text:
# Evidence for Solar Neutrino Flux Variability and its Implications

## 1 Introduction

Results from the KamLAND experiment  seem to confirm the Large-Mixing Angle (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino deficit and rule out the Resonant-Spin-Flavor-Precession (RSFP) explanation . On the other hand, there is increasing evidence  that the solar neutrino flux is not constant as assumed for the LMA solution, but varies with periods that can be attributed to well-known solar processes. This suggests that the solar neutrino situation may be more complex than is usually assumed, and that RSFP may be subdominant to LMA , requiring a large transition magnetic moment and hence new physics. Since this recent information on solar neutrino variability is not widely known, a brief summary is presented here of analyses of radiochemical neutrino data, along with newer input from the Super-Kamiokande experiment . Although the 10-day averages of Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino data  show no obvious time dependence, power-spectrum analyses  displayed a strong peak at the frequency $`26.57\pm 0.05`$ y-1 (period 13.75 d), as well as one at 9.42 y-1. These were clearly an alias pair, due to the extremely regular 10-day binning for which the timing had a strong periodicity with frequency 35.99 y-1 ($`=26.57+9.42`$). A subsequent Super-Kamiokande paper  provided 5-day averages of the data, and there was no longer evidence for the 26.57 y-1 peak, showing it to be an alias of the 9.42 y-1 peak (which will be explained later) due to the extremely regular 10-day binning. In the 5-day data the 9.42 y-1 is enhanced. We also find a peak at 39.28 y-1, which is the frequency of a dominant rotation-related oscillation in the photospheric magnetic field. Another notable peak at 43.72 y-1 may be attributed to the same physical process as that responsible for the peak at 9.42 y-1.

A suggested subdominant process that is compatible with these periodicities involves an RSFP transition in which the solar $`\nu _e`$ changes to a different flavor, and the spin is flipped. As in the MSW process , this can occur resonantly at an appropriate solar density. The two processes, LMA MSW and RSFP, would take place sequentially at different solar radii. If the RSFP process were to be achieved with the three known active neutrinos, their measured mass differences would require that RSFP occurs at a smaller solar radius than that at which the MSW effect takes place, placing it in the solar core. This case has been analyzed , with the result that the flux modulation produced by RSFP is very small, varying with neutrino energy from 0.8% at 2.5 MeV to 4% at 13 MeV for a product of field and magnetic moment of $`10^6`$G$`\mu _B`$.

Another model was suggested in an earlier version of this paper, and predictions from it have been calculated . This model utilizes a sterile neutrino that couples to the electron neutrino only through a transition magnetic moment. The lack of mixing with active neutrinos avoids all known limitations on sterile neutrinos, and the sterile final-state also makes irrelevant the usual constraints on RSFP from the null observations of solar antineutrinos. The solar data require a mass-squared difference between the electron and sterile neutrinos of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^8`$ eV2. This is different from the mechanism and the sterile state suggested by de Holanda and Smirnov  for a subdominant transition to improve agreement with the Homestake data  and the Super-Kamiokande energy dependence , but again a decided improvement in the fit to the solar neutrino data is obtained . This improvement, and also the reason RSFP by itself actually provides a better fit to mean solar data than does LMA , results from the shape of the RSFP neutrino survival probability. It has a resonance pit at a density that suppresses the 0.86 MeV 7Be line (as does the Small-Mixing Angle \[SMA\] solution), but tends toward 1/2 and hence fits the Super-Kamiokande spectrum, whereas the survival probability goes to unity in the SMA case. The high-energy rise includes the neutral current scattering of the products of the spin-flavor flips, which need to be active, and hence Majorana neutrinos are required in order to fit  the SNO data  for RSFP by itself. In the case of subdominant RSFP, the high-energy behavior is determined mainly by the MSW transition, since the observed flux modulation is found to be small ($`7`$%) in the 8B neutrino region. Going down to intermediate energies, the dip toward the resonance pit reduces the predicted rate for the Homestake experiment , improving agreement with the data, and eliminates the rise below $`8`$ MeV which is predicted by the LMA solution but not observed by Super-Kamiokande  or SNO . The electron-neutrino-associated sterile neutrino, which provides a better fit to the solar data and is required for this version of subdominant RSFP, is different from the muon-neutrino-associated sterile neutrino needed for the results of the LSND experiment . Possibly three sterile neutrinos exist with a family symmetry.

## 2 Review of Past Evidence

The three-neutrino and four-neutrino RSFP models discussed above differ in their predictions of the location of the RSFP process in the Sun and in the size of the flux modulation they produce. The modulation is larger in the case with the added sterile neutrino, and the modulation can increase at smaller energies , the reverse of the other model. These distinctions should be kept in mind as the previously published evidence for solar neutrino flux variability is reviewed briefly.

By analyzing $`10^3`$ simulated data sequences, it was found  that the variance of the Homestake solar neutrino data  is larger than expected at the 99.9% confidence level (CL). A power spectrum analysis  of the data showed a peak at $`12.88\pm 0.02`$ y-1 (28.4 d), compatible with the rotation rate of the solar radiative zone. Peak widths are computed for a probability drop to 10%. A lower limit to the width of a peak is set by the duration of the time series—in this case 24 y, so that the power spectrum analysis should be able to resolve peaks with separation as small as 0.04 y-1. Four sidebands to the 12.88 y-1 frequency gave evidence at the 99.8% CL for a latitudinal effect associated with the tilt of the sun’s rotation axis, and the latitude dependence was also seen directly in the data at the 98% CL .

The GALLEX data  showed a peak at $`13.59\pm 0.04`$ y-1, compatible with the equatorial rotation rate of the deep convection zone . This peak is also in the Homestake data, and a combined analysis of both datasets shows that the 13.59 y-1 peak is stronger than in either dataset alone. Comparison  of the power spectrum for the GALLEX data with a probability distribution function for the solar synodic rotation frequency as a function of radius and latitude, derived from SOHO/MDI helioseismology data , results in Fig. 1. This map shows that the rotation frequency matches the neutrino modulation in the equatorial section of the convection zone at about 0.8 of the solar radius, $`R_{}`$. Note that this is compatible with the RSFP model that involves a sterile neutrino, but not with the three-neutrino model.

The influence of these rotation frequencies extends even to the corona, since the SXT instrument  on the Yohkoh spacecraft provides X-ray evidence for two “rigid” rotation rates, one ($`13.55\pm 0.02`$ y-1) mainly at the equator, and the other ($`12.86\pm 0.02`$ y-1) mainly at high latitudes. These values are in remarkable agreement  with the neutrino modulation frequencies and also with their equatorial location in one case and non-equatorial in the other; see Fig. 2. A plausible interpretation of this result is that a large-scale magnetic structure deep in the convection zone modulates the neutrino flux and is also responsible for the structure of the low-$`k`$ component of the photospheric magnetic field (where $`k`$ is wave-number), and that the coronal magnetic field reflects the low-$`k`$ components rather than the high-$`k`$ components that arise from granulation.

The fact that coronal X-rays and the neutrino flux both show evidence of two dominant rotation frequencies is quite consistent with similar results of analyses of other solar variables. For instance, an analysis  of the photospheric magnetic field during solar cycle 21 found two dominant magnetic regions: one in the northern hemisphere with synodic rotation frequency $`13.6`$ y-1, and the other in the southern hemisphere with synodic rotation frequency $`13.0`$ y-1. Similarly, an analysis  of flares during solar cycle 23 found a dominant synodic frequency of $`13.5`$ y-1 for the northern hemisphere and $`12.9`$ y-1 for the southern hemisphere. These and other studies show a strong tendency for magnetic structures to rotate either at about 12.9 y-1 or at about 13.6 y-1. Since the Sun’s magnetic field is believed to originate in a dynamo process at or near the tachocline, it is possible that some magnetic flux is anchored in the radiative zone just below the tachocline, where the synodic rotation frequency is about 12.9 y-1, and some just above the tachocline in the convection zone, where the synodic rotation frequency is about 13.6 y-1. It is also possible that the 12.9 y-1 frequency results from a latitudinal wave motion in the convection zone excited by structures at or near the tachocline.

An example of latitudinal oscillatory motion of magnetic structures may be the well-known Rieger-type oscillations (seen in gamma-ray flares, sunspots, etc.) with frequencies of about 2.4, 4.7, and 7.1 y-1 . These periodicities may be attributed to r-mode oscillations  with spherical harmonic indices $`\mathrm{}=3`$, $`m=1`$,2,3, giving frequencies $`\nu =2m\nu _R/\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$, where $`\nu _R`$ is the sidereal rotation rate $`[\nu (\mathrm{sid})=\nu (\mathrm{syn})+1]`$. These frequencies are also seen in neutrino data . A joint spectrum analysis  of Homestake and GALLEX-GNO data yields peaks at 12.88, 2.33, 4.62, and 6.94 y-1, indicating a sidereal rotation frequency $`\nu _R=13.88\pm 0.03`$ y-1. These r-mode frequencies provide further, and somewhat unexpected, evidence for neutrino flux variations, and we return later to another observation of them.

## 3 Observations in the Neutrino Context

The difference between the main modulations detected by the Cl and Ga experiments may be explained by the tilt of the solar axis relative to the ecliptic, along with the fact that Cl and Ga neutrinos are produced mainly at quite different radii. The Ga data come mostly—especially in the sterile-neutrino model, where the fit requires suppressing the 7Be line—from $`pp`$ neutrinos, which originate predominantly at large solar radius ($`0.2`$ R), so that the wide beam of neutrinos detected on Earth is insensitive to axis tilt. Thus the beam of neutrinos detected by the Ga experiments exhibits no seasonal variation and can be modulated by the equatorial structure indicated in Fig. 1, leading to the observed frequency at about 13.6 y-1. On the other hand, the Homestake experiment detects neutrinos produced from a smaller sphere ($`0.05`$ R), so that the axis tilt may cause these neutrinos mainly to miss the equatorial structure of Fig. 1 and instead sample nonzero latitudes where the 12.9 y-1 modulation may be more significant. Twice a year, axis tilt has no effect for these neutrinos, leading to a seasonal variation in the measured flux .

In the sterile-neutrino model, the 13.6 y-1 frequency, located as in Fig. 1, represents a modulation of the $`pp`$ neutrinos which are at or near the steeply falling edge of the neutrino survival probability as it dips toward the RSFP resonance pit. This pit, which suppresses the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ neutrinos, is where the largest value of the mass-squared difference between the initial and final states, divided by their energy, satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/E=2\sqrt{2}G_FN_{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(1)
and is essentially the same as for an MSW resonance , since it also arises from a difference in forward-scattering amplitudes of the two states. Ignoring angle factors, for MSW $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=N_e`$ (the electron density), and for RSFP and active-active transitions, $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=N_eN_n`$ for Majorana neutrinos, where $`N_n`$ is the neutron density (about $`N_e/6`$ in the region of interest in the Sun). For Dirac neutrinos $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=N_eN_n/2`$, but for RSFP alone (not the subdominant case), only Majorana neutrinos fit all the solar data. For the more complicated subdominant case involving a transition magnetic moment coupling to a sterile state, the numerical result of Ref.  may be used. It shows the resonant transition occurring close to 0.8 R for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=1.8\times 10^8`$ eV2, which provides a good fit to the data. This result is in remarkable agreement with the position shown in Fig. 1.

## 4 Changes with Solar Cycle

It is well known that the convection zone magnetic field changes with the solar cycle, so the neutrino modulation features described above should not be permanent in the sterile-neutrino model. It has been argued  that an RSFP effect would have to be in the radiative zone (the location of the RSFP in the three-neutrino model), where the field does not change with the solar cycle, on the assumption that solar cycle variations are not manifested. On the contrary, we show here that solar cycle changes play an important role. Variations in neutrino rates are difficult to observe, since changes in field magnitude would be undetectable if the transition remains adiabatic, and even if flux modulation results, average rates may vary only slightly.

In the sterile-neutrino model the feature that is most sensitive to field magnitude or radial variation is the intersection of the very steeply falling $`pp`$ neutrino spectrum with the edge of the RSFP resonance pit. The shape of the neutrino transition probability function depends not only on the resonance location, Eq. (1), but also on the product of the magnetic moment and magnetic field strength. Thus a change in field will shift the intersection of the $`pp`$ spectrum and resonant pit edge and change the degree of modulation. As can be seen in Fig. 3, the peak at 13.6 y-1 associated with these neutrinos increased in strength from the start of data taking after the solar maximum of 1989.6 to the solar minimum of 1996.8, after which the modulation becomes weak. Also it was during that cycle that the main buildup in the strength of the 12.9 y-1 oscillation was detected by Homestake. The SXT X-ray data, with which these two frequencies have remarkable agreement , also came from that same solar cycle.

In response to a paper  suggesting that the 13.59 y-1 line is not statistically significant in the GALLEX-GNO data, we have recently shown  that the difference is due to different choices made in the analysis procedures, such as whether or not one takes into account solar cycle changes. Using the most sensitive analysis choices, we found the 13.59 y-1 modulation to be significant at the 99.9% confidence level.

Another feature one may attribute to a time variation of the intersection of the $`pp`$ spectrum with the edge of the RSFP resonance pit is the appearance  of a bimodal flux distribution in the Ga data, as shown in Fig. 4. A single peak would be expected if there were no flux modulation. This structure is clearly evident in unbinned data during the same solar maximum to solar minimum period. This neutrino flux effect also diminishes after the solar minimum. Adding to the significance of this result is the plot of Fig. 5, which shows that when the end times of runs are reordered according to the phase of the 13.59 y-1 rotation, the flux values are low in one-half of the cycle and high in the other.

It is unfortunate that the Homestake experiment, which detected mainly the 8B neutrinos (the only neutrino component registered by Super-Kamiokande) ceased operation before Super-Kamiokande started. As a result, there is no way to predict from other solar neutrino experiments what neutrino flux variation should have been detected by Super-Kamiokande during its operation from May 1996 (near solar minimum) until July 2001 (near solar maximum). However, it is possible to compare Super-Kamiokande measurements with other solar variables that reflect the influence of the Sun’s internal magnetic field. It is important to emphasize that the change in the solar field at a change in solar cycle makes it impossible to predict, even for the same experiment, what modulation frequencies will be observed in a new solar cycle if one has data only from previous solar cycles. This would not be true for the three-neutrino model for which the RSFP process is located in the stable radiative zone.

## 5 Super-Kamiokande Data Analysis

The Super-Kamiokande group released  flux measurements in 184 bins of about 10 days each. The flux measurements vary over the range $`2:1`$, and the fractional error of the measurement (averaged over all bins) is $`0.14`$. Because of the regularity of the binning, the “window spectrum” (the power spectrum of the acquisition times) has a huge peak (power $`S>120`$) at a frequency $`\nu =35.99`$ y-1 (period 10.15 d). (Note that the probability of obtaining a power of strength $`S`$ or more by chance at a specified frequency  is $`e^S`$.) This regularity in binning inevitably leads to severe aliasing of the power spectrum of the flux measurements, producing consequences explored below.

Analysis of the data in 10-day bins by a likelihood procedure  outlined in the Appendix, in which the start and stop times for each bin were used so as to take into account the time over which data were taken, gave  the strongest peak in the range 0 to 100 y-1 at $`\nu =26.57`$ y-1 with $`S=11.26`$, and the next strongest peak at $`\nu =9.42`$ y-1 with $`S=7.29`$. Milsztajn , and subsequently the Super-Kamiokande group , used the Lomb-Scargle analysis method , which assigns data acquisition to discrete times (in this case chosen to be the mid-time of each bin) rather than to extended intervals. This “delta-function” form for the time window function is inappropriate, since the length of each bin is comparable with the periods of some of the oscillations of interest. The conventional form of the Lomb-Scargle method, as used by Milsztajn  and the Super-Kamiokande group , assigns equal weight to all data points, whereas a later development by Scargle  provides for non-uniform weighting as is appropriate if the uncertainties in measurements vary from bin to bin, and they certainly do in the Super-Kamiokande data. The likelihood method is superior because it can in principle incorporate any uncertainty distributions on a bin-by-bin basis as well as take account of the start time, end time, and mean live time of each bin.

The Lomb-Scargle analysis by the Super-Kamiokande group  gave $`S=10.7`$ at $`\nu =26.55`$ y-1, which was stated to correspond to 98.6% CL, while the ignored peak at 9.42 y-1 had $`S=6.3`$. Subsequently, the Super-Kamiokande group modified their analysis to take account of the non-uniformity of data collection, assigning the flux measurements for each bin to a “mean live time” rather than the mid-time. This resulted in a reduction to $`S=7.51`$ of the power at 26.55 y-1, but an increase to 6.67 in the power of the peak at 9.42 y-1.

We have modified our likelihood analysis to take account of the non-uniformity in data acquisition, dividing each bin into two parts (before and after the mean live time) with appropriate weightings. In contrast to the sensitivity of the Lomb-Scargle procedure to non-uniformity in the data acquisition process, we find the likelihood procedure to be quite insensitive to the non-uniformity represented by the Super-Kamiokande data. The “single boxcar” and “double boxcar” time window functions yield essentially the same power spectrum, that shown in Figure 6, in which the peaks at 26.55 y-1 and at 9.42 y-1 still have $`S=11.26`$ and 7.29, respectively. This again shows the superiority of the likelihood method over the Lomb-Scargle procedure used, since the latter employed only the mean time, whereas the former utilized mean, start, and stop times, and more importantly, the measurement errors.

We previously noted  that 9.42 y-1 and 26.57 y-1 sum to 35.99 y-1, which is the sampling frequency, from which we inferred that one peak is spurious, being an alias of the other. Since the peak at 26.57 y-1 had the bigger power, and since it falls in the band of twice the synodic rotation frequency, we assumed that the peak at 9.42 y-1 was merely an alias. However, when the Super-Kamiokande data were subdivided into 5-day bins , the peak at 26.57 y-1 disappeared, but the peak at 9.42 y-1 remained. Hence it was clear that the peak at 26.57 y-1 was an alias of the peak at 9.42 y-1, not the other way around.

We analyzed the new Super-Kamiokande 5-day data using the likelihood procedure, taking account of the experimental statistical error estimates, the mean live time and the start and end time of each bin . The resulting power spectrum is shown in Figure 7. The biggest peak, A, in the range 0–100 y-1 is that at $`9.43\pm 0.05`$ y-1, which now has the enhanced power $`S=11.51`$. In agreement with the analysis of the Super-Kamiokande group, we find that the peak at 26.57 y-1 has disappeared. Hence 9.43 y-1 is the primary peak, and the 26.57 y-1 peak was merely an alias in the 10-day data. Since the 5-day binning is also very regular, the power spectrum of the timing now has a huge peak at 72.01 y-1 (period 5.07 days), so an alias peak would be expected at $`72.019.43=62.58`$ y-1, and we do indeed find a peak (not shown in Fig. 7) at $`\nu =62.56\pm 0.08`$ y-1 with $`S=5.36`$. There are also notable peaks at $`39.28\pm 0.05`$ y-1 ($`S=8.91`$), labeled C, and $`43.72\pm 0.06`$ y-1 ($`S=9.83`$), labeled B in Fig. 7. The latter two peaks, plus that at 9.43 y-1, are the three strongest peaks in the range 0–100 y-1. Furthermore, the three peaks A, B, and C are all stronger in the 5-day dataset than in the 10-day dataset, as one would expect of real modulation, because of the difference in the sampling time.

## 6 Explanation for the Peak Frequencies

To understand these three peaks, it is helpful to seek guidance from measurements of the solar magnetic field. A power spectrum out to 120 y-1 of the photospheric field at Sun-center during the Super-Kamiokande data-acquisition interval is shown in Figure 8. We see that the fundamental and second harmonic of the rotation frequency are virtually absent, but there is a remarkable sequence of higher harmonics. By forming the combined spectrum statistic  of the third through the seventh harmonics, we obtain the estimate $`13.20\pm 0.14`$ y-1 for the synodic rotation frequency of the photospheric magnetic field, leading to the value $`14.20\pm 0.14`$ y-1 for the sidereal rotation frequency.

We see that peak C, at 39.28 y-1, falls within the band of frequencies, $`39.60\pm 0.42`$ y-1, of the third harmonic of the synodic rotation frequency of the magnetic field. We have applied the shuffle test , randomly re-assigning flux and error measurements (kept together) to time bins. For this purpose, the shuffle test is more reliable than Monte Carlo simulations, since by using actual data there is no need to assume some form for the probability distribution function of the simulated data. In this way we find that only 5 of 1,000 simulations yield a power larger than 8.91 (the power of peak C) in this search band. It appears, therefore, that peak C may be attributed to the effect of the Sun’s internal inhomogeneous magnetic field that necessarily rotates with the ambient medium. To check this assumption, we have determined the frequency for which the neutrino and magnetic data show the strongest correlation by means of the joint spectrum statistic . This frequency is found to be 39.56 y-1. Figure 9 shows the cumulative Rayleigh powers derived from the neutrino and magnetic data for this frequency. We see that there is a remarkable correspondence, both powers growing from 1996 until 1998, then decreasing until about 2000.6 (solar maximum), after which both increase sharply, indicating again the influence of the solar cycle variations of magnetic structures in the convection zone.

We now consider peak A at 9.43 y-1 with power 11.51, and peak B at 43.72 y-1 with power 9.83. We presented evidence above for r-mode oscillations  in the Homestake and GALLEX-GNO data that appear to be the origin of the well-known Rieger oscillation  and of similar “Rieger-type” oscillations  that have been discovered in recent years. We have therefore examined the possibility that peaks A and B may be related to such oscillations interpreted as r modes.

R-modes are retrograde waves that, in a uniform and uniformly rotating model Sun, have frequencies

$$\nu (\mathrm{},m,\mathrm{syn})=m(\nu _R1)\frac{2m\nu _R}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}$$
(2)
as seen from Earth, where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are two of the usual spherical-harmonic indices, and $`\nu _R`$ is the sidereal rotation frequency (in cycles per year). If r-mode oscillations are to influence the solar neutrino flux, they must interfere with magnetic regions that co-rotate with the ambient medium. The interference frequencies will be given by

$$\nu =\left|m(\nu _R1)\frac{2m\nu _R}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}\pm m^{}(\nu _R1)\right|$$
(3)
where $`m^{}`$, the azimuthal index for the magnetic structure, may be different from that of the r-mode. For $`m^{}=m`$, equation (3) yields the frequency

$$\nu (\mathrm{},m,\mathrm{rot})=\frac{2m\nu _R}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)},$$
(4)
for the minus sign, and

$$\nu (\mathrm{},m,\mathrm{alias})=2m(\nu _R1)\frac{2m\nu _R}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}$$
(5)
for the plus sign. The frequencies given by (4) are the well-known Rieger-type frequencies, which we showed in Sect. 2 were found in the Cl and Ga data. We may regard the frequencies given by (5) as aliases of these frequencies.

For $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and $`m=2`$ and for the range of values of $`\nu _R`$ inferred from the magnetic-field data, equation (4) leads us to expect oscillations in the band $`9.47\pm 0.09`$, and equation (5) leads us to expect oscillations in the band $`43.33\pm 0.47`$. We see that the peaks A and B fall within these bands. On applying the shuffle test, we find only 2 cases out of 10,000 in which a peak with power larger than 11.51 occurs in the band $`9.47\pm 0.09`$, and only 3 cases out of 1,000 that yield a power larger than 9.83 in the band $`43.33\pm 0.47`$. Figure 10 shows the cumulative Rayleigh powers at these two frequencies as a function of time. These two power components have a very similar trend in their time evolution, indicating that they both originate in the same internal oscillation, an r-mode with $`\mathrm{}=2`$, $`m=2`$. Note the contrast between Figs. 9 and 10, showing the different origins of the A and B peaks from that of C.

## 7 Discussion of the Frequency Peaks

In the previous Section we have shown that frequency peaks A (9.43 y-1) and B (43.72 y-1) are not only related to each other, but also that they can be quantitatively explained as r-mode oscillations when one determines the rotation rate of the solar magnetic field from observations. Frequency peak C (39.28 y-1) was shown to be the same as the third harmonic of the magnetic field rotation rate, the only harmonic in the search band which was sufficiently prominent, since the fundamental and second harmonic were weak. Peak C illustrates the difficulty in predicting which frequency peaks will be important, since at the 2000.6 solar maximum the field broke up into structures which made third and seventh harmonics of the rotation rate especially strong, as shown in Fig. 8.

These same three peaks are seen in the analysis of the Super-Kamiokande group , but they claim them not to be statistically significant. In another paper  we have addressed this disagreement in detail, but some of the results will be summarized here. All comparisons are made standardizing on the 5-day data, a 0 to 50 y-1 search band, and a Monte Carlo method to provide the statistical significance of the strongest peak. With the analysis method used by Super-Kamiokande, the Lomb-Scargle procedure with the mean live times, the leading peak has a power of 7.29 at frequency 43.73 y-1. Since 32% of the simulations have power equal to or greater than 7.29, the result is clearly not statistically significant, in agreement with the conclusion of Yoo et al. . If instead one uses a modified Lomb-Scargle analysis , employing again the mean live time but now taking into account the average statistical error of each data-point, the most significant peak becomes that at 9.43 y-1 with a power of 9.56, which is significant at the 95% confidence level. This analysis still assumes that each data-point occurs at a unique time. By using the likelihood analysis one can take into account for each run the start time, end time, and mean live time, as well as the statistical errors. This increases the power of the 9.43 y-1 peak to 11.67, which has a significance level of 99.3%. Clearly, by using this analysis method, we reach a different qualitative conclusion than do Yoo et al. .

As more experimental information is used, the significance of the flux modulation increases, as should be the case for a real signal. Yoo et al.  found from a sequence of Lomb-Scargle analyses using simulated data with a sinusoidally varying neutrino flux that, for periods of 20 days or more, they could not identify a signal if the depth of modulation is less than 10%. Since we find the depth of modulation at 9.43 y-1 (period 38.73 days) is only 7%, we agree that they could not identify it reliably, whereas our more sensitive analysis method does.

## 8 Significance for Neutrino Physics

The evidence given above for neutrino flux variability in the Cl, Ga, and Super-Kamiokande data indicates that our current understanding of either the Sun or the neutrino model is inadequate. Changes in solar physics such as non-steady or non-spherically symmetric nuclear burning would be difficult to reconcile with the neutrino flux frequencies observed, or their apparent location in some cases in the solar convection zone. Association of these frequencies with the solar magnetic field rotation rates points very strongly to their cause involving the Resonant-Spin-Flavor-Precession (RSFP) process. This can occur, however, only subdominantly to the MSW effect. The use of RSFP would be simplest with the three known light active neutrinos, the mass differences of which force the process to take place in the solar core (from 0.05 $`R_{}`$ at neutrino energy 3.35 MeV to 0.20 $`R_{}`$ at 13 MeV ), with the MSW effect for each energy at a slightly larger radius. There are several disagreements between this solution and the results of our analyses. First, flux modulations show in all cases but one frequencies corresponding to solar rotation rates in the convection zone above the tachocline ($`0.7R_{}`$). See Fig. 1, for instance. Second, the depth of modulation in this model is too small. In the Super-Kamiokande energy region the predicted  modulation is $`2`$–3%, but we find about 7%. Third, the depth of modulation is predicted  to increase with neutrino energy, being 0.77% at 2.50 MeV and 1.03% at 3.35 MeV, whereas we find large effects at low energy; see Fig. 4, for example.

The next simplest model, which we introduced reluctantly some time ago, now seems forced upon us. Already the large transition magnetic moment required for RSFP necessitates new physics, so one hopes that the need for a sterile neutrino arises from the same new physics. The sterile neutrino is required for a fit to the data, for example to provide $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^8`$ eV2 needed to have RSFP in the convection zone. Such a mass difference was essential even to fit the time-averaged solar data when RSFP alone was used . For the same reason that RSFP gave such a good fit to the data (i.e., the energy dependence of the neutrino survival probability), invoking it subdominantly in this sterile neutrino model solves  two current problems with the fits that occur when MSW alone is used. In addition to these positive qualities, the usual negative ones are avoided. The lack of solar antineutrinos places no limitation on RSFP because of the sterile final state. Constraints from unitarity using atmospheric and solar neutrino data are avoided, since the sterile neutrino does not mix with active ones. For the same reason nucleosynthesis considerations provide no limits. There is also sufficient uncertainty in the fraction of solar neutrinos oscillating into active neutrinos in the 8B energy region to allow for the needed quantity of sterile final states . Finally, it has been shown  that this model can accommodate the depths of modulation required. For a reasonable magnetic field shape (profile 2 in ), the maximum modulation depths are found to be about 15% in the Super-Kamiokande energy region, 17% for Cl, and 40% for Ga. Thus in every respect investigated, the model of a sterile neutrino coupled to the electron neutrino via only a transition magnetic moment satisfies the empirical information.

## 9 Predictions and Conclusions

The analysis of Super-Kamiokande data, when combined with the results of analyses of Cl and Ga data, yields a variety of evidence for variability of the solar neutrino flux. It should be stressed that this evidence can in principle all be understood in terms of known fluid-dynamic and solar-dynamic processes in the standard solar model. In particular, the frequency peaks in the Super-Kamiokande data are all explained. These same peaks are seen in the analysis by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration, but their less sensitive method of analysis makes these peaks appear insignificant, whereas our method, that uses more of the experimental information, can reveal these small modulations .

Although it is normal—perhaps inevitable—in exploratory research that one examines the results of an analysis and then seeks to interpret the results in known terms, this is a process that one would like to avoid. In mature research, one would begin with a prediction, and then look to see if that prediction is borne out in a new study.

This procedure will be difficult to implement within the context of solar neutrino modulation, for several reasons: we have inadequate information concerning the flows and magnetic fields deep in the solar interior, we must hypothesize about the neutrino physics involved, and we have inadequate understanding of the way in which dynamical processes near the tachocline lead to observable consequences at the photosphere and above. Although helioseismology has greatly improved our knowledge of the solar interior in recent years, solar physics is not yet at the stage that we can safely infer, from observational data, the flows and magnetic structures which occur deep in the solar interior.

However, one may at this stage consider two sources of periodic modulation that are well established, rotational effects and Rieger-type oscillations , and attempt to identify search bands associated with these dynamical processes. We may expect to find modulation corresponding to the synodic rotation frequency in the solar equatorial plane ($`13.20\pm 0.14`$ yr-1) or a low harmonic of this frequency, such as the second ($`26.40\pm 0.28`$ yr-1) or third ($`29.60\pm 0.42`$ yr-1). The power resulting from modulation at a given amplitude decreases as $`(2\pi \nu D)^2`$ where $`D`$ is the average length of each time bin , so that high harmonics will be difficult to detect. Aliases of the higher harmonics would be correspondingly suppressed. Concerning the Rieger-type oscillations, we propose that they may be attributed r-mode oscillations, specifically the $`\mathrm{}=3`$, $`m=1`$ mode ($`2.20\pm 0.02`$ yr-1), the $`\mathrm{}=3`$, $`m=3`$ mode ($`6.50\pm 0.07`$ yr-1), and either the $`\mathrm{}=3`$, $`m=2`$ mode or the $`\mathrm{}=2`$, $`m=1`$ mode, which have the same frequency ($`4.40\pm 0.05`$ yr-1). Hence it would be reasonable to search for these modes and also the $`\mathrm{}=2`$, $`m=2`$ mode ($`9.47\pm 0.09`$ yr-1).

We apply this simple approach to the Super-Kamiokande power spectrum. Concerning the rotational frequency bands, we found a signal with power $`S=8.91`$ in the third band. For the specified search band, we found from the shuffle test that the probability of obtaining this strong a peak by chance is 0.005. The probability of obtaining this result by chance in three “trials” (for the three rotational bands being considered) is 0.015. Concerning the four 4-mode bands being considered, we find a peak in one of them ($`\mathrm{}=2`$, $`m=2`$) with power $`S=11.51`$. We find from the shuffle test that the probability of obtaining this strong peak by chance in the relevant search band is 0.003. The probability of obtaining this result by chance in four “trials” for the four 4-mode bands being considered is 0.012.

We now need to estimate the probability of obtaining both results in the same dataset. From the relation $`P=e^S`$, we find that p-values of 0.015 and 0.012 convert to power values of 4.20 and 4.42, respectively. The corresponding combined power statistic

$$G=Z\mathrm{ln}(1+Z),$$
(6)
where $`Z`$ is the sum of the powers (i.e., 8.62), has the value 6.36. Hence there is a probability of 0.0017 of obtaining these two peaks in these seven search bands by chance.

This small probability does not utilize all the information in Fig. 8, which shows why only the one harmonic found in the neutrino data could be observed, provided the photospheric magnetic field represents that in the solar interior. There is no similar guidance in the r-mode case, since too little is known about the complex solar interior “weather” to predict which of the peaks should be observable. For a different neutrino energy and solar cycle, the other three r-modes were observed in the Cl and Ga experiments, as described toward the end of Sec. 2. Concerning the “alias” r-mode frequencies given by Eq. 5, we should comment that, to the best of our knowledge, these have not previously been identified in solar data, so it will be interesting to see if they show up in subsequent neutrino data.

More precise specification of expected frequencies does not appear possible at this time. That is why the power spectrum analysis of the SNO data, expected shortly, is so important. The SNO and Super-Kamiokande experiments had some overlap in time of operation and observed a similar neutrino energy range. If one-day bins are used, the alias peak at 62.56 y-1 should not be seen, but the r-mode frequencies of Fig. 10 at 9.43 y-1 and 43.72 y-1 should be. In data taken in the solar cycle after 2000.6, the 39.3 y-1 frequency of Fig. 9 should be present, and with shorter sampling time, some of the higher harmonics of the magnetic field rotation may also be observed.

Other types of tests exist of the RSFP framework, which appears to explain so well the current information on solar neutrino flux variations. First, experiments are being instrumented to measure electron neutrino magnetic moments as low as $`10^{12}\mu _B`$, which is in the range of interest. Second, future measurements of the 7Be neutrino flux are likely to give a much lower value of the time-averaged flux than predicted by the LMA solution.

The potential explanation for the cause of solar neutrino flux variability makes proof of the effect all the more important. In view of the results of the KamLAND experiment, a subdominant RSFP process appears to be required, and this necessitates coupling the electron neutrino to a sterile neutrino via only a large transition magnetic moment. Such new physics, which appears compatible with all known limitations and observations, should have many significant consequences.

## 10 Acknowledgments

We are indebted to G.M. Fuller, J.D. Scargle, G. Walther, M.S. Wheatland, and S.J. Yellin for assistance and helpful discussions. D.O.C. has been supported in part by a grant from the Department of Energy No. DE-FG03-91ER40618, and P.A.S. is supported by grant No. AST-0097128 from the National Science Foundation.

## Appendix A Appendix: Brief Explanation of the Likelihood Calculation

The log-likelihood that the data $`x_r`$ may be fit by a given functional form $`X_r`$ is given  by

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}\frac{(x_rX_r)^2}{\sigma _r^2},$$
$`(1)`$
apart from a constant term, where $`r=1,\mathrm{},R`$ enumerates the data bins. We adopt

$$x_r=\frac{g_r}{\mathrm{mean}(g_r)}1,$$
$`(2)`$
where $`g_r`$ are the flux measurements, and scale the error estimates accordingly. We adopt the functional form

$$X_r=\frac{1}{D_r}_{t_{sr}}^{t_{er}}𝑑t(Ae^{i2\pi \nu t}+A^{}e^{i2\pi \nu t}),$$
$`(3)`$
where $`D_r`$ is the duration of each bin. Then, for each frequency, we adjust the amplitude A to maximize the likelihood .

What is significant is not the actual log-likelihood as computed from (1), but the increase in the log-likelihood over the value that corresponds to a constant flux, which is given (apart from the same constant term) by

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}\frac{x_r^2}{\sigma _r^2}.$$
$`(4)`$
Hence the relative log-likelihood, which is equivalent to the power spectrum, is given by

$$S=LL_0,$$
$`(5)`$
i.e., by

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}\frac{x_r^2}{\sigma _r^2}\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}\frac{(x_rX_r)^2}{\sigma _r^2}.$$
$`(6)`$
Application of the formalism above to one frequency in the Super-Kamiokande data shows the magnitude of the flux modulation. For $`\nu =9.43`$, and for zero time chosen arbitrarily to be the date 1970.00, we find that $`A=0.01920.0291i`$. This corresponds to a depth of modulation of the neutrino flux of 7%.


format: text

text:
# Superconductivity in the Model with non Cooper Pairs

## I Introduction

At present, it is the superconductivity theory put forward by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer in 1957 that is considered generally accepted bib-1 . In the framework of this theory, one succeeded in clarifying a great many of experiments devoted to investigating so-called conventional superconductors, i.e., those with rather low transition temperatures. At the time of discovering high-temperature superconductivity (HTSC), the most optimistic assessments of BCS theory yielded the value of about 40 K as the possible maximal transition temperature $`T_S`$.

The discovery of HTSC divided research workers into two big groups. One part of research workers is continuing to consider the BCS theory to be suitable for describing HTSC: for this purpose, it would be sufficient to substantiate the introduction of large values of constants of electron-phonon interaction. Now, other research workers consider the BCS theory to be applicable to conventional superconductivity. However, for example, in cuprates one has to search for novel mechanisms of the pairing of electrons. As concerns the authors of the present paper, they are in obvious minority, forming a group considering it to be necessary to radically revise the existing superconductivity theory. In the framework of the novel theory that is being developed in our works the HTSC has been naturally substantiated, whereas the descriptions of superconductivity and HTSC are lacking essential differences.

In order to properly understand the present-day state of the superconductivity theory, it is needed to thoroughly consider the generally accepted BCS theory. The BCS Hamiltonian binds the pairs with zero momenta only, and has the following form:

$`H_{BCS}={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E_F\omega _D<T_𝐤<E_F+\omega _D}{E_F\omega _D<T_𝐩<E_F+\omega _D}}{}}c_{,𝐩}^+c_{,𝐩}^+c_{,𝐤}c_{,𝐤},`$ (1)
where $`T_𝐤`$ is the kinetic energy, $`c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+`$ and $`c_{\sigma ,𝐤}`$ are the operators of the creation and annihilation of the electron with momentum $`𝐤`$ and spin index $`\sigma =\pm \frac{1}{2}`$(or $`\sigma =,`$ respectively), $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the system, and $`\omega _D`$ is the Debye frequency.

A rigorous analysis shows that Hamiltonian (1) describes a dielectric rather than a superconductor. It is possible to become convinced in that already by scrutinizing so-called ”elementary Cooper superconductor”, which is essentially a single pair of electrons bound together by the interaction term of the Hamiltonian (1) (it is curious that in distinction from the classically bound pairs, the energy of Cooper pair in the system of the centrum of masses with realistically chosen parameters of the model is positive).

Let us assume for the sake of simplicity that $`\omega _D=E_F`$. If we apply to the Cooper superconductor a voltage $`V`$ of such a value that the condition $`2eV<E_b`$ is fulfilled, where $`E_b`$ is the energy of a pair to be counted from the bottom of the conductivity zone and $`e`$ is the electron charge, then the response of such a system to the electrical field will be calculated in the framework of the perturbation theory, for the energy of the Cooper pair is separated from all other states by an energy gap $`E_b`$. Thus, the Cooper ”superconductor” is actually incapable of screening the electrical field, that is, in the BCS system even the properties of normal metal have been lost.

It may seem that Bose condensation for many pairs can substantially change the situation. This supposition refutes the strict solution of a many electron problem for the reduced BCS Hamiltonian, as given in study bib-2 . It turns out that the ground state of such a system is also separated from other states by an energy gap. Therefore, in order to induce current, it is necessary to consume a finite quantity of energy, which is incompatible with the claimed superconductivity properties. In other words, the BCS model actually describes the Mott hypothetical transition, when the ground state of the system proves to be dielectric, and has nothing in common with the superconductivity problem.

It may seem that we have to deal with a shortcoming of the original formulation of BCS theory. In the further course, when we pass over to considering the bound pairs with the momenta that are different from zero, this shortcoming disappears. Let us show this does not correspond to reality.

So, in the framework of Gor’kov transformation bib-3 , some of the interaction terms of the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤,𝐪}{}}V_𝐪^{real}c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩}`$ (2)
are diagonalized by a transition to the operators of the creation and annihilation of bogolons:

$`\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}^+=u_pc_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+2\sigma v_pc_{\sigma ,𝐩},`$ (3)
$`\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}=u_pc_{\sigma ,𝐩}2\sigma v_pc_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+.`$ (4)
The parameters $`u_p`$ and $`v_p`$ are determined in the framework of the self-consistent Hartree–Fock procedure based on equation for the bogolons’ spectrum $`[H,\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}^+]=E_p\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}^+`$. The appearance of the gap in the spectrum is treated as a transition into the superconductivity state.

Now we are going to note that equation $`[H,\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}^+]=E_p\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}^+`$ has a physical sense only in the case where the vacuum state $`|BCS`$, satisfying the condition $`\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}|BCS=0`$, is stationary (in the BCS theory this vacuum state is considered the ground state of the system). For further purpose, it is sufficient to write the Hamiltonian (2) in the operators $`\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}^+`$ and $`\gamma _{\sigma ,𝐩}`$.

In the case of the BCS Hamiltonian accounting for the terms with the structure $`\gamma ^+\gamma ^+\gamma ^+\gamma ^+`$ we derive the following expression $`\left|\delta \psi \right|N/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ , where $`\delta \psi `$ is a correction of the first order of the perturbation theory to the wave function of the state $`|BCS`$, and $`N`$ is the mean number of electrons in the system. But, in a general case for Hamiltonian (2), the analogous terms give $`\left|\delta \psi \right|N^{3/2}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, or $`\left|\delta \psi \right|n\sqrt{N}`$, where $`n`$ is concentration of electrons in the system. Therefore, the Gor’kov procedure is definitely incorrect when describing real systems with large dimensions.

Now, let us consider Eliashberg’s equations bib-4 , which are frequently referred to as the modern formulation of BCS theory bib-5 . These equations were derived from the Fröhlich model in 1960. At the same time, it is long known bib-6  that in the Fröhlich model it is impracticable to effect the consistent taking into account of the Coulomb electron-electron interaction in the procedure of screening electron–phonon potential. This circumstance reveals the irrelevance of the Eliashberg’s equations for Green’s functions of electrons and phonons with respect to the essential point of the renormalization problem. Moreover, the use of anomalous expectation values makes the determination of the ground state of the system as unsubstantiated as in the case of Gor’kov transformation.

The consistent renormalization in the system of electrons and phonons was for the first time carried into effect in study bib-7 . It has been shown that introduction of an additional kinetic terms $`q^1\left(2b_𝐪^+b_𝐪b_𝐪^+b_𝐪^+b_𝐪b_𝐪\right)`$, where $`b_𝐪^+`$ and $`b_𝐪`$ are the operators of the creation and annihilation of the phonons of longitudinal polarization with momentum $`𝐪`$, enables one to balance a series of singularities in the long-wave limit, that arise in the process of renormalization.

The consideration of the long-wave limit of the electron–phonon and, accordingly, electron–electron interaction is especially relevant in studying the electron pairs that are bound in the classical sense. In fact, it is easy to take into account the short-wave interaction in the framework of the perturbation theory because of high values of the arising energy denominators. Therefore, in distinction from the BCS theory, it is just the long-wave interaction that should play the crucial role in the substantiation of physically relevant superconductivity theories.

In the framework of the same works bib-7 , when taking into consideration electronic correlations, we have derived an expression for the effective Hamiltonian of degenerated Fermi gas in the model of monatomic metal:

$`H_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤,𝐪}{}}\stackrel{~}{U}_𝐪^{𝐩,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩}.`$ (5)
In that, with $`p,kmS`$ , we have

$`\stackrel{~}{U}_𝐪^{𝐩,𝐤}\left({\displaystyle \frac{zm}{3M}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\epsilon q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_F^2}{q^24m^2s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_F^2}{q^24m^2s_1^2}},`$ (6)
where $`z`$ is the number of conductivity electrons per cell, $`m`$ is the zone mass of electron, $`M`$ is the mass of ion, $`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric permittivity of the electrons of valence zone, $`K_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector, $`s`$ is the initial velocity of phonons, which is linked with the observed sound velocity $`S`$ in metal by a relationship $`S=\sqrt{s^2+\frac{zm}{3M}V_F^2}`$, $`V_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`s_1^2=\left(1+\frac{zm}{3M}\frac{\epsilon K_F^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)s^2`$, and $`\lambda ^1`$ is the Thomas-Fermi screening length. In study bib-7 , we actually considered a doped semiconductor. In such a case, the electron states may be divided into the states of valence and conductivity zones. In this, the values of dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon `$ and the initial velocity of phonons $`s`$ are of explicit parent dielectric origin. Future investigations will certainly show how correct is the approximation suggested above for describing the metals of periodic system.

Now, we are going to make several remarks pertaining to the subject-matter of this paper. Firstly, the presence of singularities in Eq. (6) is not at all unavoidable in the framework of the approach being developed. As a matter of fact, taking into account the phonon and electron scattering will be conducive to the disappearance of singularities in Eq. (6): this may be achieved by introducing supplementary terms to the initial Hamiltonian introduced in bib-7 .

Secondly, one has to perceive distinctly the peculiarities of the construction of the ground state in the framework of the proposed approach. From the very beginning, we believe the ground state of the system may be represented in the following form:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,k<K_F}{}}C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+|0,`$ (7)
where $`C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+`$ are the operators of the creation of quasi-particles originating from electrons.

During the renormalization procedure, taking into account electron correlations, and solving other problems, these operators are refined; however, even the appearance of the bound states of Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ does not change equation (7). This circumstance qualitatively distinguishes our approach from the most studies, in which the Hamiltonians presupposing the presence of bound states are considered to be initial ones, and, accordingly, the determining of the ground state of the system represents a separate problem.

## II Construction of the Model Hamiltonian

The effective electron–electron interaction (5) was obtained in the first order of the perturbation theory with respect to the small parameter $`\stackrel{~}{U}/T`$. Let us try to generalize the obtained results for the case where the perturbation theory does not work. So, after the completion of the renormalization procedure, let us consider the following Hamiltonian:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤,𝐪}{}}U_𝐪^{𝐩,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩}.`$ (8)
The scheme of introducing the concept of effective Hamiltonian is similar to that set forth in papers bib-7 . At first, we consider the Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ that, as one would think, is even formally not linked with Eq. (7):

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤}`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤,𝐪}{}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}\left(c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^+\right)\left(c_{,𝐤}c_{,𝐩}c_{,𝐤}c_{,𝐩}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤,𝐪}{}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤,𝐪}{}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}\left(c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^++c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^+\right)\left(c_{,𝐤}c_{,𝐩}+c_{,𝐤}c_{,𝐩}\right).`$
Using transformation

$`C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+=c_{\sigma ,𝐩}^++{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\theta _{\sigma ,\nu ,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤},`$ (10)
$`C_{\sigma ,𝐩}=c_{\sigma ,𝐩}+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\theta _{\sigma ,\nu ,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}c_{\nu ,𝐤}^+c_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪},`$ (11)
the Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ is transformed to the following form

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐤}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐩𝐤}{}}E_1^{𝐩,𝐤}C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐤}C_{\sigma ,𝐩}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩𝐤}{}}E_1^{𝐩,𝐤}\left(C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐤}^++C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐤}^+\right)\left(C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐩}+C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐩}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}E_0^{𝐩,𝐩}C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐩}C_{,𝐩}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩𝐤}{}}E_0^{𝐩,𝐤}\left(C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐤}^+C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐤}^+\right)\left(C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐩}C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐩}\right).`$
In distinction from study bib-7 , in Eq. (9) it has been taken into account that in higher than the first orders of the perturbation theory with respect to parameter the effective potentials for singlet and triplet pairs may differ from each other. Moreover, the parameters of transformation (11) will be determined, not from the perturbation theory, but will be reassigned by the expressions of a more general form:

$`\theta _{\sigma ,\sigma ,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{𝐤𝐩}^𝐪\delta _𝐪^0\right)+\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤},`$ (13)
$`\theta _{\sigma ,\sigma ,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}=\delta _𝐪^0+\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}+\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤},`$ (14)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Kronecker’s 3D-symbol, $`\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ and $`\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ are defined by equations on the two-particle eigen states of the Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ (see Eq. (9) and Appendix):

$`H_{eff}|S_1^{𝐩,𝐤}=\left(T_𝐩+T_𝐤+E_1^{𝐩,𝐤}\right)|S_1^{𝐩,𝐤},`$ (15)
$`H_{eff}|S_0^{𝐩,𝐤}=\left(T_𝐩+T_𝐤+E_0^{𝐩,𝐤}\right)|S_0^{𝐩,𝐤},`$ (16)
where $`|S_1^{𝐩,𝐤}=\underset{𝐪}{}\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^+|0`$ and $`|S_0^{𝐩,𝐤}=\underset{𝐪}{}\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}\left(c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^+c_{,𝐩+𝐪}^+c_{,𝐤𝐪}^+\right)|0`$.

The equations on the effective potentials $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{i,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ are derived in the following manner. Formally, the transformation is introduced, which is reciprocal to transformation (11):

$`c_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+=C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^++{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\theta _{\sigma ,\nu ,𝐪}^{𝐤𝐪,𝐩+𝐪}C_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤},`$ (17)
$`c_{\sigma ,𝐩}=C_{\sigma ,𝐩}+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\theta _{\sigma ,\nu ,𝐪}^{𝐤𝐪,𝐩+𝐪}C_{\nu ,𝐤}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤𝐪}C_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐪}.`$ (18)
Using Eq. (18), the Hamiltonian (8) is written in operators $`C^+`$ and $`C`$. In such a written form, the terms appear in the Hamiltonian having the structure $`C^+C^+C^+CCC`$, which, in the random phase approximation can be reduced to the form $`C^+CC^+C^+CC`$ (here and further the broken brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ designate the averaging with respect to the ground state). These terms and some other arising terms with the structure $`C^+C^+CC`$ define supplementary potentials $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$. Then the self-consistency equations on the effective potentials $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{i,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ become

$`\stackrel{~}{U}_{i,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}=U_𝐪^{𝐩,𝐤}+\stackrel{~}{D}_{i,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ (19)
In the case where the perturbation theory is applicable, i.e.,

$`\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _𝐪^0+\delta _{𝐤𝐩}^𝐪\right),`$ (20)
$`\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _𝐪^0\delta _{𝐤𝐩}^𝐪\right),`$ (21)
Eqs. (19) little differ from those derived in study bib-7 . We are now interested in the case, where some solutions form the states of discrete spectrum, and relationships (21) corresponding to these states are not fulfilled.

Let us restrict ourselves to the consideration of the case where the Hamiltonian has one bound-state solution with a zero spin for pairs with momentum $`𝐏`$. For all the remaining unbound pairs with $`𝐩+𝐤=𝐏`$, the following equation is fulfilled: $`\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _𝐪^0+\delta _{𝐤𝐩}^𝐪\right)`$. Determine for which pair this relationship has not been fulfilled (it is the pair forming the discrete spectrum).

For this purpose, note once more that it is the long-wave part of the electron–electron interaction, which plays the main role in the formation of bound states. When considering the electron–electron interaction of two-particle states in the framework of the perturbation theory, the energy denominator $`(𝐩𝐤)𝐪`$. Hence, it attains the minimal value when $`𝐩𝐤`$. That is why the bound pair originates from the state of two free electrons that are located on one site of the momentum grid or on the neighboring ones.

We will reckon that the pair binding energy $`E_b`$ considerably exceeds corrections $`E_i^{𝐩,𝐤}`$ for the pairs whose spectrum is well described by the perturbation theory. Then, for a crystal with dimensions $`L\times L\times L`$ and periodic boundary conditions, we arrive to the following model Hamiltonian:

$`H_{mod}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}T_𝐤C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐤}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}E_bC_{,𝐤}^+C_{,𝐤}^+C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐤}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle E_b\left(C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐤}^+C_{,𝐩}^+C_{,𝐤}^+\right)\left(C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐩}C_{,𝐤}C_{,𝐩}\right)}`$
$`\left\{𝐩𝐤;\left|𝐩_\alpha 𝐤_\alpha \right|2\pi /L,\alpha =x,y,z\right\}.`$
The energy of a quasi-particle $`\stackrel{~}{E}_𝐩`$ in the mean field approximation accounting for the nearest neighbors over the momenta grid is determined by the following equation:

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_𝐩C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+=[H_{mod},C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+]=\left(T_𝐤14E_b\rho _𝐤\right)C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+,`$ (23)
where $`\rho _𝐤`$ is the mean value of the occupation number in the vicinity of the site $`𝐤`$.

Eq. (23) enables one to obtain the qualitative picture of changes in the electron spectrum during variation in temperature bib-8 . At the lowest temperatures, the spectrum has a gap of the magnitude $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0=14E_b`$. As temperature rises, the gap decreases. At the transition point, the spectrum reveals a singularity, whereas at a temperature which is higher than the transition point, the gap completely disappears.

The transition temperature can be estimated from an equation $`\rho /E|_{\stackrel{~}{E}=\mu }=\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential of electrons. Assuming for $`\rho `$ the Fermi–Dirac distribution function, we obtain for the transition temperature $`T_s`$:

$`T_s={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}}.`$ (24)
In distinction from the BCS model, the gap forming in the system is evidently superconducting. It follows from the following speculations: firstly, it is possible to obtain the current state of the system by shifting the wave function of the ground state in the momenta space, without consuming the finite energy; secondly, the collision integral in such a system is frozen out according to the exponential law.

The superconducting condensate forms the ground state of the system. The thermally excited electrons outside the momenta space, which is occupied by condensate, and the holes inside the condensate form normal gas that, contrary to the BCS theory, is electrically neutral. All the processes of scattering in the system occur only for the normal gas. Therefore, it proves to be extremely difficult to estimate the condensate relaxation time with non-zero current. However, it is most likely that here we have to do with astronomic values.

Winding up the description of the procedure of introducing the model Hamiltonian, we note once more that in the case where two–particle solutions of discrete spectrum appear in the system, the transformations (11) and (18) are of formal, auxiliary character for the determination of the model Hamiltonian in the space of wave functions of eigen states of the Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$. These transformations allow one to derive also expressions for the operators of the values observed, corresponding to the Hamiltonian $`H_{mod}`$. Thus, for the operator $`c_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐥}`$ , to be applied to determining the current density, we have the following expression:

$`c_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐥}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐥}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤}{}}C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤}C_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐥}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐳,𝐲}{}}\chi _{1,𝐳+𝐲}^{𝐤,𝐩}\chi _{1,𝐲}^{𝐤+𝐳,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤}^+C_{\nu ,𝐤+𝐳}C_{\sigma ,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐳,𝐲}{}}\chi _{0,𝐳+𝐲}^{𝐤,𝐩}\chi _{0,𝐲}^{𝐤+𝐳,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}C_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐳}C_{\sigma ,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}.`$
We shall employ this equation to calculate the response of the condensate to electromagnetic field.

## III The Behavior of Condensate in Electromagnetic Field

The appearance of electromagnetic field in the system under consideration is described by introducing a supplementary term $`H_{em}`$. In this, the total Hamiltonian of the system has the following form:

$`H_{tot}=H_{mod}+H_{em},`$ (26)
where

$`H_{em}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}𝐀_{𝐪,t}𝐣_𝐪,`$ (27)
$`𝐀_{𝐪,t}=L^{3/2}{\displaystyle 𝐀(𝐫,t)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}𝑑𝐫},`$ (28)
$`𝐣_𝐪={\displaystyle \frac{eL^{3/2}}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}\left(2𝐤+𝐪\right)c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐪}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2L^3}{mc}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤,𝐥}{}}𝐀_{𝐪𝐥,t}c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐥},`$ (29)
while the expressions for $`c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐪}`$ and $`c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐥}`$ may be substituted from Eq. (25).

We will search for the wave function of the condensate coinciding the wave function of the ground state of the system in the following form:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_t={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,k<K_F}{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+\left(t\right)|0,`$ (30)
whereas for $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+\left(t\right)`$ we assume the fulfillment of the following relationship:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+\left(t\right)}{t}}=[H_{tot},\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+\left(t\right)].`$ (31)
It is presumably obvious that Schrödinger’s equation $`i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Phi }_t=H_{tot}|\mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ will then be fulfilled, and, accordingly, the evolution of the system with time will be correctly described. It is also easy to see that one-time operators $`\stackrel{~}{C}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ satisfy the conventional commutation relationships for fermions.

In the first order of the perturbation theory with respect to parameters $`𝐀/T`$ and $`E_i^{𝐩,𝐤}/T`$, it is possible to derive the following expressions:

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱}{}}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^++{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐳,t}^𝐤C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐳}`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}+\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐳,t}^𝐤C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐳},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱}{}}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩C_{\sigma ,𝐱}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐳,t}^𝐤C_{\sigma ,𝐳}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}C_{\sigma ,𝐱}`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}+\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐳,t}^𝐤C_{\sigma ,𝐳}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}C_{\sigma ,𝐱},`$
whereas for $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ we assume the fulfillment of the following relationships:

$`i{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩}{t}}C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+|0=H_{tot}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱}{}}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+|0,`$ (36)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}}{t}}\left(C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+\right)|0=H_{tot}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}\left(C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+\right)|0,`$ (37)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}}{t}}C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+|0=H_{tot}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}}\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+C_{\sigma ,𝐲}^+|0,`$ (38)
Assuming that it is possible to apply the perturbation theory to solving Eqs. (38) with accuracy up to linear terms with respect to $`𝐀`$, we may expect the fulfillment of relationships:

$`\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩=\delta _𝐱^𝐩e^{iT_𝐩t},`$ (39)
$`\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _𝐱^𝐩\delta _𝐲^𝐤+\delta _𝐲^𝐩\delta _𝐱^𝐤\right)e^{i\left(T_𝐩+T_𝐤+E_0^{𝐩,𝐤}\right)t},`$ (40)
$`\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _𝐱^𝐩\delta _𝐲^𝐤\delta _𝐲^𝐩\delta _𝐱^𝐤\right)e^{i\left(T_𝐩+T_𝐤+E_1^{𝐩,𝐤}\right)t}.`$ (41)
Now, the idea proper of calculations consists in the following. If we express the density of current $`𝐣`$ in operators $`\stackrel{~}{C}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, then it will be simple to calculate the mean value $`𝐣`$. For this purpose, we will define the transformation which is reciprocal to that, given in Eq. (35):

$`C_{\sigma ,𝐱}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐳\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐳}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}+\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐳\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐳},`$
$`C_{\sigma ,𝐱}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐳\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐳}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲,𝐳}{}}\left(\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{0,𝐩,𝐤}+\psi _{𝐱,𝐲,t}^{1,𝐩,𝐤}\varphi _{𝐱,t}^𝐩\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐤\right)\varphi _{𝐲,t}^𝐳\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐳}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩},`$
Then, in the operators $`\stackrel{~}{C}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ the expression $`c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐥}`$, included in the expression for current density will be as follows:

$`c_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐥}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩^{},𝐩^{\prime \prime }}{}}\varphi _{𝐩,t}^𝐩^{}\varphi _{𝐩+𝐥,t}^{𝐩^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩^{},𝐩^{\prime \prime }}{}}\varphi _{𝐩,t}^𝐩^{}\varphi _{𝐩+𝐥,t}^{𝐩^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\nu ,𝐤^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\nu ,𝐤^{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐩,𝐳}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲}{}}\chi _{1,𝐳+𝐲}^{𝐤,𝐩}\chi _{1,𝐲}^{𝐤+𝐳,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤^{},𝐤^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩^{},𝐩^{\prime \prime }}{}}\psi _{𝐩,𝐤,t}^{1,𝐩^{},𝐤^{}}\psi _{𝐩𝐳+𝐥,𝐤+𝐳,t}^{1,𝐩^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\nu ,𝐤^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\nu ,𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐩,𝐳}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲}{}}\chi _{1,𝐳+𝐲}^{𝐤,𝐩}\chi _{1,𝐲}^{𝐤+𝐳,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤^{},𝐤^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩^{},𝐩^{\prime \prime }}{}}\psi _{𝐩,𝐤,t}^{0,𝐩^{},𝐤^{}}\psi _{𝐩𝐳+𝐥,𝐤+𝐳,t}^{0,𝐩^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐩,𝐳}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲}{}}\chi _{0,𝐳+𝐲}^{𝐤,𝐩}\chi _{0,𝐲}^{𝐤+𝐳,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤^{},𝐤^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩^{},𝐩^{\prime \prime }}{}}\psi _{𝐩,𝐤,t}^{1,𝐩^{},𝐤^{}}\psi _{𝐩𝐳+𝐥,𝐤+𝐳,t}^{1,𝐩^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mu ,𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐩,𝐳}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐲}{}}\chi _{0,𝐳+𝐲}^{𝐤,𝐩}\chi _{0,𝐲}^{𝐤+𝐳,𝐩𝐳+𝐥}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,𝐤^{},𝐤^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩^{},𝐩^{\prime \prime }}{}}\psi _{𝐩,𝐤,t}^{0,𝐩^{},𝐤^{}}\psi _{𝐩𝐳+𝐥,𝐤+𝐳,t}^{0,𝐩^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤^{}}^+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\sigma ,𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$
Limiting ourselves only to unrelativistic terms in the equation for $`\frac{𝐣_𝐪}{t}`$ with an accuracy of up to the second order with respect to parameter $`𝐀`$, it is possible to derive

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐣_𝐪}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2L^3}{mc}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐩,𝐥}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐀_{𝐪𝐥}}{t}}c_{\sigma ,𝐩}^+c_{\sigma ,𝐩+𝐥}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2n}{mc}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐀_𝐪}{t}},`$ (54)
or

$`𝐣_𝐪={\displaystyle \frac{e^2n}{mc}}𝐀_𝐪,`$ (55)
which just constitutes the essential point of Londons’ hypothesis.

## IV Conclusions

In our opinion, it is possible to subdivide the existing, relevant from the viewpoint of physics studies on the superconductivity theory into two categories enumerated below.

1. Systems with Bose–Einstein Condensation

In such works, the Hamiltonians with electron-electron attraction are introduced, which are considered as initial ones. In this, the boson operators corresponding to the bound states of electron pairs are used to determine the ground state of the system.

The studies devoted to dealing with this problem are, as a whole, not systematized. Therefore, it is very difficult to single out the most significant of them. It should also be noted that some of the papers anticipate the BCS theory bib-9 . Therefore, the use of the term ”Cooper pairs” seems to be not quite suitable, especially from the viewpoint of the remarks, given in the introduction to our paper.

With some provision, the modifications of the popular $`tj`$ model may be related to those studies. With a certain selection of parameters of the model, for example $`j>t`$, a possibility arises of the formation of bound pairs. The condition $`j>t`$ is linked with a short-wave character of the interaction in the Hubbard form and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The authors of these works themselves call the choice of such parameters as ”unphysical” bib-10 .

Now, the introduction of Hamiltonian to the studies devoted to the Bose condensation in Fermi gas is either unsubstantiated or causes skepticism in the minds of most physicists bib-11 . In this sense, we may reckon the authors of these works are so far investigating hypothetical objects.

The concept of Bose condensate in such systems has a distinctly expressed sense. That is why the Ginzburg–Landau theory using the wave function of Bose condensate in the definition of the order parameter of the system is quite valid.

2. Systems with the Fermi Condensation

In this case, the electron-electron attraction arises only with an effective potential which is calculated in an assumption that the wave function of the ground state coincides in its form with the function of the ground state of a normal metal $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\underset{\sigma ,k<K_F}{}C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+|0`$. The question to be settled resides merely in selecting the operators $`C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+`$. The effective potential is calculated in the framework of refining operators $`C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+`$ when solving the problem of renormalization and accounting for electron-electron correlations. From this viewpoint, the operators $`C_{\sigma ,𝐤}^+`$ are linked in a self–consistent manner with the effective potential of the system, and there is no additional problem involving the definition of the wave function of the ground state.

The substantiation of a possibility of the origination of the effective electron-electron attraction in metals is given in study bib-7 .

There is, presumably, so far no phenomenological theory available on the systems of such a kind.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Prof. A.A. Rukhadze for being helpful in the statement of the problem.

*

## Appendix A

Taking into account Eqs. (16), it is possible to expect the fulfillment of the following conditions:

$`\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}=\chi _{0,𝐤𝐩𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤},\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}=\chi _{0,𝐪}^{𝐤,𝐩},`$ (56)
$`\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}=\chi _{1,𝐤𝐩𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤},\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐩,𝐤}=\chi _{1,𝐪}^{𝐤,𝐩};`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐳}{}}\chi _{0,𝐳}^{𝐩,𝐤+𝐪}\chi _{0,𝐪𝐳}^{𝐤,𝐩+𝐪}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _𝐪^0+\delta _𝐩^𝐤\right)`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐳}{}}\chi _{1,𝐳}^{𝐩,𝐤+𝐪}\chi _{1,𝐪𝐳}^{𝐤,𝐩+𝐪}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _𝐪^0\delta _𝐩^𝐤\right).`$ (59)
The fulfillment of these conditions is conducive to that the fermions commutation relationships for operators $`C^+`$ and $`C`$ , as well, as their reciprocal transformation (18), are violated only beginning with 4-linear terms on the operators of creation and annihilation. It is just this circumstance that is employed in constructing the model Hamiltonian of the system.