text:
# Rotating Superconductors and the London Moment: Thermodynamics versus Microscopics

## I Introduction

The defining property of superconductors, the well known Meißner Effect, is to expel an (undercritical) magnetic field from its bulk. This property reverses itself when the superconductor is rotated, and a spontaneous magnetic field appears – again in the bulk, one or two penetration lengths away from the surface. This is usually referred to as the London Moment london . Its magnitude is HL

$$𝐁=[2m_e(1+\zeta )c/e]𝛀,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rotational velocity, $`c`$ the vacuum light velocity, $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ the bare mass, and $`e<0`$ the charge, of the electron; finally, $`\zeta `$ is a relativistically small correction. All theories and experiments agree that $`\zeta `$ is small, but strong disagreement exists with respect to its actual value and sign. The microscopic theories, by Anderson pwa , Brady brady , Cabrera and coworkers gutfr ; peskin , and Baym baym  take the main correction to be positive and given by the Fermi velocity,

$$\zeta (v_\mathrm{F}/c)^22\times 10^4.$$
(2)
The thermodynamic theory, on the other hand, finds $`\zeta `$ to be negative, and very much smaller liu :

$$\zeta =\stackrel{~}{\mu }/c^210^{10},$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is the chemical potential of the metal, the energy needed to add a unit mass to the superconducting solid. (Since the solid holds its atoms together, the chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is necessarily a negative quantity.) The value of $`10^{10}`$ makes the correction negligible for all conceivable purposes and renders Eq(1), taking the values of $`e`$ and $`c`$ as given, a very precise expression for $`m_e`$ – about three orders of magnitude more precise than any present experimental technique to determine the electron mass directly d .

Generally speaking, although the thermodynamic, macroscopic theory lacks details and is incapable of answering many quantitative questions, it is nevertheless a rigorous theory, and uniquely appropriate for understanding the London moment. This is because (i) the London Moment is an equilibrium phenomenon, (ii) the measurement concerns a quotient between two macroscopic fields, $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and most importantly, (iii) the reason for the microscopic parameters of $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`e`$ to appear on the macroscopic level is due to simple symmetry principles, rather than some detailed properties of the interaction.

Comparing both types of theories in detail, we find their difference to be easy to bridge, if the relations between some thermodynamic and microscopic quantities had been clear beforehand. More specifically, it is the incorrect identification of electrostatic and chemical potentials on one hand, the work function, mean-field potential and Fermi energy of the electron on the other that has led to the above discrepancy. The correct identification of these quantities is of rather general interest and transcends the understanding of the London Moment alone. The proper identification is the most important result of the present paper.

Another problem clouding the understanding of the London Moment is the disagreement between experiment and all theories. Although this remains a point we do not understand, we took a step towards its clarification by achieving understanding of the following point: The best present experiment measures the flux, $`𝐀d𝐬`$ $`=𝐁d𝐚`$, outside the rotating superconductor cabr . Two effects contribute the this flux, the London Moment, and the so-called double layer. The latter is a result of the fact that a metal may be conceived of as an electrostatic potential of the square-well form, with the depth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As the metal rotates, this discontinuity in the rest-frame electrostatic potential produces a discontinuity in the laboratory-frame vector potential,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐀=(𝛀\times 𝒓)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c.$$
(4)
And this also contributes to the flux $`𝐀d𝐬`$, with a contribution much larger than the relativistic correction of the London Moment. It has been generally suspected that both contributions are experimentally inseparable, that they are always measured in conjunction. (A double layer of opposite charge – or one layer of dipoles – produces a discontinuity in the electrostatic potential, hence the name.)

We disagree. In this paper, we shall discuss both effects separately, as only the first is universal – the second varies with materials, and is quite independent from superconductivity. Besides, we believe that these effects may in principle be measured independently. Taking the superconductor to be a cylinder rotating around its axis, the London Moment may be measured immediately outside its top or bottom surface, where any magnetic field $`𝐁`$ is continuous, see Fig 1. (It is not continuous across the cylinder surface, where the field drops to zero within a few penetration lengths, due to the presence of persistent currents.) The flux from the double layer alone may be seen above $`\mathrm{T}_\lambda `$, or in the experiment proposed in chapter V.

In chapter II, we shall present the simple yet stringent macroscopic calculation leading to the London Moment. This is followed in chapter III by a comparison to the microscopic results, which are brought into agreement with the macroscopic ones by the appropriate identification of the above mentioned thermodynamic and microscopic quantities. In chapter IV, we consider the effect of the double layer, the contribution of which may be measured in the experiment described in chapter V.

## II The Macroscopic Approach

### II.1 Electrostatic and Chemical Potential

Given any neutral, macroscopic system, we may either change its numbers of electrons and ions, $`N_{}`$ and $`N_+`$, or its mass and charge, $`M`$ and $`Q`$. They are related as

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{i}N_++m_\mathrm{e}N_{},`$ (5)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`|e|(N_+N_{}).`$ (6)
($`m_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ denote the bare mass of the ion and electron, respectively, and $`e<0`$ is the elementary charge.) Frequently, the number of atoms $`N_\mathrm{a}M/(m_\mathrm{i}+m_\mathrm{e})`$ is used instead of the mass $`M`$. The energy of these changes are given by the respective chemical potentials,

$`\mathrm{d}E`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _+\mathrm{d}N_++\mu _{}\mathrm{d}N_{}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\mu \mathrm{d}M+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{d}Q`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{a}\mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{d}Q,`$ (9)
where employing Eqs (5,6), we see the chemical potentials to be related as

$`\mu _+`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{i}\mu e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (10)
$`\mu _{}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{e}\mu +e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (11)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{a}/(m_\mathrm{i}+m_\mathrm{e}).`$ (12)
Because $`\mu _{}`$, $`\mu _+`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{a}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ respectively denote the energy needed to bring an electron, an ion, an atom, unit mass and unit charge from infinity to inside the system, these are fixed quantities, and we are not at liberty to alter them by an additive constant. We especially have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}),$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the electrostatic potential, which is fixed only up to an arbitrary gauge transformation, and which forms a 4-vector with the vector potential $`𝐀`$. Note that the energy and chemical potentials employed in this paper include the rest mass, because otherwise the relativistic transformation formulas of the following sections will not work. Hence we define the non-relativistic chemical potentials with tilde,

$`\mu _+`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{i}c^2+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_+,`$ (14)
$`\mu _{}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{e}c^2+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{},`$ (15)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`c^2+\stackrel{~}{\mu },`$ (16)
$`\mu _a`$ $`=`$ $`(m_\mathrm{i}+m_\mathrm{e})c^2+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a`$ (17)
Usually, both $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}`$ are of the order of a few eV, this being the scale of atomic physics, cf an early model-calculation wig . Since $`m_\mathrm{e}/(m_\mathrm{i}+m_\mathrm{e})10^5`$, Eq (11) and (12) imply, to great accuracy,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}=e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(18)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}/m_\mathrm{e}10^5c^2,\stackrel{~}{\mu }10^{10}c^2.$$
(19)
### II.2 Josephson Equation and Superfluid Velocity

The Josephson equation is usually given as

$$(\mathrm{}/2)\dot{\phi }+\mu _{}=0,$$
(20)
though this equation is not gauge invariant. In view of Eq (11) and (13), the correct form for the Josephson equation is clearly

$$(\mathrm{}/2)\dot{\phi }+m_\mathrm{e}\mu +e\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(21)
implying that Eq (20) is valid only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})=0`$, a special gauge choice. (Similarly, taking $`\dot{\phi }=0`$ when considering Eq (21) also constitutes a gauge choice.) Note that the form of Eq (21) does presume rest frame of the crystal, and equilibrium. The superfluid velocity is also defined as a gauge invariant quantity

$$𝒗^s\frac{1}{m_\mathrm{e}}(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathbf{}\phi \frac{e}{c}𝐀).$$
(22)
Its equation of motion reads

$$\dot{𝒗^s}+\mathbf{}\mu =e𝐄/m_\mathrm{e},$$
(23)
obtained by inserting Eq (22) in (21) and employing $`𝐄=(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\dot{𝐀}/c)`$. Although this pleasingly simple equation, independent from any coefficients, may be used to justify the definitions of Eqs (21,22), we must be aware that $`𝒗^s`$ as defined need not transform as a velocity under a Galilean-Lorentz boost. The transformation behavior of $`𝒗^s`$ is given by the Josephson equation (21): Define a 4-velocity

$`u_\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_\mathrm{e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{x^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mathrm{e}c}}A_\alpha `$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_\mathrm{e}}}(\dot{\phi }/c,\mathbf{}\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mathrm{e}c}}(\mathrm{\Phi },𝐀),`$ (25)
and use Eq (21) to yield

$$u_\alpha =(\mu /c,𝒗^s).$$
(26)
Now, because $`u_\alpha `$ transforms as

$$u_\alpha ^{}=(u_0𝐮𝒗/c,𝐮u_0𝒗/c)$$
(27)
under a boost of $`v`$, to linear order in $`v/c`$, so does the 4-vector $`(\mu /c,𝒗^s)`$, leading to

$`\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu +𝒗^s𝒗,`$ (28)
$`(𝒗^s)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒗^s+(\mu /c^2)𝒗,`$ (29)
implying that it is the quantity

$$𝒗^{ts}(\mu /c^2)^1𝒗^s=𝒗^s/(1+\zeta )$$
(30)
that transforms as a velocity, $`(𝒗^{ts})^{}=`$ $`𝒗^{ts}+𝒗`$. We shall refer to $`𝒗^{ts}`$ as the true superfluid velocity – although with

$$\zeta =\stackrel{~}{\mu }/c^2=(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi })/m_\mathrm{e}c^210^{10},$$
(31)
cf Eqs (11,16,19), the difference is very small indeed. Defining an effective mass $`m_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ by

$`m_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ $``$ $`m_\mathrm{e}(1+\zeta ),`$ (32)
$`𝒗^{ts}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\mathrm{e}^{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\mathbf{}\phi {\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀),`$ (33)
we shall find in the next section that this is the mass appearing in the formula for the London Moment, Eq (1).

### II.3 Thermo- and Hydrodynamics

In a general inertial frame, the thermodynamics of a superconducting solid is given as

$`\mathrm{d}\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`T\mathrm{d}s+\mu \mathrm{d}\varrho +𝒗^n\mathrm{d}𝒈+\sigma _{ij}\mathrm{d}_ju_i`$ (34)
$`+𝐄\mathrm{d}𝐃+𝐇\mathrm{d}𝐁+𝐣^s\mathrm{d}𝒗^s.`$
Notation and explanation: $`s`$ is the entropy density, and $`T`$ the temperature. $`\mu \mathrm{d}\varrho `$ and $`𝐄^0\mathrm{d}𝐃`$ are the respective local expressions for $`\mu \mathrm{d}M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{d}Q`$ of Eq (8), where $`𝐄\mathrm{d}𝐃`$ involves a partial integration, and is manifestly gauge invariant; $`𝐇\mathrm{d}𝐁`$ is the magnetic counter term. $`𝐣^s\mathrm{d}𝒗^s`$ characterizes the broken phase invariance of superconductivity, as $`\sigma _{ij}\mathrm{d}_ju_i`$ the broken translational invariance of solids – with $`u_i`$ the displacement vector. In a general inertial frame, the total, conserved momentum density $`𝒈^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is also a thermodynamic variable, though we employ $`𝒈`$ $`𝒈^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`𝐃\times 𝐁`$ instead katja , with $`𝒗^n\epsilon /𝒈`$ being the equilibrium velocity of crystal points, atoms and normal electrons. In the present case of interest,

$$𝒗^n=𝛀\times 𝒓.$$
(35)
Being a conjugate variable, $`𝐣^s\epsilon /𝒗^s`$ is a function of those two thermodynamic variables also odd under time reversal, $`𝒗^s`$ and $`𝒗^n`$. In an expansion, to linear order of the variables, we have

$$j_i^s=(c^2/\mu )\rho _{ij}^s(v_j^s\alpha _{jk}v_k^n),$$
(36)
where $`\rho _{ij}^s`$ and $`\alpha _{jk}`$ are two expansion coefficients, while the prefactor $`(c^2/\mu )`$ simply renormalizes $`\rho _{ij}^s`$. A Maxwell relation then implies

$$\left(\frac{g_i}{j_j^s}\right)_{v_n}=\left(\frac{v_j^s}{v_i^n}\right)_{j_s}=\alpha _{ji}.$$
(37)
Confining ourselves to the local rest frame and disregarding dissipative terms (then $`\dot{s},\dot{u}_i=0`$), the hydrodynamic set of equations is given by the Josephson equation (23), the Maxwell equations, and the conservation laws for energy and mass

$`\dot{\epsilon }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}𝐐,\dot{\varrho }+\mathbf{}𝐣_\rho =0,`$ (38)
$`\dot{𝐁}`$ $`=`$ $`c\mathbf{}\times 𝐄,\dot{𝐃}=c\mathbf{}\times 𝐇𝐣_e,`$ (39)
where $`𝐐`$, $`𝐣_\rho `$ and $`𝐣_\mathrm{e}`$ are as yet unknown. Inserting these expressions into the temporal derivative of Eq (34), $`\dot{\epsilon }=`$ $`\mu \dot{\varrho }`$ $`+𝐄\dot{𝐃}`$ $`+𝐇\dot{𝐁}+`$ $`𝐣^s\dot{𝒗}^s`$, and insisting that all equations are satisfied simultaneously, we find

$`𝐣_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`𝐣_s,𝐣_\mathrm{e}=e𝐣_s/m_\mathrm{e},`$ (40)
$`𝐐`$ $`=`$ $`𝐣_s\mu +c𝐄\times 𝐇.`$ (41)
Clearly, $`𝐣_s`$ $`\epsilon /𝒗^s`$ has the significance of being the persistent mass and electric current in the rest frame. The relation

$$𝐣_\rho =e𝐣_s/m_e,$$
(42)
is a necessarily one, as the transfer of one electron is coupled to the transfer of the bare values of $`e`$ and $`m_\mathrm{e}`$. Starting from this relation and tracing it back, we would have found that the charge $`e`$ in Eq (22) must indeed be the bare charge, and that $`𝒗^s`$ must indeed be gauge invariant. Because of the symmetry of the energy stress 4-tensor, $`𝒈^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=𝐐/c^2`$, we have

$$𝒈^{\mathrm{tot}}=𝒈=𝐣_s\mu /c^2,$$
(43)
for $`E`$, $`D=0`$ (and still in the local rest frame). This implies

$$\left(\frac{g_i}{j_j^s}\right)_{v_n}=\frac{\mu }{c^2}\delta _{ij},$$
(44)
or in combination with Eq (37),

$$j_i^s=\rho _{ij}^s[(c^2/\mu )v_j^sv_j^n]=\rho _{ij}^s[v_j^{ts}v_j^n].$$
(45)
Inserting this expression into Eq (38) with $`\dot{𝐃}=0`$, taking another curl on both sides, and denoting the matrix $`\rho _{ij}^s`$ as $`\widehat{𝝆}^s`$, we finally obtain

$`\mathbf{}\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{e}c}{e}}(\widehat{𝝆}^s)^1\mathbf{}\times 𝐇\right]=\mathbf{}\times (𝒗^{ts}𝒗^n)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mathrm{e}(1+\zeta )c}}𝐁2𝛀.`$ (46)
This is the equation that accounts for the equilibrium behavior of the magnetic field in superconductors: $`(m_\mathrm{e}c/e)(\widehat{𝝆}^s)^1`$ yields the square of the inverse penetration depth, a quantity that depends on the crystal direction, while the vanishing of the right hand expression gives the bulk value of the magnetic field, Eq (1). Because of Eq (31), we may generally neglect the factor $`1+\zeta `$.

## III The Square-Well Potential

Consider a square-well potential, Fig 2, a popular model for metals. Taking the outside value of the energy as zero, the depth of the well is $`eV(<0)`$, with $`V`$ the mean-field potential for electrons; filling the potential up to the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F(>0)`$, the gap still remaining may be identified as the work function of the electron $`W(<0)`$. Together, they satisfy

$$W\epsilon _F=eV.$$
(47)
When making contact with thermodynamics, there are no doubts that the identification

$$W=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}$$
(48)
holds, because the physical significance of $`W`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}`$, the energy needed to take out an electron, and the energy gained when putting one in, respectively, is the same. The other two scales, the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$ and the mean-field potential $`V`$, are model-dependent quantities, with a large measure of arbitrariness attached to them. So we should not expect them to be directly measurable, or connected to thermodynamic quantities in a simple fashion. Nevertheless, all mentioned authors employing the microscopic approach to understand the London Moment pwa ; brady ; gutfr ; peskin ; baym  adopt the identification

$$V=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(49)
with some apparently plausible consequences. First, with Eqs (31) and (32), we have $`m_\mathrm{e}^{}=m_\mathrm{e}(1+\zeta )`$ with

$$\zeta (m_\mathrm{e}c^2)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=WeV=\epsilon _F.$$
(50)
This makes the mass correction positive, and rather tangible: With the estimates $`W4`$eV, $`eV96`$eV, and $`\epsilon _F92`$ eV (by averaging the electron wave functions over the Fermi surface), the value $`\zeta 1.8\times 10^4`$ was found gutfr  for the mass correction – as compared to $`\zeta 10^{10}`$ of the last section. Moreover, with $`\epsilon _F=\frac{1}{2}m_\mathrm{e}v_F^2`$, Eq (50) delivers the simple, kinematic-relativistic interpretation for the mass correction,

$$\zeta =\frac{1}{2}(v_F/c)^21.8\times 10^4.$$
(51)
So why do we claim that Eqs (49,50,51) are in error? The identification of Eq (49) is made by taking the macroscopic electrostatic potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as the potential felt by superconducting electrons from “all charge distributions in the metal, such as surface dipoles…, the screening hole…, and charge inhomogeneities associated with atomic cores and valence electrons” brady . (Sentences in italic are quotes, here and below.) Clearly, the one ostentatiously lacking in this list is the contribution from the other band electrons (including the superconducting ones), to the potential, which brings the potential energy, gained by the last electron to be added to the system, to

$$W=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{}=e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(52)
cf Eq (18). This is the thermodynamic definition of the potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, see the discussion of the last section, and we are not at liberty to alter it. In fact, as already mentioned, it would have been highly surprising for the directly measurable macroscopic electrostatic potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that forms a 4-vector with the vector potential $`𝐀`$ to be simply related to the model-dependent mean-field potential $`V`$.

This still leaves the kinetic-relativistic interpretation of the Fermi velocity, Eq (51), intact. As it is a rather popular preconception, and employed by two more recent papers without the detour via the Fermi energy fischer , we need to emphasize here that it is really only correct for free particles, and does not work for strongly interacting systems.

To understand this, consider an atom, consisting of an electron and an ion – the same way the metal consists of band electrons and the rest. We may write the energy of the atom as $`E=(m_\mathrm{i}^{}+m_\mathrm{e}^{})c^2`$, or

$$(m_\mathrm{i}^{}+m_\mathrm{e}^{}m_\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{e})c^2=W,$$
(53)
where the superscript  denotes the effective mass including the mass defect, while $`W`$ the binding energy between the electron and the ion, the analogue of the work function above. Note that the binding energy $`W`$ includes all contributions, especially the kinetic energy of the electron. Microscopically, we may divide $`W`$ between $`m_\mathrm{i}^{}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ arbitrarily. But if the division is in proportion to the rest mass, a natural (if not obvious) procedure, the mass defect of the electron is

$$m_\mathrm{e}^{}=m_\mathrm{e}\left(1+\frac{W}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{i}+m_\mathrm{e}}\right),$$
(54)
in agreement with the result of the last section, see Eqs (12,17,31).

Baym considered the problem of mass correction within the Landau theory of Fermi liquid in his workbaym . The theory is beyond the usual mean-field approach, and accounts for many-body effects. Because his arguments and calculations are complicated, we shall only quote his final expression,

$$(m_\mathrm{e}^{}m_\mathrm{e})c^2=\epsilon _{kin}+\epsilon _{int}eV_c+\mathrm{},$$
(55)
where $`\epsilon _{kin}`$ is the kinetic energy of a Fermi electron, similar to $`\epsilon _F`$ above, while the last two terms are new: $`V_c`$ is given by “the average of the electrostatic potential within a given unit cell (eg the Wigner-Seitz cell), arising from the charges within the cell.” And $`\epsilon _{int}`$ is “the interaction energy of an electron at the Fermi surface, containing electrostatic as well as exchange contributions (but excluding the boundary dipole layer).” The value of $`eV_c`$ was given as $`19.8eV`$, while the value of $`\epsilon _{int}`$ remains unknown. Because $`\epsilon _{int}`$ not only includes many-body interactions, but also electrostatic contribution, it may well be an appreciable term, canceling other contributions to yield virtually vanishing total correction, in agreement with the thermodynamic result. Baym also points out that corrections from the presence of the lattice are to be expected, because the Landau Fermi liquid theory is confined to translationally invariant systems, of which metal electrons are not one. Only a generalized Landau theory that also considers the ions would indeed be dealing with a system that is, in its totality, translationally invariant. This should result in more generally valid relations, replacing relations such as $`𝒈=[\mu _{}/(m_\mathrm{e}c^2)]𝒋_s`$ as given in baym , with $`𝒈=[\mu _\mathrm{a}/(m_\mathrm{e}+m_\mathrm{i})c^2]𝒋_s`$, or Eq (43).

## IV The Boundary Double Layer

Because of the presence of surface dipoles, the electrostatic potential is discontinuous at the surface of the superconductor, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }0`$. If the metal is in rotation, the vector potential will also be discontinuous, contributing to the total flux of the system in the laboratory frame. Since the magnitude of this is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, taking $`e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ either as $`\mu _{}=W4`$eV, Eq (18,19), or as $`eV96`$eV, Eq (49), clearly makes a big difference. As argued at length in the last two sections, we believe the first is correct, as does the book ll8  by Landau and Lifshitz, who unequivocally pronounced the equality between the work function and the potential’s discontinuity, $`W=e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, see §23.

The jump of the vector potential follows from the Lorentz transformation property of the electromagnetic 4-potential $`A_\alpha `$. Consider a frame co-moving with the metal. If $`A_0^{}`$ denotes the electric potential outside the metal, the potential inside the metal will be $`A_0^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. So the 4-potential $`A_\alpha ^{^{}}`$ in the local rest frame is $`(A_0^{^{}},𝑨^{^{}})`$ outside the metal, and $`(A_0^{^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi },𝑨^{})`$ inside it. In the laboratory frame, the 4-potential $`A_\alpha `$ becomes, in linear order of $`v/c`$,

$$(A_0^{^{}}𝒗\mathbf{}𝑨^{^{}}/c,𝑨^{^{}}A_0^{^{}}𝒗/c)$$

outside the metal, and

$$(A_0^{^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }𝒗\mathbf{}𝑨^{^{}}/c,𝑨^{^{}}A_0^{^{}}𝒗/c+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }𝒗/c)$$

inside the metal, where $`𝒗`$ is the velocity of the boundary. So the discontinuity in the vector potential is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝑨𝑨^{out}𝑨^{int}=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c)𝒗$$
(56)
For a metal cylinder uniformly rotating about the z-axis $`\widehat{𝐞}_𝐳`$, we have $`𝒗=\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{𝐞}_z\times 𝑹`$, with $`𝑹`$ the position vector of the boundary. So the magnetic flux of a non-superconducting, rotating metal is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝑨d𝐬=2\pi R^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Omega }/c.$$
(57)
Since the experiment cabr  measures both this boundary flux and the London field simultaneously, it is convenient to introduce an observed mass $`m_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ (if the effect due to the penetration depth is negligible, as is the case in cabr ). We write it as

$$m_{\mathrm{obs}}=(1+\zeta )(1\alpha )m_\mathrm{e}=(1\alpha )m_\mathrm{e}^{}$$
(58)
where $`\alpha `$ accounts for the flux from the boundary double layer. In the cited microscopic considerations, pwa ; baym ; cabr  it is the Fermi energy, $`\epsilon _F92`$eV, that enters $`\zeta `$, and the mean-field potential, $`eV96`$eV, that enters $`\alpha `$, though in opposite directions. Combined, the observed mass is corrected only by the work function $`W=eV+`$ $`\epsilon _F4`$eV, cf Eq (47), leading to a total correction of about $`8\times 10^6`$. Thermodynamically, although $`\zeta 10^{10}`$ is negligible, but the work function $`W`$ does enters $`\alpha `$, so the measured effect is again given by a value around $`4`$eV.

Since the same value for $`m_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is predicted by all theories, one may conjecture that the values of $`\zeta `$ or $`\alpha `$ individually are unimportant, because any experiment can only observe $`(m_{\mathrm{obs}}/m_\mathrm{e})1`$ $`=\zeta \alpha `$. This does not seem right to us. First, both the strength of surface double layer of a metal and the London field are well defined physical quantities. And the parameters $`\zeta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are unambiguously related to the chemical potential and the work function, respectively. Second, both effects are (at least in principle) independently measurable. The London field could be observed directly by measuring the flux near the top-center of a rotating superconductor (see Fig. 1), and the flux from the double layer only may be observed in the normal state, or even in the superconducting state, by the method given in the next chapter.

## V A Proposed Experiment

Consider two concentric, co-rotating, hollow cylinders, made of the same superconducting metal. The electric current $`J`$ flowing through the inner cylinder is measured by a SQUID, see Fig 3. The cylinders rotate with the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We calculate the magnetic field and the current in the apparatus. For simplicity we assume that the cylinders are of infinite height, and no surface charges (or electric field) are present.

This geometry was firstly analyzed by Brady brady , who estimated the effect of penetration depths $`\lambda `$ by simply assuming constant magnetic fields in the regimes: $`0r<R_1+\lambda `$ and $`R_2\lambda <r<R_3+\lambda `$, in other words, by assuming that the actual internal spaces, $`0<R_1`$ and $`R_2<r<R_3`$, are increases by $`\lambda `$ at the superconducting boundaries. Moreover, because the magnitudes of the field was estimated by dividing the magnetic flux by the respective area, the contributions from the boundary layer have also been neglected.

The current $`J`$ in the inner cylinder as determined by Brady is proportional to the observed mass $`m_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and the difference of the angular velocities of the two cylinders. This was given as a method to measure the London field. In our case, both angular velocities are the same, so $`J`$ would vanish in his approximation. Our more detailed calculation, however, shows that $`J`$ is finite and observable if the distance between the two cylinders, $`R_3R_2`$, is small enough. In fact, it is proportional to $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$, rendering $`\alpha `$, or the flux from the boundary layer, measurable.

The magnetic fields and the current density inside the cylinders can be obtained by solving Eq (46) in the cylindrical symmetry. Considering the isotropic case $`\rho _{ij}^s=\varrho _s\delta _{ij}`$ with $`\varrho _s`$ the superfluid density, we write the vector fields as:

$`𝐁=B𝒆_z,𝐀=A(𝒆_z\times 𝒓/r),`$
$`𝒋^\mathrm{e}=j^\mathrm{e}(𝒆_z\times 𝒓/r).`$ (59)
The general solution for $`𝐇=𝐁`$ is

$$B=2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_1I_0+C_2K_0.$$
(60)
Notations: $`\gamma ^{}m_\mathrm{e}^{}c/e`$; $`C_{15}`$ are integration constants; $`\lambda =(m_\mathrm{e}c/\left|e\right|)\sqrt{(1+\zeta )/\varrho _s}`$ is the penetration depth; $`I_N,K_N`$ ($`N=0,1`$) are Bessel functions with the arguments $`r/\lambda `$; $`\varphi _0=\mathrm{}c/2e`$ is the quantum fluxoid.

Inserting (60) into Eqs $`𝐁=\mathbf{}\times 𝐀`$, $`𝒋^\mathrm{e}=c\mathbf{}\times 𝐁`$, and noting the quantization property $`\mathbf{}\phi \mathrm{d}𝐬=2\pi n`$ for the phase in Eq (33), we obtain the magnetic potential and current density:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }rn\varphi _0/r+\lambda \left(C_1I_1C_2K_1\right),`$ (61)
$`j^\mathrm{e}`$ $`=`$ $`(c/\lambda )(C_1I_1C_2K_1).`$ (62)
The integer $`n`$ denotes quantum state of the cylinder. The induction $`B`$ is constant outside the rings, while the potential is of the form

$$A=Br/2+C/r$$
(63)
with $`C`$ again a constant. Using the above solutions, it can be easily seen that the field of our apparatus is

$$B=\{\begin{array}{c}B_1;r<R_1,\hfill \\ 2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_1I_0+C_2K_0;R_1<r<R_2,\hfill \\ B_2;R_2<r<R_3,\hfill \\ 2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_3I_0+C_4K_0;R_3<r<R_4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(64)
and the potential is

$$A=\{\begin{array}{c}B_1r/2;r<R_1,\hfill \\ \gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }rn_1\varphi _0/r+\lambda (C_1I_1C_2K_1);\hfill \\ R_1<r<R_2,\hfill \\ B_2r/2+C_5/r;R_2<r<R_3,\hfill \\ \gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }rn_2\varphi _0/r+\lambda (C_3I_1C_4K_1);\hfill \\ R_3<r<R_4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
Note that $`n_1,n_2`$ may be different, because the two cylinders can be in different quantum states. The current per unit length in the inner cylinder is

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{R_1}^{R_2}}j^\mathrm{e}dr`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`c[C_1(I_{02}I_{01})+C_2(K_{02}K_{01})].`$
Here and below we will use the notations

$$I_{NM}=I_N(R_M/\lambda ),K_{NM}=K_N(R_M/\lambda ),$$

where the integers $`N=0,1`$, $`M=14`$. The unknown constants $`C_{15}`$, $`B_1,B_2`$ are determined from the boundary conditions. At $`R_1`$, according to Eqs (64,65), we have

$`B_1=2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_1I_{01}+C_2K_{01},`$ (67)
$`B_1R_1/2=\left(\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c\right)\mathrm{\Omega }R_1`$
$`n_1\varphi _0/R_1+\lambda (C_1I_{11}C_2K_{11}),`$ (68)
where Eq (67) shows that the induction varies continuously at the surface. Eq (68) is obtained from the jump of the potential Eq (56). Similarly, we have at $`R_2`$:

$`B_2=2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_1I_{02}+C_2K_{02},`$ (69)
$`B_2R_2/2+C_5/R_2=\left(\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c\right)\mathrm{\Omega }R_2`$
$`n_1\varphi _0/R_2+\lambda (C_1I_{12}C_2K_{12}),`$ (70)
and at $`R_3`$:

$`B_2=2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_3I_{03}+C_4K_{03},`$ (71)
$`B_2R_3/2+C_5/R_3=\left(\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c\right)\mathrm{\Omega }R_3`$
$`n_2\varphi _0/R_3+\lambda (C_3I_{13}C_4K_{13}).`$ (72)
The induction is zero beyond $`R_4`$. (We consider the case of no externally applied field, ie all the sources of the field are from supercurrents in the rings.) We have then

$$2\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+C_3I_{04}+C_4K_{04}=0.$$
(73)
Solving Eq (67-73) for $`C_{15}`$, $`B_1,B_2`$ and inserting them into Eq (66), we obtain the current. The result can be written as

$$J=[f_3n_1+f_4(n_2n_1)]J_0+c\gamma ^{}(f_2f_1\alpha )\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(74)
with

$$\alpha =\frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{m_\mathrm{e}^{}c^2},J_0=\frac{\mathrm{}c^2}{2eR_1^2}.$$
(75)
Here the factors $`f_{14}`$ depend only on the penetration depth and geometry of the system. For observing the boundary effect, it is convenient to choose the geometry such that $`\left|f_2\right|<<\left|\alpha f_1\right|`$. One example satisfying the requirement is: $`R_1=2.5`$ cm, $`R_2R_1=1`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, $`R_3R_2=40`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$, $`R_4R_3=1`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, $`\lambda =40`$ $`\mathrm{nm}`$. We have obtained, by the numerical computation, the values

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`1.33333,f_2=1.852\times 10^{11},`$
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`1.9999968,f_4=2.083\times 10^7.`$
Because $`f_4`$ is very large, it is not probable for the two rings to lay in different quantum states. So within a good approximation, (and also neglecting $`\zeta 1`$) we have

$$J=2J_0n_1f_1(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(76)
with $`f_1=4/3`$ for the geometry considered. This shows that the strength of the surface double layer $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be measured by measuring the change of the current with the rotation. Note that the factor $`f_1`$ decreases with increasing distance $`R_3R_2`$ between the two cylinders, see Fig 4. When the distance is large, $`f_10`$, the last term in (74) is negligible, and we return to the result by Brady brady .

## VI Conclusions

The conclusion of this paper is that the relativistic correction to the London field is not the result of the Fermi velocity. Instead, it is given by the chemical potential $`\mu `$ of the metal, which quantifies the complicated interaction among all the particles, including that between electrons and ions. Because the interaction energy is typically several eV per atom, while the mass of an atom is around $`10^4`$MeV, the relativistic correction is tiny, of order $`10^{10}`$, and beyond the scope of any present experimental techniques. When previous, microscopic theories considered the London Moment, they considered the kinetic contribution to the correction $`\zeta `$ of the electron’s mass, but neglected other contributions, especially from the interaction between the electrons and the lattice. In addition, the discontinuity of the macroscopic electrostatic potential at the metal surface was incorrectly taken to be the mean field potential, or the sum of the kinetic energy and the work function. As soon as these errors are revised, $`\zeta `$ is found to essentially vanish. Unfortunately, the reason for the discrepancy between the experiment cabr  and all theories remains unclear.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Following work by Hagedorn  on production of anti-3He, Cleymans et al  have shown that for low temperatures, such as found in systems produced at GSI, strangeness production is strongly suppressed. The abundance of $`K^+`$ mesons, in systems assumed to be equilibrated, is given by ,

$`n_{K^+}e^{E_{K^+}/T}V\left\{g_{\overline{K}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{E_{\overline{K}}/T}}+g_\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{(E_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _B)/T}}\right\}.`$ (1)
Here the $`g`$’s are the degeneracies. Because strangeness must be conserved in the interaction volume $`V`$, assumed to be that of the equilibrated system for each $`K^+`$ which is produced, a particle of “negative strangeness” 111By “negative strangeness” we are referring to the negatively charged strange quark flavor. The positively charged anti-strange quark will be referred to as “positive strangeness.” containing $`\overline{s}`$, say, $`\overline{K}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, must also be produced, bringing in the $`\overline{K}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ phase space and Boltzmann factors. The $`K^+`$ production is very small at GSI energies because of the low temperatures which give small Boltzmann factors for the $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note the linear dependence on interaction volume which follows from the necessity to include $`\overline{K}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ phase space.

In an extensive and careful analysis, Cleymans, Oeschler and Redlich  show that measured particle multiplicity ratios $`\pi ^+/p`$, $`\pi ^{}/\pi ^+`$, $`d/p`$, $`K^+/\pi ^+`$, and $`K^+/K^{}`$ – but not $`\eta /\pi ^0`$ – in central Au-Au and Ni-Ni collisions at (0.8-2.0)A GeV are explained in terms of a thermal model with a common freeze-out temperature and chemical potential, if collective flow is included in the description. In other words, a scenario in which the kaons and anti-kaons are equilibrated appears to work well. This result is puzzling in view of a recent study by Bratkovskaya et al  that shows that the $`K^+`$ mesons in the energy range considered would take a time of $`40`$ fm/c to equilibrate. We remark that this is roughly consistent with the estimate for higher energies in the classic paper by Koch, Müller and Rafelski  that strangeness equilibration should take $`80`$ fm/c. Such estimates have been applied at CERN energies and the fact that emergent particle abundances are described by Boltzmann factors with a common temperature $`170180`$ MeV has been used as part of an argument that the quark/gluon plasma has been observed.

We interpret the result of  as follows. Since free-space masses are used for the hadrons involved, Cleymans et al  are forced to employ a $`\mu _B`$ substantially less than the nucleon mass $`m_N`$ in order to cut down $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production as compared with $`K^{}`$ production, the sum of the two being equal to $`K^+`$ production. This brings them to a diffuse system with density of only $`\rho _0/4`$ at chemical freeze-out. But this is much too low a density for equilibration.

We shall first show how this situation can be improved by replacing the $`K^{}`$ mass by the $`K^{}`$energy at rest $`\omega _K^{}^{}\omega _{}(k=0)<m_K`$. (The explicit formula for $`\omega _\pm `$ is given later, see eq. (21).) In doing this, we first have to reproduce the $`K^+`$ to $`K^{}`$ ratio found in the Ni + Ni experiments :

$`n_{K^+}/n_K^{}30.`$ (2)
Cleymans et al reproduce the earlier smaller ratio of $`21\pm 9`$ with $`\mu _B=750`$ MeV and $`T=70`$ MeV. How this or rather (2) comes out is easy to see. The ratio of the second term on the RHS of eq.(1) to the first term is roughly the ratio of the exponential factors multiplied by the phase space volume

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{g_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{g_{\overline{K}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\overline{p}_{\overline{K}}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(E_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _B)/T}}{e^{E_K^{}/T}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{\overline{K}}}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(m_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _B)/T}}{e^{m_K^{}/T}}}21`$ (3)
where we have used $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\overline{K}}2`$, $`(\overline{p})^2/2m\frac{3}{2}T`$, $`E_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1115`$ MeV and $`E_{\overline{K}}=495`$ MeV. We are able to convert $`E_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`E_K^{}`$ to $`m_K^{}`$ because $`E_\mathrm{\Lambda }m_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{3}{2}T`$ and $`E_K^{}m_K^{}+\frac{3}{2}T`$ and the thermal energies cancel out in the ratio. This works as long as the masses are more than $`3T`$, where the nonrelativistic approximation is valid. Inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hyperons would roughly increase this number by 50% with the result that the ratio of $`K^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ production is 222In order to reproduce this result with $`\mu _B=750`$ MeV and $`T=70`$ Mev within our approximation, we have assumed only the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ hyperons to equilibrate with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This may be correct because the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ couple more weakly. Inclusion of the latter could change our result slightly. Probably they should be included in analysis of the AGS experiments at higher energies where they would be more copiously produced.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_K^{}}{n_{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Xi }}}}1/32.`$ (4)
Since a $`K^+`$ must be produced to accompany each particle of one unit of strangeness (to conserve strangeness flavor), we then have

$`n_{K^+}/n_K^{}33.`$ (5)
This is consistent with the empirical ratio (2). It should be noted that had we set $`\mu _B`$ equal to $`m_N`$, we would have had the $`K^+`$ to $`K^{}`$ ratio to be $`280`$ because it costs so much less energy to make a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) rather than $`K^{}`$ in this case. In other words the chemical potential $`\mu _B`$ is forced to lie well below $`m_N`$ in order to penalize the hyperon production relative to that of the $`K^{}`$’s.

One can see from fig.5 in Li and Brown  that without medium effects in the $`K^{}`$ mass, the $`K^+/K^{}`$ ratio is $`100`$, whereas the medium effect decreases the ratio to about 23. This suggests how to correctly redo the Cleymans et al’s analysis, namely, by introducing the dropping $`K^{}`$ mass into it.

In Appendix A we show that positive strangeness production takes place chiefly at densities greater than $`2\rho _0`$. As the fireball expands to lower densities the amount of positive strangeness remains roughly constant. The number of $`K^+`$’s is such as to be in equilibrium ratio $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ with the equilibrated number density of pions at $`T=70`$ MeV, $`n_\pi 0.37T_{197}^3\mathrm{fm}^3`$. Only in this sense do the $`K^+`$’s equilibrate.

It is amusing to note that the “equilibrated ratio” of $`30`$ for the $`n_{K^+}/n_K^{}`$ holds over a large range of densities for $`T=70`$ MeV, once density-dependent $`K^{}`$masses are introduced, in that the ratio $`R`$ of (3) is insensitive to density. (Remember that because of the small number of $`K^{}`$’s, the number of $`K^+`$’s must be nearly equal to the number of hyperons, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, in order to conserve strangeness.) This insensitivity results because $`\omega _K^{}^{}`$ decreases with density at roughly the same rate as $`\mu _B`$ increases. We can write $`R`$ of (3), neglecting possible changes in $`T`$ and $`m_{\overline{K}}`$ in our lowest approximation, as

$`R=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{\overline{K}}}}\right)^{3/2}e^{(\mu _B+\omega _K^{}^{})/T}e^{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }/T}.`$ (6)
As will be further stressed later, the most important point in our arguments is that the $`\mu _B+\omega _K^{}^{}`$ is nearly constant with density. This is because whereas $`\mu _B`$ increases from 860 MeV to 905 MeV as $`\rho `$ goes from $`1.2\rho _0`$ to $`2.1\rho _0`$, $`\omega _K^{}^{}`$ decreases from 370 MeV to 322 MeV, the sum $`\mu _B+m_K^{}^{}`$ decreasing very slightly from 1230 MeV to 1227 MeV. Indeed, even at $`\rho =\rho _0/4`$, $`\mu _B+m_K^{}^{}1215`$ MeV, not much smaller.

We believe that the temperature will change only little in the region of dropping masses because in a consistent evolution (which we do not carry out here) the scalar field energy $`m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2/2`$ in a mean field theory plays the role of an effective bag constant. In ref. this is phrased in terms of a modified Walecka theory,

$`B_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2(M_N/g_{\sigma NN})^2,`$ (7)
the $`\sigma `$ going to $`M_N/g_{\sigma NN}`$ as the nucleon effective mass goes to zero with chiral restoration. Most of the energy with compression to higher densities goes with this effective bag constant, estimated  to be $`280`$ MeV/fm3, rather than heat, mocking up the behavior of a mixed phase with constant temperature. Moreover at $`\rho =2\rho _0`$ where $`m_N^{}`$ may be $`0.5m_N`$, only about 25% of the bag constant $`B`$ may have been achieved, so there may be some increase in temperature. We shall, at the same level of accuracy, have to replace $`m_{\overline{K}}`$ in the prefactor of eq.(6) by $`\omega _K^{}^{}`$. We adjust the increase in temperature so that it exactly compensates for the decrease in prefactor so that the $`K^+`$/$`K^{}`$ratio is kept the same, as required by experiment . We then find that the temperature at $`\rho =2\rho _0`$ must be increased from 70 to 95 MeV. This is roughly the change given by that in inverse slopes of $`K^{}`$and $`K^+`$transverse momentum distributions found in going from low multiplicities to high multiplicities .

In any case, we see that $`R`$ will depend but little on density. This near cancellation of changes in the factors is fortunate because the $`K^{}+p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction, operating in the negative strangeness sector, is much stronger than the positive strangeness reactions, so the former should equilibrate to densities well below $`2\rho _0`$ and we can see that the “apparent equilibration” might extend all the way down to $`\rho \rho _0/4`$.

The near constancy of $`R`$ with density also explains the fact the $`K^+`$/$`K^{}`$ratio does not vary with centrality 333We are grateful to Helmut Oeschler for pointing this out to us.. Although $`R`$ is the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s to $`K^{}`$’s, both of which are in the negative strangeness sector, nonetheless, the number of $`K^+`$’s must be equal to the sum of the two and since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s are much more abundant than the $`K^{}`$’s, $`R`$ essentially represents the $`K^+`$/$`K^{}`$ratio.

Detailed transport results of Bratkovskaya and Cassing (see Fig.1) show the last scattering of the detected $`K^{}`$to be spread over all densities from $`\rho _0/2`$ to $`3\rho _0`$, somewhat more of the last scatterings to come from the higher density. This seems difficult to reconcile with a scenario of the $`K^{}`$numbers being decided at one definite density and temperature, but given our picture of dropping masses, one can see that the $`K^+`$/$`K^{}`$ratio depends little on density ($`\mu _B`$) at which the $`K^{}`$last interacts. In any case we understand from our above argument that the apparent density of equilibration can be chosen to be very low in a thermal description and still get more or less correct $`K^+`$/$`K^{}`$ratio.

## 2 The Top-Down Scenario of $`K^\pm `$ Production

Brown and Rho  discussed fluctuations in the kaon sector in terms of a simple Lagrangian

$`\delta _{KN}={\displaystyle \frac{6i}{8f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\overline{N}\gamma _0N)\overline{K}_tK+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}}{f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\overline{N}N)\overline{K}K+\mathrm{}_\omega +_\sigma +\mathrm{}`$ (8)
It was suggested there that at high densities, the constituent quark or quasi-quark description can be used with the $`\omega `$-meson coupling to the kaon viewed as a matter field (rather than as a Goldstone boson). Such a description suggests that the $`\omega `$ coupling to the kaon which has one non-strange quark is 1/3 of the $`\omega `$ coupling to the nucleon which has three non-strange quarks. The $`_\omega `$ in the Lagrangian was obtained by integrating out the $`\omega `$-meson as in the baryon sector. We may therefore replace it by the interaction

$`V_{K^\pm }\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V_N.`$ (9)
In isospin asymmetric matter, we shall have to include also the $`\rho `$-meson exchange  with the vector-meson coupling treated in the top-down approach.

For the top-down scenario, we should replace the chiral Lagrangian (8) by one in which the “heavy” degrees of freedom figure explicitly. This means that $`\frac{1}{2f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ in the first term of (8) should be replaced by $`g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/m_{\omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}}{f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ in the second term by $`\frac{2}{3}m_K\frac{g_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ assuming that both $`\omega `$ and $`\sigma `$ are still massive. We will argue in the next section that while the $`\omega `$ mass drops, the ratio $`g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/m_{\omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ should stay constant or more likely decrease with density and that beyond certain density above nuclear matter, the vector fields should decouple. On the other hand, $`g_\sigma `$ is not scaled in the mean field that we are working with; the motivation for this is given in Brown, Buballa and Rho  who construct the chiral restoration transition in the mean field in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. Thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}m_K{\displaystyle \frac{g_\sigma ^2}{m_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}.`$ (10)
In this framework, $`m_\sigma ^{}`$ is the order parameter for chiral restoration which drops à la BR scaling :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\sigma ^{}}{m_\sigma }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+y\rho /\rho _0}}`$ (11)
with $`y0.28`$, at least for $`\rho <\rho _0`$ 444$`y`$ may well be different from this value for $`\rho >\rho _0`$. In fact the denominator of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$ could even be significantly modified from this linear form. At present there is no way to calculate this quantity from first principles..

Once the vector is decoupled, a simple way to calculate the in-medium kaon effective mass, equivalent to using the $`_\sigma `$, is to consider the kaon as fluctuation about the “$`\sigma `$”-axis in the V-spin formalism  as depicted pictorially in Fig.2. The Hamiltonian for explicit chiral symmetry breaking is

$`H_{\chi SB}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}\overline{N}N\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_K^2f^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )`$ (12)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}\overline{N}N(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_K^2f^2\theta ^2`$
where the last expression is obtained for small fluctuation $`\theta `$. Dropping the term independent of $`\theta `$, we find

$`m_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_K^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}\overline{N}N}{f^2m_K^2}}\right).`$ (13)
Using eq. (10) we obtain

$`m_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_K^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\sigma ^2\overline{N}N}{m_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_K}}\right).`$ (14)
In accord with Brown and Rho  we are proposing that eq.(13) should be used for low densities, in the Goldstone description of the $`K^\pm `$, and that we should switch over to eq.(14) for higher densities. It is possible that the $`m_K`$ appearing in (14) should be replaced by $`m_K^{}`$ for self-consistency but the dropping of $`m_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ makes the $`m_K^{}`$ of (14) decrease more rapidly than that of (13) so that eq.(13) with $`\overline{N}N`$ set equal to the vector density $`\rho `$, a much used formula valid to linear order in density,

$`m_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_K^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}}{f^2m_K^2}}\right)`$ (15)
obviously gives too slow a decrease of $`m_K^{}`$ with density.

Although the above are our chief points, there are two further points to remark. One, even without scaling, our vector interaction on the kaon is still too large. Two, more importantly, there is reason to believe in the large $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}`$ term,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}400\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (16)
This comes from scaling of the pion sigma term

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_u+m_s)N|\overline{u}u+\overline{s}s|N}{(m_u+m_d)N|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|N}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}.`$ (17)
Taking $`m_s150`$ MeV, $`m_u+m_d12`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=46`$ MeV and $`N|\overline{s}s|N\frac{1}{3}N|\overline{d}d|N`$ from lattice calculations , one arrives at (16).

Other authors, in adjusting the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ term to fit the kaon-nucleon scattering amplitudes, have obtained a somewhat smaller $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}`$. This can be understood in the chiral perturbation calculation of C.-H. Lee  where the only significant effect of higher chiral order terms can be summarized in the “range term”555In the language of heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory, this corresponds to the “1/m” correction term.; namely $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}`$ is to be replaced by an effective $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$,

$`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN})_{eff}=(10.37\omega _K^2/m_K^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}.`$ (18)
It should be pointed out that although the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}`$ is important at low densities, $`\omega _K`$ decreases with $`m_K^{}`$, this “range-term” correction becomes less important at higher densities. This effect – which is easy to implement – is included in the realistic calculations.

## 3 Partial Decoupling of the Vector Interaction

### 3.1 Evidence

There are both theoretical and empirical reasons why we believe that the vector interaction should decouple at high density.

1. We first give the theoretical arguments. We know of three theoretical reasons why the vector coupling $`g_\omega ^{}`$ should drop with density.

* The first is the observation by Song et al  that describing nuclear matter in terms of chiral Lagrangian in the mean field requires the ratio $`g_\omega ^{}/m_\omega ^{}`$ to at least be roughly constant or even decreasing as a function of density. In fact to quantitatively account for non-linear terms in a mean-field effective Lagrangian, a dropping ratio is definitely favored 666Since the non-linear terms – though treated in the mean field – are fluctuation effects in the effective field theory approach, this represents a quantum correction to the BR scaling.. For instance, as discussed in , the in-medium behavior of the $`\omega `$-meson field is encoded in the “FTS1” version of the non-linear theories of ref.. In fact, because of the attractive quartic $`\omega `$ term in the FTS1 theory, the authors of  have (for the parameter $`\eta =1/2`$ favored by experiments) $`g_{\omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/m_{\omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0.8g_{\omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/m_{\omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ as modification of the quadratic term when rewritten in our notation . In other words, their vector mean field contains a partial decoupling already at $`\rho \rho _0`$ although they do not explicitly scale $`g_\omega `$ as we do.

    Historically, Walecka-type mean field theories with only quadratic interactions (i.e., linear Walecka model) gave compression moduli $`K500`$ MeV, about double the empirical value. This is cured in nonlinear effective field theories like FTS1 by higher-dimension non-renormalizable terms which effectively decrease the growth in repulsion in density. As suggested in , an effective chiral Lagrangian with BR scaling can do the same (by the increase in magnitude of the effective scalar field with density) but more economically and efficiently.
    * The second reason is perhaps more theoretical. Kim and Lee  have shown recently that in an effective QCD Lagrangian with baryons, pions and vector mesons put together in hidden gauge symmetric theory, the ratio $`g_V^{}/m_V^{}`$ (where $`V`$ stands for hidden gauge bosons) falls very rapidly with baryon chemical potential. The main agent for this behavior is found in  to be the pionic one-loop contribution linked to chiral symmetry which is lacking in the mean-field treatment for BR scaling .

    One may argue on a more profound ground that the vector decoupling in approaching chiral phase transition is a flow to a fixed point. It has been argued recently by Harada and Yamawaki  that chiral symmetry restoration may correspond to a “vector manifestation” of chiral symmetry where the octet of Goldstone pions and the octet of longitudinal vector mesons belong to the representation $`(8,1)(1,8)`$. At this point, the vector coupling goes zero à la Georgi’s vector limit as does the vector meson mass .

    The above arguments were made for the $`\rho `$ which has a simple interpretation in terms of hidden gauge symmetry but it will apply to the $`\omega `$ if the nonet symmetry continues to hold in nuclear medium. It is difficult to be quantitative as to how fast the ratio falls but it is clear that the drop is substantial already near normal nuclear matter density.
    * Finally, close to chiral restoration in temperature, there is clear evidence from QCD for an equally rapid drop, specifically, from the quark number susceptibility that can be measured on the lattice . The lattice calculation of the quark number susceptibility dealt with quarks and the large drop in the (isoscalar) vector mean field was found to be due chiefly to the change-over from hadrons to quarks as the chiral restoration temperature is approached from below. The factor of 9 in the ratio $`g_{\omega NN}^2/g_{\omega QQ}^2`$ (where $`Q`$ is the constituent quark) should disappear in the change-over. Now since the electroweak properties of a constituent quark (quasiquark) are expected to be the same as those of a bare Dirac particle with $`g_A=1`$ and no anomalous magnetic moment (i.e., the QCD quark)  with possible corrections that are suppressed as $`1/N_c`$ , there will be continuity between before and after the chiral transition. This is very much in accordance with the “Cheshire-Cat picture” developed elsewhere . In fact, it is possible to give a dynamical (hadronic) interpretation of the above scenario. For instance in the picture of , this may be understood as the “elementary” $`\omega `$ strength moving downwards into the “nuclear” $`\omega `$, the $`[N^{}(1520)N^1]^{J=1,I=0}`$ isobar-hole state involving a single-quark spin flip . The mechanism being intrinsic in the change-over of the degrees of freedom, we expect the same phenomenon to hold in density as well as in temperature. The upshot of this line of argument is that the suppression of the vector coupling is inevitable as density approaches the critical density for chiral transition.

We believe that the different behavior of vector and scalar mean fields, the latter to be discussed below, follows from their different roles in QCD. With the vector this is made clearer in the lattice calculations of the quark number susceptibility which involves the vector interactions. In Brown and Rho , it is shown that as the description changes from hadronic to quark/gluonic at $`TT_c`$, the critical temperature for chiral restoration, the vector interaction drops by an order of magnitude, much faster than the logarithmic decrease due to asymptotic freedom. We expect a similar feature in density, somewhat like in the renormalization-group analysis for the isovector vector meson $`\rho `$ of Kim and Lee . The scalar interaction, on the other hand, brings about chiral restoration and must become more and more important with increasing density as the phase transition point is approached.
2. From the empirical side, the most direct indication of the decoupling of the vector interaction is from the baryon flow  which is particularly sensitive to the vector interaction. The authors of  find a form factor of the form

$`f_V(𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2\frac{1}{6}𝒑^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2+𝒑^2}}`$ (19)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_V=`$0.9 GeV is required to understand the baryon flow. Connecting momenta with distances, one finds that this represents a cutoff at

$`R_{cutoff}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_V}}0.5\mathrm{fm}.`$ (20)
Furthermore it is well known that the vector mean field of the Walecka model must be modified, its increase as $`E/m_N`$ removed, at a scale of $`1`$ GeV. The reason for this is presumably that inside of $`R0.5`$ fm, the finite size of the solitonic nucleon must be taken into account. A repulsion still results, but it is scalar in nature as found in  and for which there are direct physical indications .

### 3.2 Kaons at GSI

The $`K^+`$and $`K^{}`$energies in the top-down scenario are given by

$`\omega _\pm =\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\pm }{m_K}}V_N+\sqrt{k^2+m_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.`$ (21)
Although at high densities it will decouple, the term linear in $`V_N`$ that figures in the range correction in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN})_{eff}`$ will give a slightly different effective mass for $`K^+`$and $`K^{}`$before decoupling. Although the large distance vector mean field must arise from vector meson exchange, this must be cut off at a reasonably large distance, say, $``$ 0.5 fm as indicated by the baryon-flow mentioned above.

For the GSI experiments with temperature $`75`$ MeV, the momentum is $`|𝒑|m_N/2`$, and

$`f_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(p)0.6.`$ (22)
We therefore propose to use

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_K}{m_K}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{f_V^2}{m_K}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{m_K}}0.07.`$ (23)
This is small. Furthermore we assume it to be constant above $`\rho _0`$.

The above arguments could be quantified by a specific model. For example, as alluded to above, the low-lying $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-excitations in the bottom-up model can be built up as $`N^{}`$-hole excitations . At higher densities, these provide the low-mass strength. One might attempt to calculate the coupling constants to these excitations in the constituent-quark (or quasi-quark) model, which as we have suggested would be expected to be more applicable at densities near chiral restoration. Riska and Brown  find the quark model couplings to be a factor $`2`$ lower than the hadronic ones .

## 4 Schematic Model

### 4.1 First try

On the basis of our above considerations, a first try in transport calculation might use the vector potential with the Song scaling  as $`g_\omega ^{}/m_\omega ^{}=constant`$ and the effective mass

$`m_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_K^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN})_{eff}}{f^2m_K^2}}\right)`$ (24)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN}=400`$ MeV and $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{KN})_{eff}`$ given by eq. (18). While as argued above the vector coupling will decouple at very high densities, as $`\omega _K`$ drops, the vector potential will become less important even at moderate densities since the factor $`\omega _K/m_K`$ comes into the coupling of the vector potential to the kaon.

Our schematic model (24) gives roughly the same mass as used by Li and Brown  to predict kaon and antikaon subthreshold production at GSI. For $`\rho 3\rho _0`$ it gives $`m_K^{}^{}230`$ MeV, less than half the bare mass. We predict somewhat fewer $`K^{}`$-mesons because the (attractive) vector interaction is largely reduced if not decoupled. Cassing et al  have employed an $`m_K^{}^{}`$ somewhat lower than that given by eq.(24) to describe a lot of data.

The experimental data verify that our description is quite good up to the densities probed, i.e., $`3\rho _0`$. In order to go higher in density, we switch to our top-down description which through eq.(10) involves $`g_\sigma ^2/m_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Although the scalar interaction could have roughly the same form factor as the vector, cutting it off at $`0.5`$ fm as mentioned above, we believe that this will be countered by the dropping scalar mass $`m_\sigma ^{}`$ which must go to zero at chiral restoration (viewed as an order parameter). Treating the scalar interaction linearly as a fluctuation (as in (10)) cannot be expected to be valid all the way to chiral restoration but approaching the latter the $`\sigma `$-particle becomes the “dilaton” in the sense of Weinberg’s “mended symmetry”  with mass going to zero (in the chiral limit) together with the pion .

At high densities at which the vector interaction decouples, the $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ will experience nearly the same very strong attractive interactions. This can be minimally expressed through the effective mass $`m_K^{}`$. At low densities where the vector potential not only comes into play but slightly predominates over the scalar potential, the $`K^+`$ will have a small repulsive interaction with nucleons. It is this interaction, extrapolated without medium effects by Bratkovskaya et al  which gives the long equilibration time of 40 fm/c. However, clearly the medium effects will change this by an order of magnitude.

### 4.2 Implication on kaon condensation and maximum neutron-star mass

While in heavy-ion processes, we expect that taking $`m_\sigma ^{}`$ to zero (or nearly zero in the real world) is a relevant limiting process, we do not have to take $`m_\sigma ^{}`$ to zero for kaon condensation in neutron stars, since the $`K^{}`$-mass $`m_K^{}`$ must be brought down only to the electron chemical potential $`\mu _eE_F(e)`$, the approximate equality holding because the electrons are highly degenerate. We should mention that it has been suggested that the electron chemical potential $`\mu _e`$ could be kept low by replacing electrons plus neutrons by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperons (or more generally by exploiting Pauli exclusion principle with hyperon introduction) in neutron stars . In this case, the $`\mu _e`$ might never meet $`m_K^{}`$.

Hyperon introduction may or may not take place, but even if it does, the scenario will be more subtle than considered presently. To see what can happen, let us consider what one could expect from a naive extrapolation to the relevant density, i.e., $`\rho 3\rho _0`$, based on the best available nuclear physics. The replacement of neutron plus electron will take place if the vector mean field felt by the neutron is still high at that density. The threshold for that would be

$`E_F^n+V_N+\mu _eM_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}V_N+S_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ (25)
where $`E_F^n`$ is the Fermi energy of the neutron, $`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the bare mass of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and the $`S_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the scalar potential energy felt by the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Here we are simply assuming that the two non-strange quarks of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ experience $`2/3`$ of the vector mean field felt by the neutron. Extrapolating the FTS1 theory 777There is nothing that would suggest that the effective Lagrangian valid up to $`\rho \rho _0`$ will continue to be valid at $`\rho 3\rho _0`$ without addition of higher mass-dimension operators, particularly if the chiral critical point is nearby. So this exercise can be taken only as indicative. and taking into account in $`V_N`$ the effect of the $`\rho `$-meson using vector dominance , we find $`E_F^n+V_N1064`$ MeV at $`\rho 3\rho _0`$. From the extended BPAL 32 equation of state with compression modulus 240 MeV , the electron chemical potential comes out to be $`\mu _e214`$ MeV. So the left-hand side of (25) is $`E_F^n+V_N+\mu _e1258`$ MeV. For the right-hand side, we use the scalar potential energy for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ at $`\rho 3\rho _0`$ estimated by Brown, Lee and Rapp  to find that $`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\frac{2}{3}V_N+S_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}1240`$ MeV. The replacement of neutron plus electron by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ looks favored but only slightly.

What is the possible scenario on the maximum neutron star mass if we continue assuming that the calculation we made here can be trusted? A plausible scenario would be as follows. $`K^{}`$condensation supposedly occurs at about the same density and both the hyperonic excitation (in the form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N^1`$ – where $`N^1`$ stands for the nucleon hole – component of the “kaesobar” ) and $`K^{}`$condensation would occur at $`T50`$ MeV relevant to the neutron-star matter. Now if as is likely the temperature is greater than the difference in energies between the two possible phases, although the hyperons will be more important initially than the kaons, all of the phases will enter more or less equally in constructing the free energy of the system. In going to higher density the distribution between the different phases will change in order to minimize the free energy. Then it is clear that dropping from one minimum to another, the derivative of the free energy with density – which is just the pressure – will decrease as compared with the pressure from any single phase. This would imply that the maximum neutron star mass calculated with either hyperonic excitation or kaon condensation alone must be greater than the neutron star mass calculated with inclusion of both.

The story will be quite different if the vector field decouples. We showed in Section 3.1 that the isoscalar vector mean field must drop by a factor $`>9`$ in the change-over from nucleons to quasiquarks as variables as one approaches the chiral restoration density. Hyperons will disappear during this drop. It is then inevitable that the kaon will condense before chiral restoration and that the kaon condensed phase will persist through the relevant range of densities which determine the maximum neutron star mass.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

By now there is a general consensus that the light-quark hadrons must behave differently in medium than in free space. This is understood in terms of a vacuum change induced by medium à la QCD. In this paper, we are re-confirming this property by arguing that not only the kaon mass but also its coupling to vector mesons should drop in matter with density. In particular, with the introduction of medium effects the apparent equilibration found in strangeness production at GSI can be increased from the baryon number density of $`\frac{1}{4}\rho _0`$ up to the much more reasonable $`2\rho _0`$.

From the baryon flow analysis we have direct indications that the vector interaction decouples from the nucleon at a three-momentum of $`|𝒑|0.9`$ GeV/c or at roughly 0.5 $`m_Nc`$. In colliding heavy ions this is reached at a kinetic energy per nucleon of $`\frac{1}{8}m_Nc^2`$ which means a temperature of 78 MeV when equated to $`\frac{3}{2}T`$. This is just the temperature for chemical freeze-out at GSI energies. We have given several theoretical arguments why the vector coupling should drop rapidly with density.

Once the vector mean field, which acts with opposite signs on the $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons is decoupled, these mesons will feel the same highly attractive scalar meson field. Their masses will fall down sharply; e.g., from eq.(24) with proposed parameters,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}}{m_K}}0.5`$ (26)
at $`\rho 3\rho _0`$ and possibly further because of the dropping $`m_\sigma ^{}`$. The differing slopes of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ with kinetic energy will then develop after chemical freeze-out, as suggested by Li and Brown .

In this paper we have focused on the phenomenon at GSI energies. Here the chief role that the dropping $`K^{}`$-mass played was to keep the combination $`\mu _B+\omega _K^{}^{}`$ nearly constant so that low freeze-out density in the thermal equilibration scenario became irrelevant for the $`K^+`$/$`K^{}`$ratio. We suggest that the same scenario applies to AGS physics, where the freeze-out density in the thermal equilibration picture comes out to be $`0.35\rho _0`$ . In increasing this density to $`0.57\rho _0`$, which we consider more reasonable, $`\mu _B+\omega _K^{}^{}`$ changes from 992 MeV only to 1026 MeV, an $`3`$ % change, when only the density dependence is put into $`\omega _K^{}^{}`$. It is likely to change less when the temperature dependence, that we are now working on, is added. In fact, there is no discernible dependence on centrality in the $`K^{}`$/$`K^+`$ratios measured at $`4A`$ GeV, $`6A`$ GeV, $`8A`$ GeV and $`10.8A`$ GeV . From this it follows either that the ratio of produced $`K^{}`$to hyperons is nearly independent of density or that the negative strangeness equilibrates down to a lower freeze-out density and then disperses. Given the relative weakness of the strange interactions, we believe the former to be the case. In fact, we suggest that near constancy with multiplicity of the $`K^{}`$/$`K^+`$ratio found experimentally be used to determine temperature dependence of $`\omega _K^{}^{}`$ in the region of temperatures reached in AGS physics. As was done for GSI energies, the temperature can be obtained from the inverse slopes of the kaon and antikaon distributions of $`p_{}`$ and then the temperature dependence of $`\omega _K^{}^{}`$ can be added to the density dependence as in , in such a way that $`\mu _B+\omega _K^{}^{}`$ stays roughly constant as function of density. At least this can be done in the low-density regime considered in  when the approximation of a Boltzmann gas is accurate enough to calculate $`\mu _B`$. Our “broad-band equilibration”; i.e., the production of the same, apparently equilibrated ratio of $`K^{}`$-mesons to hyperons over a broad band of densities, avoids complications in the way in which the $`K^{}`$ degree of freedom is mixed into other degrees of freedom at low density . Most of the $`K^{}`$-production will take place at the higher densities, as shown in Fig. 1, where the degrees of freedom other than $`K^{}`$ have been sent up to higher energies by the Pauli principle.

Unless the electron chemical potential in dense neutron star matter is prevented from increasing with density (as might happen if the repulsive $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-nuclear interaction turns to attraction at $`\rho >\rho _0`$), kaon condensation will take place before chiral restoration. This has several implications at and beyond chiral restoration. For instance, its presence would have influence on the conjectured color superconductivity at high density, in particular regarding its possible coexistence with Overhauser effects, skyrmion crystal and other phases with interesting effects on neutron star cooling.

The phenomenon of vector decoupling, if confirmed to be correct, will have several important spin-off consequences. The first is that it will provide a refutation of the recent claim  that in the mean-field theory with a kaon-nuclear potential given by the vector-exchange (Weinberg-Tomozawa) term – both argued to be valid at high density – kaon condensation would be pushed up to a much higher density than that relevant in neutron-star matter. Our chief point against that argument is that the vector decoupling and the different role of scalar fields in QCD (e.g., BR scaling) described in this article cannot be accessed by the mean field reasoning used in  or by any other standard nuclear physics potential models. The second consequence that could be of a potential importance to the interpretation of heavy-ion experiments is that if the vector coupling 888While the decoupling of the isoscalar vector interaction near the chiral restoration is highly plausible by the disappearance of a factor of 9 in the change-over from hadrons to quarks, the decoupling of the isovector vector interaction seems to be a lot more complex as indicated by the RG analysis of Kim and Lee . What is not difficult to see is that their decoupling should occur at the same point as indicated in the quark number susceptibility . rapidly diminishes with density, the strong-coupling perturbation calculation of the vector response functions used in terms of “melting” vector mesons to explain , e.g., the CERES dilepton data must break down as one approaches the decoupling point that is out of reach of strong-coupling perturbative methods. It in turn provides yet one more justification (in addition to what has been already offered ) to the quasi-particle description in dense matter encoded in BR scaling and exploited in this paper.

Finally we should stress that the scenario presented in this paper – which is anchored on Brown-Rho scaling– should not be considered as an alternative to a possible quark-gluon scenario currently favored by the heavy-ion community. It is more likely a sort of “dual” description of the same physics along the line that the Cheshire-Cat Principle  embodies that would continue to apply at higher energies.

### Acknowledgments

The initial part of this work was done while we were visiting Korea Institute for Advanced Study whose hospitality is acknowledged. We are grateful for comments from Bengt Friman and Chang-Hwan Lee. One of the authors (GEB) is indebted to Elena Bratkovskaya, Peter Braun-Munzinger, Wolfgang Cassing, Che Ming Ko, Helmut Oeschler and Krzystof Redlich for useful discussion and criticism. GEB and CS were supported by the US Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-88 ER40388. The work of CS was partly supported by Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.

## Appendix A

In this appendix we show how our argument that gives a correct $`K^+/K^{}`$ ratio can reproduce the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio. Let us leave $`T=70`$ MeV and choose $`\rho 2\rho _0`$ as educated guesses. We are thereby increasing the equilibration density by a factor $`8`$. We then calculate the baryon density for this $`\mu _B`$ and $`T=70`$ MeV and find $`\rho =2\rho _0`$ which checks the consistency.

According to Brown et al  the $`K^+`$ production under these conditions will come chiefly from $`BBN\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$, with excited baryon states giving most of the production. From the solid curve for $`\rho /\rho _0=2`$ in fig.9 of  we find $`\sigma v2\times 10^3\mathrm{mb}=2\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^2`$. The rate equation reads

$`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{BB}^{BYK}v_{BB})n_B^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^2)\rho _B^2=dn/dt={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^4`$ (A.1)
where $`B`$, $`Y`$ and $`K`$ stand, respectively, for baryon, hyperon and kaon. For this, we have taken $`\sigma _{BB}^{BYK}v_{BB}`$ from fig.9 of  and $`\rho =2\rho _0=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{fm}^3`$. Choosing a time $`t=10\mathrm{fm}/c`$ we obtain

$`n_{K^+}\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_Kt={\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\times 10^3\mathrm{fm}^3.`$ (A.2)
Now equilibrated pions have a density

$`n_\pi =0.37(T/197\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^3\mathrm{fm}^3=0.016\mathrm{fm}^3`$ (A.3)
for $`T=70`$ MeV. From (A.2) and (A.3) we get

$`n_{K^+}/n_{\pi ^+}0.0069`$ (A.4)
which is slightly below the “equilibrated value” of 0.0084 of Table 1 of Cleymans et al . Production of $`K^+`$by pions may increase our number by $`25`$.

Our discussion of $`K^+`$production in this Appendix is in general agreement with earlier works by Ko and collaborators . In fact, if applied at the quark level, the vector mean field is conserved through the production process in heavy-ion collisions, so it affects only the strangeness condensation in which there is time for strangeness non-conservation. These earlier works establish that at the GSI energies the $`K^+`$content remains roughly constant once the fireball has expanded to $`2\rho _0`$, so that in this sense one can consider this as a chemical freeze-out density.

It should be noted that in the papers  and others, the net potential – scalar plus vector – on the $`K^+`$-meson is slightly attractive at $`\rho 2\rho _0`$ even though the repulsive vector interaction is not decoupled. Since in our top-down description the vector interaction can be thought of as applied to the quark (matter) field in the $`K^+`$, the total vector field on the initial components of a collision is then the same as on the final ones, so the vector mean fields have effectively no effect on the threshold energy of that process. Our proposal in this paper is that the vector mean field on the $`K^+`$should be below the values used by the workers in  due to the decoupling. However, in comparison with , our total potential on the $`K^+`$at $`\rho =2\rho _0`$ is $`85`$ MeV, as compared with their $`30`$ MeV. We have not redone the calculation of  to take into account this difference.