format: text

text:
# Superfluid phases of quark matter. III. Supercurrents and vortices

## I Introduction

Dense quark matter at low temperatures is expected to be in a BCS-paired superfluid state induced by attractive coupling in the color-$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ channel, with the pairs having zero total angular momentum, $`J`$ . Because of the rich internal degrees of freedom of quarks, two $`J=0`$ pairing states with condensates antisymmetric in color and flavor have emerged as energetically favorable candidates, a two-flavor color-antitriplet “2SC” (or particularly for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, isoscalar) state, and for massless $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`s`$ quarks, a color-flavor locked state . The latter is the most stable for three flavors of massless quarks in the weak coupling limit, both at zero temperature, $`T`$, and near the critical temperature $`T_c`$ \[I\].

In this paper we study the response of BCS-paired states of quark matter to external magnetic fields and rotation, as would be experienced by superfluid quark matter if present in neutron stars. We find that the isoscalar paired state, if a Type II superconductor, behaves analogously to that of protons in a neutron star, forming vortices in response to the magnetic field, and forming a weak London magnetic field dominated by the gluonic component, in response to rotations. On the other hand, the color-flavor locked phase forms vortices in response to rotation, analogously to superfluid neutrons in a neutron star or to rotating superfluid 3He, but simply tries to expel, via the Meissner effect, a fraction of the external magnetic field ; gradients of the order parameter do not induce supercurrents, and magnetized vortices are topologically unstable, in contrast to the situation in the isoscalar phase. Table I summarizes our main conclusions on the responses and corresponding energies. In neutron stars, the presence of the isoscalar phase would affect the magnetic fields of the star via the combined effects of Meissner screening, London magnetic fields, and possible magnetic vortices , while the color-flavor locked phase could play a role  in the pinning and depinning of rotational vortices that give rise to pulsar glitches .

To investigate the nature of vortices and supercurrents induced by external magnetic fields and rotation in pairing states near the critical temperature, we extend the general Ginzburg-Landau theory constructed in I by adding to the homogeneous free energy the energy arising from long wavelength gradients of the order parameters. The gradient energy, which is applicable over spatial scales larger than the zero-temperature coherence length $`T_c^1`$, is proportional to the superfluid baryon density $`n_s`$, which we obtain explicitly in weak coupling by calculating the normal baryon density $`n_n`$. We then incorporate external magnetic fields and rotation via covariant derivatives and transformations to the rotating frame, respectively. The Ginzburg-Landau free energy including color and electromagnetic gauge fields was analysed by Bailin and Love  and by Blaschke and Sedrakian  for the isoscalar channel in the weak coupling limit. The present study encompasses both color-flavor locked and the isoscalar condensation of arbitrarily coupled systems under external magnetic fields and rotation.

We derive the effects of uniform external magnetic fields on the condensates from the static Maxwell’s equations in the medium, constructed by extremization of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy with respect to the gluonic and photonic gauge fields; the supercurrent sources include terms induced by the gradients of the order parameters, as in ordinary superconductors . The response of the system to uniform magnetic fields is characterized by Meissner screening and free propagation of gluon-photon mixed fields, together with possible formation of magnetized vortices . In clarifying the magnetic structures of the superconductor, we calculate the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length and the penetration depth, as well as the various critical fields. We treat all the gauge fields as averaged quantities and ignore fluctuations around their mean values, which cause the normal-superfluid transition to become first order, as clarified in Refs. .

Magnetic fields and rotation have negligible effect on the equilibrium phase diagram near $`T_c`$. Neither of these disturbances affects the degeneracy of the states belonging to a given phase because they do not couple with the orientations of the order parameters in color and flavor space. This is a contrast to the case of superfluid 3He in which external magnetic fields and currents act to fix the orientations of the order parameters in spin and orbital space, respectively, and hence remove such degeneracy . In addition, the color neutrality conditions, discussed in I, remain unchanged, since neither magnetic fields or rotation alter color charge densities via gluon self-couplings; we do not take these conditions into account in this paper. While both rotation and magnetic fields yield small positive energy corrections that are more favorable to the isoscalar phase than the color-flavor locked phase, such corrections are considerably smaller than the condensation energies except in a negligibly small temperature range near $`T_c`$.

In Sec. II, we construct the gradient energy and the supercurrents for color and flavor antisymmetric pairing with $`J=0`$, and determine the superfluid baryon density and superfluid momentum density in terms of the order parameter. In Sec. III we examine the responses of a color-flavor locked condensate to external magnetic fields and rotation, and in Sec. IV, the corresponding responses of isoscalar condensates. Our conclusions are presented in Sec. V. The appendix briefly summarizes crucial results from I. We work in units $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$.

## II Gradient energy

To describe the effects of external magnetic fields and rotation in a quark superfluid, we first study the gradient term in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy near $`T_c`$. We consider a plasma composed of quarks of three massless flavors ($`uds`$) and three colors ($`RGB`$) at temperature $`T`$ and baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$, as in I, and work in terms of the free energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }=ETS\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ia}\mu _{ia}n_{ia}`$, where $`S`$ is the entropy density, and the $`\mu _{ia}`$ and $`n_{ia}`$ are the chemical potentials and densities of quarks of flavor $`i`$ and color $`a`$. In the absence of real electromagnetic and gluonic fields the free density difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{(0)}\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{(0)}`$ between the homogeneous superfluid and normal phases near $`T_c`$ is, up to fourth order in the pairing gap (see appendix),

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^+\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)_F+\beta _1^+[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)_F]^2+\beta _2^+\mathrm{Tr}[(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)^2]_F.`$ (1)
Here $`\varphi _+`$ is the gap matrix for even parity, same chirality, $`J=0`$ quark-quark pairing (see Eq. (146)). The subscript $`F`$ denotes the on-shell pairing gap evaluated at $`|𝐤|=k_F`$, the Fermi momentum of the normal state; hereafter we do not write the $`F`$ explicitly, but it should be understood. We ignore the terms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CN}`$ associated with the constraint of overall color neutrality, discussed in I, since they play no role in the ensuing discussion.

In inhomogeneous states $`\varphi _+`$ depends not only on the relative pair momentum, $`𝐤`$, but also on the center-of-mass coordinate, $`𝐫`$, of the pair. For wavelengths large compared with the coherence length, $`T_c^1`$, the gradient energy assumes the general form to second order in spatial derivatives of the pairing gap,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_g=\frac{1}{2}K_T\mathrm{Tr}(_l\varphi _+_l\varphi _+^{}),$$
(2)
where $`_l/r_l`$ ($`l=1,2,3`$). This structure follows from the invariance of the grand-canonical Hamiltonian under special unitary color and flavor rotation and $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations of the field operators, $`\psi e^{i\phi }U_cU_f\psi `$, and thus $`(\varphi _\pm )_{abij}e^{2i\phi }(\varphi _\pm )_{cdlm}(U_c^{})_{ca}(U_c^{})_{db}(U_f^{})_{li}(U_f^{})_{mj}`$.

The superfluid mass density is related to the stiffness parameter $`K_T`$ by

$$\rho _s=\frac{4}{9}\mu ^2K_T\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+\varphi _+^{}).$$
(3)
This relation is basically that obtained by Josephson , $`\rho _s=A_{}(m/\mathrm{})^2|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, for superfluid He-II. To derive it we consider the situation, as in Ref. , in which the superfluid moves uniformly with small constant velocity $`𝐯_s`$, with the normal fluid remaining at rest. The momentum per baryon in the flow is $`\mu 𝐯_s`$. In such a situation the phase factor of the gap in the lab frame transforms by $`\varphi _+e^{i𝐏𝐫}\varphi _+`$, where $`𝐏`$ is the total pair momentum relative to its value in the lab frame. Since each pair carries a baryon number 2/3,

$$𝐏=\frac{2}{3}\mu 𝐯_s.$$
(4)
Under the transformation $`\varphi _+e^{i𝐏𝐫}\varphi _+`$ the free energy density transforms by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{i}{2}K_T𝐏\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)+\frac{1}{2}K_T𝐏^2\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+\varphi _+^{}).$$
(5)
Comparing this result with the expected transformation of the free energy density,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+𝐠_s𝐯_s+\frac{1}{2}\rho _s𝐯_s^2,$$
(6)
and using Eq. (4), we derive Eq. (3), and in addition relate the momentum density of the condensate, $`𝐠_s`$, to the order parameter by

$$𝐠_s=\frac{i}{3}K_T\mu \mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)=\mu 𝐣_s,$$
(7)
where $`𝐣_s`$ is the superfluid baryon current. \[The minus sign originates from the conventional definition of the gap here in terms of the adjoint spinors rather than the spinors, as in condensed matter physics.\]

In the limit of weak coupling near $`T_c`$, the stiffness parameter is given by

$$K_T=\frac{7\zeta (3)n_b}{16\pi ^2T_c^2\mu },$$
(8)
where $`n_b`$ is the baryon density, and $`\zeta (3)=1.202\mathrm{}`$. This result has been derived by Giannakis and Ren  using finite temperature diagrammatic perturbation theory in the normal phase for single gluon exchange interaction, and by Bailin and Love  for a short-range pairing interaction. Here we present a simple physical derivation of $`K_T`$ from Eq. (3), by evaluating the superfluid mass density $`\rho _s`$ near $`T_c`$ in weak coupling. We consider the system, as in Leggett’s argument for superfluid 3He , to be contained in an infinitely long tube which moves uniformly with velocity $`𝐯`$ $`(|𝐯|c)`$ along the symmetry axis. We assume that the normal component is in equilibrium with the moving wall and that the superfluid component stays at rest. Then the baryon current density $`𝐣_n`$ of the normal component is related to the normal baryon density, $`n_n=n_bn_s`$, by

$$𝐣_n=n_n𝐯,$$
(9)
and is given in weak coupling in terms of the quasiparticle distribution function, $`f_𝐤`$, by

$$𝐣_n=2\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{𝐤}{\mu }\mathrm{Tr}f_𝐤.$$
(10)
In the present situation, $`f_𝐤`$ is the equilibrium distribution evaluated in the frame of the moving walls:

$$f_𝐤=f\mathbf{(}\epsilon (𝐤)𝐤𝐯\mathbf{)}=\frac{1}{e^{[\epsilon (𝐤)𝐤𝐯]/T}+1};$$
(11)
here

$$\epsilon (𝐤)=[(|𝐤|\mu /3)^2+\varphi _+^{}(𝐤)\varphi _+(𝐤)]^{1/2},$$
(12)
with $`\varphi _+(𝐤)\varphi _+\mathbf{(}\epsilon (𝐤),𝐤\mathbf{)}`$, is the energy matrix for quark quasiparticles \[I\]. Expanding to linear order in $`𝐯`$ we find

$$n_n=\frac{2}{3}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{𝐤^2}{\mu T}\mathrm{Tr}[f\mathbf{(}\epsilon (𝐤)\mathbf{)}(1f\mathbf{(}\epsilon (𝐤)\mathbf{)})].$$
(13)
The integration is dominated by momenta $`𝐤`$ close to the Fermi surface, where the gap can be taken to be constant. Expanding near $`T_c`$ to second order in the gap we thus obtain

$$n_n=\left[1\frac{7\zeta (3)}{36\pi ^2T_c^2}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)\right]n_b,$$
(14)
so that

$$n_s=\rho _s/\mu =\frac{7\zeta (3)}{36\pi ^2T_c^2}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)n_b,$$
(15)
from which Eq. (8) follows.

Real color and electromagnetic gauge fields enter the gradient energy (2) via covariant derivatives. Let us first consider color $`SU(3)`$ local gauge transformations of the quark spinors via

$$U_c(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}[i\lambda ^\alpha \phi _\alpha (𝐫)/2],$$
(16)
where the $`\phi _\alpha `$ are the local phase angles and the $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ the Gell-Mann matrices. The gap matrix $`\varphi _+(k;𝐫)`$ transforms as $`(\varphi _+)_{abij}(U_c^{})_{ca}(U_c^{})_{db}(\varphi _+)_{cdij}`$, and the corresponding covariant derivative is

$$D_l\varphi _+_l\varphi _++\frac{1}{2}ig[(\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha ]A_l^\alpha ,$$
(17)
where $`g`$ is the qcd coupling constant, and the $`𝐀^\alpha `$ are the color gauge fields, which transform as $`A_l^\alpha A_l^\alpha +g^1_l\phi _\alpha +f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_l^\beta \phi _\gamma `$. With extension of the covariant derivative (17) to include the usual $`U(1)`$ electromagnetic gauge transformations, which multiply the quark spinors $`\psi _{ai}`$ by

$$U_i(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}[iq_i\phi _e(𝐫)],$$
(18)
with local phase angle $`\phi _e`$, the full covariant derivative is then

$$D_l\varphi _+_l\varphi _++\frac{1}{2}ig[(\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha ]A_l^\alpha +ieQ\varphi _+A_l,$$
(19)
where $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic gauge field, $`e`$ is unit of the electric charge, and $`Q_{abij}=\delta _{ab}(q_i+q_j)`$ is the electric charge matrix of the pair. The full gradient energy is then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_g=\frac{1}{2}K_T\mathrm{Tr}[D_l\varphi _+(D_l\varphi _+)^{}],$$
(20)
with $`D_l`$ given by Eq. (19). This form is invariant under transformations $`(\varphi _+)_{abij}U_i^{}U_j^{}(U_c^{})_{ca}(U_c^{})_{db}(\varphi _+)_{cdij}`$.

We now write the free energy densities, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$, of the normal and superfluid phases near $`T_c`$ in the presence of an external magnetic field, $`𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, neglecting the response of the normal component to $`𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. First,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n=F_n+\frac{1}{2}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2,$$
(21)
where $`F_n`$ is the free energy of the normal state at $`𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}=0`$. To construct the free energy density of the superfluid state, we add to the homogeneous free energy (1), the gradient energy density (20), and the energy densities of the color and electromagnetic fields induced by $`𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, to obtain

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ $`=`$ $`F_n+\alpha ^+\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)+\beta _1^+[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)]^2+\beta _2^+\mathrm{Tr}[(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)^2]`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_T\mathrm{Tr}[D_l\varphi _+(D_l\varphi _+)^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{lm}^\alpha G_{lm}^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{lm}F_{lm},`$
where

$$G_{lm}^\alpha =_lA_m^\alpha +_mA_l^\alpha gf_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_l^\beta A_m^\gamma $$
(24)
and

$$F_{lm}=_lA_m+_mA_l$$
(25)
are the field tensors.

Extremization of $`d^3r\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_s\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, with respect to $`\varphi _+^{}`$ yields the gap equation

$$\frac{1}{2}K_TD_l(D_l\varphi _+)\alpha ^+\varphi _++2\beta _1^+[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+)]\varphi _++2\beta _2^+\varphi _+\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+=0.$$
(26)
The field equations for the macroscopic fields $`𝐀^\alpha `$ and $`𝐀`$, found by extremizing $`d^3r\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to the fields, are:

$`_mG_{ml}^\alpha +gf_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_m^\beta G_{ml}^\gamma `$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_Tg\mathrm{Im}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)^{}_l\varphi _+\right]\right\}`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_Tg^2A_l^\beta \mathrm{Re}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)\left((\lambda ^\beta )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\beta \right)^{}\right]\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_TgeA_l\mathrm{Re}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)Q\varphi _+^{}\right]\right\}J_l^\alpha `$
and

$`_mF_{ml}`$ $`=`$ $`K_Te\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{Tr}(Q\varphi _+^{}_l\varphi _+)]K_Te^2A_l\mathrm{Tr}(Q\varphi _+Q\varphi _+^{})`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_TgeA_l^\alpha \mathrm{Re}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[Q\varphi _+\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)^{}\right]\right\}J_l,`$
where $`𝐉^\alpha `$ and $`𝐉`$ are the color and electric supercurrent densities, respectively. The Maxwell equations (30) and (32) with uniform external fields determine the structures of the supercurrents and vortices, as we discuss in Secs. III and IV.

For later analysis it is useful to write down the solution of these equations in the presence of an externally applied electromagnetic transverse field, $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐫)=e^{i𝐪𝐫}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐪)`$, where $`𝐪𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐪)=0`$. The supercurrents, $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐉^\alpha `$, induced by this potential in turn induce fields, $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ and $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ind}}^\alpha `$. We assume that the external potential $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is sufficiently weak and nearly uniform ($`𝐪0`$) that the order parameter remains essentially homogeneous and the self-couplings of the induced gluon fields are negligible. Up to linear order in $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, the induced fields may be calculated from Eqs. (30) and (32), with $`G_{lm}^\alpha `$ and $`F_{lm}`$ including the induced fields. The supercurrents $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐉^\alpha `$ depend on the total fields,

$$𝐀=𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}+𝐀_{\mathrm{ind}},𝐀^\alpha =𝐀_{\mathrm{ind}}^\alpha ,$$
(33)
which are given by

$`𝐀(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{K_Te^2}{q^2}}\mathrm{Tr}(Q\varphi _+Q\varphi _+^{})[(\epsilon ^T)^1]_{\alpha \beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{K_Tge}{q^2}}\right)^2`$ (36)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(Q\varphi _+\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)^{}\right)\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(((\lambda ^\beta )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\beta )Q\varphi _+^{}\right)\right]\}^1𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐪)`$
and

$$𝐀^\alpha (𝐪)=\frac{1}{2}[(\epsilon ^T)^1]_{\alpha \beta }\frac{K_Tge}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left((\lambda ^\beta )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\beta \right)Q\varphi _+^{}\right)\right]𝐀(𝐪),$$
(37)
where the transverse color dielectric function,

$`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }^T`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K_Tg^2}{4q^2}}\mathrm{Re}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)\left((\lambda ^\beta )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\beta \right)^{}\right]\right\},`$
describes the response of the current of color $`\alpha `$ to the field of color $`\beta `$. In deriving this equation from Eq. (34) of II, we have written the long wavelength limit of the transverse screened correlation function $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_T^{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,0)`$ in terms of the gap as

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_T^{\alpha \beta }(𝐤0,0)=\frac{1}{4}K_Tg^2\mathrm{Re}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left((\lambda ^\alpha )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\alpha \right)\left((\lambda ^\beta )^{}\varphi _++\varphi _+\lambda ^\beta \right)^{}\right]\right\}.$$
(40)
In the succeeding sections we analyze the structures of inhomogeneous color-flavor locked and isoscalar condensates. These condensates are antisymmetric in color and flavor, with a gap

$$\varphi _+=ϵ_{ijh}ϵ_{abc}(𝐝_c)_h,$$
(41)
where $`(𝐝_c)_h`$ is a complex field representing the pairing gap between two quarks in state $`[(|ab|ba)/\sqrt{2}]\times [(|ij|ji)/\sqrt{2}]`$ with $`abc`$ and $`ijh`$. With (41), Eqs. (23) and (21) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ lead to a thermodynamic potential density difference near $`T_c`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\alpha }\lambda +(\beta _1+\beta _2\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\lambda ^2`$ (43)
$`+K_T\mathrm{Tr}[D_l\mathrm{\Phi }(D_l\mathrm{\Phi })^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{lm}^\alpha G_{lm}^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{lm}F_{lm}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{abi}ϵ_{abc}(𝐝_c)_i`$. The homogeneous part is that in Eq. (152).

We turn now to the properties of the color-flavor locked and isoscalar condensates, with respective gap matrices (158) and (156), in the presence of external magnetic fields and rotation.

## III Color-flavor locking

In the color-flavor locked phase, vortices associated with the response of the system to magnetic fields are topologically unstable. Rather, the system acts as an imperfect diamagnet. On the other hand, rotation of the color-flavor locked phase produces vortices associated with the baryon $`U(1)`$ symmetry breaking, analogous to the vortices in rotating chargeless superfluids such as liquid He II , superfluid 3He , Bose-Einstein condensates of alkali atoms , and neutron superfluids .

We consider the color-flavor locked phase described by the gap (158)

$$(\varphi _+)_{abij}=\kappa _A(\delta _{ai}\delta _{bj}\delta _{aj}\delta _{bi}).$$
(44)
In the absence of magnetic and color magnetic fields the gap equation becomes

$$\overline{\alpha }\kappa _A+6\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}|\kappa _A|^2\kappa _A2K_T^2\kappa _A=0,$$
(45)
where $`\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}=\beta _1+\beta _2/3`$. In the London limit, in which the scale $`L`$ of the spatial variation is much larger than the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length,

$$\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}=\left(2K_T/|\overline{\alpha }|\right)^{1/2},$$
(46)
the relative variation of the magnitude of $`\kappa _A`$ is of order $`\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}^2/L^2`$ smaller than the relative variation of the phase of $`\kappa _A`$ and can be neglected. To see this we write $`\kappa _A=e^{i\phi _A}|\kappa _A|`$. In the homogeneous limit, $`\phi _A`$ can be taken to be zero, and the magnitude of the gap is given by

$$\overline{\alpha }+6\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}|\kappa _A|^2=0.$$
(47)
Thus in an inhomogeneous situation the variation of the magnitude of the gap is related to the variation of its phase by

$$\frac{\delta |\kappa _A|}{|\kappa _A|}=\frac{1}{2}\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}^2e^{i\phi _A}^2e^{i\phi _A}.$$
(48)
Equation (47) implies the homogeneous phase condensation energy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}}.$$
(49)
### A Response to magnetic fields

To determine the response of the condensate to an external electromagnetic vector potential we substitute the gap (44) into the field equations (30) and (32), and neglecting gradients of the magnitude of $`\kappa _A`$, we find the color and electromagnetic supercurrent densities:

$$𝐉^\alpha =2K_Tg^2|\kappa _A|^2𝐀^\alpha ,\alpha 3,8,$$
(50)
$$𝐉^3=2K_Tg|\kappa _A|^2(g𝐀^3+e𝐀),$$
(51)
$$𝐉^8=2K_Tg|\kappa _A|^2\left(g𝐀^8+\frac{e}{\sqrt{3}}𝐀\right),$$
(52)
$$𝐉=2K_Te|\kappa _A|^2\left[\frac{4}{3}e𝐀+g\left(𝐀^3+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}𝐀^8\right)\right].$$
(53)
Note that the current terms induced by the gradients of the phase of $`\kappa _A`$ vanish due to the isotropy of the condensate in color and flavor space, a feature implicit in Refs. . This absence of currents induced by the gradients of the phase of $`\kappa _A`$ underlies the response of the color-flavor locked condensate to magnetic fields and rotation, as we consider in the present and following subsections. External disturbances such as magnetic fields and rotation do not change such isotropy and hence do not break the degeneracy in energy of the states with order parameters of the form (157).

The currents associated with color charge $`\alpha =3,8`$ and electric charge respond to the electromagnetic gauge field; in turn the electromagnetic current responds to the gauge fields $`𝐀^3`$ and $`𝐀^8`$. As in Ref. , it is convenient to take linear combinations of the supercurrents and the gauge fields to diagonalize the response. The combinations

$$𝓙\frac{\sqrt{3}g𝐉\sqrt{3}e𝐉^3e𝐉^8}{3\sqrt{2}g_3},𝓐\frac{\sqrt{3}g𝐀\sqrt{3}e𝐀^3e𝐀^8}{3\sqrt{2}g_3},$$
(54)
$$𝓙^3\frac{3g𝐉^3+4e𝐉+\sqrt{3}g𝐉^8}{6\sqrt{2}g_3},𝓐^3\frac{3g𝐀^3+4e𝐀+\sqrt{3}g𝐀^8}{6\sqrt{2}g_3},$$
(55)
$$𝓙^8\frac{\sqrt{3}𝐉^8𝐉^3}{2},𝓐^8\frac{\sqrt{3}𝐀^8𝐀^3}{2}$$
(56)
satisfy the diagonalized equations

$$𝓙=0,$$
(57)
$$𝓙^3=12K_Tg_3^2|\kappa _A|^2𝓐^3,$$
(58)
and

$$𝓙^8=2K_Tg^2|\kappa _A|^2𝓐^8,$$
(59)
where

$$g_3=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{3g^2+4e^2}$$
(60)
is the coupling constant associated with the field $`𝓐^3`$. Since Eqs. (50), (58), and (59) imply that the corresponding fields have a magnetic mass, we see the property originally shown by Alford, Rajagopal, and Wilczek , that eight of the nine gauge fields are Meissner screened, while the field $`𝓐`$ remains free.

The response of a homogeneous color-flavor locked condensate near $`T_c`$ to an electromagnetic field is twofold. Substituting the supercurrents (50)–(53) into the linear response (36) and (37) we obtain

$$𝐀=\frac{q^2+2K_Tg^2|\kappa _A|^2}{q^2+12K_Tg_3^2|\kappa _A|^2}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},𝐀^3=\sqrt{3}𝐀^8=\frac{2K_Tge|\kappa _A|^2}{q^2+12K_Tg_3^2|\kappa _A|^2}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(61)
and thus

$$𝓐=\frac{g}{\sqrt{6}g_3}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},𝓐^3=\frac{\sqrt{2}e}{3g_3}\frac{q^2}{q^2+12K_Tg_3^2|\kappa _A|^2}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},𝓐^8=0.$$
(62)
The term $`𝓐^3`$, which is proportional to $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, is screened by the Meissner effect within a penetration depth

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{CFL}}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3K_T}g_3|\kappa _A|}.$$
(63)
\[However, see note .\] The mixed field, $`𝓐`$, defined by Eq. (54), also proportional to $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, propagates freely in the superconductor. The behavior of the field $`𝓐^3`$ is comparable to that in a Type I superconductor, independent of the relative magnitudes of the coherence length and the penetration depth. Due to the absence of phase-gradient induced current terms, an external field does not lead to vortex lines; a vortex placed inside the condensate would be topologically unstable. We note that since the structure factor $`f_{\alpha 38}`$ vanishes, the gluon self-coupling term included in the field strength tensor (24) does not appear, allowing us to generalize expression (62) straightforwardly to the case of finite external fields.

Under the external field $`𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}=\times 𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, the free energy difference near $`T_c`$, Eq. (43), reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=3\overline{\alpha }|\kappa _A|^2+9\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}|\kappa _A|^4+6K_T(|\kappa _A|^2+g_3^2|𝓐^3|^2|\kappa _A|^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(|𝓑^3|^2+|𝓑|^2|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2\right),$$
(64)
where

$$𝓑\times 𝓐,𝓑^3\times 𝓐^3$$
(65)
are the Abelian field strengths. The gap equation (cf. (45)) follows directly from Eq. (64).

The system remains a superfluid for magnetic fields $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ below a critical field $`H_c`$. For $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}<H_c`$, the equilibrium system expels the part of the external field that leads to $`𝓑^3`$. An external field greater than $`H_c`$ entirely penetrates the system, and the system becomes normal. The favored phase is the one that minimizes the Gibbs free energy density, $`G=\mathrm{\Omega }𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}𝐁`$, at constant external field, $`𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. Since $`𝓑^3`$ is screened out in the color-flavor locked phase in bulk,

$$G_s=F_n\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}}+\frac{1}{2}|𝓑|^2𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}𝐁=F_n\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}}\frac{g^2}{12g_3^2}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2.$$
(66)
The normal phase Gibbs free energy density is

$$G_n=F_n\frac{1}{2}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2,$$
(67)
so that the difference of Gibbs free energy densities of the superfluid and normal phases is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G=\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mathrm{mag}}$$
(68)
with the magnetic part

$`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mathrm{mag}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|𝓑|^2𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}𝐁+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{9g_3^2}}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2.`$ (70)
This free energy difference vanishes at the critical field

$$H_\mathrm{c}=\frac{3g_3|\overline{\alpha }|}{2e\sqrt{\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{CFL}}}}=\frac{3}{2e\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}\lambda _{\mathrm{CFL}}}.$$
(71)
The coherence length (46), the penetration depth (63), and the critical field (71) can be estimated from Eqs. (149)–(150) and (8) in the limit of weak coupling as

$$\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}0.26\left(\frac{100\mathrm{MeV}}{T_c}\right)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{fm},$$
(72)
$$\lambda _{\mathrm{CFL}}2.1\left(\frac{1}{g_3}\right)\left(\frac{300\mathrm{MeV}}{\mu /3}\right)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{fm},$$
(73)
and

$$H_c1.8\times 10^{19}g_3\left(\frac{T_c}{100\mathrm{MeV}}\right)\left(\frac{\mu /3}{300\mathrm{MeV}}\right)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)\mathrm{G}.$$
(74)
In these expressions, $`T_c`$ and $`\mu `$ are normalized by their typical values at lower densities. Although strictly valid near $`T_c`$, these estimates of the characteristic lengths and critical field can be extrapolated to $`TT_c`$ with the given temperature dependence in terms of $`1T/T_c`$ without modification, an approximation which should be accurate to within a factor of two, as in the case of ordinary superconductors . The estimate (74) indicates that a color-flavor locked condensate, if present in a neutron star core, would not be destroyed by ambient neutron star magnetic fields.

### B Response to rotation

We turn to analyzing the response of a color-flavor locked homogeneous condensate near $`T_c`$ to rotation. For simplicity, we consider the condensate to be in thermodynamic equilibrium in a cylindrical vessel rotating with constant angular velocity $`𝝎`$. In this situation, the normal component corotates with the vessel as a rigid body. The superfluid component, however, behaves independently; to examine its properties, we transform to the rotating frame in which the container walls are at rest, assuming, as in a neutron star, that the velocities associated with rotation to be much smaller than the speed of light and describing the flow properties nonrelativistically.

The free energy density in the rotating frame is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝝎𝐋`$, where $`𝐋`$ is the angular momentum density, given in terms of the order parameter by

$$𝐋=𝐫\times 𝐠_s,$$
(75)
with $`𝐠_s`$ given by Eq. (7). We neglect here the normal component contribution to the angular momentum. Using Eq. (44), we find that the superfluid mass density, (3), is

$$\rho _s=\frac{16}{3}K_T\mu ^2|\kappa _A|^2,$$
(76)
and

$$𝐠_s=4iK_T\mu (\kappa _A^{}\kappa _A\kappa _A\kappa _A^{}).$$
(77)
Thus in the rotating frame, the gradient energy included in Eq. (64) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_g=6K_T\{|\kappa _A|^2(2i\mu /3)𝝎[𝐫\times (\kappa _A^{}\kappa _A\kappa _A\kappa _A^{})]+g_3^2|𝓐^3|^2|\kappa _A|^2\},$$
(78)
with $`𝓐^3`$ given by Eq. (55). Note that the gradient term is independent of the vector potentials; thus rotation produces a lattice of vortex lines, with the coarse grained superflow pattern simulating corotation of the condensate. In contrast, in an isoscalar condensate, as we discuss in Sec. IV B, a rotating condensate produces a London magnetic field rather than rotational vortices. We assume in the following zero external magnetic field.

A singly quantized rotational vortex centered on the cylinder axis has the structure,

$$\kappa _A=e^{i\varphi }|\kappa _A|,$$
(79)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle around the vortex line. The corresponding baryon current density, defined by Eq. (7), is

$$𝐣_s=8K_T|\kappa _A|^2\varphi =\frac{3}{2}\frac{n_s}{\mu }\varphi =n_s𝐯_s,$$
(80)
where we relate $`\kappa _A`$ to $`n_s`$ via Eq. (76). Integrating $`𝐯_s`$ around a closed loop surrounding the vortex line, we have

$$𝑑\mathrm{}𝐯_s=2\pi \frac{3}{2\mu };$$
(81)
thus an individual singly quantized vortex has circulation $`3\pi /\mu `$. Specializing to a circular contour of radius $`r`$ centered on the line, we see that the vortex velocity, in the azimuthal direction, is given by

$$|𝐯_s|=\frac{3}{2\mu r},\text{for }r>\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}.$$
(82)
In addition the energy per unit length of an isolated vortex is

$$T_L=\frac{9\pi n_s}{4\mu }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R}{\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}}\right),$$
(83)
where $`R`$ is the container radius. The onset of vorticity occurs at the critical rotation rate $`\omega _{c1}`$, where the energy in the rotating frame $`T_L/\pi R^2𝝎𝐋`$ first vanishes; thus

$$\omega _{c1}=\frac{3}{2\mu R^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R}{\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}}\right).$$
(84)
At finite rotation speeds $`\omega _{c1}`$ the system forms a triangular lattice of singly quantized vortices. The overall flow of the condensate is essentially that of a solid body at angular velocity $`\omega `$, with velocity, Eq. (82), close to the vortex cores. This situation is similar to the case of superfluid neutron vortices in a rotating neutron star where the quantization of circulation is $`\pi /\mu `$ . The net circulation around the cylinder is $`3\pi N_v/\mu `$, where $`N_v`$ is the total number of the vortices. Since at the boundary, $`|𝐯_s|\omega R`$, the circulation is $`2\pi R^2\omega `$. Thus

$`N_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu R^2\omega `$ (85)
$``$ $`6.4\times 10^{18}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{ms}}{P_{\mathrm{rot}}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu /3}{300\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{10\mathrm{km}}}\right)^2,`$ (86)
where in the latter equation the quantities $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}(2\pi /\omega )`$, $`\mu /3`$, and $`R`$ are normalized to characteristic neutron star scales. For these values, the intervortex spacing, $`(\pi R^2/N_v)^{1/2}`$, is much larger than the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length $`\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}`$, except immediately near $`T_c`$.

The total angular momentum, $`𝐋_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, of a vortex line, the integral of $`\mu 𝐫\times 𝐣_s`$, is

$$𝐋_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{3}{2}N_s\widehat{z},$$
(87)
where $`\widehat{z}`$ is the direction of the vortex axis, and $`N_s`$ is the total superfluid baryon number. As in a neutron superfluid in a neutron star, a lattice of vortices in a color-flavor locked superfluid is an effective store of angular momentum.

To calculate the superflow energy density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}`$, of a vortex lattice in the rotating frame we note that in the logarithmic integral for the kinetic energy per line, the radial integration is cutoff at the vortex lattice constant $`a`$, so that the line energy is given by Eq. (83) only with $`R`$ in the logarithm replaced by $`a=(2\sqrt{3}\pi /\mu \omega )^{1/2}`$; thus in the rotating frame,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}\frac{1}{2}\rho _s(𝝎\times 𝐫)^2,$$
(88)
where the latter term is the free energy in the rotating frame of the (coarse grained) corotation of the fluid, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}\frac{3n_s}{2}\omega \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a}{\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}}\right)$$
(89)
is the local vortex contribution. In weak coupling, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ can be estimated from Eqs. (149)–(150) and (8) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}3\times 10^{18}\left(\frac{\mu /3}{300\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^3\left(\frac{1\mathrm{ms}}{P_{\mathrm{rot}}}\right)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a}{\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}}\right)\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(90)
The upper critical velocity, $`\omega _{c2}`$, at which rotation destroys superfluidity, occurs where the intervortex spacing approaches the coherence length, an impossibly high velocity to be relevant for neutron stars.

## IV Isoscalar, color-antitriplet channel

The response of the isoscalar, color-antitriplet phase to magnetic fields and rotation is quite different from that of the color-flavor locked phase. Magnetic fields lead to topologically stable vortices, as in laboratory Type II superconductors, while rotation of the condensate induces a London magnetic field , rather than rotational vortices. Since these external disturbances do not distinguish any direction in color space, the color structure of the order parameters is unaffected. We specialize, without loss of generality, to a gap matrix having the specific color orientation:

$$(𝐝_a)_ie^{i\phi _0}|𝐝|\delta _{aB}\delta _{is},$$
(91)
where $`B`$ denotes the blue and $`s`$ the strange directions; then

$$(\varphi _+)_{abij}=ϵ_{ijs}ϵ_{abB}e^{i\phi _0}|𝐝|.$$
(92)
We concentrate on the London limit in which the spatial gradient of the magnitude of the gap $`|𝐝|`$ can be neglected (see Eq. (48)) and that of the phase $`\phi _0`$ varies very slowly. This approximation is sufficient to describe the supercurrent structure outside the vortex cores.

### A Response to magnetic fields

Substitution of the gap (92) into Eqs. (30) and (32) leads to the relations between the supercurrent densities and the vector potentials,

$$𝐉^\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3,$$
(93)
$$𝐉^4=K_Tg|𝐝|^2(g𝐀^42\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\widehat{d}_R),$$
(94)
$$𝐉^\alpha =K_Tg^2|𝐝|^2𝐀^\alpha ,\alpha =5,7,$$
(95)
$$𝐉^6=K_Tg|𝐝|^2(g𝐀^62\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\widehat{d}_G),$$
(96)
$$𝐉^8=\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}K_Tg|𝐝|^2\left(\phi _0+\frac{g}{\sqrt{3}}𝐀^8+\frac{e}{3}𝐀\right),$$
(97)
$$𝐉=\frac{e}{\sqrt{3}g}𝐉^8,$$
(98)
where $`\widehat{𝐝}𝐝/|𝐝|`$.

As in the color-flavor locked case, it is useful to diagonalize these relations via the linear combinations

$$𝓙\frac{\sqrt{3}g𝐉e𝐉^8}{3g_8},𝓐\frac{\sqrt{3}g𝐀e𝐀^8}{3g_8},$$
(99)
$$𝓙^8\frac{\sqrt{3}g𝐉^8+e𝐉}{3g_8},𝓐^8\frac{\sqrt{3}g𝐀^8+e𝐀}{3g_8},$$
(100)
where

$$𝓙0$$
(101)
and

$$𝓙^8=4K_Tg_8|𝐝|^2\left(\phi _0+g_8𝓐^8\right),$$
(102)
with

$$g_8=\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{3g^2+e^2}$$
(103)
the coupling constant associated with the field $`𝓐^8`$. Thus five of the nine gauge fields are Meissner screened, as expected from the results for color Meissner effects on virtual gluons mediating quark-quark interactions (see, e.g., Ref. ). Expressions (101) and (102) indicate that the photonic gauge field, $`𝓐`$, modified by a gluonic component of charge $`\alpha =8`$, is a free field, whereas the field $`𝓐^8`$ couples to the gradient of the phase $`\phi _0`$. This latter coupling underlies the response of the isoscalar homogeneous condensate to external magnetic fields and rotation.

Equations (36) and (37) determine the linear response of the system to weak external magnetic fields. For the order parameter (92), an external electromagnetic vector potential leads to terms in these equations proportional to $`\lambda _{BB}^\alpha =\lambda _{33}^\alpha `$, which in the standard representation is non-zero only for $`\alpha =8`$. Thus only a field $`𝐀^8`$ is produced; the fields $`𝐀^\alpha `$ remain zero for $`\alpha =1`$–7. The absence of the $`\alpha =4`$ and 6 gauge fields implies via Eqs. (94) and (96) that in equilibrium external magnetic fields do not lead to non-zero gradients $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{d}_R`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{d}_G`$. For the electromagnetic and $`\alpha =8`$ gauge fields we obtain

$$𝐀=\frac{q^2+(4/3)K_Tg^2|𝐝|^2}{q^2+4K_Tg_8^2|𝐝|^2}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},𝐀^8=\frac{(4/3\sqrt{3})K_Tge|𝐝|^2}{q^2+4K_Tg_8^2|𝐝|^2}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(104)
or, equivalently,

$$𝓐=\frac{g}{\sqrt{3}g_8}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}},𝓐^8=\frac{e}{3g_8}\frac{q^2}{q^2+4K_Tg_8^2|𝐝|^2}𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}.$$
(105)
We note two features similar to the case of the color-flavor locked condensate. First, the modified field $`𝓐^8`$ is subject to the Meissner effect with a penetration depth

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}=\frac{1}{2g_8\sqrt{K_T}|𝐝|};$$
(106)
the modified field $`𝓐`$ is free. Second, the gluon self-coupling term in the field strength tensor (24) is absent. This fact allows the extension of Eq. (105) to finite external fields.

The free energy difference near $`T_c`$, Eq. (43), may now be written in terms of $`𝓐`$ and $`𝓐^8`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\alpha }|𝐝|^2+\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}|𝐝|^4+2K_T|(_l+ig_8𝒜_l^8)𝐝|^2+\frac{1}{2}|𝓑^8|^2+\frac{1}{2}|𝓑|^2\frac{1}{2}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2,$$
(107)
where

$$𝓑\times 𝓐,𝓑^8\times 𝓐^8$$
(108)
are the Abelian field strengths, and $`\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}=\beta _1+\beta _2`$. As in ordinary superconductors , we identify the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length, $`\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}`$, from expression (107) as

$$\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}=\left(2K_T/|\overline{\alpha }|\right)^{1/2},$$
(109)
a result identical with the color-flavor locked expression (46).

The thermodynamic critical field, $`H_c`$, associated with $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$, is the field at which the Gibbs free energy of the normal state drops to that of the superconducting state. Since $`𝓑^8`$ is screened out in the isoscalar phase in bulk,

$$G_s=F_n\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}}+\frac{1}{2}|𝓑|^2𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}𝐁=F_n\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}}\frac{g^2}{6g_8^2}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2,$$
(110)
where we have used the identity

$$𝐁=\frac{e}{3g_8}𝓑^8+\frac{g^2}{3g_8^2}𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(111)
derived from Eqs. (99), (100) and the first of (105). The difference in Gibbs free energy densities of the paired and normal phase is thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G=\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{4\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}}+\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mathrm{mag}},$$
(112)
with the magnetic part

$`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mathrm{mag}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|𝓑|^2𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}𝐁+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2`$ (113)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{18g_8^2}}|𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}|^2.`$ (114)
Then,

$$H_\mathrm{c}=\frac{3g_8}{e}\frac{|\overline{\alpha }|}{\sqrt{2\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}}}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}e\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}}.$$
(115)
The presence of the gauge field, $`𝓐^8`$, in the derivative term in the free energy indicates that the system can support magnetic vortices, as in Type II laboratory superconductors. Whether or not vortices appear depends, as we discuss below, on the relative size of the screening and coherence lengths. Let us first analyze the structure outside the core of a single vortex, whose core, of radius $`\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}`$, we take to be aligned along the z-axis. Then the order parameter of the vortex is given by Eq. (91), with $`\phi _0=\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is, as before, the azimuthal angle around the line. The field equation for $`𝓑^8`$, derived from extremization of the integral of Eq. (107) over the system with respect to $`𝓐^8`$ at fixed $`𝓐`$, is

$$𝓑^8+\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2\times (\times 𝓑^8)=\frac{1}{g_8}\times \varphi =\frac{2\pi }{g_8}\delta (x)\delta (y)\widehat{z},$$
(116)
in the London limit in which the spatial gradient of the magnitude of the gap $`|𝐝|`$ is negligible. The condition of quantization of magnetic flux, found from integrating Eq. (116) over the interior of a contour in the x-y plane surrounding the line, is

$$𝑑\mathrm{}(𝓐^8+\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2𝓙^8)=\frac{2\pi }{g_8}.$$
(117)
The flux quantum, $`\varphi _8`$, is thus $`2\pi /g_8`$; note that in the absence of color coupling ($`g=0`$) the flux quantum reduces to $`6\pi /e`$, which is $`2\pi `$ divided by the net charge, $`2/31/3`$, of the pair.

As in ordinary Type II superconductors , it is straightforward to solve the London equation (116). The current density $`𝓙^8`$, which flows in the azimuthal direction around the line, has a magnitude

$$|𝓙^8|=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\varphi _8}{2\pi \lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2r},\hfill & \text{for }\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}<r\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}},\hfill \\ \frac{\varphi _8}{2\pi \lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2}\left(\frac{\pi \lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}}{2r}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}}+\frac{1}{2r}\right)e^{r/\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}},\hfill & \text{for }r\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(118)
and the current $`𝓙^8`$ is screened by the Meissner effect far from the vortex core ($`r\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}`$); there the gauge field $`𝓐^8`$ alone fulfills the quantization condition (117). The vortex line energy per unit length, the sum of the magnetic and flow energies, is

$$T_L=\frac{\varphi _8^2}{4\pi \lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}}{\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}}\right).$$
(119)
We proceed to classify the superconducting properties according to whether or not the isoscalar condensate allows magnetic vortices associated with the field $`𝓐^8`$ to form, i.e., whether it is Type II or Type I. Blaschke and Sedrakian  addressed this problem in the weak coupling Ginzburg-Landau formalism. We give the argument here for arbitrary coupling. The basic idea is to calculate the energy per unit area, $`\sigma _s`$, needed to form a planar surface separating the normal and superconducting material. At the thermodynamic critical field $`H_c`$, applied parallel to the surface, the surface is in mechanical equilibrium. For a surface perpendicular to the z-axis, the surface energy $`\sigma _s`$ per unit area may be written as the integral over $`z`$ of the difference of the total Gibbs free energy density, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(z)|_{H_{\mathrm{ext}}H_c}+F_n+\frac{1}{2}H_c^2H_c|𝐁(z)|`$, and the value $`F_n\frac{1}{2}H_c^2`$ for the limiting case in which the thickness of the interface vanishes ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}0`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}0`$); we find

$`\sigma _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(z)|_{H_{\mathrm{ext}}H_c}H_c(|𝐁(z)|H_c)\right]`$ (120)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dz\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\overline{\alpha }|𝐝(z)|^2+\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{IS}}|𝐝(z)|^4`$ (123)
$`+2K_T|[_l+ig_8𝒜_l^8(z)]𝐝(z)|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[|𝓑^8(z)|{\displaystyle \frac{e}{3g_8}}H_c]^2\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{3g_8}}H_c\right)^2(1\sqrt{2}\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}),\text{for }\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}1/\sqrt{2},`$ (124)
where the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ is defined by

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}/\xi _{\mathrm{IS}},$$
(125)
with $`\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ given by Eqs. (106) and (109). The calculation of the prefactor of $`\sigma _s`$ must be done numerically. The structure of Eq. (124) is identical to that of ordinary superconductors  with the surface energy changing sign from positive to negative as $`\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ goes through $`1/\sqrt{2}`$; thus we are led to the same criterion, namely that the system is Type I, with no vortex formation, for $`\sigma _s>0`$, and Type II, with an Abrikosov-Schubnikov vortex phase, for $`\sigma _s<0`$.

While in a Type I superconductor, superconductivity is destroyed by an external uniform magnetic field $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ greater than $`H_c`$, in a Type II superconductor, vortices form at a lower critical field $`H_{c1}<H_c`$, and increase in density up to an upper critical field $`H_{c2}(>H_c)`$, where the system turns normal. At the field $`H_{c2}`$, magnetic vortex cores essentially fuse. At the lower critical field $`H_{c1}`$, the energy gain from penetration of the magnetic field just compensates for the energy loss due to the line energy $`T_L`$, Eq. (119). The energy gain per unit volume from field penetration, given in terms of the magnetic induction $`^8`$ and the corresponding magnetic field $`^8=(e/3g_8)H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ (cf. the second part of Eq. (100)), is $`E_{\mathrm{mag}}=^8^8`$. Integrating over the volume including the vortex, we find, using Eq. (117), a total energy gain from field penetration, $`(e/3g_8)H_{\mathrm{ext}}\varphi _8`$. Equating this term to $`T_L`$ we find that

$$H_{c1}=\frac{3}{2e\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}}{\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}}\right).$$
(126)
Just below $`H_{c2}`$ the pairing gap has a tiny magnitude but strong spatial variation, and is determined by a linearized and inhomogeneous version of the gap equation (26), as first discussed by Abrikosov . From the condition for the existence of nontrivial solutions to this equation, we obtain the familiar form

$$H_{\mathrm{c2}}=\frac{3}{e\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(127)
At high densities, where the system is weakly coupled, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ reduces to

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}=18\pi ^2\left(\frac{2}{7\zeta (3)}\right)^{1/2}\frac{T_c}{g_8\mu }.$$
(128)
Since $`T_c\mu g^5e^{3\pi ^2/\sqrt{2}g}`$ , $`\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ is far smaller than unity, so that the system is Type I near $`T_c`$. It is not out of the question that at low densities where $`T_c`$ can be $`0.1\mu `$ and $`g_81`$, that $`\kappa _{\mathrm{IS}}`$ can become larger than $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ and the system can become Type II , expelling the field $`𝓑^8`$ completely for $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}<H_{c1}`$, while allowing the external magnetic field $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ to penetrate freely in the form of the photon-gluon mixed field $`𝓑`$ of strength $`(g/\sqrt{3}g_8)H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ \[Eq. (105)\].

The magnitude of the coherence length $`\xi _{\mathrm{IS}}`$, (109), is the same as $`\xi _{\mathrm{CFL}}`$ in Eq. (72), while the penetration depth (106) can be estimated from

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}1.5\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{g_8}\right)\left(\frac{300\mathrm{MeV}}{\mu /3}\right)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{fm}.$$
(129)
To estimate the magnitude of the critical fields (115), (126), and (127) near $`T_c`$ we use (149)–(150) and (8) to find

$$H_c3.6\times 10^{19}\left(\frac{g_8}{\sqrt{3}}\right)\left(\frac{T_c}{100\mathrm{MeV}}\right)\left(\frac{\mu /3}{300\mathrm{MeV}}\right)\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)\mathrm{G},$$
(130)
$`H_{c1}`$ $``$ $`7.9\times 10^{18}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_8^2}{3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu /3}{300\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^2\left[1+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{g_8}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{100\mathrm{MeV}}}{\displaystyle \frac{300\mathrm{MeV}}{\mu /3}}\right)\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_c}}\right)\mathrm{G},`$ (131)
and

$$H_{c2}2.9\times 10^{20}\left(\frac{T_c}{100\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^2\left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)\mathrm{G}.$$
(132)
Extrapolation of expressions (130)–(132) to low densities and temperatures indicates that the critical fields $`H_c`$, $`H_{c1}`$, and $`H_{c2}`$ are several orders of magnitude larger than canonical neutron star surface fields $`10^{12}`$ G. However, to assess the actual situations possible in neutron stars, one must take into account the history of the expulsion of the magnetic field and the possibility of freezing in of the magnetic field; see note .

### B Response to rotation

To determine the equilibrium properties of a rotating isoscalar condensate, we assume, as in the color-flavor locked discussion, that it is in a cylinder rotating at angular velocity $`𝝎`$. We first note that Eqs. (3) and (92) imply that the superfluid mass density of an isoscalar condensate is

$$\rho _s=\frac{16}{9}K_T\mu ^2|𝐝|^2;$$
(133)
in addition, the momentum carried by the condensate is

$$(g_s)_l=\frac{4}{3}K_T\mu \{𝐝^{}(i_lg_8𝒜_l^8)𝐝+[(i_lg_8𝒜_l^8)𝐝^{}]𝐝\}.$$
(134)
Thus, in the rotating frame, the gradient energy in Eq. (107) is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_g=2K_T|(_l+ig_8𝒜_l^8)𝐝|^2\frac{4}{3}K_T\mu (𝝎\times 𝐫)_l\{𝐝^{}(i_lg_8𝒜_l^8)𝐝+[(i_lg_8𝒜_l^8)𝐝^{}]𝐝\},$$
(135)
where $`𝒜_l^8`$ is given by Eq. (100).

From expression (135) we find that in equilibrium, rotation induces a London magnetic field associated with the gluon-photon mixed potential $`𝓐^8`$, rather than generating vortex lines as in a color-flavor locked condensate. This response is due to the presence of charge $`g_8`$, and is thus similar to the case of ordinary rotating superconductors  and proton superconductors in rotating neutron stars . Rotational vortices are topologically unstable; a rotational vortex of the form (82) in the system can be unwound by bringing the velocity to zero simultaneously generating a gauge field $`𝒜^8`$ to preserving the quantization condition (117). To derive the London field we assume that the system has zero external magnetic field. In a rotating superconductor the local current $`𝓙^8`$ is given, deeper in than a penetration depth from the surface, by

$$𝓙^8=\frac{3}{2}g_8n_s𝝎\times 𝐫,$$
(136)
since the pairs, of charge $`g_8`$ and baryon number 2/3, corotate with the vessel. In the absence of a vortex, the quantization condition on the vorticity becomes

$$𝑑\mathrm{}(𝓐^8+\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}^2𝓙^8)=0$$
(137)
\[cf. (117) for a contour surrounding a quantized vortex\]. Taking a circular contour of fixed distance $`r`$ from the rotation axis, we find

$$𝑑\mathrm{}𝓐^8=d^2r_z^8=\frac{4\pi \mu }{3g_8}\omega r^2.$$
(138)
Thus $`_z^8`$ is constant and

$$𝓑^8=\frac{4\mu }{3g_8}𝝎,𝓐^8=\frac{2\mu }{3g_8}𝝎\times 𝐫.$$
(139)
The magnetic field $`𝓑`$ remains zero.

Since $`𝐝`$ is a constant in space, the gradient energy (135) reduces to $`\frac{1}{2}\rho _s(𝝎\times 𝐫)^2`$ so that the total free energy density associated with rotation, measured in the rotating frame, is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}\frac{1}{2}\rho _s(𝝎\times 𝐫)^2,$$
(140)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}=\frac{1}{2}|𝓑^8|^2$$
(141)
is the energy density of the London field.

We make several observations about the London field (139). First, it reduces to the conventional London field of a nonrelativistic electron superconductor with the replacements $`g_8/2e`$ and $`\mu /3m_e`$. Second, since $`𝓑=0`$, we have $`|𝐁^8|=(\sqrt{3}g/e)|𝐁|`$, which implies that the London field is primarily composed of the color field of charge $`\alpha =8`$. The order of magnitude of the London field is

$`|𝓑^8|`$ $``$ $`0.15\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{g_8}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{ms}}{P_{\mathrm{rot}}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu /3}{300\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)\mathrm{G},`$ (142)
so that at low densities relevant to neutron star interiors, the London field is thoroughly negligible compared with the typical magnitude ($`10^{12}`$ G) of the neutron star surface magnetic fields. Third, in the presence of a uniform external field $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}<H_{c1}`$, we have $`𝓑=(g/\sqrt{3}g_8)𝐇_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, while the London field (142) is unaffected. For $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}>H_{c1}`$, where vortices form, we find that the total field $`𝓑`$ remains the same, while the total field $`𝓑^8`$ is the sum of that associated with the vortices, plus the London field, as long as the vortex separation is large compared with the penetration depth, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{IS}}`$. Fourth, the London field increases with increasing density, because of the power-law increase in $`\mu /3`$ and the logarithmic decrease in $`g_8`$, leading to an increasing supercurrent responsible for the London field. Finally, we remark that in the present case in which only $`𝐀`$ and $`𝐀^8`$ are the nonzero gauge fields, no self-coupling of the London field occurs.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we have investigated the response of homogeneous superfluid quark matter in thermodynamic equilibrium near $`T_c`$ to magnetic fields and rotation. Rotational vortices are topologically stable in the color-flavor locked phase, as are magnetic vortices in the isoscalar phase. Table I summarizes the responses and the corresponding corrections to the free energy difference between the superconducting and normal phases. We have ignored several aspects, including the modification of the structure of the phases close to $`T_c`$ due to the rotational and magnetic energies, effects of the finite strange quark mass $`m_s`$, and boundary effects.

The energy correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mathrm{mag}}`$ due to an external uniform magnetic field $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ increases the energy of a color-flavor locked condensate more than that of an isoscalar condensate, as one can see by comparing the color-flavor locked result $`(e^2/9g_3^2)H_{\mathrm{ext}}^2`$ from Eq. (70) and the isoscalar result $`(e^2/18g_8^2)H_{\mathrm{ext}}^2`$ from Eq. (114), and noting that $`g_3^2<2g_8^2`$. In addition, the energy correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ due to rotation at constant angular velocity $`\omega `$, as given by Eq. (89) in the color-flavor locked phase and Eq. (141) in the isoscalar phase, raises the energy of the color-flavor locked state more than that of the isoscalar state at temperatures $`1T/T_c\omega /g_8^2\mu `$, while being more favorable for the color-flavor locked state in a range $`1T/T_c\omega /g_8^2\mu `$. Although interesting in principle, these terms, for expected magnetic fields and rotation rates of neutron stars, affect the phase diagram only in a negligible range around $`T_c`$ and can be ignored.

The effects of a finite strange quark mass, $`m_s`$, are also insignificant for the response properties, because a non-zero $`m_s`$ does not change the structure of the gradient energy, but merely modifies its magnitude in the color-flavor locked phase through the reduction in the Fermi momentum of the strange quarks, and modifies $`T_c`$.

Generally, the boundaries of the quark superfluid, e.g., an interface with hadronic matter, contain supercurrents induced by the Meissner effect and order-parameter gradients. The resultant energy corrections may possibly compete with the bulk corrections listed in Table I. Magnetic structures have been examined for boundaries of various shapes . On the other hand, the influence of boundaries on rotational structures remains an interesting problem. If a rotating neutron star contains hadronic matter with a neutron superfluid and quark matter with a color-flavor locked condensate separated by a spherical interface, then the connection of the neutron vortices to the quark vortices is a complicated and interesting issue, since the two types of vortices carry a different baryon number and hence a different unit of circulation at the interface ($`3\pi /\mu `$ for quarks and $`\pi /\mu `$ for neutrons). For example, a singly quantized vortex continuing through the interface would produce a difference in the velocity field around the vortex core, which can lead to a Kelvin-Helmholtz instability of the interface . A connection between three singly quantized neutron vortices, each of circulation $`\pi /\mu `$, (or a triply quantized neutron vortex) and a singly quantized quark vortex would be free from such velocity differences, since the baryon chemical potential is continuous across the interface. Neutron vortices at an interface between superfluid neutron matter and an isoscalar condensate would terminate, while color currents responsible for the uniform London field would be arranged in the vicinity of the interface in such a way as to prevent the color fields from penetrating into the hadronic region.

## Acknowledgments

Author KI would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Department of Physics of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where this work was initiated. Author GB is grateful to Professor T. Hatsuda of Tokyo University for hospitality during his stay in the Department of Physics of the University of Tokyo, where this work was completed, and to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (Monkasho) for supporting this stay. This work was also supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research provided by Monbusho through Grant No. 10-03687, by National Science Foundation Grant Nos. PHY98-00978 and PHY00-98353, and by RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researchers Grant No. 011-52040.

## Homogeneous superfluid

In this appendix, we summarize the general Ginzburg-Landau analysis for homogeneous superfluid quark matter of three massless flavors, temperature $`T`$, and baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$, as developed in I, ignoring the small free energy corrections arising from the constraint of overall color neutrality. BCS pairing between two quarks of colors $`a`$ and $`b`$, flavors $`i`$ and $`j`$, spinor indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$, and space-time locations $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively, is generally characterized by a gap matrix, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{abij}^{\mu \nu }(xy)`$, which is coupled in the action with the quark spinor $`[\psi _{bj}(y)]_\nu `$ and its charge-conjugate spinor $`[\overline{\psi }_{ai}^C(x)]_\mu `$, defined by $`\psi _{ai}^CC\overline{\psi }_{ai}^T`$ with $`C=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$ (in the Pauli-Dirac representation). The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)`$ is related to the order parameter $`\psi ^C(x)\overline{\psi }(y)`$ via the gap equation \[Eq. (9) in I\]:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`ig^2T{\displaystyle \underset{n\mathrm{odd}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}d^4(xy)e^{iq(xy)}\gamma ^\mu \frac{(\lambda ^\alpha )^T}{2}}`$ (144)
$`\times \left\{T[\psi ^C(x)\overline{\psi }(y)]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \beta }^{(11)}(q,k)+T[\psi ^C(x)\overline{\psi }^C(y)]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \beta }^{(21)}(q,k)\right\}D_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }(kq),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(11)}`$ is the full quark-quark-gluon vertex, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(21)}`$ is the full antiquark-quark-gluon vertex, $`D`$ is the full gluon propagator, and the Matsubara frequencies are given by $`q_0=in\pi T`$. (Note that the convention for this order parameter is the complex conjugate of the usual condensed matter convention, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi \psi `$.)

The gap matrix for pairing between quarks with zero total angular momentum, even parity, and aligned chirality has the structure \[I\]

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d(xy)\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)e^{ik(xy)}}`$ (145)
$`=`$ $`\gamma ^5[\varphi _+(k_0,|𝐤|)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(\widehat{𝐤})+\varphi _{}(k_0,|𝐤|)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\widehat{𝐤})],`$ (146)
where $`k`$ is the relative four-momentum of the paired quarks, $`\widehat{𝐤}𝐤/|𝐤|`$, the

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm (\widehat{𝐤})=\frac{1\pm \gamma ^0𝜸\mathbf{}\widehat{𝐤}}{2}$$
(147)
are energy projection operators for noninteracting massless quarks, and $`\varphi _\pm `$ denotes the quark-quark or antiquark-antiquark pairing gap. The anti-commutation relations for the quark fields require

$$[\varphi _\pm (k_0,|𝐤|)]_{abij}=[\varphi _\pm (k_0,|𝐤|)]_{baji}.$$
(148)
In the weak coupling limit, the coefficients $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta _1^+`$, and $`\beta _2^+`$ in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy (1) are

$$\alpha ^+=N(\mu /3)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right),$$
(149)
$$\beta _1^+=0,\beta _2^+=\frac{1}{2}\frac{7\zeta (3)}{8(\pi T_c)^2}N(\mu /3),$$
(150)
with the ideal gas density of states at the Fermi surface,

$$N(\mu /3)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\mu }{3}\right)^2.$$
(151)
Effects beyond weak coupling lead to a nonzero $`\beta _1^+`$ through the dependence of the pairing interactions on the gap, and as well modify all the coefficients (149)–(150) mainly through the normal medium corrections to $`T_c`$ and $`N(\mu /3)`$; however, these coefficients remain to be determined in the strong coupling regime.

For condensates antisymmetric in color and flavor, characterized by Eq. (41), substitution of (41) into $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}`$, Eq. (1), leads to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\alpha }\lambda +(\beta _1+\beta _2\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\lambda ^2`$ (152)
with

$$\overline{\alpha }4\alpha ^+,\beta _116\beta _1^++2\beta _2^+,\beta _22\beta _2^+,$$
(153)
$$\lambda \underset{a}{}|𝐝_a|^2,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\underset{ab}{}|𝐝_a^{}𝐝_b|^2.$$
(154)
In homogeneous systems, we obtain two types of optimal condensates, as long as the overall fourth-order term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}`$ is positive. The first, the two-flavor color superconducting (2SC) phase, characterized by $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1`$, corresponds to an order parameter involving only one component of flavor-antitriplet states, i.e., satisfying

$$𝐝_R𝐝_G𝐝_B.$$
(155)
For $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1`$ we focus on the isoscalar, color-antitriplet pairing state with

$$(\varphi _+)_{abij}=ϵ_{abc}ϵ_{ijs}(𝐝_c)_s;$$
(156)
this state is degenerate in color space under rotation of the color axes.

The other homogeneous condensation is described by a set of order parameters satisfying $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1/3`$ or, equivalently,

$$𝐝_R^{}𝐝_G=𝐝_G^{}𝐝_B=𝐝_B^{}𝐝_R=0,|𝐝_R|^2=|𝐝_G|^2=|𝐝_B|^2,$$
(157)
corresponding to the color-flavor locked phase ; the condensate in this phase is characterized by its symmetry under simultaneous exchange of color and flavor. Color-flavor locked states transform into one another under global $`U(1)`$ and flavor (or color) rotation. The simplest among these states is described by $`(𝐝_a)_i\delta _{ai}`$ and $`(𝐝_R)_u=(𝐝_G)_d=(𝐝_B)_s\kappa _A`$; the corresponding gap matrix is given by

$$(\varphi _+)_{abij}=\kappa _A(\delta _{ai}\delta _{bj}\delta _{aj}\delta _{bi}).$$
(158)
For a positive overall fourth order term in the free energy (152), the transition from the normal to the superfluid state is second order. The resultant state is color-flavor locked for $`\beta _2>0`$, while isoscalar for $`\beta _2<0`$. We remark in passing that the critical temperature $`T_c`$ is the same for these two pairing states, which are induced by the same instability of the normal phase. Should the coefficient of the fourth order term, $`\beta _1+\beta _2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, become negative the phase transition becomes first order, as discussed in I.


text:
# The Effects of Planets and Brown Dwarfs on Stellar Rotation and Mass-Loss

## 1 Introduction

Radial velocity surveys of nearby stars have been enormously successful in discovering extrasolar planets. These surveys have demonstrated that a significant fraction of the stars in the solar neighborhood have massive planets with orbital radii that are substantially smaller than Jupiter’s (e.g. Marcy & Butler, 2000; Udry et al., 2001; Butler, 2001; Vogt et al., 2002). The engulfing of these planets by their parent stars is an inevitable outcome of stellar evolution (either directly or due to tidal interaction) in the red giant branch (RGB) or asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase (e.g. Livio & Soker, 1984; Siess & Livio, 1999a, b). The capture of planetary-mass companions has been suggested to be the potential cause for the high rotational velocities ($`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i10`$ km s-1) observed in some field red giants (Stefanik et al., 2001) and blue horizontal branch stars (e.g. Peterson et al., 1983; Soker & Harpaz, 2000).

In the present work we examine specifically the effects of planet/brown dwarf “swallowing” on the rotation rates of and mass loss from giants. In particular, we estimate the expected statistics of influenced stars.

## 2 Rotation and Mass Loss in Evolved Late-Type Stars

When a star in the RGB or AGB phase engulfs a planet/brown dwarf the latter deposits its angular momentum into the giant’s envelope. The resulting rotation frequency, as a fraction of the critical stellar rotation frequency $`\omega _k(GM_{}/R_{}^3)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (where $`M_{}`$, $`R_{}`$ are the stellar mass and radius respectively) is given by

$$\frac{\omega }{\omega _k}0.10\left(\frac{M_c}{0.01\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^1\left(\frac{k_g^2}{0.1}\right)^1\left(\frac{a}{R_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(1)
Here $`M_c`$ is the companion mass, $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is the mass of the giant’s envelope, $`Mk_g^2R^2`$ is the star’s moment of inertia and $`a`$ is the initial separation between the giant and the companion. Since stars like the Sun rotate only at a fraction of a percent of their critical rate (on the main sequence) and this fraction is further reduced (by conservation of angular momentum) to

$$\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _k}\right)_{\mathrm{AGB}}0.1\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _k}\right)_{\mathrm{MS}}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{MS}}}{0.01R_{\mathrm{AGB}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(2)
as the stars ascend the RGB or AGB, we see from eq. (1) that even Jupiter-mass planets can have a very significant effect on the rotation rate of late-type stars. Even when the increase in central condensation is taken into account, typically, $`(\omega /\omega _k)_{\mathrm{AGB}}(0.010.1)(\omega /\omega _k)_{\mathrm{MS}}`$ (e.g. Eriguchi et al., 1992).

The effects on mass loss rates are more difficult to estimate because they involve the processes of generation of magnetic activity (especially in spots) and mass loss via radiation pressure on molecules and dust, both of which are rather poorly understood. Nevertheless, it has been shown semi-quantitatively that the spiraling-in process of the companion inside the giant’s envelope can result in a dynamo generation of a magnetic field (Regös & Tout, 1995).

Here we shall adopt a simplified, more heuristic approach (similar to that of Soker & Harpaz, 1992) to estimate at what rotation rates we can expect significant effects on mass loss. Dynamo-generated magnetic fields are limited by the requirement that the amplification timescale $`\tau _a`$ be of the order of the buoyant rise time of magnetic flux tubes (e.g. Parker, 1979, §8.7). In a typical stellar $`\alpha \omega `$ dynamo the amplification timescale is given approximately by (e.g. Zeldovich, Ruzmaikin & Sokoloff, 1983)

$$\tau _a\pi \left(\frac{2}{\alpha R_{}k\omega }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(3)
where $`\alpha =\mathrm{}\omega _o/3`$ is determined by convection ($`\mathrm{}`$ is the mixing length and $`\omega _o`$ the surface angular velocity), $`k`$ is the wave number and $`\omega `$ is a measure of differential rotation. The critical wave number $`k_c`$ below which dynamo waves are amplified is given by ($`\nu _\tau `$ is the turbulent viscosity)

$$k_c^3\alpha R_{}\omega /2\nu _\tau ^2.$$
(4)
Adopting the same values as Zeldovich et al. (1983), $`\omega =\omega _o/(0.3R_{})`$, $`\nu _\tau =\mathrm{}v_c/3`$, where $`v_c`$ is the convective velocity, and taking the wave number to be equal to the critical one, we find

$$\tau _a\frac{2\pi }{\omega _o}\left(\frac{v_c}{7\mathrm{}\omega _o}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(5)
For typical AGB star parameters, $`v_c10`$ km s-1, $`<`$$`\mathrm{}`$$`>R_{}/4`$, the obtained average amplification time is of the order of $`\tau _a9\tau _{\mathrm{rot}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{rot}}`$ is the rotation period. The local rise time of a flux tube is given approximately by (Parker, 1979)

$$\tau _r\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }v_c}{V_A^2}=\frac{4\pi \rho \mathrm{\Lambda }v_c}{B^2},$$
(6)
where $`V_A`$ is the Alfven speed, $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }r/2`$ (where $`r`$ is the radial distance from the center; e.g. Soker & Harpaz, 1999) is the local scaleheight and $`\rho `$ is the density. The density in the convective zone of an AGB star can be well approximated by (Soker, 1992)

$$\rho (r)2\times 10^8\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{0.1\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{R_{}}{300\mathrm{R}_{}}\right)^1\left(\frac{r}{100\mathrm{R}_{}}\right)^2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(7)
Equating the flux tube rise time $`\tau _r`$ to the regeneration and amplification time $`\tau _a`$ yields a value for the magnetic field

$$B1.8\left(\frac{M_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{R_{}}{300\mathrm{R}_{}}\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{0.1\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{v_c}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{\omega _o/\omega _k}{10^3}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{r}{100\mathrm{R}_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{G}.$$
(8)
Magnetic energy is thus being released at a rate

$`\dot{E}_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _a}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }4\pi r^2𝑑r}`$ (9)
$``$ $`10^{28}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{0.1\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{}}{300\mathrm{R}_{}}}\right)^{\frac{7}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _o/\omega _k}{10^3}}\right)^{\frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.`$
The kinetic energy associated with the mass loss from an AGB star is of order

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{wind}}3\times 10^{31}\left(\frac{\dot{M}}{10^6\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1}\right)\left(\frac{V_w}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(10)
where $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass-loss rate and $`V_w`$ is the wind velocity. An examination of eqs. (9) and (10) reveals that for the companion to have an appreciable effect on mass loss (i.e. to have $`\dot{E}_B>0.1\dot{E}_{\mathrm{wind}}`$) it must increase the angular momentum of the envelope (and thereby $`\omega _o/\omega _k`$) by an order of magnitude (or more). Consequently, in our estimate of the fraction of stars that are affected significantly by planetary companions, we shall adopt as the defining condition

$$J_p>10J_{},$$
(11)
where $`J_p`$ is the orbital angular momentum of the planet, and $`J_{}`$ is the angular momentum of the star as it leaves the main sequence \[eq. (2)\]. Note that this is probably a reasonable criterion for the planet having a significant effect on stellar evolution even considering the uncertain nature of the effects on mass loss. In fact, given that the magnetic field in stellar spots can be $`10^3`$ times stronger than the average field (e.g. Priest, 1987), condition (11) may be too stringent, since even a field lower by an order of magnitude than that given by eq. (8) will result in spots that are significantly cooler than their surroundings (magnetic pressure larger than the photospheric pressure).

## 3 Statistics on Importance of Planets

We define the following quantities

$`\nu `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{log}(a/AU)`$
$`\mu `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{log}(M/M_J)`$ (12)
where $`a`$ is the orbital separation, $`M`$ is the minimum planetary mass, and $`M_J`$ is Jupiter’s mass. In Fig. 1 we show the known 75 planets (taken in January 2002 from the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia compiled by J. Schneider, at http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html) in the $`\nu `$$`\mu `$ plane. In planetary systems where more than one planet is known we mark the most massive planet by an asterisk, while the others are marked by the + sign. Several authors have attempted recently to obtain unbiased distributions of planets as a function of $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ (e.g. Lineweaver & Grether, 2002; Mazeh & Zucker, 2002; Tabachnik & Tremaine, 2002; Armitage et al., 2002). In view of the uncertainties, we adopt the following simple form for the fraction of systems $`dN`$ within a box $`d\nu d\mu `$ (for the parameter space indicated below)

$$dN=C(1+\alpha \nu )(1\beta \mu )d\mu d\nu ,$$
(13)
for $`1.5<\nu <0.5`$ and $`\mu <0.5\nu +0.75`$. Here $`C`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are parameters. This form is the same as the one used by Lineweaver & Grether (2002), who found (their figures 3 and 4) $`\alpha 0.8`$ and $`\beta 0.8`$. Using the well populated parallelogram (i.e. excluding areas in the $`\nu \mu `$ plane with large gaps; see also Zucker & Mazeh, 2002) marked by lines 1 to 4 on Figure 1, we estimate $`\alpha 0.3`$ and $`\beta 0.5`$. Examining in addition the results of Mazeh & Zucker (2002), Tabachnik & Tremaine (2002), and Armitage et al. (2002), and fitting where necessary their functional forms to ours, gives average values of $`<`$$`\alpha `$$`>0.6`$ and $`<`$$`\beta `$$`>0.5`$, which we shall now adopt.

The value of $`C`$ can be determined for fixed values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in the following way. From a sample of 1,200 stars discussed by Vogt et al. (2002; where more details can be found) 44 planets and 4 brown dwarfs have been detected. Hence 3.7% of the surveyed stars were found to have planets. The 75 known extrasolar planets (as of the end of January 2002) are distributed in 67 planetary systems. Using this ratio we find that the fraction of stars being detected to harbor planetary systems is $`3.3`$%. If we examine the well populated area of Figure 1 (bounded by the four straight lines $`\nu =0.5`$; $`\mu =0.5\nu +0.75`$; $`\nu =1.5`$; and $`\mu =0.5\nu `$), we find that out of the 67 planetary systems, 48 are inside this parallelogram. This corresponds to $`2.4`$% of the stars having their massive planet within this region. Considering that the right side of this region is close to the detection limit (no planets are found near $`\nu 0.4`$ and $`\mu 0.3`$), we take the detection fraction within this region to be $`N_s2.5`$% of all stars. For stars with a metallicity above solar, \[Fe/H\] $`>0`$, the detection fraction is $`2.6`$ times higher than that for the entire sample (Vogt et al., 2002). Hence, in the same scaling-region the fraction is $`N_s6.5`$%. The large increase with metallicity in the probability of harboring a planet was studied by Gonzalez (1997) and Reid (2002). The latter author argues that most stars with a metallicity \[Fe/H\] $`>0.3`$ have planets around them. We therefore take $`N_s=0.025`$ for all stars and $`N_s=0.065`$ for metal rich stars, and find the value of $`C`$ from the expression

$$N_s=C_{1.5}^{0.5}𝑑\nu _{0.5\nu }^{0.5\nu +0.75}𝑑\mu (1+\alpha \nu )(1\beta \mu )=\frac{C}{32}(4824\alpha 6\beta 5\alpha \beta )=0.9094C.$$
(14)
where the last equality was obtained by substituting the average values $`\alpha =0.6`$ and $`\beta =0.5`$.

In the previous section we derived as our condition for a significant effect on mass-loss from the parent star, $`J_p>10J_{}`$. We noted, however, that it is possible that even a lower angular momentum might play some role, especially since the star loses angular momentum as it evolves (Soker, 2001). Soker further argues that planets of masses as low as $`0.01M_J`$ are sufficient to influence the mass loss geometry from AGB stars. An indirect hint that even a relatively slow rotation may influence the mass loss rate comes from the distribution of stars on the horizontal branch in globular clusters (GCs). D’Cruz et al. (1996) show that the distribution of stars on the horizontal branch in the HR diagram can be explained by variations in the mass loss rate on the RGB, by a factor which depends on the metallicity (ranging from 1.5 in metal rich GCs to $`5`$ in metal poor GCs). We should note that red horizontal branch stars also rotate (Stefanik et al., 2001). However, using the results of Behr et al. (2000) for M13, Soker & Harpaz (2000) showed that the average angular momentum of the progenitors of hotter horizontal branch stars is larger than that of cooler ones. It is thought that rotation is the main factor that influences the mass loss rate variations (R. Rood, private communication, 2002), with the exception of very high mass loss rates which may result from interactions with stellar binary companions. Since main sequence stars in GCs are expected to rotate very slowly (since they have experienced a long period of angular momentum losses due to magnetic activity), if the rotation conjecture is correct, then very slow rotation is sufficient to influence mass loss on the RGB. Our condition, therefore, may be somewhat conservative.

The present angular momentum of the Sun is $`1.7\times 10^{48}`$g cm2 s-1. A planet with a Jupiter mass at 1 AU from a solar type star has $`50`$ times the present angular momentum of the Sun. Taking as a typical value $`J_{}=J_{}`$, our condition in equation (11) reads $`(M/M_J)(a/\mathrm{AU})^{1/2}0.2`$. For a more general form $`J_p>\eta J_{}=\eta J_{}`$, our condition reads

$$\mu +0.5\nu \mathrm{log}(\eta /10)0.7j_m.$$
(15)
In addition, we limit the planet to $`a<2`$ AU (or $`\nu <0.3`$), in order for tidal forces to be able to bring it into the RGB or AGB star’s envelope. These conditions are represented (for $`\eta =10`$) as the two thick lines in Fig. 1. Planets to the left of and above these lines affect the evolution of their parent stars significantly (neglecting eccentric orbits of planets at larger orbital separations).

Not including the few systems above the line marked ‘2’ in Fig. 1, the total fraction of planetary systems that are likely to significantly influence the evolution of the central star at late stages is therefore,

$$N(\mathrm{total})=C_{1.5}^{0.3}𝑑\nu _{j_m0.5\nu }^{0.5\nu +0.75}𝑑\mu (1+\alpha \nu )(1\beta \mu ).$$
(16)
Note that this integral is meanigful for $`j_m<0.7`$. For $`j_m>0.7`$ the thick diagonal line in Fig. 1 crosses the upper limit as given by line ‘2.’ Performing this integral for $`\alpha =0.6`$ and $`\beta =0.5`$, and substituting for $`C`$ from equation (14), we find

$$N(total)=N_s(0.41.2j_m+0.3j_m^2).$$
(17)
Equation (17) shows that for our strong condition of $`\eta =10`$, we find that more than 3.5% of all solar-type stars are significantly affected (in terms of rotation rate and mass loss) by planets or brown dwarf companions. This number increases to more than 9% for metal rich (above solar) stars. Relaxing the condition to $`\eta =1`$, i.e. when the planet’s orbital angular momentum equals the present one for the sun, increases the numbers to be $`>8`$% and $`>21`$% respectively. All of these numbers should probably be regarded as lower limits, since we have neglected the effects of planets at 2 AU$`a5`$ AU in eccentric orbits (which could also be pulled into the giant’s envelope by tidal interaction; see also Debes & Sigurdsson, 2002), and used only the minimum masses (as well as not having included the planets above line ‘2’ in Fig. 1).

## 4 SUMMARY

We have shown that the swallowing of planetary or brown dwarf companions can have significant effects in the late stages of the evolution of late-type stars. Specifically, we considered rotation and mass loss. On the basis of the properties of the observed extrasolar planets, we estimated that $`4`$–10% of the stars should experience enhanced mass loss due to the effects of planets.

We acknowledge useful comments by an anonymous referee. N. S. was supported by a Celerity Foundation Distinguished Visiting Scholar grant at the University of Virginia, and by a grant from the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation. He also asknowledges the hospitality of ST ScI.