the subject of superfluidity in ultracold trapped fermionic gases is an exciting field @xcite , not only for its implications in atomic physics , but also because there are important implications for condensed matter systems , including perhaps high temperature superconductors @xcite .
there are two important aspects which are particularly notable about these systems , from the perspective of the present paper .
they can be tuned in various ways which are not available to nature - made superconductors .
thus , one can study the entire regime from bcs to bose - einstein condensation ( bec ) , simply by the application of a magnetic field in concert with a feshbach resonance .
moreover , one can vary the concentrations of the two spin species arbitrarily @xcite ; in a fashion , this simulates the application of a magnetic zeeman field .
this latter tuneability has important implications for other sub - disciplines in physics such as dense qcd and ( isospin asymmetric ) nuclear matter @xcite .
equally important is the fact that there is a rich collection of experimental data from two different atomic physics groups @xcite on @xmath2li gases near unitarity , with which one can compare various theoretical results .
the goal of this paper is to present an overarching theoretical framework for dealing with fermionic gases over the entire range of bcs to bec crossover and the entire range of temperature , as well as the entire range of population imbalance .
the foundations of this theory lie with the initial observation of eagles @xcite and of leggett @xcite that the bcs - like wavefunction has a much greater generality than was originally recognized at the time of its proposal .
it is capabable of describing both bcs and bec like systems , providing the pairing attraction is tuneable from arbitrarily weak ( bcs ) to arbitrarily strong ( bec ) and one self consistently solves for the fermionic chemical potential .
this mean field - like ground state wave function is also readily generalized to include population balance .
indeed , there are at least three well studied phases @xcite which have been proposed to accomodate a difference in the population of the two spin species .
what we want to stress is that these same mean field theories have a natural extension to finite temperature @xcite .
this extension will be a focus of the present paper .    at strictly zero temperature ,
there is a rather extensive literature @xcite on these population - imbalanced superfluids and superconductors , including recently the effects of the crossover from bcs to bec .
there have also been some studies at finite @xmath0 , which are at the mean field level and do not include the effect of the non - condensed pairs @xcite we consider here .
the three most studied phases are the  sarma "- like @xcite or breached pair states in which ( as in bcs theory ) the condensed pairs have zero net momentum , but polarization can , nevertheless , be introduced . at @xmath3
this state appears to be stable in the deep bec regime .
additionally , two different phases @xcite have been proposed by larkin and ovchinnikov and by fulde and ferrell ( loff ) in which the condensate has a net momentum of a pre - determined @xmath4 or of @xmath5 .
even more elaborate crystalline lattices of various @xmath6 have also been contemplated @xcite .
it is believed that these states are more appropriate closer to the bcs side of resonance , although rather little has been determined about the  two - plane wave " loff state near @xmath3 or in the presence of crossover effects .
added to this complexity is the possiblity of heterogeneous or phase separated states @xcite .
in this paper we will present the theoretical formalism for the sarma and one and two - plane wave loff states at zero and finite @xmath0 as one varies from bcs to bec .
we note that because theories of population imbalanced superfluids are ( currently , without exception ) based on bcs - leggett - type @xcite ground states , it is important to determine their finite temperature implications within this broad class of ground states , as we do here .
our premise is that the effects of finite @xmath0 , which necessarily must be accomodated in any comparison with experiment , must be compatible with the @xmath3 formalism . indeed ,
one of the most important effects of temperature is to stabilize the sarma - like phase . in this way
one finds an intermediate temperature superfluid @xcite , one that exists at @xmath7 , but not at @xmath3 .
our studies of the two - plane wave loff state present new results by extending the current literature away from the landau - ginzburg regime ( near @xmath1 ) .    with this class of generalized mean field theories we will show that the effects of temperature enter in a fashion which is strongly reminiscent of bose gas condensation . except in the bcs limit
, pairs form at higher temperatures , than the ( transition ) temperature @xmath1 at which they condense .
thus we have to distinguish the excitation gap [ called @xmath8 from the order parameter [ called @xmath9 .
alternatively , this means that there is an excitation gap ( or pseudogap @xmath10 ) for fermionic excitations even in the normal phase .
it also implies that below @xmath1 there will be additional modes of exciting the condensate via pair excitations .
these latter are non - condensed or incoherent pairs with finite center of mass momentum .
we have found @xcite that in a trapped geometry they are particularly important for providing a mechanism of getting polarization into the gas .     & &    @xmath11 , @xmath12     + & & + & & +    these effects of finite @xmath0 can be compared with an alternative class of theories in the literature based on work by nozieres and schmitt - rink ( nsr ) @xcite .
this approach is known to lack self - consistency @xcite .
we stress that the finite temperature nsr approach was not designed to be consistent with the standard ground state equations . this observation has also been made in ref .
indeed , these latter authors have presented in considerable detail @xcite a more complete finite @xmath0 approach based on the @xmath1 calculations of ref .
@xcite . a major concern about
this class of theories remains to be addressed .
because the gap and the number equations are not treated on an equivalent basis , it is possible that the superfluid density will not consistently vanish at @xmath1 . at this temperature
there has to be a precise , but delicate cancellation of paramagnetic and diamagnetic current contributions , as found in the present theory @xcite . in a related fashion , pseudogap effects ( associated with the presence of non - condensed pairs ) appear , within an nsr - based approach , in the number equation but not in the gap equation .
we begin at the more physical level by stressing the analogy between condensation in this composite boson or fermionic superfluid and condensation in a gas of ideal point bosons .
our theory treats self - consistently two - particle and one - particle green s functions on an equal footing . because the physics is so simple and clear
, we can fairly readily anticipate the form of the central equations of this bcs - bec generalization of bcs theory .
it is important to stress , however , that these equations can be derived more rigorously from a truncated series of equations of motion for the appropriate green s functions @xcite .
there are three principle equations which govern bose condensation : the vanishing of the bosonic chemical potential at all @xmath13 is the first . throughout this paper
we will refer to this condition as the  bec condition " .
it is related to the usual thouless criterion , but the latter is generally associated only with the temperature @xmath1 .
the second equation is the boson number equation .
all  bosons " must be accounted for as either condensed or non - condensed .
the third equation is the number of non - condensed  bosons " , which are created by thermal excitations .
this is determined simply by inserting the known excitation spectrum of the excited pairs or bosons , into the bose distribution function . with this equation , and the first equation
, one can then deduce the number of condensed bosons .
these three central equations for bosons are indicated in table i , on the far right , for true point bosons , and in the second column for the composite bosons which appear in fermionic superfluids . for these composite bosons
the quantity which provides a measure of the  number " of bosons ( @xmath14 ) is given by @xmath15 ( up to a constant coefficient , @xmath16 ) .
this is reasonably easy to see . in the fermionic regime ,
when the fermionic chemical potential is positive , @xmath15 represents the square of the excitation gap .
this is the energy which must be supplied to break apart the pairs .
thus , @xmath15 , in some sense then , reflects the number of pairs .
how does one quantitatively establish the appropriate  boson number " for the fermionic case ?
this is determined via the self consistent gap equation for @xmath17 , which , in turn , is determined using the first condition : that the pair chemical potential is zero at and below @xmath1 .
how does one compute the number of excited pairs ? once the gap equation is interpreted in terms of the appropriate non - condensed pair propagator , then one knows the related excitation spectrum @xmath18 of this propagator .
the quantity @xmath16 which appears in the last equation of the table ( for the composite bosons ) gives the relation between the gap associated with non condensed pairs ( @xmath10 ) and the number of pairs ( @xmath19 ) .
it can be readily calculated in this theory ; once one has the non - condensed pair propagator , @xmath16 appears as the inverse residue .
( deep in the bec regime , @xmath16 is relatively simple to compute , for here the boson number density approaches the asymptote @xmath20 , where @xmath21 is the fermion density ) .
more precisely , the total number of bosons in the present case has to be determined self - consistently through the gap equation .
it also involves the fermion number equation through the related fermionic chemical potential . in this last context
, it should be stressed that there is one important aspect of the fermionic superfluids , which is not apparent in table i. for bcs - bec crossover , it is essential to derive the self consistent equation for the fermionic chemical potential ; in this problem the fermions are the fundamental statistical entity .
this can be readily accomplished within the same framework used to arrive at the gap equation .
the vanishing of the pair chemical potential is associated with a particular choice for the pair propagator involving dressed green s functions .
these , in turn , determine the fermionic chemical potential through the fermion number equation . in the next two sections we turn to the gap and number equations , and show through a green s function formulation , how strongly these two equations are inter - connected .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows .
we conclude this section with a summary of the central equations associated with our @xmath0-matrix scheme . in sec .
[ sec : ii ] , we present a mean - field theory for the sarma and one - plane - wave loff state for @xmath22 . due to the complexity of the two - plane - wave loff state , we dedicate an entire section ( sec.[sec : iii ] ) to its mean - field treatment . in sec .
[ sec : iv ] we present a generalization of our @xmath0-matrix formalism to include pairing fluctuation effects .
section [ sec : v ] recapitulates our simple physical picture and section [ sec : vi ] presents our conclusions .
additional , more technical details are given in two appendices for the one and two plane wave loff states .
to make contact with the general class of mean field theories ( including the sarma and loff states ) , we introduce a @xmath0-matrix approximation .
this means that we consider the coupled equations between the particles ( with propagator @xmath23 ) and the pairs [ with propagator @xmath24 and drop all higher terms .
this theory does not include direct  boson - boson " interactions , although the pairs do interact indirectly via the fermions , in an averaged or mean field sense . throughout sections [ sec : ii ] and
[ sec : iii ] of this paper we will be showing that the bec condition noted in the previous section will give the same gap equation we find using standard techniques , such as bogoliubov diagonalization applied to the linearized mean field hamiltonian .
here , for all @xmath25 , the bec condition is interpreted as requiring that the pair chemical potential @xmath26 associated with the non - condensed pairs vanish . in sections
[ sec : ii ] and [ sec : iii ] we will address only the first line of table i. the second two lines , or sets of equations will be discussed in section [ sec : iv ] . within a @xmath0-matrix scheme ,
the pair propagator is given by @xmath27 where @xmath28 is the spin _
symmetrized _ pair susceptibility , and @xmath29 is the pairing interaction strength . the function @xmath30 is , in many ways , the most fundamental quantity we introduce in this paper .
it provides the basis for obtaining well known ( as well as new ) results of the zero temperature theory .
moreover , it provides the basis for arriving at a finite temperature description , which appears in section [ sec : iv ] .
the introduction of spin symmetrization is only important for the case of population imbalance . in earlier literature
@xcite , this complexity did not arise .
we will show that one obtains consistent answers between @xmath0-matrix based approaches and standard mean field theories , provided the components of the pair susceptibility in the presence of population imbalance , defined by @xmath31 \label{eq:2}\ ] ] is given by the product of one dressed and one bare green s function    [ eq:3 ] @xmath32    where @xmath33 , and @xmath23 and @xmath34 are the full and bare green s functions respectively .
we will discuss @xmath23 in more detail on a case by case basis .
here @xmath35 , @xmath36 , @xmath37 is the kinetic energy of fermions , and @xmath38 is the fermionic chemical potential for spin @xmath39 . throughout this paper ,
we take @xmath40 , @xmath41 , and use the four - vector notation @xmath42 , @xmath43 , @xmath44 , etc , where @xmath45 and @xmath46 are the standard odd and even matsubara frequencies @xcite ( where @xmath21 and @xmath47 are intergers ) .    for the mean field discussions in sections [ sec : ii ] and [ sec : iii ] of this paper we will not be considering general values of @xmath48 but only zero frequency limits with special values of @xmath49 associated with sarma ( @xmath50 ) and loff ( @xmath51 ) states
however , when we include the contribution of non - condensed pairs ( or pseudogap effects ) the general values of @xmath48 become important . for the sarma phase we have the bec condition @xmath52 more generally , for loff - like states we have the bec condition at finite @xmath4 : @xmath53 we will discuss , in considerable detail , the nature of the mean field self energy which appears in the full green s function @xmath54 . not only does this determine the gap equation but it also leads to the number equations which can be written in terms of green s functions as @xmath55 .
the number and gap equations then provide the underlying basis for the mean field approach .
and we will see that the _ same _ propagator for non - condensed pairs [ @xmath24 enters into the beyond - mean - field corrections .
it is important to stress that when we refer to `` mean field '' based approaches in sections [ sec : ii ] and [ sec : iii ] of this paper , we will not be distinguishing between the order parameter @xmath56 and the excitation gap @xmath57 .
subsequently we will show that this distinction is actually an important one in all but the bcs limit . specifically
, we note that the expressions we present in sections [ sec : ii ] and [ sec : iii ] within our green s function - based formulation , are more generally valid below @xmath1 , but for the excitation gap @xmath57 , not for the order parameter .
we now want to study the sarma or breached pair state . on the fermionic side of resonance , the dispersion relation of one of the two quasi - particle bands ( @xmath58 and @xmath59 , defined below ) has two zero crossings , at momenta @xmath60 @xmath61 and @xmath62 @xmath63 .
this is associated with gapless excitations . in a momentum space representation , pairing is confined to @xmath64 and @xmath65 .
this pairing is `` breached '' by a normal component in the intermediate region @xmath66 .
it is this normal component , then , which carries the bulk of the polarization .
if we consider pairing between @xmath67 and @xmath68 states , the mean field hamitonian can be rewritten as @xmath69 where we have chosen @xmath70 to be real . using standard bogoliubov diagonalization techniques , we readily arrive at the mean field gap equation via the self - consistency condition
@xmath71 which can be written as @xmath72\nonumber\\ & = & \frac{1}{u}+\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\frac{1 - 2\bar{f}(e_{k})}{2e_{k } } \ , . \label{eq:10}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath73 and @xmath74 , @xmath75 , @xmath76 and @xmath77 , where @xmath78 .
in addition , we define the average @xmath79/2 $ ] , where @xmath80 is the fermi distribution function .
the coupling constant @xmath81 can be replaced in favor of the dimensionless parameter , @xmath82 , via the relationship @xmath83 , where @xmath84 is the two - body @xmath85-wave scattering length , and @xmath86 is the noninteracting fermi wave vector for the same total number density in the absence of population imbalance .
therefore the gap equation can be rewriten as @xmath87 \ , .
\label{eq:11}\ ] ] this is a familiar gap equation which has appeared many times in the literature .
the mean field number equations can be readily deduced @xmath88 \ , , \label{eq:12}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath89 and the coherence factors @xmath90 .
equivalently , they can be rewritten as    [ eq : neq ] @xmath91,\\ pn & = & \sum_\mathbf{k } [ f({e_{\mathbf{k}}}-h)-f({e_{\mathbf{k}}}+h ) ] \ , , \label{eq : neqb}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath92 is the total atomic density , @xmath93 is the number difference and @xmath94 is the polarization .
we next show that the same results can be obtained from a @xmath0-matrix based approach .
this discussion provides the link between the first line of table i and the previous subsection .
the one particle green s function for particles with spin @xmath95 is @xmath96 the self - energy @xmath97 can be shown to be of the bcs - like form @xmath98 we will see later in section [ sec : iv ] how this form for the self energy very naturally arises ( below @xmath1 ) in a @xmath0-matrix approach .
thus @xmath99 then , using the coherence factors we defined earlier , the green s functions become @xmath100    now we are in position to calculate the pair susceptibility at @xmath101 for the sarma phase based on eqs . ( [ eq:2 ] ) and ( [ eq:3 ] ) .
@xmath102 substituting this expression into our bec condition eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) , we obtain the same gap equation ( [ eq:10 ] ) , after carrying out the matsubara summation .    in terms of green s functions ,
we readily arrive at the number equations : @xmath55 , which reduce to the number equations ( [ eq:12 ] ) we found earlier .
if we now consider condensates in which momentum @xmath67 pairs with @xmath103 , for , as yet undermined @xmath4 , the mean field hamiltonian can be rewritten as @xmath104 upon bogoliubov diagonalization , the self - consistency condition @xmath105 readily leads to the mean - field gap equation @xmath106 with @xmath107 , @xmath108 , @xmath109 , @xmath110 .
the regularized gap equation is @xmath111 \ , .
\label{eq:22}\ ] ] finally , the mean field number equations for @xmath112 , are given by @xmath113 \ , .
\label{eq:23}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here the coherence factors are @xmath114 and @xmath115 .
there must be another equation which governs @xmath4 .
this can be obtained by minimizing the thermodynamical potential or free energy with respect to @xmath4 .
equivalently , we will derive @xmath4 from the @xmath0-matrix method described below .
we now use the same @xmath0-matrix based approach ( as we did for the sarma case , and as indicated by table i ) to make contact with the one plane wave loff state .
we take the self energy of the form @xmath116 so that @xmath117 then we have    @xmath118    here @xmath119 and @xmath120 .
note if @xmath121 , then @xmath122 and @xmath123 .
the number equations are @xmath55 , which yields the same answer ( eq .
[ eq:23 ] ) we found in the mean field approach . for @xmath25 , using the bec condition @xmath124 we thus arrive at the gap equation we found earlier in eq .
( [ eq:21 ] ) .
we next investigate the pair susceptibility and its extremal value at @xmath125 .
we define the contributions to the pair susceptibility in the presence of population imbalance as in eqs.([eq:1])-([eq:7 ] ) . for the one plane wave loff state
, the bec condition is that @xmath126 diverges at a non - zero momentum @xmath127 .
thus , at this momentum , the quantity @xmath128 should reach a _ maximum _ at @xmath127 . we determine @xmath4 by requiring @xmath129 where @xmath30 is explicitly shown in eq .
( [ eq : loff1chi ] ) .
this yields @xmath130\frac{\xi_{kq}}{e_{kq}}\big ] \nonumber\\ & & { } + \left(\mathbf{k-}\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2}\right)[f(e_{1,\uparrow})-f(e_{1,\downarrow})]\bigg\}\ , .
\label{eq:27}\end{aligned}\ ] ] it is important to stress , as we show in appendix [ app : loff1 ] , that this extremal condition on @xmath30 is equivalent to the condition that the net current is identically zero in this situation .
@xmath131=0 \label{eq:28}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this key observation shows that the present way of computing @xmath4 directly from the pair susceptibility is consistent with the counterparts in the literature , which are based on the vanishing of the net current in equilibrium .    at the mean field level we , then
, have four unknowns @xmath57 , @xmath4 , @xmath132 and @xmath133 , and four equations : two number equations , the gap equation , and the condition on the vanishing of the first order derivative .
the two plane wave loff state has not been studied in much detail away from @xmath1 and the associated tri - critical point @xcite . here
we address this state at more general temperatures , starting with the very natural mean field hamiltonian in the same spirit as in the previous two cases .
the hamiltonian is given by @xmath134    to solve for the value of the gap we generalize the bogoliubov diagonalization procedure .
if one rewrites the effective hamiltonian in the basis set @xmath135 and @xmath136 , the hamiltonian can be written in two @xmath137 matrices . here
we show the matrix for @xmath138 : @xmath139    we can equivalently write the @xmath140 component of the @xmath137 matrix in terms of the basis @xmath141 the mean field gap equation is derived from the averages obtained from a symmetric combination of the two basis sets as    [ eq : loff2_gap ] @xmath142 which is equal to @xmath143    we choose this symmetrized form to write down the gap equation , which reflects the underlying symmetry of the hamiltonian .
the resulting gap equation can be shown to be of the form @xmath144\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}}{(e_{1}-e_{2 } ) ( e_{1}-e_{3})}\right.\nonumber\\ & & { } + [ f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})]\frac{e_{2 } + \mathcal{e}_{kq}}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\nonumber \\ & & { } + \left .
[ f(e_{3\uparrow})+f(e_{3\downarrow})]\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq } }   { ( e_{3}-e_{1})(e_{3}-e_{2})}\right\}\ , .
\label{eq:33}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here we define @xmath145 , @xmath146 , and @xmath147 as the solutions to the cubic equation which is related to the determinant of the 3x3 eigenvalue equation @xmath148x-\mathcal{e}_{kq}\big[\tilde{e } _ { kq}^{2}-\big(\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}\big)^{2}\big]=0 . \label{eq:34}\ ] ] where @xmath149 and @xmath150
. then @xmath151 and @xmath152 for @xmath153 .
the mean field number equations are @xmath154 \label{eq:35}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we define @xmath155      for the counterpart mean field theory , approached from a @xmath0-matrix scheme , we define the self energy as @xmath156 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}\big[\frac{\delta^{2}}{i\omega_{n}+\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\bar{\sigma } } } + \frac{\delta^{2}}{i\omega_{n}+\xi_{\mathbf{k+q}\bar{\sigma } } } \big ] \label{eq:37}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath157 .    the green s function is then given by @xmath158 again , following eqs .
( [ eq:1])-([eq:7 ] ) we can write out the form of the pair susceptibility .
for the two plane wave loff state , this equation is presented as eq .
( [ eq : loff2symchi ] ) in appendix [ app : loff2 ] .
this quantity , in turn , enters the gap equation , given by the bec condition , @xmath159
. we may write this gap equation in compact form as @xmath160 this will , in turn , reduce to the gap equation ( [ eq:33 ] ) we deduced directly from the @xmath137 matrix analysis .    similarly , in our green s function formalism , we have @xmath55 , which reduces to the number equations we found in eq .
( [ eq:35 ] ) .
next we determine the momentum @xmath49 that maximizes @xmath30 when @xmath161 , i.e. , we need to find a solution to @xmath162 .
since the green s function is symmetric under @xmath163 , it can be shown that @xmath50 is a solution , which corresponds to the sarma phase . here
, however , we are interested in a loff - like state @xmath164 . where both signs contribute in a symmetric fashion .
thus we choose @xmath127 , and , thereby , arrive at the defining equation for the net momentum of the pairs .
@xmath165}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } ) } \nonumber \\   & & { } + \frac{f(e_{1\uparrow})+f(e_{1\downarrow})}{(e_{1}-e_{2})(e_{1}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}+\frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } } \nonumber \\   & & { } + \frac{f(e_{3\uparrow})+f(e_{3\downarrow})}{(e_{3}-e_{1})(e_{3}-e_{1})}\,\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big\ } \ , .
\label{eq:40}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this determines the magnitude @xmath4 ; for definiteness we take the direction of @xmath4 as along the @xmath166-axis .    the case of the single plane wave loff state should be contrasted .
there we showed that there was an intimate relation between the condition that there be no net equilibrium current and the extremal requirement on @xmath30 .
for the two plane wave loff state the current can be shown to be identically zero .
rather , the only condition one has to determine @xmath4 is the vanishing of the first derivative of the pair susceptibility .
a similar condition was imposed in the original larkin - ovchinnikov ( lo ) paper @xcite .
diagrams for sarma states or alternatively one plane wave loff states including ( a ) bare green s function @xmath167 . ( b ) vertices from pairing .
the momenta are @xmath168 and @xmath169 , while for single plane - wave loff states the momenta are @xmath170 and @xmath171 .
( c ) green s function @xmath23 .
( d ) @xmath172 for sarma states and @xmath173 for single plane - wave loff states . here
the thin and thick lines represent bare and full green s functions , respectively.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    diagrams representing the original ovchinnikov - larkin theory for ( a ) non - interacting green s function @xmath167 .
( b ) vertices from pairing with @xmath4 .
( c ) vertices from pairing with @xmath174 .
( d ) green s function @xmath23 .
( e ) @xmath175.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]      we now want to compare the present approach for the two plane wave loff state with that proposed in the original lo paper @xcite .
we will do this comparison within a diagrammatic framework .
it is useful first to illustrate the diagrammatic scheme by referring to the simpler sarma and one plane wave loff states .
these two states have a rather similar diagrammatic formulation .
we write these diagrams in a consolidated form in fig .
[ fig : bcsdia ] .
the first line indicates the bare quantities , that is , the bare green s function @xmath34 in part ( a ) and the quantity @xmath176 in part ( b ) .
this is written for the sarma state and readily generalized to the one plane wave loff phase .
the second line indicates the ( diagonal ) dressed green s function , while the third line shows effectively the gorkov @xmath177 function .
it should be noted for fig .
[ fig : bcsdia]d that this latter  anomalous " or off - diagonal green s function is explicitly seen to depend on a symmetrized sum of the product @xmath23 and @xmath34 .
it is this combination which we have seen appear in the pair susceptibility @xmath30 .
indeed , throughout this paper we have found that @xmath178 is essential for arriving at the standard mean field theoretic approach .
we can , thus , conclude from the last line in the figure that the @xmath177 function is given by a spin symmetrized combination of @xmath179 .    in fig .
[ fig : lodia ] we show the two plane wave loff diagrams originally proposed by lo . in order to discuss their implications
, we present the diagrams associated with the mean field matrix scheme of the previous section which are plotted in fig.[fig : qcdia ] . as in figure [ fig : bcsdia ] , one can see from the last line in part e of fig.[fig : qcdia ] that the off - diagonal green s function depends on a symmetrized sum of @xmath23 and @xmath34 .
one can also see that there are similarities as well as differences in these latter two approaches . in the approach of section [ sec : iiia ] , just as in lo we restrict our calculations to diagrams that do not contain propagators with momentum beyond @xmath180 and @xmath181 .
the differences are also apparent . in the lo paper ,
the ( diagonal component of the ) green s function diagrams were summed up to second order in @xmath57 . in the gap equation lo dropped diagrams containing propagators with higher momenta and truncated the series at third order in @xmath57 .
diagrams associated with the 3x3 bogoliubov diagonalization theory for ( a ) non - interacting green s function @xmath167 .
( b ) vertices from pairing with @xmath4 .
( c ) vertices from pairing with @xmath174 .
( d ) green s function @xmath23 .
( e ) @xmath175.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    if one were to follow the original lo scheme , but sum the entire series , then we will arrive at a slightly modified gap equation
. we would find instead the gap is determined by    @xmath182 -\frac{1}{2}[g_{0\uparrow}(-k+q)g^{(1)}_{\downarrow}(k)+g_{0\downarrow}(-k+q ) g^{(1)}_{\uparrow}(k)]\big\ } \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{\mathbf{k}}\big\{[f(e_{1\uparrow } ) + f(e_{1\downarrow})]\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}}{(e_{1}-e_{2 } ) ( e_{1}-e_{3})}+[f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})]\frac{e_{2 } + \mathcal{e}_{kq}}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3 } ) } \nonumber \\ & & { } + [ f(e_{3\uparrow})+f(e_{3\downarrow})]\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq } } { ( e_{3}-e_{1})(e_{3}-e_{2})}\big\}-\sum_{\mathbf{k } } \frac{f(e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})+f(e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})-1}{2e^{(1)}_{kq } } \label{eq:41}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    and thus the pair susceptibility derived from this method is @xmath183\nonumber\\ & & { } -\big[g_{0\uparrow}(p - k)g^{(1)}_{\downarrow}(k)+g_{0\downarrow}(p - k)g^{(1)}_{\uparrow}(k)\big]\big\}.\nonumber\\ \label{eq:42}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we could similarly use this modified pair susceptibility to arrive at the constraint on the value of @xmath4 .
we discuss these contributions in appendix [ app : loff2 ] . for the above equation
we define the green s function for the single plane - wave loff states as @xmath184 and @xmath185 .
the energy spectrum of the single plane - wave loff states is @xmath186 , @xmath187 , @xmath188 , and @xmath189 , where @xmath190 and we define @xmath191 .    in summary , to make contact with the original results of lo , one must subtract a second symmetrized term , which represents pairing with only one momentum .
it would thus appear , that relative to lo , there is an overcounting in the summation of the two series from the diagrams shown in fig.[fig : qcdia ] , and associated with the 3x3 matrix or mean field representation .
at this stage it is difficult to determine which of the two plane wave loff representations is the more appropriate
. it will be essential in future to study them both numerically in the presence of bcs - bec crossover effects .
for definiteness the equations which appear in this section apply to the sarma - like phase .
we can readily generalize to include the two different loff states .
this diagrammatic representation of our @xmath0-matrix scheme is shown in figs .
[ fig:4 ] and [ fig:5 ] .
the first of these indicates the propagator for non - condensed pairs which we refer to as @xmath192 , and the second of these the total self energy .
one can see throughout the combination of one dressed and one bare green s function , as represented by the thick and thin lines .
the self energy consists of two contributions from the non - condensed pairs or pseudogap ( @xmath193 ) and from the condensate ( @xmath194 ) .
there are , analogously , two contributions in the full @xmath0-matrix @xmath195 where we write @xmath196 .
similarly , we have for the fermion self energy @xmath197 we can see at once that @xmath198 the vanishing of the pair chemical potential implies that @xmath199 moreover , a vanishing chemical potential means that @xmath200 is strongly peaked around @xmath101 .
thus , we may approximate @xcite eq .
( [ eq : sigma2 ] ) to yield @xmath201 where @xmath202 importantly , we are led to identify the quantity @xmath203 @xmath204 note that in the normal state ( where @xmath26 is non - zero ) eq .
( [ eq : sigma3 ] ) is no longer a good approximation .
we now have a closed set of equations for addressing the ordered phase
. we can similarly extend this approach to temperatures somewhat above @xmath1 , by self consistently including a non - zero pair chemical potential .
this is a necessary step in addressing a trap as well @xcite .
additionally , the propagator for non - condensed pairs can now be quantified , using the self consistently determined pair susceptibility . at small four - vector @xmath48
, we may expand the inverse of the @xmath0-matrix , after analytical continuation ( @xmath205 ) , to obtain @xmath206 where the imaginary part @xmath207 rapidly as @xmath208 below @xmath1 . because we are interested in the moderate and strong coupling cases
, we drop the @xmath209 term in eq .
( [ omega_q : exp ] ) , and hence @xmath210 where we associate @xmath211 this establishes a quadratic dispersion and defines the effective pair mass , @xmath212 .
-matrix diagrams .
note that there is one dressed and full green s function .
this represents the propagator for the non - condensed pairs.,width=288 ]    -matrix scheme , indicating the condensed ( @xmath213 ) and non - condensed ( @xmath214 ) pairs .
]    finally , one can rewrite eq .
( [ eq : delta_pg ] ) as @xmath215 where @xmath216 is the bose distribution function .
analytical expressions for this mass are possible via a small @xmath217 expansion of @xmath28 . in this way
we find @xmath218 the coefficients are @xmath219 and @xmath220      the theoretical framework in the previous section can now be implemented to address the physics at finite @xmath0 .
we do this here only for the sarma state , thereby expanding on earlier papers @xcite .
the counterpart results for the two loff phases are presented in the two appendices .
we begin by determining the form of the pair dispersion .
the pair susceptibility is given by @xmath221 } \nonumber \\ & & = \sum_{\mathbf{k}}\bigg\ { u_{k}^{2}\frac{\bar{f}(e_{k } ) + \bar{f}(\xi_{p - k})-1}{i\omega-\xi_{p - k}-e_{k } }   + v_{k}^{2}\frac{\bar{f}(\xi_{p - k})- \bar{f}(e_{k})}{i\omega-\xi_{p - k}+e_{k}}\bigg\}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] inserting this form into the @xmath0-matrix [ eq .  ( [ eq:1 ] ) ]
we readily find that the coefficent @xmath16 is @xmath222.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath223 is the total density .
next we want to calculate @xmath224 ( defined above ) and its derivatives .
@xmath225\bigg\ } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    since @xmath226 , we have @xmath227 and @xmath228 .
then @xmath229 \nonumber \\ & & { } -\bar{f}(e_{k\uparrow})\big[\frac{6\xi_{k}}{e_{k}}+ \frac{4(\xi_{k}+\mu)(e_{k}^{2}+\xi_{k}^{2})}{me_{k}\delta^{2}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } + 4\bar{f}^{\prime}(\xi_{k})\frac{(\xi_{k}+\mu)}{m}-3\big(1-\frac{\xi_{k}}{e_{k}}\big ) \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{2e_{k}}{m\delta^{2}}\big(1-\frac{\xi_{k}}{e_{k}}\big)^{2 } ( \xi_{k}+\mu)\big\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath230 is the derivative of @xmath231 .    with this dispersion , then one can compute the number of non - condensed pairs , @xmath232 .
we then have @xmath233 where @xmath234 is the riemann zeta function .
when @xmath235 , @xmath236 .
physically , these non - condensed pairs , which appear at finite @xmath0 , have been shown to have important physical consequences . in the homogeneous situation
, we have found that finite @xmath0 stabilizes the superfluid state leading to an  intermediate temperature superfluid " @xcite . in addition , the presence of a finite excitation gap at @xmath1 [ @xmath237 makes the behavior of the superfluid transition temperature more complex than its mean field counterpart , @xmath238 .
we frequently find a double - valued structure @xcite , with superfluidity existing only for temperature intermediate between the two @xmath1 s .
in the trapped situation , we have found @xcite that these pairs enter explicitly as the mechanism for carrying polarization within the sarma phase . at low @xmath0
there is very little polarization carried by the superfluid core ; instead , the region of the trap where @xmath239 , but @xmath240  which can be called  the mixed normal region" carries the bulk of the polarization , much as observed experimentally @xcite .
we now return to the strong analogies between this bcs - based or leggett mean field theory @xcite and bose condensation of point bosons , as summarized in table i.    we have three central equations .    \1
. the pair chemical potential must vanish at and below @xmath1 @xmath241 importantly this condition leads to the mean field gap equations derived in sections [ sec : ii ] and [ sec : iii ] .
these gap equations then provide a specific value for @xmath17 , according to the different phases being contemplated .
there must be a conservation of the total number of ( composite )  bosons `` in the system .
for this condition , our central equation is eq .
( [ eq : sum ] ) .
here it is understood that the number of ' ' bosons " is effectively represented by the parameter @xmath242 . in the fermionic limit , this parameter reflects the number of bosons through the energy which is needed to create fermions , and thereby break the bosons apart . unlike the point boson case , here the
total boson number " is temperature dependent and has to be self - consistently determined .
as expected , in the deep bec regime , where the fermionic excitations are negligible , the pair density is given by @xmath243 .
\3 . the number of non - condensed pairs is readily computed in terms of the pair dispersion , just as in conventional bec . for this condition
our central equation is eq .
( [ eq:81 ] ) .
then , just as in conventional bec , the number of condensed bosons ( proportional to @xmath244 ) is determined by the difference between @xmath15 and @xmath245 .
this , in turn , determines the transition temperature @xmath1 as the lowest temperature(s ) in the normal state at which noncondensed pairs exhaust the total weight of @xmath246 so that @xmath247 . solving for the  transition temperature " in the absence of pseudogap effects @xcite leads to the quantity @xmath238 .
more precisely , @xmath238 should be thought of as the temperature at which the excitation gap @xmath17 vanishes .
this provides a reasonable estimate , for the pairing onset temperature @xmath248 , ( when a stable superfluid phase exists ) .
this is distinguished from the transition temperature .
we note that @xmath248 represents a smooth crossover rather than an abrupt phase transition .
it should be stressed that the dispersion relation for the non - condensed pairs is quadratic .
this appears in the sarma and both one- and two - plane wave loff states .
for the latter two states , it can be seen to be closely related to the fact that @xmath249 must reach a maximum at @xmath4 . while _ one will always find a linear dispersion in the collective mode spectrum @xcite _ , within the present class of bcs - bec crossover theories , the restriction to a @xmath0-matrix scheme means that there is no feedback from the collective modes onto the pair excitation spectrum . in effect , the @xmath0-matrix approximation does not incorporate pair - pair interactions at a level needed to arrive at this expected linear dispersion in the pair excitation spectrum . nevertheless , because essentially all theories which address population imbalance build on the simplest bcs - leggett mean field theory , there is good reason to first address this level of approximation when including finite temperature effects .
it should be clear from the previous sections that the zero and finite temperature theories of population imbalanced superfluids can be consolidated into one general theory , based on the quantity which we call the pair susceptibility , @xmath30 .
this has a very specific form in the class of mean field theories currently applied to address population imbalance .
the quantity @xmath30 enters into the propagator for non - condensed pairs eq .
( [ t - matrix_pg ] ) which is just the @xmath0-matrix , @xmath250 . when non - condensed pairs are in equilibrium with a condensate , they must have zero chemical potential .
this , in turn , yields the various gap equations for the sarma and the one- and two - plane - wave loff states , provided one take a special form for the pair susceptibility involving one dressed and one bare green s function .
importantly , the same pair propagator characterizes the effective number of non - condensed pairs as seen in eq .
( [ eq : delta_pg ] ) .
each of these population imbalanced superfluids has an associated @xmath251 pseudogap contribution , which is summarized for the sarma case in section [ sec : iii ] and for the two loff cases in appendices [ app : loff1 ] and [ app : loff2 ] .
this pseudogap contribution serves to differentiate the order parameter from the gap parameter at all non - zero @xmath0 , and in all cases except strict bcs theory . at a more physical level , in the normal state
there is an excitation gap for fermionic excitations associated with
pre - formed " pairs . in the superfluid phase
, there is a new form of condensate excitation , not found in bcs theory and associated with excited pair states .
as the pairing attraction becomes stronger , it pays to excite pairs of atoms rather than create single fermion excitations which cost an energy gap .
these pseudogap effects are an essential component of bcs - bec crossover theory , and they are necessary in order to smoothly involve from the fermionic statistics of bcs to the bosonic statistics of bec .
interestingly , they are also widely observed in high temperature superconductors @xcite .
thus far , we have applied the present theoretical formalism to the sarma state both in the homogeneous @xcite and trapped @xcite configurations . from the point of view of comparing with experiment , our trapped calculations have again underlined the importance of pseudogap effects .
we find that the bulk of the polarization is carried in the pseudogap region of the trap : outside the condensate but in the region where both spin states ( and thus pairing ) are present . because we find that only modest polarizations are stable , it appears necessary in future to include loff - like condensates as well , although their stability must be demonstrated @xcite .
this observation is also consistent with numerical calculations @xcite based on bogoliubov - de gennes theory .
a key contribution of the present work is that it lays the groundwork for addressing the one and two plane wave loff phases , at general temperature .    in summary
, this paper has presented a theoretical formalism for the sarma and one- and two - plane wave loff states at zero and finite @xmath0 as one varies from bcs to bec , in the presence of an arbitrary population imbalance .
our premise is that the effects of finite @xmath0 , which necessarily must be accomodated in any comparison with experiment , must be compatible with the @xmath3 formalism .
the zero temperature formalism we use here reduces to the standard one in the literature @xcite for the sarma and one - plane wave loff states . however , our studies of the two - plane wave loff state present new results by extending the current literature away from the landau - ginzburg regime ( near @xmath1 ) .
this work was supported by nsf phy-0555325 and nsf - mrsec grant no .  dmr-0213745 .
the following two appendices are dedicated to presenting additional details on the one- and two - plane - wave loff states .
the results are presented in appendix form both for clarity and to avoid some of the more technical details in the main text .
first , for the one - plane - wave loff state , we wish to explore the relationship between the zero current condition applied by fulde and ferrell @xcite and the extremal condition of @xmath252 . for the former ,
we determine momentum @xmath253 by requiring the total current to be zero . from @xmath254
$ ] we get    @xmath255-\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\mathbf{(k - q)}[f(e_{1,\downarrow})u_{\mathbf{k}}^{2}+f(-e_{1,\uparrow})v_{\mathbf{k}}^{2}]\nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{\mathbf{k}}\big[\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2 } \big(1-\frac{\xi_{kq}}{e_{kq}}\big)+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2}[f(e_{1,\uparrow})+f(e_{1,\downarrow})]\frac{\xi_{kq}}{e_{kq}}+(\mathbf{k-}\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2})[f(e_{1,\uparrow})-f(e_{1,\downarrow})]\big ] \nonumber \\ & = & 0\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we can take @xmath4 as the @xmath166 direction , and all the above equations need to be integrated over the angular variable @xmath256 .
the pair susceptibility , even for the simpler loff state is reasonably complex so we present it here for completeness .
@xmath257 $ ] is    @xmath258.\ ] ]    next , we characterize the pseudogap contributions which enter via @xmath259 . here
@xmath16 and @xmath260 are determined as follows .
@xmath261\big\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here @xmath21 is the total density .
note that the linear derivative vanishes , as was established in section [ sec : iib ] .
thus we turn next to the quadratic term .
the coefficient of this second order term corresponds to the inverse pair mass , @xmath262 .
this is given by    @xmath263-[f(e_{1,\uparrow})+f(e_{1,\downarrow})]\big[\frac{3\xi_{kq}}{e_{kq } } + \frac{2[(\mathbf{k - q})^2+q^2](e_{kq}^{2}+\xi_{kq}^{2})}{me_{kq}\delta^{2}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{2[f(e_{1,\uparrow})-f(e_{1,\downarrow})]}{m\delta^2}[(\mathbf{k - q})^2-q^2]\xi_{kq } + \frac{8}{m}\bar{f}^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}})(\mathbf{k - q})^2 - 3\big(1-\frac{\xi_{kq}}{e_{kq}}\big ) \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{2e_{kq}}{m\delta^{2}}\big(1-\frac{\xi_{kq}}{e_{kq}}\big)^{2}(\mathbf{k - q})^2\big\}\end{aligned}\ ] ]
we begin with the results that relate to the simplest mean field - based scheme discussed in section [ sec : iiia ] .
we then proceed to the slightly different scheme based on a resummation of the lo diagrams .
@xmath264 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}t\sum_{n}\sum_{\mathbf{k},\sigma}\frac{1}{i\omega - i\omega_{n}- \xi_{\mathbf{p - k}\sigma}}\,\frac{(i\omega_{n}+ \xi_{\mathbf{k+q}\sigma})(i\omega_{n}+\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\sigma } ) } { ( i\omega_{n}-e_{1\bar{\sigma}})(i\omega_{n}-e_{2\bar{\sigma } } ) ( i\omega_{n}-e_{3\bar{\sigma } } ) } \ ] ]      the explicit forms of the coefficients @xmath16 and @xmath262 are @xmath265}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}+\frac{f(e_{1\uparrow})+f(e_{1\downarrow})}{(e_{1}-e_{2})(e_{1}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}+\frac{f(e_{3\uparrow})+f(e_{3\downarrow})}{(e_{3}-e_{1})(e_{3}-e_{1})}\,\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } } \big\}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath266 \nonumber \\ & & { } -\frac{\frac{8}{m^{2}}(\mathbf{k\cdot q})(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)[f^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow})+f^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow})]}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } ) } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{1\uparrow})+f(e_{1\downarrow})}{(e_{1}-e_{2})(e_{1}-e_{3})}\,\big[\frac{\frac{4}{m}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})^{2}}-6\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\big[\frac{\frac{4}{m}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}{(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})^{2}}-6\frac{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\big[\frac{\frac{4}{m}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}{(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})^{2}}-6\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big ] \big\}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for the lo - based pair susceptibility we have @xmath267-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}[g_{0\uparrow}(p - k ) g^{(1)}_{\downarrow}(k)+g_{0\downarrow}(p - k)g^{(1)}_{\uparrow}(k ) ]   \nonumber \\ & = & t\sum_{n}\sum_{\mathbf{k},\sigma}\big\{\frac{1}{i\omega_l - i\omega_{n}- \xi_{\mathbf{p - k}\sigma}}\,\frac{(i\omega_{n}+ \xi_{\mathbf{k+q}\sigma})(i\omega_{n}+\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\sigma } ) } { ( i\omega_{n}-e_{1\bar{\sigma}})(i\omega_{n}-e_{2\bar{\sigma } } ) ( i\omega_{n}-e_{3\bar{\sigma}})}\big\ } \nonumber \\ & & { } -\frac{1}{2}t\sum_{n}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\big\{\frac{1}{i\omega_l - i\omega_{n } -\xi_{\mathbf{p - k}\uparrow}}\,\frac{i\omega_{n}+ \xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow}}{(i\omega_{n}-e^{(1)}_{2,\downarrow } ) ( i\omega_{n}+e^{(1)}_{2,\uparrow } ) } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{i\omega_l - i\omega_{n}-\xi_{\mathbf{p - k}\downarrow } } \,\frac{i\omega_{n}+\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow } } { ( i\omega_{n}-e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})(i\omega_{n } + e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})}\big\}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the momentum @xmath4 is determined by minimizing @xmath128 , i.e. , @xmath268 at @xmath127 .
this gives the * momentum equation * @xmath269 \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{\mathbf{k}}\big(\frac{\mathbf{k - q}}{m}\big)\big\{\frac{\frac{2}{m}(\mathbf{k\cdot q})[f(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow})+f(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow})-2]}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } ) } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{1\uparrow})+f(e_{1\downarrow})}{(e_{1}-e_{2})(e_{1}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}+\frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{3\uparrow})+f(e_{3\downarrow})}{(e_{3}-e_{1})(e_{3}-e_{1})}\,\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big\ } \nonumber \\ & & { } -\frac{1}{2\delta^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\big\{\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2}\big(1-\frac{\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}}{e^{(1)}_{kq}}\big)+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2}\frac{\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}}{e^{(1)}_{kq}}[f(e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})+f(e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})]+(\mathbf{k-}\frac{\mathbf{q}}{2})[f(e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})-f(e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})]\big\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the coefficients in the pseudogap dispersion are @xmath270}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}+\frac{f(e_{1\uparrow})+f(e_{1\downarrow})}{(e_{1}-e_{2})(e_{1}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\right .
\nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\frac{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}+\frac{f(e_{3\uparrow})+f(e_{3\downarrow})}{(e_{3}-e_{1})(e_{3}-e_{1})}\,\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } }   \nonumber \\ & & { } \left .
+ \frac{1}{2\delta^{2}}\bigg[[1-f(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow})-f(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow } ) ] -\frac{\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}}{e^{(1)}_{kq}}[1-f(e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})-f(e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})]\bigg]\right\}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath271 \nonumber \\ & & { } -\frac{\frac{8}{m^{2}}(\mathbf{k\cdot q})(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)[f^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow})+f^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow})]}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m } ) } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{1\uparrow})+f(e_{1\downarrow})}{(e_{1}-e_{2})(e_{1}-e_{3})}\,\big[\frac{\frac{4}{m}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}{(e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})^{2}}-6\frac{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{1}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\big[\frac{\frac{4}{m}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}{(e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})^{2}}-6\frac{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{2}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{f(e_{2\uparrow})+f(e_{2\downarrow})}{(e_{2}-e_{1})(e_{2}-e_{3})}\,\big[\frac{\frac{4}{m}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}}+\mu)(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})}{(e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m})^{2}}-6\frac{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}+\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}{e_{3}+\mathcal{e}_{kq}-\frac{\mathbf{k\cdot q}}{m}}\big ] \big\ } \nonumber \\ & & { } -\frac{1}{12mz\delta_{1}^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\big\ { [ f(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow})+f(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow } ) ] \big[3+\frac{4\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}(\mathbf{k - q})^2}{m\delta_{1}^{2}}\big ] \nonumber \\ & & { } -[f(e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})+f(e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})]\big[\frac{3\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}}{e^{(1)}_{kq } } + \frac{2[(\mathbf{k - q})^2+q^2]({e^{(1)}_{kq}}^{2}+{\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}}^{2})}{me^{(1)}_{kq}\delta_{1}^{2}}\big]+\frac{2[f(e^{(1)}_{1,\uparrow})-f(e^{(1)}_{1,\downarrow})]}{m\delta_{1}^2}[(\mathbf{k - q})^2-q^2]\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq } } \nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{2}{m}[f^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\uparrow})+f^{\prime}(\xi_{\mathbf{k - q}\downarrow})](\mathbf{k - q})^2 - 3\big(1-\frac{\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}}{e^{(1)}_{kq}}\big ) + \frac{2e^{(1)}_{kq}}{m\delta_{1}^{2}}\big(1-\frac{\xi^{(1)}_{\mathbf{kq}}}{e^{(1)}_{kq}}\big)^{2}(\mathbf{k - q})^2\big\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here we define @xmath272 and @xmath273 , where @xmath274 .