text:
# Ginzburg-Landau Expansion in Non-Fermi Liquid Superconductors: Effect of the Mass Renormalization Factor

## I Introduction

The discovery of high temperature superconductivity (HTSC) in 1986 by Bednorz and MüllerBM  has caused a lot of enthusiasm among the physics community. Today, after 15 years from their discovery, these materials are still not completely understood from the theoretical point of view. Being a part of the largest family of strongly correlated electron systems, the cuprates present anomalous properties both in the normal and superconducting phase. As a consequence, standard theories, the Landau theory of the Fermi liquid and the BCS theory of the superconducting state, fail to correctly describe the physical properties of these materials. As alternatives, in the case of the normal state, several phenomenological models have been proposed in order to explain their nonmetallic behavior. theory  Despite the fact that the superconducting transition occurs at high temperatures, a characteristic of the ordered phase is the presence of the electron pairs, leading to the idea that a modified BCS theory is appropriate for the description of their superconducting state. We mention that Franz and TesanovicTesaQED3  has put forward a phase fluctuation model for the pseudogap state of cuprate superconductors, which includes a d–wave order symmetry, generating non–Fermi liquid behavior (see their Fig. 1).

In the following, for the description of the normal state we will adopt the model proposed by AndersonPWA ; Anderson  which is based on the hypothesis that a two dimensional (2D) system can be described by a Luttinger liquid type theory, similar to the one dimensional (1D) case. The generalization of the Luttinger liquid for the 2D case involves the use of the following Green’s function in order to describe the free particles in the normal state of cuprates:

$$G(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)=\frac{g(\alpha )e^{i\pi \alpha /2}}{\omega _c^\alpha (i\omega _n\beta \eta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{k})^{1/2}(i\omega _n\beta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{k})^{1/2\alpha }},$$
(1)
where $`\omega _c`$ is a cut-off frequency, $`\eta =u_\sigma /u_\rho <1`$ is the ratio of the spin and charge velocities in the system, $`\alpha `$ is the non universal exponent related to the anomalous Fermi surface, $`\beta =2/(\eta +12\alpha )`$ is the mass renormalization factor, and $`g(\alpha )=\pi \alpha /[2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha /2)]`$. Relations between the different parameters entering Eq. (1) can be obtained by studying different general properties of the Green’s function. For example the form of the function $`g(\alpha )`$ was obtained by the use of the first sum rule.yin ; massren  Based on the formalism proposed by NoltingNolting , the necessity of the mass renormalization factor was predicted in Ref. massren  using high order sum rules.

Different choices of the given parameters, $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$, give us the possibility to distinguish between several different regimes incorporated in the Green’s function (Eq. (1)). The most general case is the one of an anomalous spin-charge separation Fermi liquid characterized by $`\eta 1`$ and $`\alpha 0`$. Unfortunately, for this general case, analytical results are very difficult to obtain. The spin–charge separation liquid is obtained when $`\eta 1`$ and $`\alpha =0`$, when the Green’s function is very similar with the one characterizing the Luttinger liquid. The case of an anomalous Fermi liquid is obtained for $`\eta =1`$ and $`\alpha 0`$. In this case, the spectral function $`A(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )=ImG(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )/\pi `$ satisfies the homogeneity relation $`A(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega )=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1+\alpha }A(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )`$ with an exponent $`\alpha >0`$. As a general feature the usual Fermi liquid limit is obtained by simply considering $`\eta =1`$ and $`\alpha =0`$.

Previously, this model was used in order to investigate the superconducting state in non-Fermi liquid systems.IonelPh ; nelu ; muthu ; sudbo  Several properties of the superconducting state were investigated assuming the validity of the Gorkov’s equations, with the usual normal state Fermi liquid Green’s function replaced by the non-Fermi liquid one given by Eq. (1). For the case of the anomalous Fermi liquid ($`\alpha 0`$, $`\eta =1`$) there have been previous analysis of the Ginzburg-Landau parameters in the framework of fluctuation theoryflnonfermi  and general Ginzburg-Landau functional theoryMoca , but these two approaches missed the role of the mass renormalization factor, leading to uncomplete results.

In this paper, based on the Ginzburg–Landau functional formalism, we investigate both the spin–charge separation liquid and the anomalous Fermi liquid in the superconducting state and we evaluate the coherence length, the penetration depth, the specific heat jump at the critical point, and the magnetic upper critical field.

## II General formalism of the Ginzburg-Landau functional

Let us first consider the general case of a $`s`$–wave superconductor. In the standard Ginzburg-Landau expansion, the difference between the superconducting and normal state free energy can be written as:

$$F_SF_N=A|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪|^2+q^2C|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪|^2+\frac{B}{2}|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪|^4,$$
(2)
where $`S`$ denotes the superconducting state, $`N`$ the normal state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪`$ is the Fourier transform of the order parameter, and A, B, C are the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients. Following Ref. sadovskii  we can express these coefficients as:

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}}[𝒢(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)𝒢(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)`$
$`+(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)],`$ (3)
$`BT_c{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}}[𝒢(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)𝒢(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)`$
$`+(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)]^2,`$ (4)
and $`C`$ as the coefficient of the $`q^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪|^2`$ term in the Taylor expansion of the following term:

$`T_c{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}}[𝒢(\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}},i\omega _n)𝒢(\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}},i\omega _n)`$
$`+(\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}},i\omega _n)(\stackrel{}{k}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}},i\omega _n)].`$ (5)
For the case of a $`s`$–wave superconductor $`𝒢(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)`$ represent the normal and anomalous Green’s functions, respectively, in the superconducting state.gorkov  In Eq. (II), $`V`$ represents the absolute value of the attractive interaction leading to the superconducting phase transition. In general, in order to evaluate $`A`$, the interaction potential is replaced using the critical temperature equation, leading for the $`s`$–wave case to the following value:

$$A_0=N_0\frac{TT_{c0}}{T_{c0}},$$
(6)
where $`T_{c0}`$ stays for the standard BCS critical temperature and $`N_0`$ the free electron gas density of states at the Fermi level. The other two coefficients, $`B`$ and $`C`$, can be calculated after some simple but tedious algebra. The results are:

$$B_0=\frac{7\zeta (3)N_0}{8\pi ^2T_{c0}^2},$$
(7)
and

$$C_0=\frac{7\zeta (3)v_F^2N_0I(\theta )}{16\pi ^2T_{c0}^2}$$
(8)
where $`\zeta (z)`$ is the Riemann function, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity and

$$I(\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2},\hfill & \text{2D case}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{3},\hfill & \text{3D case}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(9)
Of course for the correct dimensional evaluation of the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients, the density of states $`N_0`$ should be considered according to the dimensionality. As we expected $`A=0`$ gives the mean field critical temperature of the superconducting phase transition, whereas $`B`$ and $`C`$ are weakly temperature dependent and are evaluated at $`T=T_{c0}`$.

Standard BCS theory considered a simple $`s`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter in standard superconductors. However, at the present time is generally accepted that in HTSC the order parameter symmetry is more of $`d`$-wave type.tsuei  Accordingly, an evaluation of the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients for HTSC should consider a momenta dependent order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k})=\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (\stackrel{}{k})`$, where $`\psi (\stackrel{}{k})`$ is a coefficient which includes the symmetry factor. For $`s`$-wave superconductors this is simple $`\psi (\stackrel{}{k})=1`$. For the 2D $`d`$-wave symmetry case, $`\psi (\stackrel{}{k})=\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\stackrel{}{k})`$, where $`\theta _\stackrel{}{k}=\mathrm{arctan}(k_y/k_x)`$. A calculation of the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients in the framework of $`d`$-wave symmetry is straightforward leading to the following results

$$A_0^{(d)}=K_AA_0,$$
(10)
$$B_0^{(d)}=K_BB_0,$$
(11)
$$C_0^{(d)}=K_CC_0,$$
(12)
where $`K_A=K_C=1/2`$ and $`K_B=3/8`$.

As it is well known, the knowledge of the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients give direct insight on several of the superconducting state properties. Among these properties, we notice two characteristic lengths, namely the coherence length and the penetration depth of the magnetic field. In the following, we will present the standard BCS results for a 2D $`s`$–wave superconductor. The coherence length at a specific temperature, $`\xi _{BCS}(T)`$, characterizes the size of the Cooper pair and can be expressed as:

$$\xi _{BCS}(T)=\sqrt{\frac{C_0}{A_0}}=0.74\frac{\xi _{BCS}(0)}{\sqrt{1T/T_{c0}}},$$
(13)
where $`\xi _{BCS}(0)=0.18v_F/T_{c0}`$ represents the coherence length at $`T=0`$. The other characteristic length is the London penetration depth of a magnetic field in the superconductor, and for the 2D s-wave BCS case is expressed as:

$$\lambda _{BCS}(T)=\sqrt{\frac{c^2}{32\pi e^2}\frac{B_0}{A_0C_0}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\lambda _{BCS}(0)}{\sqrt{1T/T_{c0}}},$$
(14)
with $`\lambda _{BCS}^2(0)=mc^2/(4\pi ne^2)`$ being the London penetration depth at $`T=0`$ ($`c`$ stays for the usual value of the light speed in vacuum, $`n`$ is the density, and $`e`$ represents the electron charge).

Other two important quantities which emerge directly from the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients are the specific heat jump at the critical point and the upper magnetic critical field $`H_{c2}`$. In terms of these coefficients, the specific heat jump at the critical point can be expressed as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C_v^{BCS}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{T_{c0}}{B_0}\left(\frac{A_0}{TT_{c0}}\right)^2,$$
(15)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the sample volume. Based on this equation at the critical point one obtain:

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C_v^{BCS}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_{T_{c0}}=N_0\frac{8\pi ^2T_{c0}}{7\zeta (3)}.$$
(16)
The upper magnetic critical field is given by:

$$H_{c2}^{BCS}=\frac{\varphi _0}{2\pi }\frac{A_0}{C_0},$$
(17)
$`\varphi _0=\pi c/e`$ being the quantum of the magnetic flux. The slope of the curve for the upper critical field can be easily obtained from Eq. (17) as:

$$\left|\frac{dH_{c2}^{BCS}}{dT}\right|_{T_{c0}}=\frac{16\pi \varphi _0}{7\zeta (3)v_F^2}T_{c0}.$$
(18)
Beside these important parameters for the superconducting state, based on the superconducting order parameter fluctuations, some important features of the normal state were investigated. Among different properties, the presence of electron pairs in the critical region above $`T_c`$ is responsible for the presence of a gap in the excitation spectrum of the normal state quasiparticles.schmid ; jap  For the case of high temperature superconductors this behavior is expected to be stronger than in standard metallic systems due to a quasi-two-dimensional structure which is responsible for an enhanced critical region around the superconducting phase transition. This property was used to explain recent ARPES and tunnelling measurements in cuprates which experimentally prove the existence of the pseudogap state in their normal phase.tremblay ; flnonfermi

## III Analytical Results in the Non-Fermi Liquid Case

In this section, we will apply the Ginzburg-Landau functional formalism to the case of a $`s`$–wave non–Fermi liquid superconductor. Our evaluation of normal and anomalous Green’s functions in the superconducting state starts with the hypothesis that standard Gorkov’s equations are still valid. Working on the same hypothesis Muthukumar et al. muthu , following Gorkov’s classic procedure,gorkov  derived the Ginzburg-Landau equation and obtained the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients, $`A`$ and $`B`$. Based on these calculations the value of the upper critical field, $`H_c(T)`$ near $`T_c`$ was obtained for the case of the anomalous Fermi liquid. However, in our analysis we will extend the calculation to the evaluation of the other Ginzburg-Landau coefficient, namely $`C`$, and we will obtain analytical results for the superconducting state parameters in both spin–charge separation and anomalous Fermi liquids cases. The role of the mass renormalization factor, $`\beta `$, is particulary discussed for the anomalous Fermi liquid case, situation in which a previous estimation of the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients was made by Moca.Moca

### III.1 The spin-charge separation liquid

Here, we will focus our attention on the spin–charge separation liquid case, denoted by the following choice of the input parameters in Eq. (1), namely, $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\eta 1`$. The corresponding form of the Green’s function is:

$$G(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{(i\omega _n\eta \beta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{k})^{1/2}(i\omega _n\beta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{k})^{1/2}},$$
(19)
with the mass renormalization factor given by $`\beta =2/(1+\eta )`$. It is simple to see that for $`\eta 1`$ the usual form for the Fermi liquid is recovered.

The critical temperature, $`T_c(\eta )`$, on this model was first calculated by Sudbosudbo . A more careful analysis of this temperature, which also includes the mass renormalization factor, leads to the following value:

$$T_c(\eta )=\frac{2\gamma _E}{\pi }\frac{2\omega _D}{1+\eta }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi }{(1+\eta )K(\sqrt{1\eta ^2})}\frac{1}{N_0V}\right],$$
(20)
where $`\gamma _E`$ is the Euler constant, $`\omega _D`$ is the Debye frequency, and $`K(k)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind.

A simple but laborious calculation of the Ginzburg-Landau parameters leads to the following values:

$$A(\eta )=N_0\frac{TT_c(\eta )}{T_c(\eta )}f_A(\eta ),$$
(21)
$$B(\eta )=\frac{7\zeta (3)N_0}{8\pi ^2T_c^2(\eta )}f_B(\eta ),$$
(22)
$$C(\eta )=\frac{7\zeta (3)N_0v_F^2}{32\pi ^2T_c^2(\eta )}f_C(\eta ),$$
(23)
where we introduced the following notations

$$f_A(\eta )=\frac{(1+\eta )K(\sqrt{1\eta ^2})}{\pi },$$
(24)
$$f_B(\eta )=\frac{1+\eta }{2}F(1,\frac{1}{2};2;1\eta ^2),$$
(25)
$`f_C(\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+\eta )}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};3;1\eta ^2)`$
$`+\eta F({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};3;1\eta ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\eta ^2}{2}}F({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};3;1\eta ^2)]`$
$`F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};2;1\eta ^2)\eta ^2F({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};2;1\eta ^2)\},`$ (26)
$`F(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)`$ being the hypergeometric function. Making the limit $`\eta 1`$ the standard BCS results are recovered.

With all three Ginzburg-Landau coefficients, we can obtain the corresponding quantities for the superconducting state. The coherence length can be written as:

$$\frac{\xi (\eta ,T)}{\xi _{BCS}(T)}=\frac{1}{f_T(\eta )}\sqrt{\frac{f_C(\eta )}{f_A(\eta )}}\sqrt{\frac{1T/T_{c0}}{1T/[f_T(\eta )T_{c0}]}},$$
(27)
with

$`f_T(\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{T_c(\eta )}{T_{c0}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\eta }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{(1+\eta )K(\sqrt{1\eta ^2})}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0V}}\right].`$ (28)
As we expect $`f_T(\eta =1)1`$. In Fig.1 we plot the $`\eta `$-dependence of the ratio between the coherence length in the spin-charge separation liquid and the standard BCS case. We observe that, for $`\eta 1`$, the value of the coherence length is lower than the one in the standard BCS case. The considered values of the $`T/T_{c0}`$ are justified by the range of the critical region around the transition temperature.

The London penetration depth is obtained as:

$$\frac{\lambda (\eta ,T)}{\lambda _{BCS}(T)}=\sqrt{\frac{f_B(\eta )}{f_A(\eta )f_C(\eta )}}\sqrt{\frac{1T/T_{c0}}{1T/[f_F(\eta )T_{c0}]}}.$$
(29)
As in the BCS case, the temperature dependence of London penetration depth and coherence length are the same. In Fig.2, we plot the $`\eta `$-dependence of the ratio between the penetration depth corresponding to the spin-charge separation liquid and the standard BCS case. As the separation parameter decreases a lower value for the penetration depth is obtained.

The value of the specific heat jump at the critical point for $`\eta 1`$ was first calculated in Ref. ioneleur  based on the Pauli theorem. Using the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients, one finds:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C_v(\eta )}{T_c(\eta )}\frac{T_{c0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }C_v^{BCS}}=\frac{f_A^2(\eta )}{f_B(\eta )},$$
(30)
a value which differ from the previous one obtained in Ref. ioneleur  by the inclusion of the mass renormalization factor. In Fig.3, we plot the $`\eta `$-dependence of the specific heat jump at the critical point renormalized by the same ratio considered in the standard BCS case. One can see that higher values of the specific heat jump at the transition point can be expected as the spin–charge separation parameter $`\eta `$ decreases.

Finally, we are going to evaluate the upper critical magnetic field, $`H_{c2}`$. One finds:

$$\frac{H_{c2}(\eta )}{H_{c2}^{BCS}}=\frac{f_A(\eta )f_T^2(\eta )}{f_C(\eta )}\frac{1T/[f_T(\eta )T_{c0}]}{1T/T_{c0}},$$
(31)
leading to a change on the slope of the curve for the upper critical field near the transition temperature:

$$h(\eta )=\frac{\left|\frac{dH_{c2}}{dT}\right|_{T=T_c(\eta )}}{\left|\frac{dH_{c2}^{BCS}}{dT}\right|_{T=T_{c0}}}=\frac{f_A(\eta )f_T(\eta )}{f_C(\eta )}.$$
(32)
In Fig.4, we plot the relative value of the slope of the curve for the upper critical field as function of the spin-charge separation parameter. An increment of this slope is predicted as the value of $`\eta `$ decreases.

At this particular moment we would like to discuss the presence of a fluctuating vector field, $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, in addition to the electromagnetic vector field, $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ as it has been discussed in the literature.Muthu ; Tesa ; Weng1 ; Weng2  We argue that the full superconducting order parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, calculated in this paper, for the spin–charge separation case, becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{1}{1+f(\eta )}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{(s)}{}_{}{}^{2}+f(\eta )\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{(h)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right],$$
(33)
where $`f(\eta )1`$ for $`\eta 1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{s,h}`$ refers to the order parameter for the spinons (holons), respectively. Along with the assumption of Eq. (33) is implicit that both order parameters are small. In Eq. (33), $`f(\eta )`$ is fixed by the ration between the two critical temperatures, namely, $`T_c^{(s,h)}`$. Then, with these assumptions, we find that our Ginzburg–Landau function can be expressed as

$`F_SF_N`$ $`=`$ $`A_s|\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐪}^{}{}_{}{}^{(s)}|^2+q^2C_s|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^{(s)}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B_s}{2}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^{(s)}|^4`$ (34)
$`+A_h|\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐪}^{}{}_{}{}^{(h)}|^2+q^2C_h|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^{(h)}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B_h}{2}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^{(h)}|^4`$
$`+B_{s,h}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}|^2\times |\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}|^2.`$
In Eq. (34), for example, $`A_s=A/(1+f(\eta ))`$, etc. Transforming our $`GL`$ functional to real space and substituting the vector potentials, we obtain

$`F_SF_N=`$
$`A_s|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}|^2+C_s|(i2\stackrel{}{a}^{(s)})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B_s}{2}}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}|^4`$
$`+B_{s,h}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}|^2\times |\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}|^2`$
$`+A_h|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}|^2+C_h|(i{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}}\stackrel{}{A}^{(e)}\stackrel{}{a}^{(h)})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{B_h}{2}}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\times \stackrel{}{A}^{(e)})^2+f_{gauge},`$ (35)
where $`f_{gauge}`$ is given by

$$f_{gauge}\frac{\varrho }{2}(\times \stackrel{}{a})^2.$$
(36)
In Eq. (III.1), $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ is the fluctuating vector potential (internal gauge field).Tesa  The factor of $`2`$ in front of $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ in the spinon gradient term reflects the fact that pairs of spinons are assumed to condensate. $`f_{gauge}`$ describes the dynamics of the internal gauge field, $`\stackrel{}{a}`$. The internal gauge field, $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, serves only to enforce the local constraint $`b_i^{}b_i+f_{i,\sigma }^{}f_{i,\sigma }=1`$. The contribution $`f_{gauge}`$ has been justified by SachdevSachdev  and Nagaosa–Lee.Tesa  Franz and Tesanovich argue that $`\varrho `$ should be zero in order to reproduce the experimental data. Eq. (III.1) is also similar to Eq. (2) of Franz and Tesanovic.Tesa  We recover the results of Eq. (2) of Ref. Tesa : we do have a contribution of the type $`|\mathrm{\Delta }^{(s)}|^2\times |\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}|^2`$, where the coefficient $`B_{s,h}=2Bf_1f_2`$, where $`f_1=1/(1+f(\eta ))^2`$ and $`f_2=f^2(\eta )f_1^2`$.

There is another interpretation due to Muthukumar, Weng and Sheng.Muthu  They have two fluctuating gauge fields, one due to holons and another due to spinons.

### III.2 The anomalous Fermi liquid

The anomalous Fermi liquid (Eq. (1)) is defined in the limit $`\eta =1`$ and $`\alpha 0`$, which implies that the normal state Green’s function can be written as:

$$G(\stackrel{}{k},i\omega _n)=\frac{g(\alpha )e^{i\pi \alpha /2}}{\omega _c^\alpha (i\omega _n\beta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{k})^{1\alpha }},$$
(37)
with the mass renormalization factor given by $`\beta =1/(1\alpha )`$. As we expected, for $`\alpha 0`$, the standard Fermi liquid theory is recovered.

A superconducting phase transition in this system occurs at a critical temperature:massren

$`T_c^{2\alpha }(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M(\alpha )}}[N(\alpha )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _D}{1\alpha }}\right)^{2\alpha }`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\alpha )g^2(\alpha )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^{2\alpha }}{P(\alpha )N_0V}}],`$
only if the value of the attractive interaction is higher than a certain critical value,massren  $`V>V_{cr}`$. The constants entering Eq. (38) are given by $`P(\alpha )=2^{2\alpha }\mathrm{sin}[\pi (1\alpha )]/\pi `$, $`M(\alpha )=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\alpha )[12^{12\alpha }]\zeta (2\alpha )`$, and $`N(\alpha )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )/[2\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha )]`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ being the gamma function. Despite the fact that the value of the critical temperature is much more complicated in this case, the standard BCS value still can be obtained as $`\alpha 0`$.IonelPh ; nelu

The first attempt to calculate the Ginzburg–Landau coefficients for the case of the anomalous Fermi liquid was made by Moca,Moca  but our analysis is justified by the necessity of the mass renormalization factor (omitted in Ref. Moca ) and by some misprints in the reported results. However, we also estimate the value of the magnetic upper critical field, $`H_{c2}`$.

Following the same procedure applied previously to the spin-charge separation liquid, one finds that the Ginzburg–Landau parameters are expressed as:

$$A(\alpha )=N_0\frac{TT_c(\alpha )}{T_c(\alpha )}f_A(\alpha ),$$
(39)
$$B(\alpha )=\frac{7\zeta (3)N_0}{8\pi ^2T_c^2(\alpha )}f_B(\alpha ),$$
(40)
$$C(\alpha )=\frac{7\zeta (3)N_0v_F^2}{32\pi ^2T_c^2(\alpha )}f_C(\alpha ),$$
(41)
where we introduced the following functions:

$`f_A(\alpha )=`$
$`2\alpha (1\alpha )g^2(\alpha )P(\alpha )M(\alpha )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N(\alpha )}{M(\alpha )}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _D}{(1\alpha )\omega _c}}\right]^{2\alpha }`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0V}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\alpha )}{(1\alpha )P(\alpha )N(\alpha )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1\alpha )\omega _c}{\omega _D}}\right)^{2\alpha }\right],`$
$`f_B(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{2(1\alpha )B(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\alpha )}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{34\alpha }1}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (34\alpha )}{\zeta (3)}}`$
$`\times g^4(\alpha )\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \omega _D}{(1\alpha )\omega _c}}\right)^{4\alpha }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N(\alpha )}{M(\alpha )}}\right]^2`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0V}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\alpha )}{(1\alpha )P(\alpha )N(\alpha )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1\alpha )\omega _c}{\omega _D}}\right)^{2\alpha }\right]^2,`$ (43)
$`f_C(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}[\pi \alpha ]}{1\alpha }}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2^{32\alpha }1}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (32\alpha )}{\zeta (3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{N(\alpha )}{M(\alpha )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \omega _D}{(1\alpha )\omega _c}}\right]^{2\alpha }`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2(1\alpha )(2\alpha )B(\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2}\alpha )(1\alpha )B(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\alpha )}{\pi }}`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0V}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\alpha )}{(1\alpha )P(\alpha )N(\alpha )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1\alpha )\omega _c}{\omega _D}}\right)^{2\alpha }\right],`$ (44)
where $`B(x,y)`$ represents the beta function. Note that the first two coefficients, despite the mass renormalization factor, are the same as the ones reported in Ref. Moca , whereas the last one differs from the one already reported. The superconducting state properties can be evaluated by introducing a new function, $`f_T(\alpha )`$, defined as the ratio of the critical temperature in the anomalous Fermi liquid and the one corresponding to the standard BCS case:

$`f_T(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\gamma _E(1\alpha )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N(\alpha )}{M(\alpha )}}\right]^{1/2\alpha }\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0V}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\alpha )}{(1\alpha )P(\alpha )N(\alpha )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1\alpha )\omega _c}{\omega _D}}\right)^{2\alpha }\right]^{1/2}\right\}.`$
In this expression we made use of the exponential form of the critical temperature reported by Grosu et al.nelu  To express the superconducting state properties one can make used of the previous expression obtained for the spin-charge separation liquid with the specification that all the functions $`f_i(\eta )`$ should be replaced by their correspondent in the anomalous Fermi liquid $`f_i(\alpha )`$ ($`i=A,B,C,T`$).

In Fig.5, we plot the coherence length for the anomalous Fermi liquid related to the standard BCS value as function of the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$ for different temperatures in the critical region. The inclusion of the mass renormalization factor $`\gamma =1/(1a)`$ changes completely the slope of the curve with respect to previous reported resultsMoca , the coherence length decreasing as $`\alpha `$ increases.

Fig.6, shows the ratio of the penetration depth corresponding to the anomalous Fermi liquid with respect to the standard BCS value as function of the non–Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$. For most of the interval a decreasing of the penetration depth as function of the non-Fermi parameter is obtained. The divergence obtained as $`\alpha `$ approaches the limit value $`\alpha 0.5`$ could be a simple effect related to the divergence of several quantities involved in the calculation. A similar effect was observed also in the critical temperature dependence on the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$.IonelPh ; nelu ; muthu

The dependence of the specific heat jump at the transition temperature is plot in Fig.7. Our results show that smaller values than in the standard BCS case can be achieved for $`0<\alpha 0.3`$ . This conclusion was also obtained in Ref. Moca . However, some changes due to the inclusion of the mass renormalization factor can be seen in our plot.

A first discussion on the magnetic upper critical field was made by Muthukumar et al.muthu  as function of the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$. However, due to the incorrect form of the Green’s function used in their calculation a qualitatively different dependence of the upper critical field as function of the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$ is expected. In Fig.8, we plot the slope of the magnetic upper critical field as function of the non–Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$, showing that an increment of this parameter occurs as $`\alpha `$ increases.

## IV Conclusions and discussions

In this paper, we have discussed the superconducting state properties in systems described by a non-Fermi liquid normal state. We specifically analyzed two limit cases corresponding to the spin-charge separation and anomalous Fermi liquid cases. Our analysis is based on the evaluation of the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients corresponding to the superconducting phase transition, which are used to evaluate the coherence length, the London penetration depth, the specific heat jump and the magnetic upper critical field. By comparing our results with experimental data on high temperature superconductors we could fix the two parameters, $`\eta `$ and $`\alpha `$, entering the model. For the case of high temperature superconductors, the experimental data should be considered in the underdoped region of the phase diagram, where is well known that the non-Fermi character of the system is much stronger than in the overdoped regime.

In general, some similarities can be observed in both limits of the non–Fermi liquid description. Let us turn our attention on the coherence length. It is well known that in high temperature superconductors, the value of this parameter is much smaller than the one corresponding to standard BCS superconductors.coherence  We can see from Figs.1 and 5 that such a behavior can be achieved when the spin–charge separation parameter $`\eta `$ decreases, or as the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$ increases. Basically both situations have to do with a stronger non-Fermi character of the system. The fact that the coherence length decreases to small values can be interpreted also in terms of a crossover problem, where in place of varying the attractive interaction leading to the formation of the Cooper pair, one can vary the non-Fermi parameter of the problem with the same result, which clearly identify the fact that the non-Fermi character of the systems is done by the interaction between the component particles.

In both cases, the standard Fermi liquid can be obtained by setting $`\eta =1`$ or $`\alpha =0`$. For the anomalous Fermi liquid case a direct comparison of the specific heat data with experimental results for high temperature superconductorsloram  shows that $`\alpha `$ should satisfy the condition $`0.2<\alpha <0.4`$. This is because the specific heat jump at the critical temperature has smaller values than in the BCS case. Such values for the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$ agree with the observed experimental data for the penetration depth.pana  One can see in this case that a strange divergence of different physical quantities occur once the value $`\alpha 0.5`$ is approached. This unphysical result is a consequence of the various mathematical approximations which we used on the calculation of these parameters. However, direct comparisons with the experimental data exclude this value as a possible correct value for the non-Fermi parameter $`\alpha `$. A similar analysis can be done also for the spin-charge separation liquid.

In short, we have to note that despite the good agreement between our theoretical results and the experimental data one cannot conclude that an extension of the Luttinger liquid theory in two dimensions is the correct answer for the high temperature superconductivity, at least as long as a direct microscopic theory can not prove the validity of the phenomenological Green’s function used in the model.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to V. Muthukumar, A. A. Schmidt, L. Craco, E. V. L. de Mello, H. Beck, and S. G. Magalhães for interesting discussions. We thank $`C.D.C.H.`$$`U.C.`$–Venezuela, $`FONACYT`$–Venezuela and $`FAPERG`$–Brasil for finantial support. One of the authors ($`J.J.R.N.`$) is a Fellow of the Venezuelan Program of Scientific Research and a Visiting Scientist at $`IVIC`$–Venezuela. We thank M. D. García–González for helping us with the preparation of this manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Consistency in Perturbative Calculations and Radiatively Induced Lorentz and CPT Violations

## Abstract

The origin of the radiatively induced Lorentz and CPT violations, in perturbative evaluations, of an extended version of QED, is investigated. Using a very general calculational method, concerning the manipulations and calculations involving divergent amplitudes, we clearly identify the possible sources of contributions for the violating terms. We show that consistency in the perturbative calculations, in a broader sense, leaves no room for the existence of radiatively induced contributions which is in accordance with what was previously conjectured and recently advocated by some authors supported on general arguments.

\*Dept. of Physics-CCNE, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria

P.O. Box 5093, 97119-900, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil

orimar@ccne.ufsm.br

\**Dept. of Physics-ICEx, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

P.O. Box 702, 30161-970, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

dalla@fisica.ufmg.br

PACS numbers: 11.15.Bt; 11.30.Qc; 11.30.Cp; 11.30.Er

The implications of Lorentz and CPT symmetry breaking have received a great deal of attention in the last few years. Most of them were all dedicated to the QED extended sector of the Extended Standard Model constructed by Colladay and Kostelecky . They have developed a conceptual framework and a procedure for the treatment of spontaneous CPT and Lorentz violation within a context where the gauge structure and renormalizability are maintained . The Lagrangian of the QED extended sector is composed by the usual QED theory in addition to the breaking terms

$$L^{SB}=a_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }b_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{2}k^\alpha ϵ_{\alpha \lambda \mu \nu }A^\lambda F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
In the above expression, $`a_\mu `$ and $`b_\mu `$ are real and constant prescribed four-vectors. The coupling $`k_\alpha `$ is also real and it has dimension of mass. The matrix $`\gamma _5`$ is the usual Hermitian Dirac matrix which is related to the totally antisymmetric tensor $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ through $`tr\gamma _5\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta \gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu =4iϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$. The mathematical structure of the purely photonic sector breaking term, in the above Lagrangian, allows us to identify an important consequence for the modified QED theory. Due to the fact that it changes by a total derivative under potential gauge transformation $`(A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ the action is not modified and the resulting equations of motions remain the same ones as those of the original theory. Such behavior is precisely what we call the Chern-Simons(CS) form. In spite of this, there are many phenomenological consequences associated to the modified theory  -. However, all the present experimental and theoretical investigations seem to state that the $`k_\mu `$ coupling value, compatible with the phenomenology, is the identically zero one. Such statement does not completely eliminate the possibility of Lorentz and CPT breaking effects being present in the modified theory. Even that the $`k_\mu `$ coupling vanishes at the tree level, such type of effects can be, in principle, induced by radiative contributions. In the QED extended theory, radiative corrections coming from the fermionic sector can induce contributions of the CS form . It could appear when the photon propagator is corrected by the $`b`$-breaking term. From the calculational point of view, we have to evaluate the usual QED one-loop vacuum polarization tensor with the free spin-$`1/2`$ fermion propagator, obeying the Dirac equation, changed by the inclusion of the $`b_\mu `$ coupling:

$$G(k)=\frac{i}{\mathit{}m\mathit{}\gamma _5}.$$
(2)
The corresponding one-loop amplitude can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}tr\left\{\gamma ^\mu G(k)\gamma ^\nu G(k+p)\right\}.$$
(3)
The evaluation of the above amplitude has been performed by many authors and different aspects involved in the calculations were emphasized  -  -. For a first set of authors and works, the obtained result is nonzero but it is essentially ambiguous. As a consequence, a definite value can be only stated after an arbitrary set of choices is taken. So, the results presented by the referred authors represent only a particular choice for the involved ambiguities. More recently, a second set of authors have argued, by using very general arguments, that only the definite zero value for the radiatively induced CS term is reasonable. Among them, G. Bonneau  shows that, if the theory is correctly defined by taking into account their Ward identities and appropriated normalization conditions, the CS term is absent in a non-ambiguous way. On the other hand, C. Adam and F.R. Klinkhamer , by requiring causality in addition to the validity of the perturbation theory, concluded that no CS term must exist. The same result was previously conjectured by Colladay and Kostelecky  and advocated by Coleman and Glashow . So, it remains a question: Why do general physical arguments lead to a definite zero value while the perturbative calculations do not? On the other hand, given the fact that a nonzero Chern-Simons term represents Lorentz and CPT violation, we can ask which are the steps in the perturbative evaluation that give raise to the non-zero contribution. Talking in different words, which are the assumptions, taken in the intermediate steps, where resides the origin of the Lorentz and CPT violation in the perturbative calculation, that a consistent handling of divergences may avoid in order to obtain the expected value for the CS term, the definite zero value?

The main point is the following: If the CS term is non-vanishing, it represents a Lorentz and CPT symmetry breaking induced by radiative corrections in the QED extended theory. However, in order to consider such phenomenon as a fundamental one, it must not be a simple consequence of a choice for arbitrariness, but it should emerge as an unavoidable aspect of the calculations. In other words, to define a calculational scheme such that some symmetries are violated in the calculations is a very simple job, but this does not mean that the corresponding phenomenon must exist. We have to put this particular calculation in accordance with other ones of the perturbative calculations, specially those which are necessary for the construction of the (symmetric) renormalizable Standard Model. This means to treat all the involved mathematical structures in the same way they are treated in the symmetric theory.

The purpose of the present work is precisely to clarify these points. We will use a very general calculational strategy to handle divergences  in order to isolate in a very clear way the possible contributions for the CS term in the perturbative evaluation, and show that when the interpretation required by the consistency in perturbative calculations is adopted, in a broader sense, an exactly zero value for the Lorentz and CPT contribution is achieved.

In order to evaluate the CS term we have to consider $`\gamma _5`$-odd divergent structures and therefore the Dimensional Regularization (DR) technique  is excluded from the possible tools. To make clear this point we write in the expression (3) the exact propagators $`G(k)`$, given in the expression (2), in the form

$$G(l)=S(l)+G_b(l),$$
(4)
with

$$G_b(l)=\frac{1}{\mathit{}m\mathit{}\gamma _5}\mathit{}\gamma _5S(l),$$
(5)
and $`S(l)`$being the usual spin-$`1/2`$ fermion propagator. After the substitution of the above expression, the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ amplitude can be split in three terms: $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_{bb}^{\mu \nu }`$. The first contribution, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\mu \nu },`$ is precisely the pure QED vacuum polarization tensor. The linear b-term is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}tr\left\{\gamma ^\mu S(l)\gamma ^\nu G_b(l+p)+\gamma ^\mu G_b(l+p)\gamma ^\nu S(l)\right\}.$$
(6)
To evaluate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }`$ to the lowest order in $`b`$, we simply replace the expression (5) by

$$G_b(k)=iS(k)\mathit{}\gamma _5S(k).$$
(7)
Now, the corresponding expression to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }`$ may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }(p)b_\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }(p),$$
(8)
where

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \lambda }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`(i){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}tr\{\gamma ^\mu S(k)\gamma ^\nu S(k+p)\gamma ^\lambda \gamma _5S(k+p)+`$ (10)
$`+\gamma ^\mu S(k)\gamma ^\lambda \gamma _5S(k)\gamma ^\nu S(k+p)\}.`$
So, the crucial mathematical structure, which we need to evaluate in order to get the value for the CS term, is an $`AVV`$ triangle amplitude. Such three-point function is a Green’s function of the symmetric theory (the renormalizable Standard Model). There are many kinds of arbitrariness involved in the evaluation of such amplitude. The requirement of consistency in the perturbative calculation implies that the choices for the arbitrariness present in the above expression must be taken in a consistent way with those adopted in the construction of the symmetric Standard Model. Given this argument we will consider the most general mathematical expression and only after all the considerations relative to the consistency in the evaluation of perturbative amplitudes have been made, we will return to the specific situation of the eq.(9).

We start by the definition

$$T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}=\frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}tr\left\{\gamma _\mu \left[(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m\right]^1\gamma _\nu \left[(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m\right]^1i\gamma _\lambda \gamma _5\left[(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_3)m\right]^1\right\},$$
(11)
which corresponds to the most general expression for the direct diagram. In the above expression $`k_1,k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ stand for arbitrary choices for the internal lines momenta. They are related to the external ones by their differences which we adopt: $`k_3k_1=p,k_1k_2=p^{}`$ and $`k_3k_2=p^{}+p=q`$. Their summations are undefined physical quantities. If we are worried about consistency, in the evaluation of this superficially linearly divergent structure, the first step is the identification of eventual constraints that this amplitude should obey, in spite of its divergent character. Such constraints are invariably materialized through relations among other amplitudes and/or by fixing a kinematical limit through a low-energy theorem. Due to the fact that, in principle, all the Green’s functions of the perturbative expansion are in some way related, we can use eventual constraints imposed by general physical grounds upon a particular amplitude to restrict other ones. For the $`AVV`$ we note, for example, the identity

$`(k_3k_2)_\lambda \left\{\gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m}}i\gamma _\lambda \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_3)m}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}}\right\}=\left\{i\gamma _\nu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_3)m}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}}\right\}`$ (12)
$`2mi\left\{\gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m}}\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_3)m}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}}\right\}+\left\{\gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m}}i\gamma _\mu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}}\right\}.`$ (13)
The above identity, which has nothing to do with divergences, can be converted to a relation among perturbative Green’s functions if we take the traces operation in both sides and next integrate in the momentum $`k`$. This gives us

$$\left(k_3k_2\right)_\lambda T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}(k_1,k_2,k_3;m)=2miT_{\mu \nu }^{PVV}(k_1,k_2,k_3;m)+T_{\mu \nu }^{AV}(k_1,k_2;m)T_{\nu \mu }^{AV}(k_3,k_1;m),$$
(14)
where we have introduced the $`PVV`$ three-point function defined by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{PVV}(k_1,k_2,k_3;m)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}Tr\left\{\gamma _5\frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_3)m}\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}\gamma _\nu \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m}\right\},$$
(15)
and the $`AV`$ two-point function

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{AV}(k_1,k_2;m)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}Tr\left\{i\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}\gamma _\nu \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m}\right\}.$$
(16)
Following a similar procedure, two other relations can be produced by contracting the term between curly brackets on the left hand side of the eq.(11) with the external momenta $`\left(k_3k_1\right)_\mu `$ and $`\left(k_1k_2\right)_\nu `$. They are

$`(k_3k_1)_\mu T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\lambda \nu }^{AV}(k_1,k_2;m)T_{\lambda \nu }^{AV}(k_3,k_2;m)`$ (17)
$`(k_1k_2)_\nu T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\lambda \mu }^{AV}(k_3,k_2;m)T_{\lambda \mu }^{AV}(k_3,k_1;m).`$ (18)
The $`AV`$ structure that appeared on the right hand side of the eqs.(12), (15) and (16), is a two-point function physical amplitude and possesses its own relations with other physical amplitudes. The most important one for our present purposes is the following

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{AV}(k_1,k_2;m)=\frac{1}{2m}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(k_1k_2)_\alpha T_\beta ^{SV}(k_1,k_2;m),$$
(19)
where we have introduced the $`SV`$ two-point function defined as

$$T_\beta ^{SV}(k_1,k_2;m)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}Tr\left\{\widehat{1}\frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1)m}\gamma _\beta \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_2)m}\right\}.$$
(20)
The eq.(17) can be stated before the introduction of the integration sign.

At this point we can ask ourselves for the meaning of the eqs.(12), (15), (16) and (17) and why they are important for our present investigation. First, we note that all the involved mathematical structures are, in principle, divergent quantities. This means that, in order to specify in a definite way the corresponding physical amplitudes, it will be necessary to handle undefined mathematical quantities. This implies in taking choices for the arbitrariness involved. Since we cannot run away from some assumptions, the unique guides we have at our disposal are the physical constraints we can eventually identify. The eqs.(12), (15) and (16) work like constraints for the explicit calculations, i.e., when we evaluate the $`AVV`$ amplitude and after this contract the obtained expression, it must be possible to identify mathematical structures identical to those obtained in the evaluation of the $`AV`$ and $`PVV`$ functions previously calculated by the same methods. The importance of the identities resides in the fact that through such relations we can submit the decisions about the involved arbitrariness, in the evaluation of the $`AVV`$ amplitude, from which the CS term should be extracted, to the physical constraints imposed to the $`AV`$ and $`SV`$ two-point functions. Due to the eqs.(12), (15) and (16), such structures are expected to be identified in the evaluation of the $`AVV`$ amplitude. This aspect is crucial for the controversy about the value for the Chern-Simons term in the Extended QED. In order to show what we have announced, we first note that if we evaluate the traces involved in the $`AVV`$ structure, the answer can be written in the form

$$t_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}=4\left\{f_{\lambda \mu \nu }+n_{\lambda \mu \nu }+m_{\lambda \mu \nu }+p_{\lambda \mu \nu }\right\},$$
(21)
where, after the integration, only $`n_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ will acquire a linear divergence’s degree. It is explicitly given by

$$n_{\lambda \mu \nu }=\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \alpha }\frac{(k+k_2)(k+k_3)(k+k_1)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_2)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_3)^2m^2\right]},$$
(22)
which can be conveniently reorganized as

$`n_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \alpha }}{4}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\alpha +(k_1+k_2)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_2)^2m^2\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\alpha +(k_1+k_3)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_3)^2m^2\right]}}\right\}`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \alpha }}{4}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_2)^2m^2\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_3)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_3)^2m^2\right]}}`$
$`+[2m^2(k_2k_3)^2]{\displaystyle \frac{2(k+k_1)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_2)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_3)^2m^2\right]}}\}.`$
The first two terms contain now all the linear divergence and the ambiguous combination of the arbitrary internal lines momenta. Given the identity (17) it is expected that such terms are related to $`SV`$ two-point functions. In fact, it is easy to verify that

$$4m\frac{2k_\alpha +(k_i+k_j)_\alpha }{\left[(k+k_i)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_j)^2m^2\right]}=tr\left[\widehat{1}\frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_i)m}\gamma _\alpha \frac{1}{(\mathit{}+\mathit{}_j)m}\right].$$
(26)
After the integration in the momentum $`k,`$ the right hand side can be identified with the $`SV`$ two-point function defined in eq.(18). The important aspect involved resides in the fact that all the undefined pieces present in the $`AVV`$ amplitude are linked with the value of the $`SV`$ physical amplitude. Consequently, we can make use of the eventual physical constraints, to be imposed on the $`SV`$ amplitude, to guide us in taking the consistent choices for the corresponding arbitrariness present in the $`AVV`$ amplitude.

After these important remarks, in order to give additional steps to our investigations, some manipulations and calculations involving divergent amplitudes are required. This means to specify some strategy to handle the problem. We adopt the calculational strategy introduced by one of us  in order to specify the Feynman integrals which are necessary for the evaluations of all the Green’s functions involved in the present discussion.

First, we consider the two-point structures defined by

$$(I_2;I_2^\mu )=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{(1;k^\mu )}{[(k+k_1)^2m^2][(k+k_2)^2m^2]},$$
(27)
which are given by

$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{log}(m^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\right)Z_0((k_1k_2)^2;m^2)`$ (28)
$`\left(I_2\right)_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_1+k_2)_\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_1+k_2)_\mu \left(I_2\right),`$ (29)
where we have introduced, in a more compact notation, the two-point function structures

$$Z_k(\lambda _1^2,\lambda _2^2,q^2;\lambda ^2)=_0^1𝑑zz^kln\left(\frac{q^2z(1z)+\left(\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2\right)z\lambda _1^2}{\lambda ^2}\right),$$
(30)
and the basic divergent objects

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k_\mu k_\nu }{\left(k^2m^2\right)^3}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^2}}`$ (31)
$`I_{log}(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^2}}.`$ (32)
According to the same prescription we can also calculate the integrals

$$(I_3;I_3^\mu ;I_3^{\mu \nu })=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{(1;k^\mu ;k^\mu k^\nu )}{\left[(k+k_1)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_2)^2m^2\right]\left[(k+k_3)^2m^2\right]}.$$
(33)
We write the results as

$`I_3=\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\right)\xi _{00}`$ (34)
$`\left(I_3\right)_\mu =\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\right)\{(k_1k_2)_\mu \xi _{01}(k_3k_1)_\mu \xi _{10}\}k_{1\mu }I_3`$ (35)
$`\left(I_3\right)_{\mu \nu }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{2}}\left[\eta _{00}\right]+(k_1k_2)_\mu (k_1k_2)_\nu \xi _{02}+(k_3k_1)_\mu (k_3k_1)_\nu \xi _{20}`$ (36)
$`(k_1k_2)_\mu (k_3k_1)_\nu \xi _{11}(k_1k_2)_\nu (k_3k_1)_\mu \xi _{11}\}`$ (37)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{4}}\left[I_{\mathrm{log}}\left(m^2\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }}{4}}k_{1\mu }\left(I_3\right)_\nu k_{1\nu }\left(I_3\right)_\mu +k_{1\nu }k_{1\mu }I_3.`$ (38)
Here we have introduced the three-point function structures $`\xi _{nm}`$ defined as

$$\xi _{nm}(k_1k_2,k_3k_1;m)=_0^1𝑑z_0^{1z}𝑑y\frac{z^ny^m}{Q(y,z)},$$
(39)
where $`Q(y,z)=\left(k_1k_2\right)^2y(1y)+\left(k_3k_1\right)^2z(1z)+2\left(k_1k_2\right)\left(k_3k_1\right)yzm^2,`$ and

$$\eta _{00}=\frac{1}{2}Z_0((k_3k_2)^2;m^2)(\frac{1}{2}+m^2\xi _{00}))+\frac{1}{2}(k_3k_1)^2\xi _{10}+\frac{1}{2}(k_1k_2)^2\xi _{01}.$$
(40)
This systematization is sufficient for the present discussions. The main point is to avoid the explicit evaluation of such divergent structures, in which case a regulating distribution needs to be specified.

It is important, at this point, to emphasize the general aspects of the method. No shifts have been performed and, in fact, no divergent integrals have been calculated. All the final results produced by this approach can be mapped into those of any specific technique. The finite parts are the same as they should be by physical reasons. The divergent parts can be easily obtained . All we need is to evaluate the remaining divergent structures. By virtue of this general character, the present strategy can be simply used to systematize the procedures, even if one wants to use traditional techniques. Those parts that depend on the specific regularization method are naturally separated allowing us to analyze such dependence in a particular problem. Let us now use the above results to calculate the physical amplitudes.

Substituting the values for the Feynman integrals in the corresponding expressions for the $`AV`$ and $`SV`$ two-point functions, eq.(14) and eq.(18), we get

$`T_\mu ^{VS}(k_1,k_2;m)`$ $`=`$ $`()4m(k_1+k_2)_\beta [\mathrm{}_{\beta \mu }]`$ (41)
$`T_{\mu \nu }^{AV}(k_1,k_2;m)`$ $`=`$ $`2\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(k_2k_1)_\beta (k_1+k_2)_\xi \mathrm{}_{\xi \alpha }.`$ (42)
Note that the relation (17) is preserved by the performed calculations. We focus on the fact that, in spite of the potentially ambiguous character of the $`AV`$ and $`SV`$ functions, the identity (17) relating them is a non-ambiguous one. The above expressions are the most general ones for both mathematical structures. All the intrinsic arbitrariness are still present in the result. They are the undefined mathematical structure $`\mathrm{}_{\mu \nu }`$ and the ambiguous combination of the internal momenta $`k_i+k_j.`$ In order to give a definite result for the physical amplitudes, the arbitrariness should be removed through choices, which must be made preserving the physical requirements. So, we can ask if there are general aspects of QFT or symmetry determinations constraining the values for the $`SV`$ and $`AV`$ structures. In fact, it is easy to see that both two-point functions can be constrained to the identically zero value by general arguments. First, we note that, due to unitarity, if a two-point function like those considered is non-zero, it must have an imaginary part at the threshold $`(k_1k_2)^2=4m^2`$ (Cutkosky’s rules). The remaining arbitrariness involved in the expressions (35) and (36) cannot introduce such content to the $`SV`$ and $`AV`$ two-point functions. So, if a non-zero value for the $`SV`$ and $`AV`$ amplitudes is assumed, as a consequence of some choices, the unitarity is violated in both cases. In addition, if a non-zero value is taken, the Lorentz invariance in the $`SV`$ amplitude and the CPT symmetry in the $`AV`$ amplitude are broken. A connection between a scalar and a vector particle is stated by the $`SV`$ two-point function, and a connection between an axial and a vector particle through the $`AV`$ two-point function. Another argument comes from the Ward identities analysis. The contraction with the external momentum $`k_1k_2`$ must lead us to a definite zero value for vector Lorentz indexes, and to a proportionality between the axial and the pseudo-scalar one in the case of the axial-vector Lorentz indexes. There is no consistent interpretation apart from the zero value for the $`AV`$ amplitude since both contractions lead us to a vanishing value. In order to get the physically consistent result, we have at our disposal two options: to choose the internal lines momenta such that $`k_1+k_2=0`$ or to select a regularization by the constraint $`\mathrm{}_{\mu \nu }^{reg}=0`$. We note that due to the identity (17) the values of the two-point functions $`SV`$ and $`AV`$ are intimately related. From the point of view of the Dimensional Regularization (DR), only the $`SV`$ one can be treated and the result is identically vanishing. Due to the presence of the $`\gamma _5`$ Dirac matrix, or the totally antisymmetric tensor $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$, such a treatment cannot be performed in the $`AV`$ amplitude. The strategy we have adopted can be equally applied to both cases and shows us that it is not reasonable to make choices that lead us to a zero value for one of them and to a non-zero for the other one.

Given this argumentation we can immediately identify in these structures, which are contained in the $`AVV`$ amplitude, the source of the Lorentz and CPT symmetry breaking in the evaluation of the CS term. Any choices for the ambiguities present in the $`AVV`$ structure , which imply in the attribution of a nonzero value for these contributions, will, in fact, generate Lorentz and CPT violations, because such choices produce non-vanishing $`AV`$ and $`SV`$ structures. So, the corresponding contributions for the CS term cannot be considered as an implication of the QED Extended theory but as a consequence of the adoption of an interpretation for the arbitrariness involved, which is clearly not consistent. The importance of this conclusion can be viewed if we evaluate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \mu \nu }\left(p\right)`$ using the most general expression for the $`AVV`$ mathematical structure

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \mu \nu }\left(p\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }p_\beta +2i\left\{\epsilon _{\mu \nu \beta \sigma }p_\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda \sigma }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }p_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \sigma }\right\}.$$
(43)
In order to be consistent with the above discussion, we must choose $`\mathrm{}_{\mu \nu }^{reg}=0`$ eliminating then the contribution coming from the ambiguous terms. So, given this fact, can we conclude that the contribution for the CS term coming from $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \mu \nu }\left(p\right)`$ is the (non-ambiguous) value $`\left(\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }p^\beta `$? Not yet! We must show that the expression used to extract the above equation for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \mu \nu }\left(p\right)`$ is in agreement with the symmetry content of the QED extended theory. In particular, the U(1) gauge symmetry was not assumed broken in the construction of the extended theory. Another important aspect is that concerning the low-energy limits. It is well-known that the $`AVV`$ amplitude should obey the soft limit: $`lim_{q_\lambda 0}q^\lambda T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}=0.`$ The most minimum consistency requirement would force us to put any calculation of the $`AVV`$ structure in accordance with these very general symmetry aspects. Otherwise, an eventual value for the CS term again could not be considered as a consequence of the extended theory but of the violation of other fundamental symmetries in the intermediate steps of the calculations. It is a simple matter to check that, by taking the explicit expression for the $`AVV`$ amplitude and by contracting with the external momenta, we obtain

$`\left(k_3k_1\right)_\mu T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2}}\right)\epsilon _{\nu \beta \lambda \xi }\left(k_1k_2\right)_\beta \left(k_3k_1\right)_\xi `$ (44)
$`\left(k_1k_2\right)_\nu T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2}}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \beta \lambda \xi }\left(k_1k_2\right)_\beta \left(k_3k_1\right)_\xi `$ (45)
$`\left(k_3k_2\right)_\lambda T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^2}}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left(k_3k_1\right)_\alpha \left(k_1k_2\right)_\beta \left[2m^2\xi _{00}\right],`$ (46)
where $`\xi _{00}(\left(k_3k_2\right)^2=0)=\frac{1}{2m^2}`$. We can identify the expression on the right hand side of the eq.(40) as the calculated $`PVV`$ amplitude. Both ingredients above mentioned are absent from the $`AVV`$ amplitude. This is not surprising because it is the same situation we find in the Sutherland-Veltman paradox , connected with the pion decay phenomenology.

The above equation represents a manifestation of a fundamental phenomenon: the $`AVV`$ triangle anomaly. Note that it involves a different type of arbitrariness in the perturbative calculations. It is not associated to the ones related to divergences aspects. The terms which violate the U(1) gauge symmetry come from finite contributions and therefore are not affected by an eventual regularization scheme. The $`AVV`$ (symmetrized) physical amplitude must be constructed (in an arbitrary way) by subtracting the violating term

$$\left(T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}(\left(k_3k_1\right),\left(k_1k_2\right))\right)_{phys}=T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}(\left(k_3k_1\right),\left(k_1k_2\right))T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}\left(0\right),$$
(47)
where

$$T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}\left(0\right)=\left(\frac{i}{8\pi ^2}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }\left[\left(k_3k_1\right)_\beta \left(k_1k_2\right)_\beta \right].$$
(48)
The resulting amplitude preserves the U(1) gauge symmetry and it is in agreement with the low-energy theorem, in spite of violating the axial Ward identity involved. This procedure is precisely the one followed in the construction of the renormalizability of the Standard Model. So, again the consistency in the perturbative calculations requires the same interpretation for the same Green’s function. This means to adopt for the $`AVV`$ amplitude the expression

$`\left(T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}\right)_{Phys}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}}\right)(4)(k_3k_1)_\xi (k_2k_1)_\beta \{\epsilon _{\nu \lambda \beta \xi }[(k_3k_1)_\mu (\xi _{20}+\xi _{11}\xi _{10})`$ (60)
$`+(k_2k_1)_\mu (\xi _{11}+\xi _{02}\xi _{01})]`$
$`+\epsilon _{\mu \lambda \beta \xi }[(k_3k_1)_\nu (\xi _{11}+\xi _{20}\xi _{10})`$
$`+(k_2k_1)_\nu (\xi _{02}+\xi _{11}\xi _{01})]`$
$`+\epsilon _{\mu \nu \beta \xi }[(k_3k_1)_\lambda (\xi _{11}\xi _{20}+\xi _{10})`$
$`(k_2k_1)_\lambda (\xi _{02}\xi _{01}\xi _{11})]\}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }(k_3k_1)_\beta \{Z_0((k_1k_3)^2;m^2)Z_0((k_2k_3)^2;m^2)`$
$`+\left[2\left(k_3k_2\right)^2\left(k_1k_3\right)^2\right]\xi _{10}+`$
$`(k_1k_2)^2\xi _{01}+[12m^2\xi _{00}]\}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }(k_2k_1)_\beta \{Z_0((k_1k_2)^2;m^2)Z_0((k_2k_3)^2;m^2)`$
$`+\left[2\left(k_3k_2\right)^2\left(k_1k_2\right)^2\right]\xi _{01}`$
$`(k_3k_1)^2\xi _{10}+[12m^2\xi _{00}]\}T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}(0).`$
Now, taking the kinematical situation where the CS term is defined, eq.(9), we get

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\right)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }p_\beta iT_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}\left(0\right).$$
(61)
Identifying then $`T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}\left(0\right)`$ as the violating term on the left hand side of the eq.(38) and (39) this means that the identically vanishing value is obtained.

So, a clean and sound conclusion is extracted: the consistency in perturbative calculations leave no room for the existence of the radiatively induced CS term in the extended QED. Therefore, if one wants to get a nonzero value for such contribution, it is necessary: 1) to break in the intermediary steps of the calculation, Lorentz, CPT, unitarity and an axial Ward identity by attributing to mathematical structures, identical to the two-points functions $`AV`$ and $`SV`$, which are related, a nonzero value or, 2) to violate the low-energy theorem $`lim_{q_\lambda 0}q^\lambda T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}=0,`$ which may imply simultaneously in the violation of U(1) gauge symmetry in the Extended QED. The implication of the last sentence is the spoiling of the Standard Model renormalizability by destroying the anomaly cancellation mechanism. Any of such options clearly implies in ignoring the wider sense of the consistency in perturbative calculations, which means to treat the same Green’s function in the same way in all places where they occur. If one does not consider these aspects, in fact, one can obtain Lorentz and CPT violation not only for the discussed problem but, following the same recipe, it is possible to state a copious number of similar situations in other theories and models.

Acknowledgements: G.D. acknowledge a grant from CNPq/Brazil and O.A.B. from FAPERGS/Brazil.


text:
# Correlations in the low-temperature phase of the two-dimensional 𝑋𝑌 model

## Abstract

Monte Carlo simulations of the two-dimensional $`XY`$ model are performed in a square geometry with fixed boundary conditions. Using a conformal mapping it is very easy to deduce the exponent $`\eta _\sigma (T)`$ of the order parameter correlation function at any temperature in the critical phase of the model. The temperature behaviour of $`\eta _\sigma (T)`$ is obtained numerically with a good accuracy up to the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition temperature. At very low temperatures, a good agreement is found with Berezinskii’s harmonic approximation. Surprisingly, we show some evidence that there are no logarithmic corrections to the behaviour of the order parameter density profile (with symmetry breaking surface fields) at the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition temperature.

The two-dimensional classical $`XY`$ model is very famous in statistical physics, both for fundamental reasons, as describing for example classical Coulomb gas or fluctuating surfaces, and because of its relevance for the description of real systems, e.g. Helium super-fluid films. The model undergoes a standard temperature-driven paramagnetic to ferromagnetic phase transition in $`d>2`$, characterised e.g. by a power-law divergence of the correlation length near criticality, $`\xi |t|^\nu `$, (see e.g. Ref. ) while it exhibits a rather different behaviour in two dimensions, where the existence of a low-temperature phase with conventional long range order is precluded by the Mermin-Wagner theorem . Indeed there is no spontaneous magnetisation at any nonzero temperature in one or two-dimensional isotropic systems with short range interactions and having a continuous symmetry group, for example $`O(n)`$ spin models for $`n2`$, since order would otherwise be destroyed by spin wave excitations . Such systems can however display a low-temperature phase with topological order and the defect-mediated transition is governed by unbinding of topological defects. At low temperature, the system is partially ordered, apart from the topological defects (vortices in the case of the $`2d`$ $`XY`$-model) which appear in pairs, in increasing number with increasing temperature. At the transition temperature, the pairs are broken and the system becomes completely disordered. The low-temperature regime was investigated by Berezinskii  in the harmonic approximation and the mechanism of unbinding of vortices was studied by Kosterlitz and Thouless  using approximate renormalization group methods. For reviews, see e.g. Refs. .

This very peculiar topological transition is characterised by essential singularities when approaching the critical point from the high temperature phase, $`\xi \mathrm{e}^{b_\xi t^\nu }`$, $`\chi \mathrm{e}^{b_\chi t^\nu }`$, while in the low-temperature phase, there is a line of critical points and the order parameter correlation function decays algebraically with an exponent $`\eta _\sigma (T)`$ which depends on the temperature. Consider a square lattice with two-components spin variables $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_w=(\mathrm{cos}\theta _w,\mathrm{sin}\theta _w)`$ with continuous $`O(2)`$ symmetry, located at the sites $`w`$ of a lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of linear extent $`L`$, and interacting through the usual nearest-neighbour interaction

$$\frac{H}{k_BT}=K\underset{w}{}\underset{\mu }{}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_w\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w+\widehat{\mu }}=K\underset{w}{}\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _w\theta _{w+\widehat{\mu }}),$$
(1)
where $`\mu `$ labels the directions and $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is a unit vector in the $`\mu `$direction. The low-temperature or spin-wave behaviour is obtained in the harmonic approximation, after expanding the cosine, which should be justified at sufficiently low temperature where existence of order, at least at short range, is assumed:

$$\frac{H}{k_BT}\frac{H_0}{k_BT}\frac{1}{2}K\underset{w}{}\underset{\mu }{}(\theta _w\theta _{w+\widehat{\mu }})^2.$$
(2)
Within this approximation, the two-point correlator becomes

$`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_2}`$ $``$ $`Z_\beta ^1{\displaystyle \underset{w}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _w}{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{w_1}\theta _{w_2})\times e^{\frac{1}{2}K_w_\mu (\theta _w\theta _{w+\widehat{\mu }})^2}}`$ (3)
$``$ $`|w_1w_2|^{1/2\pi K},`$
hence $`\eta (T)=T/2\pi `$. The low-temperature phase thus has the characteristic features of a critical phase with local scale invariance, i.e. conformal invariance (invariance under rotation, translation and scale transformations, short-range interactions, isotropic scaling). Conformal invariance is known as a powerful framework for the description of two-dimensional critical systems . In the case of the $`XY`$ model, the central charge is $`c=1`$ in agreement with the continuous variation of critical exponents in the low-temperature phase. The scaling dimensions $`x_{n,m}`$ of the primary operators $`𝒪_{n,m}`$ depend on a parameter $`\rho `$ (called compactification radius),

$$x_{n,m}=\frac{1}{2}(n^2/\rho ^2+m^2\rho ^2).$$
(4)
The spin operator is identified to the conformal operator $`𝒪_{1,0}`$ and the vortex operator to $`𝒪_{0,1}`$ . This is coherent with the picture according to which in the high-temperature phase, the vortices are unbounded and produce the disordering of the system, the vortex chemical potential playing the rôle of a relevant operator. Then vortices and anti-vortices begin to bind, decreasing their relevance when the temperature decreases to become marginal at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$, where the condensation of defects occurs. There, $`x_{0,1}`$ must be 2 (for the RG eigenvalue $`y=dx_{0,1}`$ to vanish), implying that $`\rho =2`$. Hence at the KT transition, the exponent of the spin-spin correlation function decay takes the value predicted by Kosterlitz and Thouless, $`\eta _\sigma (T_{\mathrm{KT}})=2x_{1,0}=1/4`$. The corresponding values in the critical phase below $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ would in principle easily be deduced from equation (4), but the dependence of $`\rho `$ on the temperature is not known. Unfortunately, not much is known in the intermediate regime between the spin wave approximation at low temperature and the Kosterlitz-Thouless results at the topological transition and in fact the precise determination of the critical behaviour of the two-dimensional $`XY`$ model in the critical phase remains a challenging problem. Many results were obtained using Monte Carlo simulations (see e.g. Refs. ) at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ or high-temperature series expansions , but the analysis was made difficult due to the existence of logarithmic corrections, e.g. $`\chi \xi ^{2\eta _\sigma }(\mathrm{ln}\xi )^{2r}`$ in the high-temperature regime, or $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_2}|w_1w_2|^{\eta _\sigma }(\mathrm{ln}|w_1w_2|)^{\eta _\sigma /2}`$ at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ exactly  and the value of $`\eta _\sigma `$ at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ was a bit controversial as shown in table 1 of reference . The resort to large-scale simulations was then needed in order to confirm this picture .

In the following, we use a rather different approach which does not require so extensive simulations. Assuming that the low-temperature phase exhibits all the characteristics of a critical phase with conformal symmetry, we simply use the covariance law of $`n`$point correlation functions under the mapping of a two-dimensional system confined inside a square onto the half-infinite plane. The scaling dimensions are then obtained through a simple power-law fit where the shape effects are encoded in the conformal mapping. This is the crucial point, since then even very small systems are well adapted to such fits, apart from irrelevant lattice effects. We note that mappings inside a square and various other geometries have been considered already, e.g. the moments of the magnetization  and structure factors  in the Ising model have been calculated in square systems.

The order parameter correlation function in a square system, $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_2}`$, should in principle lead to the determination of critical exponents, but practically, it is not of great help since strong surface effects occur which modify the large-distance power-law behaviour. The correlation function is supposed to obey a scaling form which reproduces the expected power-law behaviour in the thermodynamic limit, for example $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_2}=|w_1w_2|^{\eta _\sigma }f_{\mathrm{sq}.}(w_1/L,w_2/L)`$, where $`f_{\mathrm{sq}.}`$ encodes shape effects in a very complicated manner. Conformal invariance provides an efficient technique to avoid these shape effects, or at least, enable to include explicitly the shape dependence in the functional expression of the correlators through the conformal covariance transformation under a mapping $`w(z)`$:

$$\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_2}=|w^{}(z_1)|^{x_\sigma }|w^{}(z_2)|^{x_\sigma }\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{z_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{z_2}$$
(5)
with $`\eta _\sigma =2x_\sigma `$. In the semi-infinite geometry $`z=x+iy`$ (the free surface being defined by the $`x`$ axis), the two-point correlator is fixed up to an unknown scaling function (apart from some asymptotic limits implied by scaling). Fixing one point $`z_1`$ close to the free surface ($`z_1=i`$) of the half-infinite plane, and leaving the second point $`z_2`$ explore the rest of the geometry, the following behaviour is expected: $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{z_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{z_2}_{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}(y_1y_2)^{x_\sigma }\psi (\omega ),`$ where the dependence on $`\omega =y_1y_2/z_1z_2^2`$ of the universal scaling function $`\psi `$ is constrained by the special conformal transformation . In order to get a functional expression of the correlation function inside the square geometry $`w`$, one simply has to use the mapping $`w(z)`$ which realizes the conformal transformation of the half-plane $`z=x+iy`$ ($`0y<\mathrm{}`$) inside a square $`w=u+iv`$ of size $`L\times L`$ ($`L/2uL/2`$, $`0vL`$) with free boundary conditions along the four edges. This is realized by a Schwarz-Christoffel transformation

$$w(z)=\frac{L}{2\mathrm{K}}\mathrm{F}(z,k),z=\mathrm{sn}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{K}w}{L}\right).$$
(6)
Here, $`F(z,k)`$ is the elliptic integral of the first kind, $`\mathrm{sn}(2\mathrm{K}w/L)`$ the Jacobian elliptic sine, $`\mathrm{K}=K(k)`$ the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and the modulus $`k`$ depends on the aspect ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and is here solution of $`K(k)/K(\sqrt{1k^2})=\frac{1}{2}`$. Using the mapping (6), the local rescaling factor in equation (5) is obtained, $`w^{}(z)=\frac{L}{2\mathrm{K}}[(1z^2)(1k^2z^2)]^{1/2}`$, and inside the square, keeping $`w_1`$ fixed, the two-point correlation function becomes (see e.g. Ref. )

$$\stackrel{}{\varphi }_{w_1}\stackrel{}{\varphi }_w_{\mathrm{sq}.}\underset{\kappa (w)}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{}[z]./\sqrt{|1z^2|.|1k^2z^2|})}}^{x_\sigma }\psi (\omega ),$$
(7)
with $`z(w)`$ given by equation (6). This expression is correct up to a constant amplitude determined by $`\kappa (w_1)`$ which is kept fixed, but the function $`\psi (\omega )`$ is still varying with the location of the second point, $`w`$. In order to cancel the rôle of the unknown scaling function, it is more convenient to work with a density profile $`m(w)`$ in the presence of symmetry breaking surface fields $`\stackrel{}{h}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This one-point correlator scales in the half-infinite geometry $`m(z)=\stackrel{}{\varphi }_z\stackrel{}{h}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}_{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{const}\times y^{x_\sigma }`$and it maps onto

$$m(w)=\stackrel{}{\varphi }_w\stackrel{}{h}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(w)}_{\mathrm{sq}.}=\mathrm{const}\times [\kappa (w)]^{x_\sigma }$$
(8)
where the function $`\kappa (w)`$ defined in equation (7) again comes from the mapping.

The application of the simple power-law in equation (8) requires a relatively precise numerical determination of the order parameter profile of the $`2d`$ $`XY`$ model confined inside a square with fixed boundary conditions playing the rôle of ordering surface fields $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(w)}`$. In practice, no magnetic field is applied, but the symmetry is broken by keeping the boundary spins of the square fixed, e.g. $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_w=(1,0),w\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ during the Monte Carlo simulations (in principle no update of these spins is performed). In the low-temperature phase, local Metropolis updates of single spins are known to suffer from the critical slowing down, since the system contains arbitrarily large clusters in which the spin orientations are strongly correlated. Statistically independent configurations can be obtained by local iteration rules only after a long dynamical evolution which needs a huge number of MC steps, sometimes beyond nowadays computers capability. The resort to cluster update algorithms (like Wolff algorithm) is more convenient. The central idea of cluster algorithms is the identification of clusters of sites using a bond percolation process connected to the spin configuration. The spins of the clusters are then independently updated. A cluster algorithm is particularly efficient if the percolation threshold coincides with the transition point of the spin model, which guarantees that clusters of all sizes will be updated in a single MC sweep. The percolation process associated to Ising or Potts models is the random graph model of the Fortuin-Kasteleyn representation and its threshold is known to coincide with the critical point of the spin model. For the $`XY`$ model, the bonds are introduced in the Wolff algorithm through the definition of Ising variables defined by the sign of the projection of the spin variables along some random direction. The percolation threshold for these bonds coincides with the Kosterlitz-Thouless point , which guarantees the efficiency of the Wolff cluster updating scheme  at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$. In the low-temperature phase, this algorithm could be less efficient, but nevertheless preferable to a local updating. When one uses particular boundary conditions, with fixed spins along some surface as required here, the Wolff algorithm should become less efficient, since close to criticality the unique cluster will often reach the boundary and no update is made in this case. To prevent this, we use the symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian (1). Even when the cluster reaches the fixed boundaries $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(w)`$, it is updated, and the order parameter profile is then measured with respect to the common new direction of the boundary spins, $`m(w)=\stackrel{}{\varphi }_w\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{sq}.}`$. The new configuration reached would thus correspond - after a global rotation of all the spins of the system to re-align the boundary spins in the $`(1,0)`$ direction - to a a new configuration of equal total energy and thus the same statistical weight as the one actually produced. This technique eventually leads to a new update at each iteration: when the cluster does not touch the boundaries, all the spins belonging to the cluster are updated, and in the other case the situation becomes equivalent to an update of all the spins but those inside the cluster. At a percolation threshold, interior and exterior of a percolating cluster are both large and intricated and the algorithm has short time correlations. After averaging over the ‘production sweeps’, one gets a characteristic smooth profile.

A log-log plot of $`m(w)`$ with respect to the reduced variable $`\kappa (w)`$ is shown in figure 1 at two different temperatures below $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}0.893(1)`$ (the value of $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ is taken according to reference ), roughly at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$, and one temperature slightly above. The first message of the plot is the confirmation of the functional form of equation (8). One indeed observes a very good data collapse of the $`L^2`$ points onto a single power-law master curve (a straight line on this scale). The next information is the rough confirmation of the value of the critical temperature, since above $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$, the master curve is no longer a straight line, indicating that the corresponding decay in the half-infinite geometry differs from a power-law as it should in the high-temperature phase. One should nevertheless mention that this is not a technique adapted to a precise determination of $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$, since at $`T=0.9`$ for example, the master curve is hardly distinguishable from a straight line. One can for example compute the $`\chi ^2`$ per d.o.f. as a function of temperature. It has a very small value, indicating the high quality of the fit, in the low-temperature phase and then increases significantly above $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ when the behaviour of the density profile is no longer algebraic. The change of behaviour in the curve gives an approximate location of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition temperature, and the larger the system size, the better this estimate. This is illustrated in figure 1.

It is tempting to study the rôle of logarithmic corrections exactly at the Kosterlitz-Thouless point. For that purpose, we produce data at a temperature $`T=T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ and, assuming that logarithmic corrections should affect the density profile with symmetry breaking surface field in the half-infinite geometry, we make a plot of $`m(w)\times [\kappa (w)]^{1/8}`$ vs $`\kappa (w)`$. Surprisingly, this leads very accurately to a constant, as shown in figure 1. This is a clear evidence that the order parameter profile with fixed boundary conditions displays a pure algebraic decay at the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition point. The decay exponent, if not fixed, but determined numerically, leads to a quite good result (for example for a size $`L=100`$, we get $`\eta _\sigma (T_{\mathrm{KT}})=0.250(28)`$).

It is thus possible to obtain the scaling dimension $`x_\sigma (T)`$ or the two-point correlation function exponent $`\eta _\sigma (T)=2x_\sigma (T)`$, in the whole critical region $`TT_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ as shown in figure 2. The most interesting result obtained here is perhaps the fact that the values of the exponent $`\eta `$ are very easy to obtain, in spite of the reputed difficulty of this problem from MC studies. For example the results obtained with a system of size as small as $`48\times 48`$ are already very satisfying, and to get 10 values of $`T`$ ($`10^5`$ MCS/spin for thermalization $`+10^6`$ MCS/spin for computation) corresponds to a quite reasonable amount of 11 hours of CPU time on a standard PC with 733 MHz processor (the algorithm is more efficient at $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ than below) . For the largest size considered here, $`L=200`$, a simulation at the Kosterlitz-Thouless temperature needs 18 hours ($`10^6+10^6`$ MCS/spin) which is also very fast compared to today’s standard extensive simulations where the natural time unit is the CPU-year. We mention here that we do not reach the accuracy of the very precise numerical determination of the magnetic scaling dimension (using transfer matrix techniques) by Blöte and Nienhuis .

Once the values of these scaling dimensions are known, we can deduce numerically the temperature-behaviour of the compactification parameter $`\rho `$, and thus perhaps conjecture the numerical values of other scaling dimensions associated to different operators. Up to the authors knowledge, such an approach has not yet been done and it could be promising for a better understanding of the critical phase of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transitions. From the numerical data, $`\eta _\sigma (T)`$ is easily expanded close to the KT point $`TT_{\mathrm{KT}}^{}`$, showing a leading square root behaviour ,

$$\eta _\sigma \frac{1}{4}0.231(T_{\mathrm{KT}}T)^{1/2}0.050(T_{\mathrm{KT}}T)^{3/2},$$
(9)
shown as a fit in figure 2 and from which it is easy to write the first terms of an expansion of the compactification radius, $`\rho 2[1+0.462(T_{\mathrm{KT}}T)^{1/2}+0.320(T_{\mathrm{KT}}T)+\mathrm{}]`$ when $`TT_{\mathrm{KT}}^{}`$. This leads in principle to an approximate value of the other scaling dimensions through equation 4.

\***

BB would like to thank Christophe Chatelain for stimulating discussions and Dragi Karevski for a critical reading of the manuscript.