-
We start with the Lagrangian of the Friedberg-Lee model for a phenomenological scalar field
$ \sigma $ interacting with spin-$ \dfrac{1}{2} $ quark fields$ \psi $ of the form [38-40],$ {\cal{L}} = \overline{\psi}({\rm i}\eth -g \sigma)\psi+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\sigma \partial^{\mu}\sigma -U(\sigma), $
(1) where the potential, which exhibits a typically first-order phase transition, is parameterized in the form of a Landau expansion with all the terms up to the quartic term, expressed as
$ U(\sigma) = \frac{1}{2!}a\sigma^2+\frac{1}{3!}b \sigma^3+\frac{1}{4!}c \sigma^4. $
(2) The model parameters a, b, and c are chosen such that
$ b^2 > 3ac $ to ensure a local minimum of$ U(\sigma) $ at$ \sigma = 0 $ and a global minimum at a relatively larger value of the$ \sigma $ field$ \sigma_v = \frac{3|b|}{2c}\left[1+\left[1-\frac{8ac}{3b^2}\right]^{\frac 1 2}\right]. $
(3) Usually, the global minimum at
$ \sigma = \sigma_v $ is interpreted as the physical or true vacuum, whereas the local minimum at$ \sigma = 0 $ represents a metastable vacuum where the condensate vanishes and quarks have zero rest mass. The difference in the potential values of the two vacuum states is defined as the quantity$ \varepsilon $ . For convenience, in the following discussions, we assume$ U(0) = 0 $ . Therefore, we have$ -\varepsilon = \frac{a}{2!}\sigma^2_v+\frac{b}{3!}\sigma^3_v+\frac{c}{4!}\sigma^4_v. $
(4) A wide range of model parameters a, b, c, and g were adopted in Refs. [42, 43, 48] to confront the basic properties of nucleons in vacuum. However, for the problem discussed here, different sets of values show similar physical results. Therefore, we consider one set of parameters,
$ a = 17.70\; {\rm{fm}}^{-2} $ ,$ b = -1457.4 \;{\rm{fm}}^{-1} $ ,$ c = 20000 $ , and$ g = 12.16 $ , widely used in previous studies.A convenient framework for studying phase transitions is thermal field theory. Within this framework, the finite temperature effective potential is an important and useful theoretical tool. Keeping only contributions to one-loop order, the effective potential of the Friedberg-Lee model can be computed exactly in closed form following the steps presented in Ref. [49]
$ V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma;T,\mu) = U(\sigma)+V_B(\sigma;T)+V_F(\sigma;T,\mu), $
(5) where
$ V_B(\sigma;T) $ is the finite temperature contribution from the boson loop, and$ V_F(\sigma;T,\mu) $ is the finite temperature and density contribution from the fermion loop [44, 49]. These terms in turn contribute the following terms in the effective potential$ V_B(\sigma;T) = T \int \frac{{\rm d}^3 \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3} {\rm{ln}} \left( 1-{\rm e}^{-E_{\sigma}/T} \right), $
(6) $\begin{aligned}[b] V_F(\sigma;\beta,\mu) =& -2N_f N_c T \int \frac{{\rm d}^3 \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3} \Big[ {\rm{ln}} \left( 1+{\rm e}^{-(E_q-\mu)/T} \right)\\&+{\rm{ln}} \left( 1+{\rm e}^{-(E_q+\mu)/T} \right) \Big], \\[-10pt]\end{aligned}$
(7) in which
$ N_f = 2 $ and$ N_c = 3 $ .$ E_{\sigma} = \sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m_{\sigma}^2} $ and$ E_q = \sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m_q^2} $ are energies for the$ \sigma $ mesons and quarks in which the constituent quark (antiquark) mass$ m_q $ is defined as$ m_q = g \sigma $ , while the effective mass of scalar meson field is set by$ m^2_{\sigma} = a+b \sigma+\dfrac{c}{2} \sigma^2 $ . To ensure that$ m_{\sigma} $ is positive, in this study we fix it to the vacuum value.The one-loop effective potential at different temperatures in the absence of the chemical potential is plotted in Fig. 1. The shape of the potential shows that a first-order phase transition takes place as it exhibits two degenerate minima at a certain temperature
$ T_{\rm c}\simeq 119.8 $ MeV, which is usually defined as the critical temperature. Normally, apart from this critical temperature, there exists another particular temperature that occurs when one of the minima of the potential disappears as the temperature increases. Between these two particular temperatures, metastable states exist and lie close to$ \sigma_v $ , and the system can exhibit supercooling or superheating. With temperature decreasing across the critical one, the metastable and physical vacua will become flipped, and the metastable states become centered around the origin$ \sigma = 0 $ . Then, the difference between the effective potential at the metastable vacuum state and the physical vacuum state isFigure 1. (color online) One-loop effective potential
$ V_{\rm eff} $ as a function of$ \sigma $ at$ T = 0 $ MeV,$ T = 80 $ MeV and$ T = 119.8 $ MeV when fixing the chemical potential$ \mu $ at$ 0 $ MeV. According to our choice of parameters, the two minima appear as degenerate at$ T_{\rm c}\simeq 119.8 \;{\rm{MeV}} $ , which is usually defined as the critical temperature.$ \varepsilon(T) = V_{\rm{eff}}(0;T)-V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma_v;T). $
(8) It is easy to check that the quantity
$ \varepsilon $ will decrease with the increase of temperature, and when$ T = T_{\rm c} $ , the two vacua are equal, and$ \varepsilon $ is zero.When the temperature is fixed at
$ T = 50 $ MeV, the resulting one-loop effective potential$ V_{\rm{eff}} $ as a function of$ \sigma $ at various chemical potentials$ \mu = 0 $ MeV,$ \mu = 150 $ MeV, and$ \mu = 256.4 $ MeV is depicted in Fig. 2. According to this figure, the shapes of the potentials show similar behaviors as in Fig. 1. For$ \mu = 256.4 $ MeV, the values of the effective potentials at the two vacua are equal. At this moment, the chemical potential is defined as the critical chemical potential$ \mu_{\rm c} = 256.4 $ MeV. With the decrease of the chemical potential from$ \mu_{\rm c} $ , the global minimum of the potential moves from the position at$ \sigma = 0 $ to that at$ \sigma_v $ . The difference between the values of the effective potential at the false vacuum and at the physical vacuum as usual is defined asFigure 2. (color online) One-loop effective potential
$ V_{\rm eff} $ as a function of$ \sigma $ at$ \mu = 0 $ MeV,$ \mu = 150 $ MeV, and$ \mu = 256.4 $ MeV when fixing the temperature T at$ 50 $ MeV. According to our choice of parameters, the critical chemical potential is set at$ \mu_{\rm c}\simeq 256.4 $ MeV when the two minima are equal.$ \varepsilon(T,\mu) = V_{\rm{eff}}(0;T,\mu)-V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma_v;T,\mu). $
(9) This quantity will also decrease to zero as the chemical potential increases up to its critical value.
-
For the first-order phase transition, when the temperature or chemical potential approximately reaches its critical value, the effective potential exhibits degenerate minima that are separated by a barrier. As the temperature or chemical potential is lowered, the local minimum at
$ \sigma\simeq 0 $ becomes the false vacuum, while the global minimum of the effective potential at$ \sigma\approx \sigma_v $ is taken as the stable or physical vacuum. The false vacuum would be stable classically, but quantum mechanically it is only a metastable state and can decay via the nucleation of bubbles larger than a critical size. Technically, this decay may be triggered by either quantum or thermal fluctuations, depending on what type of physics we are interested in. In this study, we were mostly concerned with the regime in which thermal fluctuations are much larger than quantum fluctuations.The dynamics of a first-order phase transition can be described by the mechanism of bubble nucleation of the stable vacuum inside the false vacuum, which is believed to be a natural consequence of the thermal and quantum fluctuations of any thermodynamic systems closely interrelated with a first-order phase transition. For
$ T<T_{\rm c} $ or$ \mu<\mu_{\rm c} $ , bubbles of the stable vacua created by thermal fluctuations may grow or shrink inside the false vacuum depending on its energy budget with regard to a homogeneous false vacuum. Given that the bulk free energy density of the false vacuum is higher than that of the stable vacuum, the phase conversion from the false vacuum to the stable vacuum decreases the bulk free energy of the whole system. However, the appearance of a spherical bubble means there is an interface that is needed to separate the stable vacuum from the exterior of the false vacuum. The creation of such an interface represents an energy cost. Therefore, the mechanism of phase conversion from the metastable phase to the stable phase proceeds by a competition between the free energy gain from the phase transition of the bulk and the energy cost from the formation of an interface. Note that the free energy shift due to the appearance of a spherical bubble of stable vacuum is proportional to$ -R^3 $ , where R is the bubble radius, and the surface tension of the interface between two phases is proportional to$ +R^2 $ . For the nucleation of small bubbles, the energy cost is higher than the energy gain, and small bubbles tend to shrink. By contrast, a bubble with a sufficiently large radius represents a large bulk energy gain. The energy gain in the system exceeds the surface energy cost of creating the bubble. Consequently, these large bubbles tend to expand even further and to coalesce completely, completing the phase conversion. Therefore, only bubbles of a very large radius play a decisive role in the theory of dynamics of a first-order phase transition.In the theory of bubble nucleation, a scalar field
$ \sigma $ is treated as the order parameter and a coarse-grained free energy functional of the system is defined as$ F(\sigma) = \int {\rm d}r^3 \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(\nabla \sigma \right)^2+V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma;T,\mu) \right]. $
(10) The critical bubble configuration is an extremum of the coarse-grained free energy functional
$ F(\sigma) $ with respect to the scalar field$ \sigma $ ; thus, the equation of motion to be solved now becomes a nonlinear ordinary differential equation,$ \frac{{\rm d}^2\sigma(r)}{{\rm d}r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{{\rm d}\sigma(r)}{{\rm d}r} = \frac{\partial V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma;T,\mu)}{\partial \sigma}, $
(11) with boundary conditions
$ \lim\limits_{r \to \infty }\sigma(r) = 0 $ and$ \dfrac{{\rm d}\sigma(0)}{{\rm d}r} = 0 $ . The first boundary condition is because the bubbles are embedded in the homogeneous false vacuum, outside the bubble, and the$ \sigma $ field should arrive at its false vacuum at$ \sigma \simeq 0 $ , while the second boundary condition is set by the requirement of no singularity of the solution at the origin. The solution for this equation of motion with the above proper boundary conditions is a saddle point solution$ \sigma_b $ .Once the solution
$ \sigma_b $ is found, the shift in the coarse-grained free energy due to the formation of a nucleation bubble can be calculated as$ \Delta F_b = 4 \pi \int r^2 {\rm d}r \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{{\rm d}\sigma_b}{{\rm d}r} \right)^2+V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma_b;T,\mu) \right]. $
(12) Note that here, and subseqeuntyl,
$ V_{\rm{eff}}(0;T,\mu) $ is well normalized to be zero for simplicity. The nucleation rate per unit volume is expressed as [30, 31]$ \Gamma = {\cal{P}}\exp\left[ -\frac{\Delta F_b}{T} \right], $
(13) where the pre-exponential factor
$ {\cal{P}} $ corresponds to the probability for a critical bubble-like field fluctuation$ \sigma_b $ to be generated and grow. Evaluation of the pre-exponential factor is a nontrivial matter. A rough estimate of their ratio can be obtained by dimensional arguments and we could approximate$ {\cal{P}} $ by$ T^4 $ for simplicity [34]. The surface tension of the nucleation bubble interface between the false and stable vacua is then defined as$ \Sigma = \int {\rm d}r \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{{\rm d}\sigma_b}{{\rm d}r} \right)^2+V_{\rm{eff}}(\sigma_b;T,\mu) \right]. $
(14) For a generic effective potential
$ V_{\rm{eff}} $ , the equation of motion (11) with some certain boundary conditions usually cannot be solved analytically. However, when the system is very close to the critical coexistence line, e.g.,$ T\sim T_{\rm c} $ or$ \mu \sim \mu_{\rm c} $ , the problem can be essentially simplified. In such a situation, the quantity$ \varepsilon $ is much smaller than the height of the barrier separating these two vacua because of the competition between the free energy gain and the surface energy cost. In addition, the typical radius of the bubbles becomes much greater than the wall thickness, and the second term in the equation of motion (11) can be neglected. Then, the so-called thin-wall approximation is applicable and the equation of motion (11) reduces to the equation for a typical one-dimensional solution:$ \frac{{\rm d}^2 \sigma (r)}{{\rm d}r^2} = \frac{{\rm d} V_{\rm{eff}}}{{\rm d} \sigma}. $
(15) This static field equation implies that
$ \frac{{\rm d} \sigma(r)}{{\rm d}r} = \pm \sqrt{2 V_{\rm{eff}}}. $
(16) Integrating Eq. (16) yields
$ r = \int_{\sigma}^{\sigma_v} \frac{{\rm d} \sigma}{\sqrt{2 V_{\rm{eff}}}}. $
(17) In the case of an arbitrary potential
$ V_{\rm{eff}} $ with two or more degenerate global minima as in the limit$ \varepsilon\rightarrow 0 $ , the profile of the critical bubble can be estimated as follows. For a smoothly varying potential$ V_{\rm{eff}} $ , the integral on the right-hand side diverges as$ \sigma(r) $ approaches any of the global minima. Hence, as r ranges from$ 0 $ to$ \infty $ ,$ \sigma(r) $ must vary monotonically from one global minimum of$ V_{\rm{eff}} $ at$ \sigma = \sigma_v $ to an adjacent global minimum at$ \sigma = 0 $ . In this case, the approximate solution for the bubble with the critical size is given by$\sigma (r) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {{\sigma _v}}&{0 < r < R - \Delta R,}\\ {{\sigma _{{\rm{wall}}}}(r)}&{R - \Delta R < r < R + \Delta R,}\\ 0&{r > R + \Delta R,} \end{array}} \right.$
(18) which indicates that the stable vacuum inside the bubble is separated from the metastable one outside by the bubble wall
$ \sigma_{\rm{wall}}(r) $ , solved from Eq. (17). Moreover, in the thin-wall approximation, given that there exists an energy competition between the free energy gain and the surface energy cost, the free energy$ F(R) $ , relative to the false vacuum background, of a bubble with radius R could be expressed as [31, 50]$ F(R) = 4 \pi R^2 \Sigma-\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3 \varepsilon. $
(19) Here, the first term is the contribution from the bubble wall with a surface tension
$ \Sigma $ , while the second is from the true vacuum interior. The typical radius$ R_c $ of the bubble is determined by minimization of the free energy$ F(R) $ with respect to R, which in turn requires that$ 0 = \frac{{\rm d}F}{{\rm d}R} = 8 \pi R \Sigma- 4 \pi R^2 \varepsilon. $
(20) This is solved by
$ R_c = \frac{2 \Sigma}{\varepsilon}. $
(21) As described in previous discussion, only bubbles that have a size equal to or larger than the typical radius
$ R_c $ are energetically favorable and would play an important role in the dynamical seed of the phase conversion.Finally, note that, in the absence of the quantity
$ \varepsilon $ , the one-dimensional energy or the surface tension of the bubble is$ \Sigma_{tw} = \int_{0}^{\infty} {\rm d}r \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{{\rm d}\sigma_b}{{\rm d}r} \right)^2+V_{\rm{eff}} \right] = \int_{0}^{\sigma_v} {\rm d}\sigma \sqrt{2 V_{\rm{eff}}} . $
(22) From Eqs. (17) and (22), a saddle point field configuration
$ \sigma(r) $ and the surface tension can be directly obtained by using the effective potential$ V_{\rm{eff}} $ without solving the equation of motion in Eq. (11), which is usually difficult to be solved analytically or even numerically. This is the main advantage of the thin-wall approximation approach. Given that the thin-wall approximation is so widely adopted in previous studies [34-37, 51-54], we focused on the exact numerical computations and established limits on the reliability of the thin-wall approximation.
Bubble dynamics in a strong first-order quark-hadron transition
- Received Date: 2020-06-18
- Available Online: 2021-04-15
Abstract: We investigate the dynamics of a strong first-order quark-hadron transition driven by cubic interactions via homogeneous bubble nucleation in the Friedberg-Lee model. The one-loop effective thermodynamic potential of the model and the critical bubble profiles have been calculated at different temperatures and chemical potentials. By taking the temperature and the chemical potential as variables, the evolutions of the surface tension, the typical radius of the critical bubble, and the shift in the coarse-grained free energy in the presence of a nucleation bubble are obtained, and the limit on the reliability of the thin-wall approximation is also addressed accordingly. Our results are compared to those obtained for a weak first-order quark-hadron phase transition; in particular, the spinodal decomposition is relevant.