1: \documentstyle[aps,preprint,epsfig,floats]{revtex}

2: 

3: %\usepackage{aps}

4: %\usepackage{preprint}

5: %\usepackage{epsfig}

6: %\usepackage{fixes}

7: 

8: 

9: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}

10: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}

11: 

12: \clubpenalty=10000

13: \widowpenalty=10000

14: \brokenpenalty=10000

15: \interdisplaylinepenalty=5000

16: \predisplaypenalty=10000

17: \postdisplaypenalty=100

18: \tolerance=100

19: 

20: \def\slash#1{#1\!\!\!/}

21: \def\eqref#1{Eq.\ (\ref{#1})}

22: \def\figref#1{Fig.\ \ref{#1}}

23: \newcommand{\eqsref}[2]{Eqs.\ (\ref{#1}) -- (\ref{#2})}

24: 

25: \begin{document}

26: \setcounter{page}{0}

27: \def\footnoterule{\kern-3pt \hrule width\hsize \kern3pt}

28: \tighten

29: 

30: \title{On the Applicability of Weak-Coupling Results in High Density QCD}

31: 

32: \author{Krishna~Rajagopal\footnote{Email address: {\tt krishna@ctp.mit.edu}}

33: and Eugene~Shuster\footnote{Email address: {\tt eugeneus@mit.edu}}}

34: 

35: \address{Center for Theoretical Physics \\

36: %Laboratory for Nuclear Science \\

37: %and Department of Physics \\

38: Massachusetts Institute of Technology \\

39: Cambridge, MA 02139 \\

40: {~}}

41: 

42: \date{MIT-CTP-2969,~  hep-ph/0004074,~ April 7, 2000}

43: \maketitle

44: 

45: \thispagestyle{empty}

46: 

47: \begin{abstract}

48: Quark matter at asymptotically high baryon chemical potential is in a

49: color superconducting state characterized by a gap $\Delta$.

50: We demonstrate

51: that although present 

52: weak-coupling calculations of $\Delta$ are formally correct for

53: $\mu\rightarrow\infty$, the contributions which have to

54: this point been neglected are large enough

55: that present results can only be trusted for $\mu\gg \mu_c\sim 10^{8}$ MeV.

56: We make this argument by using

57: the gauge dependence of the present calculation as a

58: diagnostic tool.  It is known that the present calculation yields

59: a gauge invariant result for $\mu\rightarrow\infty$; we 

60: show, however, that the gauge dependence of this result 

61: only {\it begins} to decrease for $\mu\gtrsim\mu_c$, and conclude

62: that 

63: the result can certainly not be trusted for $\mu<\mu_c$.

64: In an appendix, we set up the 

65: calculation of the influence of the Meissner effect 

66: on the magnitude of the gap. This contribution to $\Delta$

67: is, however, much smaller than the neglected contributions whose

68: absence we detect via the resulting gauge dependence.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: 

72: \vfill\eject

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}

75: 

76: The starting point for a description of matter at high baryon density

77: and low temperature is a Fermi sea of quarks. The important degrees of

78: freedom --- those whose fluctuations cost little free energy --- are

79: those involving quarks near the Fermi surface.  We know from the work of

80: Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer \cite{BCS} that any attractive

81: interaction between the quarks, regardless how weak, makes the Fermi sea

82: unstable to the formation of a condensate of Cooper pairs. In QCD, the

83: interaction of two quarks whose colors are antisymmetric (the color

84: $\bar {\bf 3}_A$ channel) is attractive. (The attractiveness of this

85: interaction can be seen from single-gluon exchange, as is relevant at

86: short distances, or via counting strings or analyzing the instanton

87: induced coupling, as may be relevant at longer distances.)  We therefore

88: expect that under any circumstance in which cold dense quark matter is

89: present, it will be in a color superconducting

90: phase \cite{Barrois1,Barrois2,BailinLove,ARW1,RSSV}.

91: The one caveat is that this conclusion is known to be false if

92: the number of colors is $N_c=\infty$\cite{DGR}.

93: Recent work \cite{ShusterSon,ParkRhoWirzbaZahed} indicates that

94: quark matter is in a color superconducting phase

95: for $N_c$ less than of order thousands, and in this paper we only discuss

96: QCD with $N_c=3$.

97: 

98: 

99: 

100: We now know much about the symmetries and physical properties of color

101: superconducting quark matter.  The dominant condensate in QCD with two

102: flavors of quarks is in the color $\bar {\bf 3}_A$ channel, breaking

103: $SU(3)_{\rm color}\rightarrow SU(2)$, and is a flavor

104: singlet\cite{Barrois1,Barrois2,BailinLove,ARW1,RSSV}. Quarks with two

105: of three colors have a gap in this 2SC phase, and five of eight

106: gluons get a mass via the Meissner effect. 

107: In QCD with three flavors of quarks, the Cooper

108: pairs cannot be flavor singlets, and flavor symmetries are necessarily

109: broken. The symmetries of the phase which results have been analyzed in

110: Ref. \cite{CFL}, and were in fact first analyzed in a different

111: (zero density) context in Ref. \cite{SrednickiSusskind}. 

112: The dominant condensate locks color and flavor

113: symmetries, leaving an unbroken global symmetry under simultaneous

114: $SU(3)$ transformations of color, left-flavor, and right-flavor. In this

115: CFL phase, all nine quarks have a gap and all eight gluons have a

116: mass\cite{CFL}. 

117: Chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken, as is baryon number, and

118: there are consequently nine massless Goldstone bosons \cite{CFL}.  

119: Matter in the CFL phase is therefore similar in many respects to 

120: superfluid hypernuclear matter \cite{CFL,SWcont,Unlocking,SWUnlocking}.

121: The fact that color superconducting phases always feature either

122: chiral symmetry breaking (as in the CFL phase) or some quarks which

123: remain gapless (as in the 2SC phase) may be understood as a consequence

124: of imposing 't Hooft's anomaly matching criterion \cite{Sannino}.

125: The

126: first order phase transition between the CFL and 2SC phases has been

127: analyzed in detail\cite{Unlocking,SWUnlocking,Gapless}, but all that will

128: concern us below is that any finite strange quark mass is unimportant at

129: large enough $\mu$, and quark matter is therefore in the CFL phase

130: at asymptotically large $\mu$.  

131: 

132: Much recent work has resulted in two classes of

133: estimates of the magnitude of $\Delta$, the gap in the density of

134: quasiparticle states in the superconducting phase.  The first class of

135: estimates are done within the context of models whose parameters are

136: chosen to give reasonable vacuum physics. Examples include analyses in

137: which the interaction between quarks is replaced simply by four-fermion

138: interactions with the quantum numbers of the instanton

139: interaction\cite{ARW1,RSSV,BergesRajagopal} or of single-gluon

140: exchange\cite{CFL,Unlocking} and more sophisticated analyses done using

141: instanton liquid

142: models\cite{CarterDiakonov,RSSV2}. Renormalization

143: group analyses have also been used to explore the space of all possible

144: four-fermion interactions allowed by the symmetries of

145: QCD\cite{Evans1,SWRG}. These methods yield results which are in

146: qualitative agreement: the gaps range from several tens of MeV up to as

147: much as about 100 MeV and the corresponding critical temperatures, above

148: which the superconducting condensates vanish, can be as large as about

149: 50 MeV. 

150: 

151: The second class of estimates uses $\mu\rightarrow\infty$ physics 

152: as a guide. At

153: asymptotically large $\mu$, models with short range interactions are

154: bound to fail, because the dominant interaction is due to the long-range

155: magnetic interaction coming from single-gluon

156: exchange\cite{PisarskiRischke1,Son}. The collinear 

157: infrared divergence

158: in small-angle scattering via single-gluon exchange results in a gap

159: which is parametrically larger at $\mu\rightarrow\infty$ than it would

160: be for any point-like four-fermion interaction\cite{Barrois2}. Son

161: showed \cite{Son} that this collinear divergence is regulated by

162: Landau damping (dynamical screening) 

163: and that as a consequence, the parametric dependence

164: of the gap in the limit in which the QCD coupling $g\rightarrow 0$ is

165: \begin{equation}

166: \frac{\Delta}{\mu} \sim \frac{1}{g^5} 

167: \exp\left(-\,\frac{3\pi^2}{\sqrt{2} g}\right)\ ,

168: \label{sonequation}

169: \end{equation}

170: which

171: is more easily seen as an expansion in $g$ when rewritten as

172: \begin{equation}

173: \ln\left(\frac{\Delta}{\mu}\right) = -\frac{3\pi^2}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{g}

174: -5\ln g + f(g) \ .

175: \label{expansion}

176: \end{equation}

177: This equation should be viewed as a definition of $f(g)$, which will

178: include a term which is constant for $g\rightarrow 0$ and 

179: terms which vanish for $g\rightarrow 0$.  The result (\ref{sonequation})

180: has been 

181: confirmed using a variety of 

182: methods\cite{SW,PisarskiRischke3,Hong,HMSW,rockefeller,HsuSchwetz}, 

183: and several

184: estimates of $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g)$ exist in the literature.

185: For example, Schaefer and Wilczek find\cite{SW,Schaefer}

186: \begin{equation}

187: \lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g) \sim \ln\left[ 2^{-1/3} 256 \pi^4

188: \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{5/2} \right] = 8.88

189: \label{SWc}

190: \end{equation}

191: in the CFL phase (see also 

192: Ref. \cite{PisarskiRischke3}),  

193: and Brown, Liu, and Ren\cite{rockefeller} 

194: find a result for $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g)$ which 

195: is smaller by $(\pi^2 +4)/8 - \ln 2 = 1.04$.

196: If this asymptotic expression is applied by taking $g=g(\mu)$ from the

197: perturbative QCD $\beta$-function (with $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=200$ MeV),

198: evaluating $\Delta$ at

199: $\mu\sim 500$ MeV yields gaps in

200: rough agreement with the estimates based on zero-density phenomenology.  

201: 

202: The central purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that

203: this nice agreement must at present be seen as coincidental,

204: because present estimates for $f$ are demonstrably uncontrolled

205: for $g>g_c\sim 0.8$, corresponding to $\mu<\mu_c$ with $\mu_c\sim 10^{8}$

206: or higher. 

207: 

208: The weak-coupling calculations are derived from analyses

209: (done using varying approximations) of the one-loop

210: Schwinger-Dyson equation without vertex correction, and 

211: (with one exception)

212: yield gauge dependent results.

213: However,

214: Schaefer and Wilczek argue that the result for 

215: $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g)$ in such a calculation 

216: is gauge invariant.  The one calculation which

217: is gauge invariant throughout

218: is the calculation of $T_c$ (and 

219: hence $\Delta$ since the BCS relation $T_c=0.57 \Delta$ 

220: holds \cite{PisarskiRischke3})

221: done by Brown, Liu, and Ren\cite{rockefeller}.

222: As in other calculations, however, these authors neglect 

223: vertex corrections.  Our purpose is to

224: {\it use} the fact that our calculation (like most) is 

225: gauge dependent, and only gauge invariant for

226: $g\rightarrow 0$, to estimate the $g$ above which vertex

227: corrections,  left out of {\it all} calculations, cannot

228: be neglected.

229: 

230: We begin by sketching the 

231: derivation of the one-loop Schwinger-Dyson equation for $\Delta$,

232: making as few approximations as we can.  We solve

233: the resulting gap equation numerically in several different

234: gauges.  Our results are (yet one more) confirmation

235: of (\ref{sonequation}). Furthermore, 

236: we do find evidence that the gauge dependence of $f$ decreases

237: for $g\rightarrow 0$.  However, this decrease only begins

238: to set in for $g\lesssim 0.8$.  This implies that the

239: contributions to $\Delta$ which have been neglected --- like

240: those arising from vertex corrections --- only become subleading

241: for $g\ll g_c\sim 0.8$.  If we translate $g_c$ to $\mu_c$ 

242: by assuming $g$ should be taken as $g(\mu)$, this

243: corresponds to $\mu_c\sim 10^{8}$ MeV.  Recent

244: work \cite{BBSunpub} shows that $g$ should be evaluated

245: at a much lower ($g$-dependent) scale than $\mu$.  This means

246: that the condition $g<g_c\sim 0.8$ would translate into $\mu>\mu_c$

247: with $\mu_c$ orders of magnitude larger than $\mu_c\sim 10^{8}$ MeV.

248: 

249: The original purpose of our investigation was 

250: to do a self-consistent calculation of the influence of

251: the Meissner effect on the magnitude of the gap in the 

252: CFL phase. In the

253: presence of a condensate, the gluon propagator is modified: some gluons

254: get a mass.  In the CFL phase, {\it all} gluons get a mass, and this

255: makes a calculation based on perturbative single-gluon exchange a

256: self-consistent and complete description of the physics at

257: asymptotically large $\mu$, with no remaining infrared problems.  (In

258: the 2SC phase, in contrast, the calculation of $\Delta$ leaves

259: unanswered any questions about the non-Abelian

260: infrared physics of the three gluons

261: left unscreened by the condensate.)  We felt that this motivation warranted

262: a self-consistent calculation in which we calculate the gap

263: using a Schwinger-Dyson equation in which the gluon

264: propagator is modified not only by the presence of the Fermi sea (Debye

265: mass, Landau damping) but is also affected by the condensate (the

266: Meissner effect).  We set this calculation up in an

267: appendix. Previous work, beginning with that 

268: of Ref. \cite{Son}, shows that the form 

269: of \eqref{sonequation}

270: is unmodified by including the Meissner effect, but $f(g)$ is affected. Our

271: preliminary results suggest that the changes in $f(g)$ are small, as

272: anticipated in Refs. \cite{Son,SW,HMSW,HsuSchwetz,ShovkovyWije,EHHS}.  

273: Indeed, the effects of physics left out of the

274: present analysis, which we have diagnosed via the gauge dependence of

275: $f(g)$, are much larger than those 

276: introduced by the Meissner effect at any $g$ we have

277: investigated.

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: 

282:  

283: \section{Deriving the gap equation}

284: 

285: In this section, we derive the gap equation 

286: for QCD with three 

287: massless flavors which is 

288: valid at asymptotically high densities. We follow Ref. \cite{SW},

289: but make fewer approximations.

290: Because our point is to stress the importance of

291: effects which we do {\it not} calculate, we will make

292: our assumptions and approximations very clear as we proceed.

293: In other words, since the lesson we learn from our results

294: is that they cannot yet be trusted, it is important to detail

295: carefully all points at which we leave something out.

296: 

297: 

298: We use the standard Nambu-Gorkov

299: formalism by defining an eight-component field

300: $\Psi=(\psi,\bar\psi^T)$. In this basis, the inverse quark propagator

301: takes the form

302: \begin{equation} \label{Sinv}

303: S^{-1}(k) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \slash{k}+\mu\gamma_0 &

304: \bar\Delta \\ \Delta  & (\slash{k}-\mu\gamma_0)^T

305: \end{array}\right)

306: \end{equation}

307: where $\bar\Delta = \gamma_0\Delta^\dagger\gamma_0$. The color, flavor,

308: and Dirac indices are suppressed in the above expression.  The diagonal

309: blocks correspond to ordinary propagation and the off-diagonal blocks

310: reflect the possibility for ``anomalous propagation'' in the presence

311: of a diquark condensate.

312: 

313: We make the

314: following ansatz for the form of the gap 

315: matrix\cite{BailinLove,CFL,SW,PisarskiRischke2}:

316: \begin{eqnarray} \label{delta}

317: \Delta^{ab}_{ij}(k) & = (\lambda^A_I)^{ab}(\lambda^A_I)_{ij}

318: C\gamma_5 \left( {\Delta_1^A}(k_0)P_+(k) +

319: {\Delta_2^A}(k_0)P_-(k) \right) \nonumber \\ & +

320: (\lambda^S_J)^{ab}(\lambda^S_J)_{ij} C\gamma_5 \left( 

321: {\Delta_1^S}(k_0)P_+(k)

322: +{\Delta_2^S}(k_0)P_-(k) \right)

323: \end{eqnarray}

324: Here, $a, b = 1, 2, 3$ are color indices, $i, j

325: = 1, 2, 3$ are flavor indices, $\lambda^A_I$ are antisymmetric $U(3)$ 

326: color or flavor matrices with $I = 1, 2, 3$, 

327: and $\lambda^S_J$ are symmetric $U(3)$ color or flavor 

328: with $J = 1, \ldots, 6$, and the projection operators $P_\pm$

329: are defined as

330: \begin{eqnarray} \label{projectors}

331: P_+(k) = {{1+\vec\alpha\cdot\hat k}\over 2} \nonumber \\

332: P_-(k) = {{1-\vec\alpha\cdot\hat k}\over 2}

333: \end{eqnarray}

334: with $\vec\alpha = \gamma_0\vec\gamma$.

335: 

336: By making this ansatz, we are making several assumptions:

337: \begin{itemize}

338: \item

339: First, we have taken $\Delta_1^A$, $\Delta_2^A$,

340: $\Delta_1^S$, and  $\Delta_2^S$ to be functions of $k_0$ only.

341: All are in principle functions of both $k_0$ and $|\vec k|$, 

342: but we assume that they are dominated by $|\vec k|\sim \mu$.

343: This is a standard assumption, and although we do not expect

344: that relaxing this assumption would resolve the problems which

345: we diagnose below, this does belong on the list of potential cures.

346: \item

347: Second, we have explicitly separated the gaps which are antisymmetric

348: $\bar{\bf 3}_A$ in color and flavor from those which are symmetric 

349: ${\bf 6}_S$ in color and flavor and, in both cases, we have assumed

350: that the favored channel is the one in which color and flavor 

351: rotations are locked.  The color and flavor structure of our

352: ansatz is thus precisely that first explored in Ref. \cite{CFL}, which

353: allows quarks of all three colors and all three flavors to pair.

354: Subsequent work \cite{Schaefer,ShovkovyWije,EHHS,Hong2} confirms 

355: that this is the favored condensate,

356: and we will not attempt to further generalize it here.  

357: \item

358: Third, we have assumed that the Cooper pairs in the condensate

359: have zero spin and orbital angular momentum.  This seems a safe

360: assumption in the CFL phase, where the dominant condensate, made

361: of Cooper pairs with

362: zero spin and orbital angular momentum, leaves no quarks ungapped.

363: \item

364: Fourth, we neglect $\bar\psi\psi$ condensates.  Since chiral

365: symmetry is broken in the CFL phase, these must be nonzero \cite{CFL}.

366: This applies to both color singlet

367: and color octet $\bar\psi\psi$ condensates\cite{Wetterich}.

368: Such condensates are small\cite{RSSV2,Schaefer},

369: however, and we expect that neglecting

370: them results in only a very small error in the magnitude

371: of the dominant diquark condensate.

372: \end{itemize}

373: 

374: The most important assumption we make is that we

375: obtain the gap by solving the

376: one-loop Schwinger-Dyson equation of the form

377: \begin{equation} \label{SDeq}

378:  S^{-1}(k)-S_0^{-1}(k) = ig^2 \int \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

379:  \Gamma_\mu^a S(q)\Gamma_\nu^b D_{ab}^{\mu\nu}(k-q) \ ,

380: \end{equation}

381: using a medium-modified gluon propagator described below and

382: unmodified vertices 

383: \begin{equation} \label{vertex}

384: \Gamma_\mu^a = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \gamma_\mu\lambda^a/2 & 0 \\ 0 &

385: -(\gamma_\mu\lambda^a/2)^T \end{array}\right) .

386: \end{equation}

387: Here, $S_0$ is the bare fermion propagator with $\Delta=0$.

388: Note that we use a Minkowski metric unless stated otherwise.

389: We will demonstrate that our results

390: are completely uncontrolled for $g>g_c\sim 0.8$. This breakdown could

391: in principle reflect a failure of any of our assumptions.

392: We expect, however, that it

393: arises because contributions which have been truncated in

394: writing (\ref{SDeq}) are large for $g>g_c$.  That is, we expect

395: that this truncation (and not any of the simplifications 

396: introduced by

397: our ansatz for $\Delta$) is the most significant assumption 

398: we are making.

399: 

400: 

401: %\begin{figure} \centering

402: %\epsfig{file=graph2.ps,width=2in}%,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=612,bbury=644}

403: %\caption{Schwinger-Dyson equation} \label{SDfig} 

404: %\end{figure}

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: We obtain four coupled gap

409: equations 

410: \begin{eqnarray} \label{4gapeq}

411: \Delta^A_{1,2}(k_0) = 

412: -{i\over 6} g^2 \int \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr} \left[

413: P_\pm(k)\gamma_\mu \left( P_+(q) a_+(q) + P_-(q) a_-(q)\right) 

414: \gamma_\nu \right]

415: D^{\mu\nu}(k-q) \nonumber \\

416: \Delta^S_{1,2}(k_0) = 

417: -{i\over 6} g^2 \int \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr} \left[

418: P_\pm(k)\gamma_\mu \left( P_+(q) b_+(q) + P_-(q) b_-(q)\right) 

419: \gamma_\nu \right]

420: D^{\mu\nu}(k-q)

421: \end{eqnarray}

422: where $P_\pm$ means $P_+$ in the $\Delta_1$ equation 

423: and $P_-$ in the $\Delta_2$ equation and where

424: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ab}

425: a_+(q) &=& {-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^A}(q_0) \over

426: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2- 4\left[{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right]^2} 

427: \nonumber\\

428: &~~& + {\left[ {\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \right] \left[

429: -q_0^2+(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2+(5{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+7{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))

430: ({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+3{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))\right] \over 

431: \left[ q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-

432: ({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2 \right] \left[ q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-

433: 4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2 \right]}\nonumber\\

434: a_-(q) &=& {-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^A}(q_0) \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-

435: 4\left[{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right]^2}\nonumber\\

436: &~~& + {\left[ {\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)

437: \right] \left[ -q_0^2+(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2+(5{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+7{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))

438: ({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+3{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))\right] \over 

439: \left[ q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-

440: ({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2 \right] \left[ q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-

441: 4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2 \right]}\nonumber\\ 

442: b_+(q) &=& {{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-

443: 4\left[{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right]^2} \nonumber\\ 

444: &~~& + 

445: { \left[ {\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \right] 

446: \left[ {\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \right] 

447: \left[ {\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \right] 

448: \over \left[q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2 - 

449: ({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2\right]

450: \left[q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2- 

451: 4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2\right] }

452: \nonumber\\

453: b_-(q) &=& {{\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-

454: 4\left[{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right]^2} \nonumber\\

455: &~~& + { \left[{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right]

456: \left[ {\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \right] 

457: \left[ {\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \right] 

458: \over \left[ q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2- 

459: ({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2 \right]

460: \left[ q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-

461: 4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2\right]}\ .

462: \end{eqnarray}

463: 

464: In a general covariant gauge, the resummed gluon propagator is 

465: given by

466: \begin{equation} \label{gluonprop}

467: D_{\mu\nu}(q) = {P^T_{\mu\nu}\over q^2-G(q)} + {P^L_{\mu\nu}\over q^2-F(q)} -

468: \xi {q_\mu q_\nu \over q^4}

469: \end{equation}

470: where $G(q)$ and $F(q)$ are functions of $q_0$ and $|\vec{q}|$ and the

471: projectors $P^{T,L}_{\mu\nu}$ are defined as follows:

472: \begin{equation} \label{PLT}

473: P^T_{ij} = \delta_{ij} - \hat{q_i}\hat{q_j}, \ P^T_{00}=P^T_{0i}=0, \

474: P^L_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} + {q_\mu q_\nu \over q^2} - P^T_{\mu\nu}.

475: \end{equation}

476: The functions $F$ and $G$ describe the effects of the medium

477: on the gluon propagator.  If we neglect the Meissner effect (that is,

478: if we neglect the modification

479: of $F(q)$ and $G(q)$ due to the gap $\Delta$ in the fermion

480: propagator) then $F(q)$ describes

481: Thomas-Fermi screening and $G(q)$ describes Landau damping and they are

482: given in the HDL approximation by\cite{LeBellac}

483: \begin{eqnarray} \label{GF}

484: F(q) &=& m^2 {q^2\over|\vec{q}|} \left( 1 - {iq_0\over|\vec{q}|} Q_0

485: \left( {iq_0\over|\vec{q}|} \right) \right), 

486: \ \ \ \ \ \  {\rm with}\ Q_0(x) = {1\over2} \log

487: \left( {x+1\over x-1} \right) \nonumber\\

488: G(q) &=& {1\over2} m^2 {iq_0\over|\vec{q}|} \left[ \left( 1 - \left(

489: {iq_0\over|\vec{q}|} \right)^2 \right) Q_0 \left( {iq_0\over|\vec{q}|}

490: \right) + {iq_0\over|\vec{q}|} \right] \ ,

491: \end{eqnarray}

492: where $m^2 = 3 g^2 \mu^2/2\pi^2$ is the Debye screening

493: mass for $N_f=3$.  We discuss the modifications of $F(q)$ and $G(q)$

494: due to the Meissner effect in an Appendix.

495: 

496: In order to obtain the final form of the gap equation,

497: we need 

498: the following trace:

499: %\begin{eqnarray}

500: \begin{equation}\label{4bigequations}

501: \begin{array}{l}

502: {\rm Tr} \left[ P_\pm(k)\gamma_\mu \left(P_+(q)a_+(q)+P_-(q)a_-(q)\right)

503: \gamma_\nu \right] D^{\mu\nu}(k-q) \\

504: \ \\

505: \begin{array}{lll}

506: & = 

507: a_+(q)& \left[ 2 {-1\mp\widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

508: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)} +{-1\mp\hat{k}\cdot

509: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \pm 2

510: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

511: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \nonumber\\

512: && + \left. {\xi \over (k-q)^2} \left( 1\mp\hat{k}\cdot

513: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \pm 2

514: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

515: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right.\Biggr] \nonumber\\

516: \ \\ 

517: & + a_-(q) & \left[ 2 {-1\pm\widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

518: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)} +{-1\pm\hat{k}\cdot

519: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \mp 2

520: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

521: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \nonumber\\

522: && + \left. {\xi \over (k-q)^2} \left( 1\pm\hat{k}\cdot

523: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \mp 2

524: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

525: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right.\Biggr]\ .

526: \end{array}

527: \end{array}

528: \end{equation}

529: %\end{eqnarray}

530: This allows us to recast

531: \eqref{4gapeq} into the following form:

532: \begin{equation}

533: \begin{array}{ll}

534: \Delta_{1}^A(k_0) = -{i\over 6} g^2 \begin{minipage}[l][0.5in][c]{.1in}\[\int\]

535: \end{minipage}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} & \!\left[ a_+(q) 

536: \!\left( \!2 {-1 - \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

537: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1 - \hat{k}\cdot

538: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2}+2

539: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

540: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \right. \\ & +\!\left. {\xi \over

541: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!-\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

542: \over (k-q)^2}\!+\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

543: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right)

544: \\ & + a_-(q)\!\!\left( \!2 {-1+\widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

545: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1+\hat{k}\cdot

546: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} - 2

547: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

548: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \\ & +\!\left. \left. {\xi \over

549: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!+\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

550: \over (k-q)^2}\!-\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

551: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right) \right] \\ & \\

552: \Delta_{2}^A(k_0) = -{i\over 6} g^2 \begin{minipage}[l][0.5in][c]{.1in}\[\int\]

553: \end{minipage} \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} & \!\left[ a_+(q)

554: \!\left( \!2 {-1 + \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

555: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1 + \hat{k}\cdot

556: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} - 2

557: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

558: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \right. \\ & +\!\left. {\xi \over

559: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!+\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

560: \over (k-q)^2}\!-\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

561: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right) \\ & + a_-(q)\!\!

562: \left( 2 {-1 - \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

563: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1 - \hat{k}\cdot

564: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} + 2

565: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

566: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \\ & +\!\left. \left. {\xi \over

567: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!-\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

568: \over (k-q)^2}\!+\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

569: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right) \right]

570: \end{array}

571: \end{equation}

572: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}

573: \begin{equation} \label{GapEq}

574: \begin{array}{ll}

575: \Delta_{1}^S(k_0) = -{i\over 6} g^2 \begin{minipage}[l][0.5in][c]{.1in}\[\int\]

576: \end{minipage}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} & \!\left[ b_+(q) 

577: \!\left( \!2 {-1 - \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

578: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1 - \hat{k}\cdot

579: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2}+2

580: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

581: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \right. \\ & +\!\left. {\xi \over

582: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!-\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

583: \over (k-q)^2}\!+\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

584: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right)

585: \\ & + b_-(q)\!\!\left( \!2 {-1+\widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

586: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1+\hat{k}\cdot

587: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} - 2

588: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

589: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \\ & +\!\left. \left. {\xi \over

590: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!+\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

591: \over (k-q)^2}\!-\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

592: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right) \right] \\ & \\

593: \Delta_{2}^S(k_0) = -{i\over 6} g^2 \begin{minipage}[l][0.5in][c]{.1in}\[\int\]

594: \end{minipage} \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} & \!\left[ b_+(q)

595: \!\left( \!2 {-1 + \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

596: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1 + \hat{k}\cdot

597: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} - 2

598: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

599: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \right. \\ & +\!\left. {\xi \over

600: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!+\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

601: \over (k-q)^2}\!-\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

602: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right) \\ & + b_-(q)\!\!

603: \left( 2 {-1 - \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

604: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over (k-q)^2-G(k-q)}\!+\!{-1 - \hat{k}\cdot

605: \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} + 2

606: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

607: (k-q)^2} \over (k-q)^2-F(k-q)} \right. \\ & +\!\left. \left. {\xi \over

608: (k-q)^2}\!\left( \!1\!-\!\hat{k}\cdot \hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2

609: \over (k-q)^2}\!+\!2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

610: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)^2} \right) \right) \right].

611: \end{array}

612: \end{equation}

613: 

614: 

615: %Hence, \eqref{GapEq} makes it explicitly clear that for a self

616: %consistent gap equation, we need to have both color ${\bar{\bf

617: %3}_A}$ and color ${\bf 6}_S$ channels present in parameterizing the gap. Also,

618: %just like discussed in Ref. (SW), because only $a_-(q)$ and $b_-(q)$

619: %have singularities on the Fermi surface, we can drop all terms

620: %containing $a_+(q)$ and $b_+(q)$ from \eqref{GapEq} in the weak coupling

621: %limit. Therefore, we end up with two gap parameters, $\Delta_{1}(k_0)$

622: %and $\Delta_{3}(k_0)$, which are gauge independent and thus lead to

623: %physical gaps. The other two gap parameters, $\Delta_{2}(k_0)$

624: %and $\Delta_{4}(k_0)$, have nonzero magnitude but are gauge dependent

625: %and do not lead to physical gaps on the Fermi surface.

626: 

627: \section{Solving the gap equation}

628: 

629: In order to obtain a tractable numerical problem, we

630: make two further simplifying assumptions:

631: 

632: \begin{itemize}

633: \item

634: First, at weak coupling we expect the physics to be dominated by 

635: particles and holes near the Fermi surface. This manifests itself

636: in Eq. (\ref{GapEq}) in the fact that $a_-$ and $b_-$

637: have singularities on the Fermi surface while $a_+$ and $b_+$

638: are regular there, and we therefore expect that at weak coupling

639: we can neglect $a_+$ and $b_+$.  Upon doing this, 

640: we have equations for $\Delta_1^{A,S}$ which do not involve

641: $\Delta_2^{A,S}$.  We are only interested in $\Delta_1^{A,S}$,

642: since $\Delta_2^{A,S}$ describe the propagation of antiparticles

643: far from the Fermi surface.  If we assume 

644: that we are at weak enough coupling that $a_+$ and $b_+$ can

645: be neglected (that is if we assume that $\Delta_1^{A,S}\ll \mu$)

646: then we can ignore $\Delta_2^{A,S}$ in our calculation of $\Delta_1^{A,S}$.

647: (Note that we are not assuming that 

648: $\Delta_2^{A,S}$ is any smaller than $\Delta_1^{A,S}$;

649: there is no reason for this to be true.)

650: We will see that our results break down for $g\gtrsim 0.8$, at which 

651: $\Delta<10^{-7}\mu$.  Because $\Delta\ll\mu$, neglecting

652: the effects of $\Delta_2^{A,S}$  on  $\Delta_1^{A,S}$ 

653: should be a good approximation, and we do not expect that including

654: these effects would cure the problems we discover.

655: This should, however,

656: be investigated further.

657: \item

658: Second, we set $\Delta_1^S=0$, and solve an equation

659: for $\Delta_1^A$ alone.

660: This assumption is in fact inconsistent, as

661: the gap in the symmetric channel must be nonzero. This is

662: clear from explicit examination of the gap 

663: equations \eqref{GapEq}  (and indeed 

664: of the gap equations of Ref. \cite{CFL}).

665: In fact, this result is manifest

666: on symmetry grounds \cite{Unlocking,PisarskiRischke4}: in the presence

667: of $\Delta_1^A\neq 0$, a nonzero $\Delta_1^S$ breaks no new

668: global symmetries and there is therefore no symmetry to keep it zero.

669: Because single-gluon

670: exchange is repulsive in the symmetric channel, this condensate can only

671: exist in the presence of condensation in the antisymmetric channel.

672: Explicit calculation \cite{CFL,Schaefer,ShovkovyWije} 

673: shows that the symmetric

674: condensates are much smaller than those in the antisymmetric channels.

675: We are therefore confident that keeping $\Delta_1^S$ would yield

676: only a very small correction to $\Delta_1^A$.

677: \end{itemize}

678: 

679: We must now solve a single gap equation for $\Delta_1^A(k_0)$,

680: which henceforth we denote simply as $\Delta(k_0)$.  

681: The reader will see below that this equation is still rather involved.

682: Most authors have made further

683: approximations, valid for $g\rightarrow 0$.  Because

684: we make no further approximations, our results cannot

685: be gauge invariant. This allows us to test the claim

686: that the results become gauge invariant in the limit $g\rightarrow 0$,

687: and to use the rapidity of the disappearance of gauge dependence

688: as this limit is approached to evaluate at what $g$ the contributions 

689: we have truncated can legitimately be ignored. 

690: 

691: In order to obtain numerical solutions,

692: it is convenient to do a Wick rotation $q_0\rightarrow i q_0$

693: to Euclidean space, yielding the gap equation

694: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Delta1eq}

695: %\begin{array}{ll}

696: \Delta(k_0) &=& {g^2\over 6}\!\int\!\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4} \Biggl[

697: {\Delta(q_0) \over q_0^2+(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2+ 4\Delta^2(q_0)} \nonumber\\

698: &~&\qquad\qquad +

699: {\Delta(q_0) \left( q_0^2+(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2+5\Delta^2(q_0)\right) \over

700: \left( q_0^2+(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2+\Delta^2(q_0) \right) \left(

701: q_0^2+(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2+4\Delta^2(q_0) \right)} \Biggr] \nonumber\\ 

702:  &~& \qquad\Biggl[ 2 {1-\widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} 

703: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} \over

704: (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2+G(k_0-q_0,|\vec{k}-\vec{q}|)} \nonumber\\

705: &~&\qquad\qquad

706: +{1+\hat{k}\cdot\hat{q} {-(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over

707: (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2} + 2\widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k}

708: \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q} {(k-q)_0^2 \over

709: (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2} \over

710: (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2+F(k_0-q_0,|\vec{k}-\vec{q}|)} \nonumber\\

711: &~&\qquad\qquad+

712: \xi { -1+\hat{k}\cdot

713: \hat{q} {-(k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2} - 

714: 2 \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{k} \widehat{(k-q)}\cdot\hat{q}

715: {(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 \over (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2} \over

716: (k-q)_0^2+(\vec{k}-\vec{q})^2 } \Biggr].

717: %\end{array}

718: \end{eqnarray}

719: The integral over the azimuthal

720: angle $\phi$ is trivial, and we therefore 

721: have three integrals to do.  We do the remaining angular integral

722: analytically, after making a change of variables.  

723: We define 

724: \[ \vec{q'}=\vec{k}-\vec{q} \]

725: because the integration over the polar angle $\theta$ is simpler

726: when the momentum integration is done over $\vec{q'}$. The

727: simplification arises because there is no longer any

728: angular dependence in the functions $F$ and $G$:

729: $$

730: F(k_0-q_0,|\vec{k}-\vec{q}|)=F(k_0-q_0,|\vec{q'}|)

731: $$

732: and similarly for $G$. 

733: After doing the angular integral, the gap equation reduces

734: to a double integral equation with integration variables

735: $|\vec{q'}|$ (which we henceforth denote $q$) and $q_0$:

736: %The gap equation is

737: \begin{eqnarray} \label{finalDeltaeq}

738: %\begin{array}{ll}

739: \Delta(k_0) &=& {g^2\over 48\pi^3} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dq_0

740: \int_0^\infty dq \left[ {\Delta(q_0) \over (k_0-q_0)^2+q^2+G(k_0-q_0,q)}

741: I_G(q_0,q) \right. \nonumber\\

742:  &~&\qquad \left. + {\Delta(q_0) \over (k_0-q_0)^2+q^2+F(k_0-q_0,q)}

743: I_F(k_0,q_0,q) + \xi {q \Delta(q_0) \over (k_0-q_0)^2+q^2}

744: I_\xi(k_0,q_0,q) \right]\\

745: {\rm where}\nonumber

746: %\end{array}

747: \end{eqnarray}

748: %where

749: \begin{eqnarray}

750: I_G(q_0,q < \mu) &=& {2 (q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2)

751: (q^2+4\mu^2-q_0^2-4\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}}

752: \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \nonumber\\ &+& {4

753: (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2) (q^2+4\mu^2-q_0^2-\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q

754: \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \arctan{q \over

755: \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \nonumber\\ &+& 

756: {12 \Delta^2(q_0) + 6 q_0^2 - 2 q^2 - 24

757: \mu^2 \over 3 \mu^2} \nonumber

758: \end{eqnarray}

759: 

760: \begin{eqnarray}

761: &~& I_F(k_0,q_0,q < \mu) =\nonumber\\

762: &~&\qquad {2 ((q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)) (k_0-q_0)^2-q^4)

763: (q^2-4\mu^2 + q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}

764: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}}

765: \nonumber\\ &~&\qquad + 

766: {4 ((q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)) (k_0-q_0)^2-q^4) (q^2-4\mu^2 +

767: q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}

768: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \nonumber\\ 

769: &~&\qquad +

770: {6 q^4+2 (k_0-q_0)^2 (-2 q^2+12\mu^2-3q_0^2-6\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3

771: \mu^2 ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)}  \nonumber

772: \end{eqnarray}

773: 

774: \begin{eqnarray}

775: &~& I_\xi(k_0,q_0,q < \mu) =\nonumber\\ 

776: &~&\qquad -{2 (q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)-(k_0-q_0)^2) (q^2-4\mu^2 +

777: q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}

778: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} 

779: \nonumber\\ &~&\qquad - 

780: {4 (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)-(k_0-q_0)^2) (q^2-4\mu^2 +

781: q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}

782: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \nonumber\\ 

783: &~&\qquad +

784: {2 q (2 q^2-3(k_0-q_0)^2-12\mu^2+3q_0^2+6\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 \mu^2

785: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \nonumber

786: \end{eqnarray}

787: 

788: \begin{eqnarray}

789: &~&I_G(q_0,q \ge\mu) =\nonumber\\

790: &~&\quad{(q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2)

791: (q^2+4\mu^2-q_0^2-4\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2

792: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \left( \arctan{q \over 

793: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}}\right.\nonumber\\&~&

794: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.

795: -\arctan{q - 2\mu \over

796: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right) \nonumber\\ &~&\quad 

797: + {2 (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2)

798: (q^2+4\mu^2-q_0^2-\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2

799: \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \left( \arctan{q \over 

800: \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right.\nonumber\\&~&

801: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.

802: - \arctan{q - 2\mu \over

803: \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right) \nonumber\\ &~&\quad

804: + {4 (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2) \over

805: 3 q \mu} \ln{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2 \over

806: q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+(q-2\mu)^2} \nonumber\\ &~&\quad

807: + {2 (q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2) \over 3

808: q \mu} \ln{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2 \over

809: q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+(q-2\mu)^2} \nonumber\\ &~&\quad 

810: + {12 \Delta^2(q_0) + 6 q_0^2 -

811: 6 q^2 - 8 \mu^2 -12 \mu q \over 3 \mu q} \nonumber

812: \end{eqnarray}

813: 

814: \begin{eqnarray}

815: &~&I_F(k_0,q_0,q \ge \mu)=\nonumber\\ 

816: &~&\quad{((q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0))

817: (k_0-q_0)^2-q^4) (q^2-4\mu^2 + q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2

818: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)} ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \left( \arctan{q \over

819: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right.\nonumber\\&~&

820: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.

821: - \arctan{q - 2\mu \over

822: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right) \nonumber\\ &~&\quad + {2 

823: ((q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)) (k_0-q_0)^2-q^4) (q^2-4\mu^2 +

824: q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 q \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}

825: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \left( \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} 

826: \right.\nonumber\\&~&

827: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.

828: -

829: \arctan{q - 2\mu \over \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right)

830: \nonumber\\ &~&\quad + {4 (q^4 -

831: (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0))(k_0-q_0)^2) \over 3 q \mu (q^2+(k_0-q_0)^2)}

832: \ln{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2 \over q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+(q-2\mu)^2} 

833: \nonumber\\ &~&\quad +{2

834: (q^4 - (q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0))(k_0-q_0)^2) \over 3 q \mu 

835: (q^2+(k_0-q_0)^2)} \ln{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2 \over

836: q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+(q-2\mu)^2} \nonumber\\ &~&\quad 

837: + {6 q^4+2 (k_0-q_0)^2 (6 \mu

838: q+4\mu^2-3q_0^2-6\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 \mu q ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \nonumber

839: \end{eqnarray}

840: %\vfill\eject

841: \begin{eqnarray}

842: &~&I_\xi(k_0,q_0,q \ge \mu) =\nonumber\\  

843: &~&\quad-{(q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)-(k_0-q_0)^2)

844: (q^2-4\mu^2 + q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)) \over 3 \mu^2

845: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)} ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \left( \arctan{q \over

846: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right.\nonumber\\&~&

847: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.

848: - \arctan{q - 2\mu \over

849: \sqrt{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right) \nonumber\\ &~&\quad - {2

850: (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)-(k_0-q_0)^2) (q^2-4\mu^2 +  q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0))

851: \over 3 \mu^2 \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)} ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)} \left(

852: \arctan{q \over \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right.\nonumber\\&~&

853: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.

854: - \arctan{q - 2\mu \over

855: \sqrt{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)}} \right) \nonumber\\ &~&\quad + {4

856: (q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)-(k_0-q_0)^2) \over 3 \mu (q^2+(k_0-q_0)^2)} 

857: \ln{q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2 \over q_0^2+\Delta^2(q_0)+(q-2\mu)^2}

858: \nonumber\\ &~&\quad + {2

859: (q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)-(k_0-q_0)^2) \over 3 \mu (q^2+(k_0-q_0)^2)}

860: \ln{q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+q^2 \over q_0^2+4\Delta^2(q_0)+(q-2\mu)^2} 

861: \nonumber\\ &~&\quad + 

862: {6q_0^2+12\Delta^2(q_0)-6(k_0-q_0)^2-8\mu^2-12\mu q) \over 3 \mu

863: ((k_0-q_0)^2+q^2)}\nonumber

864: \end{eqnarray}

865: 

866: We have solved the gap equation (\ref{finalDeltaeq}) numerically

867: for several different values of $g$ and several different values

868: of $\xi$.  

869: It is convenient to change integration variables from $q_0$ to

870: $\ln q_0$ and from $q$ to $\ln q$.  

871: We evaluate the $q$ integral over a 

872: range $q_{\rm min}<q<10^4\mu$ with $q_{\rm min}/\mu$ chosen differently

873: for each $g$ in such a way that it is less than $10^{-5}\Delta(0)$ in

874: all cases. The $q_0$ integral is made even in $q_0$ (by taking the

875: average of the integrand at $q_0$ and $-q_0$) and then evaluated

876: over a range $q_{0\rm min}<q_0<100\mu$, where we chose 

877: $q_{0\rm min}=q_{\rm min}$.  We have checked that

878: our results are insensitive to the 

879: choice of upper and lower cutoffs of the integration region.

880: It was probably not necessary to choose $q_{\rm min}$

881: and $q_{0\rm min}$ quite as small as we did.

882: It is, however, quite important to extend the upper limit of the  

883: $q_0$ and $q$ integrals to well above $\mu$ in order to avoid 

884: sensitivity to the ultraviolet cutoff.\footnote{The one exception,

885: in which we do find some sensitivity to one of our limits

886: of integration, 

887: is at $g=3.5576$. With $g$ this large, we should perhaps

888: have extended the upper cutoff of the 

889: $q_0$ integration to 1000 $\mu$,

890: as the results shown in Fig. 1 below make clear.}

891: We use an iterative method, in which an initial

892: guess for $\Delta(k_0)$ is used on the right-hand side 

893: of (\ref{finalDeltaeq}), the integrals are done

894: yielding a new $\Delta(k_0)$, which

895: is in turn used on the right-hand side.  The solution converges

896: well after about ten iterations. All results we show

897: were iterated at least fifteen times.  

898: 

899: \begin{figure}[t]

900: \centering

901: \vspace{-0.4in}

902: \epsfig{file=3fgaps.ps,width=6.3in}%,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=400,bbury=171}

903: \caption{The gap $\Delta(q_0)$ for five different values of the

904: coupling constant $g$. In each plot, the upper, middle, and lower

905: curves are calculations done using three different 

906: gauges $\xi=-1,0,1$. In each panel, the range

907: over which the $q_0$ integral was done is that shown.} \label{fig:3fgaps} 

908: \end{figure}

909: 

910: 

911: 

912: Our results are shown in \figref{fig:3fgaps}.  Note that

913: the output of our calculation is a plot of $\Delta(q_0)/\mu$

914: as a function of $q_0/\mu$ for some choice of $g$ and $\xi$.

915: The only way in which 

916: $\mu$ enters the calculation is to set the units of energy.

917: The values of 

918: $\mu$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig:3fgaps} corresponding to each

919: value of $g$ do not come from the calculation. They

920: are obtained by assuming that the running

921: coupling $g$ should be evaluated 

922: at the scale $\mu$ and using the one-loop beta function with 

923: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=200$ MeV.  We include these values

924: of $\mu$  to make comparison

925: with the results of Refs. \cite{SW,EHHS} easier.   If, as seems quite

926: reasonable, $g$ should in fact be evaluated at a $g$-dependent

927: scale which is lower than $\mu$, then the values of $g$

928: at which we have done our calculations correspond to larger

929: values of $\mu$ than shown in Fig. \ref{fig:3fgaps} \cite{BBSunpub}.

930: Evans, Hormuzdiar, Hsu, and Schwetz have obtained numerical

931: solutions to simplified gap equations describing the gap in

932: the CFL phase \cite{EHHS}.  Their results agree reasonably well with

933: the results of our calculation done in $\xi=0$ gauge but 

934: disagree qualitatively with

935: ours in any other gauge.

936: Simply setting $\xi=0$, as in Ref. \cite{SW,EHHS}, is not

937: a valid approximation at the values of $g$ at which we (and

938: these authors) work.

939: 

940: 

941: \begin{figure}[t] \centering

942: \epsfig{file=fgxi4.ps,width=5.in}%,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=400,bbury=171}

943: \caption{The function $f(g)$, defined in \eqref{fdefn}, for five

944: different values of the coupling constant $g$.  At each $g$, the points

945: (from top to bottom) correspond to different gauges with $\xi=-4,-1,0,1,4$

946: respectively. Note that the horizontal axis is $1/g$ and $\mu$

947: increases to the right. At the largest value of g, we only show

948: $\xi=-1,0,1$. In Fig. \ref{fig:3fgaps}, we have not shown the

949: $\Delta(q_0)$ curves for $\xi=\pm 4$ because in these gauges

950: $\Delta(q_0)$ is very small or large on the scales of

951: Fig. \ref{fig:3fgaps}.} \label{fig:fgxi}

952: \end{figure}

953: 

954: 

955: 

956: How should one interpret the results of a gauge dependent calculation,

957: given that at any fixed $g$ one can obtain any result one likes

958: if one is willing to explore gauge parameters $-\infty<\xi<\infty$?

959: In the present circumstance, the idea is that we expect this

960: calculation to give a gauge invariant result in the $g\rightarrow 0$

961: limit.  More precisely, if we define

962: \begin{equation}

963: f(g)\equiv \ln\left[\frac{\Delta(0)}{\mu}\right]+\frac{3\pi^2}{\sqrt{2}g}+

964: 5\ln g

965: \label{fdefn}

966: \end{equation}

967: then we expect $f$ to go to a $\xi$-independent constant in the 

968: $g\rightarrow 0$ limit.  

969: In Fig. \ref{fig:fgxi}, we plot $f(g)$ in five different gauges.

970: From this figure we learn:

971: \begin{itemize}

972: \item

973: For any $\xi$, $f(g)$ is a reasonably slowly varying function of $g$.

974: This confirms Son's result (\ref{sonequation}) and justifies

975: an analysis in terms of $f(g)$.

976: \item

977: It does appear that $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g)$ is a $\xi$-independent

978: constant,

979: perhaps not far from the estimate of Ref. \cite{SW},

980: namely $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g)=8.88$, or that of Ref. \cite{rockefeller},

981: namely $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0}f(g)=7.84$.  

982: \item

983: If we do a calculation in some fixed gauge, we expect 

984: that at small enough $g$ this

985: calculation yields a good estimate of the true gauge invariant

986: result.  By doing calculations in several gauges, we can bound the

987: regime of applicability of this estimate. 

988: We can only trust our calculation of $f(g)$ in

989: the regime in which the $\xi$-dependence of $f$ decreases with

990: decreasing $g$.  

991: Our calculation of $f(g)$ is completely meaningless

992: unless $g$ is small enough that the curves for different values of $\xi$

993: are converging.  Fig.~\ref{fig:fgxi} shows that the gauge dependence of 

994: our result for $f$ is about the same for all $g\gtrsim 0.8$.

995: It is only for $g\lesssim 0.8$ that $f(g)$ calculated in different

996: gauges {\it begins} to converge.  

997: At larger values of $g$ our calculation provides no guide

998: whatsoever as to the value of $f$ that would be obtained

999: in a complete, gauge invariant calculation including all

1000: the physics neglected in the present calculation. Even at

1001: $g=0.8$ the values of $\Delta(0)$ differ by a factor of about 400 for

1002: gaps with $\xi=-4$ and $\xi=4$. We could make the gauge dependence look

1003: even larger by choosing larger values of $|\xi|$. Our result does not

1004: guarantee that the calculation is under control for $g<0.8$, but it does

1005: guarantee that the result is uncontrolled and completely meaningless for

1006: $g>0.8$.

1007: \end{itemize}

1008: 

1009: 

1010: 

1011: 

1012: 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: \section{Conclusion}

1016: 

1017: We have detailed our assumptions and approximations as we made them.

1018: Let us now ask which of them should be improved upon if we wish

1019: to include those contributions whose neglect we have diagnosed

1020: via the gauge dependence of our results.  

1021: Note that $g=0.8$ 

1022: corresponds to $\Delta/\mu\sim 10^{-7}$.  Thus, those contributions 

1023: to $f$ which

1024: we have neglected which are controlled when $\Delta\ll \mu$ are {\it not}

1025: responsible for the breakdown of our calculation around $g\sim 0.8$. 

1026: We believe that the assumptions we made in writing the

1027: ansatz (\ref{delta}) and the assumptions we made in neglecting

1028: $\Delta_1^S$ and $\Delta^{A,S}_2$ all introduce errors which are small

1029: when $\Delta\ll\mu$.  (For example, even though neglecting $\Delta_2$

1030: is a source of gauge dependence, we do not expect that remedying

1031: this neglect would change $f(g)$ appreciably in any gauge at 

1032: $g\sim 0.8$, where $\Delta/\mu$ is so small.)      Hence, we believe

1033: that it is the assumptions made in writing the truncated gap equation

1034: (\ref{SDeq}) that are at fault.  One obvious possible explanation

1035: is the absence of vertex corrections, although there are

1036: other missing skeleton diagrams which should

1037: also be investigated.  

1038: 

1039: The gap $\Delta$ is of course a gauge invariant observable.

1040: A complete calculation would yield a gauge invariant

1041: expression for the function $f$, which could be expanded

1042: as a power series in $g$.  We learn

1043: three things from our (incomplete and gauge dependent) 

1044: calculation.

1045: First, our results obtained

1046: in different gauges appear to converge at small 

1047: $g$ and support previous estimates of

1048: $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0} f(g)$, namely the $g^0$ term in the expansion

1049: of $f$.  Second, because the results we obtain in different

1050: gauges only begin to converge for $g<g_c\sim 0.8$,

1051: we learn that contributions to our gauge dependent function

1052: $f$ which are of order $g^1$ and higher must have gauge dependent

1053: parts which are numerically large at $g\sim g_c$. Although

1054: we have simply evaluated $f(g)$ and not expanded it in $g$,

1055: we learn that such an expansion is uncontrolled for $g>g_c$.

1056: This suggests that if we knew the complete, gauge invariant

1057: function $f$, the $g^1$ and higher terms in that expansion

1058: would also become uncontrolled for $g>g_c$. 

1059: It may be that the vertex corrections are the

1060: dominant contribution to the

1061: missing physics which is responsible for this breakdown:

1062: this hypothesis is supported by the arguments of Ref. \cite{rockefeller}

1063: that these effects contribute to $f$ at order $g^1$.

1064: Regardless of whether the vertex corrections turn out to

1065: be the most important effect left out of the truncated gap 

1066: equation (\ref{SDeq}),  our calculation demonstrates

1067: that some contribution which is formally subleading

1068: is in fact large enough to render the calculation uncontrolled

1069: at $g\sim g_c$.  The third thing we

1070: learn is that although present calculations

1071: do yield reasonable estimates of $\lim_{g\rightarrow 0} f(g)$,

1072: if one is interested in using these calculations to estimate the value

1073: of $\Delta$ to within a factor of two, this can only be

1074: done for $g\ll g_c\sim 0.8$.

1075: 

1076: In the CFL phase, all eight gluons get a mass.  This means that in the

1077: CFL phase there are no gapless fermionic excitations, and

1078: no massless gluonic excitations, and therefore

1079: no non-Abelian physics in the infrared  to obstruct

1080: weak-coupling calculations.   

1081: The lesson we have learned is that even though everything

1082: is in principle under control,

1083: present weak-coupling calculations break

1084: down for $g>g_c\sim 0.8$, corresponding to

1085: $\mu<\mu_c$ with $\mu_c\sim 10^8$ MeV (or higher \cite{BBSunpub}). 

1086: This break down occurs even though $\Delta\ll\mu$ at $g\sim g_c$.

1087: It should be noted that what breaks down is the 

1088: weak-coupling calculation of the magnitude of 

1089: the gap $\Delta$.  Estimates based

1090: on models normalized to give reasonable zero density phenomenology

1091: can still be used as a guide, albeit a qualitative one.

1092: Furthermore, regardless of the fact that a 

1093: controlled calculation of $\Delta$ has not

1094: yet been done at $\mu<10^8$ MeV,

1095: it is possible to construct a controlled effective field

1096: theory which describes the infrared 

1097: physics of the CFL phase on length scales long compared to $1/\Delta$,

1098: since in such an effective theory $\Delta$ is simply a parameter

1099: determined by physics outside the effective theory.

1100: This infrared physics is dominated by the massless Abelian

1101: gauge bosons \cite{CFL,MagFields},

1102: the Nambu-Goldstone boson arising from spontaneously broken

1103: $U(1)_B$ \cite{CFL}, and the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons

1104: arising from spontaneously broken chiral symmetry  

1105: which have small masses due to the nonvanishing quark

1106: masses \cite{CFL,Casalbuoni,SonStephanov,RWZ,HLM,MT,RSWZ,Zarembo,BBS}.

1107: 

1108: \acknowledgments

1109: 

1110: We thank I. Shovkovy for suggesting that gauge dependence

1111: could be used as a diagnostic device and thank

1112: T. Schaefer for very helpful discussions.

1113: We are grateful to the Department of

1114: Energy's Institute for Nuclear Theory

1115: at the University of Washington for generous hospitality and

1116: support during the completion of this work.

1117: This research is also supported in part  by the Department

1118: of Energy under cooperative research agreement DF-FC02-94ER40818.

1119: The work of KR is supported in part by

1120: by a DOE OJI grant and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

1121: 

1122: \appendix

1123: 

1124: \section{The Meissner Effect}

1125: 

1126: In this appendix, we set up the calculation of the Meissner

1127: effect. That is, we investigate the effect of the presence of a gap $\Delta$

1128: on the functions $F$ and $G$ which describe the screening

1129: of the gluon propagator.  

1130: 

1131: In order to establish some necessary notation, 

1132: we must begin by filling in some details in the derivation

1133: of Eq. (\ref{4gapeq}) from Eq. (\ref{SDeq}).

1134: We 

1135: work in a

1136: color-flavor basis $(\{i,a\},\{j,b\})$. In this basis, we define the

1137: following two $9 \times 9$ matrices:

1138: \begin{equation} \label{P}

1139: Q^{ab}_{ij} = (\lambda^A_I)^{ab}(\lambda^A_I)_{ij} = 

1140: \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}

1141:  0 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & \\

1142: 1 &  0 & 1 & & & & & & \\

1143: 1 & 1 &  0 & & & & & & \\

1144:  & & & 0 & -1 & & & & \\

1145:  & & & -1 & 0 & & & & \\

1146:  & & & & & 0 & -1 & & \\

1147:  & & & & & -1 & 0 & & \\

1148:  & & & & & & & 0 & -1 \\

1149:  & & & & & & & -1 & 0 

1150: \end{array}\right)

1151: \end{equation}

1152: \begin{equation} \label{Q}

1153: R^{ab}_{ij} = (\lambda^S_J)^{ab}(\lambda^S_J)_{ij} =

1154: \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}

1155:  2 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & \\

1156:  1 & 2 & 1 & & & & & & \\

1157:  1 & 1 & 2 & & & & & & \\

1158:  & & & 0 & 1 & & & & \\

1159:  & & & 1 & 0 & & & & \\

1160:  & & & & & 0 & 1 & & \\

1161:  & & & & & 1 & 0 & & \\

1162:  & & & & & & & 0 & 1 \\

1163:  & & & & & & & 1 & 0 

1164: \end{array}\right)

1165: \end{equation}

1166: which represent the antisymmetric color and flavor ${\bar{\bf 3}}_A$ 

1167: and the symmetric color and flavor ${\bf 6}_S$ channels

1168: respectively in this basis. 

1169: 

1170: In the derivation of the gap equation, we were only interested

1171: in the off-diagonal lower left component of the Nambu-Gorkov

1172: fermion propagator $S$.

1173: However, the calculation of the Meissner effect involves

1174: all components of the fermion propagator. 

1175: Obtaining

1176: the fermion propagator by inverting the inverse propagator (\ref{Sinv}) is

1177: straightforward but tedious. After a lot of algebra and using the ansatz 

1178: (\ref{delta}) for the gap matrix, we find:

1179: \begin{eqnarray}\label{entireS}

1180: S(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}

1181: S_{11}(q) & S_{12}(q)\\

1182: S_{21}(q) & S_{22}(q)

1183: \end{array}\right)

1184: \end{eqnarray}

1185: where

1186: \begin{eqnarray} \label{S11}

1187: S_{11}(q) = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}

1188:  A(q) & B(q) & B(q) & & & & & & \\

1189:  B(q) & A(q) & B(q) & & & & & & \\

1190:  B(q) & B(q) & A(q) & & & & & & \\

1191:  & & & C(q) & & & & & \\

1192:  & & & & C(q) & & & & \\

1193:  & & & & & C(q) & & & \\

1194:  & & & & & & C(q) & & \\

1195:  & & & & & & & C(q) & \\

1196:  & & & & & & & & C(q)

1197: \end{array}\right) \\ \label{S22}

1198: S_{22}(q) = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}

1199:  E(q) & H(q) & H(q) & & & & & & \\

1200:  H(q) & E(q) & H(q) & & & & & & \\

1201:  H(q) & H(q) & E(q) & & & & & & \\

1202:  & & & D(q) & & & & & \\

1203:  & & & & D(q) & & & & \\

1204:  & & & & & D(q) & & & \\

1205:  & & & & & & D(q) & & \\

1206:  & & & & & & & D(q) & \\

1207:  & & & & & & & & D(q)

1208: \end{array}\right) \\ \label{S21}

1209: S_{21}(q) = \overline{S_{12}}(q) = -\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}

1210:  K(q) & L(q) & L(q) & & & & & & \\

1211:  L(q) & K(q) & L(q) & & & & & & \\

1212:  L(q) & L(q) & K(q) & & & & & & \\

1213:  & & & 0 & M(q) & & & & \\

1214:  & & & M(q) & 0 & & & & \\

1215:  & & & & & 0 & M(q) & & \\

1216:  & & & & & M(q) & 0 & & \\

1217:  & & & & & & & 0 & M(q) \\

1218:  & & & & & & & M(q) & 0

1219: \end{array}\right)

1220: \end{eqnarray}

1221: and where the above functions are defined as follows:

1222: \begin{equation} 

1223: \begin{array}{ll}

1224: A(q) &= \gamma^0 \left[ P_+(q) {q_0-\mu-|\vec{q}|\over

1225: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1226: {q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-3\left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)\right)^2

1227: -11\left({\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right)^2

1228: -10{\Delta_2^A}(q_0){\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \over

1229: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1230: \right. \\ &+ \left. P_-(q) {q_0-\mu+|\vec{q}|\over

1231: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2}

1232: {q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-3\left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)\right)^2

1233: -11\left({\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right)^2

1234: -10{\Delta_1^A}(q_0){\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \over

1235: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1236: \right] \\  & \\ 

1237: B(q) &= \gamma^0 \left[ P_+(q) {q_0-\mu-|\vec{q}|\over

1238: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1239: {\left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right)

1240: \left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right) 

1241: \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} 

1242: \right. \\ &+ \left. P_-(q) {q_0-\mu+|\vec{q}|\over

1243: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1244: {\left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right)

1245: \left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right) 

1246: \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1247: \right] %\\ & \\ 

1248: \end{array}

1249: \end{equation}

1250: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}

1251: \begin{equation} \label{AK}

1252: \begin{array}{ll}

1253: C(q) &= \gamma^0 \left[ P_+(q) {q_0-\mu-|\vec{q}|\over

1254: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} + P_-(q)

1255: {q_0-\mu+|\vec{q}|\over

1256: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1257: \right] \\  & \\ 

1258: D(q) &= C\gamma^0 \left[ P_-(q) {q_0+\mu+|\vec{q}|\over

1259: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} +

1260: P_+(q) {q_0+\mu-|\vec{q}|\over

1261: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2}\right]

1262: C \\  & \\

1263: E(q) &= C\gamma^0 \left[ P_-(q) {q_0+\mu+|\vec{q}|\over

1264: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1265: {q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-3\left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)\right)^2

1266: -11\left({\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right)^2 -10{\Delta_2^A}(q_0){\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \over

1267: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1268: \right. \\ &+ \left. P_+(q) {q_0+\mu-|\vec{q}|\over

1269: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1270: {q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-3\left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)\right)^2

1271: -11\left({\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right)^2

1272: -10{\Delta_1^A}(q_0){\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \over

1273: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1274: \right] C \\  & \\ 

1275: H(q) &= C\gamma^0 \left[ P_-(q) {q_0+\mu+|\vec{q}|\over

1276: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1277: {\left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right)

1278: \left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right) 

1279: \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} 

1280: \right. \\ &+ \left. P_+(q) {q_0+\mu-|\vec{q}|\over

1281: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1282: {\left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right)

1283: \left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right) \over

1284: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2}\right] C

1285: \\ & \\

1286: K(q) &= 2C\gamma^5 \left[ P_+(q) \left({{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\over

1287: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1288: \right.\right. \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad \left. +

1289: {{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \over

1290: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1291: {\left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right)

1292: \left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right) \over

1293: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} \right)

1294: \\ &+  \left.  P_-(q) \left({{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\over

1295: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1296: \right.\right. \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad \left.\left. +

1297: {{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \over 

1298: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2}

1299: {\left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right)

1300: \left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right) 

1301: \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} \right)

1302: \right] \\  & \\ 

1303: L(q) &= C\gamma^5 \left[ P_+(q) \left({{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)\over

1304: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} 

1305: \right.\right. \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad \left.\left.+

1306: {-{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \over

1307: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-4({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2}

1308: {\left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right)

1309: \left({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0)\right) \over

1310: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} \right)

1311: \right. \\ &+ \left. P_-(q) \left({{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)\over

1312: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} 

1313: \right.\right. \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad \left.\left.+

1314: {-{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \over 

1315: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-4({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+2{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2}

1316: {\left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+5{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right)

1317: \left({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0)\right) 

1318: \over q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} \right)

1319: \right] \\  & \\ 

1320: M(q) &= C\gamma^5 \left[ P_+(q) {-{\Delta_2^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_2^S}(q_0) \over

1321: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|+\mu)^2-({\Delta_2^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_2^S}(q_0))^2} + P_-(q)

1322: {-{\Delta_1^A}(q_0)+{\Delta_1^S}(q_0) \over

1323: q_0^2-(|\vec{q}|-\mu)^2-({\Delta_1^A}(q_0)-{\Delta_1^S}(q_0))^2} \right].

1324: \end{array}

1325: \end{equation}

1326: Note that $S_{21}(q) = \overline{S_{12}}(q)$ is a general property of the

1327: Fermion propagator $S$ and can be proved for an arbitrary number of

1328: colors and flavors using only the definition of the inverse Fermion

1329: propagator, \eqref{Sinv}, and properties of the Dirac

1330: gamma matrices.  Whereas only $K$, $L$ and $M$ were used in the derivation

1331: of the gap equation, all these functions are required in evaluating

1332: the Meissner effect.

1333: 

1334: \begin{figure}[t] \centering

1335: \epsfig{file=meissner.eps,width=3in,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=400,bbury=171}

1336: \caption{One-loop contribution to the Meissner effect.} \label{Meissnerfig} 

1337: \end{figure}

1338: The Meissner effect is the change in the screening of the gluon

1339: propagator induced by the presence of a gap. 

1340: To one loop order, we need to evaluate the gluon propagator

1341: of Fig. \ref{Meissnerfig} using the full fermion propagator

1342: including the gap.  

1343: The result can still be written in the form (\ref{gluonprop})

1344: but now 

1345: \begin{equation}

1346: F(q)=F_0(q)+\delta F(q)\ \ {\rm and} \ \ G(q)=G_0(q)+\delta G(q)

1347: \end{equation}

1348: where $F_0$ and $G_0$ are the $\Delta=0$ functions written

1349: as $F$ and $G$ in (\ref{GF}).  Recall that $G_0$, which

1350: describes Landau damping, vanishes for $q_0\rightarrow 0$.

1351: Because $\delta G$ is nonzero

1352: in the $q_0\rightarrow 0$ limit, the Meissner effect can be

1353: described as giving a mass to the gluons.  

1354: Previous analyses of the Meissner effect have either been

1355: done for two-flavor QCD \cite{Rischke1,CarterDiakonov2} or have 

1356: used simplified estimates \cite{HMSW,ShovkovyWije,EHHS}. 

1357: Our goal is to formulate the correct calculation of 

1358: $\delta F(q)$ and

1359: $\delta G(q)$ in the CFL phase.  Recent work along the same

1360: lines can be found in Ref. \cite{Rischke2}. 

1361: 

1362: {}From the diagram of Fig. \ref{Meissnerfig}, we obtain the 

1363: gluon polarization

1364: \begin{equation} \label{Pimunu}

1365: \begin{array}{lll}

1366: \Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab} & = -i g^2 \int {d^4k\over(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr} & \left[

1367: \Gamma^\mu_a S(k+q) \Gamma^\nu_b S(k) \right] \\

1368:  & = -i g^2 \int {d^4k\over(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr} & \left[ \gamma^\mu

1369: {\lambda_a\over 2} S_{11}(k+q) \gamma^\nu {\lambda_b\over 2} S_{11}(k) +

1370: \left(\gamma^\mu {\lambda_a\over 2}\right)^T S_{22}(k+q)

1371: \left(\gamma^\nu {\lambda_b\over 2}\right)^T S_{22}(k) \right. \\

1372:  & & \left. - \gamma^\mu {\lambda_a\over 2} S_{12}(k+q) \left(\gamma^\nu

1373: {\lambda_b\over 2}\right)^T S_{21}(k) - \left(\gamma^\mu {\lambda_a\over

1374: 2}\right)^T S_{21}(k+q) \gamma^\nu {\lambda_b\over 2} S_{12}(k) \right],

1375: \end{array}

1376: \end{equation}

1377: where the trace is taken over color, flavor, and Dirac indices and all

1378: four elements of the fermion propagator, $S(q)$, have been 

1379: defined previously in \eqsref{S11}{AK}. This polarization amplitude

1380: contains all the one loop contributions to the gluon propagator

1381: including the gap independent contributions, $F_0(q)$ and $G_0(q)$. 

1382: $\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}$ can be written in terms of $F$ and 

1383: $G$ in a simple fashion:

1384: \begin{equation}

1385: \Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab} = \delta_{ab} \left[ \left( G_0(q) + \delta G(q) \right)

1386: P^{\mu\nu T} + \left( F_0(q) + \delta F(q) \right) P^{\mu\nu L} \right].

1387: \end{equation}

1388: Hence, we only need to compute two components of $\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}$ 

1389: in order to

1390: obtain the functions $\delta F(q)$ and $\delta G(q)$, for example,

1391: $\Pi_{33}^{00}$ and $\Pi_{33}^{11}$.

1392: Because we already know $F_0(q)$ and $G_0(q)$, our goal is to extract

1393: $\delta F(q)$ and

1394: $\delta G(q)$. We are therefore only interested in the

1395: difference $\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(\Delta \ne 0) - \Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(\Delta =

1396: 0)$. Finally, because $\delta F(q)$ and $\delta G(q)$ depend only on

1397: $q_0$ and $|\vec{q}|$, we can choose $\vec{q}$ to lie along the $z$-axis

1398: for simplicity. Keeping all this in mind, we find that (in Euclidean

1399: space)

1400: \begin{eqnarray} \label{dFdG}

1401: \delta F(q) = {q_0^2 + |\vec{q}|^2 \over |\vec{q}|^2} \left(

1402: \Pi^{00}_{33}(\Delta \ne 0) - \Pi^{00}_{33}(\Delta = 0) \right)

1403: \nonumber \\

1404: \delta G(q) = \Pi^{11}_{33}(\Delta \ne 0) - \Pi^{11}_{33}(\Delta = 0).

1405: \end{eqnarray}

1406: Note that (unlike the integrals which arise on the 

1407: right hand side of the gap equation) the integrals which

1408: must be done in evaluating $\Pi(q)$ are ultraviolet divergent,

1409: and therefore sensitive to how they are cutoff at large 

1410: $k_0$ and $k$.  This ultraviolet divergence has nothing 

1411: to do with $\Delta$, and is canceled in our calculation

1412: of $\delta F$ and $\delta G$ by subtracting

1413: the $\Delta=0$ result for $\Pi(q)$.

1414: We have checked that our results for $\delta F$ and $\delta G$ 

1415: are insensitive

1416: to the ultraviolet cutoffs in the integrals.

1417: 

1418: 

1419: Looking back at the definition of $\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}$, we can see that

1420: it depends on $\Delta_{1}^{A,S}(k_0)$ and

1421: $\Delta_{2}^{A,S}(k_0)$. We make the same assumptions here

1422: as in our solution of the gap equation, namely that the antiparticle

1423: and sextet contributions can be neglected if $\Delta\ll \mu$

1424: and if one is interested

1425: in physics dominated by particles and holes near the Fermi 

1426: surface.

1427: Before we proceed, let us define the

1428: following notation for the functions $A(q)$ through $M(q)$ defined in

1429: \eqref{AK}: identify the scalar functions multiplying the $P_\pm$

1430: projectors with the appropriate $\pm$ signs, e.g. $A_+(q)$. With this

1431: notation, the dominant contributions to the two polarization amplitudes

1432: we are interested in are:

1433: \begin{equation} \label{Pi0011}

1434: \begin{array}{ll}

1435: \Pi^{00}_{33} = -{i\over 2} g^2 \!\int \!{d^4k\over(2\pi)^4} & \!\left(

1436: 1 + \widehat{(k+q)} \cdot \hat{k} \right) \left[ A_-(k+q) A_-(k) -

1437: B_-(k+q) B_-(k) \right. \\  & + 2 C_-(k+q) C_-(k) + E_+(k+q) E_+(k) -

1438: H_+(k+q) H_+(k) \\  & + 2 D_+(k+q) D_+(k) - 2 K_-(k+q) K_-(k) \\

1439: & \left. + 2 L_-(k+q) L_-(k) + 2 M_-(k+q) M_-(k) \right] \\ 

1440: \Pi^{11}_{33} = -{i\over 2} g^2 \!\int \!{d^4k\over(2\pi)^4} & \!\left(

1441: 1 + 2 \widehat{(k+q)}^1 \hat{k}^1 - \widehat{(k+q)} \cdot \hat{k}

1442: \right) \left[ A_-(k+q) A_-(k) \right. \\ & - B_-(k+q) B_-(k) + 2

1443: C_-(k+q) C_-(k) + E_+(k+q) E_+(k) \\ & - H_+(k+q) H_+(k) + 2 D_+(k+q)

1444: D_+(k) + 2 K_-(k+q) K_-(k) \\ & \left. - 2 L_-(k+q) L_-(k) - 2 M_-(k+q)

1445: M_-(k) \right].

1446: \end{array}

1447: \end{equation}

1448: In any one gauge, i.e. for a particular choice of $\xi$, our task

1449: is now clear. We first calculate $\Delta(k_0)$ with 

1450: $\delta F(q)=\delta G(q)=0$,

1451: as described in the body of the paper.  We 

1452: must then use (\ref{Pi0011})

1453: to evaluate $\delta F(q)$ and $\delta G(q)$ given by \eqref{dFdG}. 

1454: As in the calculation of $\Delta$, 

1455: we can do all angular integrals analytically and evaluate

1456: the double integral over $k_0$ and $|{\vec k}|$ 

1457: numerically.

1458: We must then re-evaluate $\Delta(k_0)$ 

1459: with the new gluon propagator, modified by the addition

1460: of $\delta F(q)$ and $\delta G(q)$.  We must then iterate 

1461: this procedure, calculating $\delta F(q)$ and $\delta G(q)$ and

1462: then recalculating $\Delta(k_0)$ repeatedly,

1463: until all results

1464: have converged.

1465: We have not carried this program to completion. However, preliminary

1466: numerical investigation suggests that, in agreement with

1467: arguments and estimates made by 

1468: others \cite{Son,SW,HMSW,HsuSchwetz,ShovkovyWije,EHHS}, the change in $\Delta$

1469: arising from the inclusion of $\delta F$ and $\delta G$ is small.

1470: In particular, it

1471: appears to be much smaller than the change in $\Delta$ which arises

1472: if one changes gauge from $\xi=-1$ to $\xi=0$ to $\xi=1$.  Perhaps at

1473: some extremely small $g$, the influence of the Meissner

1474: effect on the gap could be larger than the influence of

1475: the neglected physics whose absence we diagnose via

1476: the gauge dependence of our results.  At any $g$ at which

1477: we have been able to obtain numerical  results, however, the Meissner

1478: effect is insignificant relative to that which is missing.

1479: 

1480: 

1481: 

1482: 

1483: 

1484: 

1485: \begin{references}

1486: 

1487: \bibitem{BCS}

1488: J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. {\bf 106},

1489: 162 (1957); {\bf 108}, 1175 (1957).

1490: 

1491: \bibitem{Barrois1}

1492: B. Barrois, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B129}, 390 (1977); S. Frautschi,

1493: Proceedings of workshop on hadronic matter at extreme density,

1494: Erice, 1978.

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{Barrois2}

1497: B. Barrois, {\it Nonperturbative effects in dense quark matter}, Caltech

1498: PhD thesis, UMI 79-04847-mc (1979).

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{BailinLove}

1501: D. Bailin and A. Love, Phys. Rept. {\bf 107}, 325 (1984), and

1502: references therein.

1503: 

1504: \bibitem{ARW1}

1505: M.~Alford, K.~Rajagopal and F.~Wilczek,

1506: %``QCD at finite baryon density: Nucleon droplets and color 

1507: %superconductivity,''

1508: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B422}, 247 (1998)

1509: [hep-ph/9711395].

1510: 

1511: \bibitem{RSSV}

1512: R.~Rapp, T.~Schaefer, E.~V.~Shuryak and M.~Velkovsky,

1513: %``Diquark Bose condensates in high density matter and instantons,''

1514: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81}, 53 (1998)

1515: [hep-ph/9711396].

1516: 

1517: \bibitem{DGR}

1518: D.~V.~Deryagin, D.~Y.~Grigoriev and V.~A.~Rubakov,

1519: %``Standing wave ground state in high density, zero 

1520: %temperature QCD at large N(c),''

1521: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf A7}, 659 (1992).

1522: 

1523: \bibitem{ShusterSon}

1524: E.~Shuster and D.~T.~Son,

1525: %``On finite-density {QCD} at large N(c),''

1526: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B573}, 434 (2000)

1527: [hep-ph/9905448].

1528: 

1529: \bibitem{ParkRhoWirzbaZahed}

1530: B.~Park, M.~Rho, A.~Wirzba and I.~Zahed,

1531: %``Dense QCD: Overhauser or BCS pairing?,''

1532: hep-ph/9910347.

1533: 

1534: \bibitem{CFL}

1535: M.~Alford, K.~Rajagopal and F.~Wilczek,

1536: %``Color-flavor locking and chiral symmetry breaking in high density {QCD},''

1537: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B537}, 443 (1999)

1538: [hep-ph/9804403].

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{SrednickiSusskind}

1541: M.~Srednicki and L.~Susskind,

1542: %``Alternative Patterns Of Chiral Symmetry Breaking In QCD,''

1543: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B187}, 93 (1981).

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{SWcont}

1546: T.~Schaefer and F.~Wilczek,

1547: %``Continuity of quark and hadron matter,''

1548: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82}, 3956 (1999)

1549: [hep-ph/9811473].

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{Unlocking}

1552: M.~Alford, J.~Berges and K.~Rajagopal,

1553: %``Unlocking color and flavor in superconducting strange quark matter,''

1554: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B558}, 219 (1999)

1555: [hep-ph/9903502].

1556: 

1557: \bibitem{SWUnlocking}

1558: T.~Schaefer and F.~Wilczek,

1559: %``Quark description of hadronic phases,''

1560: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D60}, 074014 (1999)

1561: [hep-ph/9903503].

1562: 

1563: \bibitem{Sannino}

1564: F.~Sannino,

1565: %``A note on anomaly matching for finite density QCD,''

1566: hep-ph/0002277.

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{Gapless}

1569: M.~Alford, J.~Berges and K.~Rajagopal,

1570: %``Gapless color superconductivity,''

1571: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 598 (2000)

1572: [hep-ph/9908235].

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{BergesRajagopal}

1575: J.~Berges and K.~Rajagopal,

1576: %``Color superconductivity and chiral symmetry restoration at 

1577: %nonzero  baryon density and temperature,''

1578: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B538}, 215 (1999)

1579: [hep-ph/9804233].

1580: 

1581: \bibitem{CarterDiakonov}

1582: G.~W.~Carter and D.~Diakonov,

1583: %``Light quarks in the instanton vacuum at finite baryon density,''

1584: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D60}, 016004 (1999)

1585: [hep-ph/9812445].

1586: 

1587: \bibitem{RSSV2}

1588: R.~Rapp, T.~Schaefer, E.~V.~Shuryak and M.~Velkovsky,

1589: %``High density {QCD} and instantons,''

1590: hep-ph/9904353.

1591: 

1592: \bibitem{Evans1}

1593: N.~Evans, S.~D.~Hsu and M.~Schwetz,

1594: %``An effective field theory approach to color superconductivity 

1595: %at high  quark density,''

1596: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B551}, 275 (1999)

1597: [hep-ph/9808444];

1598: %``Non-perturbative couplings and color superconductivity,''

1599: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B449}, 281 (1999)

1600: [hep-ph/9810514].

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{SWRG}

1603: T.~Schaefer and F.~Wilczek,

1604: %``High density quark matter and the renormalization group in {QCD} 

1605: %with two  and three flavors,''

1606: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B450}, 325 (1999)

1607: [hep-ph/9810509].

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{PisarskiRischke1}

1610: R.~D.~Pisarski and D.~H.~Rischke,

1611: %``A first order transition to, and then parity violation in, 

1612: %a color  superconductor,''

1613: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 37 (1999)

1614: [nucl-th/9811104].

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{Son}

1617: D.~T.~Son,

1618: %``Superconductivity by long-range color magnetic 

1619: %interaction in  high-density quark matter,''

1620: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D59}, 094019 (1999)

1621: [hep-ph/9812287].

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{SW}

1624: T.~Schaefer and F.~Wilczek,

1625: %``Superconductivity from perturbative one-gluon 

1626: % exchange in high density  quark matter,''

1627: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D60}, 114033 (1999)

1628: [hep-ph/9906512].

1629: 

1630: \bibitem{PisarskiRischke3}

1631: R.~D.~Pisarski and D.~H.~Rischke,

1632: %``Gaps and critical temperature for color superconductivity,''

1633: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D61}, 051501 (2000)

1634: [nucl-th/9907041];

1635: %\bibitem{PisarskiRischke5}

1636: R.~D.~Pisarski and D.~H.~Rischke,

1637: %``Color superconductivity in weak coupling,''

1638: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D61}, 074017 (2000)

1639: [nucl-th/9910056].

1640: 

1641: \bibitem{Hong} 

1642: D.~K.~Hong,

1643: %``An effective field theory of {QCD} at high density,''

1644: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B473}, 118 (2000)

1645: [hep-ph/9812510].

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{HMSW} 

1648: D.~K.~Hong, V.~A.~Miransky, I.~A.~Shovkovy and L.~C.~Wijewardhana,

1649: %``Schwinger-Dyson approach to color superconductivity in dense QCD,''

1650: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D61}, 056001 (2000)

1651: [hep-ph/9906478].

1652: 

1653: \bibitem{rockefeller}

1654: W.~E.~Brown, J.~T.~Liu and H.~Ren,

1655: %``On the perturbative nature of color superconductivity,''

1656: hep-ph/9908248; hep-ph/9912409; hep-ph/0003199.

1657: 

1658: \bibitem{HsuSchwetz}

1659: S.~D.~Hsu and M.~Schwetz,

1660: %``Magnetic interactions, the renormalization group and 

1661: %color  superconductivity in high density QCD,''

1662: hep-ph/9908310.

1663: 

1664: 

1665: 

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{Schaefer}

1668: T.~Schaefer,

1669: %``Patterns of symmetry breaking in QCD at high baryon density,''

1670: hep-ph/9909574.

1671: 

1672: \bibitem{BBSunpub}

1673: P. Bedaque, S. Beane and M. Savage, unpublished.

1674: 

1675: \bibitem{ShovkovyWije}

1676: I.~A.~Shovkovy and L.~C.~Wijewardhana,

1677: %``On gap equations and color flavor locking in cold dense QCD with 

1678: %three  massless flavors,''

1679: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B470}, 189 (1999)

1680: [hep-ph/9910225].

1681: 

1682: \bibitem{EHHS}

1683: N.~Evans, J.~Hormuzdiar, S.~D.~Hsu and M.~Schwetz,

1684: %``On the QCD ground state at high density,''

1685: hep-ph/9910313.

1686: 

1687: \bibitem{PisarskiRischke2} 

1688: R.~D.~Pisarski and D.~H.~Rischke,

1689: %``Superfluidity in a model of massless fermions coupled to scalar bosons,''

1690: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D60}, 094013 (1999)

1691: [nucl-th/9903023].

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Hong2} 

1694: D.~K.~Hong,

1695: %``Aspects of high density effective theory in {QCD},''

1696: hep-ph/9905523.

1697: 

1698: \bibitem{Wetterich}

1699: C.~Wetterich,

1700: %``Gluon-meson duality,''

1701: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B462}, 164 (1999)

1702: [hep-th/9906062]; hep-ph/9908514.

1703: 

1704: \bibitem{LeBellac}

1705: M. LeBellac, {\it Thermal Field Theory}, Cambridge University Press,

1706: (Cambridge, 1996).

1707: 

1708: \bibitem{PisarskiRischke4}

1709: R.~D.~Pisarski and D.~H.~Rischke,

1710: %``Why color-flavor locking is just like chiral symmetry breaking,''

1711: nucl-th/9907094.

1712: 

1713: \bibitem{MagFields}

1714: M.~Alford, J.~Berges and K.~Rajagopal,

1715: %``Magnetic fields within color superconducting neutron star cores,''

1716: to appear in Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}, hep-ph/9910254.

1717: 

1718: \bibitem{Casalbuoni}

1719: R.~Casalbuoni and R.~Gatto,

1720: %``Effective theory for color-flavor locking in high density QCD,''

1721: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B464}, 111 (1999)

1722: [hep-ph/9908227];

1723: %``The color-flavor locking phase at T not = 0: Exact results at order  T**2,''

1724: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B469}, 213 (1999)

1725: [hep-ph/9909419]; hep-ph/9911223.

1726: 

1727: \bibitem{SonStephanov}

1728: D.~T.~Son and M.~A.~Stephanov,

1729: %``Inverse meson mass ordering in color-flavor-locking phase of high  density 

1730: %{QCD},''

1731: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D61}, 074012 (2000)

1732: [hep-ph/9910491].

1733: 

1734: \bibitem{RWZ}

1735: M.~Rho, A.~Wirzba and I.~Zahed,

1736: %``Generalized pions in dense QCD,''

1737: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B473}, 126 (2000)

1738: [hep-ph/9910550].

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{HLM}

1741: D.~K.~Hong, T.~Lee and D.~Min,

1742: %``Meson mass at large baryon chemical potential in dense QCD,''

1743: hep-ph/9912531.

1744: 

1745: \bibitem{MT}

1746: C.~Manuel and M.~H.~Tytgat,

1747: %``Masses of the Goldstone modes in the CFL phase of QCD at finite  density,''

1748: hep-ph/0001095.

1749: 

1750: \bibitem{RSWZ}

1751: M.~Rho, E.~Shuryak, A.~Wirzba and I.~Zahed,

1752: %``Generalized mesons in dense QCD,''

1753: hep-ph/0001104.

1754: 

1755: \bibitem{Zarembo}

1756: K.~Zarembo,

1757: %``Dispersion laws for Goldstone bosons in a color superconductor,''

1758: hep-ph/0002123.

1759: 

1760: \bibitem{BBS}

1761: S.~R.~Beane, P.~F.~Bedaque and M.~J.~Savage,

1762: %``Meson masses in high density QCD,''

1763: hep-ph/0002209.

1764: 

1765: \bibitem{Rischke1}

1766: D.~H.~Rischke,

1767: %``Debye screening and Meissner effect in a two-flavor color  superconductor,''

1768: nucl-th/0001040.

1769: 

1770: \bibitem{CarterDiakonov2}

1771: G.~W.~Carter and D.~Diakonov,

1772: %``The nonperturbative color Meissner effect in a two-flavor color  

1773: %superconductor,''

1774: hep-ph/0001318.

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{Rischke2}

1777: D.~H.~Rischke,

1778: %``Debye screening and Meissner effect in a three-flavor color  

1779: %superconductor,''

1780: nucl-th/0003063.

1781: 

1782: 

1783: 

1784: \end{references}

1785: 

1786: 

1787: 

1788: 

1789: \end{document}

1790: 

1791: