐩,E/c)`$ and to the four current density $`(𝐉,c\rho )`$. In particular, for the latter one:

$$J_x^{}=\gamma \left(J_x\beta c\rho \right),c\rho ^{}=\gamma \left(c\rho \beta J_x\right).$$
(9)
In order to motivate the (perhaps less familiar) transformation rule (9), one recalls the continuity equation

$$𝐉+\frac{\rho }{t}=0,$$
(10)
which is usually taught within the context of charge conservation in EM courses  and which can be written in a covariant form $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$, implying that $`J^\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,2,3,4`$) is a four vector.

### B Lorentz force

This is the basic dynamic law which governs the motion of charged particles under the influence of electromagnetic fields:

$$𝐅=q\left(𝐄+\frac{1}{c}𝐯\times 𝐁\right).$$
(11)
In many respects, Eq. (11) may be regarded as the operational definition of the electromagnetic fields . Below, we will use this Lorentz-force expression in order to determine the Lorentz transformation properties of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$. A caveat of the present approach, as generally is the case when relying on Eq. (11), is that the constant $`c`$ is the same speed of light constant as the one appearing in the Lorentz transformation (7).

### C Transformation properties of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$

It is shown in the Appendix that the form of the Lorentz force, Eq. (11), leads to the following Lorentz transformation properties of the electric field $`𝐄`$ and the magnetic field $`𝐁`$:

$$E_x^{}=E_x,E_y^{}=\gamma \left(E_y\beta B_z\right),E_z^{}=\gamma \left(E_z+\beta B_y\right),$$
(12)
$$B_x^{}=B_x,B_y^{}=\gamma \left(B_y+\beta E_z\right),B_z^{}=\gamma \left(B_z\beta E_y\right).$$
(13)
## III The Maxwell equations

Here we show, using the auxiliary material of Sect. II, how the Maxwell equation (1) leads to the Maxwell equation (5), and how the Maxwell equation (2) leads to the Maxwell equation (6). The key assumption is that the laws of electromagnetism expressed by Eqs. (1) and (2) (essentially charge conservation) have the same form in any inertial frame of reference. We start with Eq. (1) in the primed coordinate system,

$$^{}𝐄^{}=4\pi \rho ^{},$$
(14)
and express the primed quantities in terms of the unprimed ones, using Eqs. (8,9,12). One obtains:

$$\gamma \left(\frac{}{x}+\beta \frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}\right)E_x+\frac{}{y}\gamma \left(E_y\beta B_z\right)+\frac{}{z}\gamma \left(E_z+\beta B_y\right)=\frac{4\pi }{c}\gamma \left(c\rho \beta J_x\right).$$
(15)
Identifying the terms on the l.h.s. which combine to $`\gamma 𝐄`$, and on the r.h.s. the term $`\gamma 4\pi \rho `$, we make use of Eq. (1) in the unprimed coordinate system to cancel out these terms, resulting in

$$\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}E_x\left(\frac{}{y}B_z\frac{}{z}B_y\right)=\frac{4\pi }{c}J_x,$$
(16)
namely

$$(\times 𝐁)_x=\frac{4\pi }{c}J_x+\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}E_x,$$
(17)
which in view of the arbitrariness in choosing the boost $`(x)`$ direction leads to the curl equation (5)

$$\times 𝐁=\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐉+\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}𝐄.$$
(18)
It is worth noting that applying the divergence operation to both sides of the Maxwell equation (18) which we herewith proved starting from the Maxwell equation (1), and making use of the latter, one immediately recovers the continuity equation (10) which provides the full (non static) content of the underlying assumption of charge conservation.

Similarly, starting with Eq. (2) in the primed coordinate system,

$$^{}𝐁^{}=0,$$
(19)
and expressing the primed quantities in terms of the unprimed ones using Eqs. (8,13), one obtains:

$$\gamma \left(\frac{}{x}+\beta \frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}\right)B_x+\frac{}{y}\gamma \left(B_y+\beta E_z\right)+\frac{}{z}\gamma \left(B_z\beta E_y\right)=0.$$
(20)
The terms on the l.h.s. combining to $`\gamma 𝐁`$ give rise to zero by Eq. (2), while the remaining terms lead to

$$\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}B_x+\left(\frac{}{y}E_z\frac{}{z}E_y\right)=0,$$
(21)
which upon permuting cyclically the $`x,y,z`$ directions produces the curl equation (6):

$$\times 𝐄=\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}𝐁.$$
(22)
## IV Discussion and conclusion

We have shown that accepting the Lorentz force, plus a minimal amount of special relativity material, it becomes possible to derive each of the (vector) Maxwell curl equations (5,6) from one of the (scalar) Maxwell divergence equations (1,2), respectively. This suggests a more economical way of getting into the unified framework of the Maxwell equations than is done in most of the other approaches of teaching an introductory EM course. In order to understand how come, on two separate occasions, one divergence equation gives rise to three equations which are combined into a curl equation, we note that the Maxwell equations (1) and (5) can be lumped covariantly together into the form

$$\frac{F^{\alpha \beta }}{x^\beta }+\frac{4\pi }{c}J^\alpha =0,$$
(23)
where $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ antisymmetric field tensor and the greek indices run over the four space-time components . $`J^\alpha `$ is the current density four vector, see Eq. (9). If the form (23) is satisfied for one of these four-vector components $`\alpha `$, by covariance it is also satisfied for the other ones, since no direction in the four dimensional space has preference over the other ones. Eq. (1) corresponds to the time-like component, whereas the vector Eq. (5) corresponds to the three space-like components. A corollary of Eq. (23), due to the antisymmetry of $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$, is the continuity equation (10), in agreement with the discussion in Sect. III following Eq. (18).

Similarly, the Maxwell equations (2) and (6) can be lumped covariantly together into the form

$$\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\frac{F_{\gamma \delta }}{x^\beta }=0,$$
(24)
where $`\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is the fully antisymmetric unit tensor in four dimensions . Eq. (2) corresponds to the time-like component, whereas the vector Eq. (6) corresponds to the three space-like components.

Obviously, if students were familiar with the antisymmetric field tensor $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, and once Eqs. (1,2) are shown to be equivalently written as the time-like components of Eqs. (2324) respectively, then it would have been straightforward to argue for the validity of Eqs. (5,6) respectively, using only the argument of Lorentz covariance. However, since most introductory EM courses do not introduce $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, the right thing to do in such a case would be to follow the explicit construction outlined in the present note which emphasizes the frame independence of charge conservation.

## Acknowledgments

Stimulating discussions with, and useful advice from, Igal Galili and Issachar Unna are gratefully acknowledged.

## Appendix: derivation of Eqs. (12, 13) for boosting $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$

Let $`K`$ denote the laboratory coordinate frame, where a charged particle (charge $`q`$) moves with an instantaneous velocity $`𝐯`$ which defines the $`x`$ axis. The Lorentz force acting on it is given by

$$𝐅=q\left(𝐄+\frac{𝐯}{c}\times 𝐁\right),$$
(25)
where $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ are the electric and magnetic fields. Define the instantaneous rest frame of the particle, where

$$𝐅^{}=q𝐄^{}.$$
(26)
The frame $`K^{}`$ moves with velocity $`𝐕=𝐯`$ with respect to $`K`$. We assume a knowledge of the force transformation law which is derived by making use how the momentum $`𝐩`$ and time $`t`$ transform and recalling that $`𝐅=d𝐩/dt`$. Thus, $`F_x^{}=F_x`$, leading to

$$E_x^{}=E_x+\left(\frac{𝐯}{c}\times 𝐁\right)_x=E_x,$$
(27)
since $`𝐯`$ is parallel to the $`x`$ direction. Similarly, $`F_y^{}=\gamma F_y`$, leading to

$$E_y^{}=\gamma E_y+\gamma \left(\frac{𝐯}{c}\times 𝐁\right)_y=\gamma \left(E_y\beta B_z\right),$$
(28)
and $`F_z^{}=\gamma F_z`$, leading to

$$E_z^{}=\gamma E_z+\gamma \left(\frac{𝐯}{c}\times 𝐁\right)_z=\gamma \left(E_z+\beta B_y\right).$$
(29)
Eqs. (27-29) give $`𝐄^{}`$ in terms of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$, coinciding with Eq. (12) of the main text.

In order to proceed with the derivation of Eq. (13) for $`𝐁^{}`$ in terms of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$, we invert Eq. (28) by noting that interchanging unprimed and primed quantities amounts to just changing the sign of $`\beta `$:

$$E_y=\gamma (E_y^{}+\beta B_z^{}).$$
(30)
Substituting $`E_y^{}`$ from Eq. (28), one gets

$$E_y=\gamma \left[\gamma (E_y\beta B_z)+\beta B_z^{}\right],$$
(31)
and since $`(1\gamma ^2)=\beta ^2\gamma ^2`$, the final outcome is

$$B_z^{}=\gamma \left(B_z\beta E_y\right).$$
(32)
Manipulating similarly on Eq. (29), one gets

$$B_y^{}=\gamma \left(B_y+\beta E_z\right).$$
(33)
Eqs. (32-33) for the transverse components of $`𝐁`$ agree with the corresponding expressions in Eq. (13). Further arguments have to be invoked for showing that $`B_x^{}=B_x`$, thus completing the derivation of Eq. (13). To spare a technically more complicated procedure, we note that the transverse components of $`𝐁`$ in Eq. (13) are obtained from those of $`𝐄`$ in Eq. (12) by interchanging $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ plus reversing the sign of $`\beta `$. Equation (27) above for the longitudinal component of $`𝐄`$, namely $`E_x^{}=E_x`$, then suggests a similar rule $`B_x^{}=B_x`$ for the longitudinal component of $`𝐁`$. It is useful to record at this stage, as follows from Eqs. (12,13), that $`𝐄𝐁`$ and $`𝐄^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are invariant under Lorentz transformations , leaving however the demonstration of it to a later stage of the curriculum.


format: text

text:
# Effective Ginzburg-Landau model for superfluid 4He

## I Introduction

In the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) model for liquid 4He the superfluid density $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ is identified with the expectation value of the square of the complex order parameter field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$,

$$\varrho _\mathrm{s}=m|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2.$$
(1)
Here $`m`$ is the mass of a helium atom. In the vicinity of the $`\lambda `$-transition, the energy functional is expanded into powers of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and its derivatives and of the relative temperature $`t=T/T_\lambda 1`$. In its simplest form the GL energy functional takes into account the terms with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, $`t|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$.

The GL model for superfluid helium has been introduced in 1958 by Ginzburg and Pitaevskiĭ. It leads to critical properties (like $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}|t|`$) that do not agree with the experiment. This failure is due to the fact that in this model the fluctuations diverge (relative to the mean value) when the transition point is approached.

The theoretical remedy for this break-down of the GL model is well-known: The GL ansatz may be considered as a sensible approximation for finite volumes of the sample only. Using scale transformations to larger and larger volumes renormalizes the coefficients in the energy functional. The renormalization group theory (RGT) leads to nontrivial critical exponents that are no longer in variance with experiment. RGT is considered as the best present-day theory which allows in principle the calculation of all relevant quantities.

For practical reasons it is, however, useful to have a phenomenological GL like model that is in accordance with the bulk properties and in particular with the experimental critical exponents of superfluid helium. Such an effective GL model allows to address a large variety of problems in a simple and straight-forward way.

An effective GL model of this kind has been put forward under the name “$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory” by Ginzburg and Sobyanin. The references are comprehensive papers addressing the foundation and applications of such an approach. For the historical development of the field we refer to the corresponding discussion and the bibliography in these papers.

The $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory by Ginzburg and Sobyanin (abbreviated by GS in the following) is based on Eq. (1), too. The GS energy functional contains the terms $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, $`|t|^{4/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, $`|t|^{2/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^6`$. The temperature dependences of the coefficients are chosen by hand such that they yield approximately the right critical exponents (like $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}|t|^{2/3}`$, for example). In so far as the actual critical exponent of $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ deviates from $`\nu =1/3`$ this model is an approximation. For the sensibility and usefulness of such an effective GL model and its relation to RGT we refer to the thorough discussion by GS.

It is generally accepted that there is an intimate connection between the Bose-Einstein condensation of the ideal Bose gas (IBG) and the $`\lambda `$ transition in liquid helium. In Ref. we have argued that there are good reasons to uphold the IBG critical exponent $`\beta =1/2`$ of the condensate density $`\varrho _0=m|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2|t|`$. This implies $`\varrho _0<\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ just below the lambda point. Consequently, we have proposed that the superfluid density is composed by the condensate density and a coherently comoving density $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ (corresponding to lowlying noncondensed states):

$$\varrho _\mathrm{s}=\varrho _0+\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}},\text{where}\varrho _0=m|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2.$$
(2)
The arguments in favor of this composition of $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ and the resulting expression for $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ are reviewed in Sec. II A. The expression for $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ provides excellent fits to the experimental temperature dependence of the superfluid density.

Based on the starting point (2) instead of Eq. (1) we construct in this paper an alternative effective GL model. Because of $`\varrho _0=m|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2|t|`$ we may use the standard form for the Landau part of the energy functional (i. e. the terms $`t|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$). The kinetic energy contribution (the term with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$) gets, however, an additional factor $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}/\varrho _0`$ due to the coherent comotion. Effectively, this factor $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}/\varrho _0|t|^{1/3}`$ damps the critical fluctuation such that our GL ansatz becomes scaling invariant.

From a pragmatic point of view our effective GL model (with the terms $`|t|^{1/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, $`t|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$) is quite comparable to the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory by GS (with the terms $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, $`|t|^{4/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, $`|t|^{2/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^6`$). The main difference is that in our model the Landau part is of its standard form (in accordance with the IBG), and that specific reasons are given for the occurrence of a fractional power of $`|t|`$.

This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the reasons for the composition (2) of the superfluid density, the actual expression for $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$, and the parameters obtained by a fit to the experimental temperature dependence of $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$. Section III displays the energy functional of our effective GL model, and discusses its basic features. Section IV investigates the temperature dependence of the correlation length and the size of the critical fluctuations. The depression of the transition temperature in helium films is calculated in Sec. V. Section VI derives the spatial variation of the superfluid and the condensate density at a boundary.

## II Composition of the superfluid density

### A Motivation

The comparison between liquid 3He and 4He on one side and the ideal Fermi gas and the ideal Bose model (IBG) on the other side strongly suggests that there is an intimate relation between the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) and the lambda transition in liquid 4He. It is, moreover, inviting to identify $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in Eq. (1) with the IBG condensate wave function. This identification explains a number of experimental findings of which the most important one  is that a superfluid current is irrotational. The IBG and this identification are, however, in conflict with the experimental critical exponent $`\nu 1/3`$ of $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}|t|^{2\nu }`$ (as compared to the IBG with $`\beta =1/2`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2|t|^{2\beta }`$).

The standard solution of this conflict appears to be the renormalization group theory (RGT). The RGT yields indeed an explanation of the experimental value of $`\nu 1/3`$. It does, however, not resolve the conflict with the IBG value $`\beta =1/2`$: A renormalization is appropriate for the Landau value $`\beta _\mathrm{L}=1/2`$ but not for the IBG value $`\beta =1/2`$. The reason is that the IBG value is obtained by the exact evaluation of a partition sum. This exact evaluation implies a summation over arbitrarily small momenta (or, correspondingly, arbitrarily large distances). Therefore, the reasoning behind the renormalization procedure (analytic Ginzburg-Landau ansatz for finite regions or blocks, and subsequent transformation to larger and larger blocks) cannot be applied to the IBG energy functional.

Within the framework of the ideal Bose gas model we have proposed to resolve the conflict $`\beta =1/2`$ and $`\nu 1/3`$ by the assumption that noncondensed particles move coherently with the condensate. This means that we no longer identify the condensate with the superfluid fraction; the condensate is only part of the superfluid phase. The coherent comotion is constructed in the following way: The condensate wave function may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\phi _0(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)],$$
(3)
where $`\phi _0(𝐫)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ are real functions. The velocity of a potential superfluid flow is given by $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}=(\mathrm{}/m)\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The single particle function $`\phi _𝐤(𝐫)`$ of the noncondensed states can be chosen as real functions. If now the lowlying states (up to a coherence limit $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ that is to be determined later) adopt the same phase factor,

$$\phi _𝐤(𝐫)\phi _𝐤(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)],(kk_{\mathrm{coh}})$$
(4)
then the corresponding particles contribute to the superfluid current density. Consequently, the superfluid density is made up by the condensate density $`\varrho _0`$ and the density $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ of the coherently comoving particles:

$$\frac{\varrho _s}{\varrho }=\frac{1}{N}\left(n_0+\underset{kk_{\mathrm{coh}}}{}^{}n_k\right)=\frac{\varrho _0+\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}}{\varrho }.$$
(5)
Here $`n_k`$ are average occupation numbers of the (slightly modified) IBG, and the prime at the summation symbol excludes the condensed particles from this sum.

We emphasize that the construction (3) to (5) preserves the basic properties of the superfluid flow (like its irrotational behavior). In section III C we discuss the physical meaning of $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ and present an argument why the lowest single particle levels might adopt the same phase factor as the condensate.

### B Functional form of the superfluid density

We determine the asymptotic form of the expression (5). The IBG expectation values $`n_k`$ are given by

$$n_k=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[(\epsilon _k\mu )/k_\mathrm{B}T]1}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\kappa ^2+\tau ^2)1}.$$
(6)
Here $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`\epsilon _k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$ are the single-particle energies, and $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. In the last expression we introduced the dimensionless momentum

$$\kappa =\frac{\lambda |𝐤|}{\sqrt{4\pi }},\text{where }\lambda =\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2\pi mk_\mathrm{B}T}}.$$
(7)
The chemical potential $`\mu `$ has been expressed by the dimensionless quantity $`\tau ^2=\mu /k_\mathrm{B}T`$ in Eq. (6). We expand this $`\tau `$ into powers of the relative temperature $`t=T/T_\lambda 1`$:

$$\tau (t)=\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{k_\mathrm{B}T}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}at+bt^2+\mathrm{}\hfill & & (t>0)\hfill \\ a^{}|t|+b^{}t^2+\mathrm{}\hfill & & (t<0)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(8)
For $`t>0`$ the particle number condition $`N=_𝐤n_𝐤`$ determines the temperature dependence of $`\tau (t)`$ and in particular the coefficients $`a`$, $`b`$,…, for example $`a=3\zeta (3/2)/(4\pi ^{1/2})`$. (Here $`\zeta (x)=_1^{\mathrm{}}n^x`$ denotes Riemann’s zeta function). For $`t<0`$ the IBG yields $`\tau =0`$. As a modification of the IBG we admit nonvanishing coefficients $`a^{}`$, $`b^{}`$,…. By $`a^{}0`$ we introduce a phenomenological gap between the condensate level and the noncondensed levels. This modification does not affect the BEC as the most important feature of the IBG. It is necessary in order to reproduce the experimental temperature dependence of the superfluid density by Eq. (5). In view of the successful roton picture it is not surprising that a gap is required for a quantitative description.

For $`t<0`$ the particle number condition $`N=n_0+_𝐤^{}n_𝐤`$ leads to

$$\frac{\varrho _0}{\varrho }=\frac{n_0}{N}=f|t|+𝒪(t^2),$$
(9)
where

$$f=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }a^{}}{\zeta (3/2)}.$$
(10)
An evaluation of the coherently comoving density in (5) yields

$$\frac{\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}}{\varrho }=\frac{1}{N}\underset{kk_{\mathrm{coh}}}{}^{}n_k=\frac{4\kappa _{\mathrm{coh}}}{\sqrt{\pi }\zeta (3/2)}+\text{higher order}.$$
(11)
The leading experimental behavior is approximately

$$\frac{\varrho _\mathrm{s}}{\varrho }\frac{\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}}{\varrho }a_0|t|^{2/3}.$$
(12)
Deviations from the exponent 2/3 are neglected in our phenomenological model. Equation (12) corresponds to

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{coh}}=\kappa _0|t|^{2/3},$$
(13)
where

$$a_0=\frac{4\kappa _0}{\sqrt{\pi }\zeta (3/2)}.$$
(14)
### C Results

An excellent agreement with the experimental temperature dependence of the superfluid density is obtained if higher order terms in Eqs. (9) and (11) are included. The resulting fit formula contains four parameters as do comparable standard fits.

This fit defines the temperature dependence of the contributions $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ and $`\varrho _0`$ to the superfluid density. The result is shown in Fig. 1 that has been taken from Ref.. For $`|t|<0.01`$ one finds $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ (because of $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}|t|^{2/3}`$ and $`\varrho _0|t|`$). Due to the gap between the condensed and the noncondensed particles, the contribution $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ is substantial only in a narrow region ($`|t|<0.2`$). For $`|t|>0.2`$ one obtains $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}\varrho _0`$.

The model condensate density $`\varrho _0`$ may be multiplied by a depletion factor (roughly $`0.1`$) in order to become comparable to the measurable condensate density. The temperature dependence of the resulting condensate density compares well with experimental results by Snow et al..

In this paper we need only the coefficients of the leading terms in Eqs. (9) and (12). The fit of the theoretical expression to the experimental data yields the following parameter values

$$a^{}=3.03,\kappa _0=2.70.$$
(15)
According to Eqs. (10) and (14) these parameters are equivalent to

$$f=5.60,a_0=2.33.$$
(16)
These two parameters are used as an input for our energy functional.

## III Effective Ginzburg-Landau functional

### A Definition

The equilibrium value of Gibbs free energy $`G`$ depends on the temperature $`T`$, the pressure $`P`$ and the total particle number $`N`$. In a GL like model, the thermodynamic potential $`G`$ depends, moreover, on the order parameter field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The minimum of $`G`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ determines its expectation value. The equilibrium value of the potential is then $`G(T,P,N)=G(\mathrm{\Psi })`$.

The number of particles is conserved in the considered applications. The pressure dependence will not be discussed explicitly; it enters via $`T_\lambda (P)`$ and via the pressure dependence of the parameters (16) that may be determined by the fit to the experimental superfluid density $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}(T,P)`$. The following considerations concentrate on the $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ dependences.

Equations (2) and (9) yield the bulk equilibrium value

$$v|\mathrm{\Psi }(\text{bulk})|^2=\frac{n_0}{N}=f|t|+\mathrm{}.$$
(17)
Here $`v=V/N`$ is the volume per particle. The order parameter field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ will, in general, depend on the coordinates. The thermodynamic potential is, therefore, written as an energy functional.

We split the thermodynamic potential into several parts:

$$G=G_0+G_{\mathrm{GL}}=G_0+G_{\mathrm{fluct}}+G_\mathrm{L}.$$
(18)
The contribution that is not directly related to the order parameter field is denoted by $`G_0`$. Following GS we assume that the approximately logarithmic singularity of the specific heat is due to this term. Our investigation is restricted to the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) contribution $`G_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ that is due to the order parameter field. This contribution may be further split into the Landau part $`G_\mathrm{L}`$ and a part $`G_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ that contains derivatives of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Near the transition point the energy functional is expanded into powers of the order parameter field:

$$G_{\mathrm{GL}}=d^3r\left(A|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+B|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+C|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(19)
First we consider the terms without derivatives, i. e. the Landau part $`G_\mathrm{L}`$. The most simple standard Landau ansatz ($`B=bt`$, $`C=\text{const.}`$ and no higher order terms) leads to the IBG like behavior (17). The coefficient in Eq. (17) is reproduced if we set $`G_\mathrm{L}t|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2/f+v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4/(2f^2)`$. For the determination of the prefactor we follow GS who argue that $`G_\mathrm{L}`$ should account for the jump of the specific heat at the lambda point. This leads to

$$\frac{G_\mathrm{L}}{k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }=d^3r\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}\left(t\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{f}+\frac{v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4}{2f^2}\right).$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P`$ is the jump of the specific heat per particle. The bulk expectation value of the r. h. s. for $`t<0`$ is $`V(\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/k_\mathrm{B})|t|^2/(2v)`$ yielding $`G_\mathrm{L}/N=\mathrm{\Delta }c_\mathrm{P}T_\lambda |t|^2/2`$. For $`t>0`$ we have $`G_\mathrm{L}/N=0`$. The second temperature derivative of these expectation values reproduces the jump of the specific heat.

The contribution $`G_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ may be written as

$$\frac{G_{\mathrm{fluct}}}{k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }=\frac{1}{k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }d^3r\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}R|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2.$$
(21)
In a standard GL ansatz the factor $`R`$ equals $`1`$. According to Eqs. (3) – (5) the density $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ moves coherently with the condensate density $`\varrho _0`$. The term $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ corresponds to the product of $`\varrho _0`$ times a squared velocity. This has to be replaced by $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ times the squared velocity. This implies

$$R(t)=\frac{\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{bulk})}{\varrho _0(\text{bulk})}\frac{a_0|t|^{2/3}}{f|t|}.$$
(22)
For the last expression we used Eqs. (9) and (12). By $`R|t|^{1/3}`$ we admit a fractional power of the relative temperature in the coefficients (similarly as in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory by GS).

From Eqs. (20), (21) and (22) we obtain the central expression for the energy functional:

$$\frac{G_{\mathrm{GL}}}{k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }=d^3r\left[\frac{a_0\lambda _\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{4\pi f|t|^{1/3}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}\left(\frac{t|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{f}+\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4}{2f^2}\right)\right].$$
(23)
Here $`\lambda _\mathrm{c}`$ denotes the thermal wavelength at the critical temperature:

$$\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{c}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2mk_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }}1.67\text{Å}.$$
(24)
For the numerical value we inserted the mass $`m=m(\text{He})`$ of a helium atom and $`T_\lambda 2.17\mathrm{K}`$. The other coefficients in the energy functional are given by

$$a_0=2.33,f=5.60,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}=2.77.$$
(25)
The first two parameters are determined by the fit of Eq. (5) to the experimental superfluid density (Sec. II C). The value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P`$ is taken from Table V (third line) of Ref.. To some extent, the parameter values depend the other terms in the corresponding fit formula used.

We use preferably dimensionless quantities: Both sides of Eq. (23) are dimensionless. The integral $`d^3r|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ is dimensionless and of order $`N`$. The product $`\lambda _c`$ is dimensionless, too. The occurring numerical factors ($`a_0`$, $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/k_\mathrm{B}`$) are of order $`1`$.

### B Discussion

#### 1 Comparison to other approaches

We consider the functional

$$G_{\mathrm{GL}}=d^3r\left(A|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+B|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+C|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4+D|\mathrm{\Psi }|^6\right).$$
(26)
and compare the coefficients of our model with that of a standard Ginzburg-Landau ansatz (GL) and of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory (GS):

|  | $`A`$ | $`B`$ | $`C`$ | $`D`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GL | 1 | $`t`$ | 1 | 0 |
| GS | 1 | $`|t|^{4/3}`$ | $`|t|^{2/3}`$ | 1 |
| this work | $`|t|^{1/3}`$ | $`t`$ | 1 | 0 |

(27)
The entrance 1 stands for a nonvanishing constant. For GS the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^6`$ term must be included since it scales with $`t^2`$ (as do the terms $`|t|^{4/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ and $`|t|^{2/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$). Because of this term the GS functional contains an additional adjustable parameter. In the standard GL as well as in our approach the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^6`$ term is a higher order term.

Due to the connection to the IBG, our Landau part (coefficients $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`D`$) coincides with the standard GL form. The occurrence of the $`|t|^{1/3}`$ dependence in the fluctuation term (coefficient $`A`$) is due to the coherent comotion of noncondensed particle with the condensate.

As far as the results are concerned, our approach is more similar to GS than to GL. In particular the correlation length scales with $`|t|^{2/3}`$ as in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory, and not with $`|t|^{1/2}`$ as for GL.

#### 2 Choice of coefficients

The prefactor of the Landau part (20) has been chosen such that the expectation value $`G_\mathrm{L}`$ reproduces the jump $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P`$ of specific heat at the lambda point. This choice may be criticized for two reasons: (i) The fluctuation part $`G_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ leads to a $`t^2`$ term for $`t<0`$, and will contribute to the jump, too. (ii) There might be a contribution to the jump from the part $`G_0`$ in Eq. (18). By assuming that the jump is solely due to the Landau part $`G_\mathrm{L}`$ we follow for simplicity GS. The alternative is to replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/k_\mathrm{B}`$ by a unknown parameter. Adjusting this parameter later (for example to the correlation length amplitude) would yield a value rather close to $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/k_\mathrm{B}`$. This might be considered as a pragmatic reasoning of the present choice.

The factor $`R=\varrho _\mathrm{s}/\varrho _0`$ introduced in Eq. (21) has been motivated by the coherent comotion (Eqs. (3) to (5)) of noncondensed particles. This comotion refers to a potential superfluid flow with $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}=(\mathrm{}/m)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$. The motivation for the $`R`$-factor has thus been based on a rather specific coordinate dependence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ for $`t<0`$. It is, however, the spirit of a GL like approach to consider only one functional for the complex $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ field, i. e. to use the same coefficients for all occurring coordinate dependences, and for $`t<0`$ and $`t>0`$. Alternatively, one could introduce different coefficients for the coordinate variation of the amplitude and the phase of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ field; this would result in a more complicated model.

We have used the asymptotic form $`R|t|^{1/3}`$ in the functional (23). This is justified only as long as the leading asymptotic expressions $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}|t|^{2/3}`$ and $`\varrho _0|t|`$ are good approximations. This is the case for

$$|t|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01}(\text{range of applicability}).$$
(28)
The fit of Eq. (5) to the experimental superfluid provides the temperature dependence of the ratio $`R(t)`$ in a wider range. Using this more general function $`R(t)`$, our approach might be extended into the less asymptotic region, for example to $`0.1>|t|>0.01`$, where a GL like approach is still meaningful. The emphasis of the present work is, however, on the temperature range (28).

#### 3 Coordinate dependence of the order parameter

We discuss the coordinate dependence of the order parameter field and its relation to the condensate and superfluid density. The order parameter field may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right|\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)].$$
(29)
We are thus dealing with two real functions, the amplitude $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|`$ and the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$, respectively. These functions are determined by the field equations that follow from the energy functional (23) and that are supplemented by suitable boundary conditions.

According to Eqs. (3) to (5) all particles contributing to the superfluid density adopt the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$. The common phase factor has, however, no implication on the coordinate dependences of $`\varrho _0(𝐫)`$ and $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}(𝐫)`$.

The order parameter field is directly connected to condensate density, Eq. (2). This implies

$$\varrho _0(𝐫)=m|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2.$$
(30)
It is not a priori clear how to determine the coordinate dependence of $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}(𝐫)`$. Eq. (22) fixes the bulk relation

$$\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{bulk})=mR(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(\text{bulk})|^2$$
(31)
between the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ field and the superfluid density, only. The coordinate dependence of $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{r})`$ versus that of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2`$ will be discussed in Sec. VI for the important case of the behavior at a boundary.

### C Fluctuations of the phase field

A superfluid flow with the velocity $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}=(\mathrm{}/m)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ constitutes a nonequilibrium excitation of the phase field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ in Eq. (29). At finite temperatures there will be also statistical excitations of the phase field. In the following we discuss such thermal excitations or fluctuations. This discussion leads to a qualitative argument for the existence and the meaning of the coherence limit $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ in Eq. (4).

We assume an order parameter field of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\sqrt{\frac{n_0}{V}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)].$$
(32)
This means that we do not consider spatial variations of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|`$ in this subsection.

The average momentum of the fluctuations of the phase field is denoted by

$$k_{\mathrm{fluct}}=|\mathrm{\Phi }|.$$
(33)
This momentum $`k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ will be a function of the temperature.

For the single-particle states of the IBG we use real functions $`\phi _𝐤`$. We may then consider the possibility of phase fluctuations for a low-lying state with $`n_𝐤1`$, i. e. phase fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤(𝐫)`$ that are introduced by the replacement

$$\phi _𝐤\phi _𝐤\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤(𝐫)].$$
(34)
Let us first assume that these additional phases vanish, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤=0`$. In this case, the average kinetic energy $`\mathrm{}^2k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2m`$ of a condensed particle would exceed that of a noncondensed particle with $`k<k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$. The energy sequence of the single-particle states is, however, a prerequisite of the BEC; the condensate must be formed by the particles with the lowest energy. In order to preserve the energy sequence of the low-lying states we require the phase ordering

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)\text{for}kk_{\mathrm{fluct}}.$$
(35)
This argument does not apply to the states with momenta above $`k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$.

It is plausible to assume the phase ordering Eq. (35) not only for statistical but also for nonstatistical excitations. This means that the coherence limit introduced in Eq. (4) should be identified with the average momentum of the fluctuations:

$$k_{\mathrm{coh}}=k_{\mathrm{fluct}}.$$
(36)
In a first approach, the coherence limit $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ in Eq. (5) can be considered as a parameter that has to be determined from the fit to the experimental superfluid density. In contrast to this point of view, we present now theoretical arguments for the leading asymptotic behavior of $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}`$.

The critical exponents of $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ may be derived from the following assumptions:

1. The Landau part $`G_\mathrm{L}`$ of the thermodynamic potential has its well-known form (compatible with the IBG).
2. The fluctuation part $`G_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ contains the extra factor $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}/\varrho _0`$ due to the assumed comotion of noncondensed particles (as compared to a standard GL functional).
3. The fluctuation part scales in the same way as the Landau part. This scaling invariance is the decisive physical assumption.

We write $`G_{\mathrm{GL}}=d^3rg_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ for the thermodynamic potential. The first two assumptions lead to an integrand of the form

$$g_{\mathrm{GL}}=g_{\mathrm{fluct}}+g_\mathrm{L}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\varrho _s}{\varrho _0}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+rt|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+u|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4.$$
(37)
In contrast to Eq. (23), we do not introduce an assumption about the temperature dependence of the ratio $`\varrho _s/\varrho _0`$. The present discussion will rather deduce this temperature dependence.

Asymptotically, the Landau part behaves like

$$g_\mathrm{L}rt\varrho _0+u\varrho _0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}t^2.$$
(38)
The third assumption, the scaling invariance, implies that $`g_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ must have the same leading $`t`$ dependence. Because of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=\varrho _0k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ we have $`g_{\mathrm{fluct}}\varrho _\mathrm{s}k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. If this term scales with $`t^2`$ the critical exponent of $`k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ must be smaller than 1. This implies that $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}k_{\mathrm{coh}}=k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$ is asymptotically large compared to $`\varrho _0|t|`$. Therefore,

$$\varrho _\mathrm{s}=\varrho _0+\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}k_{\mathrm{fluct}}.$$
(39)
The last step follows from Eqs. (11) and (36). This leads to

$$g_{\mathrm{fluct}}\varrho _sk_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=(\varrho _0+\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}})k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}.$$
(40)
The scaling assumption $`g_{\mathrm{fluct}}g_\mathrm{L}t^2`$ implies then

$$k_{\mathrm{fluct}}|t|^{2/3}.$$
(41)
According to Eq. (39) the superfluid density has the same critical exponent, $`\varrho _sk_{\mathrm{fluct}}|t|^{2/3}`$.

To summarize: The assumption of the coherent comotion (leading to $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}k_{\mathrm{coh}}=k_{\mathrm{fluct}}`$) and the scaling of the fluctuation part ($`g_{\mathrm{fluct}}\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}k_{\mathrm{fluct}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$) with the Landau part ($`g_\mathrm{L}t^2`$) determines the critical exponent $`\nu =1/3`$.

## IV Correlation length

### A Derivation

We derive the correlation length in our effective GL model. For this purpose we add a standard coupling term $`h\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to the integrand of the energy functional (23) where $`h`$ is a fictitious external field. The variation of the energy functional with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ field leads to the field equation

$$\frac{a_0\lambda _\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\pi f|t|^{1/3}}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}\left(t\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{f}+\frac{v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{f^2}\right)+h(𝐫)=0.$$
(42)
A small external field $`h(𝐫)=\delta h_𝐤\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐫)`$ will change the field from its equilibrium value $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐫)`$. We insert these expressions for $`h(𝐫)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ into the field equation. In zeroth order in $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ this yields the equilibrium value $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$. In first order in $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ we obtain

$$\left[\frac{a_0\lambda _\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\pi f|t|^{1/3}}k^2+2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}\left(\frac{t}{f}+3\frac{v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{f^2}\right)\right]\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤=\delta h_𝐤.$$
(43)
This susceptibility of the system with respect to an external field is given by

$$\chi (k)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤}{\delta h_𝐤}=\frac{\chi (0)}{1+k^2\xi ^2}.$$
(44)
The $`k`$ dependence displayed in the last expression follows from Eq. (43). It implies

$$h(𝐫)=h_0\delta (𝐫)\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(r/\xi ).$$
(45)
This means that the quantity $`\xi `$ introduced in Eq. (44) defines the correlation length. Comparing Eqs. (43) and (44) yields

$$\xi ^2=\frac{\frac{a_0\lambda _\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\pi |t|^{1/3}}}{2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}\left(t+3\frac{v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{f}\right)}.$$
(46)
Inserting the equilibrium values $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=0`$ for $`t<0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=f|t|/v`$ for $`t<0`$ we obtain

$$\xi (t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\xi ^+(t)=\xi _0|t|^{2/3}\hfill & & (t>0)\hfill \\ \xi ^{}(t)=\xi _0|t|^{2/3}/\sqrt{2}\hfill & & (t<0)\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
where

$$\xi _0=\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{c}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\sqrt{\frac{a_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P/k_\mathrm{B}}}1.53\text{Å}.$$
(48)
For the numerical value we used Eqs. (24) and (25). The result is independent of the parameter $`f`$.

The $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory by GS leads to Eqs. (47) and (48), too, but with an additional factor $`[(3+M)/3]^{1/2}`$ for $`\xi ^+`$ and $`[(3+M)/(3+3M)]^{1/2}`$ for $`\xi ^{}`$; here $`M`$ is an extra parameter. For $`M=0`$ the results by GS and the present model coincide. For the favored $`M`$ value by GS ($`M=0.6\pm 0.3`$ according to Eq. (20) in Ref.) the GS values differ from ours by about 10%.

The validity of the result Eq. (47) is restricted to the temperature range $`|t|0.01`$, Eq. (28). Outside this asymptotic region we expect the following behavior: For $`|t|>0.2`$ we find (Fig. 1) $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}\varrho _0`$ corresponding to $`R1`$ in Eq. (22). This implies that in the temperature range from $`|t|=0.01`$ to $`|t|=0.2`$ the correlation length will change its behavior from $`\xi ^{}|t|^{2/3}`$ to $`\xi ^{}|t|^{1/2}`$.

### B Critical fluctuations

A standard GL ansatz (in $`d=3`$ dimensions) breaks down for $`|t|0`$ because the ratio of the fluctuating to the equilibrium field diverges. In this section we will show that this problem does not exist in our effective GL model. This is due to the scaling invariance (Sec. III C) of our energy functional. The following discussion proceeds along the lines followed in a standard GL approach (see, for example, Ref.).

Equation (43) determines the deviation $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the equilibrium due to an external field. Deviations from equilibrium occur also due to fluctuations. The fluctuations of the thermodynamic potential are of the size $`\delta G=𝒪(k_\mathrm{B}T)`$. This determines the size of the thermal fluctuations $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{therm}}`$ of the order parameter field.

We write $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ and expand $`G_{\mathrm{GL}}=G_{\mathrm{GL}}+\delta G_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ into powers of $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$. The term linear in $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes because we expand around the equilibrium value. Therefore, $`\delta G_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ starts with the quadratic term:

$$\frac{\delta G_{\mathrm{GL}}}{k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }=d^3r\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2g}{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}\left|\delta \mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2.$$
(49)
Here $`g`$ denotes the integrand in Eq. (23). The derivative has to be taken at the equilibrium value:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{f^2}}\right)`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c_P}{k_\mathrm{B}}}|t|\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& & (t>0)\\ 2& & (t<0)\end{array}.`$ (53)
The typical range of a thermal fluctuation $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{therm}}`$ is given by the correlation length $`\xi (t)`$. For the following estimate we may, therefore, replace the $`d^3r`$ in Eq. (49) by $`\xi ^3`$. Using this approximation and $`\delta G_{\mathrm{GL},\mathrm{therm}}=𝒪(k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda )`$, Eq. (49) becomes

$$\frac{\delta G_{\mathrm{GL}}}{k_\mathrm{B}T_\lambda }\frac{\xi ^3}{2}\frac{^2g}{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}\left|\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{therm}}\right|^2=𝒪(1).$$
(54)
Inserting Eq. (50) and omitting factors of the order 1 we obtain

$$\left|\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{therm}}\right|^2=\frac{𝒪(1)}{|t|\xi (t)^3}|t|.$$
(55)
For the last step we used Eq. (47), $`\xi |t|^{2/3}`$. The applicability of a GL approach is restricted to temperatures where the fluctuations are small (or at least not large) compared to the mean value of the field. The relevant ratio is

$$\frac{|\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{therm}}|^2}{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}\{\begin{array}{ccc}\text{const.}\hfill & & \text{present model}\hfill \\ |t|^{1/2}\hfill & & \text{GL}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(56)
In a standard GL approach the ratio diverges for $`|t|0`$; this excludes the application of the model in the asymptotic region. In our effective GL model the ratio remains finite for $`|t|0`$. This is the same behavior as in a standard GL approach in $`d=4`$ dimensions.

## V Transition temperature in helium film

We consider a helium film on the $`y`$-$`z`$-plane extending from $`x=0`$ to $`x=D`$. We look for a nonzero solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ of the field equation that obeys the boundary conditions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\mathrm{\Psi }(D)=0.$$
(57)
This implies that a nonvanishing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ is inhomogeneous. Due to the kinetic energy term in Eq. (23) such a nonvanishing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ becomes possible only at a temperature $`T_\lambda (D)`$ below $`T_\lambda =T_\lambda (\mathrm{})`$. We calculate this transition temperature $`T_\lambda (D)`$ as a function of the film thickness $`D`$.

In an experiment the plane $`x=0`$ might be a solid wall, and the plane $`x=D`$ may define the free surface of the helium film. In this situation one has a solid layer (thickness $`d`$) of helium at the wall so that the first boundary condition actually reads $`\mathrm{\Psi }(d)=0`$. This point amounts to replacing $`D`$ by $`Dd`$ and is ignored in the following. For a discussion of the appropriate boundary condition at the free surface we refer to GS.

We consider the field equation Eq. (42) for $`h(𝐫)=0`$ and $`t<0`$. We introduce the quantity $`\xi _0`$ of Eq. (48) and specialize to the one dimension of interest:

$$\xi _0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|t|^{4/3}\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x)}{dx^2}+\mathrm{\Psi }\left(1\frac{v|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{f|t|}\right)=0.$$
(58)
For determining the onset of a nonvanishing $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the $`\mathrm{\Psi }^3`$ term may be neglected. The solution of the remaining differential equation is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=A\mathrm{sin}(x|t|^{2/3}/\xi _0+\alpha )`$ where $`|A|^2f|t|/v`$. The boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=0`$ implies $`\alpha =0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(D)=0`$ leads to $`D|t|^{2/3}/\xi _0=n\pi `$ where $`n`$ is a positive integer. We are looking for the highest temperature $`T`$ or the smallest $`|t|`$ value ($`t<0`$) for which such a solution exists. That means we have to take the $`n=1`$ solution for which the boundary condition yields

$$\pi \xi _0|t|^{2/3}=D.$$
(59)
This defines the maximum $`T`$ value for a nontrivial solution. For a more elaborate discussion of the underlying mathematics we refer to Ref.. Using $`t(D)=[T_\lambda (D)T_\lambda (\mathrm{})]/T_\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ we resolve Eq. (59) for $`T_\lambda (D)`$:

$`T_\lambda (D)`$ $`=`$ $`T_\lambda (\mathrm{})\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _0}{D}}\right)^{3/2}\right]`$ (60)
$``$ $`T_\lambda (\mathrm{})\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4.81\text{Å}}{D}}\right)^{3/2}\right].`$ (61)
Here $`T_\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ denotes the transition temperature of the bulk system. The numerical value follows from Eq. (48).

As discussed by GS, the experimental and theoretical situation in a helium film is more delicate. According to GS there is a caloric transition, and at a slightly lower temperature another transition to superfluidity. The condition for the second transition is somewhat different from that one discussed in this section. As shown by Kosterlitz and Thouless, superfluidity sets in when the superfluid density (averaged over the film thickness) exceeds a certain minimum value. Evaluating this condition in our model leads to an expression of the form (60), too, but with a slightly different length parameter (instead of $`\pi \xi _0`$).

For the comparison with the experimental findings we refer again to GS. One finds indeed transition temperature shifts that are proportional to $`D^{3/2}`$, and length scales similar to the calculated one.

## VI Density profiles at a boundary

### A Introduction

We consider a helium film with a thickness $`D`$ much larger than the correlation length $`\xi `$. At the wall the superfluid density will raise from zero to its bulk value $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{bulk})`$ (for simplicity we ignore again the solid layer at the wall). Similarly, the superfluid density will fall off again towards the free surface.

The following discussion is restricted to the density profile at one boundary. This means that we determine how the density profile

$$f(x)=\frac{\varrho _\mathrm{s}(x)}{\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{bulk})}$$
(62)
raises from zero at $`x=0`$ to its bulk value. This corresponds to the boundary conditions

$$f(0)=0\text{and}f(\mathrm{})=1.$$
(63)
Third sound measurements determine the value $`\overline{\varrho _\mathrm{s}}`$ of the superfluid density averaged over the film thickness $`D`$. By $`\overline{\varrho _\mathrm{s}}=\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{bulk})(D2\xi _{\mathrm{heal}})/D`$ one defines the healing length $`\xi _{\mathrm{heal}}(t)`$ (for a more comprehensive discussion see § 41 in Ref.). For a given profile $`f(x)`$ this healing length may be calculated by

$$\xi _{\mathrm{heal}}=\underset{a\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(a_0^a𝑑xf(x)\right).$$
(64)
We approach the question of the density profile in two different ways:

1. In the considered asymptotic regime ($`|t|0.01`$) the density $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ is the predominant contribution to the superfluid density. The particles forming $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$ have a distribution of momenta up to about $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}`$. This leads to a healing length $`\xi _{\mathrm{heal},1}1/k_{\mathrm{coh}}|t|^{2/3}`$.
2. We solve the field equation (58) with the boundary conditions Eq. (63). This yields the profile of condensate density $`\varrho _0`$, Eq. (30), and to a healing length $`\xi _{\mathrm{heal},2}\xi _0|t|^{2/3}`$.

The composition (5) of the superfluid density leads thus to the prediction that the boundary profiles of the densities $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\varrho _0`$ are different.

### B Profile of the superfluid density

For $`|t|1`$ the superfluid density may be written as

$$\varrho _\mathrm{s}\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}_0^{k_{\mathrm{coh}}}𝑑kk^2n_k|\phi _𝐤(𝐫)|^2.$$
(65)
The $`\phi _𝐤(𝐫)`$ are the real single particle functions of lowlying noncondensed states. For $`|t|1`$ the occupation numbers (6) are $`n_k1/(\kappa ^2+\tau ^2)`$. Because of $`\tau ^2\kappa _{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ we may write $`\kappa ^2/(\kappa ^2+\tau ^2)1`$. At the boundary plane $`x=0`$ all single particle functions must vanish, i. e. $`|\phi _𝐤(𝐫)|^2\mathrm{sin}^2(k_xx)`$. Since $`k^2=k_x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_y^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ is limited by $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, we assume that $`k_x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ is limited by $`k_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/3`$. Putting these (partly approximate) steps together yields

$`\varrho _\mathrm{s}(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{k_{\mathrm{coh}}/\sqrt{3}}}𝑑k_x\mathrm{sin}^2(k_xx)`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\mathrm{koh}}}{2\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2k_{\mathrm{coh}}x/\sqrt{3}\right)}{4x}}.`$ (67)
Including all constants, the first term on the r. h. s. equals the bulk value; it is obtained as the limit of Eq. (66) for large $`x`$. Therefore, we may read off the density profile:

$$\frac{\varrho _\mathrm{s}(x)}{\varrho _\mathrm{s}(\text{bulk})}=1\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2k_{\mathrm{coh}}x/\sqrt{3}\right)}{2k_{\mathrm{coh}}x/\sqrt{3}}=f_1(x).$$
(68)
We evaluate the healing length (64) for this profile,

$$\xi _{\mathrm{heal},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=\frac{\pi \sqrt{3}}{4k_{\mathrm{coh}}}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\zeta (3/2)}\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{c}}{a_0}|t|^{2/3}=0.82\text{Å}|t|^{2/3}.$$
(69)
We used Eqs. (7), (13) and (14) for the second step, and Eqs. (24) and (25) for the numerical value.

### C Profile of the condensate density

Using the dimensionless quantities $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }(x)/\mathrm{\Psi }(\text{bulk})`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\text{bulk})=\sqrt{f|t|/v}`$ and $`y=(x/\xi _0)|t|^{2/3}`$, the field equation (58) reads

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }(y)+\psi (y)\left[1\psi (y)^2\right]=0.$$
(70)
The boundary conditions Eq. (63) become $`\psi (0)=0`$ and $`\psi (\mathrm{})=1`$. The solution of Eq. (70) obeying these boundary conditions is $`\psi (y)=\mathrm{tanh}(y/\sqrt{2})`$. Returning to the original variables we obtain the profile of the condensate density (30),

$$\frac{\varrho _0(x)}{\varrho _0(\text{bulk})}=\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}\xi _0|t|^{2/3}}\right)=f_2(x).$$
(71)
Inserting this profile into Eq. (64) yields the healing length

$$\xi _{\mathrm{heal},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\sqrt{2}\xi _0|t|^{2/3}=2.16\text{Å}|t|^{2/3}.$$
(72)
This differs by a factor of 2 from the correlation length $`\xi ^{}(t)`$ .

### D Discussion

The calculated density profiles of the superfluid and condensate density, Eqs. (63) and (71), respectively, are depicted in Fig. 2. These results refer —as most results in this paper— to the asymptotic region $`|t|0.01`$, Eq. (28).

The occurrence of different profiles does not alter the calculation of Sec. V: For a superfluid flow we must have a nonvanishing order parameter field. The condition obtained in Sec. V is sufficient to accommodate both, $`\varrho _0`$ and $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}`$, within the film.

The experimental result for the healing length cited in Eq. (41-47) of Ref. is $`\xi _{\mathrm{heal}}^{\mathrm{exp}}1.55\text{Å}|t|^{2/3}`$. The question is which one of the calculated results, (69) or (72), should be compared with the experimental one. Both results scale correctly. Relative to the experimental prefactor, one theoretical prefactor is about 50% to large, in the other case about 50% too small. Because of $`\varrho _{\mathrm{coh}}(\text{bulk})\varrho _0(\text{bulk})`$ (for $`|t|0.01`$) one might be inclined to consider the correlation length (69) as the relevant quantity. However, (i) the macroscopic $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ field defines the macroscopic phase field necessary for superfluidity, and (ii) the simple averaging procedure (64) might not be appropriate for a profile like $`f_1(x)`$. In view of this more involved situation, we restrict ourselves to the statement that the theoretical results are in a reasonable vicinity of the experimental one.

A direct experimental verification of the predicted profiles shown in Fig. 2 appears hardly feasible. The $`\varrho _\mathrm{s}`$ profile may have some influence on third sound calculations the results of which might then be tested. The condensate density is already in the bulk system a hard to access quantity.

The different profiles calculated here are obviously in variance with the GS approach. It is a future task to find differing predictions of our model that might be readily subject to an experimental test.

## VII Concluding remarks

We have proposed an effective Ginzburg-Landau model that is compatible with the bulk properties of liquid helium. We have investigated the basic properties of this model and its most simple applications for finite geometries.

Our model is based on the IBG and the assumption of a coherent comotion of condensed and noncondensed particles. The occurrence of fractional powers in the energy functional can be made plausible on this basis. The foundation of our model is thus different from the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory by GS.

The results obtained so far are mostly similar to that of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory by GS. This is to be expected for other applications, too. The results for the density profiles at a boundary are, however, novel and in variance with the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory.

There is a variety of further problems that might be treated in our approach (and that have already been treated in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory), like the influence of external fields or of impurities (ions) and the description of superfluid flow in various geometries.

The $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ theory has been generalized in order to incorporate (i) time-dependent problems in the field equation, (ii) dissipation effects and (iii) problems with a nonvanishing normal velocity. These generalizations correspond to additional terms in the functional of the thermodynamic potential. All these generalization can be introduced in our model in a straight-forward way, too.


text:
# A search for intergalactic H I gas in the NGC 1808 group of galaxies

## 1 Introduction

It has been argued by us earlier (Dahlem et al. 1990, 1994; Dahlem 1992, hereafter D92) that the starburst activity in the Sérsic-Pastoriza galaxy NGC 1808 (Sérsic & Pastoriza 1965) and the high level of star formation (SF) in its nearby companion galaxy NGC 1792 might have been triggered by a gravitational interaction between these galaxies. This scenario had originally been proposed by van den Bergh (1978). Indirect evidence comes, e.g., from a warp of the stellar and gaseous disk of NGC 1808 and a pronounced asymmetry in the spatial distribution of H I gas and H II regions in NGC 1792. Except for the warp indicated above, which includes the stellar population in the outer “$`\theta `$”-shaped spiral arms of NGC 1808 (Koribalski et al. 1993; hereafter K93), the stellar distributions in both systems appear to be only slightly disturbed, arguing in favour of a distant passage. In particular the H I gas in NGC 1792 shows another peculiarity that made us speculate about the possibility of gas stripping in its outermost parts, namely a very notable sharp drop of the measured H I surface brightness (and thus, under the assumption of optically thin emission, line of sight column density) within the optically visible stellar disk (D92). This is unusual and normally found only in interacting systems, like e.g. galaxies in the Virgo cluster (Kenney & Young 1989). One galaxy detected by us exhibiting such behaviour without a nearby interaction partner is NGC 3175 (Dahlem et al. 2001). Most spiral galaxies, on the other hand, have detectable H I gas far beyond their optically visible stellar disks (e.g. Bosma 1981).

In a number of groups of galaxies intergalactic H I has been found in the form of tails and/or plumes, as for example in the NGC 4631 group (Weliachew et al. 1978) and the Leo triplet, which includes NGC 3628 (Haynes et al. 1979). Such detections are important, because tidal features can provide strong constraints on n-body simulations of the dynamics of pairs of interacting galaxies (see e.g. Combes 1978 for a model describing the data by Weliachew et al. 1978). Such models help tremendously in establishing interaction timescales and understanding streaming motions of gas and stars in the individual systems, often providing the only way to explain the properties of the observed galaxies. NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 belong to a small group of galaxies (Garcia 1993), for which we adopt here, as done by us previously, the distance of NGC 1808 of $`D=10.9`$ Mpc (based on $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and a virgocentric infall velocity of 300 km s-1). The disturbances mentioned above suggest a tidal interaction (e.g., Dahlem et al. 1994). However, the evidence for an interaction in the past is circumstantial, which prompted us to search for intergalactic H I gas in this group so as to obtain direct proof of tidal forces at work. To that end we used the very compact 375-m array of the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA; Frater et al. 1992)111The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. to search for intergalactic H I gas in the NGC 1808 group, conducting observations centred between NGC 1792 and NGC 1808, the two dominant group members. With a shortest baseline of 31 m and good uv coverage on baselines up to 459 m (discarding data from antenna 6, which is located at a distance of 3 km from the five moveable antennae), this array, being more compact than the VLA D array, is very well-suited to conduct such a search for extended low surface brightness emission.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

Our observations were carried out in late 1996; the most important dates and parameters are listed in Table 1. Of the 12:45 hours about 1:45 h were spent on flux, bandpass and phase calibration. The rest of the time was split evenly among six pointing directions. One was centred on NGC 1792, one on NGC 1808 and the remaining four between the two galaxies, as specified in the table.

All data were calibrated in the usual way, using the MIRIAD package installed at the Australia Telescope National Facility. We assumed a continuum flux density at 1.42 GHz of PKS B1934-638 of 15.01 Jy. PKS B0537-441, which served as phase calibrator, was observed at regular intervals during the observations. The data for the six pointings were separated from each other in the uv plane of the visibilities and calibrated separately. Subsequently the data were recombined using the MIRIAD task UVAVER and then jointly cleaned, using the task MOSSDI, and restored with a common angular resolution (Full Width at Half Maximum) of FWHM = $`127\stackrel{}{.}9\times 77\stackrel{}{.}3`$. For our attempt to detect extended low surface brightness emission, two original line channels each were averaged, resulting in a velocity resolution of 6.6 km s-1. The resulting data cube has 160 channels of 6.6 km s-1 width each and covers a field of view (FOV) of approximately $`1\stackrel{}{.}4\times 1\stackrel{}{.}2`$. The major axis of this elongated FOV is oriented along the line connecting NGC 1792 and NGC 1808. The data were also corrected for the effect of primary beam attenuation across the FOV.

Continuum subtraction was performed by subtracting the average of the line-free channels from each of the channels containing line emission in each of the sub-datasets.

## 3 Results and discussion

### 3.1 H I in NGC 1792 and NGC 1808

Our map of the integral H I line emission from NGC 1792, NGC 1808 and the intergalactic space in between is displayed in Fig. 1. This map was created using the AIPS routine MOMNT to calculate three “moment maps” (total intensity, velocity field and velocity dispersion) from the original data cube,222Note that the “standard” procedure for the production of “moment maps” is to smooth the original data cube and use a user-defined flux-density threshold in that smoothed version as a “mask” to circumscribe features that are considered to be real emission, while data points below the threshold are blanked. In this process, the signal-to-background ratio of the moment maps is increased significantly. However, since features below a certain threshold are removed systematically, there is no measure any more of the inherent thermal noise of the data. Such blanked moment maps will be shown below. Here, in the display of the total FOV, we want to present an image including the true noise of the data, especially in the region of particular interest, between NGC 1792 and NGC 1808. before applying the primary beam correction. It shows clearly resolved H I emission from both galaxies. The 1-$`\sigma `$ rms noise of the data at the positions of both galaxies is of order 10 mJy beam-1 per channel; at the centre of the FOV, where all six pointings overlap within the FWHM of the primary beam, it is approximately 5 mJy beam-1 per channel.

Assuming optically thin H I line emission ($`\tau 1`$), the observed flux densities can be converted into H I column densities following the relation (Eq. 12.2 by Giovanelli & Haynes 1988)

$$N(\mathrm{H})=\mathrm{1.83\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}T_\mathrm{B},$$
(1)
with the $`T_\mathrm{B}/S_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ conversion factor from Table 1. $`N`$(H) is the H I column density in units cm-2 and $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ the antenna brightness temperature in units K. For our observations a line surface brightness of 1 Jy beam-1 corresponds to a column density of $`N(\mathrm{H})=\mathrm{1.14\hspace{0.17em}10}^{20}`$ cm-2 (assuming that the size of the observed structure is comparable to the beam size).

We will first introduce some global emission properties of both galaxies, before turning to details. The total H I line spectra of both NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 are displayed in Fig. 2. The resolution of the current data, of 6.6 km s-1, is about 3 times as high as that of earlier observations (D92; K93). From these new spectra we derive the total widths of the integral H I lines at the 20%- and 50%-level of the maximum, $`W_{20}`$ and $`W_{50}`$, respectively, the heliocentric systemic velocities, $`v_{\mathrm{sys}}`$, and the total H I line fluxes, $`f_{\mathrm{HI}}`$. $`f_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is calculated as the sum over all bins with line emission from each galaxy, multiplied by the bin width of 6.6 km s-1. These values are listed in Table 2.

All measurements of $`f_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, $`W_{20}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ confirm, within the error margins, earlier results obtained from VLA observations (D92; K93). A few global properties derived from these global H I data and other data are collated in Table 3.

Kinematic parameters, such as the kinematic position angle, PA, and the inclination angle, $`i`$, and their behaviour as a function of radial distance from the galaxy centre, can be best constrained from the earlier, higher-resolution VLA data.

#### 3.1.1 NGC 1792

The H I distribution in NGC 1792 (Fig. 3) is compact. Not only is the extent of the H I disk small compared to the stellar disk (D92), but with values up to about $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{20}`$ cm-2 the H I column densities are quite high (see Fig. 1). Note that we use here, contrary to Fig. 1, the total intensity map created by routine MOMNT, using a smoothed version of the original datacube as a mask to avoid summing up noise in areas where no line emission is present. This leads to an improved signal-to-background ratio compared to the map in Fig. 1 (but leaves no sensible background “noise”). Even with its lower angular resolution our current map corroborates the steep outer gradient of the H I emission distribution seen in the earlier VLA observations (D92), which is reminiscent of a sharp radial cutoff.

Our data also confirm the regularity of the H I velocity field of NGC 1792 (not displayed).

#### 3.1.2 NGC 1808

Our H I map of NGC 1808 (Fig. 4) clearly resolves the inner disk and the outer spiral arms. Note that we use almost the same contour levels in Figs. 3 and 4, with only a few more densely spaced low-level contours to display the outer regions of NGC 1808. The H I distribution is consistent with earlier results (e.g., Saikia et al. 1990; K93). The surface brightness and thus column density of the H I emission from the inner disk is relatively low (about $`0.2\mathrm{1.0\hspace{0.17em}10}^{20}`$ cm-2, typically). That of the outer spiral arms is yet lower, with values below $`\mathrm{0.2\hspace{0.17em}10}^{20}`$ cm-2, typically. Part of the central H I gas is not visible in emission because of intrinsic self-absorption along the line of sight towards the nuclear region (see K93 and Koribalski et al.  for details). Therefore, the total H I line flux measured is a lower limit (Table 2). The cross marks the position of SN1993af, which will be discussed below.

The velocity field obtained from our data (not displayed) exhibits the same general features as observed in earlier VLA observations (K93), including the skewed appearance due to non-circular gas motions.

#### 3.1.3 A comparison of NGC 1792 and NGC 1808

It is directly visible from Fig. 1 that the distribution of H I in NGC 1792 is much more compact than that of NGC 1808. The extent of the H I distribution in NGC 1792 is smaller than that of its stellar disk and at the same time the surface brightnesses in the disk is also higher. After correction for the different inclination angles, the H I column densities in NGC 1792 are still higher than in NGC 1808, indicating that the mean gas density is higher.

These features of the H I distributions in both galaxies can account for the observed distribution of SF activity: while NGC 1808 has a circumnuclear starburst ring, NGC 1792 exhibits widespread SF over large parts of its disk. The low H I column densities in the $`\theta `$-shaped outer spiral arms of NGC 1808 suggest that there are no signs of SF there because of low gas densities. A comparison of the SF properties of both galaxies will follow below, in the context of our radio continuum images (Sect. 3.3.3).

The rotational behaviour of both galaxies, NGC 1792 and NGC 1808, and the relative alignment of their spin vectors was decribed by us in D92 (Fig. 5).

### 3.2 No intergalactic H I between NGC 1792 and NGC 1808

Thus, the current observations corroborate earlier results from dedicated studies of H I in both NGC 1792 and NGC 1808. But, more importantly, they represent the up to now most sensitive search for intergalactic H I gas in the vicinity of this pair of spirals.

The sensitivity of our data is illustrated by the detection of H I in the outer spiral arms of NGC 1808, despite the fact that the galaxy was observed in only part of the pointings. These spiral arms have relatively low column densities on the order of $`10^{19}`$ cm-2. Near the centre of our FOV, the 1-$`\sigma `$ rms noise is 5 mJy beam-1 per channel so that structures with column densities of $`\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}`$ cm-2 should have been detected at the 5-$`\sigma `$ confidence level. Based on a fiducial extent of roughly $`5\times 5`$ kpc (one beam size) and a requirement to have a 5-$`\sigma `$ signal in three consecutive channels, this translates into a lowest detectable line flux of $`f_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}(\mathrm{min})0.5`$ Jy km s-1. Using the relation by Roberts (1975),

$$M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}=\mathrm{2.356\hspace{0.17em}10}^5D^2f_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}[M_{}],$$
(2)
where $`D`$ is the distance in units Mpc, and assuming optically thin emission, this corresponds to a minimum detectable H I gas mass of approximately $`\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^7M_{}`$ (or $`\mathrm{5.6\hspace{0.17em}10}^5M_{}`$ kpc-2) at the distance of the NGC 1808 group. Near the boundaries of the FOV, where both NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 are located, these values increase to approximately $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^7M_{}`$ (or $`\mathrm{1.2\hspace{0.17em}10}^6M_{}`$ kpc-2). The velocity range covered by our observations is 1055 km s-1, from 620 to 1675 km s-1 (Table 1), centred at 1148 km s-1, i.e. between the systemic velocities of NGC 1792 and NGC 1808. This makes it unlikely that any gas between NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 was missed in redshift space.

We used not only the data with the highest possible angular and velocity resolution, but also various smoothed versions of the data cube. No significant H I emission was detected that is not displayed in Figs. 1, 3 and 4.

It is evident from Fig. 1 that, despite the use of a very compact interferometer configuration, no H I gas could be detected in the space between NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 and in their immediate surroundings, at the sensitivity of the data. Only small amounts of diffuse H I gas might have eluded detection, as quantified above. This is not entirely unexpected because, with the gas-to-total mass ratios listed in Table 3, neither of the two galaxies is prominently H I-deficient when compared with the large sample used by Roberts & Haynes (1994) to determine the “typical” properties of galaxies of different Hubble types.

#### 3.2.1 Absence of tidal features

At the boundaries of the H I emission distributions of both galaxies, NGC 1792 and NGC 1808, no plumes, tails or other previously undetected tidal features were found at a significant level in addition to the H I emission features already known from dedicated observations centred on the individual galaxies, with a detection limit of order $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^7M_{}`$.

These results imply that the interaction of the pair NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 that might have caused the observed disturbances (D92; K93) must have left the galaxies with most of their gas. Therefore, a far-field encounter is still the most likely explanation of all observations of these systems.

Our results leave no doubt that the NGC 1808 group does not lend itself to dynamical studies by means of numerical modeling, because there are no distinct features that could sensibly constrain the boundary conditions for n-body simulations to model a putative interaction.

#### 3.2.2 No dwarf galaxies detected

It is also interesting to note that our observations have not revealed any signs of H I emission from previously unknown dwarf galaxies near NGC 1792 or NGC 1808, as found in other groups like for example the NGC 4666 group of galaxies (Walter et al., in preparation), see also e.g. Brinks (1990).

This again implies that there are no significant amounts of debris in the form of tidal dwarf galaxies in the NGC 1808 group similar to those found for the first time at the end of the tidal arms of the “Antennae” galaxies (NGC 4038/39, Mirabel et al. 1992) and later e.g. in the Leo Triplet of galaxies (Chromey et al. 1998).

#### 3.2.3 No primordial intergalactic H I clouds

Our results also bear some significance in the context of the hypothesis originally proposed by Oort (1966) and recently refined by Blitz et al. (1999) that Galactic H I high-velocity clouds (HVCs) might be primordial H I gas clouds raining down on the Galaxy. Assuming that similar H I gas clouds exist in external groups of galaxies, these should be detectable with the sensitivity of our observations.

Although our data do not span the entire NGC 1808 group of galaxies, the non-detection of intergalactic H I at the sensitivity stated above implies a constraint on the possible existence of intergalactic primordial H I clouds. No clouds are detected down to a mass of about $`10^7M_{}`$. This implies that such clouds, if existent, cannot form a significant fraction of the total H I gas mass of that part of the NGC 1808 group of galaxies around the two spirals NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 sampled by our observations. This, in turn, constrains the role that such primordial gas can play in forming HVCs raining down on the two galaxies NGC 1792 and NGC 1808, following the reasoning by Zwaan (2001). In the NGC 1792/NGC 1808 system intragroup H I gas clouds cannot play a significant role as the potential progenitors of HVCs. This implies that our observations cannot lend any support to the theory by Oort (1966) and Blitz et al. (1999). Detailed calculations and simulations based on H I observations of five groups of galaxies are given by Zwaan (2001) and in the references therein.

#### 3.2.4 No intergalactic medium at all?

This non-detection of H I emission on different spatial scales does not exclude the possibility that an intergalactic medium might exist. However, our data put very tight constraints on the properties of such a medium. If located between NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 and if in the form of H I, this gas must have very low column densities ($`\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}`$ cm-2). There might also be H I gas outside the field of view of our observations, farther away from the two galaxies, towards the other group members (Garcia 1993). Although these are at yet larger projected distances from NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 and/or have lower total masses, it is conceivable that other members of the group, such as e.g. the late-type system ESO 305-G009 at a recession velocity of 1025 km s-1, might have taken part in a past interaction.

One might hypothesise whether any intergalactic gas might exist in the form of other phases. For example, at least part of the gas could possibly be too warm to be visible in H I emission. Donahue et al. (1995) detected a diffuse H$`\alpha `$-emitting medium around NGC 4631, which might also be related to the softest observed X-ray emission at k$`T0.05`$ keV (Dahlem et al. 1998). Searches which could detect warm, H$`\alpha `$-emitting gas in the NGC 1808 group of galaxies have not yet been conducted. But it is unlikely that such gas exists, because warm ionised gas should normally be accompanied by a neutral component, as in the case of the NGC 4631 group, which we did not detect around NGC 1792/1808. Both the sensitivity and the field of view of the ROSAT observations of NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 (Dahlem et al. 1994; Junkes et al. 1995) should have led to the detection of a hot ($`10^6`$ K) intergalactic medium, if such should exist. However, no hot ionised gas was found.

At the other end of the energy scale, the gas might be too cold to be seen in emission. Our H I emission observations trace only warm H I gas. Cold neutral hydrogen gas would not show up in our data, being only observable in absorption against background sources. The gas might be yet colder and exist in the form of molecular gas. However, such gas, outside self-shielding gas clouds and in the absence of significant amounts of shielding dust in galaxy disks, is exposed to the intergalactic UV radiation field and thus expected to be heated to temperatures that would make it visible in emission (Shull et al. 1999).

A search for signatures of stellar plumes or tails on deep optical images (see Chromey et al. 1998 for an example) in member galaxies of the NGC 1808 group of galaxies, including ESO 305-G009, also led to a negative result (D. Malin; private communication).

Although being far from conclusive, all these arguments make it very unlikely that there are significant amounts of intergalactic gas in the NGC 1808 group of galaxies, at least in the form of gas phases that are presently known to us (and observable).

### 3.3 1.34 GHz continuum imagery

The setup of the ATCA allows for parallel H I observations at one intermediate frequency (IF) and continuum observations at the second IF. Therefore, 1.34 GHz radio continuum images with a bandwidth of 84 MHz were obtained simultaneously, which we can compare with the existing data in the literature (cf. Table 2). The map of the same field of view as the H I total intensity image (Fig. 1) is displayed in Fig. 5. NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 are the most prominent radio continuum sources in the field of view. In the lower left an arc of an imperfectly cleaned beam fringe of NGC 1808 is visible. The rms noise of the map is about 1 mJy beam-1 in the central region and about 2 mJy beam-1 further out, near NGC 1792 and NGC 1808.

#### 3.3.1 NGC 1792

The 1.34 GHz continuum emission distribution of NGC 1792 derived from the present data is consistent with our earlier map (D92). The total flux measured from the present data is $`325\pm 10`$ mJy. This is compatible with our earlier measurement of $`324\pm 20`$ mJy at 1.41 GHz (D92), which implies that the flux calibration of our observations is consistent with the earlier VLA observations.

The radio continuum surface brightness is high, which is consistent with the high H I surface brightnesses (D92 and above) and the “extremely high-surface-brightness arms” visible in optical images (Sandage & Brucato 1979).

#### 3.3.2 NGC 1808

The 1.34 GHz continuum emission of NGC 1808 is almost unresolved by our observations. The resulting image does not add new information to previously published results (Dahlem et al. 1990; Saikia et al. 1990). The total flux derived from the present data is $`616\pm 15`$ mJy, which is about 18% higher than our earlier result of $`523\pm 10`$ mJy at 1.49 GHz (Dahlem et al. 1990). Partly, this might be explained by the different observing frequencies, but part of the discrepancy might be due to an intrinsic variability, possibly of the low-luminosity AGN (Véron-Cetty & Veron 1985; Awaki & Koyama 1993; Awaki et al. 1996).

We checked our data for continuum emission from the type Ia supernova SN1993af at $`\alpha ,\delta (2000)=05^\mathrm{h}08^\mathrm{m}00\stackrel{s}{.}79,37^{}29^{}12\stackrel{}{.}8`$ (Hamuy and Maza 1993; Biegelmayer et al. 1993), in the north-eastern outer spiral arm of NGC 1808. We have not detected any significant radio continuum emission at the position of the supernova, with a 1-$`\sigma `$ noise level of our map in this region of about 2.5 mJy beam-1.

#### 3.3.3 Comparing the radio continuum properties

Considering that NGC 1808 is a classical starburst galaxy, while its companion NGC 1792 is a “normal” spiral, it is noteworthy that NGC 1792’s total radio continuum flux density at 1.34 GHz is more than half that of NGC 1808 (Table 3; see also Junkes et al. 1995). The major difference between the two galaxies does not lie in the total energy output, but in the size of the region over which the energy is produced in stellar winds and supernovae (Leitherer & Heckman 1995) and released into the ISM.

In NGC 1808, about 90% of the radio continuum emission arises from the central starburst, i.e. inside a region of $`16^{\prime \prime }\times 10^{\prime \prime }`$ (Saikia et al. 1990). Assuming an inclination angle of about $`60^{}`$ and thus circular symmetry of the starburst, with a major axis extent of $`16^{\prime \prime }`$, this corresponds to an area of about 0.56 kpc2. Based on a total radio continuum flux of 616 mJy at 1.34 GHz, this implies that about 555 mJy arise from the central region.

At the distance of NGC 1808 of 10.9 Mpc, this corresponds to a radio luminosity of $`L_{1.34}=8.75\times 10^{20}`$ W Hz-1. Using equations 18, 20 and 21 by Condon (1992), and assuming that practically all radio continuum emission at 1.34 GHz is synchrotron radiation, this radio luminosity can directly be translated into a supernova rate, $`\nu _{\mathrm{SN}}`$, and a star formation rate for stars with $`M5M_{}`$, SFR (see Table 3). For NGC 1808 a mean radio spectral index of $`\overline{\alpha }=0.88`$ ($`S\nu ^\alpha `$) was adopted (Dahlem et al. 1990). Strictly speaking, this value is valid only for the central starburst, but since the radio emission of the starburst dominates the total flux, it should be a good approximation of the overall spectral index. From this, it follows that the normalised SFR within the circumnuclear starburst in NGC 1808 (based on 90% of the total nonthermal radio continuum flux density) is approximately 34.1 $`M_{}`$ yr-1 kpc-2.

In NGC 1792 the SF activity is much more wide-spread, out to a radius of $`2\stackrel{}{.}2`$ (7.0 kpc; D92), leading to an area over which SF is observed, again under the assumption of circular symmetry, of 153.1 kpc2. Based on a radio spectral index of $`\overline{\alpha }=0.82`$ (D92), the total SFR following from the observed 1.34 GHz flux density of 325 mJy is 11.0 $`M_{}`$ yr-1, which then translates into a normalised SFR per unit area in NGC 1792 of about 0.072 $`M_{}`$ yr-1 kpc-2.

Thus, the primary reason for the different excitation conditions of the ISM in NGC 1792 and NGC 1808 and the prominent outflow from the central starburst region of NGC 1808, which has no equivalent in NGC 1792, is the difference in area over which the energy produced by stellar winds and supernovae is released, as reflected by the observed difference in radio continuum surface brightnesses in Fig. 5. This dilution effect alone leads to a difference in the average energy density by a factor of roughly 270, while the total difference in the normalised SFR between the disk of NGC 1792 and the central starburst in NGC 1808 is a factor of 474.

For more detailed information on the SF activity in both galaxies see e.g. Saikia et al. (1990), Forbes et al. (1992), Phillips (1993), Collison et al. (1994), Dahlem et al. (1994) Krabbe et al. (1994), Mazzolini & Webster (1996) and Kotilainen et al. (1996). The high-resolution rotation pattern of H I gas seen in absorption against the starburst in NGC 1808 is described by Koribalski et al. (1996). The distribution of stars in the central $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ of both galaxies can be seen in the NIR $`H`$ band images by Jungwiert et al. (1997).

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank L. Staveley-Smith for his help in the calculation of the flux density to column density conversion and D. Malin for communicating the absence of intergalactic features on his unpublished deep optical images of the NGC 1808 group of galaxies. The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions.


text:
# Analytical expressions for the charge-charge local-field factor and the exchange-correlation kernel of a two-dimensional electron gas

## Abstract

We present an analytical expression for the static many-body local field factor $`G_+(q)`$ of a homogeneous two-dimensional electron gas, which reproduces Diffusion Monte Carlo data and embodies the exact asymptotic behaviors at both small and large wave number $`q`$. This allows us to also provide a closed-form expression for the exchange and correlation kernel $`K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)`$, which represents a key input for density functional studies of inhomogeneous systems.

The static charge-charge response function $`\chi _\mathrm{C}(q)`$ of a paramagnetic electron gas (EG) can be written in terms of the Lindhard function $`\chi _0(q)`$ by means of the spin-symmetric many-body local field $`G_+(q)`$ through the relationship

$$\chi _\mathrm{C}(q)=\frac{\chi _0(q)}{1v_q[1G_+(q)]\chi _0(q)}.$$
(1)
Thus $`G_+(q)`$ is a fundamental quantity for the determination of many properties of a general electron system. By definition $`G_+(q)`$ is meant to represent the effects of the exchange and correlation hole surrounding each electron in the fluid and is therefore a key input in the density functional theory (DFT) of the inhomogeneous electron gas and in studies of quasiparticle properties (such as the effective mass and the effective Landè g-factor) in the electronic Fermi liquid.

For what concerns DFT calculations, a common approximation to the unknown exchange-correlation energy functional $`E_{\mathrm{xc}}[n]`$ appeals to its second functional derivative,

$$K_{\mathrm{xc}}(\overline{n},|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\frac{\delta ^2E_{\mathrm{xc}}[n]}{\delta n(𝐫)\delta n(𝐫^{})}|_{\overline{n}},$$
(2)
where $`\overline{n}`$ is the average local density of the EG. The local field factor and the exchange-correlation kernel are simply related in Fourier transform by

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{xc}}(q)d^dre^{i𝐪𝐫}K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)=v_qG_+(q),$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system and $`v_q`$ is the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential $`e^2/r`$. In what follows we shall only consider the case of two spatial dimensions, with $`d=2`$ and $`v_q=2\pi e^2/q`$. The corresponding three-dimensional case was discussed in Ref. \[\].

A number of exact asymptotic properties of the static local field factor in two dimensions are readily proven. In particular,

$$\underset{q0}{lim}G_+(q)=A_+\frac{q}{k_F}$$
(4)
with

$$A_+=\frac{1}{r_s\sqrt{2}}\left(1\frac{\kappa _0}{\kappa }\right),$$
(5)
where $`k_F=\sqrt{2\pi n}=\sqrt{2}/r_sa_B`$ is the Fermi wave number, $`r_s=\sqrt{\pi na_B^2}`$ is the usual EG density parameter with $`a_B`$ the Bohr radius, $`\kappa _0=\pi r_s^4/2`$ is the compressibility of the ideal gas in units of $`a_B^2/\mathrm{Ryd}`$, while $`\kappa `$ is the compressibility of the interacting system. By making use of the thermodynamic definition of $`\kappa `$ we can write

$$\frac{\kappa _0}{\kappa }=1\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }r_s+\frac{r_s^4}{8}\left[\frac{d^2ϵ_c(r_s)}{dr_s^2}\frac{1}{r_s}\frac{dϵ_c(r_s)}{dr_s}\right],$$
(6)
where $`ϵ_c(r_s)`$ is the correlation energy per particle. Once this function is known, it is possible to calculate $`A_+`$. For the present purpose $`ϵ_c(r_s)`$ can be taken from the Monte Carlo data of Ref. \[\].

The asymptotic behavior of $`G_+(q)`$ at large $`q`$ is also known exactly:

$$\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}G_+(q)=C_+\frac{q}{k_F}+B_+,$$
(7)
where $`C_+`$ is proportional to the difference in kinetic energy between the interacting and the ideal gas,

$$C_+=\frac{tt_0}{2\pi ne^2}k_F=\frac{r_s}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{d}{dr_s}\left(r_sϵ_c(r_s)\right).$$
(8)
Moreover $`B_+=1g(0)`$, $`g(0)`$ being the value of the pair-correlation function at the origin. For $`g(0)`$ we use the simple expression

$$g(0)=\frac{1/2}{1+1.372r_s+0.0830r_s^2},$$
(9)
which has been derived by an interpolation between the result of a low-$`r_s`$ expansion, including the second order direct and exchange contributions to the energy in the paramagnetic state, and the result of a partial-wave phase-shift analysis near Wigner crystallization. This interpolation formula is in excellent agreement with many-body calculations based on the ladder approximation.

In this work we fit the values of $`G_+(q)`$ originally obtained by Diffusion-Monte-Carlo (DMC) in Ref. \[\] in such a way as to obtain analytical expressions for both $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{xc}}(q)`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)`$. Our formula for $`G_+(q)`$ reads

$$G_+(\overline{q})=A_+\overline{q}\left[\frac{e^{r_s/10}}{\sqrt{1+\left(A_+e^{r_s/10}\overline{q}/B_+\right)^2}}+\left(1e^{r_s/10}\right)e^{\overline{q}^2/4}\right]+C_+\overline{q}\left(1e^{\overline{q}^2}\right)+\mathrm{P}_+(\overline{q})e^{\alpha _+\overline{q}^2},$$
(10)
where $`\overline{q}=q/k_F`$ and $`\mathrm{P}_+(\overline{q})`$ is the polynomial $`\mathrm{P}_+(\overline{q})=g_2\overline{q}^2+g_4\overline{q}^4+g_6\overline{q}^6+g_8\overline{q}^8`$.

Some comments are needed in order to appreciate the correct physics which has been incorporated in Eq. (10). (i) Our functional form embodies the exact asymptotic behaviors already introduced in Eq. (4) and (7). (ii) The exponential factor $`e^{r_s/10}`$ ensures that $`G_+(q)`$ rapidly reaches the asymptotic behavior given by Eq. (7), a fact that is borne out by the DMC data at $`r_s=10`$. (iii) In the high-density limit ($`r_s0`$) the term in square brackets tends to a two-dimensional Hubbard-like term, while the second and third terms tend to zero. (iv) The introduction of the high-degree polynomial $`\mathrm{P}_+(q)`$ serves to reproduce the rich structure at intermediate wave number which is exhibited by $`G_+(q)`$ as compared to the three-dimensional case.

The only free parameters are contained in the last term in Eq. (10) and are fitted so as to minimize the differences from the DMC numerical results. For practical reasons it proves useful to have a continuous parametrization of the coefficients of the polynomial $`\mathrm{P}_+(q)`$, which is at least valid in the range $`0r_s10`$. We therefore propose the following:

$`\alpha _+(r_s)={\displaystyle \frac{0.1598+0.8931(r_s/10)^{0.9218}}{1+0.8793(r_s/10)^{0.9218}}},`$ (11)
$`g_2(r_s)=0.5824(r_s/10)^20.4272(r_s/10),`$ (12)
$`g_4(r_s)=0.2960(r_s/10)1.003(r_s/10)^{5/2}+0.9466(r_s/10)^3,`$ (13)
$`g_6(r_s)=0.0585(r_s/10)^2,`$ (14)
$`g_8(r_s)=0.0131(r_s/10)^2.`$ (15)
In Figure 1 we compare the fit given by Eq. (10) and (11) with the DMC data for $`r_s=1,2,5`$ and $`10`$. In Figure 2 we show the local field factor $`G_+(q)`$ as from Eq. (10) for various values of $`r_s`$: the evolution from the low-$`r_s`$ regime to the high-$`r_s`$ one is clear. The fact that the highest peak in $`G_+(q)`$ occurs at $`r_s=5`$ is due to the behavior of $`C_+(r_s)`$: this is a function that increases up to $`r_s3.5`$, reaches a maximum and then decreases. Thus, the value of $`C_+`$ at $`r_s=5`$ is larger than that at $`r_s=10`$.

We turn next to the evaluation of $`K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)`$. ¿From Eq. (3) and (10) the expression of the exchange-correlation kernel in real space (in Ryd) is readily obtained as

$$K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)=M_1\frac{\delta ^{(2)}(𝐫)}{k_F^2}+M_2\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(B_+k_Fr/(A_+e^{r_s/10})\right)}{k_Fr}+M_3e^{(k_Fr)^2}+M_4e^{(k_Fr)^2/4}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}M_{5,2n}F_{2n}(\alpha _+,k_Fr),$$
(16)
where $`M_1=4\pi \sqrt{2}C_+/r_s`$, $`M_2=2\sqrt{2}B_+/r_s`$, $`M_3=4\sqrt{2}A_+(1e^{r_s/10})/r_s`$, $`M_4=\sqrt{2}C_+/r_s`$ and $`M_{5,n}=2^{\frac{3}{2}}g_n/r_s`$. The function $`F_n(\alpha ,x)`$ is given by

$$F_n(\alpha ,x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^n\mathrm{J}_0(xy)e^{\alpha y^2}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{(1+n)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1+n}{2})_1\mathrm{F}_1(\frac{1+n}{2};1;\frac{x^2}{4\alpha })$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$ is Euler’s Gamma function and $`{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{F}_{1}^{}(a;b;z)`$ is Kummer’s function. In practice the function $`F_n(\alpha ,x)`$ can be obtained via the recursive relation

$$F_{n+2}(\alpha ,x)=\frac{dF_n(\alpha ,x)}{d\alpha },F_2(\alpha ,x)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{16\alpha ^{5/2}}\left[(4\alpha x^2)\mathrm{I}_0\left(\frac{x^2}{8\alpha }\right)+x^2\mathrm{I}_1\left(\frac{x^2}{8\alpha }\right)\right]e^{x^2/8\alpha }$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{I}_n(z)`$ is the modified Bessel function of order $`n`$. It is also useful to recall that $`d\mathrm{I}_0(z)/dz=\mathrm{I}_1(z)`$ and that $`d\mathrm{I}_1(z)/dz=\mathrm{I}_0(z)\mathrm{I}_1(z)/z`$.

In Figure 3 we show the exchange-correlation kernel $`K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)`$ for various values of $`r_s`$ as from Eq. (16) (without the first term, which contains a two-dimensional $`\delta `$ function). It is pleasing to note that no long-range oscillations are present in $`K_{\mathrm{xc}}(r)`$. Notice that the $`M_2`$ term in Eq. (16) diverges for $`k_Fr0`$.

In conclusion, we have presented an analytic parametrization of the local field factor entering the dielectric response of the two-dimensional electron gas in the paramagnetic state, incorporating the known asymptotic behaviors and giving an accurate description of the available quantum Monte Carlo data. We have obtained from it an analytic expression of the exchange-correlation kernel for density-functional calculations on inhomogeneous two-dimensional electronic systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by MURST through the PRIN 1999 program. We are grateful to Dr. S. Moroni for fruitful discussions and for providing us with the results of the Diffusion Monte Carlo study.