text:
# Degree of entanglement in a quantum measurement process

## I Introduction

Entanglement constitutes the single most characteristic property that makes quantum mechanics distinct from any classical theory Schroedinger . It has been in the center of interest since the early days of quantum theory, mainly due to its relation to nonlocality EPR . It was the discovery of the Bell inequalities Bell  that opened the possibility to test nonlocality in laboratory experiments Freedman ; Aspect . Surprisingly, entanglement has found its application in a newly emerging area of research. It has been recognized that entanglement forms a fundamental resource for quantum information processing (QIP) ekert ; bennett . For application’s purposes, it became essential to quantify entanglement and, accordingly, a number of useful measures of the degree of entanglement have been introduced wootters . One of them, the entanglement of formation wootters1 , is the subject of this paper. The entanglement of formation quantifies the resources needed to create a given entangled state.

In this paper we study the dynamics of the entanglement of formation in a quantum measurement model which is a slightly modified version of our model, proposed previously jak1 . We are interested in how the entanglement of formation is created and lost during the course of the measurement. Environmentally induced decoherence prevents us from observing quantum effects in the macroscopic world Giulini ; zurek1 ; zurek2 ; zurek2a ; zurek3 ; walls1 ; walls2 . However, we have shown that it is possible to greatly reduce the decoherence rate by assuming the environment to be a squeezed reservoir jak1 . This enables us to observe violations of Bell-type inequalities in phase space even when the meter is already in the macroscopic domain. The entanglement of formation and, in particular, the closely related concurrence allows us to find the full time-dependence of the maximum possible violation of Bell-type inequalities. We will show how the dynamics of the concurrence is affected by coupling to a squeezed reservoir and present an analytical study of the dynamics of the entanglement of formation of decoherent, non-orthogonal and mixed qubits exposed to an open environment.

We also address the question as to what extent violations of the Bell inequalities represent a good measure of the degree of entanglement. We find that not only the degree of mixture of bipartite qubits plays a role but also the degree of overlap between them. In particular, the meter generates a non-orthogonal and mixed qubit which can be rewritten as a superposition of orthogonal qubit states. Surprisingly, in this context, violations of the Bell inequalities can be stronger in a system which, compared to other systems, has a larger degree of mixture but the same amount of entanglement of formation. We explain this apparently contradictory behavior on the basis of the measurement model.

The outline of the paper is as follows: First, in Sec. II, we present the measurement model which consists of a four-level atom in a Paul trap coupled to engineered reservoirs. Then, in Sec. III, we derive the concurrence and the entanglement of formation and discuss the time evolution of these quantities for different squeezing parameters of the environment. We also analyze the role of the Bell inequality as a measure of entanglement and explain some counterintuitive findings on the basis of indistinguishability between qubit states. In Sec. IV we conclude with some discussion.

## II Measurement model in a Paul trap

The measurement model consists of a four-level atom harmonically bound in a three-dimensional trap where it oscillates along the three principal axes with frequencies $`\nu _1=\nu _2=\nu _3=\nu `$. The level structure of the four-level atoms with its relevant polarization-sensitive dipole transitions is shown in Fig. 1 Eichmann . We determine the population distribution of the internal atomic ground-states which, in turn, form the system to be measured. The external or motional degrees of freedom establish the meter and its coupling to the environment is accomplished by engineered reservoirs myatt1 ; myatt2 . The trapped four-level atom is driven in a Raman configuration with two classical, $`\sigma `$-polarized laser fields of frequencies $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2=\omega _1+\nu =\omega _0`$. The laser frequencies are off-resonant with respect to the electronic $`\sigma `$-transitions $`|1|4`$ and $`|2|3`$ by a detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1,\omega _2`$), see Fig. 2. A similar “system-meter” interaction was investigated by Wallentowitz and Vogel wallentowitz , in order to realize the quantum-mechanical counterpart of nonlinear optical phenomena in the motional (mechanical) degrees of freedom. In contrast to our four-level system, however, theirs consists of a two-level atom where polarization dependent features do not play a role.

With an appropriate geometry of the lasers the motion can only be affected in $`z`$-direction assuming that both laser fields are traveling in $`z`$-direction (see Fig. 2). Since the lasers are strongly detuned from the atomic transition frequencies the atom stays in its ground states during the interaction. Further, if we assume the resolved sideband limit, we are able to influence the motional quantum state of the atom in a controlled manner. In particular, the system-meter interaction Hamiltonian, $`H_{\text{SM}}`$, for the given geometry and frequencies of the lasers in the vibrational rotating-wave approximation is given as wallentowitz

$$H_{\text{SM}}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_z(i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\eta \widehat{a}i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\widehat{a}^{}).$$
(1)
Here,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{23}\omega _0,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2dE_i}{\mathrm{}}},`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_z`$ $`=`$ $`|22||11|+|44||33|,`$ (5)
where $`\eta `$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter, $`d`$ is the dipole moment which we assume to be the same for all possible dipole transitions in the four-level atom, and $`E_i`$ are the electric field amplitudes of the applied lasers. We have assumed a small Lamb-Dicke parameter, $`\eta 1`$, in the interaction Hamiltonian which allows us to neglect nonlinear terms in the motional operators $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$. The phase of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\varphi }`$ can be adjusted by the phase difference of the two lasers. From now on, we assume $`\varphi =\pi `$ which leads to the following interaction Hamiltonian

$$H_{\text{SM}}=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_z(\eta |\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{a}^{}\eta |\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{a}).$$
(6)
This type of system-meter Hamiltonian is of the same structure as the interaction Hamiltonian between a four-level atom and a cavity field which we recently employed to study decoherence effects on the visibility of interference fringes abra1  and on nonlocality in phase space jak1 .

The replacement of the optical meter by the mechanical one in the system-meter interaction has considerable advantages in the realization of the measurement model. In particular, the experimental progress in reservoir engineering for trapped ions myatt1 ; myatt2  makes this measurement model a feasible testing ground of decoherence effects in engineered reservoirs. Further, the interaction Hamiltonian (1) can be easily modified to include nonlinear terms in the motional operators $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ by appropriate settings of the frequency and geometry of the applied lasers. The nonlinear interaction of parametric type together with specific reservoirs, such as dissipative two-phonon processes, makes it possible to generate nonclassical, macroscopic motional states in dissipative environments (Gilles and Knight gilles ).

Here, however, we do not consider nonlinear effects in the system-meter interaction. The environment, as in Ref. jak1 , is taken to be a squeezed reservoir which can be engineered according to Refs. myatt1 ; myatt2 . The master equation for the system-meter density operator in the Markov approximation is given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}[H_{\text{SM}},\rho ]+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\{(N+1)[2b\rho b^{}b^{}b\rho \rho b^{}b]+N[2b^{}\rho bbb^{}\rho \rho bb^{}]`$ (7)
$`+M[2b^{}\rho b^{}b^{}b^{}\rho \rho b^{}b^{}]+M^{}[2b\rho bbb\rho \rho bb]\},`$
where $`N`$ is the number of photons and $`M=|M|e^{2i\theta }`$ is the squeezing parameter which characterizes the degree of phase-dependent correlations, with the squeezing phase $`\theta `$, in the squeezed reservoir. The master equation can be analytically solved with a characteristic function approach, leading to the following time evolution of the system-meter density operator jak1

$$\rho (t)=\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{2}{}}\rho _{nm}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}^{\text{sq}}(t)}|nm|\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n(t),\epsilon \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m(t),\epsilon |}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m(t),\epsilon |\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n(t).\epsilon },$$
(8)
The summation is over the internal atomic ground states, $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, and $`\rho _{nm}`$ are the initial atomic density matrix elements which we assume to be given as $`\rho _{nm}=1/2`$ for all $`n,m`$. The amplitudes of the ensuing squeezed coherent states, $`|\alpha ,\epsilon =\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{}\widehat{a}^2\frac{1}{2}\epsilon \widehat{a}^2)|\alpha `$, are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }|\eta (1)^n}{\gamma }}\left[\mathrm{cosh}(r)\mathrm{sinh}(r)e^{i2\theta }\right]\left(1e^{\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right).`$ (9)
Here $`\epsilon =re^{2i\theta }`$ with the squeezing parameter $`r`$ and the squeezing phase $`\theta `$ defined in the usual way. These states form the pointer states of the meter.

The squeezed coherent states $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n(t),\epsilon `$, $`n=1,2`$, follow from first displacing the vacuum by the amplitude $`[(1)^n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\eta /\gamma ](1e^{\frac{\gamma t}{2}})`$ and then squeezing the resulting coherent state. The exponent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}^{\text{sq}}(t)`$ is responsible for the decoherence and is given as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}^{\text{sq}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{[(1)^n(1)^m]^2(|\mathrm{\Omega }|\eta )^2}{\gamma ^2}}\left\{1+2\left[\mathrm{sinh}^2(r)\mathrm{cosh}(r)\mathrm{sinh}(r)\mathrm{cos}2(\theta )\right]\right\}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma t}{2}}e^{\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right)\right\},`$ (10)
In Ref. jak1  we demonstrated how to reduce the decoherence rate of the measurement apparatus with the help of the squeezed reservoir by adjusting the squeezing phase to $`\theta =0`$ and increasing the squeezing parameter $`r`$.

This is displayed in Fig. 3 where the amplitude of the ensuing squeezed coherent state $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\epsilon `$ is given as $`\alpha _0=|\mathrm{\Omega }|\eta /\gamma =100`$. The amplitude can be engineered by suitable settings of the laser strengths and the engineered reservoir damping constant $`\gamma `$ keeping in mind that the constraints $`\eta 1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i/2\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) must be satisfied. In spite of these restrictions, it is possible to achieve large amplitudes, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\eta /\gamma 1`$. As a result of this highly reduced decoherence rate, we could predict the existence of distinctive quantum features of the meter even in a macroscopic domain. Moreover, we studied nonlocal properties of the coupled system-meter scheme and demonstrated violations of Bell-type inequalities Bell ; Bell1  in the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt form Clauser  of phase space observables wodk1a ; wodk2  even when the meter reached a macroscopic state jak1 .

## III Entanglement of formation

Underlying nonlocality is the concept of entanglement. It is responsible for the fact that a composite system possesses properties which can not be understood by considering the parts of the system separately. In other words, there is no element of “reality” in the parts considered by their own but only a created reality which depends on what is measured in the other part. This uniquely quantum concept has proved to be a fundamental resource for quantum information processing and the quantification of entanglement is essential to assess the full performance of an information theory based on quantum mechanics ekert ; bennett . There are several good measures of the degree of entanglement for both pure and mixed quantum states wootters . Perhaps the most seminal one is the entanglement of formation which quantifies the resources needed to create an entangled state wootters1 . Entanglement of formation is a measurable quantity, at least for a pair of qubits which is the case we are dealing with here. The underlying quantity is called concurrence wootters1 . For pure states, concurrence is strongly connected with two-particle visibility jaeger ; abouraddy  which is a property that cannot exist separately in the parts of a bipartite system. The expression relating the concurrence to the density operator, $`\rho `$, of a mixed state is given as

$$C(\rho )=\text{max}\{0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4\},$$
(11)
where the $`\lambda _i`$’s are the square roots of the eigenvalues of $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ in descending order. Here $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ results from applying the spin-flip operation to $`\rho ^{}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y).$$
(12)
Here $`\sigma _y`$ is the Pauli spin operator in the standard basis and $`\rho ^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\rho `$. The entanglement of formation, $`E_f(\rho )`$, of the state $`\rho `$ is connected with the concurrence, $`C(\rho )`$, via the formula

$`E_f(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`h({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2(\rho )}}{2}}),`$ (13)
$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{log}_2x(1x)\mathrm{log}_2(1x).`$ (14)
There is another remarkable property of the concurrence which is directly related to nonlocality. One can show that the maximum possible violation of the Bell inequality Bell ; Bell1  in the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt form Clauser

$$(\rho )=|E(c,d)+E(c^{},d)+E(c,d^{})E(c^{},d^{})|2,$$
(15)
for a state $`\rho `$ is given as abouraddy ; gisin ; horodecki ; ghosh

$$_{\text{max}}(\rho )=2\sqrt{M(\rho )}.$$
(16)
Here $`c,c^{}`$ are two dichotomous variables of the first system and $`d,d^{}`$ are two of the second, and $`E(c,d)`$ is the expectation value of the correlation of $`c`$ and $`d`$, and so on for the other expectation values. The quantity $`M(\rho )`$ is the sum of the two larger eigenvalues of $`T_pT_p^{}`$, where $`T_p`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ matrix with the $`(m,n)`$ element given by

$$t_{mn}=\text{tr}(\rho \sigma _n\sigma _m),$$
(17)
and the $`\sigma _i`$’s are the Pauli matrices.

Based on the previous considerations, a number of interesting questions arise with respect to our measurement model concerning the generation of the entanglement of formation and its dynamical properties. Among them is the control of the dynamical properties of the entanglement of formation and the possibility of observing its quantum features in the macroscopic domain of the meter in a squeezed reservoir environment. Another one is the determination of the maximum possible violation of the Bell inequality (15) and the time when it is achieved in the measurement.

To answer these questions it is essential to recognize that the potentially entangled system-meter state consists of nonorthogonal “qubits”. In particular, the squeezed coherent states $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n(t),\epsilon `$ of the meter are not completely orthogonal during the course of the measurement process. It is, however, possible to define concurrence and, consequently, entanglement of formation for nonorthogonal bipartite systems by introducing an orthonormal basis in the two subsystems of the bipartite state wang ; hirota . In the measurement model under consideration the orthonormal, time-dependent basis for the meter is formed by

$`|\stackrel{~}{0}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t),ϵ,`$ (18)
$`|\stackrel{~}{1}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t),ϵP(t)|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t),ϵ}{\sqrt{1|P(t)|^2}}},`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0\left[\mathrm{cosh}(r)\mathrm{sinh}(r)\right]\left(1e^{\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right),`$ (20)
$`P(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|P(t)|=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t),ϵ|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t),ϵ.`$ (21)
Here we set the squeezing phase $`\theta =0`$ in order to maximize the effect of the squeezed reservoir on the decoherence rate (see Fig. 3). The orthonormal basis states for the system, of course, are given by the two ground states of the four-level atom, $`|1`$ and $`|2`$. We can now construct the spin-flip operators for the meter, $`\sigma _y^\text{M}(t)`$, and for the system, $`\sigma _y^\text{S}(t)`$, as

$`\sigma _y^\text{M}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{|\stackrel{~}{1}(t)\stackrel{~}{0}(t)||\stackrel{~}{0}(t)\stackrel{~}{1}(t)|\right\},`$ (22)
$`\sigma _y^\text{S}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{|21||12|\right\}.`$ (23)
With these results it is straightforward to calculate the concurrence (11), from Eqs. (12) and (8) of the system-meter state, in spite of its complicated dynamical properties. Its analytical expression takes a rather simple form,

$$C(\rho (t))=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{\text{sq}}(t)]\frac{\sqrt{1P^2(t)}}{P(t)}.$$
(24)
Surprisingly, it is possible, at least in principle, to determine the concurrence of the system-meter state by directly measuring the (time-dependent) operator $`\sigma _y^\text{M}(t)\sigma _y^\text{S}`$

$$C(\rho (t))=\rho (t)\sigma _y^\text{M}(t)\sigma _y^\text{S}.$$
(25)
When we recall that our measurement model contains a rather involved decoherence mechanism for the system-meter and, therefore, its state rapidly approaches a mixture, this is an amazing result that gives the concurrence (at least in this model) an operational meaning. Analogously, we can calculate the maximum violation of the Bell inequality, Eq. (16), yielding

$$_{\text{max}}(\rho (t))=2\sqrt{1+C^2(\rho (t))+\mathrm{exp}[2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{\text{sq}}(t)]P^2(t)}.$$
(26)
Based on Eq. (24), we have plotted the concurrence as well as the entanglement of formation, Eqs. (13) and (14), for different squeezing parameters in Fig. 4. With increasing squeezing parameter, the entanglement of formation approaches its maximum at a much later time than in a regular vacuum. A squeezed environment which monitors the meter is capable to maintain nonclassical properties of the system-meter, i.e. the correlations between them, over a much longer period of time. The system-meter state has already entered its macroscopic domain when the entanglement of formation reaches its maximum. This can be seen in Fig. 4 for a squeezed reservoir with a squeezing parameter of $`r=3.5`$ and for the corresponding squeezed coherent states of amplitude $`\alpha _0=100`$, for example. In addition, we also see that the entanglement of formation does not reach its maximum possible value of $`1`$, irrespective of the type of reservoir which monitors the system-meter. This, however, is not surprising for a mixed state which contains partly nonorthogonal qubits. The maximum possible value of the entanglement of formation of the system-meter is additionally reduced in a squeezed environment, since there is a competition between the positive effect of the highly reduced decoherence rate (which maintains the purity of the system-meter on a greatly enhanced time-scale) and the negative effect of the larger overlap (i.e. the intrinsic indistinguishability of the meter) between the nonorthogonal meter states. In Fig. 5 we display the time evolution of the maximum possible violation of the Bell inequality, Eq. (26), in the measurement model.

Again, we can observe violations of the Bell inequality on a greatly enhanced time scale in a squeezed reservoir with increasing squeezing parameter. We have also found this result in Ref. jak1  based on a phase-space equivalent of the Bell-inequality wodk1a ; wodk2 . However, the approach with the concurrence of the system-meter has a number of advantages. First, we are able to observe the full time-dependence of the “formation” of entanglement during the course of the measurement. Second, we can display the maximum possible violation of the Bell inequality at every time step. In general, it is hard to find this quantity on the basis of the inequality, Eq. (15), which depends on four parameters. Beyond it, the phase-space approach of Banaszek and Wódkiewicz wodk1a ; wodk2  can not approach the maximum possible value of the violation of the Bell inequality because of the smoothing effect of the Wigner function.

The right insert of Fig. 5 displays the time dependence of the difference between the maximum possible violations of the Bell inequality, Eq. (26), and between the concurrences, Eq. (24), in two different squeezed reservoir environments with squeezing parameters $`r_1=2`$, $`r_2=3.5`$ and $`\theta _1=\theta _2=0`$. From the figure one can get some insight as to what extent a violation of the Bell inequality tells us something about the nature of entanglement ghosh ; munro . Munro et al. munro  suggested that the more mixed a system is made the more entanglement (or concurrence) is generally required to violate the Bell inequality to the same degree. This, however, is not generally true as pointed out by Ghosh et al. ghosh  but they could not find a simple explanation. Based on the right part of Fig. 5 we can answer this question as follows. At $`\gamma t0.3`$ in Fig. 5 the difference of the concurrences between the two systems $`C_{\text{dif}}^{\text{SV}}(t)=C_1^{\text{SV}}(t)C_2^{\text{SV}}(t)`$ is approximately zero while the difference of the maximum possible violations of the Bell inequality, $`_{\text{dif}}^{\text{SV}}(t)=_{\text{max},1}^{\text{SV}}(t)_{\text{max},2}^{\text{SV}}(t)`$, is slightly larger than zero. In contrast, the degree of mixedness of system $`1`$, corresponding to a squeezed environment with parameters $`r_1=2`$ and $`\theta _1=0`$, is obviously larger than that of system $`2`$ (with squeezing parameters $`r_2=3.5`$ and $`\theta _2=0`$) as a consequence of the advanced decoherence in system $`1`$ (see Fig. 3). Thus, this system contradicts the statement by Munro et al. munro . We get a larger violation of the Bell inequality in a system having the same degree of entanglement but, at the same time, more mixedness than the other system. We suggest the following explanation for this apparently peculiar behavior. It is the overlap between the nonorthogonal meter states that reduces the maximum possible violation, Eq. (26). In order to violate the Bell inequality it is necessary for the components of the state of the composite system to be distinguishable. When the degree of distinguishability gets smaller the amount of the maximum possible violation of the Bell inequality will also be reduced. This explains why the difference of the maximum possible violations of the Bell inequality in Fig. 5 is slightly larger than zero in spite of the fact that system $`1`$ is more mixed but has the same amount of entanglement as system $`2`$. Obviously, the overlap of the meter states of system $`2`$ at this particular time is much larger than that of system $`1`$. This observation can give a novel direction to investigations of the problem as to what extent the Bell inequality is a measure of entanglement and connects it not only with mixedness but also with the degree of indistinguishability of nonorthogonal qubits.

## IV Summary

In summary, we have investigated dynamical properties of the entanglement of formation in a measurement model. We have also demonstrated the ability to influence the time evolution of the entanglement of formation by a squeezed reservoir and found a way to maintain this nonclassical property in a macroscopic domain of the meter, in spite of it being monitored by the environment. Furthermore, this model gives some insight into dynamical properties of the entanglement of decoherent and nonorthogonal entangled qubits which is of central interest in quantum information theory nielsen .

Finally, we note that it is possible to implement this measurement model with a trapped “four-level” $`{}_{}{}^{198}\text{Hg}_{}^{+}`$-ion Eichmann  which is exposed to engineered reservoirs myatt1 ; myatt2 . In addition, it seems, at least in principle, possible to directly measure the concurrence with time-dependent Pauli spin-flip operators. The present measurement model is well suited to study the entanglement of formation in dissipative environments and helps to clarify some of the underlying physical principles. In particular, it gives new insights into the question as to what extent the Bell inequality is a measure of entanglement and explains how to get larger amounts of violation in a system with more mixedness but the same amount of entanglement as a reference system.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge discussions with M. Hillery, I. Nemeth and Y. Sun. This research was supported by a grant from the Office of Naval Research (Grant No. N00014-92J-1233) and by a grant from PSC-CUNY.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Strong interaction dynamics of mesons and baryons is believed to be described by QCD. This theory exhibits a non perturbative behaviour at low energies, a circumstance which renders the analytic study of the theory rather difficult. The NJL model is a popular substitute which has in common with QCD important symmetries of the quark-flavour dynamics. This model has been very successful in the description of the meson sector. The question arises whether the model also allows for inhomogeneous solutions at non-zero density which are of interest for the description of hadronic matter.

The NJL model  was originally developed for the purpose of understanding hadron physics. In this model, hadron masses are generated by spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum. In the modern form of the NJL model, we start with essentially massless quarks interacting via zero range interactions, but with a cutoff in momentum space . NJL is thus only an effective theory, in which form factors and other finite range effects have been ignored, and it does not take into account quark confinement. However, it may work quite well in the region of interest in nuclear physics, i.e. for excitations less than the scalar meson mass.

The paper has been organized as follows: It is shown that with the generalization of the NJL model for nucleons, referred to as the Extended NJL (ENJL) model, it is possible to get a reasonable nuclear equation of state and behaviour of the effective mass. Then we list some numerical results, concerning both nuclear matter and quark matter. It is found that the performance of the ENJL model is almost perfect as far as bulk static properties, such as saturation and binding energy of nuclear matter, or the effective mass of nucleons, are concerned. However, the model fails when we wish to deal with dynamical properties, since it leads to scalar excitations with the unacceptable mass of twice the nucleon mass, or to a poor description of the nuclear surface. In order to overcome these drawbacks, the ENJL model is replaced by a chiral invariant model of nucleons interacting through the exchange of $`\sigma ,\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ and $`\omega `$ fields, which we call extended chiral sigma (ECS) model. For the description of bulk static properties, the ECS model is almost equivalent to the ENJL model. In these models, the nucleons are regarded as composite particles. The composite nature of the particles reflects itself in the fact that the coupling depends on the local density. The surface properties of finite nuclei are calculated within the ECS model. Some remarks concerning the connection of the ENJL and ECS models to other relativistic chiral models  are presented. Then, some properties of asymmetric nuclear matter are discussed and some brief conclusions are drawn. Next, we discuss a two dimensional version of the NJL model for which some simple analytic results can be obtained. This is followed by a comparison of our model with several other models, including the quark meson coupling model and versions of relativistic mean field models. Preliminary results of the present work have been presented in .

## 2 NJL model

### 2.1 Original NJL Model

The NJL model  is defined by the Lagrangian density

$$=\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )\psi +G[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2].$$
(1)
A regularizing momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is part of the model. The Lagrangian is equivalent to the Hamiltonian

$$_{NJL}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{p}_k\stackrel{}{\alpha }_k+G\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}_k\stackrel{}{r}_l)\beta _k\beta _l(1\gamma _k^5\gamma _l^5\stackrel{}{\tau }_k\stackrel{}{\tau }_l).$$
(2)
The vacuum is described by a Slater Determinant $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ constructed from plane waves which are negative energy eigenfunctions of the single particle Hamiltonian $`h=\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\alpha }+\beta m.`$ The “constituent mass” $`m`$ is a variational parameter.

If moreover positive energy eigenfunctions with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ satisfying $`|\stackrel{}{p}|<p_F`$ are occupied, so that $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum, the energy expectation value $`E=\mathrm{\Phi }_0|_{NJL}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is given by

$$E=\nu \underset{p_F|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\frac{p^2}{\sqrt{m^2+p^2}}m^2G\nu ^2[\underset{p_F|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m^2+p^2}}]^2.$$
(3)
For quark matter, the degeneracy is $`\nu =2N_cN_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is such that $`m=313`$ MeV is the constituent quark mass in the vacuum. The gap equation, which determines $`m`$, reads,

$$2G\nu \underset{p_F|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m^2+p^2}}=1.$$
(4)
### 2.2 Nuclear Matter vs Quark Matter Cutoff

It is well known that the NJL model does not contain a mechanism for quark confinement. Thus the clustering of quarks into nucleons is not accounted for in this model. In this paper, quark clustering is put in by hand. The way it is done here is that we treat the nucleons as the elementary particles, but take quark structure into account in the interactions. We will find it convenient to define dimensionless integrals $`I_n`$ by:

$$_0^x\frac{2p^2}{(1+p^2)^{n\frac{1}{2}}}𝑑p=I_n(x).$$
(5)
According to the NJL model, the volume integral of the $`NN`$ interaction is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_s=4\frac{\pi ^2}{I_2(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }N_c}{M_0})}N_c\mu c^2(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu c})^3=8.99N_c^3M_0c^2(\frac{\mathrm{}}{M_0c})^3.$$
(6)
Here $`N_c`$ is the number of colors, and $`M_0`$ is the free nucleon mass. For quark matter, $`N_c=3`$. The scalar $`(\sigma )`$ meson mass is:

$$\mu =m_s=\frac{2M_0}{N_c}.$$
(7)
Let us now try to get the same $`NN`$ volume integral with a single color. This can be accomplished by using a lower value of the cutoff, denoted here by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Further, from here on, we will often express all masses in units of the free nucleon mass $`M_0`$. Also, we will set $`\mathrm{}`$ and c equal to 1. We find that:

$$I_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})=\frac{I_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }N_c)}{N_c^3}.$$
(8)
An alternative way of taking quark clustering into account is by fixing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ so that the free nucleon mass in vacuum, $`M_0`$ is preserved. Actually, such a prescription has been adopted in some of the calculations which are reported in Section 4 of this paper. However, the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ so obtained is in a very reasonable qualitative agreement with the one determined by eq. (8).

### 2.3 Extended NJL Model

The NJL model can be extended  to yield reasonable saturation properties of nuclear matter, the field $`\psi `$ being then the nucleon field. In Ref. , the nucleon is constructed as a 3-quark bound state, this quark substructure giving rise to a mechanism for saturation of nuclear matter which plays the same role as the 8-fermion term in our ENJL model. Such substructure may therefore be regarded to provide a microscopic basis for our phenomenological approach. An effective density dependent coupling constant is obtained if the following extended NJL (ENJL) Lagrangian density, which actually pushes chiral symmetry restoration to higher densities, is considered,

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )\psi +G_s[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2]G_v(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )^2`$ (9)
$``$ $`G_{sv}[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2](\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )^2.`$
For nuclear matter $`\psi `$ is the nucleon field, the degeneracy is $`\nu =2N_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is such that $`M=939`$ MeV is the nucleon mass in the vacuum, determined variationally, as explained below. A different extension which also leads to nuclear saturation has been made , This involves the fourth power of the scalar density. Another alternative way of extending the NJL model was studied by Rezaeian and Pirner . Here the nucleon is considered to be a composite particle, a bound state of a quark and a diquark. The term in $`G_v`$ is supposed to simulate a chiral invariant short range repulsion between nucleons connected, possibly, with the chromomagnetic interaction between quarks. The term in $`G_{sv}`$ accounts for the density dependence of the scalar coupling between nucleons which is a manifestation of the composite nature of these particles and is equivalent to allowing the coupling constant $`G`$ in the original NJL model to depend on $`\rho `$ in such a way that $`G`$ becomes replaced by $`G_s(\rho )=G_s(1\frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}\rho ^2)`$. It is found that the magnitude of the $`\sigma `$ field decreases as the hadronic density increases, in accordance with the corresponding tendency for chiral symmetry restoration. This mechanism has a similar effect, for saturation, as the analogous one proposed by Guichon , according to which confinement is affected by an increase of the density in such a way as to become gradually less effective, which amounts to an increasing repulsion. For nuclear matter, the NJL model leads to binding but the binding energy per particle does not have a minimum except at a rather high density where the nucleon mass is small or vanishing. Thus the pure NJL model does not give a proper equation of state. The introduction of the $`G_{sv}`$ coupling term is required to correct this. On the other hand, for quark matter we set $`G_v=G_{sv}=0`$. For quark matter the energy per particle $`W`$ predicted by NJL does not lead to binding and does not have a minimum except for unreasonably small values of the cutoff momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The thermodynamical potential per volume corresponding to (9) is

$$\omega (\mu )=\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p})\psi G_s\overline{\psi }\psi ^2+G_v\psi ^{}\psi ^2+G_{sv}\overline{\psi }\psi ^2\psi ^{}\psi ^2\mu \psi ^{}\psi $$
(10)
where exchange terms have been neglected. By $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi `$ we denote the expectation value per volume. $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi =\frac{1}{V}\mathrm{\Phi }_0|_k\beta _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The condition $`\omega /M=0`$ implies

$$M=2G_s\overline{\psi }\psi +2G_{sv}\overline{\psi }\psi \psi ^{}\psi ^2.$$

Here $`M`$ is the $`\mu `$ dependent nucleon mass. To avoid a cumbersome notation, the $`\mu `$ dependency is not explicitly indicated but is implicitly assumed, without danger of confusion. The free nucleon mass $`M_0`$ is the value of $`M`$ for $`\mu =0`$. The condition $`\omega /p_F=0`$ implies

$$E_{p_F}=\mu 2G_v\psi ^{}\psi 2G_{sv}\psi ^{}\psi \overline{\psi }\psi ^2,$$

with $`E_{p_F}=\sqrt{M^2+p_F^2}`$. These conditions fix the values of $`p_F,M`$ for given $`\mu .`$ We observe that the gap equation, which determines $`M,`$ is the same as eq. (4) except for the replacement of $`G`$ with $`G_s(1\frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}\rho ^2).`$ The choice with $`G_s`$ as a phenomenological parameter fixed so that nuclear matter saturation properties are reproduced, we will refer to as model I. The value of $`G_s`$ is about 20% smaller than that obtained from the NJL model. On the other hand, it is also tempting to choose $`G_s`$ for nuclear matter nine times bigger than the quark matter value, $`G`$. The philosophy behind the last assumption is that the NN interaction is due to the instanton interaction between quarks, predicted by QCD in the weak coupling regime. This choice of $`G_s`$ defines what we will denote in the sequel as model II.

The properties of the extended NJL model are now easily computed.

## 3 Properties of nuclear matter

In Table 1, numerical results pertaining to our preferred model EOSI are presented. As input, we use the saturation properties of nuclear matter fitted empirically in Ref..

The three coupling constants $`G_s,G_v`$ and $`G_{sv}`$ are adjusted to fit an effective mass $`M(\rho _0)=0.75M_0`$ and the saturation energy and density. Model EOSI seems to be quite realistic, since it fits well both saturation properties and the nuclear surface properties. We also compare our results with those of  in which a relativistic mean field theory (RMF) is used, and which describes well both stable and unstable nuclei. The RMF parametrization introduced in  is known as NL3. Model I gives results quite close to NL3 especially for the surface properties (see Table 2). The relation between the coupling constants $`G_s,G_v,G_{sv}`$ and the parameters $`c_v,c_{sv}`$, which will be used later, is fixed as follows:

$`G_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2I_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})M_0^2}}`$ (11)
$`G_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_v{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{V_s}}{\mathrm{}c}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2c_v}{2I_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})M_0^2}}=G_s{\displaystyle \frac{I_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})}{I_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})}}c_v`$ (12)
$`G_{sv}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^6c_{sv}}{2I_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^2I_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})M_0^8}}=G_s{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4c_{sv}}{I_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})I_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})M_0^6}}.`$ (13)
Here $`M_0=4.76fm^1`$. The crucial role played by clustering must be stressed. It should be pointed out that without clustering there is no real binding and that, moreover, the incompressibility becomes unacceptable. In Fig. 1 we plot the binding energy for nuclear matter and quark matter (EOS-Q). For the latter case, we use a quark NJL model which differs from the nucleon NJL model (ENJL) used in the rest of this paper. At some density, the nucleon matter curve intercepts the quark matter curve, so it is clear that, at high density, quark matter prevails and may be found, for instance, in the core of neutron stars. Our experience with this problem tells us that without clustering and without the eight fermion interaction (that is, the density dependent coupling) saturation comes closely after chiral symmetry restoration, almost coinciding with it. Clustering and the eight fermion interaction places chiral symmetry restoration well after saturation.
The philosophy underlying model EOS II is to use a coupling $`G_s`$ 9 times bigger than G in the quark NJL model and to fit one less quantity. Thus the effective mass at saturation was left free. We have taken $`E/A=15.8`$ MeV and $`\rho _0=0.148`$ fm-3, i.e. $`k_F=0.130`$ fm-1 according to . Using this model, one gets quite different results for the coupling constants from EOS I, namely $`G_s`$ = 1.746 fm2, $`G_v`$ = 3.387 fm2, $`G_{sv}`$ = -1.839 fm8, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 553 MeV . The effective mass at the saturation density turns out to be 0.89, much closer to the free nucleon mass than for model I. Also, this model leads to surface energy and thickness only about half of the empirical values. Similar results are obtained by Koch et al, ref. . However, the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ obtained using EOS II is not far from the one determined by eq. (8).

## 4 Surface properties

Next we will calculate nuclear surface properties which are mainly determined by the scalar meson, the meson responsible for the nuclear attraction. We have seen that the ENJL model accounts adequately for bulk static properties of hadronic matter, such as saturation and binding energy of nuclear matter, or the effective mass of nucleons. However, the model fails when we wish to deal with dynamical properties, since, as it has been shown , it leads to scalar excitations with the unacceptable mass of twice the nucleon mass, and to a poor description of the nuclear surface. We keep the ENJL Lagrangian, in spite of the referred drawbacks, because it is extremely simple and transparent, clarifies the underlying physics and incorporates in the simplest possible manner the basic philosophy of our approach.
In the extended chiral sigma model, introduced in , the nucleons and mesons are regarded as composite particles. The version used in  is referred to as ESM. In the present paper and in , a slightly different version is used which we refer to as ECS. Both models are equivalent to corresponding ENJL models, as far as ground state properties are concerned, provided exchange terms are neglected. However, there are significant differences between the models. In ESM, the coupling to the sigma meson depends on the scalar-pseudoscalar field, while in the ECS model, that coupling depends on the baryon density. Moreover, the nuclear calculations are more easily implemented in the ECS model, which is free of instability that may occur in ESM. The advantage of the ECS model over ENJL stems from the fact that it generates adequate collective properties, this being the reason that ECS can be used to study the nuclear surface.
We write formally the ECS model Lagrangian density as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )\psi g_s(\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi +\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )\left[1+a_1(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi )(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )\right]^{1/2}g_v\overline{\psi }V^\mu \gamma _\mu \psi `$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma +^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_s^2(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V^{\mu \nu }V_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_v^2V^\mu V_\mu ,`$
with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{2m_s^2}}=G_s,{\displaystyle \frac{g_v^2}{2m_v^2}}=G_v,{\displaystyle \frac{a_1g_s^2}{2m_s^2}}=G_{sv}.`$ (15)
For comparison, the ESM Lagrangian density is given by Eq.(11) of , while in the linear sigma model, ref. , we have:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )\psi g_s\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma +^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi })`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{8F_\pi ^2}}(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi }F_\pi ^2)^2`$
Here the nucleon mass is generated by a “Mexican Hat” potential. If we write $`\sigma =\sigma _0+F_\pi `$ then the last term in the linear sigma model contributes $`\frac{1}{2}m_s^2\sigma _0^2(1+\frac{\sigma _0}{2F_\pi })^2`$ to the Lagrangian. It was shown in  that the Dirac-sea in the linear sigma model with valence and Dirac-sea quarks but no “Mexican hat” provides the above effective mesonic self-interaction.
The quantity $`F_\pi `$ is equal to $`\sigma =M/g_s`$, when the energy is minimized w.r.t. $`\sigma `$. For zero particle density, we obtain, according to the ECS model, Eq. (14),

$$\frac{g_s^2}{2m_s^2}=\frac{9g_s^2}{8M_0^2}=G_s=\frac{\pi ^2}{2I_1(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_0})M_0^2},$$

which leads to

$$F_\pi (ECS)=\frac{3M_0}{2\pi }\left[I_1(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_0})\right]^{1/2}.$$
(17)
This is to be compared to the pion decay constant according to the ENJL model, which, for vacuum properties such as the present one, coincides with the nucleon NJL model,

$$F_\pi (NJL)=\frac{M_0}{2\pi }\left[I_2(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_0})\right]^{1/2}.$$
(18)
We observe that Eq. (18) may be obtained from Eq. (3.26)(a) of Ref.  upon replacing the number of colours $`N_c`$ by 1 and $`m^{}`$ by $`M_0`$. The quantities $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are defined in Section 2.2. The calculated pion decay constants for the ECS model (106.1 MeV) is in fairly good agreement with the empirical value of 93 MeV, but the pion decay constants for the ENJL model (33.49 MeV) is not. This was expected since the performance of the ENJL model is poor for dynamical properties.
In order to describe surface properties we must include gradient terms in the meson field . Somewhat analogously to our approach, in Ref.  supplementary gradient terms were introduced into some kind of extended NJL model with nucleons. This is in consonance with the work  where an effective field theory of many-nucleon systems is obtained from the NJL type Lagrangian. In the ECS Lagrangian (14), we will keep only the gradient terms corresponding to the scalar meson, the philosophy behind this approximation being that the relevant length scale is determined by the sigma mass.

The corresponding thermodynamical potential per volume in the Thomas-Fermi approximation is then

$`\omega (\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p})\psi +g_s\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}}\psi ^{}\psi ^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$`+`$ $`g_vV_0\psi ^{}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{}\sigma \stackrel{}{}\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_s^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_v^2V_0^2\mu \psi ^{}\psi `$
Minimization with respect to $`\sigma ,V_0`$ yields eq. (10) for infinite matter, provided we choose $`G_s=g_s^2/(2m_s^2)`$.

Variation with respect to $`M`$, $`p_F`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`V_0`$ gives:

$`M=g_s\sigma \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}}\psi ^{}\psi ^2\right)^{1/2},`$
$`E_{p_F}=\mu g_vV_0g_s\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}}\overline{\psi }\psi \psi ^{}\psi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}}\psi ^{}\psi ^2\right)^{1/2},`$
$`^2\sigma =m_s^2\sigma g_s\overline{\psi }\psi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G_{sv}}{G_s}}\psi ^{}\psi ^2\right)^{1/2},`$
$`0=m_vV_0g_v\psi ^{}\psi .`$ (20)
Next, we look for a droplet solution within model I and compare its surface properties with the results obtained with the NL3 parametrization . In the small surface thickness approximation ($`^2\sigma \frac{d^2\sigma }{dr^2}`$) the free energy $`F`$ can be rewritten as :

$$F=4\pi r^2𝑑r\left(\left(\frac{d\sigma }{dr}\right)^2C\right)+\mu A,$$
(21)
where $`C`$ is a constant and $`A`$ is the number of particles. For droplets with radius $`R`$ and volume $`V`$,

$$F(R)=W_{surf}A^{2/3}CV+\mu A.$$
(22)
The surface energy per unit area of these droplets in the small thickness approximation is

$$W_{surf}=\frac{4\pi R^2}{A^{2/3}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left(\frac{d\sigma }{dr}\right)^2.$$
(23)
The surface thickness $`t`$ is defined as the width of the region where the density drops from $`0.9\rho _{B0}`$ to $`0.1\rho _{B0}`$, where $`\rho _{B0}`$ is the baryonic density at $`r=0`$. In Table 2, the values of $`W_{surf},R,t`$, for a nucleus with $`A=100`$, predicted by model I is displayed and compared with the corresponding results obtained by the NL3 parametrization. In the present approach the mass of the $`\sigma `$ meson appears as an extra parameter. We have chosen $`m_s=2m_q=626`$ MeV, as in the NJL model. In Fig. 3 we plot the density profile of a nucleus with 100 particles.

## 5 Isospin asymmetric nuclear matter

The recent advance in unstable nuclear-beam experiments has been providing us with new knowledge on unstable nuclei away from the stability line. We hope to get information on the properties of dense matter under extreme conditions as the neutron-rich enviroment in neutron stars.

In order to describe isospin asymmetric nuclear matter within the present formalism it is important to include in the Lagrangian density the isovector-vector term

$$_\rho =G_\rho \left[(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2\right].$$

Here, $`G_\rho `$ is chosen in such a way that the experimental value of the symmetry energy $`a_{sym}=35`$ MeV is reproduced.
In Fig. 4 we compare EOSI with two different parametrizations of the non-linear Walecka model, NL3  and TM1 , and the quark meson coupling model (QMC)  for symmetric matter. In QMC the structure of nucleons is taken into account having as underlying model the MIT Bag model. In Fig. 5 we make a similar comparison with NL3 and TM1 for neutron matter. The RMF parametrizations were fitted to both stable and unstable nuclei. However TM1 contains a self-coupling term in the vector meson which weakens the contribution of the vector meson at high densities. We conclude that EOSI is softer than NL3. Indeed, EOSI is also softer than TM1 and QMC, but becomes slightly stiffer at higher densities, in connection with chiral symmetry restoration.

The nuclear EOS, as function of density and asymmetry, is reasonably well approximated by:

$$\frac{E}{A}=W=|W_0|[(2(1\delta )\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}+(\frac{\rho }{\rho _0})^2]$$
(24)
where $`\delta =(\rho _n\rho _p)/(\rho _n+\rho _p)`$. Here, $`\rho _i,i=n,p`$ is the density of particles of type $`i`$.

## 6 Original NJL Model in Two Dimensions

For the two dimensional NJL model, we get simple analytic results. The average kinetic energy $`T`$ is given by:
$`T=\frac{1}{2}\rho _f\frac{1}{6}\rho _f^2+\mathrm{}`$, where $`\rho _f=2\pi \rho _N`$. Thus we get, ($`c_{sv}=0`$ for pure NJL):

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`1g\rho _f(g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\rho _f^2+\mathrm{},`$ (25)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g1}{2}}\rho _f+0\rho _f^2+\mathrm{},`$ (26)
where $`g=\frac{\stackrel{~}{V_s}}{2\pi }`$ and $`m`$ is the quark masss. For the two dimensional case, we can obtain exact results for these two quantities, not just for low densities:

$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`12g\rho _f+(g1)^2\rho _f^2,`$ (27)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g1}{2}}\rho _f.`$ (28)
It is remarkable that higher order terms in $`W`$, cancel exactly. The vanishing term of order $`\rho _f^2`$ in Eq. (28) has three components which cancel exactly:
1. Relativistic correction to energy momentum relation.
2. Increased kinetic energy due to reduced effective nucleon mass.
3. Increased attraction due to reduction in effective mass of scalar meson (similar to that of the nucleon).
For the more realistic three dimensional case, the physics is very similar, and again there is a near cancellation between these three terms. It cannot, of course, be perfect, since in three dimensions, these terms are proportional to $`\rho ^{4/3}`$, $`\rho ^{5/3}`$ and $`\rho ^2`$, respectively. This explains why the $`c_{sv}`$ term is essential for achieving saturation.

## 7 Connection with other Models

### 7.1 Guichon quark meson coupling model

One promising possibility is the quark-meson coupling model proposed by Guichon . In this model, the nucleon mass is generated dynamically using a MIT bag model. Let us define the dimensional coupling constant:

$$B_s=\frac{g_s^2}{m_s^2}\frac{\rho _0}{M}=\frac{\rho _0\stackrel{~}{V}_s}{M},$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_s`$ is the volume integral of the $`NN`$ interaction, eq. (6). Then in the Guichon model, we automatically obtain a saturating term which can be put into our form:

$$W_{\rho ^2}=c_{sv}B_s^2\widehat{\rho }^2Mc^2$$
(30)
where $`c_{sv}=0.340\frac{m_qc}{\mathrm{}}r_{bag}`$ , and $`\widehat{\rho }=\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}`$. The coefficient 0.340 is a dimensionless constant which can be derived from the MIT bag model . In that work, nuclear matter saturation and some properties of finite nuclei are fitted with a bag radius of $`r_{bag}=0.8fm`$. This means that: $`c_{sv}=0.340\frac{313}{197}0.8=0.432,`$ essentially the same as 0.427 obtained using the ENJL model. Their value for the volume integral of the scalar coupling is $`\stackrel{~}{V}_s=1719MeVfm^3`$, very close to the ENJL result, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_s=1705MeVfm^3`$.

### 7.2 Relativistic Mean Field Models for Equation of State

In the non-linear and derivative coupling mean field models, we also get a term quadratic in the density. In the strong coupling limit, neglecting kinetic energy, we can write for the energy per particle:

$$W=M1+\frac{1}{2}B_v\widehat{\rho }+\frac{(M1)^2}{2B_s\widehat{\rho }M^\alpha }$$
(31)
The effective mass is obtained by setting $`\frac{dW}{dM}=0.`$
In the low density limit, the effective mass is given by:

$$M=1B_s\widehat{\rho }+\frac{3}{2}\alpha B_s^2\widehat{\rho }^2+\mathrm{}$$
(32)
and

$$W=\frac{1}{2}(B_vB_s)\widehat{\rho }+\frac{1}{2}\alpha B_s^2\widehat{\rho }^2+\mathrm{}$$
(33)
Making a comparison with Eq. (30), we obtain $`c_{sv}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha `$. In the original derivative coupling model , we get $`\alpha =2`$, and $`c_{sv}=1`$, which seems too large. However, in the hybrid model developed by Glendenning et al , we have $`\alpha =1`$, which corresponds to $`c_{sv}=0.5`$. This is close to our phenomenological result. On the other hand, with the other EOS parametrizations, $`c_{sv}`$ has different values.

### 7.3 Connection of ECS model to other relativistic chiral models

In the present form the Lagrangian density (14) contains terms coupling the meson fields to the fermion fields in a non-linear way. Using the equations of motion and keeping only quartic terms in the meson fields we get,

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )\psi g_s(\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi +\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )g_v\overline{\psi }V^\mu \gamma _\mu \psi `$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma +^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_s^2(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V^{\mu \nu }V_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_v^2V^\mu V_\mu `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_sm_v^4}{g_v^2}}a_1(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi })V^\mu V_\mu .`$
This Lagrangian density, except for the meson kinetic terms, is similar to the one introduced by Boguta  which, by including a scalar-vector coupling, was able to reproduce nuclear matter saturation properties. However, in  an effective mesonic self-interaction corresponding to the “Mexican hat” is present.

In  a generalization of the model proposed in , including a “bare” vector mass, a quartic term in vector field and allowing for different vector-scalar and vector-nucleon couplings, was studied. It was argued that a linear realization of chiral symmetry was too restrictive and, although nuclear matter properties may be reproduced, there are problems with the properties of finite nuclei. In our formulation, however, and with our choice of parameters we have shown that not only nuclear matter saturation properties are reasonably explained, but also surface properties.

## 8 Conclusions

We have studied an extension of the NJL model which yields reasonable saturation of nuclear matter. An effective density dependent coupling constant is obtained which pushes chiral symmetry restoration to higher densities. Two variants of the model defined by appropriate sets of the parameters, $`G_s,G_v,G_{sv},`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ have been studied numerically. For Model I, the values of the defining parameters, the vacuum properties, the properties at saturation are given in Tables 1 and 2. An extension of the chiral sigma model has been developed which is based on the extended NJL model and fits not only the properties at saturation but also the empirical nuclear surface energy and thickness. The term in $`G_{sv},`$ responsible for the density dependence of the effective coupling constant, plays an important role in pushing to higher densities the restoration of chiral symmetry and in lowering the incompressibility.

The relation of the present model to the relativistic chiral model proposed by Boguta  was presented. Finally we have discussed asymmetric matter within the present model.

We have shown the connection of the ENJL model with other relativistic models including QMC, ECS, non-linear and derivative coupling mean field models. In order to further test the model it is important to calculate other properties of finite nuclei and its performance at finite temperature. The critical temperature for chiral symmetry restoration at zero density is easily calculated to be $`T_c=196`$ MeV, an encouraging result. Application of the model to neutron-star matter requires the inclusion of strangeness and beta-equilibrium.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mitja Rosina for fruitful discussions. This work was partially supported by FCT and FEDER under the projects POCTI/FIS/451/94, POCTI/35308/FIS/2000, and POCTI/FP/FNU/50326/2003.