text:
# Non-Fermi liquid behavior and superconductivity in the dissipative model

## Abstract

We study an exactly-solvable model which shows a zero-temperature transition from a non-Fermi liquid to a Fermi liquid as a function of particle density. The quantum critical point separating these two states is not associated with the usual ordering transition of a bosonic degree of freedom. We analyze the properties of this critical point in terms of an effective density of states, and we use this concept to generalize this transition to a class of related quantum critical points. We study the superconducting instability of the low-density (non-Fermi liquid) regime and we show that it has an enhanced pair susceptibility relative to the Fermi liquid. We comment on the applicability of our results to low-carrier density superconductors.

In recent years there has been great interest in understanding the physics of metallic states which are not Fermi liquids—motivated largely by a host of experimental observations santabarbara96 . One route to non-Fermi liquid behavior stems from proximity to a quantum critical point hertz76 ; millis93 , in other words a zero-temperature phase transition which occurs as a parameter such as pressure or chemical composition is varied. Examples include CePd2Si2 julian96  , and CeCu6-xAux lohneysen94  which show quantum critical behavior as pressure and gold concentration are varied respectively. In both of these materials the critical point separates a magnetically ordered state from a paramagnetic one.

The metallic state of the cuprates also shows non-Fermi liquid properties. Furthermore there is evidence of a pseudogap energy scale timusk99 , $`T^{}`$, which is suppressed to zero temperature at some critical doping $`p_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ tallon01 , and it has been suggested tallon99  that this forms a quantum critical point albeit masked by superconductivity. However, if this quantum critical point is responsible for the non-Fermi liquid physics of the metallic state, it differs from the above examples in that it does not appear to have an associated ordered phase: thermodynamic measurements loram94b  show that $`T^{}`$ corresponds to a crossover and not a phase transition. It has been argued chakravarty00  that there may be a hidden order parameter, but an alternative scenario is that the cuprates show quantum criticality without associated order at finite temperature. Such behavior is common in one dimension where thermal fluctuations destroy finite-temperature order, but this motivates the search for examples of zero-temperature phase transitions in $`d>1`$ without any associated order.

In this Letter we consider a model of dissipative fermions, first studied by Wheatley wheatley91 , which possesses a zero-temperature transition but with no order other than the Fermi surface itself. At low carrier density, this model is a non-Fermi liquid metal but with a zero temperature transition to a Fermi liquid at a critical density. We characterize the model’s behavior at the critical point by the Sommerfeld coefficient and the paramagnetic susceptibility as $`T0`$. We present an interpretation of the phase diagram by introducing an effective density of states. This allows us to consider more general metal to metal transitions of this type. We also consider the superconducting instability of this model. Although our starting model is artificial, we speculate on the connection between models of this type and atom traps containing neutral fermions as well as low carrier concentration superconductors.

Our starting point is to consider a single particle of mass $`M`$ coupled to a bath of harmonic oscillators caldeira81 . This bath has a spectral density $`J(\omega )`$ and was originally introduced to mimic the dissipative effects of a real-world environment footnote1 . However, our philosophy here is to introduce the oscillator bath to give the single particle a non-trivial (i.e. non-local) dynamics in imaginary time while retaining the exact solvability of the system. This may be seen on integrating out the oscillators, which leads to a single-particle effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}=S_{\mathrm{KE}}+S_{\mathrm{diss}}`$, where $`S_{\mathrm{KE}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}M\beta _nr_nr_n\omega _n^2`$ is the kinetic energy and

$$S_{\mathrm{diss}}=\frac{2\mathrm{}M\beta }{\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_nr_n_0^{\mathrm{}}d\omega J(\omega )\frac{\omega _n^2}{\omega (\omega ^2+\omega _n^2)}.$$
(1)
Here $`r_n`$ is the Fourier component of the path in imaginary time and $`\omega _n=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\beta }{n}`$ is a Matsubara frequency. One usually chooses $`J(\omega )=\eta \omega `$ with a high-frequency cut-off $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$, so that $`S_{\mathrm{diss}}`$ corresponds classically to a frictional force proportional to velocity, $`F=\eta v`$. In the first part of this paper we also make this choice, but later we consider the consequences of more general spectral functions.

An exact expression can be found for the single-particle partition function $`z(\beta )`$ wheatley91 . When the temperature is low compared with the damping rate, $`\tau _0^1=2M/\eta `$, so $`\mathrm{}\beta /\tau _01`$, this may be simplified to

$$z(\beta )=n_0\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon _0d\beta }\left[1+\frac{d\pi \tau _0}{6\mathrm{}\beta }+O(\beta ^2)\right]$$
(2)
in $`d`$-dimensions, where $`n_0=\left(M/2\pi \mathrm{}\tau _0\right)^{d/2}`$ has the dimensions of density and $`\epsilon _0`$ depends on the details of the cut-off in $`J(\omega )`$ and will be absorbed as a shift in the band-edge. The dissipation defines an energy scale $`\epsilon _\mathrm{d}=6\mathrm{}/d\pi \tau _0`$.

Having defined the properties of the single particle we now consider a gas of such particles (i.e. fermions coupled to their own independent oscillator baths). Antisymmetrizing appropriately for fermions is most easily done using a path integral approach wheatley91  which gives the grand thermodynamic potential for the dissipative gas

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^m\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m\beta \mu }}{m\beta }z(m\beta ).$$
(3)
Wheatley wheatley91  solved this equation numerically to determine the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the susceptibility $`\chi `$, finding a $`T=0`$ phase transition from a low density ($`n<n_0`$) phase with Curie susceptibility to a high density $`(n>n_0`$) phase with Pauli susceptibility. Here we consider the system properties in the vicinity of the critical point ($`nn_0`$) and we find a generalization of the model.

The chemical potential is given by the solution of

$$n=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }\right)_T=\frac{n_0}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mu }}+\frac{n_0}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\beta }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mu });$$
(4)
once we have determined $`\mu `$, the formulas for $`\chi `$ and $`\gamma `$ follow straightforwardly. The solution of Eq. (4) in the limit $`T0`$ depends on whether we approach the critical density from higher or lower densities.

Approaching the critical density from above $`(\delta _n=\frac{n}{n_0}1>0)`$ we find

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}}\left(1+[\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\beta 1]\mathrm{e}^{\beta \epsilon _\mathrm{d}\delta _n}\right),`$ (5)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0k_\mathrm{B}^2}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}+(\beta \epsilon _\mathrm{d})^3\delta _n^2\mathrm{e}^{\beta \epsilon _\mathrm{d}\delta _n}\right).`$ (6)
We see that proximity to the critical density sets a new scale $`\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\delta _n`$. For low temperatures, $`\beta \epsilon _\mathrm{d}\delta _n1`$, the properties recover those of the free Fermi gas: $`\gamma `$ and $`\chi `$ are constant. We call this the Fermi liquid regime, although there are no Landau parameters since the particles do not interact with each other.

Approaching the critical density from below, $`\delta _n<0`$, we find $`\mu =k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{ln}(\delta _n^11)`$ and hence for small $`\delta _n`$

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \delta _n}{1\delta _n}},`$ (7)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0k_\mathrm{B}^2}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\beta \epsilon _\mathrm{d}\delta _n}}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2|\delta _n|\right].`$ (8)
There is also a residual ground state entropy in the low density phase which is given by $`S(T=0)=k_\mathrm{B}n_0(|\delta _n||\delta _n|\mathrm{ln}|\delta _n|)`$.

It is rather straightforward to see how this new phase of matter comes about. Usually the transition to a quantum fluid occurs when the thermal wavepacket of a particle starts to overlap with the wavepacket of neighboring particles. In this model dissipation cuts off the de Broglie wavelength such that for particle densities lower than $`n_0`$ the quantum liquid regime is not entered at any temperatures. For the case of a dissipative Bose gas one has the possibility of a Bose metal phase wheatley92 —the bosonic analogue of the non-Fermi liquid state that results here for dissipative fermions.

Having characterized the properties in the vicinity of the critical density, we show in Fig. 1a the results of a numerical calculation of the Sommerfeld coefficient as the critical density is approached. This clearly shows the divergence in $`\gamma `$. It also shows how the divergence is cut off at higher densities by the crossover into the Fermi liquid regime. We have calculated the form of the divergence at the critical point itself and find that $`\chi \mathrm{ln}T`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{ln}^2T`$. At a given $`T`$ the properties of the high-density regime below a crossover scale $`\delta _nT/\epsilon _\mathrm{d}`$ qualitatively resemble those of the low-density regime, which we illustrate by a dashed line on the phase diagram of Fig. 1b footnote2 . There is a second, high-temperature crossover which is set by the highest scale in the oscillator bath $`\beta \omega _c1`$, above which no dissipation is felt by the particles.

Further insight into the nature of the phase diagram and the route to generalizing this model can be found by considering the “effective” density of states. We use this term advisedly for the energy eigenstates of a dissipative particle are not well defined—it continuously interacts with the oscillator bath. However, since we have a single-particle partition function, Eq. (2), we can use it to define an effective single-particle density of states $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ via $`z(\beta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}dEg_{\mathrm{eff}}(E)\mathrm{e}^{\beta E}`$. Thus the effective density of states is formally the inverse Laplace transform of the single-particle partition function. From here it is easy to show that the thermodynamics can be obtained directly from $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ by direct substitution into the usual definition of the non-interacting thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }=T_0^{\mathrm{}}dEg(E)\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta (\mu E)}\right]`$. The effective density of states therefore captures the thermodynamics of the dissipative gas, although it does not contain information about correlations.

For the partition function of Eq. (2) we find an effective density of states near the band-edge

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}(E+\epsilon _0)=\frac{n_0}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}\left\{\delta \left(\frac{E}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}\right)+\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\frac{E}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}\right)\left[1+O\left(\frac{E}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(9)
It is the initial delta function in the effective density of states that leads to the non-Fermi liquid to Fermi liquid transition. The delta function can accommodate $`n_0`$ fermions so for $`n<n_0`$ the Fermi energy is pinned there and the entropy is clearly finite at $`T=0`$; this is the non-Fermi liquid regime. When $`n>n_0`$ the Fermi energy moves a distance $`\delta _n\epsilon _\mathrm{d}`$ above the delta function, to the region where $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is weakly energy-dependent, and the system behaves like a degenerate Fermi gas. However, when $`T\delta _n\epsilon _\mathrm{d}`$ the Fermi function is sufficiently broad that the occupancy of the delta function fluctuates and there is a crossover to dissipative behavior.

We now consider extensions of this approach to consider a wider range of Fermi liquid to non-Fermi liquid transitions that can be found for dissipative fermions. The obvious extension is to go beyond Ohmic dissipation and consider more general oscillator baths with power-law spectral densities $`J(\omega )=\eta \omega ^\alpha `$ up to a high-frequency cut-off $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$, where $`0<\alpha <2`$. Integrating out the oscillators gives (say for $`d=1`$) the partition function

$$z(\beta )=\left(\frac{M}{2\pi \beta }\right)^{1/2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\beta \omega _\mathrm{c}/2\pi }{}}\frac{\omega _n^2}{\omega _n^2+\omega _n^\alpha /\tau _0^{2\alpha }}.$$
(10)
At low temperatures, $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{}\tau _0^1`$, this is approximately

$$z(\beta )=n_0\left(\frac{\beta }{\tau _0}\right)^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon _0\beta }\left[1+\frac{2\alpha }{6}\frac{\pi \tau _0}{\mathrm{}\beta }+O(\beta ^2)\right].$$
(11)
The band edge shift $`\epsilon _0`$ is again cut-off dependent. In terms of the energy scale $`\epsilon _\alpha =6\mathrm{}/(2\alpha )\pi \tau _0`$ the inverse Laplace transform gives, to leading order in $`E/\epsilon _\alpha `$,

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}(E+\epsilon _0)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}n_0\left(\frac{E}{\epsilon _\alpha }\right)^{\frac{\alpha 3}{2}}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \hfill \alpha >1,\\ n_0\left[\delta \left(\frac{E}{\epsilon _\alpha }\right)+E\right]\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \hfill \alpha =1,\\ \begin{array}{c}\text{non-integrably}\hfill \\ \text{divergent}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \hfill \alpha <1.\end{array}$$
(12)
So, for $`\alpha <1`$ an infinite number of particles can be accommodated in the ground state and the gas is a non-Fermi liquid for all particle densities. For $`\alpha >1`$ we always have conventional Fermi gas behavior. Thus only Ohmic dissipation gives rise to a quantum phase transition between a Fermi liquid and a non-Fermi liquid.

Nevertheless, the notion of an effective density of states give us an alternative route to explore other models. Since a quantum phase transition will always be present when there is a delta function in $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we will work directly with a generalized $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}(E)=n_0/\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\left[\delta (E/\epsilon _\mathrm{d})+(E/\epsilon _\mathrm{d})^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }(E/\epsilon _\mathrm{d})\right]`$, rather than explicitly choose the spectral function of the oscillator bath. We must have $`\nu >1`$ for $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to be integrable. This gives the partition function

$$z(\beta )=n_0\left[1+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)\left(\epsilon _\mathrm{d}T\right)^{\nu +1}\right].$$
(13)
Substituting this into Eq. (3) and using the properties of the polylog Li$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}(x)=_n\frac{x^n}{n^\nu }`$ lewin81 , we find at $`n=n_0`$

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu +1)^\nu }{\nu !}}\left(\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\beta \right)^\nu \mathrm{ln}^{\nu +1}\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\beta ,`$ (14)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0k_\mathrm{B}^2}{\epsilon _\mathrm{d}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu +1)^{\nu +2}}{\nu !}}\left(\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\beta \right)^\nu \mathrm{ln}^{\nu +2}\epsilon _\mathrm{d}\beta .`$ (15)
Thus only for $`\alpha 0`$ is the quantum critical point characterized by divergences in $`\chi `$ and $`\gamma `$. Note that for all $`\alpha `$ the Wilson ratio $`\gamma /\chi `$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}T`$.

We now address the applicability of this model to real physical systems. Our method of including all non-trivial effects via a bath of oscillators has parallels with dynamical mean field theory where interactions are included via a self-consistent frequency-dependent self-energy georges96 ; si99 . We have not sought a self-consistent approach since our goal was to categorize all the possible transitions in the model. Nevertheless our starting model may be directly relevant to physical systems such as low density Fermi gases which couple primarily to low energy bosonic modes rather than each other. In particular, this necessitates short range interactions. Examples could include neutral 6Li ions in atom traps where the bosonic modes would be the “optical molasses” of laser cooling giving a dissipative environment chu85 .

In a condensed matter context we apply this to very low carrier density metals with strong electron-phonon coupling but in a temperature window where the Coulomb repulsion does not dominate (above any tendency to Wigner crystallize for example). One possible case is SrTiO3. This is a band insulator mattheis72  but becomes a superconductor with $`T_\mathrm{c}<1`$ K schooley65  on electron doping to a concentration of about $`10^{21}`$ cm-3. The mechanism of superconductivity in this material has long been in question not least because superconductivity only appears below a critical density. It is therefore natural to ask whether the non-Fermi liquid state we have considered is unstable to pairing.

We calculate the pair susceptibility in the dissipative model via the pair propagator schofield95 . In $`d`$ dimensions the real-space density matrix $`\rho (r,\beta )`$ for a dissipative particle is given approximately by

$$\rho \left(\frac{m}{\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{d/2}\left[\frac{1}{(\mathrm{}\beta )^{d/2}}+\frac{1}{\tau _0^{d/2}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{r^2}{2}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2\beta }+\frac{1}{\xi ^2}\right)\right]$$
(16)
where $`\xi =\sqrt{\pi \mathrm{}\tau _0/m\mathrm{ln}2}`$ is a dissipation length. The Matsubara Green’s function can then be calculated using $`G_{\omega _n}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (r,x)\mathrm{e}^{(\mu +\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\omega _n)x}dx`$, which follows from the definitions of $`G_{\omega _n}`$ and $`\rho `$ schofield95 . This integral is only well defined for $`\mu <0`$, which is the case for densities $`n<\frac{n_0}{2}`$, but it can be analytically continued to all $`\mu `$, as can be checked by evaluating it for free fermions. Substituting Eq. (16) with $`d`$=3 yields

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{\omega _n}(r)\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{e}^{r^2/2\xi ^2}\mathrm{e}^{r\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}(\mu \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\omega _n)}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{mr^2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _0}\right)^{3/2}\frac{1}{\mu +\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\omega _n}\right].\end{array}$$
(17)
From the definition of the pair propagator $`K(r)=T_{\omega _n}G_{\omega _n}(r)G_{\omega _n}(r)`$ we can determine $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in the usual way as the solution of $`1=d𝒓V(r)K(r,\beta )`$. We consider a BCS-like attractive potential with small finite width $`r_0`$. For $`n<n_0`$ this leads to

$$T_\mathrm{c}=V_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{}\tau _0}\right)^{3/2}\frac{1\frac{2n}{n_0}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{n_0}{n}1)},$$
(18)
where the normalized potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ depends on the details of $`V(r)`$ at $`r<r_0`$. For $`n>n_0`$, on the other hand, $`T_c`$ is heavily suppressed and superconductivity does not occur for arbitrarily small $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The dependence of $`T_c`$ on $`n`$ is shown in Fig. 1b. The pairing enhancement can be traced back to the delta function in $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}(E)`$.

However, we can expect a different field dependence of the upper critical field, $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$, for superconductivity in the dissipative model because of the appearance of the dissipation length scale. A magnetic field destroys superconductivity by dephasing the two electrons that make up a Cooper pair; in a dissipative gas the electrons are already dephased due to the oscillator bath and so we expect a field to have negligible effect at small $`T`$. $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ is given by the solution of $`1=_{r>r_0}^{\mathrm{}}d𝒓K(r,\beta )\mathrm{e}^{eB_{c2}r^2/2\mathrm{}}`$ helfand66 . For $`n<n_0`$ we find just below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ that $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}=\frac{4\mathrm{ln}2}{3\pi }\frac{m}{e\tau _0}\left(1\frac{T}{T_\mathrm{c}}\right)`$, and at low temperatures $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)\mathrm{ln}T`$. In practice this divergence in $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ would be cut off by Landau quantization effects which we have not included.

So we expect a significant enhancement in the upper critical field in the dissipative model compared with $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(0)/T_\mathrm{c}^2`$ which for a Fermi liquid is $`2\pi ^2\frac{\mathrm{}}{e}\left(\frac{m^{}k_\mathrm{B}}{\mathrm{}^2k_\mathrm{F}}\right)^2`$. In thin films of SrTiO3 leitner00  this ratio is enhanced by about an order of magnitude relative to the Fermi liquid expression, where $`m^{}=5.3m_0`$ is determined from $`\gamma `$ ambler66 . Thus SrTiO3 qualitatively resembles the dissipative gas both in its phase diagram and its relative insensitivity to applied magnetic fields.

To summarize, we have considered the Fermi liquid to non-Fermi liquid zero-temperature transition in a model of dissipative fermions. This critical point occurs without any associated ordering and may be generalized via the concept of an effective density of states. At low temperatures the non-Fermi liquid shows an enhanced pairing susceptibility and a phase diagram similar to the low density superconductor SrTiO3. More generally, this type of non-Fermi liquid state could occur during laser cooling in fermionic atom traps.

We thank M. W. Long and I. V. Lerner for useful discussions. PCH is supported by EPSRC and AJS by the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded through project PESO/2000/PRO/40143 by the portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia - FCT. OJCD also acknowledges finantial support from FCT through PRAXIS XXI programme. JPSL thanks Observatório Nacional do Rio de Janeiro for hospitality.


text:
# Nonequilibrium Dynamics of the Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation. I. Analytical Results

## I Introduction

There have been many studies of pattern formation in the complex Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equation, which has the general form:

$$\frac{\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}=\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)+(1+i\alpha )^2\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)(1+i\beta )|\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)|^2\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(1)
In Eq. (1), $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is a complex order-parameter field which depends on space ($`\stackrel{}{r}`$) and time ($`t`$); and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are real parameters. The CGL equation arises in diverse contexts, e.g., chemical oscillations ; thermal convection in binary fluids ; multi-mode lasers ; etc. An overview of applications of the CGL equation is provided in the review article by Cross and Hohenberg . The importance of the CGL equation stems from the fact that it provides a generic description of the slow modulation of oscillations in a spatially-extended system near a Hopf bifurcation .

The CGL equation exhibits a rich range of dynamical behavior with variation of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, and the “phase diagram” has been investigated (mostly numerically) by various authors . In a large range of parameter space, the emergence and interaction of spiral (and antispiral) defects plays an important role in determining the morphology. Our present work focuses on characterizing pattern formation in the CGL equation using spiral-defect structures.

We have analytically and numerically studied nonequilibrium dynamics in the CGL equation with $`\alpha =0`$. Typically, we consider the evolution morphology resulting from a small-amplitude random initial condition. There has been intense research interest in such problems in the context of far-from-equilibrium statistical physics – for reviews, see . The simplest problem in this class considers a homogeneous two-phase mixture, which has been rendered thermodynamically unstable by a rapid quench below the critical co-existence temperature. An example of such a system is a 2-state ferromagnet (in zero magnetic field) at high temperatures, which consists of a homogeneous mixture of “up” and “down” spins. However, below the critical temperature, the system prefers to be in a spontaneously-magnetized state. The evolution of the system from the unstable initial state is a complex nonlinear process. In appropriate dimensionless units, this evolution is described by the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation, i.e., Eq. (1) with $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ real, and $`\alpha =\beta =0`$. The system evolves by the formation and growth of domains which are enriched in either up or down spins, and are characterized by a time-dependent length scale, $`L(t)`$. In the case of a pure and isotropic ferromagnet, the domain growth law is $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$, which is referred to as the Lifshitz-Cahn-Allen (LCA) law . The primary mechanism for domain coarsening (or “phase ordering dynamics”) is the curvature-driven motion and annihilation of interfaces (or defects). Ohta et al.  have formulated an interface-dynamics approach to obtain an analytic form for the equal-time correlation function of a phase-ordering ferromagnet.

Next, let us consider the dynamical XY model, which is Eq. (1) with $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ complex, but $`\alpha =\beta =0`$. In this case, the relevant defect structures (for dimensionality $`d2`$) are vortices (or vortex lines, etc.), and domain growth is driven by the motion and annihilation of vortices and anti-vortices. Puri  has obtained the time-dependent correlation function for the XY model, using singular-perturbation methods due to Suzuki , Kawasaki et al. , and Puri and Roland . Furthermore, Bray and Puri  and (independently) Toyoki  have obtained the time-dependent correlation function for the vector TDGL equation with $`O(n)`$ symmetry in $`d`$ dimensions when $`nd`$, i.e., when topological defects are present. (The dynamical XY model corresponds to the case with $`O(2)`$ symmetry.) The corresponding domain growth law is again the LCA law, $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$, with logarithmic corrections when $`n=d`$ . To the best of our knowledge, there are no general results available for the case with $`n>d`$, where the absence of topological defects makes it difficult to characterize the dynamical evolution.

The present two-stage exposition focuses on phase ordering dynamics in the CGL equation with $`\alpha =0`$. Furthermore, the analytical and numerical results presented here are for the $`2`$-dimensional case, where spirals are point defects. However, the analytical results obtained by us can be easily extended to the case with $`\alpha 0`$ and $`d2`$, as the underlying paradigm remains the same, i.e., spiral defects still determine the morphology in large regions of parameter space and for higher dimensionality.

Following the work of Hagan , Aranson et al. , and Chate and Manneville , we briefly discuss the phase diagram of the $`d=2`$ CGL equation with $`\alpha =0`$. The limit $`\beta =0`$ corresponds to the dynamical XY model, which is well understood . Without loss of generality, we consider the case with $`\beta 0`$. For $`0\beta \beta _1`$ ($`\beta _11.397`$ ), spirals (which are asymptotically plane-waves) are linearly stable to fluctuations. For $`\beta _1<\beta \beta _2`$ ($`\beta _21.82`$ ), spirals are linearly unstable to fluctuations, but the growing fluctuations are advected away, i.e., the spiral structure is globally stable. Finally, for $`\beta _2<\beta `$, the spirals are globally unstable structures and cannot exist for extended times . Our results correspond to the parameter regime with $`\beta \beta _2`$.

In this paper (referred to as $`\mathrm{I}`$), we present analytical studies of the correlation function resulting from single-spiral and multi-spiral morphologies. The next paper (referred to as $`\mathrm{II}`$) presents detailed numerical results and compares them with the analytical results of $`\mathrm{I}`$. This paper is organized as follows. In Section $`\mathrm{II}`$, we obtain analytical results for the correlation function of a single-spiral morphology. In Section $`\mathrm{III}`$, we critically examine the utility of the Gaussian auxiliary field (GAF) ansatz  for the characterization of a multi-spiral morphology. Section $`\mathrm{IV}`$ concludes this paper with a brief summary and discussion of our analytical results.

## II Correlation Function for a Single-Spiral Morphology

Figure 1 shows a typical evolution from a small-amplitude random initial condition for the $`d=2`$ CGL equation with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta =1`$. We have plotted constant-phase regions in this figure, and it is clear that the evolving morphology is characterized by spirals and their interactions. (We use the term “spiral” for both spirals and antispirals, unless specifically stated otherwise.) There is a characteristic length scale, e.g., inter-spiral spacing or square root of inverse defect density, which we denote as $`L`$. Details of our simulation techniques and comprehensive numerical results will be provided in paper $`\mathrm{II}`$. Figure 1 is shown here only to motivate our subsequent discussion.

We would like to quantitatively characterize the evolution morphology shown in Figure $`1`$. The standard tool for this is the correlation function of the order-parameter field , which we will define shortly. (The momentum-space structure factor is obtained as the Fourier transform of the real-space correlation function.) At the simplest level of approximation, the morphology in the frames of Figure $`1`$ can be interpreted as consisting of disjoint spirals, each of size $`L`$. (Of course, this overlooks modulations of the order-parameter field at spiral-spiral boundaries, but we will discuss that later.) Therefore, it is obviously of relevance to compute the correlation function for a single-spiral solution.

The CGL equation with $`\alpha =0`$ has been studied by Hagan , who found that there is a family of spiral solutions with the following functional form (in $`d=2`$):

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\rho (r)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\beta (1q^2)t+im\theta i\varphi (r)\right],$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}(r,\theta )`$; $`q0`$ is a constant which is determined uniquely as a function of $`\beta `$; and $`m`$ is the number of arms in the spiral. The cases with $`m>0`$ and $`m<0`$ correspond to a spiral and antispiral, respectively. The limiting forms of the functions $`\rho (r)`$ and $`\varphi (r)`$ are

$`\rho (r)(1q^2)^{1/2},\varphi ^{}(r)q,\text{as}r\mathrm{},`$ (3)
$`\rho (r)ar^m,\varphi ^{}(r)r,\text{as}r0,`$ (4)
where the constant $`a`$ is determined by finiteness conditions. Hagan has presented explicit solutions for $`q(\beta )`$ in the cases with $`m=1,2`$. We will focus on the case with $`m=\pm 1`$, as only the 1-armed spirals are expected to be stable in the evolution . Figure 2 plots Hagan’s solution for $`q(\beta )`$ (with $`\beta 1.5`$) in the case with $`m=\pm 1`$. In the simple limit $`\beta =0`$, we have $`q=0`$, and the spiral solution simplifies to the vortex solution – for the $`m=\pm 1`$ vortex, the lines of constant phase correspond to constant $`\theta `$. Spiral solutions for the general case with $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$ have been discussed by Aranson et al. .

We are interested in the correlation function for a $`1`$-armed spiral at large length scales, so we simplify Eq. (2) as

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)\sqrt{1q^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\beta (1q^2)t+i(\theta qr)\right],$$
(5)
where we have specialized to the $`m=1`$ case. The correlation between points $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$ is determined as

$`C(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left\{\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_1,t)\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_2,t)\right\}`$ (6)
$``$ $`(1q^2)\text{Re}\left\{\mathrm{exp}[i(\theta _1qr_1)i(\theta _2qr_2)]\right\}`$ (7)
$``$ $`C(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2).`$ (8)
The average correlation function is obtained by integrating over the point $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$, setting $`\stackrel{}{r}_2=\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12}`$, i.e.,

$`C(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_1C(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12})h(L|\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12}|)}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1q^2)}{V}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_1\mathrm{exp}[i(\theta _1\theta _2qr_1+q|\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12}|)]h(L|\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12}|)},`$ (10)
where $`V`$ is the spiral volume. In Eq. (9), we use the step function, $`h(x)=1(0)`$ if $`x0`$ ($`x<0`$), which ensures that we do not include points which lie outside the defect of size $`L`$.

For $`d=2`$, the vector notation $`\stackrel{}{r}_2=\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12}`$ is equivalent to $`r_2e^{i\theta _2}=r_1e^{i\theta _1}+r_{12}e^{i\theta _{12}}`$. Thus, we have

$$e^{i\theta _2}=\frac{r_1e^{i\theta _1}+r_{12}e^{i\theta _{12}}}{\left[r_1^2+r_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2r_1r_{12}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _{12})\right]^{1/2}},$$
(11)
and

$`C(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1q^2)}{V}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle _0^L}dr_1r_1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{r_1+r_{12}e^{i(\theta _1\theta _{12})}}{\left[r_1^2+r_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2r_1r_{12}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _{12})\right]^{1/2}}}\times `$ (13)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(iq\left\{r_1\left[r_1^2+r_{12}^2+2r_1r_{12}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _{12})\right]^{1/2}\right\}\right)h(L|\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_{12}|).`$
We introduce the variables $`\theta _1\theta _{12}=\theta `$; $`x=r_1/L`$; $`r=r_{12}/L`$, to obtain

$`C(r_{12})={\displaystyle \frac{(1q^2)}{\pi }}\text{Re}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxx{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\theta {\displaystyle \frac{x+re^{i\theta }}{(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{1/2}}}\times `$ (14)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[iqL\left\{x(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{1/2}\right\}\right]h[1(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{1/2}],`$ (15)
where we have used $`V=\pi L^2`$ in $`d=2`$. Thus, the scaling form of the single-spiral correlation function is $`C(r_{12})/C(0)g(r_{12}/L,q^2L^2)`$. In general, there is no scaling with the spiral size because of the additional factor $`qL`$. We recover scaling only in the limit $`q=0`$ ($`\beta =0`$), which corresponds to the case of a vortex. Essentially, spirals of different sizes are not morphologically equivalent because there is more rotation in the phase as one goes out further from the core.

Figure 3 plots $`C(r_{12})/C(0)`$ vs. $`r_{12}/L`$ for the case with $`\beta =1`$ ($`q0.306`$). These results are obtained by a direct numerical integration of Eq. (14). We consider $`4`$ different values of $`L`$. The functional form in Figure $`3`$ exhibits near-monotonic behavior for small values of $`L`$ (i.e., in the vortex limit); and pronounced oscillatory behavior for larger value of $`L`$, as is expected from the integral expression. Notice that $`r_{12}/L2`$ – larger values of $`r_{12}`$ correspond to the point $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$ lying outside the defect.

Before we proceed, we should point out that the imaginary part of the integral in Eq. (14) is non-zero, in general – corresponding to a weak correlation between the real and imaginary parts of the order-parameter field. The imaginary part can also be obtained with relative ease. However, we will confine our discussion to the conventional definition of the correlation function in Eq. (6). Let us next consider the asymptotic behavior of the correlation function in the limit $`r_{12}/L0`$, though $`r_{12}`$ is still much larger than the size of the defect core $`\xi `$.

### A Case with $`\beta =0`$

In the case with $`\beta =0`$, we have $`q=0`$ and the integral expression in Eq. (14) simplifies as

$$C(r_{12})=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Re}_0^1𝑑xx_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \frac{x+re^{i\theta }}{(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{1/2}}h\left[1(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{1/2}\right].$$
(16)
The behavior in the $`r0`$ limit is of considerable interest as it determines the large-wavevector ($`k\mathrm{}`$) behavior of the structure factor . In that case, we can neglect the step function on the right-hand-side (RHS) of Eq. (16) as it only provides corrections at the edge of the vortex defect. Then, after some algebra, we obtain the result

$$C(r_{12})=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})^2}{n!^2}[A_n(r)B_n(r)],$$
(17)
where

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill A_n(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{5}r^22r^2\mathrm{ln}r,n=1\hfill & \\ & \\ \frac{(4n+1)}{(n1)(2n+3)}r^2\frac{1}{(n1)}r^{2n},n1,\hfill & \end{array}\end{array}`$ (22)
and

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill B_n(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{3}r^2r^2\mathrm{ln}r,n=0\hfill & \\ & \\ \frac{(2n+1)(4n+3)}{2n(n+1)(2n+3)}r^2\frac{(2n+1)}{2n(n+1)}r^{2n+2},n0.\hfill & \end{array}\end{array}`$ (27)
This result is implicit in an earlier work of Bray and Humayun , who focused upon the singular part of this function. In the limit $`r0`$, the singular terms in $`C(r)`$ arise from $`A_1(r)`$ and $`B_0(r)`$, and can be computed as

$$C_{\text{sing}}(r_{12})=\frac{1}{2}r^2\mathrm{ln}r,$$
(28)
which gives rise to a power-law tail in the structure factor, $`S(k)4\pi L^2(kL)^4`$, a result referred to as the “generalized Porod law” .

### B Case with $`\beta 0`$

We would like to undertake a similar asymptotic analysis in the general case with $`\beta 0`$. As we are only interested in the limit $`r0`$, we again discard the step function on the RHS of Eq. (14). In that case, we obtain

$$C(r_{12})=\frac{(1q^2)}{\pi }\text{Re}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(iqL)^n}{n!}_0^1𝑑xxe^{iqLx}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta (x+r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^{\frac{n1}{2}}.$$
(29)
We will separately consider the cases with $`n`$ odd and $`n`$ even.
(i) $`n`$ odd:

We designate $`n=2p+1`$ and consider the angular integral on the RHS of Eq. (29):

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{2p+1}(x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta (x+r\mathrm{cos}\theta )(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta )^p`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`2xr^{2p}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{r}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^p+2r^{2p+1}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{r}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^p`$ (31)
$``$ $`2xr^{2p}I_1+2r^{2p+1}I_2.`$ (32)
The integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are obtained from Gradshteyn and Ryzhik , and the consolidated result is

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{2p+1}(x,r)=2\pi [\underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}(_k^p)^2x^{2k+1}r^{2(pk)}+r^2\underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{p1}{2}\right]}{}}(_k^p)(_{k+1}^{p+k})x^{2k+1}r^{2k}(x^2+r^2)^{p2k1}],$$
(33)
where $`\left[y\right]`$ refers to the integer part of $`y`$. The corresponding contribution to $`C(r_{12})`$ is

$$C_1(r_{12})=\frac{1q^2}{\pi }\underset{n=1,3,5,..}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{\frac{n1}{2}}\frac{(qL)^n}{n!}_0^1𝑑xx\mathrm{sin}(qLx)\stackrel{~}{I}_n(x,r).$$
(34)
The important feature here is that the above expression for $`C_1(r_{12})`$ only contains powers of $`r^2`$. Therefore, the overall contribution to $`C(r_{12})`$ from this set of terms is analytic as $`r0`$. In the limiting case $`q=0`$ ($`\beta =0`$), the above contribution is identically $`0`$.
(ii) $`n`$ even:

Next, let us consider the case with $`n`$ even. We designate $`n=2p`$, and the angular integral on the RHS of Eq. (29) is

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{2p}(x,r)=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta (x+r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left(x^2+r^2+2xr\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^{p1/2}.$$
(35)
Introduce $`\rho _<=\text{min}(x,r)`$ and $`\rho _>=\text{max}(x,r)`$ to obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{2p}(x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`2\rho _>^{2p1}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta (x+r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho _<}{\rho _>}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^{p1/2}`$ (36)
$``$ $`2\rho _>^{2p1}(xI_3+rI_4).`$ (37)
The integrals $`I_3`$ and $`I_4`$ can be computed in terms of hypergeometric functions as follows :

$$I_3=\pi F(\frac{1}{2}p,\frac{1}{2}p;1;\frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}),$$
(38)
and

$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+p\right){\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<}{\rho _>}}F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p;2;{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}})\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<}{\rho _>}}F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p;1;{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}})`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`\pi \left(p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<}{\rho _>}}F({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}p,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p;2;{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}}).`$ (40)
We have simplified Eq. (39) using the standard identity

$$(ca1)F(a,b;c;z)+aF(a+1,b;c;z)=(c1)F(a,b;c1;z),$$
(41)
with $`a=1/2p`$, $`b=1/2p`$, $`c=2`$.

Combining the expressions for $`I_3`$ and $`I_4`$, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{2p}(x,r)=2\pi \rho _>^{2p1}\left[xF(\frac{1}{2}p,\frac{1}{2}p;1;\frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2})+r\frac{\rho _<}{\rho _>}\left(p\frac{1}{2}\right)F(\frac{3}{2}p,\frac{1}{2}p;2;\frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2})\right].$$
(42)
The corresponding terms in the correlation function are

$`C_2(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`(1q^2){\displaystyle \underset{n=0,2,4,..}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(qL)^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxx\mathrm{cos}(qLx)\times `$ (44)
$`\left[2x\rho _>^{n1}F({\displaystyle \frac{1n}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1n}{2}};1;{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}})+r\rho _>^{n2}\rho _<(n1)F({\displaystyle \frac{3n}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1n}{2}};2;{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _<^2}{\rho _>^2}})\right]`$
$``$ $`(1q^2)(T_1+T_2).`$ (45)
The singular contributions to $`C(r_{12})`$ as $`r0`$ arise entirely from $`C_2(r_{12})`$, as $`C_1(r_{12})`$ is analytic in $`r`$. A considerable amount of algebra is involved in extracting the singular terms in $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. For the sake of brevity, we will only sketch the broad features of the calculation here. We have

$$T_1=2\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^p\frac{(qL)^{2p}}{(2p)!\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}p\right)^2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}p+m\right)^2}{m!^2}_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{cos}(qLx)x^2\frac{\rho _<^{2m}}{\rho _>^{2(mp)+1}},$$
(46)
where we have used the standard expansion for the hypergeometric function . The integral on the RHS of Eq. (46) can be written as

$$I_5=\frac{1}{r^{2(mp)+1}}_0^r𝑑x\mathrm{cos}(qLx)x^{2m+2}+r^{2m}_r^1𝑑x\mathrm{cos}(qLx)x^{2(mp)+1}.$$
(47)
The first term on the RHS of Eq. (47) is analytic as $`r0`$. The second term contributes singular terms only if $`mp+1`$, yielding the result

$$I_5=(1)^{mp}\frac{(qL)^{2(mp1)}}{[2(mp1)]!}r^{2m}\mathrm{ln}r+\text{analytic terms}.$$
(48)
Replacing this in the expression for $`T_1`$, some algebra yields

$$T_1=\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{p+m+1}\frac{(qL)^{2(p+m)}}{(2p)!(2m)!}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}+m\right)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}p\right)^2(m+p+1)!^2}r^{2(m+p+1)}\mathrm{ln}r+\text{analytic terms}.$$
(49)
A similar analysis for $`T_2`$ yields

$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{p+m}{\displaystyle \frac{(qL)^{2(p+m)}}{(2p)!(2m)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+m\right)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}p\right)^2(m+p)!^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2m+1)}{(m+p+1)}}r^{2(m+p+1)}\mathrm{ln}r+`$ (51)
$`\text{analytic terms}.`$
We can combine the singular terms from $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ to obtain the singular part of $`C(r_{12})`$ as follows:

$`C_{\text{sing}}(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{p+m}{\displaystyle \frac{(qL)^{2(p+m)}}{(2p)!(2m)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+m\right)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}p\right)^2(m+p+1)!^2}}\times `$ (53)
$`(2m+1)(2p+1)r^{2(m+p+1)}\mathrm{ln}r.`$
We notice that the leading-order singularity is unchanged and continues to be $`C_{\text{sing}}(r_{12})\frac{1}{2}r^2\mathrm{ln}r`$, as in the case with $`\beta =0`$. However, there is now a sequence of sub-dominant singularities proportional to $`(qL)^2r^4\mathrm{ln}r`$, $`(qL)^4r^6\mathrm{ln}r`$, etc., and these become increasingly important as the length scale $`L`$ increases. These sub-dominant terms in $`C_{\text{sing}}(r_{12})`$ are reminiscent of the leading-order singularities in models with $`O(n)`$ symmetry, where $`n`$ is even . Of course, in the context of $`O(n)`$ models, these singularities only arise for $`nd`$ as there are no topological defects unless this condition is satisfied. In the present context, all these terms are already present for $`d=2`$. The implication for the structure-factor tail is a sequence of power-law decays with $`S(k)(qL)^{2(m1)}L^d/(kL)^{d+2m}`$, where $`m=1,2`$, etc. Thus, though the true asymptotic behavior in $`d=2`$ is still the generalized Porod tail, $`S(k)L^2(kL)^4`$, it may be difficult to disentangle this from other power-law decays.

The results presented in this section are of relevance in determining the small-distance behavior of the correlation function, or the large-wavevector behavior of the structure factor. This is because small length-scales only probe individual defects. Nevertheless, as our numerical results in paper II will demonstrate, the single-spiral correlation function agrees with the correlation function for multi-spiral morphologies (obtained numerically) over a considerable range of distances. For even larger length-scales, we have to explicitly account for the modulation of the order parameter at defect-defect boundaries. We address this problem in the next section of this paper.

## III Utility of Gaussian Auxiliary Field Ansatz for a Multi-Spiral Morphology

The evolution in Figure 1 is characterized by a morphology with multiple spirals and anti-spirals. Initially, spirals and anti-spirals are attracted to each other and annihilate, thereby decreasing the defect density and increasing the inter-defect distance (or characteristic length scale). When the defect density is large, the spiral sizes are small and spirals are similar to vortices. Therefore, we expect an initial coarsening regime which is analogous to that for the XY model – both in terms of the domain growth law, $`L(t)(t/\mathrm{ln}t)^{1/2}`$ ; and the morphology, as characterized by the correlation function . This is in accordance with our numerical simulations, as we discuss in paper II. Distinctive effects of spirals are seen for length scales $`L>L_c`$, where $`L_cq^1`$ – clearly, $`L_c\mathrm{}`$ as $`q0`$ (or $`\beta 0`$). Furthermore, there is a repulsive spiral-antispiral potential beyond a certain distance, which prevents the annealing of all defects . Thus, the evolving system “freezes” (in a statistical sense) into a multi-spiral morphology. This should be contrasted with the case of the dynamical XY model ($`\alpha =\beta =0`$ in Eq. (1)), where we expect the zero-temperature system to continue coarsening as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

A common theme in the characterization of dynamical evolution with a nonconserved order parameter is the introduction of a Gaussian auxiliary field (GAF) . Essentially, the GAF ansatz takes the form $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)=F[m(\stackrel{}{r},t)]`$, where the function $`F[m]`$ is determined from the defect structure, and the complex field $`m`$ (which measures the location relative to the defect core) is assumed to obey a Gaussian distribution. The zero-crossings of the field $`m`$ correspond to the location of defect cores. The GAF ansatz enables a straightforward computation of the correlation function for the field $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$. However, the analytical justification for the GAF ansatz is meagre and its primary virtue appears to be that it works rather well in some situations .

Let us examine the utility of the GAF ansatz in the present context. The appropriate form of the ansatz for the CGL equation in the regime where the spiral structures are well-developed is (using Hagan’s solution for the spiral defect)

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)\frac{\sqrt{1q^2}m(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{\sqrt{1q^2+|m(\stackrel{}{r},t)|^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\omega t+q|m(\stackrel{}{r},t)|)\right],$$
(54)
where $`\omega =\beta (1q^2)`$; and we take $`|\psi ||m|`$ near the defect core ($`|m|0`$), in accordance with Hagan’s solution. The field $`m(=m_1+im_2)`$ is assumed to obey a Gaussian distribution with

$$P(m_i)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_i^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right),i=1,2,$$
(55)
where $`\sigma ^2=m_i(\stackrel{}{r},t)^2`$; and the fields $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`m_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ are taken to be statistically independent of each other.

Our numerical results show that the GAF ansatz in Eq. (54) is reasonable in the vicinity of defects. However, it is inappropriate for defect-defect boundaries, where the order-parameter amplitude $`|\psi |`$ is often larger than $`\sqrt{1q^2}`$. This is demonstrated in Figure 4, which replots Figure 1 with defect locations marked by asterisks; and regions where $`|\psi |>\sqrt{1q^2}`$ marked in black. As discussed before, for early times (e.g., $`t=25`$), the system evolution is governed by the interaction of vortices. Thus, the appropriate GAF ansatz should have max($`|\psi |)=1`$, as in the case of the XY model. For late times (e.g., $`t=1000`$), the system has well-developed spirals. Nevertheless, the GAF ansatz for the order-parameter field is obviously inappropriate for large regions of space at these parameter values. For other values of $`\beta `$, the same general arguments apply though there are changes in the crossover time to spiral-mediated growth; and the fraction of spatial region where the GAF ansatz is unreasonable.

Let us examine the validity of the GAF ansatz in regions where $`|\psi |<\sqrt{1q^2}`$. We can simplify the ansatz in Eq. (54) by defining the variable $`m^{}=me^{i\varphi }`$, where $`\varphi =\omega t+q|m|`$. Then, we have the corresponding probability distribution for (say) $`m_1^{}`$ as

$`P^{}(m_1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m_2\delta (m_1^{}m_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi m_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )P(m_1)P(m_2)`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sigma ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m_2\delta (m_1^{}m_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi m_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2\sigma ^2}}\right).`$ (57)
As usual, we transform ($`m_1,m_2`$) $``$ ($`|m|,\theta `$) to obtain

$$P^{}(m_1^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}d|m||m|\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|m|^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \delta (m_1^{}|m|\mathrm{cos}(\theta \varphi )).$$
(58)
Because of the periodicity of the function $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta \varphi )`$, the phase factor $`\varphi `$ is inconsequential and

$$P^{}(m_1^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\sigma ^2}\right),$$
(59)
and a similar distribution also applies for the variable $`m_2^{}`$.

Thus, we have the appropriate GAF ansatz (dropping primes) as follows:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{\sqrt{1q^2}m(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{\sqrt{1q^2+|m(\stackrel{}{r},t)|^2}},$$
(60)
where the variables $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`m_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ ($`m(\stackrel{}{r},t)=m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)+im_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$) are Gaussian and independent of each other. The inverse relation between the variables $`\psi `$ and $`m`$ is

$$m(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{\sqrt{1q^2}\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)}{\sqrt{1q^2|\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)|^2}}.$$
(61)
We want to examine the validity of the GAF ansatz numerically  in the context of the evolution depicted in Figure 1 (or Figure 4). The appropriate parameter values are $`\beta =1`$ and $`q0.306`$  (see Figure 2). In Figure 5, we plot the single-variable distribution for the field $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, obtained directly from our simulation of the CGL equation using Eq. (61) in regions where $`|\psi |<\sqrt{1q^2}`$. The data in Figure 5 is obtained as an average over 5 independent runs for $`N^2`$-lattices, with $`N=512`$. (Details of our simulation will be provided in paper $`\mathrm{II}`$ of this exposition.) Figure 5(a) is a plot of $`P(m_1)`$ vs. $`m_1`$ from 4 different times – corresponding to the evolution pictures shown in Figure 1. In Figure 5(b), we have scaled variables and superposed the data for $`P(m_1)\sigma `$ vs. $`m_1/\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is obtained from the best-fit of the numerical data to the functional form in Eq. (59). The data collapses onto a single master curve, which is reasonably approximated by the Gaussian form $`P(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{x^2}{2}}`$, denoted as a solid line in Figure 5(b).

Figure 5 has been obtained by focusing only on regions where $`|\psi |<\sqrt{1q^2}`$, which is essentially equivalent to considering disjoint spirals, for which the correlation function has already been obtained in Section II. We have examined various ad-hoc methods of improving the GAF ansatz in Eq. (60). For example, one could set the saturation amplitude of the order parameter to its maximum value ($`|\psi |_{\text{sat}}1`$ for Figure 1), rather than $`|\psi |_{\text{sat}}=\sqrt{1q^2}`$. Figure 6 plots the resultant probability distributions, $`P(m_1)`$ vs. $`m_1`$, with $`|\psi |_{\text{sat}}=1`$. For early times ($`t=25`$), the distribution has a Gaussian form, as expected from our analogy with the XY model. However, with the emergence of well-formed spirals, the distribution develops a double-peak and is clearly non-Gaussian.

We have also studied some other possible ways of rectifying the GAF ansatz. We find that these ad-hoc approaches invariably result in non-Gaussian distributions for the auxiliary field. Perhaps a more honest approach should be based on the order-parameter field for spiral-spiral pairs  as a function of two independent auxiliary fields – referring to distances from the centers of the two spirals. We are presently studying the utility of such an approach for characterizing the multi-spiral morphology.

## IV Summary and Discussion

Let us conclude this paper with a brief summary and discussion of our results. We have undertaken a detailed analytical and numerical investigation of nonequilibrium dynamics in a special case of the complex Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equation. Our results are described in a two-stage exposition. This paper (referred to as $`\mathrm{I}`$) constitutes the first stage of this exposition, and describes analytical results for the time-dependent correlation function. Our analytical arguments rely on the significance of spiral-defect structures in determining the morphology and evolution of the CGL equation from a random initial condition.

In this paper, we describe results for the exact correlation function $`C(r_{12})`$ of a single spiral defect of size $`L`$, and undertake its asymptotic analysis in the limit $`r_{12}/L0`$ but $`r_{12}/\xi 1`$, where $`\xi `$ is the size of the defect core. We find that there is a sequence of singularities in this limit, which are reminiscent of singularities for defects with $`O(n)`$ symmetry, where $`n`$ is even. However, the dominant singularity as $`r_{12}/L0`$ corresponds to the case of vortex defects, as expected. The implications for the large-wavevector tail of the structure factor are also discussed.

We also investigate the validity of the Gaussian auxiliary field (GAF) ansatz in the context of multi-spiral morphologies. For early times ($`L<L_cq^1`$), domain growth in the CGL equation is analogous to that for the XY model, whose domain growth law and correlation function are well understood . For later times, we find that the simple GAF ansatz is not reasonable, as it is unable to account for order-parameter modulations in the defect-defect boundaries. We have attempted ad-hoc improvements of the GAF ansatz but these invariably result in non-Gaussian distributions for the corresponding auxiliary field. We are presently investigating the possibility of formulating a generalized GAF ansatz in terms of the order-parameter field for a spiral-spiral pair.

More generally, the utility of the GAF ansatz arises from the summation over phases from many defects, which results in a near-Gaussian distribution for the auxiliary field. However, in the present context, the shocks between spirals effectively isolate one spiral region from the influence of other regions. As a matter of fact, the waves from other spirals decay exponentially through the shock and the phase of a point is always dominated by the nearest spiral. Therefore, we expect that the correlation function will be dominated by the single-spiral result – in accordance with our numerical results.

The next paper in this exposition (referred to as $`\mathrm{II}`$) will present detailed numerical results for phase ordering dynamics in the CGL equation. In particular, we will focus upon the crossover from vortex-mediated dynamics (at early times) to spiral-mediated dynamics (at late times). Furthermore, we will compare our numerical results for the correlation function of the order-parameter field with the analytic form for a single-spiral defect presented in this paper.

Before we conclude this paper, it is worth stressing that the results presented are easily adaptable to the general case of the CGL equation with $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$. Again, the evolving morphology in a large region of parameter space is characterized by the presence and annihilation of spirals and anti-spirals . The results of the present paper apply directly in that case also, with minor modifications in the functional forms of the spiral solution in Section $`\mathrm{II}`$.

## Acknowledgements

SP is grateful to A.J. Bray and H. Chate for useful discussions. SKD is grateful to the University Grants Commission, India, for financial support in the form of a research fellowship.

## References

## Figure Captions

Figure 1: Evolution of a small-amplitude random initial condition for the complex Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equation with $`\alpha =0`$, $`\beta =1`$. These evolution pictures were obtained from an isotropic Euler discretization of Eq. (1), implemented on an $`N^2`$-lattice ($`N=256`$) with periodic boundary conditions in both directions. The discretization mesh sizes were $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1.0`$. The pictures show regions of constant phase $`\theta _\psi =\mathrm{tan}^1(\text{Im}\psi /\text{Re}\psi )`$, measured in radians, with the following coding: $`\theta _\psi [1.85,2.15]`$ (black); $`\theta _\psi [3.85,4.15]`$ (red); $`\theta _\psi [5.85,6.15]`$ (green). The snapshots are labeled by the appropriate evolution times.
Figure 2: Plot of $`q(\beta )`$ vs. $`\beta `$ for the $`1`$-armed spiral solution of the CGL equation with $`\alpha =0`$. (cf. Figure 5 of Ref. .)
Figure 3: Correlation function for the $`1`$-armed spiral solution when $`\beta =1`$ ($`q0.306`$). We plot $`C(r_{12})/C(0)`$ vs. $`r_{12}/L`$ for different spiral sizes, $`L=10,25,50,100`$ – denoted by the specified line-types. The results are obtained from a direct numerical integration of Eq. (14).
Figure 4: Evolution shown in Figure 1, replotted to clarify the utility of the GAF ansatz in this context. The asterisks denote spiral centers; and regions where $`|\psi |>\sqrt{1q^2}`$ are shaded black.
Figure 5: (a) Plot of data for $`P\left[m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right]`$ vs. $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ from $`4`$ different times, $`t=25,50,100,1000`$ – denoted by the symbols shown. The parameter values are identical to those in Figure $`1`$. We use Eq. (61) to obtain data for $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ directly from the order-parameter field in our numerical solution of the CGL equation – considering only regions where $`|\psi |<\sqrt{1q^2}`$. The data was obtained as an average over 5 independent runs for $`N^2`$-lattices ($`N=512`$).
(b) Scaled plot of data from Figure 5(a). We superpose data for $`P\left[m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right]\sigma (t)`$ vs. $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)/\sigma (t)`$, where $`\sigma (t)`$ is obtained from the best-fit of the numerical data to a Gaussian distribution. The solid line refers to the Gaussian function $`P(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{x^2/2}`$.
Figure 6: Plot of data for $`P\left[m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right]`$ vs. $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ from times $`t=25,50,100,1000`$ – denoted by the symbols shown. The parameter values and statistical details are identical to those for Figure 5(a). Data for $`m_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is obtained directly from the numerical data for $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, using Eq. (60) with $`|\psi |_{\text{sat}}=\sqrt{1q^2}`$ replaced by $`|\psi |_{\text{sat}}=1`$.