UA(1) symmetry restoration at high baryon density

  • We study the relation between chiral and UA(1) symmetries in the quark-meson model. Although quarks and mesons are described in mean field approximation, the topological susceptibility characterizing the UA(1) breaking comprises two components: one controlled by the condensate and the other by the meson fluctuation. The UA(1) restoration is governed by the competition of these components. In a hot medium, the condensates melt. However, the fluctuation is enhanced. Therefore, the UA(1) symmetry cannot be solely restored via the temperature effect. Nevertheless, the baryon density reduces the condensates and fluctuation, and thereby, the UA(1) symmetry can only be restored in a dense or dense and hot medium. The strange condensate plays a weak role in the susceptibility, and the chiral and UA(1) symmetry restorations occur almost at the same critical point.
  • In quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which referes to the theory for strong interaction, the chiral symmetry is broken at the (classical) mean field level [1], and the UA(1) symmetry is broken at the (quantum) loop level due to the nontrivial topology of the principle bundle of the gauge field [24]. It is widely accepted that a strongly interacting system should be in a symmetric state when the temperature of the system is sufficiently high. Hence, the chiral symmetry [5] and UA(1) symmetry [6] are expected to be restored in a hot medium. However, based on lattice simulations, while the chiral symmetry is smoothly restored at the critical temperature Tc155 MeV [7], the UA(1) symmetry is only partially restored by the temperature effect but still broken at temperatures above Tc, even in the chiral limit [811]. Many model calculations [1231] at finite temperature with 2 or 2+1 flavors and experimental measurements in high energy nuclear collisions [32] support the lattice results. Hence, a natural question is then raised: can the UA(1) symmetry be restored? If yes, what is the condition?

    Unlike the temperature effect that gradually alters chiral symmetry, baryon density results in a first-order chiral phase transition, both in the chiral limit and in the real world [33]. The density effect for a fermion system is a pure quantum effect induced by the Pauli exclusion principle [34]. The abrupt shift of the chiral condensate, from a nonzero value to zero in the chiral limit or from a higher to a lower value in the real world, is driven by the system's pronounced Fermi surface. We expect that this jump can aid in restoring the UA(1) symmetry at high baryon density. The insights on UA(1) breaking at finite baryon density are relatively rare. Considering the nuclear collisions on plan, which can create high baryon density [35], relevant study on the change in UA(1) symmetry at finite baryon chemical potential μB is required. The goal of this study is to examine the relation between chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry in a hot and dense medium.

    Blocked by the sign problem, lattice QCD simulation loses its efficacy at large μB [36], and we have to consider an effective model to account for the non-perturbative calculations. There are two types of models that effectively describe the chiral and UA(1) symmetries. One approach operates at the quark level, as exemplified by the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model [37, 38], while the other functions at the hadron level, akin to the quark-meson model [3941]. In the NJL model, quarks are elementary particles, and hadrons are treated as quantum fluctuations above the mean field via random phase approximation [42]. In the quark-meson model, quarks and hadrons are elementary degrees of freedom, which largely simplify the derivation of mesonic correlation functions in the calculation of topological susceptibility for the study of UA(1) symmetry.

    The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the (2+1)-flavor quark-meson model, derive the topological susceptibility χ, which is the order parameter for the phase transition from UA(1) symmetry breaking to its restoration, and diagrammatically analyze the condition for the UA(1) restoration in the quark-meson and NJL models. In Sec. III, we analytically and numerically calculate the susceptibility and mass splitting between η and η mesons at finite temperature and baryon density, wherein the latter is often used to measure the degree of UA(1) breaking. Finally, we summarize the paper in Sec. IV.

    The topological susceptibility χ is the order parameter of a quantum phase transition. Based on the QCD Lagrangian density with a θ-term [43, 44]:

    L=14FaμνFμνa+ˉψ(iγμDμm)ψ+θQ.

    (1)

    With the gluon field tensor Faμν in both Dirac and color spaces (μ,ν=0,1,2,3; a=0,1,2,,8), we consider the covariant derivative Dμ. The quark mass matrix, denoted as m=diag(mq,mq,ms), is defined in flavor space with light quarks q=u,d and strange quark s. We also account for vacuum angle θ and topological charge density Q , which can be defined as

    Q(x)=g232π2Faμν(x)˜Fμνa(x),

    (2)

    the vacuum energy density of QCD is the path integral of the action of the system,

    ε=1VlnDAμDˉψDψed4xL

    (3)

    in four dimensional space volume V, and the susceptibility χ can be formally defined as

    χ=2εθ2|θ=0=d4xT[Q(x)Q(0)]connected,

    (4)

    where T denotes the time-ordering operator, denotes ensemble average, and only connected diagrams contribute to the susceptibility.

    The topological charge Q corresponds to an infinite small UA(1) transformation for the quark field, ψeiθγ5T0ψψiθγ5ψ/6, where Ta denotes the Gell-Mann matrices with the unit matrix T0=1/6, normalization Tr(TaTb)=δab/2, equations {Ta,Tb}=dabcTc and [Ta,Tb]=ifabcTc, and symmetric and anti-symmetric structure constants dabc and fabc (dab0=2/3δab and fab0=0). Under this transformation, the axial current J5μ=ˉψγμγ5ψ is not conserved:

    μJ5μ=2NfQ+2iˉψmγ5ψ.

    (5)

    We now derive the hadronic version of the susceptibility (4) in the SU3×SU3 quark-meson model, following Ref. [25]. The model is defined as [3941]:

    LQM=LQ+LM

    (6)

    with the meson section

    LM=Tr(μϕμϕ)λ2Tr(ϕϕ)λ1(Tr(ϕϕ))2λ2Tr(ϕϕ)2+Tr(H(ϕ+ϕ))+c(det(ϕ)+det(ϕ))

    (7)

    and quark section

    LQ=ˉψ[iγμ(μiμB3δ0μ)gTa(σa+iγ5πa)]ψ.

    (8)

    In the meson part, ϕ denotes a complex 3×3 matrix composed of scalar and pseudoscalar nonets σa and πa, ϕ=Taϕa=Ta(σa+iπa), λ2 is the mass parameter, and the coupling constants λ1 and λ2 characterize the interaction among the mesons. Given that we do not have strict chiral symmetry in the real world, the explicit symmetry breaking enters the model by introducing two external sources h0 and h8 via H=diag(h0,h0,h8). We are concerned with UA(1) symmetry, which is explicitly broken by the determinant term with an anomaly parameter c.

    In the quark part, ψ is the quark field with three flavors Nf=3 and three colors Nc=3, μB(μB/3) denotes the baryon (quark) chemical potential, and g denotes the quark-meson coupling constant in scalar and pseudoscalar channels.

    To obtain the hadronic version of the topological charge Q and susceptibility χ, we consider UA(1) transformation for the mesons in scalar and pseudoscalar channels, ˉψψˉψψ2θˉψiγ5ψ/6 and ˉψiγ5ψˉψiγ5ψ+2θˉψψ/6, which lead to the transformation for the meson matrix ϕ(1+2iθ/6)ϕ and det(ϕ)(1+6iθ)det(ϕ). By calculating the variation of the Lagrangian density and using the Noether's theorem, the conservation law in the quark-meson model becomes [25]:

    μJ5μ=12cIm[det(ϕ)]+2iTr[H(ϕϕ)].

    (9)

    The second term is due to the explicit chiral symmetry breaking at meson level in the model. Based on the comparison of the first terms in (5) for QCD and (9) for quark-meson model, the topological charge density in the model is as follows:

    Q(x)=2cIm[det(ϕ(x))].

    (10)

    It contains all possible products of three meson fields.

    We now separate the meson field into a condensate part and fluctuation part ϕa=ϕa+ϕa. The former characterizes the spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of the system, and the latter is the particle fluctuation above the mean field. Using Wick’s theorem, the topological susceptibility (4) consists of the contributions with one, two, and three meson propagators between the space-time points 0 and x. The diagram with only condensates is not connected and then neglected. To clearly understand the relation between the chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry, we divide χ into a sector with chiral condensates and sector with only meson propagators:

    χ=χC+χM

    (11)

    with

    χC=χ(1)C+χ(2)C+χ(3)C+χ(4)C,χ(1)C=c24abcdeAabcdeϕaϕbIcϕdϕe,χ(2)C=c24abcdBabcdϕaϕbIcJd,χ(3)C=c24abcdCabcdJaIbϕcϕd,χ(4)C=c24abcdDabcdϕaIbcϕd

    (12)

    and

    χM=χ(1)M+χ(2)M,χ(1)M=c24abcEabcJaIbJc,χ(2)M=c24abcFabcIabc,

    (13)

    where A, B, C, D, E, and F denote the coefficients, Ia=d4xGa(x,0),Iab=d4xGa(x,0)Gb(x,0) and Iabc= d4xGa(x,0)Gb(x,0)Gc(x,0) denote the integrated propagator productions with Ga(x,y)=ϕa(x)ϕa(y), and Ja=Ga(0,0)=Ga(x,x) denotes the closed propagator. For simplicity in this expression and subsequent expressions, we replaced the fluctuation field ϕ by ϕ. χ(i)C (i=1,2,3,4) and χ(i)M (i=1,2) are diagrammatically shown in the left panel of Fig. 1.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  Diagrammatic expression of the topological susceptibility χ in quark-meson model (left panel) and NJL model (right panel). In the quark-meson model, dashed and solid lines denote chiral condensates and meson propagators, respectively. In the NJL model, the closed propagators at space-time points 0 or x indicate chiral condensates, and the double lines are meson propagators from 0 to x.

    Before we analytically and numerically calculate the susceptibility in the next section, we first qualitatively analyze the relation between the chiral and UA(1) symmetries in chiral limit. In chiral breaking phase at low temperature and density, the chiral condensates and meson degrees of freedom dominate the system wherein the condensate sector χC (χ(1)Cϕa4,χ(2)C, χ(3)C, χ(4)Cϕa2) and meson sector χM are nonzero, and UA(1) symmetry is broken. With increasing temperature or baryon chemical potential of the system, the light meson condensate disappears initially at Tc or μcB. However, the strange meson condensate is still nonzero due to the fact that the strange quark is much heavier than the light quarks msmq. In this case, the UA(1) symmetry is still broken as induced by the nonzero χC and χM. When the temperature or density increases further with TTc or μBμcB, the strange meson condensate disappears in the very hot or dense medium, condensate sector χC vanishes completely, and susceptibility is fully controlled by the meson fluctuation part χM. In finite-temperature field theory, a Feynman diagram with a particle loop contributes a factor of particle number distribution n (Bose-Einstein distributionnB or Fermi-Dirac distribution nF). Please refer to any textbook, such as Ref. [45], for more details. Furthermore, detailed calculations are provided in the next section. For the Feynman diagrams in χM, shown in Fig. 1, a meson loop, corresponding to a gluon loop in QCD, contributes a Bose-Einstein distribution nB(ϵpa)=1/(eϵpa/T1) with meson energy ϵpa=m2a+p2. It should be noted that the quark chemical potential (μB/3)does not enter the quark-antiquark pair distribution. At zero temperature, there is no thermal excitation of mesons (nB=0), and therefore the meson sector χM disappears. This implies that, the UA(1) symmetry can be restored strictly only by the density effect at zero temperature.

    The aforementioned conclusion also applies to the NJL model at quark level. In the three-flavor NJL model [42], the UA(1) symmetry is broken by a six-quark interaction with a coupling constant K. Under the UA(1) transformation, the topological charge can be directly derived [12]:

    Q(x)=2KIm det[ˉψ(x)(1γ5)ψ(x)]

    (14)

    with all possible products of six quark fields at space-time point x. The corresponding Feynman diagrams for the condensate sector χ(i)C and meson sector χ(i)M of the susceptibility χ are shown in the right panel of Fig. 1. In comparison with the left panel, the diagrams in the NJL model are very similar to that in the quark-meson model: the meson condensates ϕa(dashed lines) now become the quark-antiquark condensate ˉqq and ˉss (closed quark propagators at 0 or x), and the mesons (solid lines) are constructed by quarks via random phase approximation [42] at order O(1/Nc) (double lines). Given that the susceptibilities in the two models have the same structure, we again conclude that the UA(1) symmetry breaking can only be restored by pure baryon density effect. The detailed calculation on the UA(1) symmetry at finite temperature in the NJL-type model can be seen in Refs. [1221, 23, 24, 30].

    In this section, we analytically and numerically calculate the topological susceptibility in the quark-meson model at finite baryon density. We will address calculations in the real world that involve explicit chiral symmetry breaking. Given that the susceptibility is dependent on the condensates, as well as meson and quark masses, we will first provide a brief overview of the condensates and masses using the mean field approximation. Detailed calculations can be sourced from existing literature [41].

    After the separation of the meson field into a condensate part and fluctuation part ϕ=ϕ+ϕ, a meson potential VM(ϕ) [40, 41] appears in the Lagrangian LM. At mean field level, it is the thermodynamic potential of the system ΩM=VM. Considering the thermodynamics from the free constituent quarks with mass:

    m=gTa(σa+iγ5πa),

    (15)

    the thermodynamic potential of the quark-meson system becomes

    Ω=ΩM+ΩQ

    (16)

    with

    ΩQ=2NcTfd3p(2π)3[ln(1nF(ϵpf))+ln(1ˉnF(ϵpf))],

    (17)

    where nF=1/(e(ϵpfμB/3)/T+1) and ˉnF=1/(e(ϵpf+μB/3)/T+1) denote the Fermi-Dirac distributions for constituent quarks and anti-quarks, and ϵpf=m2f+p2 denotes the quark energy with flavor f.

    The physical condensates as functions of temperature and baryon chemical potential ϕa(T,μB) are determined by minimizing the thermodynamic potential:

    Ωϕa=0,2Ωϕa2>0.

    (18)

    In the mean field approximation, the meson masses can be directly derived from the quadratic term in the Lagrangian ˜m2a=2L/ϕ2a|ϕ=0, which is equivalent to the second coefficient of the Taylor expansion of ΩM(ϕ) around the physical condensate determined by the gap equation (18), ˜m2a=2ΩM/ϕa2. To contain the contribution from quark thermodynamics to meson masses, one phenomenological approach to go beyond the mean field is to extend the second order derivative from ΩM to the total potential Ω [41],

    m2a=2Ωϕa2=˜m2a+2ΩQϕa2.

    (19)

    Given that we focus on the chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry in this study, we introduce only the chiral condensates σ0 and σ8 in the following. Considering the mixing between ϕ0 and ϕ8, normally a rotation in this subspace is considered. The two condensates are changed to the chiral condensate σc=1/3(2σ0+σ8) and strange condensate σs=1/3(σ02σ8), which leads to the constituent mass mq=gσc/2 for light quarks and ms=gσs/2 for strange quarks. In the pseudoscalar channel, π0 and π8 are rotated to the experimentally measured mesons η and η via π0=cosθpηsinθpη and π8=sinθpη+cosθpη with the rotation angle θp.

    With the choice of condensates and under the rotation, the four independent pseudoscalar meson masses in mean field approximation, ˜m2π for a=1,2,3, ˜m2K for a=4,5,6,7, ˜m2η and ˜m2η, can be explicitly expressed in terms of the chiral and strange condensates,

    ˜m2π=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ22σ2cc2σs,˜m2K=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ22(σ2c2σcσs+2σ2s)c2σc,˜m2η=m200cos2θp+m288sin2θp+2m208sinθpcosθp,˜m2η=m200sin2θp+m288cos2θp2m208sinθpcosθp

    (20)

    with

    m200=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ23(σ2c+σ2s)+2c3(2σc+σs),m288=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ26(σ2c+4σ2s)2c6(22σcσs),m208=2λ26(σ2c2σ2s)2c6(σc2σs)

    (21)

    and the mixing angle tan2θp=2m208/(m200m288). Similarly, we can obtain the scalar meson masses [41] m2a0,m2κ,m2σ , and m2f0.

    The model parameters λ2,λ1,λ2,hc,hs,c, and g, and condensates σc and σs in vacuum should to be fixed by fitting the meson properties in vacuum. By choosing the pseudoscalar meson masses mπ=135 MeV, mK=496 MeV, mη=539 MeV, and mη=963 MeV and the decay constants fπ=92.4 MeV and fK=113 MeV [46], we can determine six of them, namely the meson coupling constant λ2,

    λ2=3(2fKfπ)m2K(2f2K+fπ)m2π2(m2η+m2η)(fKfπ)[3f2π+8fK(fKfπ)](fKfπ)=46.4881,

    (22)

    parameter c controlling UA(1) symmetry breaking,

    c=m2Km2πfKfπλ2(2fKfπ)=4807.24MeV,

    (23)

    parameters hc and hs governing chiral symmetry breaking,

    hc=fπm2π=(120.729 MeV)3,hs=2fKm2Kfπm2π2=(336.406 MeV)3,

    (24)

    and chiral condensates σc and σs:

    σc=fπ=92.4 MeV,σs=12(2fKfπ)=94.48 MeV.

    (25)

    To determine the other meson coupling λ1 and mass parameter λ2, scalar mesons are required. Considering mσ=550 MeV, we obtain λ2=(393.945 MeV)2 and λ1=0.771779. The quark-meson coupling g and strange quark mass ms are further associated with the non-strange quark mass mq. By choosing mq=300 MeV, we obtain g=6.4 and ms=433 MeV.

    As the 1/Nc realization of the t’Hooft instanton mechanism, the Witten–Veneziano (WV) formula [47, 48] is as follows:

    χpure=m2η+m2η2m2K2Nff2π+O(1Nc).

    (26)

    This can be applied to estimate the UA(1)symmetry breaking in vacuum through the pseudoscalar meson masses and pion decay constant (It should be noted that the susceptibility in the WV formula is for the pure Yang-Mills theory). The formula is confirmed by effective methods [12, 13] and lattice QCD calculations [4951]. In our calculation, the above used parameters leads to χ=(191.033MeV)4, which is in good agreement with the lattice result χ=(191±5MeV)4 in continuum limit [49]. However, it is claimed that the WV formula cannot be extended to finite temperature, especially near the QCD critical point [52, 53].

    With the known parameters, we now numerically calculate the density and temperature dependence of the two scalar condensates, and the result is shown in Fig. 2. Governed by the Fermi surface at zero temperature, the chiral condensate retains its vacuum value at low densities and then abruptly drops to a significantly lower value upon reaching the critical chemical potential μcB=0.91 GeV, and then decreases smoothly. For the strange condensate, there is also a jump at μcB, but it is still large in the chiral restoration phase. As the temperature increases, the abrupt changes in the two condensates gradually diminish, transitioning the chiral phase from a distinct jump to a crossover. In sufficiently hot conditions, this crossover occurs at zero baryon density.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Chiral and strange condensates σc (solid lines) and σs (dashed lines) as functions of baryon chemical potential μB at temperature T=0 (upper panel), 0.1 (middle panel), and 0.2 (lower panel) GeV.

    The density and temperature dependence of the pseudoscalar meson masses is shown in Fig. 3. At zero temperature, all the masses consistently retain their vacuum values below the critical chemical potential. However, they abruptly increase or decrease at the chiral phase transition point μcB and change continuously afterwards. The strange meson K is heavier than the pseudo-Goldstone particle π in the chiral breaking phase at low density. However, the two masses approach each other in the chiral restoration phase when the chemical potential is larger than the strange quark mass. The large mass splitting between η and η at low density is induced by the UA(1) breaking. At the critical point, mη experiences an upward shift while mη decreases, and the disparity between them decreases as density increases. When the temperature effect is included, all the jumps will gradually be replaced by continuous changes.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Pseudoscalar meson masses mπ (solid lines), mK (dashed lines), mη(dotted lines), and mη (dot-dashed lines) as functions of baryon chemical potential μB at temperature T=0 (upper panel), 0.1 (middle panel), and 0.2 (lower panel) GeV.

    The susceptibility χ varies based on density and temperature, influenced by the condensates, meson masses, and the loop induced Bose-Einstein distribution nB. We first calculate the four independent meson constituents shown in Fig. 1, namely the closed meson propagator Ja, meson propagator with zero momentum Ia, meson loop constructed by two mesons Iab, and double meson loops by three mesons Iabc,

    Ja=d3p(2π)3nB(ϵpa)ϵpa,Ia=1m2a,Iab=d3p(2π)31m2bm2a[nB(ϵpa)ϵpanB(ϵpb)ϵpb],Iabc=I(1)abc+I(2)abc.

    (27)

    The term Iabc contains two four-momentum integrations (two Matsubara frequency summations and two three-momentum integrations), and each frequency summation contributes a constant and meson distribution nB. After considering a renormalization to remove the divergence appeared in the nB-independent integration [54], Iabc is separated into a part I(1)abc with one meson distribution and a part I(2)abc with two distributions,

    I(1)abc=1(4π)2{abc}{γE+ln(4π)ln(m2cμ2)10dα[αm2am2c+(1α)m2bm2cα(1α)]}d3p(2π)3nB(ϵpc)ϵpc,

    I(2)abc=2π2{abc}d3p(2π)3d3q(2π)3pqnB(ϵpa)nB(ϵqb)ϵpaϵqb×ln|(ϵpa+ϵqb)2(ϵp+qc)2(ϵpa+ϵqb)2(ϵpqc)2(ϵpaϵqb)2(ϵp+qc)2(ϵpaϵqb)2(ϵpqc)2|,

    (28)

    where γE denotes the Euler constant, the renormalization scale μ is considered to be 0.3 GeV in the calculation, and the sum is defined as {abc}Xabc=Xabc+Xbca+Xcab.

    With the mixing angels θs and θp in the scalar and pseudiscalar channels, we define the diagonalization coefficients as follows:

    c1=1/3(cosθs2sinθs),c2=1/3(sinθs+2cosθs),c3=1/3(cosθp2sinθp),c4=1/3(sinθp+2cosθp),

    (29)

    the vertexes of the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1 can then be expressed as

    cησσc=2/3(22sin(θp+θs)+cos(θp+θs)),cηf0σc=2/3(22cos(θp+θs)sin(θp+θs)),

    cησσc=cηf0σc,cηf0σc=cησσc,cησσs=2/6(3sin(θpθs)22cos(θp+θs)+sin(θp+θs)),cηf0σs=2/6(3cos(θpθs)22sin(θp+θs)cos(θp+θs)),cησσs=(cηf0σs+2cos(θpθs)),cηf0σs=cησσs2sin(θpθs)

    (30)

    for the vertexes with one condensate leg, and

    cηηη=1/2c23c4,cηηη=1/2(c332c3c24),cηηη=1/2(2c23c4c34),cηηη=1/2c3c24,cησσ=1/3(cosθp(sin2θs+1/2sin2θs)+2sinθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θs)),cησf0=1/3(cosθp(sin2θs+2cos2θs)3/2sinθpsin2θs),cηf0f0=1/3(cosθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θs)+2sinθp(sin2θs1/2cos2θs)),cησσ=1/3(sinθp(sin2θs+1/2sin2θs)2cosθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θs)),cησf0=1/3(sinθp(sin2θs+2cos2θs)+3/2cosθpsin2θs),cηf0f0=1/3(sinθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θ2)2cosθp(sin2θs1/2cos2θs))

    (31)

    for the vertexes without condensate legs. Finally, we define two new condensates

    σ2η=1/6σc((2cosθp+sinθp)σc+2(2sinθpcosθp)σs),σ2η=1/6σc((2sinθpcosθp)σc2(2cosθp+sinθp)σs),

    (32)

    and explicitly write the different susceptibility terms.

    χ(1)C=c24[σ2η2Iη+σ2η2Iη],χ(2)C=c24[σ2η(6cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+4c3(JκJK)+32c4(JπJa0))Iη+σ2η(6cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK))Iη],χ(3)C=χ(2)C,χ(4)C=c24[(cησσcσc+cησσsσs)2Iησ+(cηf0σcσc+cηf0σsσs)2Iηf0+(cησσcσc+cησσsσs)2Iησ+(cηf0σcσc+cηf0σsσs)2Iηf0+4σ2cIKκ+6σ2sIπa0]

    (33)

    for the condensate controlled part χC, and

    χ(1)M=c24{Iη[3cηηη(3cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK)+2(cησσJσ+cηf0f0Jf0))Jη+cηηη(cηηηJη+2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK))Jη+cησσ(cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK))Jσ+cηf0f0(cηf0f0Jf0+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK))Jf0+3/2c24(3Ja0Ja0+3JπJπ+2JκJκ6JπJa0)+c23(4JKJK+JκJκ8JKJκ)+62c3c4(Ja0JKJa0JκJπJK+JπJκ)]+Iη[3cηηη(3cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK)+2(cησσJσ+cηf0f0Jf0))Jη+cηηη(2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK)+cηηηJη)Jη+cησσ(cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK))Jσ+cηf0f0(cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK))Jf0+c24(4JKJK+3JκJκ8JKJκ)+9/2c23(Ja0Ja0+JπJπ2JπJa0)+62c3c4(JπJKJπJκJa0JKJa0Jκ)]},χ(2)M=c24[6IπKK+6Iπκκ+12IKa0κ+6c2ηηηIηηη+2c2ηηηIηηη+6c2ηηηIηηη+2c2ηηηIηηη+2c2ησσIησσ+2c2ηf0f0Iηf0f0+c2ησf0Iησf0+c2ησf0Iησf0+2c2ησσIησσ+2c2ηf0f0Iηf0f0+6c21Iσπa0+6c22If0πa0+4c21If0Kκ+4c22IσKκ+3c23Iηa0a0+3c23Iηππ+2c24IηKK+3c24Iηκκ+3c24Iηa0a0+3c24Iηππ+2c23IηKK+3c23Iηκκ]

    (34)

    for the meson fluctuation controlled part χM.

    The topological susceptibility χ and its two components χC and χMin dense and hot quark-meson matter are shown in Fig. 4. To clearly observe the UA(1) symmetry in the chiral restoration phase, we firstly analyze the susceptibility in chiral limit and at zero temperature. In this case, the disappeared chiral condensate σc=0 leads to σ2η=σ2η=0 and in turn

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Absolute values of topological susceptibility χ (solid lines) and its condensate component χC (dashed lines) and meson component χM (dotted lines) as functions of baryon chemical potential μB at temperature T=0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 GeV.

    χ(1)C=χ(2)C=χ(3)C=0,

    (35)

    and the disappeared thermal excitation of mesons nB=0 results in Ja=Iab=Iabc=0 and in turn

    χ(2)C=χ(3)C=χ(4)C=χ(1)M=χ(2)M=0.

    (36)

    This indicates that the strange condensate σs does not affect UA(1) symmetry, and the two broken symmetries, chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry, are simultaneously restored at the critical chemical potential μcB. In the real world, with explicit chiral symmetry breaking at zero temperature, the nonzero chiral and strange condensates σc and σs lead to χ=χ(1)C0 in the chiral restoration phase. However, from our numerical calculation, the value is very small, and UA(1) symmetry is almost restored, as shown in the panel with T=0 in Fig. 4.

    Considering the significant mass splittings among the four independent mesons depicted in Fig. 3 during the chiral restoration phase, the susceptibility calculation (26) via meson masses at the mean field level appears more problematic at finite density. It has been suggested that this approach should not be extended to finite temperature [52, 53].

    As the temperature increases and the condensate part χC gradually melts, the meson fluctuation part χM is enhanced by the thermal motion. As a result of the competition, the total susceptibility decreases to the low temperature region, where the condensates are strong and thermal fluctuation is weak. Subsequently, it increases to the high temperature region, where the condensates become weak and thermal fluctuation becomes strong. In contrast to this non-monotonic temperature behavior, increasing density at any fixed temperature reduces the condensates and thermal fluctuation, the topological susceptibility is suddenly (at low temperature) or smoothly (at high temperature) suppressed by the density effect, and the UA(1) symmetry is restored at high baryon density. In the temperature and density evolution of the susceptibility, the role of the strange condensate is always weak, and the UA(1) restoration occurs at almost the same critical point as the chiral restoration. These features are clearly shown in Fig. 4.

    Considering the fact that chiral symmetry is broken at the classical level and UA(1)symmetry is broken at the quantum level, the mechanisms for the symmetry restorations are expected to differ. In this study, we investigated the relation between the two symmetries in the SU(3)quark-meson model at finite temperature and baryon density. The topological susceptibility, which describes the degree of the UA(1)breaking, contains two components: the meson condensate controlled component and meson fluctuation component. As the temperature increases and condensates melt, the fluctuation becomes stronger. As a competition, the susceptibility behaves non-monotonically, and the UA(1) symmetry cannot be solely restored by the temperature effect. However, the density effect significantly differs. Specifically, it reduces both the condensates and fluctuation, and therefore the broken UA(1) symmetry can be restored only when the density effect is included. Although the strange condensate is still strong after the chiral phase transition and leads to large meson mass splittings at mean field level, its effect on the susceptibility, which is beyond the mean field, is very weak, and the two phase transitions, the chiral restoration and UA(1)restoration, occur at almost the same critical point. Based on the comparison of the Feynman diagrams for the susceptibility with the NJL model, the aforementioned qualitative conclusions appear to be independent of the model.

    The UA(1) symmetry appears challenging to be restored in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) because the created medium is extremely hot but the baryon density can be neglected. However, in intermediate energy nuclear collisions and compact stars, where the baryon density of the matter is high and the temperature is low, the UA(1) restoration can potentially be realized.

    The calculations presented in this study involve certain approximations. Both quarks and mesons are approached using a mean field approximation, while the susceptibility is computed beyond the mean field, incorporating thermal fluctuations. This type of perturbative approach may introduce inconsistencies in the computation. Given that the meson propagators in the susceptibility remain at the mean field level, the baryon density effect manifests solely in the meson masses. Contributions from the quark-loop to the meson propagators are overlooked. Although thermal fluctuations are considered, the vacuum fluctuations, anticipated to be significant in a dense medium, are omitted from the analysis.

    We are grateful to Profs. Lianyi He and Yin Jiang for helpful discussions during our study.

    [1] T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, Gauge theory of elementary particle physics: Problems and solutions (2000)
    [2] G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8-11 (1976) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.8
    [3] G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 18, 2199 (2010)]
    [4] H. Leutwyler and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5607-5632 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5607
    [5] R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 29, 338-341 (1984) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.29.338
    [6] T. Schäfer, Phys. Lett. B 389, 445-451 (1996) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01324-X
    [7] Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor et al., Nature 443, 675-678 (2006) doi: 10.1038/nature05120
    [8] G. Cossu, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya et al., Phys. Rev. D87, 114514 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 88, 019901 (2013)]
    [9] H. T. Ding, S. T. Li, S. Mukherjee et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126(8), 082001 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.082001
    [10] O. Kaczmarek, L. Mazur, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D 104(9), 094518 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094518
    [11] S. Dentinger, O. Kaczmarek, and A. Lahiri, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 14, 321 (2021) doi: 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.14.321
    [12] K. Fukushima, K. Ohnishi, and K. Ohta, Phys. Rev. C 63, 045203 (2001) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.045203
    [13] K. Fukushima, K. Ohnishi, and K. Ohta, Phys. Lett. B 514, 200-203 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00778-X
    [14] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, and Y. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Lett. B 560, 171-177 (2003) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00395-2
    [15] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, Y. L. Kalinovsky et al., Phys. Rev. C 70, 025204 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.025204
    [16] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa et al., Phys. Rev. D 70, 116013 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.116013
    [17] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa et al., Phys. Rev. D 71, 116002 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.116002
    [18] J. W. Chen, K. Fukushima, H. Kohyama et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 054012 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.054012
    [19] T. Brauner, K. Fukushima, and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. D80, 074035 (2009), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 81 119904 (2010)]
    [20] G. A. Contrera, D. G. Dumm, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D 81, 054005 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.054005
    [21] M. C. Ruivo, M. Santos, P. Costa et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 036001 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.036001
    [22] Y. Jiang and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 105016 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.105016
    [23] M. C. Ruivo, P. Costa, and C. A. de Sousa, Phys. Rev. D 86, 116007 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.116007
    [24] T. Xia, L. He, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 88(5), 056013 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.056013
    [25] Y. Jiang, T. Xia, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 93(7), 074006 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074006
    [26] S. K. Rai and V. K. Tiwari, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(10), 844 (2020) doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00851-5
    [27] X. Li, W. J. Fu, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101(5), 054034 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054034
    [28] M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki, and A. Tomiya, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136044 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136044
    [29] M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki, and A. Tomiya, Phys. Rev. D 103(5), 054034 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.054034
    [30] C. X. Cui, J. Y. Li, S. Matsuzaki et al., Phys. Rev. D 105(11), 114031 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.114031
    [31] G. Fejös and A. Patkos, Phys. Rev. D 105(9), 096007 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.096007
    [32] T. Csorgo, R. Vertesi, and J. Sziklai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 182301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.182301
    [33] S. Ejiri, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074507 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074507
    [34] K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011) doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/74/1/014001
    [35] X. An, M. Bluhm, L. Du et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1017, 122343 (2022) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122343
    [36] I. M. Barbour, S. E. Morrison, E. G. Klepfish et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 60, 220-234 (1998) doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00484-2
    [37] Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345-358 (1961) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.122.345
    [38] Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 124, 246-254 (1961) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.246
    [39] M. Levy, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 52, 23 (1967) doi: 10.1007/BF02739271
    [40] J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085008 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.085008
    [41] B. J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014018 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.014018
    [42] S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 649-708 (1992) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.64.649
    [43] C. G. Callan Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B 63, 334-340 (1976) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(76)90277-X
    [44] R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 172-175 (1976) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.172
    [45] J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-temperature field theory: Principles and applications, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
    [46] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020(8), 083C (2020) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [47] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 269-283 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2
    [48] G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213-224 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8
    [49] L. Del Debbio, L. Giusti, and C. Pica, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032003 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.032003
    [50] S. Durr, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling et al., JHEP 04, 055 (2007) doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/04/055
    [51] K. Cichy et al. (ETM), JHEP 09, 020 (2015) doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)020
    [52] D. Horvatic, D. Klabucar, and A. E. Radzhabov, Phys. Rev. D 76, 096009 (2007) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.096009
    [53] S. Benic, D. Horvatic, D. Kekez et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 016006 (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.016006
    [54] J. Baacke and S. Michalski, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085006 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.085006
  • [1] T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, Gauge theory of elementary particle physics: Problems and solutions (2000)
    [2] G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8-11 (1976) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.8
    [3] G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 18, 2199 (2010)]
    [4] H. Leutwyler and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5607-5632 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5607
    [5] R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 29, 338-341 (1984) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.29.338
    [6] T. Schäfer, Phys. Lett. B 389, 445-451 (1996) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01324-X
    [7] Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor et al., Nature 443, 675-678 (2006) doi: 10.1038/nature05120
    [8] G. Cossu, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya et al., Phys. Rev. D87, 114514 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 88, 019901 (2013)]
    [9] H. T. Ding, S. T. Li, S. Mukherjee et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126(8), 082001 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.082001
    [10] O. Kaczmarek, L. Mazur, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D 104(9), 094518 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094518
    [11] S. Dentinger, O. Kaczmarek, and A. Lahiri, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 14, 321 (2021) doi: 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.14.321
    [12] K. Fukushima, K. Ohnishi, and K. Ohta, Phys. Rev. C 63, 045203 (2001) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.045203
    [13] K. Fukushima, K. Ohnishi, and K. Ohta, Phys. Lett. B 514, 200-203 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00778-X
    [14] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, and Y. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Lett. B 560, 171-177 (2003) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00395-2
    [15] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, Y. L. Kalinovsky et al., Phys. Rev. C 70, 025204 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.025204
    [16] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa et al., Phys. Rev. D 70, 116013 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.116013
    [17] P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa et al., Phys. Rev. D 71, 116002 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.116002
    [18] J. W. Chen, K. Fukushima, H. Kohyama et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 054012 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.054012
    [19] T. Brauner, K. Fukushima, and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. D80, 074035 (2009), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 81 119904 (2010)]
    [20] G. A. Contrera, D. G. Dumm, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D 81, 054005 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.054005
    [21] M. C. Ruivo, M. Santos, P. Costa et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 036001 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.036001
    [22] Y. Jiang and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 105016 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.105016
    [23] M. C. Ruivo, P. Costa, and C. A. de Sousa, Phys. Rev. D 86, 116007 (2012) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.116007
    [24] T. Xia, L. He, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 88(5), 056013 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.056013
    [25] Y. Jiang, T. Xia, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 93(7), 074006 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074006
    [26] S. K. Rai and V. K. Tiwari, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(10), 844 (2020) doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00851-5
    [27] X. Li, W. J. Fu, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101(5), 054034 (2020) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054034
    [28] M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki, and A. Tomiya, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136044 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136044
    [29] M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki, and A. Tomiya, Phys. Rev. D 103(5), 054034 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.054034
    [30] C. X. Cui, J. Y. Li, S. Matsuzaki et al., Phys. Rev. D 105(11), 114031 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.114031
    [31] G. Fejös and A. Patkos, Phys. Rev. D 105(9), 096007 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.096007
    [32] T. Csorgo, R. Vertesi, and J. Sziklai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 182301 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.182301
    [33] S. Ejiri, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074507 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074507
    [34] K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011) doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/74/1/014001
    [35] X. An, M. Bluhm, L. Du et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1017, 122343 (2022) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122343
    [36] I. M. Barbour, S. E. Morrison, E. G. Klepfish et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 60, 220-234 (1998) doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00484-2
    [37] Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345-358 (1961) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.122.345
    [38] Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 124, 246-254 (1961) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.246
    [39] M. Levy, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 52, 23 (1967) doi: 10.1007/BF02739271
    [40] J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085008 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.085008
    [41] B. J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014018 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.014018
    [42] S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 649-708 (1992) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.64.649
    [43] C. G. Callan Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B 63, 334-340 (1976) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(76)90277-X
    [44] R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 172-175 (1976) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.172
    [45] J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-temperature field theory: Principles and applications, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
    [46] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020(8), 083C (2020) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [47] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 269-283 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2
    [48] G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213-224 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90332-8
    [49] L. Del Debbio, L. Giusti, and C. Pica, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032003 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.032003
    [50] S. Durr, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling et al., JHEP 04, 055 (2007) doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/04/055
    [51] K. Cichy et al. (ETM), JHEP 09, 020 (2015) doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)020
    [52] D. Horvatic, D. Klabucar, and A. E. Radzhabov, Phys. Rev. D 76, 096009 (2007) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.096009
    [53] S. Benic, D. Horvatic, D. Kekez et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 016006 (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.016006
    [54] J. Baacke and S. Michalski, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085006 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.085006
  • 加载中

Figures(4)

Get Citation
Jianing Li, Jin Gui and Pengfei Zhuang. UA(1) symmetry restoration at high baryon density[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ace81d
Jianing Li, Jin Gui and Pengfei Zhuang. UA(1) symmetry restoration at high baryon density[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ace81d shu
Milestone
Received: 2023-03-23
Article Metric

Article Views(6278)
PDF Downloads(49)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

UA(1) symmetry restoration at high baryon density

    Corresponding author: Jianing Li, ljn18@tsinghua.org.cn
  • Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Abstract: We study the relation between chiral and UA(1) symmetries in the quark-meson model. Although quarks and mesons are described in mean field approximation, the topological susceptibility characterizing the UA(1) breaking comprises two components: one controlled by the condensate and the other by the meson fluctuation. The UA(1) restoration is governed by the competition of these components. In a hot medium, the condensates melt. However, the fluctuation is enhanced. Therefore, the UA(1) symmetry cannot be solely restored via the temperature effect. Nevertheless, the baryon density reduces the condensates and fluctuation, and thereby, the UA(1) symmetry can only be restored in a dense or dense and hot medium. The strange condensate plays a weak role in the susceptibility, and the chiral and UA(1) symmetry restorations occur almost at the same critical point.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • In quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which referes to the theory for strong interaction, the chiral symmetry is broken at the (classical) mean field level [1], and the UA(1) symmetry is broken at the (quantum) loop level due to the nontrivial topology of the principle bundle of the gauge field [24]. It is widely accepted that a strongly interacting system should be in a symmetric state when the temperature of the system is sufficiently high. Hence, the chiral symmetry [5] and UA(1) symmetry [6] are expected to be restored in a hot medium. However, based on lattice simulations, while the chiral symmetry is smoothly restored at the critical temperature Tc155 MeV [7], the UA(1) symmetry is only partially restored by the temperature effect but still broken at temperatures above Tc, even in the chiral limit [811]. Many model calculations [1231] at finite temperature with 2 or 2+1 flavors and experimental measurements in high energy nuclear collisions [32] support the lattice results. Hence, a natural question is then raised: can the UA(1) symmetry be restored? If yes, what is the condition?

      Unlike the temperature effect that gradually alters chiral symmetry, baryon density results in a first-order chiral phase transition, both in the chiral limit and in the real world [33]. The density effect for a fermion system is a pure quantum effect induced by the Pauli exclusion principle [34]. The abrupt shift of the chiral condensate, from a nonzero value to zero in the chiral limit or from a higher to a lower value in the real world, is driven by the system's pronounced Fermi surface. We expect that this jump can aid in restoring the UA(1) symmetry at high baryon density. The insights on UA(1) breaking at finite baryon density are relatively rare. Considering the nuclear collisions on plan, which can create high baryon density [35], relevant study on the change in UA(1) symmetry at finite baryon chemical potential μB is required. The goal of this study is to examine the relation between chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry in a hot and dense medium.

      Blocked by the sign problem, lattice QCD simulation loses its efficacy at large μB [36], and we have to consider an effective model to account for the non-perturbative calculations. There are two types of models that effectively describe the chiral and UA(1) symmetries. One approach operates at the quark level, as exemplified by the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model [37, 38], while the other functions at the hadron level, akin to the quark-meson model [3941]. In the NJL model, quarks are elementary particles, and hadrons are treated as quantum fluctuations above the mean field via random phase approximation [42]. In the quark-meson model, quarks and hadrons are elementary degrees of freedom, which largely simplify the derivation of mesonic correlation functions in the calculation of topological susceptibility for the study of UA(1) symmetry.

      The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the (2+1)-flavor quark-meson model, derive the topological susceptibility χ, which is the order parameter for the phase transition from UA(1) symmetry breaking to its restoration, and diagrammatically analyze the condition for the UA(1) restoration in the quark-meson and NJL models. In Sec. III, we analytically and numerically calculate the susceptibility and mass splitting between η and η mesons at finite temperature and baryon density, wherein the latter is often used to measure the degree of UA(1) breaking. Finally, we summarize the paper in Sec. IV.

    II.   TOPOLOGICAL SUSCEPTIBILITY
    • The topological susceptibility χ is the order parameter of a quantum phase transition. Based on the QCD Lagrangian density with a θ-term [43, 44]:

      L=14FaμνFμνa+ˉψ(iγμDμm)ψ+θQ.

      (1)

      With the gluon field tensor Faμν in both Dirac and color spaces (μ,ν=0,1,2,3; a=0,1,2,,8), we consider the covariant derivative Dμ. The quark mass matrix, denoted as m=diag(mq,mq,ms), is defined in flavor space with light quarks q=u,d and strange quark s. We also account for vacuum angle θ and topological charge density Q , which can be defined as

      Q(x)=g232π2Faμν(x)˜Fμνa(x),

      (2)

      the vacuum energy density of QCD is the path integral of the action of the system,

      ε=1VlnDAμDˉψDψed4xL

      (3)

      in four dimensional space volume V, and the susceptibility χ can be formally defined as

      χ=2εθ2|θ=0=d4xT[Q(x)Q(0)]connected,

      (4)

      where T denotes the time-ordering operator, denotes ensemble average, and only connected diagrams contribute to the susceptibility.

      The topological charge Q corresponds to an infinite small UA(1) transformation for the quark field, ψeiθγ5T0ψψiθγ5ψ/6, where Ta denotes the Gell-Mann matrices with the unit matrix T0=1/6, normalization Tr(TaTb)=δab/2, equations {Ta,Tb}=dabcTc and [Ta,Tb]=ifabcTc, and symmetric and anti-symmetric structure constants dabc and fabc (dab0=2/3δab and fab0=0). Under this transformation, the axial current J5μ=ˉψγμγ5ψ is not conserved:

      μJ5μ=2NfQ+2iˉψmγ5ψ.

      (5)

      We now derive the hadronic version of the susceptibility (4) in the SU3×SU3 quark-meson model, following Ref. [25]. The model is defined as [3941]:

      LQM=LQ+LM

      (6)

      with the meson section

      LM=Tr(μϕμϕ)λ2Tr(ϕϕ)λ1(Tr(ϕϕ))2λ2Tr(ϕϕ)2+Tr(H(ϕ+ϕ))+c(det(ϕ)+det(ϕ))

      (7)

      and quark section

      LQ=ˉψ[iγμ(μiμB3δ0μ)gTa(σa+iγ5πa)]ψ.

      (8)

      In the meson part, ϕ denotes a complex 3×3 matrix composed of scalar and pseudoscalar nonets σa and πa, ϕ=Taϕa=Ta(σa+iπa), λ2 is the mass parameter, and the coupling constants λ1 and λ2 characterize the interaction among the mesons. Given that we do not have strict chiral symmetry in the real world, the explicit symmetry breaking enters the model by introducing two external sources h0 and h8 via H=diag(h0,h0,h8). We are concerned with UA(1) symmetry, which is explicitly broken by the determinant term with an anomaly parameter c.

      In the quark part, ψ is the quark field with three flavors Nf=3 and three colors Nc=3, μB(μB/3) denotes the baryon (quark) chemical potential, and g denotes the quark-meson coupling constant in scalar and pseudoscalar channels.

      To obtain the hadronic version of the topological charge Q and susceptibility χ, we consider UA(1) transformation for the mesons in scalar and pseudoscalar channels, ˉψψˉψψ2θˉψiγ5ψ/6 and ˉψiγ5ψˉψiγ5ψ+2θˉψψ/6, which lead to the transformation for the meson matrix ϕ(1+2iθ/6)ϕ and det(ϕ)(1+6iθ)det(ϕ). By calculating the variation of the Lagrangian density and using the Noether's theorem, the conservation law in the quark-meson model becomes [25]:

      μJ5μ=12cIm[det(ϕ)]+2iTr[H(ϕϕ)].

      (9)

      The second term is due to the explicit chiral symmetry breaking at meson level in the model. Based on the comparison of the first terms in (5) for QCD and (9) for quark-meson model, the topological charge density in the model is as follows:

      Q(x)=2cIm[det(ϕ(x))].

      (10)

      It contains all possible products of three meson fields.

      We now separate the meson field into a condensate part and fluctuation part ϕa=ϕa+ϕa. The former characterizes the spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of the system, and the latter is the particle fluctuation above the mean field. Using Wick’s theorem, the topological susceptibility (4) consists of the contributions with one, two, and three meson propagators between the space-time points 0 and x. The diagram with only condensates is not connected and then neglected. To clearly understand the relation between the chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry, we divide χ into a sector with chiral condensates and sector with only meson propagators:

      χ=χC+χM

      (11)

      with

      χC=χ(1)C+χ(2)C+χ(3)C+χ(4)C,χ(1)C=c24abcdeAabcdeϕaϕbIcϕdϕe,χ(2)C=c24abcdBabcdϕaϕbIcJd,χ(3)C=c24abcdCabcdJaIbϕcϕd,χ(4)C=c24abcdDabcdϕaIbcϕd

      (12)

      and

      χM=χ(1)M+χ(2)M,χ(1)M=c24abcEabcJaIbJc,χ(2)M=c24abcFabcIabc,

      (13)

      where A, B, C, D, E, and F denote the coefficients, Ia=d4xGa(x,0),Iab=d4xGa(x,0)Gb(x,0) and Iabc= d4xGa(x,0)Gb(x,0)Gc(x,0) denote the integrated propagator productions with Ga(x,y)=ϕa(x)ϕa(y), and Ja=Ga(0,0)=Ga(x,x) denotes the closed propagator. For simplicity in this expression and subsequent expressions, we replaced the fluctuation field ϕ by ϕ. χ(i)C (i=1,2,3,4) and χ(i)M (i=1,2) are diagrammatically shown in the left panel of Fig. 1.

      Figure 1.  Diagrammatic expression of the topological susceptibility χ in quark-meson model (left panel) and NJL model (right panel). In the quark-meson model, dashed and solid lines denote chiral condensates and meson propagators, respectively. In the NJL model, the closed propagators at space-time points 0 or x indicate chiral condensates, and the double lines are meson propagators from 0 to x.

      Before we analytically and numerically calculate the susceptibility in the next section, we first qualitatively analyze the relation between the chiral and UA(1) symmetries in chiral limit. In chiral breaking phase at low temperature and density, the chiral condensates and meson degrees of freedom dominate the system wherein the condensate sector χC (χ(1)Cϕa4,χ(2)C, χ(3)C, χ(4)Cϕa2) and meson sector χM are nonzero, and UA(1) symmetry is broken. With increasing temperature or baryon chemical potential of the system, the light meson condensate disappears initially at Tc or μcB. However, the strange meson condensate is still nonzero due to the fact that the strange quark is much heavier than the light quarks msmq. In this case, the UA(1) symmetry is still broken as induced by the nonzero χC and χM. When the temperature or density increases further with TTc or μBμcB, the strange meson condensate disappears in the very hot or dense medium, condensate sector χC vanishes completely, and susceptibility is fully controlled by the meson fluctuation part χM. In finite-temperature field theory, a Feynman diagram with a particle loop contributes a factor of particle number distribution n (Bose-Einstein distributionnB or Fermi-Dirac distribution nF). Please refer to any textbook, such as Ref. [45], for more details. Furthermore, detailed calculations are provided in the next section. For the Feynman diagrams in χM, shown in Fig. 1, a meson loop, corresponding to a gluon loop in QCD, contributes a Bose-Einstein distribution nB(ϵpa)=1/(eϵpa/T1) with meson energy ϵpa=m2a+p2. It should be noted that the quark chemical potential (μB/3)does not enter the quark-antiquark pair distribution. At zero temperature, there is no thermal excitation of mesons (nB=0), and therefore the meson sector χM disappears. This implies that, the UA(1) symmetry can be restored strictly only by the density effect at zero temperature.

      The aforementioned conclusion also applies to the NJL model at quark level. In the three-flavor NJL model [42], the UA(1) symmetry is broken by a six-quark interaction with a coupling constant K. Under the UA(1) transformation, the topological charge can be directly derived [12]:

      Q(x)=2KIm det[ˉψ(x)(1γ5)ψ(x)]

      (14)

      with all possible products of six quark fields at space-time point x. The corresponding Feynman diagrams for the condensate sector χ(i)C and meson sector χ(i)M of the susceptibility χ are shown in the right panel of Fig. 1. In comparison with the left panel, the diagrams in the NJL model are very similar to that in the quark-meson model: the meson condensates ϕa(dashed lines) now become the quark-antiquark condensate ˉqq and ˉss (closed quark propagators at 0 or x), and the mesons (solid lines) are constructed by quarks via random phase approximation [42] at order O(1/Nc) (double lines). Given that the susceptibilities in the two models have the same structure, we again conclude that the UA(1) symmetry breaking can only be restored by pure baryon density effect. The detailed calculation on the UA(1) symmetry at finite temperature in the NJL-type model can be seen in Refs. [1221, 23, 24, 30].

    III.   ANALYTIC AND NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS
    • In this section, we analytically and numerically calculate the topological susceptibility in the quark-meson model at finite baryon density. We will address calculations in the real world that involve explicit chiral symmetry breaking. Given that the susceptibility is dependent on the condensates, as well as meson and quark masses, we will first provide a brief overview of the condensates and masses using the mean field approximation. Detailed calculations can be sourced from existing literature [41].

    • A.   Condensates and masses

    • After the separation of the meson field into a condensate part and fluctuation part ϕ=ϕ+ϕ, a meson potential VM(ϕ) [40, 41] appears in the Lagrangian LM. At mean field level, it is the thermodynamic potential of the system ΩM=VM. Considering the thermodynamics from the free constituent quarks with mass:

      m=gTa(σa+iγ5πa),

      (15)

      the thermodynamic potential of the quark-meson system becomes

      Ω=ΩM+ΩQ

      (16)

      with

      ΩQ=2NcTfd3p(2π)3[ln(1nF(ϵpf))+ln(1ˉnF(ϵpf))],

      (17)

      where nF=1/(e(ϵpfμB/3)/T+1) and ˉnF=1/(e(ϵpf+μB/3)/T+1) denote the Fermi-Dirac distributions for constituent quarks and anti-quarks, and ϵpf=m2f+p2 denotes the quark energy with flavor f.

      The physical condensates as functions of temperature and baryon chemical potential ϕa(T,μB) are determined by minimizing the thermodynamic potential:

      Ωϕa=0,2Ωϕa2>0.

      (18)

      In the mean field approximation, the meson masses can be directly derived from the quadratic term in the Lagrangian ˜m2a=2L/ϕ2a|ϕ=0, which is equivalent to the second coefficient of the Taylor expansion of ΩM(ϕ) around the physical condensate determined by the gap equation (18), ˜m2a=2ΩM/ϕa2. To contain the contribution from quark thermodynamics to meson masses, one phenomenological approach to go beyond the mean field is to extend the second order derivative from ΩM to the total potential Ω [41],

      m2a=2Ωϕa2=˜m2a+2ΩQϕa2.

      (19)

      Given that we focus on the chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry in this study, we introduce only the chiral condensates σ0 and σ8 in the following. Considering the mixing between ϕ0 and ϕ8, normally a rotation in this subspace is considered. The two condensates are changed to the chiral condensate σc=1/3(2σ0+σ8) and strange condensate σs=1/3(σ02σ8), which leads to the constituent mass mq=gσc/2 for light quarks and ms=gσs/2 for strange quarks. In the pseudoscalar channel, π0 and π8 are rotated to the experimentally measured mesons η and η via π0=cosθpηsinθpη and π8=sinθpη+cosθpη with the rotation angle θp.

      With the choice of condensates and under the rotation, the four independent pseudoscalar meson masses in mean field approximation, ˜m2π for a=1,2,3, ˜m2K for a=4,5,6,7, ˜m2η and ˜m2η, can be explicitly expressed in terms of the chiral and strange condensates,

      ˜m2π=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ22σ2cc2σs,˜m2K=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ22(σ2c2σcσs+2σ2s)c2σc,˜m2η=m200cos2θp+m288sin2θp+2m208sinθpcosθp,˜m2η=m200sin2θp+m288cos2θp2m208sinθpcosθp

      (20)

      with

      m200=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ23(σ2c+σ2s)+2c3(2σc+σs),m288=λ2+λ1(σ2c+σ2s)+λ26(σ2c+4σ2s)2c6(22σcσs),m208=2λ26(σ2c2σ2s)2c6(σc2σs)

      (21)

      and the mixing angle tan2θp=2m208/(m200m288). Similarly, we can obtain the scalar meson masses [41] m2a0,m2κ,m2σ , and m2f0.

      The model parameters λ2,λ1,λ2,hc,hs,c, and g, and condensates σc and σs in vacuum should to be fixed by fitting the meson properties in vacuum. By choosing the pseudoscalar meson masses mπ=135 MeV, mK=496 MeV, mη=539 MeV, and mη=963 MeV and the decay constants fπ=92.4 MeV and fK=113 MeV [46], we can determine six of them, namely the meson coupling constant λ2,

      λ2=3(2fKfπ)m2K(2f2K+fπ)m2π2(m2η+m2η)(fKfπ)[3f2π+8fK(fKfπ)](fKfπ)=46.4881,

      (22)

      parameter c controlling UA(1) symmetry breaking,

      c=m2Km2πfKfπλ2(2fKfπ)=4807.24MeV,

      (23)

      parameters hc and hs governing chiral symmetry breaking,

      hc=fπm2π=(120.729 MeV)3,hs=2fKm2Kfπm2π2=(336.406 MeV)3,

      (24)

      and chiral condensates σc and σs:

      σc=fπ=92.4 MeV,σs=12(2fKfπ)=94.48 MeV.

      (25)

      To determine the other meson coupling λ1 and mass parameter λ2, scalar mesons are required. Considering mσ=550 MeV, we obtain λ2=(393.945 MeV)2 and λ1=0.771779. The quark-meson coupling g and strange quark mass ms are further associated with the non-strange quark mass mq. By choosing mq=300 MeV, we obtain g=6.4 and ms=433 MeV.

      As the 1/Nc realization of the t’Hooft instanton mechanism, the Witten–Veneziano (WV) formula [47, 48] is as follows:

      χpure=m2η+m2η2m2K2Nff2π+O(1Nc).

      (26)

      This can be applied to estimate the UA(1)symmetry breaking in vacuum through the pseudoscalar meson masses and pion decay constant (It should be noted that the susceptibility in the WV formula is for the pure Yang-Mills theory). The formula is confirmed by effective methods [12, 13] and lattice QCD calculations [4951]. In our calculation, the above used parameters leads to χ=(191.033MeV)4, which is in good agreement with the lattice result χ=(191±5MeV)4 in continuum limit [49]. However, it is claimed that the WV formula cannot be extended to finite temperature, especially near the QCD critical point [52, 53].

      With the known parameters, we now numerically calculate the density and temperature dependence of the two scalar condensates, and the result is shown in Fig. 2. Governed by the Fermi surface at zero temperature, the chiral condensate retains its vacuum value at low densities and then abruptly drops to a significantly lower value upon reaching the critical chemical potential μcB=0.91 GeV, and then decreases smoothly. For the strange condensate, there is also a jump at μcB, but it is still large in the chiral restoration phase. As the temperature increases, the abrupt changes in the two condensates gradually diminish, transitioning the chiral phase from a distinct jump to a crossover. In sufficiently hot conditions, this crossover occurs at zero baryon density.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Chiral and strange condensates σc (solid lines) and σs (dashed lines) as functions of baryon chemical potential μB at temperature T=0 (upper panel), 0.1 (middle panel), and 0.2 (lower panel) GeV.

      The density and temperature dependence of the pseudoscalar meson masses is shown in Fig. 3. At zero temperature, all the masses consistently retain their vacuum values below the critical chemical potential. However, they abruptly increase or decrease at the chiral phase transition point μcB and change continuously afterwards. The strange meson K is heavier than the pseudo-Goldstone particle π in the chiral breaking phase at low density. However, the two masses approach each other in the chiral restoration phase when the chemical potential is larger than the strange quark mass. The large mass splitting between η and η at low density is induced by the UA(1) breaking. At the critical point, mη experiences an upward shift while mη decreases, and the disparity between them decreases as density increases. When the temperature effect is included, all the jumps will gradually be replaced by continuous changes.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Pseudoscalar meson masses mπ (solid lines), mK (dashed lines), mη(dotted lines), and mη (dot-dashed lines) as functions of baryon chemical potential μB at temperature T=0 (upper panel), 0.1 (middle panel), and 0.2 (lower panel) GeV.

    • B.   Susceptibility

    • The susceptibility χ varies based on density and temperature, influenced by the condensates, meson masses, and the loop induced Bose-Einstein distribution nB. We first calculate the four independent meson constituents shown in Fig. 1, namely the closed meson propagator Ja, meson propagator with zero momentum Ia, meson loop constructed by two mesons Iab, and double meson loops by three mesons Iabc,

      Ja=d3p(2π)3nB(ϵpa)ϵpa,Ia=1m2a,Iab=d3p(2π)31m2bm2a[nB(ϵpa)ϵpanB(ϵpb)ϵpb],Iabc=I(1)abc+I(2)abc.

      (27)

      The term Iabc contains two four-momentum integrations (two Matsubara frequency summations and two three-momentum integrations), and each frequency summation contributes a constant and meson distribution nB. After considering a renormalization to remove the divergence appeared in the nB-independent integration [54], Iabc is separated into a part I(1)abc with one meson distribution and a part I(2)abc with two distributions,

      I(1)abc=1(4π)2{abc}{γE+ln(4π)ln(m2cμ2)10dα[αm2am2c+(1α)m2bm2cα(1α)]}d3p(2π)3nB(ϵpc)ϵpc,

      I(2)abc=2π2{abc}d3p(2π)3d3q(2π)3pqnB(ϵpa)nB(ϵqb)ϵpaϵqb×ln|(ϵpa+ϵqb)2(ϵp+qc)2(ϵpa+ϵqb)2(ϵpqc)2(ϵpaϵqb)2(ϵp+qc)2(ϵpaϵqb)2(ϵpqc)2|,

      (28)

      where γE denotes the Euler constant, the renormalization scale μ is considered to be 0.3 GeV in the calculation, and the sum is defined as {abc}Xabc=Xabc+Xbca+Xcab.

      With the mixing angels θs and θp in the scalar and pseudiscalar channels, we define the diagonalization coefficients as follows:

      c1=1/3(cosθs2sinθs),c2=1/3(sinθs+2cosθs),c3=1/3(cosθp2sinθp),c4=1/3(sinθp+2cosθp),

      (29)

      the vertexes of the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1 can then be expressed as

      cησσc=2/3(22sin(θp+θs)+cos(θp+θs)),cηf0σc=2/3(22cos(θp+θs)sin(θp+θs)),

      cησσc=cηf0σc,cηf0σc=cησσc,cησσs=2/6(3sin(θpθs)22cos(θp+θs)+sin(θp+θs)),cηf0σs=2/6(3cos(θpθs)22sin(θp+θs)cos(θp+θs)),cησσs=(cηf0σs+2cos(θpθs)),cηf0σs=cησσs2sin(θpθs)

      (30)

      for the vertexes with one condensate leg, and

      cηηη=1/2c23c4,cηηη=1/2(c332c3c24),cηηη=1/2(2c23c4c34),cηηη=1/2c3c24,cησσ=1/3(cosθp(sin2θs+1/2sin2θs)+2sinθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θs)),cησf0=1/3(cosθp(sin2θs+2cos2θs)3/2sinθpsin2θs),cηf0f0=1/3(cosθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θs)+2sinθp(sin2θs1/2cos2θs)),cησσ=1/3(sinθp(sin2θs+1/2sin2θs)2cosθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θs)),cησf0=1/3(sinθp(sin2θs+2cos2θs)+3/2cosθpsin2θs),cηf0f0=1/3(sinθp(cos2θs1/2sin2θ2)2cosθp(sin2θs1/2cos2θs))

      (31)

      for the vertexes without condensate legs. Finally, we define two new condensates

      σ2η=1/6σc((2cosθp+sinθp)σc+2(2sinθpcosθp)σs),σ2η=1/6σc((2sinθpcosθp)σc2(2cosθp+sinθp)σs),

      (32)

      and explicitly write the different susceptibility terms.

      χ(1)C=c24[σ2η2Iη+σ2η2Iη],χ(2)C=c24[σ2η(6cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+4c3(JκJK)+32c4(JπJa0))Iη+σ2η(6cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK))Iη],χ(3)C=χ(2)C,χ(4)C=c24[(cησσcσc+cησσsσs)2Iησ+(cηf0σcσc+cηf0σsσs)2Iηf0+(cησσcσc+cησσsσs)2Iησ+(cηf0σcσc+cηf0σsσs)2Iηf0+4σ2cIKκ+6σ2sIπa0]

      (33)

      for the condensate controlled part χC, and

      χ(1)M=c24{Iη[3cηηη(3cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK)+2(cησσJσ+cηf0f0Jf0))Jη+cηηη(cηηηJη+2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK))Jη+cησσ(cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK))Jσ+cηf0f0(cηf0f0Jf0+32c4(JπJa0)+4c3(JκJK))Jf0+3/2c24(3Ja0Ja0+3JπJπ+2JκJκ6JπJa0)+c23(4JKJK+JκJκ8JKJκ)+62c3c4(Ja0JKJa0JκJπJK+JπJκ)]+Iη[3cηηη(3cηηηJη+2cηηηJη+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK)+2(cησσJσ+cηf0f0Jf0))Jη+cηηη(2cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK)+cηηηJη)Jη+cησσ(cησσJσ+2cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK))Jσ+cηf0f0(cηf0f0Jf0+32c3(Ja0Jπ)+4c4(JκJK))Jf0+c24(4JKJK+3JκJκ8JKJκ)+9/2c23(Ja0Ja0+JπJπ2JπJa0)+62c3c4(JπJKJπJκJa0JKJa0Jκ)]},χ(2)M=c24[6IπKK+6Iπκκ+12IKa0κ+6c2ηηηIηηη+2c2ηηηIηηη+6c2ηηηIηηη+2c2ηηηIηηη+2c2ησσIησσ+2c2ηf0f0Iηf0f0+c2ησf0Iησf0+c2ησf0Iησf0+2c2ησσIησσ+2c2ηf0f0Iηf0f0+6c21Iσπa0+6c22If0πa0+4c21If0Kκ+4c22IσKκ+3c23Iηa0a0+3c23Iηππ+2c24IηKK+3c24Iηκκ+3c24Iηa0a0+3c24Iηππ+2c23IηKK+3c23Iηκκ]

      (34)

      for the meson fluctuation controlled part χM.

      The topological susceptibility χ and its two components χC and χMin dense and hot quark-meson matter are shown in Fig. 4. To clearly observe the UA(1) symmetry in the chiral restoration phase, we firstly analyze the susceptibility in chiral limit and at zero temperature. In this case, the disappeared chiral condensate σc=0 leads to σ2η=σ2η=0 and in turn

      Figure 4.  (color online) Absolute values of topological susceptibility χ (solid lines) and its condensate component χC (dashed lines) and meson component χM (dotted lines) as functions of baryon chemical potential μB at temperature T=0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 GeV.

      χ(1)C=χ(2)C=χ(3)C=0,

      (35)

      and the disappeared thermal excitation of mesons nB=0 results in Ja=Iab=Iabc=0 and in turn

      χ(2)C=χ(3)C=χ(4)C=χ(1)M=χ(2)M=0.

      (36)

      This indicates that the strange condensate σs does not affect UA(1) symmetry, and the two broken symmetries, chiral symmetry and UA(1) symmetry, are simultaneously restored at the critical chemical potential μcB. In the real world, with explicit chiral symmetry breaking at zero temperature, the nonzero chiral and strange condensates σc and σs lead to χ=χ(1)C0 in the chiral restoration phase. However, from our numerical calculation, the value is very small, and UA(1) symmetry is almost restored, as shown in the panel with T=0 in Fig. 4.

      Considering the significant mass splittings among the four independent mesons depicted in Fig. 3 during the chiral restoration phase, the susceptibility calculation (26) via meson masses at the mean field level appears more problematic at finite density. It has been suggested that this approach should not be extended to finite temperature [52, 53].

      As the temperature increases and the condensate part χC gradually melts, the meson fluctuation part χM is enhanced by the thermal motion. As a result of the competition, the total susceptibility decreases to the low temperature region, where the condensates are strong and thermal fluctuation is weak. Subsequently, it increases to the high temperature region, where the condensates become weak and thermal fluctuation becomes strong. In contrast to this non-monotonic temperature behavior, increasing density at any fixed temperature reduces the condensates and thermal fluctuation, the topological susceptibility is suddenly (at low temperature) or smoothly (at high temperature) suppressed by the density effect, and the UA(1) symmetry is restored at high baryon density. In the temperature and density evolution of the susceptibility, the role of the strange condensate is always weak, and the UA(1) restoration occurs at almost the same critical point as the chiral restoration. These features are clearly shown in Fig. 4.

    IV.   SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
    • Considering the fact that chiral symmetry is broken at the classical level and UA(1)symmetry is broken at the quantum level, the mechanisms for the symmetry restorations are expected to differ. In this study, we investigated the relation between the two symmetries in the SU(3)quark-meson model at finite temperature and baryon density. The topological susceptibility, which describes the degree of the UA(1)breaking, contains two components: the meson condensate controlled component and meson fluctuation component. As the temperature increases and condensates melt, the fluctuation becomes stronger. As a competition, the susceptibility behaves non-monotonically, and the UA(1) symmetry cannot be solely restored by the temperature effect. However, the density effect significantly differs. Specifically, it reduces both the condensates and fluctuation, and therefore the broken UA(1) symmetry can be restored only when the density effect is included. Although the strange condensate is still strong after the chiral phase transition and leads to large meson mass splittings at mean field level, its effect on the susceptibility, which is beyond the mean field, is very weak, and the two phase transitions, the chiral restoration and UA(1)restoration, occur at almost the same critical point. Based on the comparison of the Feynman diagrams for the susceptibility with the NJL model, the aforementioned qualitative conclusions appear to be independent of the model.

      The UA(1) symmetry appears challenging to be restored in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) because the created medium is extremely hot but the baryon density can be neglected. However, in intermediate energy nuclear collisions and compact stars, where the baryon density of the matter is high and the temperature is low, the UA(1) restoration can potentially be realized.

      The calculations presented in this study involve certain approximations. Both quarks and mesons are approached using a mean field approximation, while the susceptibility is computed beyond the mean field, incorporating thermal fluctuations. This type of perturbative approach may introduce inconsistencies in the computation. Given that the meson propagators in the susceptibility remain at the mean field level, the baryon density effect manifests solely in the meson masses. Contributions from the quark-loop to the meson propagators are overlooked. Although thermal fluctuations are considered, the vacuum fluctuations, anticipated to be significant in a dense medium, are omitted from the analysis.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • We are grateful to Profs. Lianyi He and Yin Jiang for helpful discussions during our study.

Reference (54)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return