bg geminorum was discovered by hoffmeister ( 1933 ) and jensch ( 1938 ) as a possible rv tau star with an uncertain period of @xmath0 60 days . with a photographic magnitude of @xmath0 14 ,
the star languished in the general catalog of variable stars ( @xcite ) until 1992 , when we began photometric observations to improve the period estimate and to verify the rv tau classification .
early data revealed a repeatable ellipsoidal variation with a long period , instead of the more irregular variation expected from an rv tau star .
additional photometry allowed us to refine the period and plan spectroscopic observations . together with the photometry ,
high quality spectra acquired around the orbit establish bg gem as a rare eclipsing binary system with an unseen primary star and a lobe - filling k supergiant secondary star .
this paper describes our data and analysis .
we begin with a summary of the observations in  2 , continue with a detailed analysis in  3 , and conclude with the discussion in  4 .
various student observers acquired optical photometry of bg gem with standard vr@xmath1i@xmath1 filters and a photometrics pm512 camera mounted on the wellesley college 0.6-m sawyer telescope .
observations beginning 23 july 1997 used a tk1024 back - illuminated ccd .
we processed the data using standard tasks within noao iraf .
each image was bias - subtracted , dark - subtracted , and flat - fielded using twilight flats .
we extracted photometry of bg gem and several comparison stars using phot with a 3  aperture and a 3  sky annulus 17  from the star .
wellesley is not a photometric site ; we thus derived photometry of bg gem relative to comparisons verified to be non - variable .
the relative photometry has 1@xmath5 probable errors of @xmath60.011 mag at v , @xmath60.014 mag at r@xmath1 , and @xmath60.011 mag at i@xmath1 based on repeat observations of comparison stars in the field of bg gem .
table 1 lists the relative photometry of bg gem and a comparison star as a function of time ( the heliocentric julian date , jd ) and photometric phase @xmath7 defined below .
p. berlind , m. calkins , and several other observers acquired low resolution optical spectra of bg gem with fast , a high throughput , slit spectrograph mounted at the fred l. whipple observatory 1.5-m telescope on mount hopkins , arizona ( @xcite ) .
we used a 300 g mm@xmath8 grating blazed at 4750  , a 3  slit , and a thinned loral 512 @xmath9 2688 ccd .
these spectra cover 38007500   at a resolution of @xmath0 6  .
we flux- and wavelength - calibrated the spectra in iraf . after trimming the ccd frames at each end of the slit , we corrected for the bias level , flat - fielded each frame , applied an illumination correction , and derived a full wavelength solution from calibration lamps acquired immediately after each exposure . the wavelength solution for each frame has a probable error of @xmath60.51.0  .
we extracted object and sky spectra using the optimal extraction algorithm within apextract .
the absolute flux - calibration for each night relies on observations of 2 - 5 standard stars ( barnes & hayes 1982 ) and has an uncertainty of @xmath65%10% .
nights with clouds or poor seeing have poor absolute calibrations ( @xmath6 20% or worse ) but good relative calibrations .
figure 1 shows a typical spectrum of bg gem . the spectrum resembles a late g or early k star , with a red continuum and strong absorption from the g band , mg  i , na  i , and the ba  i blend at @xmath106495 .
strong h  i balmer emission lines are also visible , with h10 and h11 present on some spectra .
the h@xmath11 and h@xmath12 lines are often double peaked .
some spectra show a weak blue continuum and weak he  i emission at 5876   and 6678  .
there is no evidence for absorption lines from a hot , early - type star .    to analyze the spectra , we measured continuum magnitudes and indices of strong absorption and emission lines using narrow passbands ( oconnell 1973 ; worthey 1994 ) .
table 2 lists the central wavelength @xmath10 and width @xmath13 for each .
the continuum magnitudes are normalized to the zero - point of the v magnitude scale , @xmath14 = @xmath15 @xmath1621.1 , where @xmath17 is the flux in the passband .
the absorption and emission indices , derived using sbands within iraf , are @xmath18 = @xmath162.5 log(@xmath17/@xmath19 ) , where @xmath17 is the average flux in the passband @xmath10 and @xmath19 is the continuum flux interpolated between the fluxes in the neighboring blue band centered at @xmath20 and the red band centered at @xmath21 .
table 3 lists the measured indices along with emission line equivalent widths as a function of jd and @xmath7 .
table 4 lists continuum magnitudes measured on spectrophotometric nights .
we searched various databases for previous observations of bg gem .
bg gem is not a known point source in any of the online _
iras _ , radio , or x - ray catalogs ( e.g. , _ asca _ , _ rosat _ ) .
it lies close to several triggers in the cgro / batse 4b catalog ( e.g. , trigger # 4157 ) , but large positional offsets from the nominal trigger positions makes association with these events unlikely .
the average of 100 days of data from the all - sky monitor ( asm ) of the _ rossi x - ray timing explorer _ is @xmath22 mcrab at 212 kev ( remillard 1999 ; 1 mcrab is 0.0755 counts s@xmath8 with the asm ( levine 1996 ) , which corresponds roughly to @xmath23 erg @xmath24 s@xmath8 at 212 kev assuming a spectrum similar to that other x - ray binaries [ see @xcite ] ) .
bg gem is a 2mass point source , # 0603308 + 274150 in the 1999 spring release point source catalog , as summarized below .
figure 2 shows light curves for bg gem .
the data have been folded on the best period derived from fourier analysis and periodograms .
the primary minimum has the ephemeris    @xmath25    we define @xmath7 = 0.0 at primary minima . the curves at 4050   and 4400   are derived from fast spectra .
the zero points for the v and r data are set from fast light curves at 5550    and 6500    using offsets derived from the jacoby , hunter & christian ( 1984 ) spectral atlas and published broadband magnitudes , v = @xmath26 + 0.16 and r@xmath1 = @xmath27 .
the zero point for the i@xmath1 light curve assumes the secondary is a normal k0 i star reddened by @xmath28 1.65 mag ( see below ) , with an intrinsic r@xmath1i@xmath1 = 0.52 ( bessell 1990 ) .
the light curves show several clear features .
ellipsoidal variations of the secondary star are prominent at vr@xmath1i@xmath1 .
the large amplitudes of @xmath0 0.5 mag indicate that the secondary probably fills its roche lobe and that the orbital inclination is close to 90 .
the deep primary minimum at short wavelengths shows that the primary star is much hotter than the secondary .
the eclipse of the primary is long and flat - bottomed , which implies that the primary is extended .
this extended primary is probably responsible for the eclipse of the secondary star visible in the v , r@xmath1 and i@xmath1 filters as a deep secondary minimum at @xmath7 = 0.5 .
the absorption line indices shown in figure 3 provide additional support for a hot , extended , primary star in bg gem . due to a decrease in the continuum flux ,
all of the lines are strongest during the eclipse of the primary .
the blue lines strengthen much more than the red lines , indicating that the primary has a blue continuum .
the eclipse of the primary covers a significant fraction , @xmath29 , of the orbital period .
we can measure the spectral type of the secondary star by examining the absorption lines at @xmath7 = 0.0 , when the primary is in eclipse . based on a comparison of the spectral indices with indices derived from the jacoby ( 1984 ) and worthey ( 1994 ) spectral atlases ,
all of the absorption lines imply a late g or early k spectral type .
our best estimate is k0 i , with an uncertainty of 12 subclasses .
the supergiant classification is required for the combination of strong mg  i , na  i , and fe  i absorption features .
this result agrees with the low gravity implied for a lobe - filling secondary .
the balmer emission line equivalent widths also vary with phase ( figure 4 ) .
the h@xmath11 and h@xmath12 lines are eclipsed at primary minimum .
the eclipses are long and never reach totality .
both lines strengthen relative to the continuum during secondary eclipses , because the flux from the k0  i secondary weakens considerably .
similar variations may be visible in he  i @xmath106678 , but the line is weak with a typical equivalent width of 0.5   or less .
other he  i lines are too difficult to measure accurately : @xmath105876 is blended with na  i and @xmath107065 is very weak .
the light curves constrain the sizes of the h  ii emission region and the primary and secondary stars . for an edge - on system with a circular orbit , the eclipse duration yields the sum of the radii of the two components ; the duration of totality establishes the difference of the two radii . in bg gem ,
the length of the eclipses at 4400   and 4050   results in @xmath30 0.37 @xmath31 , where @xmath31 is the orbital semi - major axis , @xmath32 is the radius of the primary star , and @xmath33 is the radius of the k0 i secondary star . from the length of totality , @xmath34 0.12 @xmath31 . these two constraints set @xmath35 0.12 @xmath31 and @xmath36 0.25 @xmath31 . the apparent length of totality at @xmath7 = 0.5 in the r@xmath1 and i@xmath1 filters suggests a somewhat larger radius for the primary at long wavelengths .
the length of the h@xmath11 eclipse implies @xmath37 0.55 @xmath31 , which results in @xmath38 0.3 @xmath31 .
the lack of a total eclipse for h@xmath11 confirms that the h  ii region is larger than the k0  i secondary .    to derive absolute constraints on the binary components , we need an independent measure of @xmath31 .
we now consider radial velocity data to establish the orbital parameters of bg gem .
we derived radial velocities from the strong absorption and emission lines on fast spectra .
for absorption line velocities , we cross - correlated the fast spectra against the best - exposed spectrum , where the velocity is set by cross - correlation against standard stars with known velocities ( see tonry & davis 1979 ; kurtz & mink 1998 ) . to avoid contamination from the hot primary ,
we restricted the cross - correlation to @xmath3950006800 .
we measured emission line velocities from cross - correlations with an emission - line template , as described by kurtz & mink ( 1998 ) .
we adopted the velocity of h@xmath12 as the emission line velocity , because h@xmath11 may be blended with [ n  ii ] emission on our low resolution spectra .
we estimate errors of @xmath615   for absorption lines and @xmath620  for emission lines .
table 5 lists the measured velocities as a function of jd and @xmath7 .
figure 5 shows the absorption line radial velocities as a function of photometric phase .
we analyzed these observations using monet s ( 1979 ) fourier transform algorithm ( see also kenyon & garcia 1986 ) .
the best spectroscopic period , @xmath40 , agrees with the photometric period .
a circular orbit with @xmath41 from equation ( 1 ) fits the orbit well .
this solution has an orbital semi - amplitude , @xmath42 , and a fractional semi - major axis , @xmath43 au . spectroscopic conjunctions occur 1.234 days prior to photometric minima ,
@xmath44    this phase difference has a significance of only 1.3@xmath5 .
the mass function is @xmath45 .
if we adopt sin @xmath46 = 1 , this result becomes @xmath47 , where @xmath48 is the mass ratio .
solutions with eccentric orbits do not improve the fit to the data . iterations in fourier and configuration space yield @xmath49 .
the lucy & sweeney ( 1971 ) test confirms that the non - zero @xmath50 has only 1.5@xmath5 significance .
we thus prefer the circular solution with the parameters quoted above .
these results place a lower limit on the mass of the primary , @xmath51 4 , if the k0  i secondary has negligible mass and sin @xmath46 = 1 .
the emission line velocities and double - peaked profiles indicate that the emission lines form in a circumstellar disk surrounding the primary star ( figure 6 ) .
the h@xmath12 line has a nearly constant velocity outside primary eclipse , with a mean velocity of + 33.8 @xmath6 16.3 .
this velocity is identical to the systemic velocity @xmath52 = 28.0 @xmath6 3.2 .
the line velocity increases as the eclipse of the blue continuum begins .
the velocity reaches @xmath53  at @xmath7 = @xmath160.05 to @xmath160.04 , decreases to the systemic velocity at @xmath7 = 0.00 , falls to @xmath54  at @xmath7 = 0.04 to 0.05 , and returns to the systemic velocity as the eclipse of the blue continuum ends .
this classical disturbance  the rossiter effect  is consistent with the eclipse of a rapidly rotating disk .
the blue - shifted half of the disk is eclipsed first during ingress and is revealed first during egress . both h@xmath11 and h@xmath12 decrease in full - width at half maximum during eclipse , supporting this interpretation .
if we associate the apparent rotational velocity of @xmath0 125150  with disk rotation , the radius of the disk is @xmath38 3550 @xmath55 .
together with our limit on @xmath56 from the eclipse duration , this result leads to a rough estimate for the mass ratio , @xmath57 0.1 , and the semi - major axis , @xmath58 150 .
the small mass ratio supports our conclusion that the k0 supergiant fills its roche lobe .
the effective radius of the roche lobe for @xmath59 is @xmath60 , indistinguishable from our estimate for the radius of the secondary , @xmath61 .
the effective radius of the roche lobe for the primary star is @xmath62
@xmath63 @xmath64 .
the radius of the h@xmath11 emission region is thus roughly half of the tidal radius .
the radius of the primary at blue wavelengths is only @xmath0 20% of the tidal radius , but large compared to the radius of a normal main sequence star .
these results suggest a simple dynamical model for bg gem .
the system consists of a lobe - filling k0 supergiant which transfers material into a large luminous accretion disk surrounding a primary star with @xmath65 45 .
the disk must have a blue continuous spectrum to explain the deep primary eclipses at @xmath66 4500  .
this disk is also responsible for the secondary eclipses at longer wavelengths .    to refine this model
, we now consider the light curve and spectra in more detail .
we begin with an analysis of the light curve using the wilson - devinney ( 1971 ) code .
improved constraints on the orbital parameters and on the physical characteristics of the binary components lead to better limits on the nature of the accretion disk .
we then use the reddening derived from the balmer lines and the optical continuum to set the distance to the system .
wilson & devinney ( 1971 ) developed a modern light curve synthesis program to derive physical characteristics of binary stars from multi - color light curves .
wilson ( 1990 , 1994 , and references therein ) describes recent improvements to the code , which is now available by anonymous ftp .
the code consists of two programs : lc , used to compute model light curves or radial velocity curves as a function of various input parameters ; and dc , which can be iterated to derive the best set of binary parameters from a least squares fit of the model to actual observations .
the analysis of  3.1 and  3.2 demonstrates that the primary component of bg gem is an extended disk surrounding a massive star .
we view the system at close to 90 .
few light curve synthesis programs include radiation from a disk ; none reliably compute fluxes for an edge - on disk .
therefore , for this study , we used lc to derive reliable ranges for binary parameters that produce light curves similar to those in figures 24 , but omitted the iteration of these parameters with dc .
figure 7 shows light curves from figure 2 along with model light curves . to determine the best fit binary system ( dashed curves ) , we varied several parameters to derive a ` best ' approximation to the observations , ( i ) the mass ratio , @xmath67 ; ( ii ) the inclination , @xmath46 ; and ( iii ) the brightness of the primary star relative to a lobe - filling secondary with an effective temperature , 4500 k , appropriate for a k0 supergiant star .
the mass ratio and inclination set the amplitude of the ellipsoidal variations ; the ellipsoidal amplitude grows with sin @xmath46 and inversely with @xmath67 .
the relative brightness of the primary sets the depth of the primary eclipse and is also constrained by the variation of absorption line indices with wavelength .
the dashed light curve models in figure 7 have several successes and failures .
the models match the depth of primary eclipse at each wavelength and the overall amplitude and shape of the light curves at @xmath68 0.050.40 and @xmath68 0.600.95 .
the length of the model eclipse at @xmath7 = 0 is too short , because the model primary is a star instead of a disk .
the secondary minimum at @xmath7 = 0.5 is too shallow , because the small primary star can not eclipse very much of the lobe - filling k0 i secondary .
the primary star must be hot and small to match the depths of primary eclipse at 40009000  .    to make a more realistic light curve synthesis , we considered a crude disk model for the primary star ( solid curves in figure 7 ) .
we assumed a disk with a rectangular cross - section as viewed in the orbital plane .
this disk has height @xmath69 above the orbital plane and radius @xmath70 in the orbital plane .
we assumed @xmath70 = @xmath71 and @xmath69 = 0.050.1 @xmath70 , where @xmath72 is the effective radius of the roche lobe of the primary .
we then took the output of lc  the fluxes of the primary and secondary as a function of @xmath7  and constructed new model light curves .
we computed ( i ) the fraction of the disk eclipsed by the k0 secondary star at @xmath73 , and ( ii ) the fraction of the k0 secondary eclipsed by the disk at @xmath74 .
we accurately accounted for roche geometry and assumed that both light sources are completely opaque and uniformly illuminated . this approach ignored limb and gravity darkening of the secondary , but should yield light curves closer to those actually observed .
the simple disk - shaped primary can explain the depths and shape of both primary and secondary eclipses , as indicated by the solid lines in figure 7
. models with @xmath69 = 0.07 @xmath70 , @xmath75 , and @xmath76 0.80.9 yield the ` best ' fit to the data .
less extended disks do not eclipse enough of the secondary at @xmath77 .
more extended disks occult too much of the secondary .
the large variation in disk radius with orbital phase suggests that the opaque , outer part of the disk is much cooler than the inner part of the disk .
our model is too simple to constrain either the size of the disk as a function of wavelength or the brightness temperature distribution within the disk , as in vrielmann , horne , & hessman ( 1999 ) for example .
we plan more detailed analyses in future studies .
the models shown in figure 7 assume @xmath78 , @xmath79 , and a primary star with an effective temperature of 10,000 k. primary stars with different effective temperatures do not change the model light curves as long as the ratio of the luminosity of the primary star to the luminosity of the secondary star at each wavelength remains fixed .
these ratios are set by the eclipse depth and can not vary by much more than 10% . for fixed inclination ,
smaller mass ratios produce shallower secondary mimina .
the disk radius also shrinks as @xmath67 increases , which leads to a smaller `` disk eclipse '' at secondary minimum .
we estimate @xmath59 for sin @xmath46 = 1 . any geometry with @xmath80 80   does not produce a primary eclipse and is thus ruled out by the data .
improved constraints on these values using our data requires a wd - type code that includes a reliable model for an edge - on accretion disk .      to derive better limits on the nature of the primary star , we need good estimates for the reddening and distance in addition to the parameters derived above . with @xmath81 and @xmath82 ,
bg gem lies close to the galactic plane in the direction of the galactic anti - center .
previous extinction surveys suggest modest visual extinctions , @xmath83 12 mag , for distances of 15 kpc ( e.g. , neckel & klare 1980 ; hakkila 1997 ) . adopting @xmath84 = 1.5 @xmath6 0.5 mag yields @xmath85 = 11.5 @xmath6 0.5 for the system at maximum and @xmath86 kpc for a k0 i star with @xmath87 = @xmath161.9 from the lc program and a bolometric correction of 1.5 mag .
we can place better limits on the extinction from near - ir photometry and the emission line data .
a k0 supergiant should have v
j = 1.51.6 and v  k = 2.12.3 . data from 2mass
 j = 10.32 @xmath6 0.03 , h = 9.61 @xmath6 0.03 , and k = 9.34 @xmath6 0.03  and v = 13.0 at maximum imply @xmath88 for a normal extinction law ( e.g. , rieke & lebofsky 1985 ; bessell & brett 1988 ) . the mean intensity ratio for h@xmath11 and h@xmath12 is @xmath89(h@xmath11)/@xmath89(h@xmath12 ) = 5.81 @xmath6 1.01 ; this ratio suggests @xmath90 for a standard extinction law ( mathis 1990 ) .
we thus favor @xmath88 for the extinction and @xmath91 kpc .
this combination agrees with the distance - dependent extinction measurements summarized in hakkila ( 1997 ) .
figure 8 shows the observed spectral energy distribution for bg gem .
filled points indicate observations dereddened by @xmath92 .
the k0 supergiant produces most of the optical and near - infrared radiation , as indicated by the solid and dot - dashed curves .
the primary source contributes a modest fraction of the v light .
its fraction of the total light grows substantially towards shorter wavelengths , as shown by the dashed curve .
the slope of the hot continuum , @xmath11 = ( d log @xmath17/d log @xmath10 ) = @xmath93 , is best - fit by the spectrum of an accretion disk but is marginally consistent with the spectrum of an early type star .
the measured extent of the primary , @xmath94 , is much larger than a normal early - type main sequence star .
the predicted v magnitude of a spherical star with @xmath95 k and @xmath96 is roughly 23 mag _ brighter _ than the k0 secondary .
our observed limit on the v brightness of the primary , @xmath0 10% of the k0 secondary , demonstrates that the primary is not a star .
however , a flattened disk with @xmath97 0.050.10 satisfies the limits on @xmath32 and the total brightness derived from the light curves .
constructing a ` best ' model for the disk in bg gem requires ultraviolet or x - ray data to provide better constraints on the spectrum and on the radius of the primary star . in this paper
, we simply develop a model consistent with the observed spectrum and masses without considering whether it is ` best ' or unique .
we first examine the case where the disk surrounds a hot primary star with parameters defined in  3.3 .
the primary star either has a low luminosity compared to the disk or is occulted by the disk .
otherwise , our model can not account for the primary eclipse as outlined above . requiring a self - luminous disk to produce all of the optical flux yields a large accretion rate , @xmath98 , which is ruled out by the weak h  i emission and lack of high ionization lines , such as he  ii @xmath104686 , on the optical spectrum
( see kenyon & webbink 1984 ) .
a ` reprocessing ' disk  which absorbs and reradiates light from the primary  can have a spectrum similar to a viscous accretion disk , because the temperature distributions are similar ( kenyon & hartmann 1987 ) . tests of several purely reprocessing disk models surrounding b - type stars indicate , however , that the half - light radius of the disk is @xmath0 10 , instead of the @xmath0 20  derived from the optical eclipses .
we thus consider models where accretion and reprocessing contribute comparable amounts to the observed spectrum .    the light solid line in figure 8 plots the spectrum from an accretion disk that satisfies several observational constraints .
the disk surrounds a b3 main sequence star . a large inclination , @xmath99 85 , allows the central star to hide behind the outer parts of the disk . the disk may also shield the k0 star from the radiation field of the b star .
an accretion rate of a few @xmath100 provides roughly half of the observed continuum radiation .
the model predicts a disk temperature @xmath101 k at a disk radius @xmath0 20  and a temperature @xmath0 3000 k at @xmath0 8090 .
these results are consistent with eclipse data which require a small hot primary at short wavelengths and a larger , cooler primary at long wavelengths (  3.3 ) .
cool material in the outer disk may also produce the extra mg  i absorption implied by the apparent rise in the mg  i index at secondary minimum ( fig .
the uncertainties in this model are modest if we require the primary to lie on the main sequence .
stars much cooler than @xmath0 15,000 k ( b6 v ) produce disks that are too cold to match the optical spectrum .
stars much hotter than @xmath0 30,000 k ( b0 ) should produce substantial he  i emission ( from ionization of the disk ) that is not observed .
this model has one main failure .
it is difficult for a b3 star to produce enough photons to ionize h to the observed level .
we estimate an extinction - corrected h@xmath12 luminosity of @xmath102 , which requires @xmath103 h - ionizing photons s@xmath8 if the b star ionizes material in the disk .
this limit is 12 orders of magnitude larger than expected from a b3 v star .
a boundary layer at the inner edge of the disk probably also produces too few ionizing photons , unless we have underestimated the accretion rate ( see , for example , @xcite ) .
olson ( 1991 ) considered h@xmath11 line formation within the disks of several algol systems , and produced line profiles similar to those observed .
it may be possible to account for the line flux in a similar way , but such a calculation is beyond the scope of this paper .
it is unlikely that any b - type star in bg gem could be underluminous compared to a normal main sequence star .
main sequence stars accreting material from a disk are at least as luminous as non - accreting main sequence stars of the same mass ( e.g. , kippenhahn & meyer - hofmeister 1977 ) .
the best alternative to this model is a black hole primary .
although less likely than a b - type primary star , a black hole accreting at a small fraction of the eddington limit might account for the observed radiation at 20  ( depending on the geometry ) . to evaluate the plausibility of this model , we considered a disk surrounding a 4.5  black hole .
the thick , inner disk produces a luminosity of @xmath104 if the accretion rate is 1% of the eddington limit .
we naively assumed that the inner disk emits x - rays isotropically ; the outer disk absorbs and re - radiates this emission at the local blackbody temperature . for a steady - state disk where @xmath105 , the disk temperature at 420  is @xmath0 50008000 k. the predicted luminosity of the outer disk in this model , @xmath106 , is close to our estimated disk luminosity of 510  if the inclination is @xmath0 85 .
our simple example suggests that a black hole accretion disk can plausibly produce the disk emission observed in bg gem for accretion rates much smaller than the eddington limit .
the model optimistically assumes that the inner disk radiates efficiently , @xmath0 10% , compared to advection - dominated accretion flows ( e.g. , @xcite ) and that the outer disk radiates as a blackbody . despite this optimism , we note that esin ( 1997 ) derive optical luminosities , @xmath107 , of @xmath0 @xmath108@xmath109 erg s@xmath8 for quiescent disks and @xmath109@xmath110 erg s@xmath8 for low state disks in black hole binaries with inclinations of 6090 .
the compact disks assumed in the esin models are more than factor of 100 smaller than the disk in bg gem , so it may be possible to achieve the observed optical flux from a larger disk surrounding a black hole in a wider binary system .
the black hole model has one main advantage and one main disadvantage compared to models where the primary is a b - type main sequence star .
a black hole accreting at 1% of the eddington limit easily produces enough high energy photons to satisfy our constraints on the h@xmath11 and h@xmath12 fluxes unless the accretion efficiency is much less than 1% ( esin 1997 ) .
but , hiding an accreting black hole in an edge - on binary may be more difficult than hiding a b - type main sequence star .
the x - ray luminosity , @xmath0 1300 , needed to power the observed optical luminosity in bg gem is roughly 3 orders of magnitude larger than the upper limit derived from the asm observations , @xmath0 2 .
the x - ray luminosities of quiescent black hole binary systems are also low , @xmath111 ( e.g. , @xcite )
. however , the region that emits x - rays in a black hole binary is very small , @xmath112 to @xmath113 cm , and easily occulted when the binary is viewed at high inclination .
for example , esin ( 1997 ) show that the x - ray luminosity of the small disk in an edge - on black hole binary system is several orders of magnitude smaller than the same disk viewed pole - on .
we expect that the larger disk in bg gem can occult a larger fraction of the x - ray flux than an edge - on disk in a smaller binary system .
future calculations of black hole binaries should address this issue .
our results indicate that bg gem is a textbook example of a very evolved , semi - detached binary system .
the system consists of a low mass , lobe - filling k0 supergiant which transfers material into a disk surrounding a massive primary star .
the large ellipsoidal light variations of the k0 secondary indicate a large mass ratio , @xmath114 0.1 , and large orbital inclination , @xmath115 .
the radial velocities of h@xmath11 emission in the disk support the large mass ratio .
we prefer @xmath116 to allow the disk to occult the primary star , which is not visible in the optical .
the system is remarkably stable for an interacting binary .
there is little scatter in either the optical brightness ( for 25 orbital cycles ) or the emission line equivalent widths ( for 34 orbital cycles ) .
studies of archival plate material would place useful constraints on long - term variability and outburst frequency .
our data are insufficient to choose between the two possible alternatives for the primary star .
the optical spectra resemble spectra of several algol systems  e.g. , uu cnc ( p = 96.7 days , @xcite ) and rz oph ( p = 262 days , @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite )  as well as quiescent spectra of several black hole binaries
e.g. , v616 mon ( p = 0.32 days , @xcite and references therein ) and v404 cyg ( p = 6.5 days , @xcite and references therein ) .
none of the long - period algol binaries have as extreme mass ratios as in bg gem ( see @xcite ) , although rz oph has @xmath117 .
the structure of the binary in rz oph has several other features in common with bg gem , including a lobe - filling k - type star , an invisible primary , and an extended accretion disk that occults the secondary star at @xmath7 = 0.5 ( see olson 1987 ) .
however , most of the energy from the disk in rz oph is produced by accretion , because the disk in rz oph is brighter and less stable than the disk in bg gem .
producing a large h@xmath11 flux from the intrinsically less luminous disk in bg gem is also a challenge , as noted above .
bg gem has many features in common with quiescent black hole binaries , despite the 12 order of magnitude difference in orbital periods .
many black hole binaries have ellipsoidal light curves and extreme mass ratios similar to those in bg gem ( e.g. , @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite ) .
quiescent black hole binaries often have modest emission line spectra , with strong , double - peaked h  i lines and weaker , double - peaked he  i lines ( e.g. , @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite ) .
higher ionization emission lines , such as he ii @xmath104686 , appear only in outburst , when the accretion rate through the disk increases dramatically .
quiescent black hole binaries often escape detection as very intense x - ray sources until they undergo major eruptions , and they often remain in quiescence for decades ( e.g. , @xcite ; @xcite ) .
all of the currently known black hole binary systems have small orbital inclinations @xmath118 ( see @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite ) .
the @xmath116 derived here for bg gem may allow the disk to occult even an intense x - ray source ( see @xcite , 1999b , and references therein for typical outburst fluxes ) . despite the lack of x - rays , bg gem may still contain a black hole primary surrounded by a quiescent accretion disk .    if confirmed , bg gem would be the black hole binary with the longest known orbital period .
other black hole binaries have periods of a few days or less .
any black hole binary is a challenge to modern theories of the evolution of binary systems ( e.g. , kalogera 1999 ) .
bg gem would provide a severe test of these theories .
bg gem would also be the only eclipsing system known among black hole binaries .
the black hole mass is unambiguous in an eclipsing binary .
our limit for the primary mass is close to the maximum possible neutron star mass ( see , for example , burrows 1998 ) .
bg gem thus may place new constraints on the minimum black hole mass .    with these considerations in mind ,
it is clear that additional observations are needed to understand the nature of the primary in bg gem .
ultraviolet spectra at 10003000   would probe the continuum and emission lines produced in the inner portions of the accretion disk and might reveal stellar absorption lines if the primary is a b - type star .
better limits on the x - ray flux from instruments on board _ chandra _ and the _ x - ray multi - mirror _ would also provide better constraints on the nature of the primary .
detection of an x - ray source that is eclipsed at primary minima would favor a black hole primary , because b - type main sequence stars are weak x - ray sources .
whatever the nature of the primary , future studies of the secondary star and the accretion disk surrounding the primary should yield a better understanding of accretion in wide binary systems .
eclipses of the blue continuum and the emission lines provide useful information about disk structure , through maximum entropy reconstruction among other techniques .
higher resolution observations of mg  i and other absorption features probe conditions in the secondary star as well as the cool , outer portions of the disk . near - infrared observations covering the orbit would improve mass estimates for the secondary star derived from ellipsoidal variations and might reveal emission from an optically thick `` bright spot , '' where material lost by the k0 supergiant impacts the disk .
emission from an optically thin spot might be visible in h@xmath11 or h@xmath12 .
finally , high resolution observations might yield a radial velocity curve for the primary and improved estimates for the mass ratio . the small distance and reddening make bg gem a prime target for these and other observations of a binary system at an interesting phase of its evolution .
we thank p. berlind , m. calkins , and other queue observers at the flwo 60  telescope for acquiring the fast spectra used in this project .
susan tokarz made the preliminary reductions of the fast spectra .
we are grateful to dan fabricant and his excellent group for designing and building a wonderful optical spectrograph .
comments from g. sobczak , j. mcclintock , r. webbink , and an anonymous referee improved our presentation .
r. remillard graciously derived the asm upper limit .
we also thank the wellesley college undergraduates who obtained the images of bg gem for photometry .
we acknowledge summer support for a. b. ( nsf grant ast-9417359 ) and a. d. ( w. m. keck foundation grant to the keck northeast astronomy consortium ) .
p. j. b. acknowledges support from nsf grant ast-9417359 and the brachman hoffman grants from wellesley college .
this publication makes use of data products from the two micron all sky survey , which is a joint project of the university of massachusetts and the infrared processing and analysis center , funded by the national aeronautics and space administration and the national science foundation .
this research also used data through from the high energy astrophysics science archive research center online service , provided by the nasa / goddard space flight center .
l c c c c c c c 48694.5086 & 0.205 & @xmath1190.187 & 1.154 & @xmath1190.023 & 1.125 & @xmath160.161 & 1.122 + 48698.5333 & 0.249 & @xmath1190.151 & 1.147 & @xmath1190.059 & 1.115 & @xmath160.172 & 1.122 + 48984.5759 & 0.370 & @xmath1190.354 & 1.133 & @xmath1190.167 & 1.135 & @xmath160.037 & 1.118 + 48990.7176 & 0.437 & @xmath1190.492 & 1.158 & @xmath1190.274 & 1.154 & @xmath1190.036 & 1.141 + 49006.5533 & 0.610 & @xmath1190.373 & 1.165 & @xmath1190.200 & 1.121 & @xmath160.012 & 1.111 + 49044.5032 & 0.024 & @xmath1190.835 & 1.161 & @xmath1190.635 & 1.123 & @xmath1190.435 & 1.130 + 49084.5480 & 0.461 & @xmath1190.566 & 1.145 & @xmath1190.317 & 1.116 & @xmath1190.070 & 1.147 + 49106.5242 & 0.701 & @xmath1190.195 & 1.136 & @xmath1190.008 & 1.142 & @xmath160.180 & 1.134 + 49368.7090 & 0.562 & @xmath1190.477 & 1.169 & @xmath1190.277 & 1.142 & @xmath1190.081 & 1.123 + 49375.6981 & 0.638 & @xmath1190.313 & 1.151 & @xmath1190.110 & 1.132 & @xmath160.069 & 1.125 + 49382.7523 & 0.715 & & & @xmath160.007 & 1.185 & @xmath160.157 & 1.126 + 49390.6297 & 0.801 & @xmath1190.193 & 1.157 & @xmath1190.025 & 1.141 & @xmath160.132 & 1.112 + 49391.5136 & 0.811 & @xmath1190.190 & 1.137 & @xmath1190.002 & 1.143 & @xmath160.171 & 1.127 + 49398.5720 & 0.888 & @xmath1190.373 & 1.160 & @xmath1190.203 & 1.143 & @xmath1190.027 & 1.119 + 49402.7024 & 0.933 & @xmath1190.513 & 1.149 & @xmath1190.371 & 1.111 & @xmath1190.152 & 1.131 + 49406.6050 & 0.975 & @xmath1190.784 & 1.156 & @xmath1190.603 & 1.173 & @xmath1190.411 & 1.125 + 49409.4841 & 0.007 & @xmath1190.879 & 1.162 & @xmath1190.637 & 1.143 & @xmath1190.430 & 1.136 + 49410.6664 & 0.020 & @xmath1190.899 & 1.146 & @xmath1190.649 & 1.139 & @xmath1190.484 & 1.119 + 49411.5224 & 0.029 & @xmath1190.838 & 1.156 & @xmath1190.625 & 1.139 & @xmath1190.396 & 1.155 + 49412.5232 & 0.040 & @xmath1190.810 & 1.154 & @xmath1190.588 & 1.138 & @xmath1190.348 & 1.143 + 49413.5668 & 0.051 & @xmath1190.702 & 1.150 & @xmath1190.462 & 1.122 & @xmath1190.302 & 1.118 + 49416.5775 & 0.084 & @xmath1190.533 & 1.168 & @xmath1190.326 & 1.134 & @xmath1190.116 & 1.118 + 49423.6071 & 0.161 & @xmath1190.283 & 1.147 & @xmath1190.110 & 1.133 & @xmath160.055 & 1.123 + 49435.6265 & 0.292 & & & @xmath1190.034 & 1.164 & @xmath160.115 & 1.120 + 49438.5772 & 0.324 & @xmath1190.271 & 1.138 & @xmath1190.048 & 1.155 & @xmath160.107 & 1.118 + 49442.5804 & 0.368 & @xmath1190.335 & 1.167 & @xmath1190.166 & 1.150 & @xmath1190.009 & 1.116 + 49443.6201 & 0.379 & @xmath1190.377 & 1.156 & @xmath1190.170 & 1.134 & @xmath1190.035 & 1.103 + 49444.5683 & 0.390 & @xmath1190.400 & 1.158 & @xmath1190.213 & 1.147 & @xmath1190.041 & 1.132 + 49447.5587 & 0.422 & @xmath1190.438 & 1.151 & @xmath1190.253 & 1.113 & @xmath1190.047 & 1.132 + 49461.5167 & 0.575 & @xmath1190.408 & 1.171 & @xmath1190.230 & 1.136 & @xmath1190.045 & 1.131 + 49744.6085 & 0.664 & @xmath1190.229 & 1.155 & @xmath1190.049 & 1.134 & @xmath160.099 & 1.114 + 49746.6087 & 0.685 & @xmath1190.182 & 1.169 & @xmath1190.028 & 1.143 & @xmath160.127 & 1.116 + 49747.6180 & 0.697 & @xmath1190.171 & 1.176 & @xmath160.021 & 1.147 & @xmath160.164 & 1.120 + 49748.5698 & 0.707 & @xmath1190.174 & 1.161 & @xmath160.003 & 1.143 & @xmath160.153 & 1.116 + 49751.6107 & 0.740 & @xmath1190.076 & 1.166 & @xmath160.088 & 1.147 & @xmath160.202 & 1.102 + 49752.5963 & 0.751 & @xmath1190.115 & 1.145 & & & @xmath160.197 & 1.114 + 49755.5755 & 0.783 & @xmath1190.134 & 1.163 & @xmath160.021 & 1.135 & @xmath160.186 & 1.111 + 49757.5714 & 0.805 & @xmath1190.165 & 1.158 & @xmath1190.007 & 1.126 & @xmath160.151 & 1.110 + 49761.5820 & 0.849 & @xmath1190.235 & 1.174 & @xmath1190.061 & 1.144 & @xmath160.082 & 1.122 + 49762.5920 & 0.860 & @xmath1190.251 & 1.165 & @xmath1190.080 & 1.126 & @xmath160.056 & 1.112 + 49763.5168 & 0.870 & @xmath1190.255 & 1.169 & @xmath1190.089 & 1.143 & @xmath160.062 & 1.121 + 49766.5277 & 0.903 & @xmath1190.381 & 1.150 & @xmath1190.213 & 1.124 & @xmath1190.040 & 1.125 + 49771.5679 & 0.958 & @xmath1190.703 & 1.170 & @xmath1190.504 & 1.159 & @xmath1190.338 & 1.118 + 49780.6224 & 0.057 & @xmath1190.621 & 1.170 & @xmath1190.410 & 1.160 & @xmath1190.246 & 1.111 + 49781.6495 & 0.068 & @xmath1190.581 & 1.150 & @xmath1190.347 & 1.136 & @xmath1190.160 & 1.124 + 49804.5517 & 0.318 & @xmath1190.256 & 1.159 & @xmath1190.053 & 1.142 & @xmath160.112 & 1.125 + 49810.5121 & 0.383 & @xmath1190.360 & 1.171 & @xmath1190.144 & 1.154 & @xmath160.013 & 1.117 + 49815.5164 & 0.437 & @xmath1190.455 & 1.169 & @xmath1190.223 & 1.149 & @xmath1190.056 & 1.109 +    l c c c c c c c 49831.5523 & 0.612 & @xmath1190.381 & 1.162 & @xmath1190.158 & 1.144 & @xmath1190.001 & 1.117 + 50114.6766 & 0.702 & @xmath1190.141 & 1.155 & @xmath160.018 & 1.152 & @xmath160.162 & 1.119 + 50118.6449 & 0.745 & @xmath1190.111 & 1.172 & @xmath160.045 & 1.154 & @xmath160.199 & 1.131 + 50120.6499 & 0.767 & @xmath1190.133 & 1.157 & @xmath160.023 & 1.142 & & + 50131.5678 & 0.886 & @xmath1190.310 & 1.162 & @xmath1190.145 & 1.141 & @xmath160.022 & 1.120 + 50132.5850 & 0.897 & @xmath1190.342 & 1.165 & @xmath1190.186 & 1.140 & @xmath1190.016 & 1.127 + 50139.6648 & 0.974 & @xmath1190.702 & 1.172 & @xmath1190.523 & 1.148 & @xmath1190.353 & 1.126 + 50140.5501 & 0.984 & @xmath1190.736 & 1.157 & @xmath1190.548 & 1.140 & @xmath1190.383 & 1.116 + 50143.5953 & 0.017 & @xmath1190.777 & 1.171 & @xmath1190.587 & 1.149 & @xmath1190.403 & 1.137 + 50146.6049 & 0.050 & @xmath1190.646 & 1.161 & @xmath1190.456 & 1.140 & @xmath1190.266 & 1.124 + 50147.5501 & 0.060 & @xmath1190.602 & 1.174 & @xmath1190.394 & 1.139 & @xmath1190.207 & 1.121 + 50153.5759 & 0.126 & @xmath1190.317 & 1.161 & @xmath1190.136 & 1.139 & @xmath160.046 & 1.116 + 50160.5511 & 0.202 & @xmath1190.128 & 1.179 & @xmath160.034 & 1.156 & @xmath160.198 & 1.132 + 50161.5227 & 0.213 & @xmath1190.142 & 1.170 & @xmath160.025 & 1.157 & @xmath160.186 & 1.126 + 50462.6408 & 0.499 & @xmath1190.633 & 1.166 & @xmath1190.392 & 1.153 & @xmath1190.185 & 1.121 + 50463.6463 & 0.509 & @xmath1190.620 & 1.167 & @xmath1190.398 & 1.142 & @xmath1190.178 & 1.125 + 50472.6658 & 0.608 & @xmath1190.369 & 1.155 & @xmath1190.160 & 1.140 & @xmath160.015 & 1.109 + 50489.5630 & 0.792 & @xmath1190.137 & 1.147 & @xmath160.013 & 1.138 & @xmath160.175 & 1.121 + 50490.6027 & 0.804 & @xmath1190.136 & 1.161 & & & & + 50504.5811 & 0.956 & @xmath1190.679 & 1.167 & @xmath1190.494 & 1.120 & @xmath1190.288 & 1.162 + 50523.5677 & 0.163 & @xmath1190.241 & 1.124 & @xmath1190.107 & 1.101 & @xmath160.117 & 1.116 + 50782.8269 & 0.992 & @xmath1190.792 & 1.158 & @xmath1190.603 & 1.138 & @xmath1190.431 & 1.122 + 50828.6566 & 0.492 & @xmath1190.644 & 1.153 & @xmath1190.398 & 1.134 & @xmath1190.170 & 1.125 + 50836.5599 & 0.579 & @xmath1190.374 & 1.159 & @xmath1190.177 & 1.143 & @xmath1190.015 & 1.132 + 50839.5264 & 0.611 & @xmath1190.268 & 1.144 & @xmath1190.140 & 1.118 & @xmath160.045 & 1.107 + 50840.5498 & 0.622 & @xmath1190.329 & 1.164 & @xmath1190.125 & 1.124 & @xmath160.069 & 1.122 + 50858.6164 & 0.819 & @xmath1190.163 & 1.164 & @xmath1190.022 & 1.154 & @xmath160.163 & 1.131 + 50860.6880 & 0.842 & @xmath1190.224 & 1.158 & @xmath1190.064 & 1.140 & @xmath160.085 & 1.099 + 50883.6207 & 0.092 & @xmath1190.407 & 1.144 & @xmath1190.218 & 1.131 & @xmath1190.052 & 1.132 + 50897.5577 & 0.244 & @xmath1190.156 & 1.163 & @xmath160.008 & 1.131 & @xmath160.165 & 1.124 + 50898.5383 & 0.255 & & & @xmath160.016 & 1.134 & @xmath160.168 & 1.119 + 50903.5061 & 0.309 & @xmath1190.173 & 1.151 & @xmath1190.005 & 1.149 & @xmath160.149 & 1.134 + 50914.5891 & 0.430 & @xmath1190.432 & 1.161 & @xmath1190.221 & 1.147 & @xmath1190.036 & 1.148 + 50915.5573 & 0.441 & @xmath1190.453 & 1.168 & @xmath1190.247 & 1.145 & @xmath1190.057 & 1.126 + 50931.5498 & 0.615 & & & @xmath1190.077 & 1.175 & @xmath160.077 & 1.142 + 50932.5137 & 0.626 & @xmath1190.251 & 1.168 & @xmath1190.068 & 1.158 & @xmath160.095 & 1.122 + 51210.6585 & 0.661 & @xmath1190.262 & 1.142 & @xmath1190.059 & 1.137 & @xmath160.116 & 1.136 + 51219.5829 & 0.758 & @xmath1190.145 & 1.159 & @xmath160.017 & 1.143 & @xmath160.179 & 1.121 + 51225.5590 & 0.823 & @xmath1190.192 & 1.157 & @xmath1190.024 & 1.147 & @xmath160.136 & 1.123 + 51226.6063 & 0.835 & @xmath1190.213 & 1.166 & @xmath1190.050 & 1.147 & @xmath160.097 & 1.121 + 51233.5798 & 0.911 & @xmath1190.426 & 1.167 & @xmath1190.265 & 1.133 & @xmath1190.089 & 1.122 + 51240.5426 & 0.987 & @xmath1190.844 & 1.151 & @xmath1190.626 & 1.140 & @xmath1190.444 & 1.107 + 51248.5614 & 0.074 & @xmath1190.487 & 1.135 & @xmath1190.245 & 1.145 & @xmath1190.019 & 1.111 + 51255.5686 & 0.151 & @xmath1190.381 & 1.140 & @xmath1190.195 & 1.154 & @xmath160.028 & 1.128 + 51263.4974 & 0.237 & @xmath1190.206 & 1.165 & @xmath1190.001 & 1.144 & @xmath160.174 & 1.128 + 51269.5027 & 0.303 & @xmath1190.250 & 1.150 & @xmath1190.064 & 1.129 & @xmath160.139 & 1.125 + 51273.5037 & 0.346 & @xmath1190.309 & 1.158 & @xmath1190.113 & 1.148 & @xmath160.059 & 1.131 + 51277.6396 & 0.392 & @xmath1190.309 & 1.192 & @xmath1190.107 & 1.171 & @xmath160.033 & 1.133 +    l c c c c c he  i & i@xmath120 & 6678 & 6600 & 6750 & 30 + h@xmath11 & i@xmath121 & 6563 & 6525 & 6600 & 30
+ ba i & i@xmath122 & 6495 & 6475 & 6525 & 25 + na i & i@xmath123 & 5893 & 5825 & 5965 & 30 + mg i & i@xmath124 & 5175 & 5050 & 5300 & 30 + h@xmath12 & i@xmath125 & 4861 & 4825 & 4900 & 30 + fe i & i@xmath126 & 4392 & 4364 & 4448 & 35 +   + 7025 cont & @xmath127 & 7025 & & & 30 + 6370 cont & @xmath128 & 6370 & & & 30 + 5550 cont & @xmath26 & 5550 & & & 30 + 4400 cont & @xmath129 & 4400 & & & 30 + 4050 cont & @xmath130 & 4050 & & & 30 +    l c c c c c c c 51070.0128 & 0.626 & 0.083 & 0.144 & 0.176 & 0.045 & @xmath168.5 & @xmath1627.7 + 51070.0150 & 0.626 & 0.103 & 0.150 & 0.182 & 0.041 & @xmath169.1 & @xmath1628.3 + 51086.0142 & 0.801 & 0.107 & 0.154 & 0.179 & 0.040 & @xmath167.9 & @xmath1625.8 + 51101.0046 & 0.964 & 0.130 & 0.179 & 0.177 & 0.052 & @xmath165.8 & @xmath1620.1 + 51102.9545 & 0.985 & 0.148 & 0.205 & 0.177 & 0.047 & @xmath162.6 & @xmath1616.4 + 51109.9734 & 0.062 & 0.115 & 0.158 & 0.174 & 0.040 & @xmath169.5 & @xmath1627.4 + 51115.9804 & 0.128 & 0.092 & 0.151 & 0.174 & 0.045 & @xmath168.6 & @xmath1628.1 + 51129.9315 & 0.280 & 0.107 & 0.141 & 0.149 & 0.035 & @xmath166.6 & @xmath1623.8 + 51132.9985 & 0.313 & 0.124 & 0.143 & 0.164 & 0.037 & @xmath167.0 & @xmath1625.8 + 51135.9320 & 0.345 & 0.110 & 0.147 & 0.155 & 0.038 & @xmath167.0 & @xmath1626.4 + 51138.9114 & 0.378 & 0.115 & 0.151 & 0.154 & 0.041 & @xmath167.6 & @xmath1627.9 + 51141.9962 & 0.411 & 0.112 & 0.151 & 0.169 & 0.047 & @xmath169.5 & @xmath1629.9 + 51144.8588 & 0.443 & 0.104 & 0.186 & 0.184 & 0.040 & @xmath1610.5 & @xmath1635.5 + 51147.9806 & 0.477 & 0.111 & 0.170 & 0.197 & 0.042 & @xmath1613.0 & @xmath1640.7 + 51157.7598 & 0.583 & 0.097 & 0.158 & 0.177 & 0.049 & @xmath1610.7 & @xmath1632.0 + 51160.8444 & 0.617 & 0.106 & 0.144 & 0.160 & 0.042 & @xmath169.2 & @xmath1629.1 + 51163.9600 & 0.651 & 0.096 & 0.139 & 0.156 & 0.029 & @xmath168.7 & @xmath1628.2 + 51166.8621 & 0.683 & 0.102 & 0.154 & 0.159 & 0.048 & @xmath167.8 & @xmath1627.0 + 51169.8996 & 0.716 & 0.103 & 0.150 & 0.160 & 0.045 & @xmath167.0 & @xmath1625.2 + 51172.8716 & 0.748 & 0.109 & 0.151 & 0.163 & 0.047 & @xmath167.6 & @xmath1626.0 + 51175.9043 & 0.781 & 0.092 & 0.143 & 0.154 & 0.043 & @xmath168.3 & @xmath1627.9 + 51187.7566 & 0.911 & 0.094 & 0.164 & 0.157 & 0.048 & @xmath1610.7 & @xmath1629.4 + 51188.7424 & 0.922 & 0.121 & 0.161 & 0.165 & 0.044 & @xmath169.4 & @xmath1627.9 + 51191.7695 & 0.955 & 0.140 & 0.176 & 0.160 & 0.051 & @xmath166.4 & @xmath1621.1 + 51194.8215 & 0.988 & 0.135 & 0.201 & 0.183 & 0.060 & @xmath162.0 & @xmath1615.3 + 51196.7938 & 0.009 & 0.143 & 0.187 & 0.187 & 0.049 & @xmath162.9 & @xmath1615.9 + 51198.7117 & 0.030 & 0.129 & 0.176 & 0.174 & 0.052 & @xmath165.1 & @xmath1618.9 + 51201.7889 & 0.064 & 0.110 & 0.160 & 0.151 & 0.046 & @xmath169.8 & @xmath1627.6 + 51216.6831 & 0.226 & 0.108 & 0.129 & 0.148 & 0.049 & @xmath167.3 & @xmath1624.6 + 51218.6966 & 0.248 & 0.108 & 0.125 & 0.153 & 0.046 & @xmath166.9 & @xmath1624.3 + 51223.5895 & 0.302 & 0.100 & 0.141 & 0.157 & 0.043 & @xmath167.1 & @xmath1625.8 + 51224.6268 & 0.313 & 0.106 & 0.129 & 0.151 & 0.042 & @xmath167.0 & @xmath1625.7 + 51226.7300 & 0.336 & 0.105 & 0.122 & 0.145 & 0.035 & @xmath166.8 & @xmath1629.7 + 51228.6119 & 0.357 & 0.083 & 0.144 & 0.127 & 0.043 & @xmath167.2 & @xmath1628.1 + 51230.7042 & 0.379 & 0.114 & 0.130 & 0.155 & 0.041 & @xmath168.3 & @xmath1629.1 + 51232.7299 & 0.402 & 0.101 & 0.131 & 0.154 & 0.048 & @xmath168.8 & @xmath1630.6 + 51247.7040 & 0.565 & 0.100 & 0.160 & 0.170 & 0.044 & @xmath1612.8 & @xmath1636.0 + 51249.5973 & 0.586 & 0.100 & 0.150 & 0.160 & 0.043 & @xmath1611.0 & @xmath1633.2 + 51257.6133 & 0.673 & 0.105 & 0.134 & 0.156 & 0.046 & @xmath168.6 & @xmath1627.5 + 51259.6068 & 0.695 & 0.102 & 0.153 & 0.159 & 0.043 & @xmath168.0 & @xmath1627.2 + 51278.6080 & 0.902 & 0.122 & 0.143 & 0.146 & 0.051 & @xmath169.1 & @xmath1628.2 + 51280.6209 & 0.924 & 0.116 & 0.151 & 0.163 & 0.052 & @xmath168.7 & @xmath1625.7 + 51284.6181 & 0.968 & 0.139 & 0.169 & 0.168 & 0.040 & @xmath163.3 & @xmath1618.1 + 51287.6168 & 0.000 & 0.143 & 0.198 & 0.176 & 0.055 & @xmath161.7 & @xmath1614.0 + 51289.6136 & 0.022 & 0.126 & 0.188 & 0.187 & 0.049 & @xmath164.1 & @xmath1617.6 + 51291.6213 & 0.044 & 0.122 & 0.173 & 0.173 & 0.049 & @xmath168.3 & @xmath1622.8
+    l c c c c c c 51101.0046 & 0.964 & 15.19 & 14.40 & 13.33 & 13.15 & 13.07 + 51102.9545 & 0.985 & 15.34 & 14.59 & 13.47 & 13.35 & 13.20 + 51109.9734 & 0.062 & 14.40 & 14.05 & 13.05 & 12.87 & 12.82 + 51115.9804 & 0.128 & 14.35 & 14.00 & 13.06 & 12.89 & 12.80 + 51135.9320 & 0.345 & 14.31 & 13.99 & 13.06 & 12.89 & 12.87 + 51141.9962 & 0.411 & 14.29 & 14.06 & 13.18 & 13.05 & 13.07 + 51157.7598 & 0.583 & 14.57 & 14.17 & 13.13 & 12.94 & 12.90 + 51160.8444 & 0.617 & 14.43 & 14.07 & 13.09 & 12.94 & 12.93 + 51172.8716 & 0.748 & 14.10 & 13.75 & 12.83 & 12.69 & 12.65 + 51175.9043 & 0.781 & 14.21 & 13.86 & 12.91 & 12.76 & 12.74 + 51188.7424 & 0.922 & 14.44 & 14.05 & 13.15 & 13.08 & 13.07 + 51191.7695 & 0.955 & 15.02 & 14.55 & 13.45 & 13.26 & 13.20 + 51196.7938 & 0.009 & 15.33 & 14.65 & 13.48 & 13.29 & 13.13 + 51216.6831 & 0.226 & 14.32 & 13.91 & 13.07 & 12.91 & 12.77 + 51218.6966 & 0.248 & 14.23 & 13.80 & 13.06 & 12.92 & 12.84 + 51223.5895 & 0.302 & 14.31 & 13.90 & 13.04 & 12.90 & 12.85 + 51230.7042 & 0.379 & 14.22 & 13.92 & 12.97 & 12.84 & 12.81 + 51247.7040 & 0.565 & 14.70 & 14.32 & 13.33 & 13.15 & 13.15 + 51259.6068 & 0.695 & 14.26 & 13.86 & 12.91 & 12.81 & 12.72 + 51278.6080 & 0.902 & 14.45 & 14.07 & 13.16 & 13.06 & 13.01 + 51280.6209 & 0.924 & 14.41 & 14.04 & 13.10 & 13.00 & 13.01 + 51287.6168 & 0.000 & 15.36 & 14.65 & 13.47 & 13.34 & 13.22 + 51289.6136 & 0.922 & 14.44 & 14.05 & 13.05 & 12.98 & 12.95 + 51291.6213 & 0.944 & 14.77 & 14.28 & 13.24 & 13.06 & 13.01 +    l c r r 2451070.0150 & 0.626 & @xmath1619.0 & 41.8 + 2451086.0142 & 0.801 & @xmath1636.9 & 41.2 + 2451101.0046 & 0.964 & 5.4 & 212.0 + 2451102.9545 & 0.985 & @xmath1611.1 & 171.5 + 2451109.9734 & 0.062 & 56.9 & 49.3 + 2451115.9804 & 0.128 & 77.4 & 41.6 + 2451129.9315 & 0.280 & 98.5 & 56.7 + 2451132.9985 & 0.313 & 80.0 & 21.9 + 2451135.9320 & 0.345 & 82.1 & 24.2 + 2451138.9114 & 0.378 & 77.1 & 17.5 + 2451141.9962 & 0.411 & 80.2 & 32.1 + 2451144.8588 & 0.443 & 56.8 & 5.4 + 2451147.9806 & 0.477 & 24.5 & 32.7 + 2451157.7598 & 0.583 & @xmath1623.2 & 18.0 + 2451160.8444 & 0.617 & @xmath1629.6 & 48.2 + 2451163.9600 & 0.651 & @xmath1630.6 & 33.9 + 2451166.8621 & 0.683 & @xmath1648.6 & 35.2 + 2451169.8996 & 0.716 & @xmath1631.2 & 55.1 + 2451172.8716 & 0.748 & @xmath1636.6 & 57.3 + 2451175.9043 & 0.781 & @xmath1635.0 & 25.7 + 2451187.7566 & 0.911 & @xmath165.2 & 61.9 + 2451188.7424 & 0.922 & 7.3 & 73.0 + 2451191.7695 & 0.955 & 12.7 & 207.9 + 2451194.8215 & 0.988 & 31.0 & 153.7 + 2451196.7938 & 0.009 & 42.6 & @xmath1646.3 + 2451198.7117 & 0.030 & 50.2 & @xmath1699.2 + 2451201.7889 & 0.064 & 87.1 & 23.8 + 2451216.6831 & 0.226 & 129.0 & 36.0 + 2451218.6966 & 0.248 & 118.0 & 66.0 + 2451223.5895 & 0.302 & 95.3 & 28.7 + 2451224.6268 & 0.313 & 125.0 & 31.7 + 2451226.7300 & 0.336 & 104.3 & 63.1 + 2451228.6119 & 0.357 & 41.8 & 27.6 + 2451230.7042 & 0.379 & 68.4 & 38.7 + 2451232.7299 & 0.402 & 43.8 & 16.8 + 2451247.7040 & 0.565 & @xmath1610.3 & 4.5 + 2451249.5973 & 0.586 & @xmath1621.4 & 16.0 + 2451257.6133 & 0.673 & @xmath1654.3 & 12.0 + 2451259.6068 & 0.695 & @xmath1640.9 & 43.0 + 2451278.6080 & 0.902 & @xmath163.2 & 74.9 + 2451280.6209 & 0.924 & 10.6 & 125.5 + 2451284.6181 & 0.968 & 18.3 & 178.2 + 2451287.6168 & 0.000 & 15.3 & 12.8 + 2451289.6136 & 0.022 & 33.4 & @xmath1671.5 + 2451291.6213 & 0.044 & 55.2 & @xmath1646.5 +


a long time ago a rather unorthodox physics of crystals possessing three - dimensional ( 3d ) pseudo - relativistic quasiparticles @xcite , exhibiting an electronic dispersion relation @xmath5 , where the velocity @xmath3 is of the order of the fermi velocity in regular condensed matter systems , was invoked to describe properties of @xmath6 .
the ultra - relativistic linear dispersion relation describes two conical bands ( of opposite orientation ) sharing the same cone tip .
recently several proposals ogata , vishwanath , kane , kane , bernevig revived an interest in materials with such excitations nowadays called weyl semi - metals .
the fermi `` surface '' of such materials , typically with dominant spin - orbit interactions , consists just of a finite number of disconnected points ( called weyl or dirac points , defined below ) rather than forming a continuous fermi surface like electrons in usual metals .
the revived interest emerged of course after years of intense experimental and theoretical study of graphene , a 2d weyl quasiparticle material @xcite .
suspended graphene is just such a `` semimetal '' system and exhibits a number of remarkable properties .
for example , despite having zero density of states at the fermi level and ideally no impurities , it still has a nonzero dc conductivity@xcite .    while this band `` touching '' at a singular point
was noticed in band structure calculations even before the seminal work of wallace on graphitewallace , the first explicit use of the dirac model in 3d was in the context of the two - band approximation model of bismuth@xcite . due to the strong spin - orbit interaction , the linear in @xmath7 terms in
a low energy effective theory near the crystallographic point @xmath8 of the fcc brillouin zone , dominate over quadratic terms ( that dominate near the @xmath9 point , leading to a common `` effective mass '' description ) .
the electronic excitations are described by an analog of the weyl equation of particle physics , which describes eight two - component chiral spinors @xmath10 ( two for each of the four @xmath8 points )    @xmath11    the sign describes the chirality of the mode .
metallic bismuth is only approximately described by the ultrarelativistic `` massless '' dispersion relation since the quasiparticles of the opposite chirality are coupled and form four - component massive dirac bispinors . in @xmath6 therefore electrons are not weyl , but @xmath12 massive dirac electrons where , in addition , the fermi level is located away from the dirac point .
a number of related suggestions for suitable realizations of weyl semimetals were recently put forward .
kariyado and ogata@xcite calculated the band structure of cubic inverse perovskites like @xmath13 with significant spin - orbit coupling .
they observed the appearance of six weyl points with a very small relativistic electron mass down to @xmath14 on the line connecting the @xmath9 - and the @xmath15 - points . in iridium - based pyrochlores such as @xmath16 ,
there are @xmath17 weyl points located near the four @xmath8 points of the fcc lattice .
as noted invishwanath these materials `` in particular provide a unique opportunity to study the interplay of coulomb interactions , spin - orbit coupling , and the band topology of solids '' . also , strong spin - orbit interactions can lead to a novel phase of matter , the topological insulator@xcite and various possibilities to create weyl fermions combined into coincident opposite chirality points or separated in the brillouin zone in @xmath18kane , @xmath19 ,  @xmath20@xcite .
these proposals generated a great deal of experimental efforts@xcite .
the system with 3d weyl points was proposed to appear in optical lattices@xcite following the discovery of `` artificial graphene''@xcite .    since the density of carriers in 3d weyl semimetals at zero temperature is zero ( as in suspended graphene in 2d ) , the coulomb interactions are unscreened and therefore are expected to be important to the understanding of the electrical and optical response of these materials .
unsophisticatedly the dimensionless coupling,@xmath21is of order @xmath22 provided the dielectric constant @xmath23 is not large , since the analog of the light velocity , @xmath3 , is of the order typically of the fermi velocity .
note that the same coulomb potential @xmath24 created by an electron influences many more electrons in 3d compared to 2d , so naively , in 3d its importance is expected to increase . while electric transport in noninteracting 3d weyl fermions was studied ( @xcite and references therein to earlier papers in the context of particle physics ) ,
the contributions of potentially very important coulomb interactions ( coulomb scattering corrections to transport as an example ) have not been studied theoretically , except basic renormalization effects vishwanath12 .
this is in contrast to the situation in graphene .
the effect of the coulomb interactions in undoped graphene turned out to be highly nontrivial , even within perturbation theory , and have evoked a scientific controversy@xcite due to the problem of the `` ultraviolet regularization '' , and was just recently settled@xcite by noting that the ambiguities are associated with the treatment of the separation of scales related to the chiral anomaly@xcite .
some aspects of the weyl semimetal physics are _ not _ dominated by the weyl points of the brillouin zone at which the spectrum is gapless . for example , the ac conductivity of undoped graphene ( the weak logarithmic renormalization of the electron velocity @xcite does not influence the result ) , is given in terms of its value in the noninteracting theory , @xmath25 , by    @xmath26    and is strictly dissipative ( real ) .
this expression is independent of frequency ( provided corrections of order @xmath27 , @xmath28 being the hopping energy , are neglected ) .
the value of the only numerical constant @xmath29 appearing here has been a matter of intense controversy .
the first detailed calculation@xcite utilizing a sharp momentum cutoff regularization of the dirac model provided a value @xmath30 of order @xmath31 .
the use of the sharp momentum cutoff was criticized by mishchenkomishchenko , who obtained an exceptionally small value of @xmath32 making a `` soft '' momentum cutoff regularization .
he supported this choice by the consistency of the kubo and the kinetic equation calculations of conductivity with that of the polarization function .
the consistency required a modification of the long - range interaction so that it becomes uv cutoff dependent .
this apparently closed the issue .
albeit such a small numerical value would have profound physical consequences even beyond the transport and dielectric properties .
nevertheless the interaction strength @xmath29 was recalculated once again by vafek , juricic and herbut@xcite , who argued that the modification of the interaction requires simultaneously a pauli - villars regularization of massless fermions .
they applied yet another regularization , making the space dimensionality fractional , @xmath33 that modified both the current operator and the interaction in such a way that they satisfy the ward identities and obtained @xmath34 .
the dimensional regularization is questionable on physical grounds and in a comprehensive subsequent workmacdonald the authors reaffirmed the small value @xmath35 it seems that this value is the commonly accepted one .
the tight binding calculation@xcite however demonstrated that @xmath36 is the correct one . to reveal the origin of the ambiguity exhibited by the various values of @xmath29 , the authors made use of a dynamical approach developed earlier@xcite ( to address the problem of separating the interband contributions from the intraband effects due to contactsziegler , lewkowicz11 ) directly in the dc case by `` switching on '' a uniform electric field in the tight binding model with coulomb interactions , and then considering the large - time limit .
this approach ( known in field theory as the `` infinite hotel story '' ) is the best way to reveal physical effects of anomalies@xcite .
one can directly separate the contributions from the neighborhood of dirac points and the `` anomalous '' contributions from the rest of the brillouin zone , so that one can decide what regularization of the effective weyl theory is the correct one . in this sense
this is advantageous over the standard diagrammatic kubo formula calculation in continuummishchenko , herbut1,herbut2,macdonald that might encounter the so - called schwinger terms ( found in quantum electrodynamics , that is similar to the 3d weyl fermions ) .
the purpose of the present paper is to study the effect of coulomb interactions in 3d weyl fermion systems with emphasis on dynamical aspects of electric transport and compare / contrast it with the corresponding results in 2d weyl fermions . to achieve this goal
we define in section ii a tight binding description of weyl fermions on a hypercubic lattice of any dimensionality similar to a variant of the hamiltonian lattice model in field theory@xcite already used in its lagrangian version to simulate graphene@xcite . in this model
the electron s spin is strongly coupled to momentum and therefore the model is very reminiscent , in this respect , of the wolff model of bismuth or lattice realizations of topological insulators .
the lattice `` regularization '' is necessary to address the ultraviolet divergencies at the intermediated stages of calculations , a problem mentioned above .
the universality of this description of weyl fermions ( of various origins ) is supported by the fact that such a 2d model gives the same result for the interaction corrections as the tight binding model on the honeycomb lattice with zero spin - orbit coupling .    in section iii the correction to the self energy of a quasiparticle with momentum
@xmath37 is considered .
it is shown that the fermi velocity renormalization in 3d ( already noted in@xcite ) is logarithmic in the uv cutoff @xmath38 ( @xmath39 being the lattice spacing ) very much like in 2d@xcite:@xmath40 \text{. }   \label{renv}\]]section iv is devoted to a general derivation and application of the dynamical approach to the electric response to the dc and ac electric field . in particular , we obtain the slow current decay in a dc field @xmath41 of the neutral , noninteracting 3d weyl plasma and show that the relaxation is powerwise , see fig.1 .
the long time asymptotics is oscillating and depends on the microscopic details via cutoff @xmath39:@xmath42 \text{. } \label{cur_decay}\]]here @xmath43 is the number of weyl fermions .
this explains how the pseudo - ohmic dc conductivity vanishes in 3d .
the relaxation dynamics therefore is qualitatively different from 2d , where it is insensitive to the cutoff @xcite .
for the ac electric field similar slow convergence to the ac conductivity occurs , see fig .
2 . even in the free weyl semimetal one gets , in addition to a finite real ( pseudo - dissipative ) partlinear in frequency@xcite , @xmath44an imaginary part , logarithmically divergent as function of the uv cutoff:@xmath45this is again different from graphene at zero doping and leads to important dielectric properties .
relaxation to the asymptotic behavior is faster at higher frequencies .
the leading interaction correction to the real and imaginary conductivities per weyl point are subject of section v , see fig.3 for comparison with a metal and a semiconductor .
the result for the real part expressed via the renormalized fermi velocity  defined still linear in frequency:@xmath46 \label{results } \\ c & = & -\frac{5}{3\pi } \approx -0.53\text{. }   \notag\end{aligned}\]]the normalization frequency is @xmath47 .
the imaginary part gets further logarithmically dependent on cutoff corrections,@xmath48 \text { , }   \label{imsig}\]]despite an apparent `` renormalizability '' of the model to the two loop order at least .
this is due to the fact that the complex conductivity is not simply related to basic green s functions like in the relativistic theory .
the physical significance of the results including formulas including that for the complex dielectric constant , see fig.4 , are summarized in the concluding section vi .
we speculate about obvious improvements like the random phase approximation , renormalization group and a possibility of stronger coupling effects like the exciton condensation .
the noninteracting tight binding model is defined on the hypercubic lattice @xmath49 with lattice vectors @xmath50 of length @xmath39 by the hamiltonian :    @xmath51    here  @xmath52 are pauli matrices , operators @xmath53 create a two component spinor @xmath54 and @xmath55 is the hopping integral that in the presence of an external electromagnetic field , described by vector potential @xmath56 is @xmath57 , \label{wilson}\]]where the hopping energy @xmath58 is of order of the band width .
it is important to derive the current density directly in tight binding model : @xmath59it defines the uv regularization of the current operator that obeys the ward identities . in linear response the current density operator
is expanded up to the first order in @xmath60 as @xmath61 :    @xmath62    where @xmath63
. space averages over volume @xmath64 for a homogeneous vector potential @xmath65 simplify:@xmath66expansion of the minimally coupled hamiltonian in electric field is    @xmath67    defining fourier components by @xmath68 where the number of unit cells is @xmath69 one has:@xmath70diagonalization of @xmath71 is achieved adopting a reinterpretation of the absence of an electron in the valence band as a hole and using units @xmath72 by    @xmath73    with spinors @xmath74 and @xmath75 given in appendix a. up to an additive constant it becomes    @xmath76    where @xmath77and the notation @xmath78 was introduced . in 3d one observes 8 weyl points at which @xmath79 inside the brillouin zone ( bz ) .
four are right handed : one in the center ( the @xmath9 point ) and three on the faces ( @xmath15 ) , while four are left handed : three on the edges ( @xmath80 ) and one in the corner ( @xmath81 ) .
the chirality is determined by the expansion of the hamiltonian eq.([fourierk ] ) around a weyl point @xmath82 , @xmath83 , where @xmath84 .
similarly , in 2d one has two right handed weyls at @xmath9 and @xmath81 and two left handed at @xmath80 .
the paramagnetic and diamagnetic parts of the current due to an electric field ( along , let s say , the @xmath85 direction ) , @xmath86 @xmath87 , are :    @xmath88 + hc ; \label{gpgddef } \\ j^{d } & = & \frac{e^{2}}{\mathcal{v}}a\left ( t\right ) \sum\limits_{\mathbf{k}}\frac{\widehat{k_{z}}}{\varepsilon _ { \mathbf{k}}}\left [ \frac{\widehat{k_{z}}}{2}\left ( a_{\mathbf{k}}^{+}a_{\mathbf{k}}+b_{-\mathbf{k}}^{+}b_{-\mathbf{k}}\right ) -\left ( \widehat{k_{x}}+i\widehat{k_{y}}\right ) b_{-\mathbf{k}}a_{\mathbf{k}}\right ] + hc ,   \notag\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where the functions @xmath89 and @xmath90 are defined in appendix a.      using the expression for the particle densities in momentum space ( einstein summation implied for spins only )    @xmath91    the coulomb interaction takes the form @xmath92
@xmath93    @xmath94    with fourier transform of the interaction being @xmath95 .
it is important to note that the electric charge of the effective tight binding model should include the contributions to the screening due to the polarization constant @xmath23 caused by degrees of freedom not included in the model , so the `` bare '' charge includes this effect @xmath96 .
we require charge neutrality that is achieved by leaving out all the contributions including @xmath97 .
this prescription is always implied in what follows .
it is convenient to normal order @xmath98  with respect to  operators @xmath39 and @xmath99 diagonalizing the `` kinetic '' term @xmath71 via eq.([bogtrans]):@xmath100where the part @xmath101 contains @xmath102 creation operators @xmath103 or @xmath104 and @xmath105 annihilation operators @xmath39 or @xmath99 , all specified in appendix a. in principle the quadratic pair creation @xmath106 and the pair annihilation terms @xmath107 a could have appeared . the fact that they have not , explained in the appendix a , greatly simplifies the calculation and makes it competitive ( at least to the two - loop order ) with the diagrammatic approach .
the `` time independent '' approach is however much more transparent , when one realizes that excitations can be created in fours rather than in pairs in this particular model .
the energy of an electron above the fermi level with quasimomentum @xmath108 , @xmath109 , in the noninteracting model described by the hamiltonian eq.([k ] ) is :    @xmath110    the interaction correction is@xmath111obviously only contributions with equal numbers of creation and annihilation operators , @xmath112 and @xmath113 can contribute .
the first term contains ( see appendix a ) @xmath114 , @xmath115 and @xmath116 terms , of which only the last one could contribute to the expectation value eq.(qpenergy1 ) , yet it vanishes:@xmath117    we are left with the simple quadratic part @xmath113:@xmath118where@xmath119this results in:@xmath120 \text{. } \label{deleps_exact}\ ] ]    it is instructive to estimate it using the expansion around any of the eight weyl points with the momenta restricted , say , by @xmath121 , thus omitting some contributions far from the weyl points that innocently could be thought to be small , but , as the graphene example taught us , might become perfidious if powerwise uv divergencies appear in the intermediate stages of the calculation . in the present case divergencies
are just logarithmic though and one proceeds by expanding around  one of the weyl points ,    @xmath122    where spherical coordinates , @xmath123 , were used .
the sum is transformed into an integral:@xmath124the integrals over angles can be performed , see appendix b , resulting in ( for @xmath125 ) @xmath126   \text { , }   \label{deps1}\]]where @xmath127 .
changing variables in the remaining integral establishes the leading linear dependence on @xmath37 : @xmath128 \label{delepsfinal } \\ & = & \frac{e^{2}p}{3\pi } \left [ \log \left ( \frac{\lambda ^{2}}{p^{2}}\right ) + \frac{5}{3}\right ] \text{. }   \notag\end{aligned}\]]comparing with the exact result for the `` universal '' model , eq.(deleps_exact ) , we can choose the value of the cutoff to be slightly outside of the continuum model applicability range : @xmath129 .
this means that the continuum model can not determine correctly the constant term that is model dependent . to summarize
, one indeed observes just a logarithmic divergence and therefore can renormalize the fermi velocity written in physical units in eq.([renv ] ) .    in 2d
the corresponding calculation gives a well known `` running '' of the graphene velocity towards higher velocities@xcite .
therefore the running of the fermi velocity in weyl semimetal is very much like in ( undoped ) graphene .
in this section we first calculate the time evolution of the current when the external electric field is switched on in order to obtain the dc and ac electric response .
this is done however within a `` time independent '' formalism to carefully trace the states that contribute to the dynamics and investigate the emergence of the steady state .
we use the dynamical approach@xcite to the semimetal response rather than the more customary diagrammatic method not just to investigate dynamics under dc or ac field , but also to clarify several fundamental issues in the following sections concerning the coulomb interaction corrections to the ac conductivity .
first the nature of the dependence of the physical quantities on the uv `` cutoff '' @xmath130 ( renormalization ) is elucidated , next the time evolution is exploited to demonstrate the inductive response of the 3d semimetal even without electron - electron interaction and contrast it with the purely pseudo - ohmic response of graphene .    the paramagnetic contribution in the heisenberg picture
is given by the vacuum expectation value ( vev ) :
@xmath131    the ground state @xmath132 is that of an interacting electron system without the external field .
expanding to `` linear response '' in coupling to the external electric field ( considered homogeneous and oriented along the @xmath85 direction ) , eq.([ahomogen]),@xmath133 \text { , }   \label{umc}\]]where @xmath134 , one gets    @xmath135    the diamagnetic current , eq.([jpjd_def ] ) is already of the first order in electric field . in the next section the full model including the many body effects will be considered . in this section
we neglect the interaction @xmath98 to solve exactly for the time evolution of the current density .      in the absence of the coulomb interaction the vev of the average paramagnetic current density ( in the field direction @xmath85 , see eq.(jpjd_def ) ) takes a form :    @xmath136    using definitions of the tight binding hamiltonian and the current density operator , eqs .
( [ ksecond ] ) and ( [ gpgddef ] ) , one obtains    @xmath137 \text{. }   \label{gpfree}\ ] ]    similarly the diamagnetic contribution , using eq.([gpgddef ] ) , is    @xmath138    to continue one has to specify the time dependence of the applied electric field .
we start in the next subsection with the constant electric field and then continue to the ac case .      in the homogeneous dc electric field described by the vector potential @xmath139 , one obtains from eq.([gpfree ] ) the average current .
the integral over @xmath140 results in :    @xmath141 \right\ } \text{. }   \label{sigmadc}\ ] ]    one expects that the neutral plasma system that does not possess electric charges on the fermi level will not have the `` acceleration '' terms linear in time @xmath142 that appear in the above equation . indeed
the sum of the first two terms vanishes:@xmath143 = 0 .
\label{sigmaacc}\]]this is seen as follows .
the integral over the bz can be represented as an integral over the full @xmath144derivative like in graphenelewkowicz . since the bz can be taken periodic in the quasimomentum component @xmath145 , the integral over the derivative vanishes .
the physical arguments put forward in the framework of graphene@xcite in order to comprehend this apply equally well here and are not repeated .
the remaining non - accelerating part,@xmath146is presented in fig.1 .
it decays as given ( in physical units ) in eq.(cur_decay ) ,  exhibiting the zero conductivity rather than a universal finite value as in graphene .
this asymptotic value of zero is approached therefore powerwise and oscillating .
note the dependence on the ultraviolet cutoff , that did not appear in graphene@xcite .
is shown as a function of time .
the current s asymptotic value of zero is approached powerwise.,width=226 ]      the ac electric field , @xmath147 , is represented by the oscillating vector potential , @xmath148 .
the `` universal '' nearest neighbours tight binding model is relevant only for frequencies @xmath149 smaller than the hopping integral @xmath150 .
however , as we noticed in the context of graphene@xcite , the use of the expansion of the dispersion relation near the weyl points should be done with some care .    performing the integral over @xmath140 in eq.([gpfree ] ) , one now obtains the current :    @xmath151    as in graphene , it is very difficult to approach frequencies of interest @xmath152 , when the conductivity is presented in this form .
however it becomes substantially simpler numerically when one subtracts the vanishing acceleration term eq.([sigmaacc ] ) , that we have encountered in the dc calculation , with @xmath142 replaced by @xmath153 :    @xmath154    this is shown ( together with the electric field ) in fig.2 for several values of frequency .
one observes that beyond certain relaxation time the response becomes periodic exhibiting a phase difference between the current ( points ) and the electric field ( solid lines ) . to obtain the steady state value of the complex conductivity we average over time with a damping factor @xmath155 using@xmath156the time integration in eq.([sigma0 ] ) with the current density of eq.([sigma0 ] ) results in @xmath157where @xmath158 .
the exact integral is presented ( in physical units ) in eq.([sig0 ] ) and eq.([sig0im ] ) with nonuniversal cutoff related to the lattice spacing via @xmath159 .
is typically of order @xmath160,width=226 ]    now we proceed to try to use the continuum model near the weyl points . after the subtraction of `` anomalous '' acceleration terms
most of the contributions for @xmath152 come from the immediate neighbourhoods of the weyl points@xcite .
due to symmetries it suffices to consider one of them .
the neighbourhood of the origin will be defined by @xmath161 . here
two differences emanate compared to the transport in graphene . in graphene
the lattice spacing is irrelevant , so that the conductivity can be calculated within the continuum weyl model and the ac conductivity is real for all frequencies @xmath152 . in the present case
an inductive part appears and moreover depends logarithmically on the lattice spacing . to see this explicitly ,
let us calculate the ac conductivity  approximately by using the weyl approximation ( linearization of the dispersion relation ) for the contribution of the weyl points .  within the continuum approximation in
spherical coordinates one writes the sum in eq.([sigma_eta ] ) as :    @xmath162    where the factor @xmath163 is due to the multiplicity of the weyl points in our `` universal '' tight binding model .
the integration over @xmath164 finally gives:@xmath165 in the last line small terms of the relative order @xmath166 were omitted .
the finite result for the real part and regularized matsubara conductivity were first obtained in@xcite .
let us emphasize that the electric properties in 3d differ from that in 2d ( graphene ) in that there appears an imaginary part of conductivity that is of the same size and sometimes even larger than the pseudo - dissipative one .
now we turn to the study of the many - body effects in 3d weyl semimetal .
the expressions for the diamagnetic and the paramagnetic components of the current density as a linear response to arbitrarily time dependent electric fields are given by eqs.([jpjd_def ] ) and ( [ jplinresp ] ) respectively .
the evolution operator however should be modified as @xmath167 ,   \label{evolution}\]]and the ground state ( at initial time or schrdinger ) as@xmath168with the correction to energy being @xmath169 , since the constant term in the energy will be consistently omitted after the hamiltonian was normal ordered .
only creation of four particles at once is possible within the `` universal '' model .
as is shown in appendix b. the pair creating part @xmath170 vanishes .
this simplifies the problem significantly .
for example , the diamagnetic component is absent due to this .
indeed the diamagnetic current is quadratic , eq([jpjd_def ] ) , and hence the correction@xmath171    the paramagnetic correction ( in homogeneous electric field along certain direction described by vector potential @xmath172 ) of eq.(jplinresp ) in the presence of coulomb interactions takes a form :    @xmath173    expanding in interaction with help of eqs.([evolution ] ) and ( vaccumcor ) , the correction to the expectation value in the interacting ground state @xmath174 above in terms of the unperturbed vacuum expectation values is :    @xmath175    @xmath176    the other contributions vanish , again due to absence of pair creations at this order .
the first term corresponds to the fermion self energy correction , while the rest describe the vertex correction .
these are readily calculated :    @xmath177    @xmath178 \left\vert \chi _ { \mathbf{q}}\right\vert ^{2}g_{\mathbf{qp}}+g_{\mathbf{qp}}^{-}\frac{\sin \left [ 2\varepsilon _ { \mathbf{q}}\left ( t - t_{1}\right ) \right ] } { \varepsilon _ { \mathbf{q}}+\varepsilon _ { \mathbf{p}}}+\frac{1}{2}g_{\mathbf{qp}}^{+}\frac{\sin \left [ 2\varepsilon _ { \mathbf{p}}\left ( t - t_{1}\right ) \right ] -\sin \left [ 2\varepsilon _ { \mathbf{q}}\left ( t - t_{1}\right ) \right ] } { \varepsilon _ { \mathbf{q}}-\varepsilon _ { \mathbf{p}}}\right\ } \text { , }   \notag\ ] ]    where @xmath179 is defined in eq.([aqp ] ) and @xmath180 ; \text { \ } g_{\mathbf{qp}}^{+}=re\left [ \chi _ { \mathbf{q}}\chi _ { \mathbf{p}}^{\ast } \left ( v_{\mathbf{q}}^{\ast } \cdot v_{\mathbf{p}}\right ) ^{2}\right ] \text{.}\]]this can be calculated using the same methods as in the leading order in the previous section .
the dc conductivity correction vanishes linearly .
finally we calculate the correction to current for the ac electric field .      in the homogeneous ac electric field , @xmath181 ,
the ac conductivity averaged over time as in the leading order , eq.([etatrick ] ) , is :    @xmath182 \text { , }   \label{sigmacorr1}\ ] ]    where @xmath158 . subtracting the dc limit ( that vanishes after averaging over time ) like in the leading order , one obtains a much more converging expression proportional to the frequency :    @xmath183 \text{. } \label{sigcorr2new}\ ] ]    the numerical evaluation results in ( without subleading terms in the imaginary part)@xmath184 \text{. }   \label{delsigexact}\]]it is however instructive to obtain this expression within the continuum ( weyl ) approximation valid within radius @xmath185 around each of the eight weyl points .
near a weyl point one has the following expansion of the functions appearing in eq.([sigcorr2new ] ) in spherical coordinates around one of the points ( chosen to be the origin @xmath9):@xmath186 .
\notag\end{aligned}\]]complementing eq.([aqpweyl ] ) for @xmath179 .
the sum and the coulomb potential in eq.([sigcorr2new ] ) are written as    @xmath187 } .
\label{angleint}\ ] ]    the integrals over all the angles can be performed , see appendix b ,    @xmath188    with @xmath127 .
the integrals give    @xmath189 \text{. }   \label{weyl res}\ ] ]    one observes that the subleading terms can not be given correctly by the weyl approximation as expected .
we can use the renormalized velocity from eq.(renv ) to make the real part finite ..      we have calculated the renormalization of the fermi velocity , eq.([renv ] ) and the ac conductivity of the clean weyl semimetal within the leading order in coulomb interaction .
it is very tempting to try to use renormalization to improve the results of the `` bare '' perturbation theory presented to the `` two - loop '' order above by renormalizing the parameters of the theory .
the expression for the ac conductivity both in the leading order and for the interaction correction contains dependence on the uv cutoff @xmath39 or @xmath185 and it is interesting to ask whether physically measurable quantities can be rewritten via `` renormalized '' parameters only or the microscopic details represented by the cutoff dependence are indeed unavoidable for certain measurable quantities like the ac conductivity .
the possibility of `` renormalizability '' is expected for the 3d weyl model on the following two grounds .
it has been claimed recently and shown to a very high order explicitly that the 2d version ( graphene ) is renormalizable@xcite .
this is surprising due to the breaking of the relativistic invariance ( that ensures the renormalizability for a 2d model with a 3d electromagnetic coupling ) .
the ac conductivity expression in 2d can be written via the renormalized fermi velocity , eq.([renv ] ) replacing the bare one in eq.([weyl res ] ) .
the key point here is that the leading order conductivity is independent of both the velocity and the uv cutoff .
the relativistic version , qed , is renormalizable .
breaking of the relativistic invariance by taking just the static part of the interaction might not spoil this like in 2d .
we perform the renormalization of parameters up to the two - loop order .    replacing the bare fermi velocity with the renormalized one from eq.(renv ) in the real part of the conductivity from eq.([results ] ) , the two - loop result becomes finite and proportional to frequency :    @xmath190 \text{. }   \notag\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath191 leading to the result ( in physical units ) given in eqs.([results ] ) . as in 2d
the constant @xmath29 is positive and of order @xmath31 .
note that the coefficient @xmath192 in the definition of the current is not directly related by relativistic invariance to the coulomb interaction in the present model , and thus is not renormalized .
in the order considered there is no need to renormalize the static coulomb coupling .
the imaginary part remains therefore `` divergent '' , namely logarithmically dependent on microscopic details .
before discussing the applicability of the results to materials proposed as realizations of the weyl semimetal , let us summarize the electromagnetic properties of the clean 3d semimetals at zero temperature that can be extracted from the ac conductivity , eqs.([sig0],[sig0im],results,[imsig ] ) .
extension of our formulas to finite temperature is trivial via the matsubara substitution @xmath193 .
the properties of the clean semimetal are expected to be dissimilar from those of a band insulator and a metal . in particular , the dielectric and optical properties differ markedly from both of them .
the complex conductivity of the neutral weyl plasma at zero temperature is very different from semiconductors and from metals .
let us contrast it with the lorentz model of a band insulator and the drude model for metals with electron density @xmath194 and relaxation time @xmath195 .
the ac conductivity of the lorentz model of a band insulator ( semiconductor ) , represented in fig . 3 by the red line , is    @xmath196    where the central frequency of the band was taken to be rather small @xmath197 the relaxation time @xmath198 and the `` plasma '' frequency @xmath199 .
the drude conductivity of a metal , represented by the blue line , is obtained from this formula by taking @xmath200 and the values of @xmath198 and @xmath201 .
these are compared with the real part and the imaginary part , figs.3a and 3b respectively , of the weyl semimetal , represented by the magenta line .
the number of weyl points is @xmath202 , the uv cutoff @xmath203 , @xmath204 , @xmath205 and the intrinsic dielectric constant @xmath206 ( due degrees of freedom not included in the model ) . at low frequencies
the absorptive part is linear , so that at dc the weyl semimetal is insulating .
however it becomes comparable with that of ( a poor ) metal at thz frequencies .
the imaginary part is linear as in a metal but with the opposite sign ( capacitive like in insulator rather than inductive ) .
the complex dielectric constant of the 3d semi - metal is @xmath207 @xmath208 ;   \label{eps } \\
\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime } \left ( \omega \right ) & = & \frac{n_{w}e^{2}}{6v\hbar } \left [ 1+\,\alpha \left ( \frac{2}{3\pi } \log \frac{\omega } { \overline{\omega } } + c\right ) \right ] \text{. }   \notag\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath209 with the renormalized ( measured ) value of the fermi velocity @xmath3 .
the normalization frequency is @xmath2 and @xmath210 .
the real part of the dielectric constant @xmath211 is like that of an ordinary _ dielectric _ material with a very weak frequency dependence , see fig .
4a , despite the nonzero ac conductivity which is linear in frequency . albeit note the logarithmic divergence for small frequencies : for example at @xmath212 , @xmath213 , see fig.4a .
the imaginary part of the dielectric constant depends also only weakly on frequency and is universal in that it is of order @xmath214 for fermi velocity @xmath215 and intrinsic dielectric constant @xmath206 .
let us compare the electric and optical properties of the pure 3d weyl semimetal at neutrality point with the corresponding ones in 2d . in the pure 2d weyl semimetal at the neutrality point ( suspended undoped graphene
is considered to be a good realization of this model@xcite ) the real part of the conductivity is finite and frequency independent in infinite samples and with no contact work function@xcite , and there is no imaginary part in the ac conductivity , at least to leading order in interactions .
the transport therefore is purely pseudo - dissipative . as noted before , the situation changes rather dramatically in 3d .
we expect that problems of separation between the interband transitions ( between the valence and the conduction bands or electron - hole pairs effects ) considered in the present study and the intraband transitions ( including the klein scattering ) due to potential barriers and mesoscopic effects are less pronounced in 3d compared to 2d .
let us now discuss the limitations of the model and point out some immediate extensions .
a clean system was assumed , while disorder is expected to be present .
the effects of disorder , neglecting the interactions , were studied in ref.vishwanath12
. there might be an interplay between the disorder and interaction effects , but the basic physics is expected to be unaltered unless interaction or disorder are strong .
one also can hope that , like in graphene , the importance of disorder might be reduced compared to expectations based on physics of ordinary `` nonrelativistic '' quasiparticles .
the use of an approximation like the tight binding model of section ii or even a continuum low energy weyl model is justified as long as the frequencies considered are much lower than the band width . as we argued in section v ,
the tight binding model is rather universal , but the use of  the effective massless weyl theory on the condensed matter scale has to be dealt with care .
it is well known in field theory@xcite and in graphene that massless fermions cause  the absence of a perfect scale separation between high energies ( on atomic scale @xmath58 ) and low energies ( effective weyl theory on the condensed matter scale @xmath216 ) .
it was demonstrated in the context of graphene@xcite that some aspects of the linear response physics , including the coulomb interactions corrections@xcite , are _ not _ dominated by the weyl points of the brillouin zone at which the effective low energy model is valid .
for example , large contributions ( infinite , when the size of the brillouin zone is being considered infinite ) to the conductivity from the vicinity of the weyl points are cancelled by contributions from the region between them .
another famous consequence of this scale nonseparation is the `` species doubling '' of lattice fermionssmit , which in the context of graphene means that there necessarily appears a pair of weyl points of opposite chirality .
the uv regularization of the effective theory _ does matter _ and , if one were to use such a model , the only regularization known to date to be consistent with the tight binding is the space dimensional regularization developed in ref .
herbut2 .
there are a number of quite straightforward extensions of the leading order interaction calculation of the ac conductivity performed in the present work . converting it into the rpa - like approximation is simple , but in addition taking into account the finite momentum transfer is more involved than the analogous calculations in graphene@xcite .
this would allow to study the plasmons effects and even the strong coupling phenomena like the exciton condensation@xcite . beyond the linear response , phenomena like the nonlinear i - v curves due to the particle - hole ( schwinger ) pair creation and relaxation due to their recombination studied in the context of graphene@xcite also can be extended to 3d in a straightforward fashion .
we are indebted to t. maniv , h.c .
kao and w.b .
jian for valuable discussions .
the noninteracting model is diagonalized in 3d with the following coefficients of the bogoliubov transformation eq.([bogtrans ] ) :    @xmath217    where @xmath78 and @xmath218 . using matrix elements    @xmath219    one obtains the coefficient of the electric current as@xmath220      the normal ordering is quite straightforward .    @xmath221    where the part @xmath101 contains @xmath102 creation operators @xmath103 or @xmath104 and @xmath105 annihilation operators @xmath39 or @xmath99 .
the quartic terms are :    @xmath222    @xmath223   \label{o31 } \\ & & + \left ( v_{l^{\prime } } ^{\ast } \cdot u_{k^{\prime } } \right ) \left [ \left ( v_{l}^{\ast } \cdot v_{k}\right ) a_{l}^{+}a_{l^{\prime } } ^{+}b_{-k^{\prime } } ^{+}a_{k}-\left ( u_{l}^{\ast } \cdot u_{k}\right ) \right ] a_{l^{\prime } } ^{+}b_{-k}^{+}b_{-l}b_{-k^{\prime } } ^{+ } ;   \notag\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath224    in principle there are three possible quadratic terms where    @xmath225    @xmath226    relations between the scalar products for unequal momenta that appear here    @xmath227    are useful in summation over momenta incorporating eq.([vdef ] ) , in particular for two equal momenta @xmath228most importantly , summing over momenta , the pair creation term vanishes :    @xmath229    this leads to numerous simplifications .
is:@xmath232 }   \label{fi_int } \\ & = & \frac{1}{2r}\left [ \frac{1+r^{2}}{\sqrt{\left ( 1+r^{2}-2r\cos \theta
_ { p}\cos \theta _ { q}\right ) ^{2}-\left ( 2r\sin \theta _ { p}\sin \theta _ { q}\right ) ^{2}}}-1\right ] .   \notag\end{aligned}\ ] ]                        s.m .
young , s. zaheer , j.c.y .
teo , c.l.kane , e.j . mele and a.m. rappe ,
lett , 108 , 140405 ( 2012 ) ; z. wang , y. sun , x .- q .
chen , . c. franchini , .
g. xu , h. weng , x. dai , and z. fang , phys .
b * 85 * , 195320 ( 2012 ) ; a. go , w. witczak - krempa , g. s. jeon , k. park , and y. b. kim , phys .
* 109 , * 066401 ( 2012 ) ; w. witczak - krempa1 and y. b. kim , phys .
b * *  * * * 85 * , 045124 ( 2012 ) .
k. wang , d. graf , h. lei , s. w. tozer , and c. petrovic , phys .
b * *  84 * * , 220401 ( 2011 ) ; k. ueda , j. fujioka , y. takahashi , t. suzuki , s. ishiwata , y. taguchi , y. tokura , phys
lett . * 109 * , 136402  ( 2012 ) ; f. f. tafti , j. j. ishikawa , a. mccollam , s. nakatsuji , s.r .
julian , phys .
b * *  85 * * , 205104 ( 2012 ) ; j. j. ishikawa , e. c. t. ofarrell , and s. nakatsuji , phys .
b * *  85 * * , 245109 ( 2012 ) ; s. boseggia , r. springell , h. c. walker , h. m. ronnow , ch .
ruegg , h. okabe , m. isobe , r. s. perry , s. p. collins , and d. f. mcmorrow , phys .
. lett . * 110 * , 117207 ( 2013 ) .
p. soltan - panahi , j. struck , a. bick , w. plenkers , g. meineke , c. becker , p. windpassinger , and k. sengstock , nature p. hauke and m. lewenstein ; z. lan , a. celi , w. lu , p. ohberg , and m. lewenstein , phys .
lett . * 107 * , 253001 ( 2011 ) ; k. sun , .
w. v. liu , a. hemmerich , and s. das sarma , nature physics * 8 * , 67 ( 2012 ) .
v. n. kotov , b. uchoa , and a. h. castro neto , phys .
b * *  78 * * , 035119 ( 2008 ) ; s. h. abedinpour , m. polini , w.k .
tse , a. h. macdonald , phys .
b * *  84 * * , 045429 ( 2011 ) ; i. sodemann , and m. m. fogler , phys . rev .
b * *  86 * * , 115408 ( 2012 ) .                  j. e. drut and t. a. lahde , phys . rev
. lett . * 102 * , 026802 ( 2009 ) ; phys .
b * 79 * , 165425 ( 2009 ) ; p.
v. buividovich , e. v. luschevskaya , o. v. pavlovsky , m. i. polikarpov , m. v. ulybyshev , phys .
b * 86 * 045107 ( 2012 ) ; p.v .
buividovich , m. i. polikarpov , phys .
b * 86 * , 245117 ( 2012 ) ; m. v. ulybyshev , p. v. buividovich , m. i. katsnelson , m. i. polikarpov , monte - carlo study of the semimetal - insulator phase transition in monolayer graphene with realistic inter - electron interaction potential . arxiv:1304.3660 ( 2013 ) .        a. barreiro , m. lazzeri , j. moser , f. mauri , a. bachtold , _ phys .
lett . _ * 103 * , 076601 ( 2009 ) ; n. vandecasteele , a. barreiro , m. lazzeri , a. bachtold , f. mauri , _ phys . rev .
b _ * 82 * , 045416 ( 2010 ) ; m. lewkowicz , h.c .
kao , and b. rosenstein , phys .
b * 86 * 245117 ( 2012 ) ;  m. i. katsnelson , g. e. volovik , jetp let . * 95 * , 411 ( 2012 ) ; m. i. katsnelson , g. e. volovik , m. a. zubkov , ann .
, * 331 * , 160 ( 2013 ) .