text:
# Three-particle entanglement versus three-particle nonlocality

(published 12 August 2002)

## Abstract

The notions of three-particle entanglement and three-particle nonlocality are discussed in the light of Svetlichny’s inequality \[Phys. Rev. D 35, 3066 (1987)\]. It is shown that there exist sets of measurements which can be used to prove three-particle entanglement, but which are nevertheless useless at proving three-particle nonlocality. In particular, it is shown that the quantum predictions giving a maximal violation of Mermin’s three-particle Bell inequality \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990)\] can be reproduced by a hybrid hidden variables model in which nonlocal correlations are present only between two of the particles. It should be possible, however, to test the existence of both three-particle entanglement and three-particle nonlocality for any given quantum state via Svetlichny’s inequality.

Referring to pure quantum states, one usually thinks of $`n`$-particle entanglement and $`n`$-particle nonlocality (or nonseparability) as equivalent physical notions, in the sense that the quantum-mechanical violation of a $`n`$-particle Bell inequality (BI) by a $`n`$-particle entangled state can be explained as a result of the existence of nonlocal quantum correlations relating each of the particles with all the others. While this view is valid for the two-particle case, it is no longer justified for the multiparticle case ($`n3`$) since in this case a violation of a $`n`$-particle BI by a $`n`$-particle entangled state is not sufficient for the confirmation of genuine $`n`$-particle nonlocality. Indeed, one can try to successfully reproduce such $`n`$-particle BI violation by means of a model in which nonlocal correlations develop only between $`m`$ ($`m<n`$) of the particles (where $`m`$ particles are actually acting nonlocally and can vary from one run of the experiment to the other). This fact was first pointed out by Svetlichny in 1987 Svetlichny , who, furthermore, derived an inequality for the three-particle case which is obeyed by such models that assume two-particle nonlocality, but which can be violated by some quantum states thus showing that such states are truly three-particle nonseparable. Svetlichny’s inequality (SI) has been generalized to the case of $`n`$-particle systems in two recent papers SS02 ; CGPRS02 .

In this paper we concentrate on the three-particle case and show that Svetlichny’s original inequality for distinguishing between two-particle and three-particle nonlocalities is actually also a Bell inequality for three-particle systems. As we will see, this follows immediately from the consideration of the three-particle Bell inequality derived by Mermin Mermin90a , and its subsequent comparison with Svetlichny’s. Clearly, any three-particle nonseparable state (that is, a state that violates SI) is also a three-particle entangled state. There are, however, three-particle entangled states that violate a given Bell inequality, but which do not violate Svetlichny’s. The most significant example of this occurs for the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state when one tries to exhibit an “all-or-nothing” type contradiction between quantum mechanics (QM) and local hidden variables (LHV) theories GHZ89 ; GHSZ90+M90b . The measurements involved in this case can lead to a maximal violation of Mermin’s three-particle BI, but, as we will see, such measurements cannot yield a violation of SI, and therefore, cannot be used to determine the three-particle nonseparability of the GHZ state. In other words, the correlations between the results of measurements performed on an ensemble of triplets of particles in the GHZ state showing a maximal violation of Mermin’s inequality admits a description in terms of a model in which only two-particle nonlocal correlations are present. We emphasize, however, that, in principle, it is always possible to unambiguously determine the existence of both three-partite entanglement and genuine three-party nonlocality for any given three-particle quantum state. This can be done by experimentally testing Svetlichny’s inequality for different combinations of the measurement settings. If a violation of SI does occur for a given set of measurements, then the concurrence of the three-particle entanglement feature and the three-particle nonlocality of the given quantum state is demonstrated. On the other hand, if no violation of SI is observed for any set of measurements, then one can assert that the given quantum state is neither three-particle entangled nor three-particle nonlocal.

We notice that the the topic treated in this paper, namely the distinction between the concepts of three-particle entanglement and three-particle nonlocality, has already been considered in Refs. SS02 ; CGPRS02 ; MPR02 ; SU02 ; U02 ; GH98  (besides Ref. Svetlichny ). Specifically, the works in Refs. SS02 ; CGPRS02 ; SU02 ; U02 ; GH98  show the necessity for experiments aimed at demonstrating $`n`$-particle nonlocality ($`n3`$) to be analyzed using generalized Svetlichny inequalities, while the work in Ref. MPR02  reaches this conclusion for the particular case $`n=3`$ (see also Ref. CGPRS02  for a detailed study of the case $`n=3`$). Similarly, in this paper we show that Mermin’s three-particle Bell inequality is not adequate to detect full three-particle nonseparability, and conclude that, in order to achieve this goal, one should instead consider Svetlichny’s original inequality. We believe, however, that the arguments presented in this paper are, on the one hand, more simple and direct than those in Ref. CGPRS02 , and, on the other hand, more general than those in Ref. MPR02 , and it is our hope that they will lead to a better understanding of the subject discussed.

Consider a situation in which triplets of particles in a (possibly unknown) pure quantum state are emitted by a source. We can regard the three particles in any given triplet as flying apart from the source, so that each of the particles subsequently enters its own measuring station where, for each run of the experiment, one of two possible alternative measurements is performed: $`A`$ or $`A^{}`$ on particle 1, $`B`$ or $`B^{}`$ on particle 2, and $`C`$ or $`C^{}`$ on particle 3. Each of the measurements gives the outcomes to be either $`+1`$ or $`1`$. The basic entity to be considered is the correlation function $`E(ABC)`$ that represents the expectation value of the product of the measurement outcomes of the observables $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$. Thus Svetlichny’s inequality can be written in the form Svetlichny ; MPR02

$`|S_\text{V}|=|`$ $`E(ABC)+E(ABC^{})+E(AB^{}C)+E(A^{}BC)`$
$`E(A^{}B^{}C^{})E(A^{}B^{}C)E(A^{}BC^{})`$
$`E(AB^{}C^{})|4.`$ (1)
In Ref. MPR02  (see also Refs. SS02 ; CGPRS02 ), it has been shown that the combination of quantum correlations appearing in inequality (1) is bound by $`|S_\text{V}|4\sqrt{2}`$, with the maximum quantum violation being attained by the GHZ state for a suitable choice of measurements $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B`$, $`B^{}`$, $`C`$, and $`C^{}`$.

Let us now recall the Bell-type inequality derived by Mermin for three spin-1/2 particles Mermin90a . This inequality imposes an upper limit on the absolute value of a combination of four correlation functions, which must be satisfied by any LHV theory. One possible form of Mermin’s inequality is

$`|M|=|`$ $`E(ABC^{})+E(AB^{}C)+E(A^{}BC)`$
$`E(A^{}B^{}C^{})|2.`$ (2)
Clearly, by renaming the observables so that the primed ones $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$, and $`C^{}`$ become, respectively, the unprimed ones $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$, and vice versa, one can equally express Mermin’s inequality as

$`|M^{}|=|`$ $`E(ABC)E(AB^{}C^{})E(A^{}BC^{})`$
$`E(A^{}B^{}C)|2.`$ (3)
Then, as $`S_\text{V}=M+M^{}`$, we have that $`|S_\text{V}|=|M+M^{}||M|+|M^{}|4`$, where the last inequality follows from Eqs. (2) and (3). Thus, from the Bell inequalities (2) and (3), a third one has been derived, $`|S_\text{V}|4`$, which is formally identical to inequality (1). Svetlichny’s original inequality can therefore also be interpreted as a Bell inequality and, as such, must be violated by any three-particle entangled state for appropriate choices of observables.

For three spin-1/2 particles in the state $`|GHZ=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+|)`$ \[with $``$ ($``$) denoting spins polarized “up” (“down”) along the $`z`$ axis\], quantum mechanics predicts

$`E_{\text{GHZ}}(ABC)`$ $`=GHZ|\sigma (\widehat{\text{n}}_1)\sigma (\widehat{\text{n}}_2)\sigma (\widehat{\text{n}}_3)|GHZ`$
$`=\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3),`$
where, for the sake of simplicity, we have restricted our attention to spin measurements along directions lying in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, so that such directions $`\widehat{\text{n}}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\text{n}}_i^{}`$ are specified by the azimuthal angles $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _i^{}`$, respectively, for $`i=1,2,3`$. For the choice of angles $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=n\pi `$ ($`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$) and $`\varphi _i^{}=\varphi _i+\frac{\pi }{2}`$, quantum mechanics gives $`|M^{}|=4`$, $`|M|=0`$, and $`|S_\text{V}|=4`$. Alternatively, for the choice of angles $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=(n+\frac{1}{2})\pi `$ and $`\varphi _i^{}=\varphi _i+\frac{\pi }{2}`$, quantum mechanics gives $`|M|=4`$, $`|M^{}|=0`$, and $`|S_\text{V}|=4`$. So we can see that the measurements giving a maximal violation of Mermin’s inequality do not violate Svetlichny’s, and then they do not serve to verify the three-particle nonlocality of the GHZ state. As another example of a quantum violation of a Bell inequality, but not of Svetlichny’s, we may take the angles $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=\frac{\pi }{6}`$ and $`\varphi _i^{}=\varphi _i+\frac{\pi }{2}`$. For this case quantum mechanics predicts $`M^{}=3.46`$ and $`S_\text{V}=1.46`$. On the other hand, the maximal violation of SI is attained for the values $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=(n+\frac{3}{4})\pi `$ and $`\varphi _i^{}=\varphi _i+\frac{\pi }{2}`$. These give $`|M|=|M^{}|=2\sqrt{2}`$ and $`|S_\text{V}|=4\sqrt{2}`$ 111In Ref. MPR02 , it has been shown that, in order for SI to be maximally violated by a quantum state $`|\psi `$, it is necessary that $`\psi |CC^{}+C^{}C|\psi =0`$. For a spin-1/2 particle, this condition is met whenever the measurement directions corresponding to the spin observables $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are perpendicular between themseleves, since this is equivalent to the vanishing of the anticommutator $`\{C,C^{}\}`$. By symmetry, the conditions $`\psi |AA^{}+A^{}A|\psi =\psi |BB^{}+B^{}B|\psi =0`$ must also be met if the state $`|\psi `$ is to maximally violate SI..

In view of the results in the preceding paragraph, it will be argued that, actually, the three-particle nonseparability feature of a (three-particle) quantum state cannot be tested on the basis of only four correlation functions pertaining to either the set $`E_1\{E(ABC^{}),E(AB^{}C),E(A^{}BC),E(A^{}B^{}C^{})\}`$ or the set $`E_2\{E(ABC),E(AB^{}C^{}),E(A^{}BC^{}),E(A^{}B^{}C)\}`$. Indeed, it is important to realize that one can always reproduce whatever values are assumed by four such functions in either $`E_1`$ or $`E_2`$ by means of a hidden variables model in which arbitrary (nonlocal) correlations are permitted between two of the particles, but only local correlations between these two particles and the third one. As an example illustrating this point, consider the case in that we are given the values: $`E(ABC)=+1`$ and $`E(AB^{}C^{})=E(A^{}BC^{})=E(A^{}B^{}C)=1`$. These perfect correlations maximally violate Mermin’s inequality (3), but they are nevertheless consistent with a hybrid local-nonlocal hidden variables model Svetlichny ; CGPRS02 ; MPR02  in which, for example, particles 1 and 2 form a nonlocal subsystem, and this subsystem is locally correlated with particle 3. The simplest model of this kind one can think of is one for which the outcomes of the nonlocal measurements $`AB`$, $`AB^{}`$, $`A^{}B`$, and $`A^{}B^{}`$, as well as the outcomes of the local ones $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$, are completely determined (with probability either $`0`$ or $`1`$) by the value of a hidden variable $`\lambda `$. Note that the hidden variable is not allowed to determine the outcomes of the local measurements $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B`$, and $`B^{}`$, since, for the considered model, particles 1 and 2 are assumed to be nonlocally correlated. With this in mind, one can conceive a trivial hybrid hidden variables model which, for each value of $`\lambda `$, yields the outcomes $`AB=+1`$, $`AB^{}=+1`$, $`A^{}B=+1`$, $`A^{}B^{}=1`$, $`C=+1`$, and $`C^{}=1`$. This particular model then gives $`M^{}=4`$, $`M=0`$, and $`S_\text{V}=4`$. On the other hand, one could devise a more elaborate hybrid local-nonlocal model that reproduces the set of quantum correlations $`C_1\{E(ABC^{})=E(AB^{}C)=E(A^{}BC)=E(A^{}B^{}C^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\}`$. Likewise, one could devise another hybrid model that reproduces the set of quantum correlations $`C_2\{E(ABC)=E(AB^{}C^{})=E(A^{}BC^{})=E(A^{}B^{}C)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\}`$. However, no hybrid model exists that accounts simultaneously for the full set of correlations $`C_1C_2`$. This indicates that, in order to verify the existence of genuine three-particle nonlocality for a given quantum state, it is necessary to consider the expectation value of all eight product observables $`ABC,ABC^{},\mathrm{},A^{}B^{}C^{}`$. If these values violate SI for some choice of $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B`$, $`B^{}`$, $`C`$, and $`C^{}`$, then the three-particle nonseparability of the given quantum state would have been unambiguously demonstrated.

It is to be noted, on the other hand, that Mermin’s inequality does discriminate between the three-particle states that are three-particle entangled, and the three-particle states that are not. In fact, it is known GH98  that if the value of either $`|M|`$ or $`|M^{}|`$ predicted by quantum mechanics for a given three-particle state $`|\psi `$ is greater than $`2\sqrt{2}`$, then $`|\psi `$ exhibits true three-particle entanglement. Otherwise, $`|\psi `$ is at most two-particle entangled. The arguments given in the preceding paragraph, however, tell us that Mermin’s inequality cannot discriminate the purely quantum-mechanical correlation due to the entanglement between all three particles (e.g., in the GHZ state) from such hybrid models that assume nonlocal correlation only between two of the three particles. By contrast, Svetlichny’s inequality is capable of detecting both three-particle entanglement and three-particle nonseparability. In fact, whenever the quantum prediction of the quantity $`|S_\text{V}|`$ for a given three-particle state $`|\psi `$ is greater than $`4`$, then $`|\psi `$ is three-particle entangled, and the quantum correlations developing between the three particles can definitely not be reproduced by any hybrid model of the kind discussed. In any case, since both Mermin’s and Svetlichny’s inequalities detect quantum entanglement, one could take the amount of violation (properly normalized) of either one of them as a measure of the amount of entanglement present in the state $`|\psi `$.

To conclude, we briefly discuss some of the predictions that quantum mechanics makes for the so-called W state, $`|W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|+|+|)`$. The consideration of this state is important by itself since, as was shown in Ref. DVC00 , any nontrivial three-particle entangled state can be converted, by means of invertible local operations and classical communication (ILOCC), into one of the two inequivalent forms (under ILOCC) of genuine tripartite entanglement whose representative states appear to be the GHZ state and the $`W`$ state. When we restrict to spin measurements in the $`x`$-$`z`$ plane, the expectation value of the product observable $`\sigma (\theta _1)\sigma (\theta _2)\sigma (\theta _3)`$ predicted by quantum mechanics for the $`W`$ state is 222It can be seen, on the other hand, that, for spin measurements in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, the predicted quantum expectation value for the $`W`$ state vanishes for any choice of azimuthal angles, $`E_\text{W}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)=0`$.

$`E_\text{W}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1+\theta _2+\theta _3)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3,`$ (4)
where the polar angle $`\theta _1`$ ($`\theta _1^{}`$) specifies the measurement direction of the spin observable $`A`$ ($`A^{}`$), etc. For the choice of angles $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\theta _3=\frac{1}{3}n\pi `$ ($`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$) and $`\theta _i^{}=\theta _i+\frac{\pi }{2}`$ quantum mechanics gives $`|M^{}|=3`$, $`|M|=0`$, and $`|S_\text{V}|=3`$. Alternatively, for the choice of angles $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\theta _3=(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{3}n)\pi `$ and $`\theta _i^{}=\theta _i+\frac{\pi }{2}`$, quantum mechanics gives $`|M|=3`$, $`|M^{}|=0`$, and $`|S_\text{V}|=3`$. For measurement directions fulfilling the conditions $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\theta _3`$ and $`\theta _1^{}=\theta _2^{}=\theta _3^{}`$, the maximum value of either $`|M^{}|`$ or $`|M|`$ that can be obtained for the $`W`$ state is 3.046 Cabello02 . This maximum value occurs, for instance, for the angles $`\theta _i=54.032^{}`$ and $`\theta _i^{}=156.106^{}`$, which gives $`M^{}=3.046`$, $`M=0.054`$, and $`S_\text{V}=3.1`$. For all these sets of directions the $`W`$ state violates Mermin’s inequality, but not Svetlichny’s. On the other hand, considering again spin observables for which $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\theta _3`$ and $`\theta _1^{}=\theta _2^{}=\theta _3^{}`$, the maximal violation of SI predicted by quantum mechanics for the $`W`$ state is found to be $`|S_\text{V}|=4.354`$ (with $`|M|=|M^{}|=2.177`$), which is obtained, for instance, for the choice of angles $`\theta _i=35.264^{}`$ and $`\theta _i^{}=144.736^{}`$. We note that the maximum value of $`|S_\text{V}|`$ attained by the GHZ state is greater than that attained by the $`W`$ state. Loosely speaking, this means that the three particles in the GHZ state are more strongly correlated than they happen to be when coupled in the $`W`$ state. As a counterpart, however, W is the three-qubit state that maximally retains bipartite entanglement when any one of the three qubits is traced out DVC00 . Indeed, it is easily seen that when any one of the particles in the GHZ state is measured in the basis $`\{,\}`$ then the other two are invariably left in a product state. On the other hand, when any one of the particles in the $`W`$ state is measured in the same basis then there exists a probability $`2/3`$ that the other two particles are left in a maximally entangled state.

In summary, we have shown that there are sets of measurements, which produce a violation of Memin’s three-particle Bell inequality, but which do not allow Svetlichny’s inequality to be violated. Hence such measurements cannot be used for the verification of genuine three-particle nonlocality, although they can be used to demonstrate three-particle quantum entanglement. Examples of such measurements have been given for three spin-1/2 particles in either the GHZ state or the $`W`$ state. In particular, we have shown that the quantum correlations leading to an “all or nothing” type contradiction between QM and LHV theories, can be described by a model in which nonlocal correlations take place only between two of the particles. Moreover, we have argued that any four expectation values in either the set $`E_1`$ or $`E_2`$ can be reproduced by a hybrid local–two-particle-nonlocal hidden variables model. It is therefore necessary to consider more than four correlation functions if we want to distinguish between two-particle and three-particle nonlocality. This can be achieved via Svetlichny’s inequality. Finally, we note that an open question left is what is the minimum number of correlation functions one should consider in order to discriminate between two-particle and three-particle nonlocality.

The author wishes to thank Adán Cabello for useful comments and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Superfluidity with dressed nucleons

## Abstract

The gap equation with dressed propagators is solved in symmetric nuclear matter. Nucleon self-energies are obtained within the self-consistent in medium $`T`$ matrix approximation. The off-shell gap equation is compared to an effective quasiparticle gap equation with reduced interaction. At normal density, we find a reduction of the superfluid gap from $`6.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ to $`0.45\mathrm{MeV}`$ when self-energy effects are included.

superfluidity, nuclear matter

21.65.+f, 24.10.Cn, 26.60.+c

The importance of pairing correlation in nuclear systems was realized very early . In finite nuclei, pairing effects are known in the mass systematics of nuclei and the properties of deformed nuclei. In extended systems, nuclear pairing is expected to occur in the dense matter inside the neutron stars . Quantitative description of pairing correlations starting from bare nucleon-nucleon interactions is still limited. In medium effects, going beyond simple gap equation with free interaction, are important . The use of the induced interaction in the gap equation was studied for neutron matter leading to a significant reduction of the pairing strength . Another effect is due to the dressing of nucleons in an interacting system, leading to a modification of the density of states and of the effective energy gap . From the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer result , it is obvious that self-energy effects modifying the effective mass change the value of the superfluid gap. Furthermore, the reduced quasiparticle strength at the Fermi surface leads to a modification of the effective pairing interaction .

Recently self-consistent in medium $`T`$ matrix was calculated for nuclear matter . In this approach ladder diagrams with dressed particle-particle and hole-hole propagators are summed

$`𝐩|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}=V(𝐩,𝐩^{^{}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }\frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐪)\frac{\left[1f(\omega _1)f(\omega _2)\right]}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _1\omega _2+iϵ}}`$
$`A(p_1,\omega _1)A(p_2,\omega _2)𝐪|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}`$ (1)
where $`𝐩_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐}}=𝐏/2\pm 𝐪`$, $`f(\omega )`$ is the Fermi distribution, and

$$A(p,\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )}{\left[\omega p^2/2m\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )\right]^2+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )^2}$$
(2)
is the self-consistent spectral function of the nucleon. The imaginary part of the corresponding retarded self-energy can be obtained from

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}A(k,\omega _1)}`$
$`(𝐩𝐤)/2|\mathrm{Im}T(𝐩+𝐤,\omega +\omega _1)|(𝐩𝐤)/2_A\left[f(\omega _1)+b(\omega +\omega _1)\right],`$ (3)
$`b(\omega )`$ is the Bose distribution. The real part of the self-energy is related to $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by a dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(p)+\mathrm{P}\frac{d\omega ^{^{}}}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega ^{^{}})}{\omega ^{^{}}\omega }$$
(4)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(p)`$ the Hartree-Fock self-energy. Eqs. (Superfluidity with dressed nucleons), (Superfluidity with dressed nucleons), (2), and (4) are solved iteratively. Numerical calculations with off-shell propagators are very complex; recently, the self-consistent $`T`$ matrix approximation scheme was solved for a realistic interaction with several partial waves . It is the aim of the present work to analyze the effects of the self-consistent dressing of fermion propagators on nucleon superfluidity for such a realistic interaction. For the case of the symmetric nuclear matter, the dominant pairing correlations appear in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ partial wave with the value of the superfluid gap of the order of several MeV’s . Such a large value of the superfluid gap is not seen in nuclear mass systematics for $`NZ`$ nuclei. Although the existence of nuclear pairing in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel is well established in the data, the calculation of the corresponding pairing force from the bare interaction is not available. The strength of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ pairing force in a simple mean-field approach is small, unlike for the deuteron channel. Pairing gaps observed in finite nuclei result from bulk and surface pairing interactions . The first mechanism should be dominant for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ channel if the large value of the BCS gap is taken, which would result in an unrealistically large value of the proton-neutron gap. No such paradox exist for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel, where the BCS gap in nuclear matter is small, which means that the pairing force in finite nuclei has (at least partly) a different origin. It is also important to clarify the role of dominant pairing correlations for nuclear matter calculations, especially in view of recent suggestions that normal nuclear matter is not superfluid  due to self-energy corrections. In the following, we demonstrate explicitly that self-energy corrections reduce the value of the superfluid gap to a small, but nonzero, value in symmetric nuclear matter at saturation density $`\rho _0`$.

From the Thouless criterion on the self-consistent $`T`$ matrix at finite temperature, it is known that self-consistent dressing of nucleons reduces significantly the critical temperature . Calculation performed in the normal phase of cold nuclear matter suggest a strong suppression of pairing correlations due nucleon dressing . However, no explicit calculation of superfluid properties with dressed propagators and realistic interaction is available. In Ref.  the gap equation with off-shell propagators

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=\frac{d\omega d\omega ^{^{}}d^3k}{(2\pi )^5}A(k,\omega )A_s(k,\omega )\frac{\left[1f(\omega )f(\omega ^{^{}})\right]}{\omega \omega ^{^{}}}V(p,k)\mathrm{\Delta }(k)$$
(5)
was solved for a simple interaction. In the above equation $`A_s(p,\omega )`$ denotes the spectral function of the nucleon, including the diagonal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )`$ (obtained in the $`T`$ matrix approximation) and the off-diagonal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ obtained from Eq. (5) itself; $`A(p,\omega )`$ is the spectral function of the nucleon dressed with the diagonal self-energy only (2). It was found that the superfluid gap for dressed nucleons is reduced by a factor $`23`$ in comparison to the result of the quasiparticle gap equation.

Self-energy effects can be effectively taken into account in a quasiparticle gap equation . The first consequence of dispersive self-energy corrections to the propagator is that the superfluid energy gap is not the off-diagonal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ but

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)=Z_p\mathrm{\Delta }(p)$$
(6)
where

$$Z_p=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega _p)}{\omega }|_{\omega =\omega _p}\right)^1.$$
(7)
It means that if the position of the quasiparticle peak in $`A(p,\omega )`$ is given by :

$$\omega _p=\frac{p^2}{m}+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega _p),$$
(8)
the poles of the propagator in the superfluid are located approximately at

$`\omega =\pm E_p`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{(\omega _p\mu )^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)^2}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{(\omega _p\mu )^2+Z_p^2\mathrm{\Delta }(p)^2}.`$
The quasiparticle strength at the poles $`\pm E_p`$ of the superfluid propagator can be expressed, to a very good accuracy, by the quasiparticle renormalization strength $`Z_p`$ of the pole of the normal propagator . The quasiparticle effective gap equation with dressed propagators is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}Z_k^2V(p,k)\frac{\left[12f(E_k)\right]}{2E_k}\mathrm{\Delta }(k).$$
(10)
The effective interaction in the gap equation is renormalized by the factor $`Z_k^2`$ describing the reduction of the density of states at the Fermi surface (Eq. (10) can also be written as an equation for the energy gap $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ with reduced interaction $`Z_pZ_kV(p,k)`$). The superfluid gaps obtained from the gap equation (5) or the corresponding effective quasiparticle gap equation (10) are much smaller than the one obtained from the usual gap equation with the bare interaction :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}V(p,k)\frac{\left[12f(E_k)\right]}{2\sqrt{(\omega _k\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(k).$$
(11)
In the present work, we calculate the diagonal self-energy in the $`T`$ matrix approximation for symmetric nuclear matter in the range of densities $`.12\rho _0`$. As a first approximation, a normal state of nuclear matter is assumed. Certainly, if a superfluid phase with a significant gap is present the approach must be modified . However, to get a first estimate for the value of the gap with dressed propagators we can take diagonal-self energies (single-particle potential and scattering width) corresponding to the normal phase. It is a reasonable approximation around the saturation density where the resulting superfluid gap is small. It is analogous to approaches using Brueckner-Hartree-Fock single particle spectrum or variational wave functions calculated in the normal phase as input for the gap equation. We use the separable Paris interaction for the calculation of the spectral functions . From the real part of the self-energy, we obtain the single-particle energies $`\omega _p`$ and the quasiparticle strength $`Z_p`$.

In Fig 1 are presented the values of the superfluid energy gap $`Z_{p_F}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)`$ at the Fermi momentum obtained in the different approximations. We calculate the pairing gap in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ channel for the Paris interaction using an angle averaged gap for the off-diagonal self-energy. The largest value of the superfluid gap comes from the gap equation with the bare interaction (11) where the sole influence of the nuclear medium comes trough the modification of single-particle energies. On the other hand, the gap equation with dressed propagators (5) leads to much smaller values of the superfluid gap. We find the maximal value of the superfluid gap $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p_F)2.2\mathrm{MeV}`$ at $`.5\rho _0`$. At the saturation density $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p_F)=0.45\mathrm{MeV}`$. The last value is significantly smaller than the corresponding BCS gap (11) $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)=6.5\mathrm{MeV}`$. The reasons are twofold. First, the effective energy gap is $`Z_p\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ due to the dispersive self-energy . Second, the spectral functions for fully dressed nucleons ($`A(p,\omega )`$ and $`A_s(p,\omega )`$) give an effective reduction of the density of states at the Fermi surface . Both effects are taken into account in the effective gap equation with reduced interactions (10). Indeed, the superfluid gap obtained from the effective gap equation (10) is close to the solution of the full equation (5).

In Fig. 2 are compared the kernels of the full gap equation (5)

$$\frac{1}{2E_k}=\frac{d\omega d\omega ^{^{}}}{(2\pi )^2}A(k,\omega )A_s(k,\omega )\frac{\left[1f(\omega )f(\omega ^{^{}})\right]}{\omega +\omega ^{^{}}}$$
(12)
and of the effective gap equation (10)

$$\frac{1}{2E_k}=\frac{Z_k^2}{\sqrt{(\omega _k\mu )^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(k)^2}}.$$
(13)
As expected, close to the Fermi momentum the kernel appearing in the gap equation with full spectral functions can be approximated by the renormalization of the quasiparticle poles in the quasiparticle gap equation. The momentum integration in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ gap equation cannot be restricted to the vicinity of the Fermi momentum only. Differences between the kernels of the gap equations at low momenta lead to small differences in the resulting gaps (Fig. 1). It must be stressed, however, that to a reasonable accuracy, the effective kernel (13) is a good approximation of the kernel of the full gap equation (12) and describes the mechanism of the reduction of the superfluid gap by nucleon dressing. It means that the background part of the spectral function does not modify significantly the effective interaction between quasiparticles in the gap equation.

Similar effects are visible in the temperature dependence of the superfluid gap. The largest gap and the largest critical temperature is obtained from the gap equation with the bare interaction (Fig. 3). The gap equation with dressed nucleons (5) and the effective gap equation (10) give much smaller values for the critical temperature. The single-particle potential is weakly dependent on the temperature , and the gap closure is due in all the approaches to the phase space factor $`\left[1f(\omega )f(\omega ^{^{}})\right]`$. At the critical temperature the effective gap equation (10) corresponds to the Thouless condition for the quasiparticle $`T`$ matrix with a reduced interaction $`Z_k^2V(p,k)`$ .

We calculate the superfluid gap for the deuteron channel with off-shell propagators. The spectral functions serving as input for the gap equation are obtained in the self-consistent $`T`$ matrix approximation. The most important result is the strong reduction of the superfluid energy gap in symmetric nuclear matter in comparison to results obtained with bare interactions. The superfluid gap is $`0.45\mathrm{MeV}`$ at the saturation density, when self-energy effects are included. The actual value of the superfluid gap in symmetric nuclear matter is influenced also by vertex corrections (the induced interaction) .

The strong reduction of the gap that we find is important in two respects. First, such a small value of the superfluid energy gap in nuclear matter justifies standard approaches to the nuclear matter problem which neglect the superfluid transition. Second, the small value of the neutron-proton pairing gap in nuclear matter is compatible with common inferred from the properties of finite nuclei. The value, or even the presence, of the a neutron-proton gap in finite nuclei is still a matter of debate ; but a large value of the neutron-proton gap, as obtained form a simple BCS gap equation with bare interaction, is excluded by the data. Since we find a small value of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ gap, the paradox is resolved. However, it is even more difficult to make definite predictions on the value of the energy gap in finite nuclei than in nuclear matter. Besides vertex corrections other mechanism of the pairing interactions in finite nuclei are possible, that cannot be treated in a local density approximation.

As a byproduct, we study the quasiparticle gap equation with effective interactions. We find a reasonable agreement with the results obtained with complete spectral functions. Therefore, the effective interaction $`Z_k^2V(p,k)`$ is a good starting point for the study of other many-body effects, such as the role of the induced interaction , for the pairing channel. In neutron matter a similar reduction of the superfluid gap is expected. The effect would be smaller since in medium dispersive effects are weaker .

This work was partly supported by the KBN under Grant No. 2P03B02019.


text:
# Four-Body Effects in Globular Cluster Black Hole Coalescence

## 1. Introduction

Globular clusters are outstanding testbeds for dynamics. As dense systems with ages many times their core relaxation time, they display such features as core collapse and mass segregation, and they are almost certainly affected strongly by the presence of even a small number of binaries. It has long been speculated that various processes might produce relatively massive black holes in their cores (e.g., Wyller 1970; Bahcall & Ostriker 1975; Frank & Rees 1976; Lightman & Shapiro 1977; Marchant & Shapiro 1980; Quinlan & Shapiro 1987; Portegies Zwart et al. 1999; Ebisuzaki et al. 2001). Recent observations of some dense clusters provide tentative evidence for black holes as massive as $`2500M_{}`$ at their centers (Gebhardt et al. 2000).

Qualitatively, it seems entirely reasonable that large black holes should grow in the cores of many clusters. Even at birth, black holes are much more massive than the average star in a cluster, and hence they sink rapidly towards the core. When in the core, they tend to exchange into binaries. If the binary is hard (i.e., if its binding energy exceeds the average kinetic energy of a field star), then a subsequent interaction with a field star tends to harden the binary (e.g., Heggie 1975). If this process is repeated often enough, the binary becomes tight enough that it can merge by gravitational radiation, and the black hole becomes larger. If these binaries merge while still in the cluster, sources in globulars could be excellent prospects for detection by the upcoming generation of gravitational wave instruments.

However, it has been shown (e.g., Sigurdsson & Hernquist 1993; Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2000) that if all black holes have initial masses of $`10M_{}`$, three-body encounters alone do not lead to the formation of a large black hole at the center. The reason is that hardening in a binary-single interaction is accompanied by recoil, which kicks the binary out of the cluster before it can merge. Without additional effects, this means that the mergers occur well away from their host globulars. If the initial mass of a black hole is $`\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}50M_{}`$, as may result from a high-mass low-metallicity star or rapid merger of main sequence stars, it has enough inertia to remain in the core and grow by coalescence (Miller & Hamilton 2002). But what if only low-mass black holes are produced?

Here we propose a new mechanism for the coalescence of low-mass black holes in globular clusters, involving binary-binary interactions. Studies of such four-body encounters have been comparatively rare, but have shown that in roughly 20-50% of the interactions the final state is an unbound single star plus a stable hierarchical triple system (Mikkola 1984; McMillan, Hut, & Makino 1991; Rasio, McMillan, & Hut 1995). This allows an important new effect: studies of planetary and stellar systems have shown that if there is a large relative inclination between the orbital planes of the inner binary and the outer object of the triple, then over many orbital periods the relative inclination periodically trades off with the eccentricity of the inner binary, sometimes leading to very high eccentricities (Kozai 1962; Harrington 1968, 1974; Lidov & Ziglin 1976). In turn, this can enhance the gravitational radiation rate enormously, leading to merger without a strong kick and allowing even low-mass binary black holes in globulars to be potential gravitational wave sources.

In § 2 we discuss the principles of this resonance, as derived in the case of three objects of arbitrary mass by Lidov & Ziglin (1976). To their treatment we add, in § 3, a simple term that accounts for general relativistic pericenter precession. We show that although, as expected, this precession decreases the maximum attainable eccentricity for a given set of initial conditions, the decrease is typically minor and thus there is significant phase space in which the eccentricity resonance leads to rapid merger. In § 4 we use these results in a simple model for the mergers of black holes, and show that, depending on the fraction of black holes in binaries, this effect can lead to a dramatic increase in the retention of black holes in globulars, and to the growth of $`10^{23}M_{}`$ black holes in their cores.

## 2. Principles of the Kozai Resonance

When looking for changes in the orbital properties of a three-body system that extend over many orbital periods of both the inner binary and the outer tertiary, it is convenient to average the motion over both these periods, a procedure called double averaging. A general analysis of the double-averaged three-body problem has been performed to quadrupolar order for Newtonian gravity by Lidov & Ziglin (1976) in Hill’s case, in which the distance of the outer object (of mass $`m_2`$) from the inner binary (with component masses $`m_0`$ and $`m_1m_0`$) is much greater than the semimajor axis of the inner binary. They find that for any set of three masses there is always a relative inclination of orbits such that an inner binary with arbitrarily small initial eccentricity will evolve to $`e=1`$. For example, in the restricted three-body problem in which $`m_0m_2m_1`$ (e.g., the Sun, Jupiter, and an asteroid interior to Jupiter’s orbit; see Kozai 1962), a relative orbital inclination of 90 will cause the asteroid to evolve to $`e=1`$ in a finite time.

However, the growth to such high eccentricity depends on a long series of perturbations from the tertiary that add coherently, and hence requires certain phase relations. An extra source of precession of the pericenter can interfere with this. For example, the orbits of the moons of Uranus are tipped by 97 with respect to Uranus’ orbit around the Sun, but their eccentricities stay relatively low due to precession introduced by the quadrupole moment of Uranus. In the case of black holes or other close massive objects, a similar role may be played by the effects of general relativity, which to lowest order includes precession of the pericenter. How does this affect the maximum eccentricity for a given set of initial conditions?

Hill’s approximation allows us to treat the system as two nested binaries: the inner pair composed of $`m_0`$ and $`m_1`$, and a second pair consisting of i) an object of mass $`m_0+m_1`$ located at their center of mass and ii) $`m_2`$. Defining variables as in Lidov & Ziglin (1976), we let $`M_1=m_0+m_1`$ and $`M_2=m_0+m_1+m_2`$ be the total masses of the two binaries, and $`\mu _1=m_0m_1/M_1`$, and $`\mu _2=m_2M_1/M_2`$ be their reduced masses. Let the semimajor axes and eccentricities of the two binaries be $`a_1`$, $`e_1`$ and $`a_2`$, $`e_2`$, and define $`i_1`$ and $`i_2`$ to be the inclinations of the binaries relative to the invariant plane of angular momentum of the system. Finally, let $`\mu =Gm_0m_1m_2/M_1`$ and $`ϵ=1e_1^2`$.

The double-averaged Hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$ admits several integrals each of which yields a constant of the motion. First, the double-averaging procedure guarantees that $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are constant. We keep terms in the Hamiltonian up to linear order in $`a_1/a_2`$; these quadrupolar terms dominate the evolution of the system for the high relative inclinations of interest here (see Ford, Kozinsky, & Rasio 2000). To this order, $`e_2`$ is also constant. The problem has two constants of the motion that are related to angular momentum:

$$\alpha =ϵ^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}i_1+\beta \mathrm{cos}i_2,\beta =\frac{\mu _2\sqrt{M_2}}{\mu _1\sqrt{M_1}}\sqrt{\frac{a_2}{a_1}\left(1e_2^2\right)}.$$
(1)
The constant $`\beta `$ (a combination of the constants $`a_1,a_2`$, and $`e_2`$) represents the total angular momentum of the outer binary while $`\alpha `$ is the total system angular momentum (with contributions from both the inner and outer binaries). Both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are made dimensionless by dividing by $`L_1=\mu _1\sqrt{GM_1a_1}`$, the angular momentum that the inner binary would have if it were on a circular orbit.

The Hamiltonian, $`\overline{}`$, itself is constant. For convenience, we define $`\overline{}=k(W+\frac{5}{3})`$, with $`k=3\mu a_1^2/\left[8a_2^3(1e_2^2)^{3/2}\right]`$ and obtain:

$$W=2ϵ+ϵ\mathrm{cos}^2I+5(1ϵ)\mathrm{sin}^2\omega \left(\mathrm{cos}^2I1\right),$$
(2)
which is equation (30) from Lidov & Ziglin (1976). Here $`\omega `$ is the argument of pericenter of the inner binary and the scaled angular momenta $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ form a triangle from which the relative inclination $`I=i_1+i_2`$ can be obtained using the law of cosines:

$$\mathrm{cos}I=\frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2ϵ}{2\beta \sqrt{ϵ}}.$$
(3)
The maximum $`ϵ`$ (and hence minimum $`e_1`$) occurs for $`\omega =0`$, and the minimum $`ϵ`$ (and hence maximum $`e_1`$) occurs for $`\omega =\pi /2`$; see Lidov & Ziglin (1976). Therefore, given initial values for $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\omega _0`$, the maximum eccentricity may be derived from conservation of $`W`$ at $`\omega =\pi /2`$. The time required to push the system from its minimum to maximum eccentricity, is of order

$$\tau _{\mathrm{evol}}f\left(\frac{M_1}{m_2}\frac{b_2^3}{a_1^3}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{b_2^3}{Gm_2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(4)
(e.g., Innanen et al. 1997), where $`b_2=a_2\sqrt{1e_2^2}`$ is the semiminor axis of the tertiary and typically $`f\mathrm{few}`$ for $`I`$ near $`90^{}`$, which is the case of interest here.

## 3. The Kozai Resonance with GR Precession

Post-Newtonian precession may be included in a couple of equivalent ways. One is to modify the Hamiltonian directly, by changing the gravitational potential to simulate some of the effects of general relativity. The modification of the potential is not unique, and depends on which aspect of general relativity is to be reproduced (see Artemova, Bjornsson, & Novikov 1996). For our purposes it is the precession of pericenter that is important (as opposed to, e.g., the location of the innermost stable circular orbit), and hence the correct lowest-order modification is $`GM/r(GM/r)(1+3GM/rc^2)`$ (Artemova et al. 1996). Averaging the correction term over the orbits of the tertiary and inner binary, we obtain a correction to the double-averaged Hamiltonian of

$$\overline{}_{\mathrm{PN}}=\frac{3(Gm_0)^2m_1}{a_1^2c^2ϵ^{1/2}}=kW_{\mathrm{PN}}.$$
(5)
This result may also be obtained from the first-order general relativistic precession rate of $`d\omega =(6\pi GM_1/\left[a_1(1e_1^2)c^2\right]`$ over one binary period (see Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973, p. 1110) using the equation of motion $`d\omega /dt=(2k\sqrt{ϵ}/L_1)(W/ϵ)`$ derived by Lidov & Ziglin (1976). Substituting and integrating, we find that the first-order post-Newtonian contribution to $`W`$ is

$$W_{\mathrm{PN}}=\frac{8}{\sqrt{ϵ}}\frac{M_1}{m_2}\left(\frac{b_2}{a_1}\right)^3\frac{GM_1}{a_1c^2}\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}ϵ^{1/2}.$$
(6)
in agreement with equation (5). We have also checked our expressions with direct numerical three-body integrations; note that equation (5) corrects a factor of two error in equation (19) of Lin et al. (2000).

Adding the new term $`W_{\mathrm{PN}}`$ to equation (2) and making use of equation (3), we find

$$W=2ϵ+ϵ\mathrm{cos}^2I+5(1ϵ)\mathrm{sin}^2\omega (\mathrm{cos}^2I1)+\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}/ϵ^{1/2}.$$
(7)
As in the previous section, for a given set of initial conditions, one can therefore solve for the minimum $`ϵ`$ (maximum $`e`$), by setting $`\omega =\pi /2`$ and using the conservation of $`W`$. In general we expect that initially the inner binary will have significant eccentricity caused by perturbations during the four-body encounter, but for simplicity we will assume that the initial eccentricity is small enough that $`ϵ_01`$. In the restricted three-body problem in which $`m_0m_2m_1`$ and the initial relative inclination is $`I_0`$, the approximate solution for $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}`$ when $`5\mathrm{cos}^2I_03`$ (high inclination) and $`\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}3`$ (weak precession) is

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}^{1/2}\frac{1}{6}\left[\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}+\sqrt{\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}^2+60\mathrm{cos}^2I_0}\right].$$
(8)
When $`60\mathrm{cos}^2I_0\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}`$ this reduces to the Newtonian solution, in which the maximum eccentricity is $`e_{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{1(5/3)\mathrm{cos}^2I_0}`$ (Innanen et al. 1997). If instead $`I_0\pi /2`$ so that $`60\mathrm{cos}^2I_0\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}`$, then $`e_{\mathrm{max}}1\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}^2/9`$. More generally, for any set of masses, if $`e1`$ is allowed in the Newtonian problem then $`e_{\mathrm{max}}=1𝒪(\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}^2)`$ when general relativistic precession is included. Numerically, for $`M_1=M_{}`$ and $`a_1=`$1 AU, $`\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}=8\times 10^8(M_1/m_2)(b_2/a_1)^3`$. Equation (8) shows that in the restricted three-body problem the maximum possible eccentricity (minimum $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}`$) is attained for the initial condition $`I_0=\pi /2`$ (initially perpendicular circular orbits). If $`m_1`$ has non-negligible mass, so that $`m_2`$ dominates the total angular momentum less, then the critical $`I_0`$ increases (Lidov & Ziglin 1976). Figure 1 shows the critical inclination in the Newtonian case ($`\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}=0`$) for several mass ratios and semimajor axes.

We want to know whether this process can cause the inner binary to reach a high enough eccentricity that it merges by gravitational radiation before the next encounter with a star in the globular cluster (which will typically alter the eccentricities and inclinations significantly). Encounters with black holes in globular clusters are usually dominated by gravitational focusing instead of the pure geometrical cross section; this is true within $`100`$AU of a 10 $`M_{}`$ black hole, where we have assumed a velocity dispersion of 10 km s-1 for the interlopers (see Miller & Hamilton 2002). In this limit the encounter time is

$$\tau _{\mathrm{enc}}6\times 10^5n_6^1(1\mathrm{AU}/a_2)(10M_{}/M_2)\mathrm{yr},$$
(9)
where the number density of stars in the core of the globular is $`10^6n_6`$ pc-3. Note that it is the semimajor axis of the outermost object, $`m_2`$, that sets the encounter time scale, because in a stable hierarchical triple $`a_2`$ must be a factor of several greater than $`a_1`$.

The timescale for merger by gravitational radiation for a high eccentricity orbit is (Peter 1964)

$$\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}5\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{M_{}^3}{M_1^2\mu _1}\right)\left(\frac{a_1}{1\mathrm{AU}}\right)^4ϵ^{7/2}\mathrm{yr}.$$
(10)
The steep dependence on eccentricity means that shrinkage of the orbit is dominated by the time spent near maximum eccentricity. Assuming that $`\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}\tau _{\mathrm{evol}}`$ so that orbital decay occurs over many Kozai oscillation cycles, one finds that the fraction of time spent near $`e_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is of order $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}^{1/2}`$ (Innanen et al. 1997, equation ), so that $`\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}5\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{M_{}^3}{M_1^2\mu _1}\right)\left(\frac{a_1}{1\mathrm{AU}}\right)^4ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}^3\mathrm{yr}`$. The condition for merger before an encounter is then simply $`\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}<\tau _{\mathrm{enc}}`$.

Note that in the Newtonian case $`\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}0`$, all systems with the same masses, $`b_2/a_1`$, and $`I_0`$ are dynamically identical, in that the maximum eccentricity does not depend on the individual values of $`b_2`$ and $`a_1`$. The introduction of post-Newtonian precession breaks this scaling. If $`b_2/a_1`$ is fixed, then $`\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}a_1^1`$ and therefore the maximum eccentricity attained is given by $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}a_1^2`$ (cf. equation  for the restricted problem). The merger time is $`\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}a_1^4ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}^3a_1^2`$. That is, a wider binary can be pushed to higher eccentricities, and actually merge faster, than a closer binary. Note, however, that the solid angle for this orientation is proportional to $`\theta _{\mathrm{PN}}a_1^1`$, because the optimum angle is usually close to $`\pi /2`$, so the solid angle is proportional to the cosine of the inclination. Therefore, if binary-binary interactions leave the binary and tertiary inclinations randomly oriented with respect to each other then a smaller fraction of wide binaries will fall into the optimal orientation. Qualitatively this means that as the binary is hardened by various interactions, every time a triple is formed it has a chance to push the eccentricity high enough that the binary merges before the next encounter. The smaller the system, the larger the probability of such an orientation, because both the solid angle and the encounter time are larger.

One way to quantify the probability of merger through the increase of eccentricity is to plot, as a function of the semimajor axis of the inner binary, the range of relative inclinations such that merger occurs before the next encounter of a field black hole with the tertiary (which, being on a wide orbit, will interact before the inner binary will on average). In Figure 2, we assume three $`10M_{}`$ black holes, with a given $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. From $`a_2`$ and an assumed number density of stars in the cluster ($`n=10^6`$ pc-3), we compute the average time $`\tau _{\mathrm{enc}}`$ to the next encounter within a distance $`a_2`$ of the system. We then determine the range of initial inclinations $`I`$ such that $`\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}<\tau _{\mathrm{enc}}`$, by solving for $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}`$ using equation (7) with the initial conditions $`e_1=e_2=0.01`$ and $`\omega =0`$. Note that for wider tertiary orbits, the total angular momentum of the system is dominated more by the tertiary (larger $`\beta `$), and hence the relative inclination that gives the smallest possible $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is closer to $`90^{}`$ (see Figure 1). If a single Kozai oscillation cycle is longer than $`\tau _{\mathrm{enc}}`$ the system never attains the required high eccentricity. This causes the cutoff in the $`a_2=10a_1`$ and $`a_2=20a_1`$ curves in Figure 2; similar cutoffs exist at $`a_1>10`$ AU for the remaining two curves.

## 4. Conclusions

The level of importance of the Kozai mechanism depends on several factors including: i) details of the interactions between two binaries, ii) details of the interactions between a triple, and either a binary or a single star, and iii) the fraction of black holes in binaries, which in turn relies on the iv) dynamics of the cluster itself. Understanding these interactions statistically will require extensive long-term simulations. However, the Kozai mechanism has the potential to be the dominant process in the interactions of stellar-mass black holes in globulars, if most such black holes are in binaries. When only three-body interactions are considered, very few black holes are retained by the clusters (only 8% in the simulations of Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2000). This occurs because the same processes that harden a binary toward an eventual merger also impart velocity kicks on the binary that ultimately eject it from the globular before it can merge. In contrast, the majority of black holes can be retained if binary-binary interactions dominate.

For example, suppose that a third of those interactions produce stable triples. Subsequent interactions of the tertiary with field stars will change its eccentricity and semimajor axis. If the pericenter distance of the tertiary is less than a few times $`a_1`$, then the triple system becomes unstable, normally by ejecting its least massive member. Suppose that there are typically $``$2 encounters before the triple is disrupted in this way, and that each encounter of the tertiary that does not create an unstable triple produces a new relative inclination $`I`$ that is drawn from a uniform distribution in $`\mathrm{cos}I`$. Suppose also that every time the inner binary interacts strongly its semimajor axis is decreased by $`20`$% (typical for strong interactions of three equal-mass objects; see, e.g., Heggie 1975; Sigurdsson & Phinney 1993). Then, in an $`n=10^6`$ pc -3 cluster there is a $`50`$% chance that the inner binary will merge before it hardens to $`a_10.2`$ AU, at which point the binary recoil velocity $`v_{\mathrm{recoil}}`$ exceeds the $``$50 km s-1 escape speed typical of the cores of globulars (Webbink 1985). In an $`n=10^5`$ pc -3 cluster, encounters are less frequent and the fraction rises to $`70`$%.

Thus, depending on the binary fraction and other properties of black holes in globulars, the majority of black holes could merge before being ejected, and growth of intermediate-mass black holes in globulars may proceed naturally even if no black hole is formed with $`M>10M_{}`$. This could influence stellar dynamics in the core, and the gravitational wave signals from globulars, and should be included in future simulations.

This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-9756 and by NSF grant 5-23467.