text:
# Bogolubov’s chain of equations method for temperature Wightman functions in thermodynamics of relativistic phase transition.

## 1 Introduction.

An idea that phase transition may take place in a quantum field system was first proposed by Kirznits. First quantitative calculations were made by Kirznits and Linde , and later by Dolan and Jackiw , Weinberg . Theory of relativistic phase transition (RPT) deals with nonequilibrium Landau functional (which is usually called “effective potential”). When quasi–particle approximation is used for calculation of effective potential from microscopic operational Lagrangian, a problem of quasi–particles mass spectra arises. Calculations made in Matsubara diagram technique showed, that phase transitions can’t be described in iterative perturbation theory approach — tachion pole in mass spectra of scalar particles and consequently imaginary terms in Matsubara “effective potential” appears far from the point of phase transition. Enhanced resuming schemes successfully solved the problem of tachion pole in mass spectra but not the problem of effective potential calculation.

As for calculation of nonequilibrium functional in Matsubara approach, with temperature Green functions obtained in the framework of resuming schemes, the extremum condition of such functional leads to equation for order parameter which is different from that obtained directly from equations of motion. Illusion of solving of the problem mentioned is achieved only by manipulation with high-temperature approximation of Bose-Einstein integrals.

Cornwall, Jackiw and Tomboulis suggested an “effective functional” of different kind . In addition to equation for order parameter the ”CJT-functional” reproduces equations for full Green functions. At present $`O(N)`$model is almost completely investigated in this approach in Hartree-Fock approximation. Nevertheless problems of renormalization of the functional, analytical analysis of the phases stability conditions, calculation of observables and estimation of Hartree-Fock approximation accuracy need to be discussed in details.

These problems (at least for $`O(N)`$model) can be solved in alternative approach, based on Bogolubov’s chain of equations for temperature Wightman functions (WF).

In Wightman approach the equations of motion and observables of a quantum–field system are written in terms of Wightman functions. . In this paper equations for all the functions forming energy-momentum tensor are presented. Field operators smoothing, used in axiomatic Wightman formalism, replaced with scheme of dimensional regularization. Self–consistency of that redefinition method is proved.

It is found out that effective masses of quasi–particles, which are formed by particles interactions with each other and vacuum, automatically arise in the Bogolubov’s chain equations. Thus, it is natural to use Hartree–Fock approximation as a basis approximation of reduction. Corrections calculation algorithm is also determined by the Bogolubov’s chain mathematical structure.

Hartree–Fock approximation was investigated in details. A functional (generating functional) which reproduce gap equations for effective masses and equation for order parameter is obtained. It is shown, that the generating functional can also be calculated from momentum–energy tensor components, which proves self–consistency of thermodynamic equations of state obtained from quantum equations of motion with those obtained from generating functional. The generating functional, being considered on solutions of the gap equations for effective masses turns into functional of nonequilibrium free energy, which is used for analytical analysis of the phases stability condition. Functional of equilibrium free energy, which is obtained by substitution of the order parameter on temperature dependence into nonequilibrium one, is used for calculation of thermodynamical observables: heat capacity and sonic speed.

An important problem of the Hartree–Fock approximation validity was clarified by calculation of correction of the first order of vanishing to this approximation.

A Lagrangian of the $`O(N)`$model and equations of motions are written out in chapter 2. A definition of Wightman functions, symmetrized with regard to permutation of it’s arguments, chain’s equations for Wightman functions up to fourth rank and chain reduction algorithm are given in chapter 3. Equations for effective masses and order parameter, functionals and observables in Hartree–Fock approximation, and results of numerical calculations are given in chapter 4. Finally, chapter 5 is devoted to calculation of the first order of vanishing corrections to effective masses, order parameter and observables.

## 2 Lagrangian and equations of motion.

Operator equations of motions for quantum fields ore obtained from Lagrangian of system of $`N`$ scalar fields $`\varphi _a`$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi _a^\mu \varphi _a+\mu ^2\varphi _a\varphi _a\right)\frac{\lambda }{N}(\varphi _a\varphi _a)^2,$$
(1)
by standard variational procedure:

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi _a\mu ^2\varphi _a+\frac{4\lambda }{N}(\varphi _b\varphi _b)\varphi _a=0.$$

For $`\mu ^2<0`$, the theory is invariant under $`O(N)`$ transformations of the quantum fields. For $`\mu ^2>0`$ and low temperatures spontaneous symmetry breaking described by nonzero vacuum expectation value of $`\varphi _N`$,

$$|\varphi _N|=v$$

breaks down symmetry group to $`O(N1)`$ and leads to $`N1`$ Goldstone bosons.

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _N\phi +v,\hfill \\ \varphi _a\chi _a,a=1\mathrm{}N1\hfill \end{array}$$

Equations for quantum fields $`\chi _a`$ and $`\phi `$ look like:

$$_\mu ^\mu \phi \mu ^2(v+\phi )+\frac{4\lambda }{N}(v^3+3v^2\phi +3v\phi ^2+\phi ^3+v\chi _a\chi _a+\phi \chi _a\chi _a)=0$$
(2)
$$_\mu ^\mu \chi _a\mu ^2\chi _a+\frac{4\lambda }{N}(v^2\chi _a+2v\phi \chi _a+\phi ^2\chi _a+\chi _b\chi _b\chi _a)=0$$
(3)
Momentum–energy tensor is obtained from Lagrangian (1) by metric variation procedure. For homogeneous, isotropic and stationary system, momentum–energy tensor turns to:

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\mu ^\nu =_\mu \phi ^\nu \phi +_\mu \chi _a^\nu \chi _a\\ \delta _\mu ^\nu \left[\frac{\mu ^2v^2}{2}\frac{\lambda v^4}{N}+\frac{\lambda }{N}\left(\phi ^4+\chi _a\chi _a\chi _b\chi _b+2\phi ^2\chi _a\chi _a+2v\phi ^3+2v\phi \chi _a\chi _a\right)\right].\end{array}$$
(4)
## 3 Bogolubov’s chain of equations.

### Definition of symmetrical Wightman functions.

Dynamics of a system, which is determined by Lagrange equations of motions, can be described in terms of chain of equations for Wightman functions (WF) — so called Bogolubov’s chain.

Full $`n`$point WF (WF of rank $`n`$) is an over state expectation value of $`n`$ quantum field operators, taken, generally speaking, at different space–time points.

$$\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}..\phi _{(x_l)}\mathrm{}\chi _{(x_m)}..\chi _{(x_n)}.$$

It can be represented as a sum of various WF of lower rank (the sum of ranks in each product is equal to $`n`$) and so called correlative Wightman function of the same rank. This representation, essentially, is a definition of correlative WF. For homogeneous, isotropic space–time it is convenient to use WF symmetrized with regard to permutation of it’s arguments. Algorithm of it’s definition, which takes into account residual $`O(N1)`$ symmetry of the theory under consideration, is illustrated for two–point $`G_{(x_1x_2)}`$, $`D_{(x_1x_2)}`$ and four–point $`G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}`$ functions. Here left bottom index is the number of $`\phi `$ fields and the right one is the number of $`\chi _a`$ fields which form the corresponding Wightman function.

1. An expectation value of a sum of every possible permutation of quantum–field operators is taken (symmetrization operation):

$$\begin{array}{c}2G_{(x_1x_2)}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}_{sym}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}+\phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_1)},\\ 2(N1)D_{(x_1x_2)}\chi _{a(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_2)}_{sym}\chi _{a(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_2)}+\chi _{a(x_2)}\chi _{a(x_1)},\\ 4(N1)G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\chi _{a(x_3)}\chi _{a(x_4)}_{sym}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\chi _{a(x_3)}\chi _{a(x_4)}+\\ +\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\chi _{a(x_4)}\chi _{a(x_3)}+\phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_3)}\chi _{a(x_4)}+\phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_4)}\chi _{a(x_3)}.\end{array}$$

Since WF should be $`O(N1)`$ invariant, quantum–field operators $`\chi _a`$ come in pairs with the same indexes (Einstein sum rule is used).

In that way defined functions are invariant of permutation of arguments of $`\phi `$ operators and of $`\chi _a`$ operators with the same indexes.

2. Four–point WF $`G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}`$ can be represented as sum of various products of (non–symmetrized) WF of the second rank and corresponding correlative function:

$$\begin{array}{c}4(N1)G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}=\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\chi _{a(x_3)}\chi _{a(x_4)}+\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\chi _{a(x_4)}\chi _{a(x_3)}+\\ \phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_3)}\chi _{a(x_4)}+\phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_4)}\chi _{a(x_3)}+4(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}\end{array}$$

3. The sum terms can be regrouped, which picks out symmetrized WF:

$$G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}=G_{(x_1x_2)}D_{(x_3x_4)}+C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}.$$

It should be noted that permutation of arguments separated by vertical line leave a Wightman function, in particular $`G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}`$, invariant: $`G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}=G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_1|x_3x_4)}=G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_4x_3)}=G_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_1|x_4x_3)}`$.

It is convenient to divide WF which depend on odd number of arguments by expectation value $`v`$.

Residual global and discrete ($`\chi _a\chi _a`$) symmetries of the theory restrict number of nontrivial WF. In particular, there exists only two nontrivial three–point

$$C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_3)}=\frac{1}{3!v}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_3)}_{sym}$$

$$C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3)}=\frac{1}{2!v}\frac{1}{N1}\chi _{a(x_i)}\chi _{a(x_j)}\phi _{(x_3)}_{sym}$$

and three nontrivial four–point correlative WF: $`C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_3x_4)}=\frac{1}{4!}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_2)}\phi _{(x_3)}\phi _{(x_4)}_{sym}G_{(x_1x_2)}G_{(x_3x_4)}\\ G_{(x_1x_3)}G_{(x_2x_4)}G_{(x_1x_4)}G_{(x_2x_3)}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3x_4)}=\frac{1}{4!}\frac{1}{(N1)^2}\chi _{a(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_2)}\chi _{b(x_3)}\chi _{b(x_4)}_{sym}\\ \frac{1}{N1}\left[(N1)D_{(x_1x_2)}D_{(x_3x_4)}+D_{(x_1x_3)}D_{(x_2x_4)}+D_{(x_1x_4)}D_{(x_2x_3)}\right]\end{array}$$

Correlative functions of higher rank are defined in the same way. Strictly speaking, written above Wightman functions are divergent and should be redefined by procedures of regularization and renormalization. 222In discussed formalism these operations replace quantum–field operators product smoothing, used in axiomatic quantum–field theory.. In this paper the scheme of dimensional regularization is used. This technique lets retain exact thermodynamic relations between equations of state, functionals and observables after renormalization.

In terms of Wightman functions momentum–energy tensor (4) looks like:

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\mu ^\nu =\underset{xx_1}{lim}(_{\mu (x)}_{(x_1)}^\nu G_{(xx_1)}+(N1)_{\mu (x)}_{(x_1)}^\nu D_{(xx_1)})\delta _\mu ^\nu (\frac{\mu ^2v^2}{2}\frac{\lambda v^4}{N}+\\ +\frac{\lambda }{N}[3G_{(xx)}G_{(xx)}+(N^21)D_{(xx)}D_{(xx)}+2(N1)G_{(xx)}D_{(xx)}]+\frac{\lambda }{N}[C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxxx)}+\\ +(N1)^2C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xxxx)}+2(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xxxx)}+2v^2C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}+2v^2(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)}])\end{array}$$
(5)
### Derivation of the chain equations.

First of all equations for WF forming momentum–energy tensor should be obtained.

Equation of state for vacuum expectation value is obtained by averaging (2):

$$v\left[\mu ^2+\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left(v^2+3G_{(xx)}+C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}+(N1)D_{(xx)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)}\right)\right]=0.$$
(6)
Averaging of (3) gives

$$2v\phi \chi _a+\phi ^2\chi _a+\chi _b\chi _b\chi _a=0,$$

which is identity owing to mentioned above symmetry $`\chi _a\chi _a`$.

Averaging equations (2) and (3) multiplied by one or several operators, one obtain equations of the Bogolubov’s chain. After symmetrization, which is required in account of symmetrical definition of WF, commutators arise:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}\phi _{(x)}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x_1)}\phi _{(x)},\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_1)}\frac{1}{N1}\left(\chi _{a(x)}\chi _{a(x_1)}\chi _{a(x_1)}\chi _{a(x)}\right).$$

Equations for two–point WF look like:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu G_{(xx_1)}+\left[\mu ^2+\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left(3v^2+3G_{(xx)}+(N1)D_{(xx)}\right)\right]G_{(xx_1)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left[\left(C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxxx_1)}+(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|xx_1)}\right)+v^2\left(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_1)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_1)}\right)\right]=0\end{array}$$
(7)
$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu D_{(xx_1)}+\left[\mu ^2+\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left(v^2+G_{(xx)}+(N+1)D_{(xx)}\right)\right]D_{(xx_1)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left[(N1)C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx|xx_1)}+C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx_1|xx)}+2v^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x)}\right]=0\end{array}$$
(8)
Owing to homogeneity, isotropy and stationarity of the system under consideration $`G_{(xx_1)}`$ and $`D_{(xx_1)}`$ depend only on module of two arguments difference $`|xx_1|`$; consequently, when $`x=x_1`$ their value are determined only by internal system parameters. Thus, emerge in equations (11), (12), all equations for WF and equations for commutators values

$$m_1^2\mu ^2+\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left(3v^2+3G_{(xx)}+(N1)D_{(xx)}\right),$$
(9)
$$m_2^2\mu ^2+\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left(v^2+G_{(xx)}+(N+1)D_{(xx)}\right),$$
(10)
depend on the system state but not the 4–coordinates. Hence these values play role of parameters when chain equations are solved.

Taking into account the designations introduced, equations for two–point WF can be rewritten as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu G_{(xx_1)}+m_1^2G_{(xx_1)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left[\left(C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxxx_1)}+(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|xx_1)}\right)+v^2\left(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_1)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_1)}\right)\right]=0,\end{array}$$
(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu D_{(xx_1)}+m_2^2D_{(xx_1)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left[(N1)C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx|xx_1)}+C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx_1|xx)}+2v^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x)}\right]=0.\end{array}$$
(12)
Equation for WF $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}`$ looks like:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}+m_1^2C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}[G_{(xx_1)}(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_2)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_2)})+G_{(xx_2)}(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_1)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_1)})+(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_2)}+3C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxx_1x_2)}+C_{{}_{05}{}^{}(xxxx_1x_2)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{23}{}^{}(xx|xx_1x_2)}]=\frac{24\lambda }{N}[G_{(xx_1)}G_{(xx_2)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_2)}].\end{array}$$
(13)
Since $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}`$ is invariant under transformations $`xx_1`$, $`xx_2`$ and $`x_1x_2`$, solution for this WF is a sum of solution of (13) and solutions obtained from that by permutations $`xx_1`$ and $`xx_2`$.

For $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}`$, which depends on $`\phi `$ and $`\chi _a`$ quantum fields, one should derive two equations, which describe contributions of $`\phi `$ and $`\chi _a`$ respectively.

The first one is derived from (3),

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}+m_2^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}[2C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_2)}+C_{23(xx|xx_1x_2)}+D_{(xx_1)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_2)}+2G_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{41}{}^{}(xx|xx_1|x_2)}+(N+1)D_{(xx_1)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_2)}]=\frac{8\lambda }{N}D_{(xx_1)}G_{(xx_2)},\end{array}$$
(14)
and the second one from (2),

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _{x_2}^\mu C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}+m_1^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}+\\ \frac{4\lambda }{N}[3C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2x_2)}+C_{{}_{23}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2x_2x_2)}+(N1)C_{{}_{41}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2x_2|x_2)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2x_2)}+2\lambda D_{(x_1x_2)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_2|x_2)}+2\lambda G_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_2)}]=\\ =\frac{8\lambda }{N}\left[D_{(x_1x_2)}D_{(xx_2)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(x_2x)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(x_2x_1)}\right].\end{array}$$
(15)
Since $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}`$ is invariant under transformation $`xx_1`$ solution for this WF is a sum of solutions of (15) and (14), and solution of (14) after permutation $`xx_1`$. The same assertions are valid for all the other WF.

Equation for $`C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3)}`$ is derived from (2):

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3)}+m_1^2C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}[G_{(xx_1)}[3C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxx_2x_3)}+(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|x_2x_3)}]+G_{(xx_2)}[3C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxx_3x_1)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_3)}]+G_{(xx_3)}[3C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xxx_1x_2)}+(N1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_2)}]+\\ +6v^2\left[G_{(xx_1)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_2x_3)}+G_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_3)}+G_{(xx_3)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}\right]+\\ +v^2[C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_3)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_3)})+C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_3)}(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_2)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_2)})+C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_2x_3)}(3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_1)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_1)})]+\\ v^2[3C_{{}_{05}{}^{}(xxx_1x_2x_3)}+(N1)C_{{}_{23}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_2x_3)}]+[C_{{}_{06}{}^{}(xxxx_1x_2x_3)}+\end{array}$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{c}+(N1)C_{{}_{24}{}^{}(xx|xx_1x_2x_3)}]=\frac{\lambda }{N}[24G_{(xx_1)}G_{(xx_2)}G_{(xx_3)}+\\ +\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_2)}G_{(xx_3)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_2)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_3)}G_{(xx_1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_3)}G_{(xx_2)}]\end{array}$$

Since the chain equations are quite bulky, a simple criterion of it’s propriety is very useful. For example WF $`C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3)}`$ is invariant of permutation of it’s arguments, so that equation (3) should be invariant under transformations $`x_1x_2`$, $`x_1x_3`$, $`x_2x_3`$ (but, due to differential operator $`_\mu _x^\mu `$, not the permutations involve $`x`$). Easy to check that the equation, written above, satisfy this criterion.

Equation for WF $`C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3)}`$ is derived from (3):

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2x_3)}+m_2^2C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}[D_{(xx_1)}((N+1)C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xxx_2x_3)}+C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx)}+2v^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_3|x)})+D_{(xx_2)}(C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_3)}+\\ +2C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx_1|xx_3)}+\frac{1}{N1}C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_3|xx)}+\frac{2v^2}{N1}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_3|x)})+D_{(xx_3)}(C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx|x_1x_2)}+\\ +2C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xx_1|xx_2)}+\frac{1}{N1}C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_1x_2|xx)}+\frac{2v^2}{N1}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x)})+\frac{2v^2}{N1}[C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_2|x)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_3|x)}+\\ +C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_3|x)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}]+2v^2C_{{}_{41}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3|x)}+\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}+C_{{}_{42}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_3|xx)}+(N1)C_{{}_{60}{}^{}(xxxx_1x_2x_3)}]=\frac{8\lambda (N+1)}{N(N1)}D_{(xx_3)}D_{(xx_2)}D_{(xx_1)}\\ \frac{\lambda }{N(N1)}[\frac{(5N7)}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_2)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_3)}D_{(xx_1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_2)}D_{(xx_3)}+\\ +\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_3)}D_{(xx_2)}]\end{array}$$

For WF $`C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_1)}`$ one should obtain two independent equations. The first one is derived from (2) by multiplying by $`\chi _a(x_2)\chi _a(x_3)\phi (x_1)`$ and $`\chi _a(x_3)\chi _a(x_2)\phi (x_1)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_1)}+m_1^2C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_1)}+\\ \frac{4\lambda }{N}[G_{(xx_1)}((N1)C_{{}_{40}{}^{}(xxx_2x_3)}+3C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx)})+2[D_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx_3|xx_1)}+\\ +D_{(xx_3)}C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(xx_2|xx_1)}]+2v^2[3G_{(xx_1)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}+D_{(xx_3)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_2|x_1)}+D_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_3|x_1)}]\\ +3v^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_1)}+v^2[(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_1)}+2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_3|x_1)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_2|x)}+\\ +2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_2|x_1)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_3|x)}]+3v^2C_{{}_{23}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xxx_1)}+C_{{}_{24}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xxxx_1)}+(N1)v^2C_{{}_{41}{}^{}(xxx_2x_3|x_1)}+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{42}{}^{}(xxx_2x_3|xx_1)}]=\frac{8\lambda }{N}[D_{(xx_2)}D_{(xx_3)}G_{(xx_1)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_2)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_3)}G_{(xx_1)}],\end{array}$$

and the second one from (3) by transformation $`xx_2`$ and multiplying by $`\chi (x_3)\phi (x)\phi (x_1)`$ and $`\chi (x_3)\phi (x_1)\phi (x)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _{x_2}^\mu C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_1)}+m_2^2C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_1)}+\\ +\frac{4\lambda }{N}[D_{(x_2x_3)}[C_{{}_{04}{}^{}(xx_1x_2x_2)}+(N+1)C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx)}]+2[G_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x_1x_2)}+\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}+G_{(x_1x_2)}C_{{}_{22}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_2)}]+2v^2[D_{(x_2x_3)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}+G_{(x_1x_2)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}+\\ +G_{(xx_2)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x_1)}]+v^2[2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x_2)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}+C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x_1)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_2x_2)}+\\ +C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_2)}]+v^2(N+1)[C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_2|x_1)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x_1)}+C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_2|x_1)}C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_2x_3|x)}]+\\ +(N1)C_{{}_{42}{}^{}(x_2x_2x_2x_3|xx_1)}+C_{{}_{24}{}^{}(x_2x_3|xx_1x_2x_2)}+2v^2C_{23(x_2x_3|xx_1x_2)}]=\\ =\frac{8\lambda }{N}\left[D_{(x_2x_3)}G_{(xx_2)}G_{(x_1x_2)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(x_2x)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(x_2x_1)}D_{(x_2x_3)}\right]\end{array}$$

Equations for commutators, which present almost in all chain equations, look like:

$$_\mu _x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}+m_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}=0,$$
(17)
$$_\mu _x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_1)}+m_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(xx_1)}=0.$$
(18)
In high symmetry phase, where vacuum expectation value is equal to zero, symmetry with regard to $`\phi \phi `$ transformation is restored, consequently all WF which depend on odd number of $`\phi `$ quantum–field operators are identically equal to zero. The chain equations for this phase are easily derived from those for low–symmetry phase.

### The chain reduction.

Two approaches to the chain reduction are known: model–approximative and iterative.

In model–approximative approach a few first chain equations are solved, and the higher rank Wightman functions are evaluated as a certain combination of lower–rank WF according to an algorithm specified. Use of this approach in the considered formalism is difficult due to necessity of WF redefinition: in order to renormalize divergent integrals one should know energy spectrum, which, in turn, can be obtained only after renormalization.

In iterative approach corrections to a basis approximation are calculated. Choice of basis approximation is dictating by the chain mathematical structure.

A chain equation is a generalized D’Alamber equation

$$_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{nm}{}^{}(x\mathrm{}x_m)}+m^2C_{{}_{nm}{}^{}(x\mathrm{}x_m)}=\mathrm{f}(x\mathrm{}x_m)$$

with combinations of correlative functions and field commutators as sources, which solution is a sum of general solution of the corresponding homogeneous equation and partial solution concerned with the sources.

Solution of homogeneous equation, considered in chapter 4, should be taken into account only for two–point WF $`G_{(x_1x_2)}`$ and $`D_{(x_1x_2)}`$, which form effective masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$. For correlative functions, which describe weak effects of many–particles interaction, in considered iterative approach one should take into account only solutions concerned with the sources. Since sources contain small constant of self–interaction, correlative WF $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_3)}`$, $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3)}`$ are of the first order of vanishing in compare with $`G_{(x_1x_2)}`$ and $`D_{(x_1x_2)}`$.

Independently of choice of basis approximation the following algorithm of calculations can be formulated:

I.1. Derive solutions of the chain equations (considered in a certain approximation) keeping $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`v`$ as parameters. As a result one obtain WF as functions of coordinates, effective masses, order parameter and temperature:

$$W_{(xx_1\mathrm{}x_nx_m)}=W(xx_1\mathrm{}x_nx_m,m_1,m_2,v,T)$$

I.2. Calculate WF at coincident points. Owing to homogeneity, isotropy and stationarity of the system under consideration, the result depends on temperature, $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`v`$, but not 4–coordinates:

$$W_{(xx\mathrm{}xx)}=W(m_1,m_2,v,T)$$

I.3. Substitute Wightman functions, calculated at coincident points, in (9), (10) and (6) and solve this system of nonlinear equations for $`v`$, $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$. After substitution of solutions

$$m_1=m_1(T),m_2=m_2(T),v=v(T)$$

one obtain WF as functions of coordinates and temperature.

I.4. By known dependence WF on temperature calculate thermodynamic observables using momentum–energy tensor (5).

The chain reduction basis approximation corresponds to allowing only for two–point $`G_{(xx_1)}`$ and $`D_{(xx_1)}`$ Wightman functions in equations (11) and (12), equation of state for order parameter (6) and momentum–energy tensor (5).

When calculating corrections to the basis approximation, which assumes calculation of higher rank WF, already known two–point Wightman functions are used:

II.1. Substitute $`G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(x_1x_2)}`$ and $`D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(x_1x_2)}`$, calculated in basis approximation, in equations for correlative WF, in particular $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_3)}`$ and $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3)}`$, and obtain partial solution, concerned with sources.

II.2. Substitute obtained solutions for correlative WF into the chain equations for $`G_{(x_1x_2)}`$, $`D_{(x_1x_2)}`$, obtain their solutions and so on…

II.3. Calculate $`v`$, $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and thermodynamic observables on temperature dependence (according to points I.2 — I.4 of algorithm).

It is easy to see, that corrections are of $`O(N^1)`$ order of vanishing, thus at the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ the basis approximation becomes exact solution of the chain equations.

## 4 Hartree–Fock approximation.

The Bogolubov’s chain basis reduction approximation is called Hartree–Fock approximation (HFA)333Which is often mentioned as “ mean field approximation”, “ Hartree approximation”.

### The chain equations in Hartree–Fock approximation.

According to algorithm, stated above, at first step equations for two–point functions, with $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ considered as parameters, are written out:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}+m_1^2G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}=0,_\mu _x^\mu D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}+m_2^2D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(x_1x)}=0.\end{array}$$

These equations are similar to those for noninteracting fields, thus it is natural to represent $`\phi `$ and $`\chi _a`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi =\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}}(a_\text{p}e^{i\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}t}+a_\text{p}^+e^{i\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}t})e^{i\text{p}\text{x}},\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}^2=\text{p}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_1^2,\\ \chi _a=\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}}(b_{p(a)}e^{i\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}t}+b_{\text{p}(a)}^+e^{i\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}t})e^{i\text{p}\text{x}},\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}^2=\text{p}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_2^2,\end{array}$$
(19)
with usual commutators for $`a_\text{p},b_{\text{p}(a)},a_\text{p}^+,b_{\text{p}(a)}^+`$ operators. This representation corresponds to description of the system as an ideal gas of particles with masses dependent on temperature.

At the second step two–point WF are calculated in coincident points:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx)}=\lambda \underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{N_{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}+1/2}{V\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}=\lambda \underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{V\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda \underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{V\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}\right)_{ren},\\ \lambda D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx)}=\lambda \underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{N_{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}+1/2}{V\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}=\lambda \underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{V\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda \underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{V\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}\right)_{ren}.\end{array}$$
(20)
As it was already mentioned, divergent terms were renormalized in the framework of dimensional regularization method. Essential part of the method is that a theory is initially formulated in non-integer dimension space and transmutation parameters present in Lagrangian as factor multiplying dimensionless constants of interaction. Indeed, in Lagrangian (1), written for space–time of dimension $`D=1+n=1+32\epsilon `$, number of dimension of self–interaction constant $`\lambda `$ is $`L^{n3}`$; dimensional transmutation parameter is defined as $`\lambda _n=\lambda l^{n3}`$. Analytic continuation to integer dimension space $`\epsilon 0`$, $`D1+3`$ is made only after subtraction of $`\epsilon ^1`$ poles (this operation is equivalent to redefinition of inoculating constants of the model). After renormalization of divergent terms (20) one obtain:

$$\left(\lambda _n\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{2V\epsilon _\text{p}}\right)_{ren}=\lambda \frac{m^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{4\pi l^2}{e^{𝒞1}},$$

where $`𝒞=0.5772157`$ is Euler constant.

At third step renormalized WF are substituted to (9), (10) and (6).

It should be noted, that independently of renormalization method used, equation of state for order parameter (6) in Hartree–Fock approximation is written as:

$$v\left[m_1^2\frac{8\lambda }{N}v^2\right]=0$$
(21)
Gap equations for effective masses (9) and (10) for further purposes should be rewritten as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[J_1(m_1,T)+\frac{m_1^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right]\frac{N}{8\lambda (N+2)}\left[(N+1)m_1^2(N1)m_2^2+2\mu ^2\right]+v^2=0,\\ (N1)\left[J_1(m_2,T)+\frac{m_2^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right]\frac{N(N1)}{8\lambda (N+2)}\left[3m_2^2m_1^2+2\mu ^2\right]=0,\end{array}$$
(22)
where following designations for integrals over Bose–Einstein distribution are introduced:

$$J_n(m,T)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{p^{2n}dp}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}{T}1},n=0,1,2,$$

Temperature integrals satisfy recurrent relations:

$$\frac{J_n(m,T)}{m}=(2n1)mJ_{n1}(m,T),\frac{J_n(m,T)}{T}=\frac{2n}{T}J_n(m,T)+(2n1)\frac{m^2}{T}J_{n1}(m,T)$$

Gap equation for effective mass at high–symmetry phase is obtained from (22) by zero filling of order parameter. It is easy to see, that at high–symmetry phase $`m_1=m_2m`$.
It follows from (21) and (22) that in Hartree–Fock approximation the following effects are taken into account:

1)vacuum influence on quasi–particles properties (order parameter $`v`$ in definition of effective masses).

2)whole particles influence on condensate and properties of each quasi–particle (temperature integrals in equations for condensate and effective masses).

3)zero-point oscillations of quantum fields influence on condensate and properties of each quasi–particle (renormalized vacuum integrals in equations for $`v`$ and effective masses).

### Generating functional.

Lagrangian (1) is a “generating functional” for operator equations of state, cause it reproduce these equations on it’s extremals. Since Bogolubov’s chain is equivalent to set of operator equations, a “generating functional” which reproduce chain equations must exist. The same assertion is valid for the chain reduced in any approximation.

In self–consistent approximation this functional should reproduce gap equations for effective masses and equation of state for order parameter, or their linear combination.

By equations (21) and (22) generating functional, which satisfy requirements

$$\left(\frac{F}{m_1}\right)_{m_2,v}=0,\left(\frac{F}{m_2}\right)_{m_1,v}=0,\left(\frac{F}{v}\right)_{m_1,m_2}=0.$$
(23)
is reconstructed up to an arbitrary constant. It’s explicit form:

$$\begin{array}{c}F(T,m_1,m_2,v)=\frac{1}{3}\left[J_2(m_1,T)+(N1)J_2(m_2,T)\right]+U(m_1,m_2,v),\\ U(m_1,m_2,v)=\frac{m_1^4}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\sqrt{e}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+(N1)\frac{m_2^4}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\sqrt{e}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\\ \frac{N}{8\lambda (N+2)}[\frac{(N+1)m_1^4+3(N1)m_2^4}{4}\frac{N1}{2}m_1^2m_2^2+\end{array}$$
(24)
$$\begin{array}{c}+\mu ^2(m_1^2+(N1)m_2^2)]+\frac{m_1^2v^2}{2}\frac{2\lambda v^4}{N}\frac{N^2\mu ^4}{16\lambda (N+2)}.\end{array}$$

### Gibbs potential.

The goal of the theory of phase transitions is a calculation of transition temperature, phase co-existence region, and thermodynamic observables. The last can be obtained from momentum–energy tensor components (5), which for homogeneous and isotropic system is diagonal $`T_\mu ^\nu =\mathrm{diag}(\epsilon ,\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p})`$. Since state of the system under consideration is defined by temperature and volume, one should use Gibbs potential for thermodynamic description. Due to chemical potential equality to zero, potential of free energy coincides with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-potential, which is easily calculated via momentum–energy tensor spatial components:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n3}{lim}p_nV_n=\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{T_i^iV_n}{n}.$$
(25)
As (25) is divergent, it should be renormalized. In (5) two–point WF $`G_{(xx)}`$ and $`D_{(xx)}`$ are expressed through effective masses and, consequently, are not divergent. “Kinetic” momentum–energy tensor terms

$$\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{V_n}{n}\left(_i\phi ^i\phi +_i\chi _a^i\chi _a\right)$$

except directly dependent on temperature items,

$$\frac{1}{3}\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{\text{p}^2N_{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}{\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}\frac{N1}{3}\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{\text{p}^2N_{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}{\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}$$

contain divergent vacuum terms,

$$\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{V_n}{n}\left(\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{\text{p}^2}{2V_n\epsilon _{{}_{1}{}^{}\text{p}}}(N1)\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{\text{p}^2}{2V_n\epsilon _{{}_{2}{}^{}\text{p}}}\right)$$

which should be renormalized. The parameter of dimensional regularization method is introduced via volume $`V_n`$ in non–integer dimension space, which is connected with integer–dimension space volume by simple relation:

$$V_n=Nl^n=Nl^3l^{2\epsilon }=Vl^{2\epsilon }.$$

Renormalization of divergent terms leads to the following result:

$$\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{V_n}{n}\left(\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{\text{p}^2}{2V_n\epsilon _\text{p}}\right)=V\frac{m^4}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\sqrt{e}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)$$

Substitution of results of renormalization of divergent terms and two–point WF, expressed via effective masses and order parameter, to (5) gives:

$$\frac{(T,V)}{V}=\frac{1}{3}[J_2(T,m_1(T))+J_2(T,m_2(T))]+U(m_1(T),m_2(T),v(T))$$
(26)
Free energy density (26) is distinguished into two parts: the first one describes contribution of ideal gas (temperature integrals over Bose–Einstein distribution), and the second one contribution of so called “self–consistent field” (indirectly dependent on temperature).

It follows from (24) and (26), that generating functional, being considered on solution of gap equations for effective masses and equation of state for order parameter, turns into equilibrium free energy density.

$$F(T,m_1(T),m_2(T),v(T))=\frac{(T,V)}{V}$$
(27)
For this reason arbitrary constant in (24) was chosen to be equal to $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^2\mu ^4}{16\lambda (N+2)}}`$.

### Thermodynamic observables.

Specific heat capacity, entropy and sonic speed are obtained from equilibrium free energy by usual thermodynamic relations.

$$\begin{array}{c}s=\frac{S}{V}=\frac{1}{V}\left(\frac{}{T}\right)_V,c_V=\frac{C_V}{V}=\frac{T}{V}\left(\frac{^2(T)}{T^2}\right)_V,u^2=\frac{s}{c_V}.\end{array}$$

Due to mentioned property of generating functional (27) and in view of (23) are identities on solution of gap equations and equation of state

$$\begin{array}{c}s=\frac{1}{V}\left(\frac{(T,V)}{T}\right)_V=\left(\frac{F}{T}\right)_{v,m_1,m_2},c_V=\frac{T}{V}\left(\frac{^2(T,V)}{T^2}\right)_V=\\ =T\left[\left(\frac{^2F}{T^2}\right)_{v,m_1,m_2}+\left(\frac{^2F}{Tv}\right)_{m_1,m_2}\frac{dv}{dT}+\left(\frac{^2F}{m_1T}\right)_{v,m_2}\frac{dm_1}{dT}+\left(\frac{^2F}{Tm_2}\right)_{v,m_1}\frac{dm_2}{dT}\right].\end{array}$$

Effective masses and condensate order parameter derivatives are obtained by derivation of (21) and (22), considered as identities. Result of calculation is given below. Specific heat capacity in low–symmetry phase:

$$\begin{array}{c}c_V=\frac{1}{T}(4[J_2(m_1,T)+(N1)J_2(m_2,T)]+5[m_1^2J_1(m_1,T)+(N1)m_2^2J_1(m_2,T)]+\\ +[m_1^4J_0(m_1,T)+(N1)m_2^4J_0(m_2,T)]+\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{\delta N}[f_2^2(m_1,T)[3\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}f_1(m_2,T)]\\ f_2^2(m_2,T)(N1)[\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}f_1(m_1,T)+1]+2(N1)f_2(m_1,T)f_2(m_2,T)]).\end{array}$$

Here following designations are introduced:

$$f_1(m,T)\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2e}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)J_0(m,T),f_2(m,T)2J_1(m,T)+m^2J_0(m,T),$$

$$\delta N1\left(\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}f_1(m_2,T)3\right)\left(\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}f_1(m_1,T)+1\right).$$

Specific heat capacity in high–symmetry phase:

$$c_V=\frac{N}{T}\left(4J_2(m,T)+5m^2J_1(m,T)+m^4J_0(m,T)\frac{f_2^2(m,T)}{f_1(m,T){\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\lambda (N+2)}}}\right).$$

Specific entropy in high–symmetry phase is easily obtained from that in low–symmetry phase:

$$s=\frac{1}{T}\left(\frac{4}{3}\left[J_2(m_1,T)+(N1)J_2(m_2,T)\right]+\left[m_1^2J_1(m_1,T)+(N1)J_1(m_2,T)\right]\right)$$

### Phases stability conditions.

Free energy density (26), obtained earlier by clearly thermodynamic relation (25), can be calculated via statistical sum:

$$=T\mathrm{ln}Z.$$
(28)
The system energy spectrum, which is needed for the calculation, is determined by infill numbers, effective masses and condensate values:

$$E=\underset{\text{p}}{}\epsilon _{1\text{p}}N_{1\text{p}}+(N1)\underset{\text{k}}{}\epsilon _{2\text{k}}N_{2\text{k}}+VU(m_1,m_2,v),$$

where $`N_{1\text{p}}`$ and $`N_{2\text{p}}`$ are numbers of $`\phi `$ and $`\chi _a`$ particles respectively. For the theory to be self–consistent in approximation used, one should sum over infill numbers $`N_{1\text{p}}`$ and $`N_{2\text{p}}`$, but not the effective masses and order parameter, considering $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`v`$ as constants (as it was stated in \[7, §30\]). After summation statistical sum is represented as a product of two terms: the first one corresponds to ideal gas and the second one to “self–consistent” field. Taking the logarithm and summing over impulses gives a function which coincide with generating functional. Consideration of gap equations for effective masses (22) and equation of state for order parameter (21) leads to the specific equilibrium free energy density (26).

Keeping symmetrical parameters as constants, when calculating statistical sum, corresponds to the algorithm of calculation of non–equilibrium Landau statistical sum $`Z_L`$ , which allows to obtain non-equilibrium free energy functional $`_L`$. Since the only symmetrical parameter in our case is condensate $`v`$, to obtain non–equilibrium Landau functional, one should substitute effective masses on order parameter dependence into generating functional.

The functional obtained $`F(T,v)=F(T,m_1(T,v),m_2(T,v),v)`$ reproduce equation of state for order parameter:

$$\frac{d}{dv}F(T,v)=\left(\frac{F}{m_1}\right)_{T,m_2,v}\frac{dm_1}{dv}+\left(\frac{F}{m_2}\right)_{T,m_1,v}\frac{dm_2}{dv}+\left(\frac{F}{v}\right)_{T,m_1,m_2}=\left(\frac{F}{v}\right)_{T,m_1,m_2},$$

and on solution of that equation $`v=v(T)`$ it turns to free energy density, i.e. it possess all properties of non–equilibrium functional.

A phase stability condition is order parameter Landau functional second derivation positivity:

$$\frac{d^2F}{dv^2}=m_1^2\frac{24\lambda }{N}v^2+2m_1v\frac{dm_1}{dv}.$$
(29)
Inclusion of formal external classical source, interacting with condensate, in Lagrangian changes equation of state for

$$+\rho _a\varphi _a,\rho _a=\delta _{a,_N}\eta $$

order parameter, which now depends on external source $`v=v(\eta )`$. In Hartree–Fock approximation:

$$v\left[m_1^2\frac{8\lambda }{N}v^2\right]=\eta .$$

Generalized sensitivity at $`\eta 0`$ turns out to be in inverse proportion with stability condition (29):

$$\left(\frac{dv}{d\eta }\right)_{\eta 0}=\left(\frac{d^2F}{dv^2}\right)^1.$$

Being usual in Landau phase transitions theory, this result proves correctness of non–equilibrium free energy and stability condition (29).

Appearing in (29) condensate derivative of mass is obtained by order parameter differentiating of gap equations for effective masses (22), considered as identities. In particular, low–symmetry phase stability condition looks like:

$$\frac{d^2F}{dv^2}=2m_1^2\frac{N1\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}}f_1(m_2,T)3\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}}f_1(m_1,T)+1\right)}{\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}}f_1(m_2,T)3\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}}f_1(m_1,T)N1\right)N+1}.$$

In the vicinity of critical temperature $`T_{c_2}`$ stability condition denominator is a slow variable function. Numerator temperature derivative, which designation was introduced earlier, $`\delta _T^{^{}}\delta ^1`$, this implies that $`\delta \sqrt{T_{c_2}T}`$ at the vicinity of $`T_{c_2}`$.

Specific heat capacity of low–symmetry phase contains $`\delta `$ in inverse proportion, thus it is formally divergent at $`T_{c_2}`$ temperature. Sonic speed, which is inverse proportion with heat capacity, tends to zero.

Stability condition of high–symmetry phase proportional to effective mass squared

$$\frac{d^2F}{dv^2}=m^2,$$

which allows to obtain value of critical temperature $`T_{c_1}`$ analytically:

$$T_{c_1}=\mu \sqrt{\frac{3N}{\lambda (N+2)}}.$$

### Numerical calculations in Hartree–Fock approximation.

Results of numerical calculations of effective masses, order parameter and thermodynamical observables on temperature dependence for $`N=2`$, $`N=4`$ and $`N=9`$ and $`\lambda =0.012\pi ^2`$ are given below.

If parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is chosen to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_{1vac},m_{1vac}m_1(T=0)`$, gap equations for effective masses and equation for order parameter posses a solution $`m_1^2=2\mu ^2,m_2^2=0`$, so that quanta of $`\chi _a`$ fields turn to Goldstone bosons.

It is convenient to normalize effective masses, order parameter and observables to $`m_{1vac}`$. Graphs of their temperature dependence are given in mentioned normalization ($`T{\displaystyle \frac{T}{m_{1vac}}}`$ and so forth.).

Fig.1 Temperature dependence of effective masses, order parameter, sonic speed and specific heat capacity in Hartree–Fock approximation.

Equations (22) and (21) in low–symmetry phase admit thermodynamically stable in temperature region 0 .. $`T_{c_2}`$ (solid lines at figures 1.(a) and 1.(b)) and in temperature region $`T_{c_1}`$ .. $`T_{c_2}`$ thermodynamically unstable (not shown) branches of solutions. In high–symmetry phase only one, stable, branch of solutions exists (dashed line).

Below temperature $`T_{c_1}`$ in high–symmetry phase and above $`T_{c_2}`$ in low–symmetry phase, where stability conditions of the phases turn to zero, equations for effective masses (22) and order parameter (21) admit no solutions. When calculating correction to Hartree–Fock approximation, this criterion allows to easily find phases stability thresholds.

As it follows from order parameter on temperature dependence, at phase equilibrium point $`T_{c_1}<T_c<T_{c_2}`$, where equality of free energies of both phases is achieved, order parameter is small but not zero, consequently for finite $`N`$ first type (close to second type) phase transition takes place. Decreasing of condensate value at equilibrium point $`T_c`$ and decreasing of phase coexistence region to $`T_c`$ ratio $`\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T_c}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_{c_2}T_{c_1}}{T_c}}`$ with increase $`N`$ $`(\xi |_{N=2}0.021`$, $`\xi |_{N=4}0.011`$, $`\xi |_{N=9}0.006)`$ indicates that at the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ phase transition of second type takes place. Due to zero $`\chi _a`$ fields quanta masses, sonic speed is not zero at zero temperature.

Numerical calculations confirm mentioned above conclusion of heat capacity divergence at vicinity of $`T_{c_2}`$. However, it is well known, that heavy fluctuations in this region “blur” jump of heat capacity and other thermodynamic observables.

Corrections to Hartree–Fock approximation turn out large at phases equilibrium point, which confirms inadaptability of the approximation at this temperature and, consequently, formality of made above conclusion about heat capacity divergence.

## 5 Corrections to Hartree–Fock approximation.

Calculation of corrections to Hartree–Fock approximation, which implies calculation of higher–rank WF, is important not only for estimation of the Hartree–Fock approximation temperature region of adaptability, but also for proof of correctness of mentioned in 4 renormalization method.

### Algorithm of calculations.

Since equation for order parameter (6), which can be rewritten as follows

$$v\left[m_1^2\frac{8\lambda v^2}{N}+\frac{4\lambda }{N}\left(C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)}\right)\right]=0,$$
(30)
contains three–point WF, at first step one should derive partial solution of equation for WF $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_3)}`$ and $`C_{_{21}}`$ concerned with sources. Proximate system of equations for three-point WF is derived from (13), (14) and (15) by neglecting of higher–rank WF:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}+m_1^2C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}\frac{24\lambda }{N}\left[G_{(xx_1)}G_{(xx_2)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{(xx_2)}\right],\end{array}$$
(31)
$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _{x_2}^\mu C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}+m_1^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}\frac{8\lambda }{N}\left[D_{(x_2x_1)}D_{(x_2x)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(x_2x)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{(x_2x_1)}\right],\end{array}$$
(32)
$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu _x^\mu C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}+m_2^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}\frac{8\lambda }{N}D_{(xx_1)}G_{(xx_2)}.\end{array}$$
(33)
In the framework of the iterative procedure used, for solving equations (31) and (32), (33) two–point WF $`G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ and $`D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ calculated in Hartree–Fock approximation are used.

As accurate within first order of vanishing terms $`\lambda v^2={\displaystyle \frac{N}{8}}m_1^2`$, corrections to WF $`G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ and $`D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ are of the first order of vanishing and should be taken into account along with $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(x_1x_2x_3)}`$ and $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(x_1x_2|x_3)}`$. Thus, at second step equations for $`G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ and $`D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$, which derived from (11) and (12) by substitution $`\lambda v^2`$, expressed through $`m_1^2`$, substitution of three-point WF and neglecting of the second order of vanishing sources (in particular four–point WF, multiplied by $`\lambda `$).

$$_\mu _x^\mu G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}+m_1^2G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}\frac{m_1^2}{2}\left[3C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx_1)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x_1)}\right],$$
(34)
$$_\mu _x^\mu D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}+m_2^2D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}m_1^2C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x)}.$$
(35)
Taking into account tree-point WF and corrections to two–point WF in equation for order parameter and equations for effective masses leads to new temperature dependence of these values in compare with Hartree–Fock approximation. New dependencies are found at third step.

Preliminary conclusion of corrections to $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`v`$ magnitudes one could made without numerical analysis. Assuming the corrections small, introduce effective masses and order parameter as follows:

$$m_1^2=m_{10}^2+\delta m_1^2,m_2^2=m_{20}^2+\delta m_2^2,v^2=v_0^2+\delta v^2,$$
(36)
Here $`m_{10}`$, $`m_{20}`$ and $`v_0`$ corresponds to self consistent field approximation. Substitution of (36) in (30) and (9), (10) and separation by orders of vanishing gives the following expressions for corrections:

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta m_2^2=\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{\delta N}[2(N1)D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx)}(\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}f_1(m_{20},T)3)\\ (2G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx)}+C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)})],\end{array}$$
(37)
$$\begin{array}{c}\delta m_2^2=\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{\delta N}[2D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx)}(\frac{4\lambda (N+2)}{N}f_1(m_{10},T)+1)+2G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx)}+\\ +C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)}],\end{array}$$
(38)
$$\delta v^2=\frac{\delta m_1^2N}{8\lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\left(C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}+(N1)C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)}\right).$$
(39)
Designations $`f_1(m,T)`$, which up to a coefficient is a squared mass derivative of two–point WF considered in Hartree–Fock approximation,

$$f_1(m_{10},T)=2\frac{G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx)}}{m_{10}^2},f_1(m_{20},T)=2\frac{D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx)}}{m_{20}^2}$$

and $`\delta `$ were introduced in chapter 4. As long as at the vicinity of $`T_{c_2}`$ $`\delta \sqrt{T_{c_2}T}`$, corrections, calculated by (37), (38) and (39), are of high magnitude in this region.

At fourth step corrections to thermodynamical observables are calculated. Neglecting of four–point Wightman functions, which contributions are of second order of vanishing, and substitution of two– and three–point WF, expressed through effective masses and condensate value, in “potential” terms of momentum–energy tensor gives:

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\mu ^\nu =\underset{xx_1}{lim}\left(_{\mu (x)}_{(x_1)}^\nu G_{(xx_1)}+(N1)_{\mu (x)}_{(x_1)}^\nu D_{(xx_1)}\right)\\ \delta _\mu ^\nu (\frac{N}{8\lambda (N+2)}[\frac{(N+1)m_1^4+3(N1)m_2^4}{4}\frac{N1}{2}m_1^2m_2^2+\\ +\mu ^2(m_1^2+(N1)m_2^2)+\frac{N\mu ^4}{2}]m_1^2v^2+\frac{6\lambda v^4}{N}).\end{array}$$
(40)
Since in high–symmetry phase three–point WF are identically equal to zero, corrections are of the second order of vanishing, and should not be considered in approximation which takes into account only effects of zero and first order of vanishing.

### Calculation of three–point WF.

In Hartree–Fock approximation two–point WF $`G_{(xx_1)}`$ and $`D_{(xx_1)}`$, and commutators look like:

$$G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{n_\text{p}+\frac{1}{2}}{2\epsilon _\text{p}V}\left(e^{ip(xx_1)}+e^{ip(x_1x)}\right),D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\underset{\text{k}}{}\frac{n_\text{k}+\frac{1}{2}}{2\epsilon _\text{k}V}\left(e^{ik(xx_1)}+e^{ik(x_1x)}\right),$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\underset{\text{p}}{}\frac{1}{2\epsilon _\text{p}V}\left(e^{ip(xx_1)}e^{ip(x_1x)}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\underset{\text{k}}{}\frac{1}{2\epsilon _\text{k}V}\left(e^{ik(xx_1)}e^{ik(x_1x)}\right),$$

so that sources in equations (31), (32), (33) and (34), (35) are sum of exponents. Since exponent is an eigen-function of differentiation operator, action of D’Alamber operator at each terms reduce to multiplying by correspondent function of masses and impulses $`f(q,m)`$. Hence, solutions of the equations are functions which differ from sources by factors $`f(q,m)^1`$ of exponents.

Use of this algorithm and consideration of symmetrical properties of Wightman functions $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}`$ gives:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xx_1x_2)}=\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{12\lambda _n^2}{N(2\pi )^{2n}}\frac{d^npd^np^{}}{\epsilon _p\epsilon _p^{}}[(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _p}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _p^{}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}(\frac{e^{i\mathrm{p}(xx_1)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(xx_2)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x_2)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_2x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_2x_1)}}{m_1^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{p}^{})^2}+\\ +\frac{e^{i\mathrm{p}(xx_1)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_2x)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_2x_1)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_2x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x_2)}}{m_1^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}^{})^2})+\end{array}$$
(41)
$$\begin{array}{c}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Re}(\frac{e^{i\mathrm{p}(xx_1)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(xx_2)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x_2)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_2x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_2x_1)}}{m_1^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{p}^{})^2}\\ \frac{e^{i\mathrm{p}(xx_1)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_2x)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_2x_1)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_2x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x_2)}}{m_1^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}^{})^2})].\end{array}$$

Here $`\mathrm{p}=(p^_0,\text{p})=(\sqrt{\text{p}^2+m_1^2},\text{p})`$, $`\mathrm{p}^{}=(p^_0,\text{p}^{})=(\sqrt{\text{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_1^2},\text{p}^{})`$. To obtain (41) $`G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$, $`D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}`$ one should turn from summation to integration over non–integer dimension space.

In solutions of (32) and (33) terms $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_2^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2}}`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2}}`$ respectively arise. Denominators of these terms turn to zero for some impulses p, k if condition $`m_12m_2`$ is satisfied. Physically satisfaction of this condition corresponds to possibility of $`\phi `$ to pair $`\chi _a`$ decay. In tree approximation decay width is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{N1}{N^2}\frac{2\lambda ^2v^2}{\pi m_1}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{2m_2}{m_1}\right)^2}.$$

Let us now introduce helper function $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}^{au}`$, which satisfy to equations obtained from (32) and (33) respectively by substitutions

$$_\mu _{x_2}^\mu +m_1^2_\mu _{x_2}^\mu +m_1^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma },_\mu _x^\mu +m_2^2_\mu _x^\mu +m_2^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

Since WF are real, by definition $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}^{au}+C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}^{au}\right]`$.

After consideration of $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}`$ symmetries with regard to arguments permutation:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}=\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{4\lambda _n^2}{N(2\pi )^{2n}}\frac{d^npd^nk}{\epsilon _\text{p}\epsilon _\text{k}}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{p}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}(\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\mathrm{p}(xx_1)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(xx_2)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x_2)}\right)}{m_2^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\\ +\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\mathrm{p}(xx_1)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_2x)}+e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_2x_1)}\right)}{m_2^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma }})\end{array}$$
(42)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{4\lambda _n^2}{N(2\pi )^6}\frac{d^nkd^nk^{}}{\epsilon _k\epsilon _k^{}}[(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _k}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _k^{}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_2x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_2x_1)}\right)}{m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\mathrm{k}(xx_2)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_2x_1)}\right)}{m_1^2(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)+\\ +\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Re}(\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_2x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_2x_1)}\right)}{m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\mathrm{k}(xx_2)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_2x_1)}\right)}{m_1^2(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma }})].\end{array}$$

Here $`\mathrm{k}=(k^_0,\text{k})=(\sqrt{\text{k}^2+m_1^2},\text{k})`$, $`\mathrm{k}^{}=(k^_0,\text{k}^{})=(\sqrt{\text{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_1^2},\text{k}^{})`$. Solutions, written above, are symmetrical of permutations of arguments. Taken in coincide points, they depend on inner system parameters, but not 4–coordinates.

Wightman functions $`C_{{}_{03}{}^{}(xxx)}`$ and $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx|x)}`$ automatically separate into items of three types. Items of the first type contain product of Bose–Einstein distributions under the integral and are finite at the limit $`n3`$. Items of the second type (“mixed integrals”) which contain under integral Bose–Einstein distribution for one integration variable and items of the third type (“vacuum integrals”) which don’t contain Bose–Einstein distribution under integral are divergent at the limit $`n3`$.

Asymptotic expansion of integrands is used for regularization of divergent terms of three–point WF in the framework of dimensional regularization. Three–dimensional impulse p (k) to effective mass $`m_1`$ ($`m_2`$) quotient serves as expansion parameter, so that region of integration is divided into four regions where values of these parameters are greater (less) than one. In each region an expansion valid in the region is used.

The integrals are well defined in space of dimension $`1<n<2`$. Since “vacuum integrals” are divergent by both integration variables, analytical continuation into $`n=3`$ dimension space lead not only to $`\epsilon ^1`$ pole (which is responsible for $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ terms in renormalized integrals), but also $`\epsilon ^2`$ pole (which is responsible for $`\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ terms).

As “mixed integrals” are divergent only by one integration variable, at the limit $`n3`$ only $`\epsilon ^1`$ pole arise. Coefficient at $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$, formed by Bose–Einstein distribution, is a function of particle mass and temperature.

After poles subtraction one obtain the following expressions for three–point Wightman functions:

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{03(xxx)_{ren}}=\frac{18\lambda }{(2\pi )^2N}[I_1^0(m_1,m_1,m_1,T)+J_1(m_1,T)(𝐂_\mathrm{𝟏}2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right))+\\ +K_1^0(m_1,m_1,m_1,T)+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟐}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟑}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟒}m_1^2],\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{21(xx|x)_{ren}}=\frac{4\lambda }{(2\pi )^2N}[I_1^0(m_1,m_2,m_2,T)+\frac{1}{2}(J_1(m_1,T)+\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}J_1(m_2,T))(𝐂_\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right))+\frac{1}{2}K_1^0(m_1,m_2,m_2,T)+\frac{1}{2}K_1^0(m_2,m_1,m_2,T)+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟐}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})+\\ +𝐂_\mathrm{𝟑}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟓}m_1^2+L_1^0(m_1,m_2,m_2,1)]+\frac{2\lambda }{(2\pi )^2N}[I_1^0(m_2,m_2,m_1,T)+\\ +K_1^0(m_2,m_2,m_1,T)+\left(2\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}\right)J_1(m_2,T)\left(𝐂_\mathrm{𝟏}2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right)𝐂_\mathrm{𝟓}m_1^2+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟔}m_2^2+\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟐}(2m_2^2m_1^2)\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_\mathrm{𝟑}(2m_2^2m_1^2)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+L_1^0(m_2,m_2,m_1,4/3)].\end{array}$$

Coefficients $`C_i`$ were calculated approximately: $`𝐂_\mathrm{𝟏}1.386,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟐}0.044,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟑}0.013,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟒}0.031,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟓}0.012,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟓}0.031,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟔}0.089`$. Introduced above functions $`I_n(x,y,\alpha ,T)`$, $`K_n(x,y,\alpha ,T)`$ and $`L_n(x,y,\alpha ,\beta ,T)`$ are defined as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}I_n^m(x,y,\alpha ,T)=\frac{2}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^3pd^3k}{\epsilon _\text{p}\epsilon _\text{k}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{p}}{T}1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}}{T}1}\\ \mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{(\text{p}+\text{k})^{2m}}{\left(\alpha ^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})^2i\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^n}+\frac{(\text{p}\text{k})^{2m}}{\left(\alpha ^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2i\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^n}\right],\end{array}$$
(43)
$$\begin{array}{c}K_n^m(x,y,\alpha ,T)=\frac{2}{(2\pi )^4}_{|\text{p}|=0}^{|\text{p}|=\mathrm{}}_{|\text{k}|=0}^{|\text{k}|=y}\frac{d^3pd^3k}{\epsilon _\text{p}\epsilon _\text{k}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{p}}{T}1}\\ \mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{(\text{p}+\text{k})^{2m}}{\left(\alpha ^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})^2i\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^n}+\frac{(\text{p}\text{k})^{2m}}{\left(\alpha ^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2i\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^n}\right],\end{array}$$
(44)
$$\begin{array}{c}L_n^m(x,y,\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{1}{2(2\pi )^4}_{|\text{p}|=0}^{|\text{p}|=x}_{|\text{k}|=0}^{|\text{k}|=y}\frac{d^3pd^3k}{\epsilon _\text{p}\epsilon _\text{k}}\\ \mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{\beta (\text{p}+\text{k})^{2m}}{\left(\alpha ^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})^2i\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^n}+\frac{(2\beta )(\text{p}\text{k})^{2m}}{\left(\alpha ^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2i\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^n}\right].\end{array}$$
(45)
In (43),(44) and (45) 4–impulses $`\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{k}`$ depend on arguments $`x`$ and $`y`$ as: $`\mathrm{p}=(p^_0,\text{p})=(\epsilon _\text{p},\text{p})=(\sqrt{\text{p}^2+x^2},\text{p})`$, $`\mathrm{k}=(k^_0,\text{k})=(\epsilon _\text{k},\text{k})=(\sqrt{\text{k}^2+x^2},\text{k})`$.

Proportional to introduced in chapter 4 temperature integral $`J_1(m,T)`$ terms are renormalized “mixed integrals”. Renormalized “vacuum integrals” are not explicitly temperature dependent.

Wightman function $`C_{21(xx|x)_{ren}}`$, which contain terms $`m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ and $`m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ is logarithmically divergent at the limit $`T0`$ . This divergence, caused by long-range action, is described by diagrams of massless $`\chi _a`$ quanta exchange. Since at the most interesting region of phase transition $`m_2`$ is not zero, this problem was not investigated in details.

### Calculation of corrections to two–point Wightman functions.

Taking into account (13), (14) and (15) it is convenient to rewrite equations (34) and (35) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[_\mu _{x_1}^\mu +m_1^2\right]\left[_\mu _x^\mu +m_1^2\right]G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\frac{36\lambda m_1^2}{N}\left[G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}\right]+\\ +\frac{4\lambda m_1^2(N1)}{N}\left[D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}\right],\end{array}$$
(46)
$$\left[_\mu _{x_1}^\mu +m_2^2\right]\left[_\mu _x^\mu +m_2^2\right]D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\frac{8\lambda m_1^2}{N}D_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}G_{{}_{0}{}^{}(xx_1)}.$$
(47)
Since, like in the case of three–point WF, divergent for $`m_1>2m_2`$ and some impulses terms $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m_2^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2)^2}}`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2)^2}}`$ arise in solutions, equations for two–point WF should be redefined. Use of the same way of redefinition as was used for $`C_{{}_{21}{}^{}(xx_1|x_2)}`$ leads to:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{2\lambda _n^2m_1^2}{N(2\pi )^{2n}}[9\frac{d^npd^np^{}}{\epsilon _p\epsilon _p^{}}[(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _p}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _p^{}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \end{array}$$
(48)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}+\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\right)+\\ \frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Re}(\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2})]+\\ +(N1)\frac{d^nkd^nk^{}}{\epsilon _\text{k}\epsilon _\text{k}^{}}[(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}^{}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}+\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\right)+\\ +\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Re}(\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2})]\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{4\lambda _n^2m_1^2}{N(2\pi )^{2n}}\frac{d^npd^nk}{\epsilon _\text{p}\epsilon _\text{k}}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{p}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)})}{(m_2^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}+\frac{\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(xx_1)})}{(m_2^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\right).\end{array}$$
(49)
After renormalization of corrections to two–point WF, considered in coincide points, in the framework of dimensional regularization one obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx)_{ren}^{}}=\frac{9\lambda }{N(2\pi )^2}[m_1^2I_2^0(m_1,m_1,m_1,T)+J_1(m_1,T)(C_12\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right))+\\ +m_1^2K_2^0(m_1,m_1,m_1,T)+C_2m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+C_7m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+C_8m_1^2]+\\ +\frac{(N1)\lambda }{N(2\pi )^2}[m_1^2I_2^0(m_2,m_2,m_1,T)+\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}J_1(m_2,T)(C_12\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right))+C_9m_1^2+C_{10}m_2^2+\\ +m_1^2K_2^0(m_2,m_2,m_1,T)+C_2m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+C_7m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+m_1^2L_2^0(m_2,m_2,m_1,4/3)],\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx)_{ren}^{}}=\frac{2\lambda }{N(2\pi )^2}[m_1^2I_2^0(m_1,m_2,m_2,T)+(J_1(m_1,T)+\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}J_2(m_2,T))(\frac{C_1}{2}\\ \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right))+\frac{m_1^2}{2}K_2^0(m_1,m_2,m_2,T)+\frac{m_1^2}{2}K_2^0(m_2,m_1,m_2,T)+C_2m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})+\\ +C_7m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+C_{11}m_1^2+L_2^0(m_1,m_2,m_2,1)].\end{array}$$

Here $`𝐂_\mathrm{𝟕}0.568,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟖}0.929,𝐂_\mathrm{𝟗}0.111,𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}0.818,𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}1.042`$.

In order to calculate (specific) equilibrium free energy, which is expressed via momentum–energy tensor components by relation (25), considering correction to Hartree–Fock approximation of the first order of vanishing, one should derive and renormalize derivatives of corrections to two–point WF.

Differentiation of (5) and (49) gives respectively:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{V_n}{V}\frac{1}{n}_{i(x)}_{(x_1)}^iG_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\\ =\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\frac{2\lambda _n^2m_1^2}{N(2\pi )^{2n}}[9\frac{d^npd^np^{}}{\epsilon _p\epsilon _p^{}}[(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _p}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _p^{}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{(\text{p}+\text{p}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}+\frac{(\text{p}\text{p}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\right)+\\ \frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Re}(\frac{(\text{p}+\text{p}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\frac{(\text{p}\text{p}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{p}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2})]+\\ +(N1)\frac{d^nkd^nk^{}}{\epsilon _\text{k}\epsilon _\text{k}^{}}[(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}^{}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{(\text{k}+\text{k}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}+\frac{(\text{k}\text{k}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\right)+\\ +\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Re}(\frac{(\text{k}+\text{k}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(x_1x)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}+\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\frac{(\text{k}\text{k}^{})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}^{}(xx_1)})}{(m_1^2(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{k}^{})^2im_1\mathrm{\Gamma })^2})],\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{V_n}{V}\frac{1}{n}_{i(x)}_{(x_1)}^iD_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)}=\\ =\underset{n3}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\frac{4\lambda _n^2m_1^2}{N(2\pi )^{2n}}\frac{d^npd^nk}{\epsilon _\text{p}\epsilon _\text{k}}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{p}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{\epsilon _\text{k}}{T}1}+\frac{1}{2})\times \\ \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{(\text{p}+\text{k})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(x_1x)})}{(m_2^2(\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{k})^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}+\frac{(\text{p}\text{k})^2\mathrm{Re}(e^{i\mathrm{p}(x_1x)}e^{i\mathrm{k}(xx_1)})}{(m_2^2(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{k})^2im_2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}\right).\end{array}$$

After renormalization one obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{x_1x}{lim}G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)_{ren}^{}}^{^{\prime \prime }}(\underset{x_1x}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\frac{V_n}{V}_{i(x)}_{(x_1)}^iG_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)})_{ren}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\lambda m_1^2}{N(2\pi )^2}[9(I_2^1(m_1,m_1,m_1,T)+\\ +K_2^1(m_1,m_1,m_1,T)\frac{1}{2}J_1(m_1,T)+\frac{1}{2m_1^2}J_2(m_1,T)\left(𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right)+\\ +𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}m_1^2)+(N1)(I_2^1(m_2,m_2,m_1,T)+\\ +K_2^1(m_2,m_2,m_1,T)\frac{1}{2}J_1(m_2,T)+\frac{1}{2m_2^2}J_2(m_2,T)\left(𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right)+\\ +𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}}m_2^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}}m_2^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+\\ +𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}m_1^2+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}m_2^2+L_2^1(m_2,m_2,m_1,4/3))],\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{x_1x}{lim}D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)_{ren}^{}}^{^{\prime \prime }}(\frac{1}{n}\frac{V_n}{V}_{i(x)}_{(x_1)}^iD_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)})_{ren}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{2\lambda m_1^2}{N(2\pi )^2}[I_2^1(m_1,m_2,m_2,T)+\\ +\frac{1}{2}K(m_1,m_2,m_2,T)+\frac{1}{2}K(m_2,m_1,m_2,T)\frac{1}{4}\frac{m_2}{m_1}J_1(m_1,T)\frac{1}{4}\frac{m_1}{m_2}J_1(m_2,T)+\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{m_2}{m_1^3}J_2(m_1,T)\left(𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right)+\frac{1}{4}\frac{m_1}{m_2^3}J_2(m_2,T)\left(𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right)+\\ +𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}}m_1m_2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+\\ +𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}}m_1m_2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}}m_1^2+𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}m_1m_2+L_2^1(m_1,m_2,m_2,1)]\end{array}$$

Numerical values of the coefficients $`𝐂_i`$ are: $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}0.719`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}=0.011`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}0.177`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}0.019`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}0.065`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}}0.054`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}}0.021`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}}0.198`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}0.026`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}0.046`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}0.526`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}}0.617`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}0.168`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}}1.341`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}}0.396`$, $`𝐂_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}0.636`$.

Thus specific free energy density calculated accurate to first order of vanishing terms looks like:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{V}=\underset{x_1x}{lim}G_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)_{ren}^{}}^{^{\prime \prime }}+(N1)\underset{x_1x}{lim}D_{{}_{1}{}^{}(xx_1)_{ren}^{}}^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{m_1^2v^2}{2}\frac{4\lambda v^4}{N}+F(T,m_1(T),m_2(T),v(T)),$$

where (24) is evaluated on solution of (9), (10) and (30).

### Numerical calculations and conclusions.

Taking into account correction to Hartree–Fock approximation does not bring to appearance of a new branch of solutions of equations for effective masses and condensate. These values on temperature dependencies are depicted at Fig. 2 (solid lines at Fig 2.a, Fig 2.b, Fig 2.c). For easier comparison, by dashed line these values on temperature dependencies in Hartree–Fock approximation are depicted.

Fig.2 Effective masses, order parameter, equilibrium free energy and specific heat capacity on temperature dependencies calculated accurate to corrections of the first order of vanishing.

From Fig.2 it follows that in low–symmetry phase only one branch of solutions remain thermodynamically stable in temperature region $`0TT_{c_2}`$.

Significant deviation of $`m_2`$ on temperature dependence in compare with that in Hartree–Fock approximation concerns with mentioned above logarithmically divergent terms $`m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ and $`m_1^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ in three-point WF and corrections to two–point WF.

Critical temperature $`T_{c_2}`$ decreases in compare with that calculated in Hartree–Fock approximation. With increase of $`N`$, relative magnitude of corrections, estimated as quotient $`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{T_{c_2PSP}T_{c_2}}{T_{c_2}}}100\%`$ decreases ($`\gamma |_{N=2}3.26\%`$, $`\gamma |_{N=4}3.21\%`$, $`\gamma |_{N=9}2.61\%`$) and at the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ tends to zero, which agrees with conclusion made in chapter 3.

Though $`m_2`$ on temperature dependence significantly changes, at low temperatures thermodynamical observables (equilibrium free energy and heat capacity) values are close to those in Hartree–Fock approximation, as expected from general conclusions. The closer to $`T_{c_2}`$, the greater deviation of observables from that in Hartree–Fock approximation, in particular heat capacity, which agrees with made above conclusion of formality of heat capacity divergence at $`T_{c_2(0)}`$ vicinity.


format: text

text:
# High resolution spectroscopy of metal rich giants in 𝜔 Cen: first indication of SNe Ia enrichmentBased on UVES observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile, within the Observing Programme 165.L-0263. Also based on WFI observations collected at La Silla, Chile, within the observing programmes 62.L-0354 and 64.L-0439.

## 1 Introduction

The globular cluster $`\omega `$ Cen is the most massive and luminous of all galactic globular clusters, and it is the only one which shows undisputed variations in its heavy elements content. For these reasons, $`\omega `$ Cen red giants have been the subject of the largest spectroscopic surveys ever attempted on a globular cluster. Calcium triplet, low-resolution studies (Norris et al., 1996; Suntzeff & Kraft, 1996) have shown that (i) few stars exist on the Red Giant Branch (RGB) with \[Fe/H\]$`<1.8`$; (ii) there is a well defined peak in the distribution at \[Fe/H\]$`=1.6`$ with a long, extended tail reaching \[Fe/H\]$`=0.5`$; (iii) the distribution appears bimodal with a second, smaller peak at \[Fe/H\]$`1.0`$.

In spite of the previous massive observational efforts, the full complexity of the RGB structure of $`\omega `$ Cen has been revealed only recently, thanks to wide field photometry (Lee et al., 1999; Pancino et al., 2000) that discovered the presence of a previously undetected, anomalous sequence (hereafter RGB-a) on the red side of the main RGB. This newly discovered population is thought to represent the rich end of the metallicity distribution in $`\omega `$ Cen: Pancino et al. (2000) estimated a mean \[Ca/H\]$`0.1`$ and \[Fe/H\]$`0.4`$ from six RGB-a stars in common with previous surveys (stars ROA 300, 447, 500, 513111in Pancino et al. (2000), this star was erroneously reported as star ROA 512., 517 and 523; nomenclature from Woolley, 1966).

In the framework of a coordinated spectro–photometric project devoted to the study of this puzzling stellar system, we present here the first high resolution abundance measurements of the most metal rich giants in $`\omega `$ Cen.

## 2 Observational material

We selected our targets among the metal rich giants in $`\omega `$ Cen. Three of them, stars ROA 300, WFI 222068 and WFI 222679, belong to the RGB-a, while the other three belong to the intermediate metallicity population (RGB-MInt, defined in Pancino et al., 2000). Only star ROA 371 (Table 1) has been observed before with high-resolution spectroscopy ($`R20000`$) by Paltoglou & Norris (1989), Brown et al. (1991), Vanture et al. (1994) and Norris & Da Costa (1995), and for this reason is the ideal comparison object.

Observations were carried out in June 2000 with UVES at the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) Kueyen at Paranal, as a backup programme while the main targets were not visible. We obtained high-resolution ($`R45000`$) echelle spectra with $`S/N100150`$ per resolution element. The monodimensional spectra were extracted with the UVES pipeline (Ballester et al., 2000), then continuum-normalized and corrected for telluric absorption bands with IRAF222IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astonomy Observatories, which is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.. Radial velocities measured on our spectra confirm membership for all the six stars.

The magnitudes and colors of our programme stars (see Table 2), used to estimate $`T_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$, are from Pancino et al. (2000) and from unpublished V data, obtained during the same observing runs and treated the same way. Dereddened colors and absolute magnitudes were derived, assuming $`E(BV)=0.12`$ and $`(mM)_V=13.92`$ (Harris, 1996). Effective temperatures and surface gravities were obtained with the calibration by Montegriffo et al. (1998) for giants, assuming a mass of $`0.7M_{}`$.

## 3 Abundance Analysis

We selected a set of reliable and unblended spectral lines that span a wide range in strength, excitation potential and wavelength. In particular, the results presented here are based on 94 Fe I lines, 10 Fe II lines, 17 Ca I lines, 10 Si I lines and the $`5782`$Å line for Cu I, all in the spectral range $`53006800`$Å. Atomic data were taken mainly from the NIST333NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Atomic Spectra Database, Version 2.0 (March 22, 1999), http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main\_asd. database, and from Nave et al. (1994) for Iron. For Copper we used the hyperfine structure line list from the Kurucz database (Bielski, 1975).

Equivalent widths (EW) for Fe, Ca and Si were measured with IRAF by gaussian fitting of the line profile on the local continuum. The gaussian profile is a good approximation for these stars, if one avoids strong lines. For the coolest stars we chose not to measure any atomic line inside the prominent TiO bands. The comparison of our EW measurements for ROA 371 with Norris et al. (1995) shows a modest ($`2\%`$) systematic difference that has a negligible impact on the final abundance determination: the results for ROA 371 are, in fact, in good agreement with other literature values (Table 1).

The abundance calculations were made using an extension of the OSMARCS grid of plane parallel, LTE model atmospheres for M giants and supergiants calculated by Plez (1992) and Plez (1995, private communication). First estimates of the microturbulent velocity $`v_t`$ and of \[Fe/H\] were derived from curves of growth for Fe I and Fe II. We then explored the parameters space around our first estimates, and refined them by enforcing simultaneously the following conditions: (a) $`v_t`$ was determined by imposing that strong and weak Fe I lines give the same abundance; (b) the temperature was constrained by imposing excitation equilibrium on Fe I; (c) the surface gravity was refined by imposing ionization equilibrium between Fe I and Fe II. As a final test, we checked that \[Fe/H\] was not changing with $`\lambda `$. The resulting best parameters for the six programme stars are shown in Table 2: temperatures and gravities are close to the photometric estimates, and we adopted them to derive the abundances of the other elements (Ca and Si). For Copper we computed the line profile with a spectral synthesis technique to take into account the hyperfine structure of the 5782Å line (Bielski, 1975).

Table 3 shows the final abundances, together with their uncertainties: the first figure quoted is the random uncertainty, obtained by averaging the abundances from single lines. In the case of Copper, the error reflects the goodness of the spectral synthesis fit. The uncertainty in parenthesis is instead an estimate of the internal systematics, obtained by altering the values of $`T_{eff}`$ (by $`\pm `$100 $`K`$), $`\mathrm{log}g`$ (by $`\pm `$0.2) and $`v_t`$ (by $`\pm `$0.2 $`kms^1`$) and by evaluating the impact of such changes on the resulting abundances. To give an idea of the (external) systematic uncertainties, we analyzed the spectrum of Arcturus ($`\alpha `$ Boo), taken with UCLES at the Anglo Australian Telescope (Bessel, private communication), with the same procedure used for the programme stars, obtaining: $`T_{eff}=4300K`$, $`\mathrm{log}g=1.6`$, $`v_t=1.4kms^1`$ and \[Fe/H\]$`=0.43`$. The reader can use this, together with the abundance analisys of ROA 371 (Table 1) to place our results in a more general context.

## 4 Results

The three RGB-a stars are the first members of this population ever analyzed with high-resolution spectroscopy. By taking a straight average of their abundances (from Table 3) we found \[Fe/H\]=$`0.60\pm 0.15`$ and \[Ca/H\]=$`0.49\pm 0.16`$, confirming that the RGB-a population is the most metal rich component of the $`\omega `$ Cen stellar mix. The RGB-a abundance obtained here is lower than the previous estimate (\[Ca/H\]$`0.1`$) based on Calcium triplet surveys (see Par. 1). However, Calcium triplet calibrations are usually rather uncertain in the high metallicity regime (see Norris et al., 1996).

Our most interesting and surprising result, however, is the different $`\alpha `$-elements enhancement found for the two sub-populations. We obtained \[Ca/Fe\]=$`+0.29\pm 0.01`$ and \[Si/Fe\]=$`+0.28\pm 0.02`$ for the three RGB-MInt stars, which is the expected value for the $`\alpha `$-enhancement of halo and globular cluster stars. Instead, the three RGB-a stars have only \[Ca/Fe\]=$`+0.11\pm 0.05`$ and \[Si/Fe\]=$`+0.07\pm 0.05`$. If we compute \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] for each star with a weighted average of their Ca and Si abundances, the RGB-MInt and RGB-a populations $`\alpha `$-enhancements turn out to be \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\]$`=+0.29\pm 0.01`$ and \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\]$`=+0.10\pm 0.04`$, respectively.

This is the first indication that a population of stars with a significantly lower $`\alpha `$-enhancement exists in $`\omega `$ Cen: both Norris & Da Costa (1995) and Smith et al. (2000), who analyzed giants in $`\omega `$ Cen with metallicities up to \[Fe/H\]$`=0.78`$ and \[Fe/H\]$`=0.95`$ respectively, found no evidence of a decrease in Calcium, Silicon or in any other $`\alpha `$-element enhancement.

The effect is illustrated in Figure 1 (Panels a) and b)), where the Calcium and Silicon enhancements are plotted as a function of \[Fe/H\]. The shaded areas mark the region where the measurements by Norris & Da Costa (1995) and Smith et al. (2000) lie, while the solid lines represents the Galactic \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] relation as can be derived from Edvardsson et al. (1993) and Gratton (1999). The six stars analyzed here are plotted as filled dots: as can be seen, the three RGB-MInt stars show enhancements that are in good agreement with previous determinations for $`\omega `$ Cen, while the three RGB-a stars are clearly less overabundant in both elements. We would like to note at this point that even if some small systematic differences may be present among the various studies (most probably due to a different choice of atomic data and $`\mathrm{log}gf`$, especially in the case of Copper) the use of trends in the abundance ratios is particularly reliable since it is based on relative, differential measurements.

Panel c) of Figure 1 shows our results for \[Cu/Fe\]. Our stars are plotted as filled dots, the shaded area covers the region where Smith et al. (2000) measurements lie, and the solid line represents the trend found by Sneden et al. (1991) for field stars. The increasing trend in our data is more compatible with the results by Sneden et al. (1991) than with the behaviour of the metal poor stars in $`\omega `$ Cen. As discussed by Smith et al. (2000), Copper is thought to be produced mainly by type Ia supernovae, and only marginally by type II supernovae (see also Matteucci et al., 1993), as required to explain the trend observed in the Galaxy. For the metal poor and intermediate stars in $`\omega `$ Cen, Smith et al. (2000) found a very low and constant value of \[Cu/Fe\]=$`0.6`$, in agreement with the idea that SNe Ia have not contributed to the enrichment of these two populations.

If the results shown in Figure 1 are confirmed by larger samples of metal rich stars, then we have found the first evidence that Supernovae type Ia ejecta have contaminated the medium from which the RGB-a stars have formed.

## 5 Discussion

A detailed discussion on the chemical evolution of $`\omega `$ Cen is beyond the purpose of this Letter, however some obvious implications of the new results presented here deserve a short comment. There are two main scenarios that have been proposed to explain the variety of stellar populations observed in $`\omega `$ Cen, both based upon non-negligible observational evidences: the self-enrichment scenario and the merging scenario. Let us discuss the impact of our result on the two separately, while recalling that the actual evolutionary path of $`\omega `$ Cen may well be the result of a combination of both scenarios.

A) The self-enrichment scenario. The most popular explanation is that $`\omega `$ Cen has been somehow able to retain the ejecta of previous generations of stars and to self-enrich during its star formation history. This requires that $`\omega `$ Cen was formerly a more complex and larger stellar system, with a deeper potential well, possibly a dwarf galaxy (Freeman, 1993; Dinescu et al., 1999; Hilker & Richtler, 2000; Hughes & Wallerstein, 2000), that lost most of its stars (and gas) in the interaction with the Milky Way, as the Sagittarius dSph is doing presently.

The fundamental piece of evidence in favour of this scenario is the constancy of the $`\alpha `$-enhancement with metallicity (\[$`\alpha `$/Fe\]$``$+0.3) for all stars with \[Fe/H\]$`0.8`$ (Norris & Da Costa, 1995; Smith et al., 2000). This requires that the major responsibles for the enrichment of these stars are type II supernovae: at least part of their gas must have been retained by $`\omega `$ Cen in order to explain the iron abundance spread. The timescales of this process are thought to be relatively short ($``$ 1 Gyr), in contradiction with the timescales required to explain the observed dramatic increase of the $`s`$-process elements overabundance with metallicity (Norris & Da Costa, 1995; Smith et al., 2000; Lloyd Evans, 1983). The major responsibles of the $`s`$-process elements enrichment are intermediate mass AGB stars, that act on a timescale of at least $`15Gyr`$ (Busso et al., 1999)444An alternative explanation for the $`s`$-process enrichment is proposed by Ventura et al. (2001), who examine the possibility of surface pollution for stars in globular clusters.. Thus, we are still far from assessing robust timescales for the various enrichment processes in $`\omega `$ Cen.

The $`\alpha `$ and $`s`$-process elements trends, together, have been taken as evidence that no significant contribution by type Ia supernovae have enriched the (metal poor and intermediate) stars in $`\omega `$ Cen (Smith et al., 2000). This has been explained either with a star formation process short enough to end before the onset of type Ia supernovae, or by assuming that type Ia supernovae winds efficiently removed most of their own products (Recchi et al., 2001). However, if we assume that the detailed chemical composition of all giants in $`\omega `$ Cen can be explained by pure self-enrichment, then the evidence presented here indicates that $`\omega `$ Cen was able to retain part of the SNe Ia ejecta as well, complicating the picture.

If this is the case, then the RGB-a stars must be younger, possibly the result of the last burst of star formation in $`\omega `$ Cen. Indeed, an age spread of $`35Gyr`$ has been claimed to explain the morphology of the Sub Giant Branch-Turn Off (Hilker & Richtler, 2000; Hughes & Wallerstein, 2000). In fact, we would have detected the “knee” of the \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] relation, a very valuable constraint to the chemical evolution of the whole stellar system (McWilliam 1997). The canonical interpretation of such feature is that it marks the onset of the supernovae type Ia pollution. While the timescale of this enrichment process are generally believed to be short ($``$ 1 Gyr), they are still quite uncertain, since they depend on several factors (Matteucci & Recchi, 2001).

B) The merging scenario. The reason why this alternative scenario (Searle, 1977; Icke & Alcaino, 1988) is not ruled out yet, lies mostly in the dynamical and structural properties of $`\omega `$ Cen. In particular, the unusually high ellipticity of $`\omega `$ Cen, that has been demonstrated to be sustained by rotation (Merritt et al., 1997), is compatible with the flattened shapes resulting from the merger of two globular clusters (Makino et al., 1991). Moreover, Norris et al. (1997) showed that only stars with \[Fe/H\]$`1.2`$ in $`\omega `$ Cen do rotate, while the more metal rich ones show no evident sign of rotation. Finally, Pancino et al. (2000) showed that, while the metal poor population exhibits the well known East-West elongation, the two metal rich populations show a more pronounced ellipticity, but with an elongation in the North-South direction. These pieces of evidence point toward a different dynamical origin for the various sub-populations in $`\omega `$ Cen.

There are some problems with this scenario, though. According to Norris et al. (1996) and Smith et al. (2000), the simple merging of two or more single metallicity clusters cannot account for the broad metallicity distribution of the RGB. Also, the high speed of ordinary, already formed globular clusters in the potential well of the Milky Way makes this kind of merging quite unlikely. However, the possibility still remains that some of the present stellar components may have formerly belonged to an external, smaller system that merged with $`\omega `$ Cen.

Within this framework, one of the most promising ideas seems to be the so-called merger within a fragment scenario (Norris et al., 1997). According to it, the RGB-a population could originally have been a satellite system which fell into the potential well of the larger stellar system (a small galaxy) whose final remnant is the $`\omega `$ Cen that we observe today. In this case, our results add the evidence that the accreted sub-system has previously been enriched by type Ia supernovae, as opposed to the main body of $`\omega `$ Cen. Thus, the original environments from which the sub-populations have formed must have had different chemical enrichment histories.

It is a pleasure to thank R. Gratton, J. E. Norris, L. Origlia, F. Primas, M. Rejkuba and M. Zoccali for their help and for many useful discussions. E. P. acknowledges the support of the ESO Studentship Programme. The financial support of the ASI (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana) and of the italian MURST (Ministero della Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica) to the project “Stellar Observables of Cosmological Relevance” is kindly acknowledged.