Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the recent experimental developments in ultracold fermi gases and in particular the experimental realization of the bec - bcs crossover through feshbach resonance @xcite have arised in a field where theoretical investigations started a long time ago . indeed fairly soon after the publication of the bardeen - cooper - shrieffer ( bcs ) theory @xcite , the extension to the neutral fermi liquid @xmath4he was considered @xcite . although the case of liquid @xmath4he is more complex than the one of ultracold gases , it is nevertheless analogous to the situation found on the bcs side of the crossover , in the strong interaction regime . similarly the possibility of bose - einstein condensation ( bec ) of composite bosons was considered quite early for excitons in semiconductors @xcite , where the composite nature of these bosons is expected to be an essential physical feature . this is the situation met in the bec range of the bec - bcs crossover . deep theoretical investigation of this last situation was made not long afterwards by keldysh and kozlov @xcite , following a seminal work by popov @xcite which considered a physical model with short range potentials , much closer to the ultracold gas case . in both cases , due to the formal similarity between the bogoliubov and the bcs frameworks , the theoretical treatment relied on the fact that in the dilute limit the formalism leads directly to the schrdinger equation for the molecular state corresponding to the composite boson . this provided an anticipation of the study of the whole bec - bcs crossover . independently eagles @xcite , in the course of a study of superconductivity in doped semiconductors ( where the electron gas has a low concentration compared to standard metals ) , was led to investigate the extrapolation of the simple bcs formalism toward the dilute regime where pair formation would take place , due to the attractive interaction , and bose condensation of these pairs should occur at lower temperatures .    in the context of cold gases , the physics of the crossover was considered by leggett @xcite , who stressed the physical interest of considering cooper pairs as giant molecules , emphasized the change of physical regime when the chemical potential goes through zero , and introduced the scattering length in the bcs formulation . the matter was taken up by nozires and schmitt - rink @xcite who studied the smooth evolution of the critical temperature in the crossover within the simplest @xmath5matrix approximation , showing in particular how the critical temperature of the ideal bose gas is recovered in the strong coupling limit . s de melo , randeria and engelbrecht @xcite addressed the crossover with the functional integral formalism . as it has often been stressed , the physical situation found in this bec - bcs crossover is extremely interesting since ( at least for wide feshbach resonances @xcite ) the scattering length @xmath6 of the different fermions with mass @xmath7 is enough to fully describe their interaction , while one has still to deal with the full complexity of a strongly interacting system . as a result the theoretical problem has not been solved exactly and one has to rely on various approximate schemes @xcite , the simplest one being the straight bcs formalism ( often called bcs - mf ) which is known to give a correct description at zero temperature in both the extreme bec and bcs limits @xmath8 . the imperfections of the approximate treatments are clearer in the bec regime . indeed if one wants to describe properly the departure from the ideal bose gas of dimers , one has to provide a correct description of the dimer - dimer interaction , in order to find the expected physics of a weakly interacting bose gas . as stressed by keldysh and kozlov @xcite the composite nature of the dimers has already to be properly taken into account at this stage in order to obtain correct results .    a first step in this direction for the specific case of short range interactions , relevant for cold gases , was made by haussmann @xcite who obtained , both in the normal and in the superfluid state ( where this can be found naturally out of the bcs ansatz ) , that the dimer - dimer scattering length @xmath1 is related to the fermion scattering length @xmath6 by @xmath9 . this result was also obtained in ref.@xcite in the superfluid state by other methods . the level of approximation corresponding to this result turns out to be the born approximation for the dimer - dimer scattering . at the same level of approximation pieri and strinati @xcite derived quite recently the gross - pitaevskii equation from the bogoliubov - de gennes equations . however this level of approximation was markedly improved by pieri and strinati @xcite who performed the calculation at the level of a @xmath5matrix approximation and found @xmath10 . nevertheless their calculation does not include all the processes resulting from the existence of the fermions making up these composite bosons . the exact numerical result was obtained recently by petrov , salomon and shlyapnikov @xcite who basically solved the relevant schrdinger equation for the four - body problem and found for this dimer - dimer scattering length @xmath11 . thereafter it was shown @xcite how this same problem could be exactly formulated and solved within the methods of quantum field theory , with naturally exactly the same result . this last work is quite relevant to the present paper , and represents the basis out of which we will work . this is naturally linked to the fact that field theoretic methods are a convenient , and probably necessary , framework for an exact formulation and solution of this superfluid strong coupling problem raised by the bec - bcs crossover .    in this paper , we provide an exact approach to the bec - bcs crossover problem from the bec side by presenting an exact fermionic theory of a bec superfluid of composite bosons in the low density range . the two interacting fermion species we deal with are actually the two lowest energy hyperfine states used experimentally @xcite in ultracold gases of @xmath12li or @xmath13k , and as it is usually done we will for convenience refer to them as `` spin up '' and `` spin down '' states . specifically working in the low density range means that we proceed basically to an expansion in powers of the gas density . otherwise our framework is completely general . in the present paper we deal with the lower orders in this expansion , but nothing in principle prevents our approach to be extended to higher orders , although admittedly this will require much more work . similarly we will restrict ourselves to the @xmath14 situation , which brings strong simplifications as we will see because in this case there are no fermions at all in the normal state . however it is quite possible to extend our approach to non zero temperature . finally we deal here with thermodynamics , but our framework allows us naturally to calculate dynamical quantities .    as we mentionned our approach is in principle a low density expansion . however the density @xmath0 is not a convenient basic parameter since it rather appears in the formalism as the result of a calculation . on the other hand it is known ( and we will see it explicitely below ) that in the simple bcs approximation for the bec limit , which as mentionned above corresponds to a born approximation at the level of the mean field term , the density @xmath0 is proportional to @xmath15 , where @xmath16 is the gap parameter of the bcs theory . hence a convenient way to proceed effectively to a low density expansion is rather to expand in powers of @xmath16 . however this quantity is specific of the bcs approximation , which has no general validity . but it is directly related to the anomalous self - energy @xmath17 ( where @xmath18 is an energy - momentum four - vector ) which is a completely general microscopic quantity characteristic of a superfluid system . hence our method will specifically be an expansion of the general equations in powers of the anomalous self - energy @xmath17 .    here we will calculate the equation of state , or more precisely the dependence of the chemical potential @xmath19 on the density @xmath0 ( a short account of our calculation has already been published @xcite ) . actually this is rather the reciprocal of this function which comes naturally out of the calculation , since @xmath19 enters the green s functions while @xmath0 is obtained at the end of the calculation , after elimination of @xmath17 which comes in the intermediate steps . the lowest order term in the expression of @xmath19 , beyond the trivial term of half the molecular binding energy @xmath20 , is the mean - field term . one has to note that , even at this stage , the composite nature of the bosons we deal with is entering as noted by keldysh and kozlov @xcite . however in our case it is lumped into the full dimer - dimer scattering length @xmath1 . this result is physically natural since , beyond the zeroth order term @xmath20 in the chemical potential @xcite corresponding to an isolated molecule , we expect in a density expansion to find the physics of two coexisting molecules , which should be fully describable by @xmath1 for its static properties , corresponding to the zero energy scattering properties . nevertheless , as far as we know , this quite reasonable result has always been in the literature more or less taken for granted or cursorily obtained , but not fully explicitely derived from a microscopic theory for composite bosons . hence our first step will be to obtain this fully explicit derivation . however we are naturally essentially interested by the next order term , at which we will also limit our present calculation . from the theory of weakly interacting elementary bosons this term is proportional to @xmath2 , as first obtained by lee and yang @xcite . we refer to this term as the lhy term . this term has then been rederived by beliaev @xcite making use of field theoretic methods . naturally it is reasonable to expect that a similar term arises for composite bosons . what is however less clear is that the coefficient is just the same as for elementary bosons , i.e. that it can be simply expressed in the same way in terms of @xmath1 . indeed it is clear that , at some stage in the expansion , the composite nature of the bosons will enter by other quantities than those describing the physics of elementary bosons . this is quite obvious physically since , by going to higher densities ( which corresponds to take into account higher order terms in the expansion ) , we will go toward unitarity and find physical properties linked to the existence of fermi seas . obviously this can not be obtained from the physics of elementary bosons . hence it is conceivable that additional processes contribute to the @xmath2 term for composite bosons . nevertheless we will find at the end of our paper that the @xmath2 term is indeed identical to the lhy term provided the dimer - dimer scattering length is used . the fact that this is not obvious is immediately realized from the number and the complexity of our steps , which do not map systematically on the elementary boson derivation . on the other hand this result makes sense physically when it is realized that the lhy term is directly linked to the existence of the gapless collective mode . a standard perturbation expansion should produce a @xmath3 term as the next term after the mean - field one . the existence of the lhy term is linked to the presence of these gapless elementary excitations which produce a singularity in the expansion , leading formally to a divergence in the coefficient of the @xmath3 term . obtaining the proper result is equivalent to the resummation of a partial series to all order in perturbations in order to get rid of the singularity . since these steps involve only low energies , they do not test the internal structure of the bosons which comes into play when energies of order of the binding energy @xmath21 are involved . in such a case it is reasonable that no difference appears between elementary and composite bosons . on the other hand the calculation of the coefficient of the regular @xmath3 term in the expansion involves the consideration of energies of order of the binding energy , as we will see explicitely , making explicit the composite nature of the bosons . this implies that at the level of this term one finds a result different from the case of elementary bosons . note that this result has been previously assumed to be correct in calculations of collective mode frequencies @xcite . on one hand this was in agreement with monte - carlo calculations @xcite , and on the other hand this has been supported by very recent experiments @xcite . at the level of handling the collective mode , very strong analogies with a purely bosonic approach , in particular with beliaev s work @xcite will appear for obvious physical reasons , although it can be seen that our treatment bypasses a good deal of beliaev s detailed diagrammatic analysis . we will not try to put these analogies away , but rather make use of these similarities and correspondances to make easier the physical and technical understanding of our calculation . however we will never make an actual use of a bosonic approach and all our theory is a purely fermionic theory , the essential physical feature being that we deal with fermion physics but with negative chemical potential @xmath22 . in particular we often use the word dimer to describe two fermions with spin up and spin down . but since the theory contains , in the corresponding propagator , not only the bound state of these fermions but also the scattering states , it should be taken as a simple convenient wording , although it is naturally physically suggestive . more generally and formally the anomalous self - energies @xmath23 and @xmath24 play clearly a role analogous to @xmath25 and @xmath26 for bosonic superfluidity . our paper is organized according to the above introduction . after introducing briefly the general formalism in the next section [ general ] , we proceed to the calculation of the normal and anomalous self - energies in section [ deltexp ] to lowest order in @xmath17 , which leads us to the mean field term in the expression of the chemical potential . then in section [ collmod ] we proceed to discuss the collective mode which plays an essential role in the calculation of the lhy term . then the calculation of the contribution of this collective mode to the normal and anomalous self - energies is performed in section [ sigcollmod ] , at the end of which the lhy contribution to the chemical potential is obtained . a number of technical details are treated in appendices , to try to make more palatable the main part of this paper which is already fairly heavy . our work deals only with the @xmath14 situation . hence it would be most natural to use the standard @xmath14 green s function formalism and naturally all the content of our paper can be reproduced with this formalism . however one has in this case to be careful in dealing with real frequencies , and specify precisely the location , with respect to the real axis , of singularities in the corresponding complex plane . this is often left implicit . a simple way to clarify this question is to deal with complex frequencies . but this is actually what one has to do naturally when one works at @xmath27 , where the frequencies run on the imaginary frequency axis . in the @xmath28 limit the discrete sums over matsubara frequencies turn into integrals over frequencies running on the imaginary axis ( the link with the @xmath14 formalism is merely obtained by continuing analytically the frequencies toward the real frequency axis , that is performing a so - called wick rotation on the frequency ) . this leads to somewhat clearer results . hence , despite its somewhat artificial character , we will work quite specifically with this @xmath14 limit of the @xmath27 formalism . actually this will not appear in many our expressions because of their formal nature and for this reason it does not make any real problem . the essential point is that , in this way , we will always have perfectly regular expressions , with an effective handling which is quite clear and easy . we deal only with the formalism of fermionic superfluidity , as it is known in superconductivity @xcite and superfluid @xmath4he @xcite . this entails the use of both the normal fermionic green s functions @xmath29 , where we make use of the four - vector notation @xmath30 , and their anomalous counterpart @xmath31 and @xmath32 , where we make use of standard notations @xcite . this could be written in a compact nambu formalism , but for clarity we prefer to write the normal and anomalous parts explicitely , with slightly different sign conventions . in practice we will always consider in the following , when we calculate @xmath33 , that we deal with @xmath34 , without writing it explicitely for simplicity . the existence ( i.e. the fact that they are non zero ) of these anomalous green s function is the basic ingredient of fermionic superfluidity in our formalism . this is quite clear physically since they are related to the condensate . , [ eqdysona]),width=377 ]    we start by writing dyson s equations for this superfluid : @xmath35 their corresponding diagrammatic representation being given in fig . [ figdyson ] . here @xmath36^{-1}$ ] is the free atom green s function , with @xmath37 the atom kinetic energy @xmath38 measured from the chemical potential @xmath19 . the quantities @xmath39 and @xmath17 are respectively the normal and the anomalous self - energies . by definition @xmath39 is the sum of all diagrams , with one entering @xmath18 line and one outgoing @xmath18 line , which can not separated into two disconnected parts by cutting a single @xmath40 line ( or @xmath41 line ) . @xmath17 has the same definition except that it has two entering lines , one ( @xmath42 ) line and one ( @xmath43 ) line . we note that @xmath17 depends naturally in the general case on momentum and frequency . in the second equation , for @xmath32 which begins with an outgoing ( @xmath43 ) line and finishes with an outgoing ( @xmath42 ) line , it would look more symmetrical to introduce a corresponding anomalous self - energy @xmath44 , analogous to @xmath17 , but with two outgoing lines , one ( @xmath45 ) line and one ( @xmath46 ) line . however it can be related directly to @xmath47 by time reversal , as we have written explicitely . all formulae in the following turn out to be simpler to interpret when this substitution is done , and we will follow this standard habit . we note also that , since we deal with an equilibrium situation , where the gas is homogeneous , we do not need to introduce green s functions with different entering and outgoing momenta , as it would be required in the case of an inhomogeneous system . dyson s equations eq . ( [ eqdyson ] ) can be understood as a way of ordering the full perturbation expansion , by gathering terms into @xmath39 and @xmath17 . however it is interesting to note that this can be done in slightly different ways . for example we can gather in eq . ( [ eqdyson ] ) all the terms where only the free green s function @xmath40 and the normal self - energy @xmath39 appear , that is the terms where no anomalous terms are present . this leads to introduce @xmath48 , that is @xmath49 . in this way , by making use of @xmath50 instead of @xmath40 , we are only left to write in dyson s equations the anomalous terms , that is to rewrite these equations as : @xmath51 it is indeed checked easily that the algebraic solution of eq . ( [ eqdyson],[eqdysona ] ) , as well as the one of eq . ( [ eqdyson1 ] , [ eqdyson1a ] ) , is indeed : @xmath52 making use of the expression of @xmath53 this can be rewritten as : @xmath54\end{aligned}\ ] ] this result could have been obtained directly in the following way . in the definition we have taken above for the self - energy , we had excluded diagrams made of two blocks linked by a single propagator @xmath40 ( corresponding to an atom propagating to the right , as for the definition of the normal self - energy ) or @xmath41 ( corresponding to an atom propagating to the left , as it is produced by the anomalous self - energies ) . however we could take another definition where we would exclude only blocks linked by a rightward propagator , just as in the normal state . in this case the formal expression of @xmath33 in terms of the self - energy , i.e. @xmath55 , is just the same as in the normal state , as it is indeed the case in eq . ( [ eqdysonsol1 ] ) . but the expression of the self - energy has been naturally modified from @xmath39 to @xmath56 . indeed we have to include now terms containing leftward propagators @xmath41 . but it is easily realized that these new terms contain at most a product @xmath57 , corresponding to the presence of anomalous self - energies of opposite types at the extremities of the block . these two anomalous self - energies can be separated by any number of leftward propagators @xmath41 , with normal self - energies @xmath58 . the sum of all these produces a factor @xmath59 , which leads to the relation : @xmath60 in agreeement with eq . ( [ eqdysonsol1 ] ) . while they are completely general , the considerations presented in the preceding section are not of much practical use since we have no expressions for the normal and anomalous self - energies . in order to obtain explicit expressions , we will now begin to proceed along the lines outlined in the introduction , namely to perform a systematic expansion in powers of @xmath16 . in the present section , as an introduction and as a first step , we will only consider the lowest order in this expansion . the next order will then be addressed in the next section . in the first subsection we will consider the expansion of the normal self - energy , which turns out to be the easier one . then the anomalous self - energy will be handled along the same lines .      as we have indicated in the introduction , and as we will check explicitely below , the expansion in powers of @xmath16 has the character of an expansion in powers of the density @xmath0 since we will find @xmath62 . hence the zeroth order in powers of @xmath16 corresponds to an infinitely dilute gas for which the normal self - energy is naturally zero . since by its definition this normal self - energy contains only processes which conserve globally the number of particles , the lowest order term @xmath63 in the normal self - energy must contain both @xmath16 and @xmath64 , because @xmath16 implies from its definition the annihilation of two atoms ( going physically in the condensate ) , while @xmath64 corresponds to the creation of two atoms ( coming out of the condensate ) . hence this lowest order term in the normal self - energy is the sum of all diagrams which contain @xmath65 and @xmath66 , and which have one entering line @xmath18 and one outgoing line @xmath18 , the rest of the diagrams containing only ( since we proceed to an expansion ) @xmath67 quantities , that is normal state quantities ( see fig . [ figt3 ] ) . we call the sum of all these normal state diagrams the normal part of @xmath63 . this is just @xmath63 , except for the @xmath65 and @xmath66 terms . , width=226 ]    explicitely this means that this normal part of the diagrams contains only any number of bare propagators @xmath40 and of interactions lines . moreover the two atom lines coming out of @xmath66(with opposite spins ) are not allowed to interact immediately after entering the normal part of the diagram , since such an interaction is already included in @xmath66 ( as we will see explicitely below ) and allowing it would amount to double counting of diagrams . similarly the two atom lines entering @xmath65 are not allowed to interact immediately before . as it happens , such a normal state set of diagrams has already been essentially considered in ref.@xcite . indeed in this paper the scattering of a single atom by a dimer ( made of atoms with opposite spins ) has been calculated . the fact that a dimer is entering the diagram implied that the two corresponding atom lines can not interact immediately in the diagram , since such an interaction is already taken into account in the dimer propagator and this would be again double counting . there is a similar requirement for the two lines corresponding to the outgoing dimer . we see that the requirements on the normal part of @xmath63 are just the same as in the above paper . in this ref.@xcite the sum of all these diagrams was denoted @xmath68 where @xmath69 ( respectively @xmath70 ) is the four - vector of the entering ( respectively outgoing ) atom , and @xmath71 is the total four - vector of the single atom and the dimer . in our statement we apparently overlook the fact that @xmath68 contains only three atom lines , which go from the beginning to the end of the diagram , with various interactions between them in the diagram , since we deal with the vacuum scattering of an atom and a dimer . in contrast we could think that , in addition to these lines , the normal part of @xmath63 may contain any number of loops of atom lines . however it is clear physically that these loops are not allowed . indeed if we think of this normal part as representing , in a time representation , a succession of processes due to interaction , the appearance of a loop corresponds to the creation of a particle - hole pair . while such processes can always occur at non zero temperature , in our @xmath14 situation they are possible only if the chemical potential @xmath19 is positive , thereby allowing the existence of a fermi sea in which the hole can be created . but in our dilute regime we have @xmath72 and these processes are forbidden . this argument is developped more technically in appendix [ appnoloop ] . hence it is correct to identify the normal part of @xmath63 with @xmath73 since both contain only three atom lines , subject to the same restrictions indicated above . nevertheless there is still a small difference in the general case between the normal part we want and @xmath73 . in the definition of @xmath73 one has to sum over all possible four - vectors for the two lines making up the entering dimer , with the only restriction that their sum is fixed at @xmath74 . a similar summation applies for the two lines making up the outgoing dimer . on the other hand in our normal part the two lines ( p,@xmath75 ) and ( -p,@xmath76 ) entering in @xmath65 have a total zero four - vector , and because @xmath65 depends on @xmath77 , when we sum over @xmath77 , there is a weight @xmath65 which depends on @xmath77 , in contrast with the case of @xmath73 . nevertheless , as shown in appendix [ appt3 ] , it is possible to express in the general case our self - energy in terms of @xmath73 . but in our specific problem , this is an unnecessary complication since we will see that , at the order of the expansion we are considering , the dependence of @xmath65 on @xmath77 can be neglected , and @xmath65 can be considered as a constant which we denote merely as @xmath16 . hence we can factor @xmath61 out . similar considerations apply to @xmath78 and the entering dimer lines . there is still a very important point to consider before writing our expression for @xmath63 . among all the diagrams we have considered contributing to @xmath63 , there is necessarily a diagram which gives a contribution @xmath79 because it satisfies all our requirements . indeed this is just what is coming from the lowest order diagram in @xmath73 , which gives a contribution @xmath80 to @xmath73 and corresponds merely to the born approximation . this diagram is necessarily present because we considered it already in the preceding section [ general ] , when we were dealing with the general expansion of @xmath33 in powers of @xmath81 and @xmath17 . this is just the last term in eq.([eqdysonsol1 ] ) , when we replace @xmath59 by @xmath41 ( since we want only normal state diagrams ) and take @xmath17 independent of @xmath18 . however , since it is already explicitely present in eq.([eqdysonsol1 ] ) , this implies automatically that it is reducible ( and indeed it is obviously reducible ) and for this reason should not be included in @xmath63 ( otherwise we would double count this diagram ) . on the other hand this is clearly the only reducible contribution coming from @xmath73 , as seen directly from the diagrammatic expansion @xcite of @xmath73 , or because any such reducible contribution has to appear explicitely from eq.([eqdysonsol1 ] ) as explained above . accordingly we have to subtract this contribution out and we obtain finally : @xmath82 we can also rewrite this result in terms of our self - energy @xmath83 as : @xmath84 this result is also directly quite natural since , when we evaluate @xmath83 , the diagrams with @xmath41 are not considered as reducible , as we have seen , and accordingly @xmath79 should not be subtracted . we are now in position to calculate the single spin atomic density @xmath0 , which is given quite generally by : @xmath85 if @xmath86 is replaced by @xmath87 , one checks easily that @xmath88 , which is physically obvious since in this case we deal with a non interacting fermion gas , at @xmath14 , and chemical potential @xmath22 . there is no fermi sea ( which arises only for @xmath89 ) and there are no fermions . hence we can replace completely generally @xmath33 by @xmath90 in eq . ( [ eqdefn ] ) . since we work in this section at the lowest order in @xmath16 , which means at order @xmath91 in the present case , we can replace @xmath92 by @xmath93 , and @xmath33 by @xmath40 . this leads to : @xmath94 ^ 2 \label{eqdefn1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where , as in eq . ( [ eqdefn ] ) , @xmath18 is for @xmath95 .    at this stage it seems that , in order to calculate the density , we are required to have a deep knowledge of @xmath73 . this seems physically reasonable since , in eq . ( [ eqdefn1 ] ) , @xmath73 describes the scattering of an atom with the condensate which has clearly to be taken into account . however the actual situation turns out to be much simpler . in order to calculate the integral over @xmath96 in eq . ( [ eqdefn1 ] ) , it is convenient to close the contour in the upper complex half - plane @xmath97 ( which corresponds to @xmath98 ) , since the pole of @xmath99^{-1}$ ] is found for @xmath100 ( since @xmath101 ) . however it is shown in appendix [ appt3anal ] that , except for the born contribution , @xmath102 is analytical in the upper complex half - plane and does not contribute to the integral . the result comes entirely from the born contribution . this means that surprisingly the contribution of @xmath63 to @xmath0 is zero , and that the only non zero contribution comes from the explicit bcs term @xmath103 in eq . ( [ eqsigm ] ) . in other words the approximate bcs formalism gives the exact result at the lowest order in our @xmath16 expansion . it reads : @xmath104 ^ 2=\frac{m^2\,|\delta |^2}{8\pi ( 2m|\mu |)^{1/2}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] if we make use in this result of the zeroth order value of the fermion chemical potential @xmath105 , we end up with : @xmath106 actually this relation @xmath107 is precisely obtained from the dimer propagator @xmath108 ( see section [ collmod ] ) when it is evaluated near its pole and with the purely bosonic propagator factor merely replaced by @xmath0 . we proceed now in a somewhat similar way for the anomalous self - energy . the resulting equation is the generalization of the standard gap equation of the conventional bcs theory and it has the same character of being finally a self - consistent equation for @xmath17 . in writing an expression for @xmath17 , we can in full generality separate all contributing diagrams in two sets . in the first set , for both of the two entering fermionic lines , the first interaction is between these lines themselves . the second set corresponds to the opposite case , where for at least one of these two entering lines the first interaction is with a line which is not the other entering fermionic line ( see fig.[figxxa ] ) . this separation of the diagrams in two classes is completely analogous to the separation of the diagrams , coming in the standard self - energy @xcite , into an hartree - fock like set and another set involving the full vertex . the set of diagrams where the two fermionic lines interact can be immediately written in terms of @xmath31 , which is analogous ( and actually directly related ) to @xmath32 , except that it has , instead of outgoing lines , an ingoing ( @xmath46 ) line and an ingoing ( @xmath45 ) line . it satisfies a dyson s equation analogous to eq . ( [ eqdyson],[eqdysona ] ) , namely : @xmath109 introducing the fourier transform @xmath110 of the bare instantaneous interaction between @xmath75-atom and @xmath76-atom , this first contribution to the anomalous self - energy is : @xmath111 which has naturally just the form of the standard bcs term . let us now switch to the other set of diagrams , for which we proceed to an expansion similar to the one carried out in the preceding subsection . because of particle conservation this expansion involves now odd powers in @xmath112 ) . we consider first the term proportional to @xmath113 . the normal part of this diagram contains only one @xmath114 line and one @xmath76 line ( with any number of interactions ) , since additional lines are not allowed as discussed above . moreover , because the interaction is instantaneous , there is no possibility of crossing of interactions when the diagram is drawn in time representation . finally our lines are not allowed to go backward in time since this would correspond to the creation of a particle - hole pair , which is again not allowed in our case where we have a negative chemical potential at @xmath14 ( by contrast , for @xmath89 , such processes could naturally occur ) . in summary the only possible diagrams are those of repeated interactions between the @xmath114 and the @xmath115 atom . this corresponds merely to the propagation of a normal dimer . however these diagrams are already generated by the iteration of the term ( [ bcs ] ) when @xmath116 is written as @xmath117 from eq.([eqdysond ] ) at lowest order , and they should not be double - counted . hence there is no term of order @xmath16 in this set , and our expansion starts with terms containing @xmath118 . the analysis is now somewhat similar to the one made in the preceding subsection [ normself ] . to obtain the above third order term in the equation for @xmath17 , we have to write , together with the factor @xmath118 , all the normal state diagrams which have , in addition to the two entering lines ( @xmath46 ) and ( @xmath119 , another couple of entering lines coming from @xmath120 . moreover , we have two couples of outgoing lines , going into @xmath65 and @xmath121 . just as in the preceding subsection , we have a no first interaction restriction for all these couples of lines , including the ( @xmath46 ) and ( @xmath119 ones . as discussed above , in addition to these ingoing and outgoing ones with their continuations , no other lines can appear in these diagrams since they form loops , which are forbidden since we are at @xmath14 and @xmath22 . we find that such normal state diagrams have already been essentially encountered in ref.@xcite , where their sum has been called @xmath122 . here @xmath123 and @xmath124 are for the entering fermionic lines ( corresponding to @xmath18 and @xmath125 in our case ) , the total four - vector for the ingoing and outgoing lines being @xmath126 . finally there is , in the definition of @xmath127 , one entering @xmath128 dimer , while there are two outgoing dimers @xmath129 and @xmath130 .    just as in the preceding section , we should take into account that , in the general case , we have the weight @xmath118 which depends on the four - vectors of the atom propagators making up the dimers , while in the definition of @xmath127 the summation over these variables is already performed , with only their sums @xmath128 , @xmath129 and @xmath130 being fixed . this problem could nevertheless be circumvented and an expression for the normal part obtained in terms of @xmath127 , in a way analogous to appendix [ appt3 ] . however , just as in subsection [ normself ] , this is not necessary . indeed from the lowest order term @xmath131 given by eq.([bcs ] ) , we see that @xmath17 does not depend at lowest order on the frequency variable @xmath132 . moreover , since we deal with a bare interaction potential @xmath133 which has a very short range , its fourier transform @xmath110 is a constant , except for very large wave vectors . but , as we will see , these wave vectors will not come into play because all the integrals we deal with converge at a much shorter wave vector . hence we find that , at lowest order , @xmath17 turns out to be independent of @xmath18 , just as in standard bcs theory . now , when we want to calculate the third order term , we may insert in it the expression of @xmath17 to lowest order , which is just a constant which we denote again as @xmath16 . accordingly the above problem disappears and the normal part of our diagrams can be expressed directly in terms of @xmath122 .    nevertheless we have to take into account , just as in subsection [ normself ] , that some of the diagrams appearing in @xmath134 are actually not irreducible , and should not be included in our expression for @xmath17 . hence we have to subtract them out of @xmath135 . we denote @xmath136 what remains of @xmath127 after this subtraction . this will be taken care of just below . gathering our results , we end up with the following ( self - consistent ) equation : @xmath137 the factor 1/2 in front of @xmath136 is a general topological factor ( it is present even if we do not take @xmath16 as constant ) . indeed exchanging @xmath65 and @xmath121 corresponds to a mere change of variable and not to a different diagram . on the other hand , by making use of @xmath138 , any given such diagram would appear twice ( even if @xmath127 is actually unchanged when we exchange the bosonic variables of the two outgoing dimers , which amounts to change @xmath70 into @xmath139 ) . hence the factor 1/2 is required to avoid this double counting . we note that clearly @xmath17 depends indeed on @xmath18 in general , since this is already explicitely the case in eq.([eqdelta ] ) where the third order term depends on @xmath18 through @xmath140 . let us now be specific about the difference between @xmath127 and @xmath141 , due to the reducible diagrams contained in @xmath135 . one can obtain them by looking at the diagrammatic expansion @xcite of @xmath127 . however it is easier to notice , as indicated above , that they appear automatically explicitely from eq.([eqdysonc],[eqdysond ] ) , when their solution are expanded in order to obtain the complete perturbative series expansion of @xmath33 and @xmath31 in powers of @xmath142 and @xmath16 , because this expansion provides precisely all the reducible contributions in terms of the irreducible self - energies @xmath142 and @xmath16 . when we expand the solution for @xmath31 : @xmath143[g^{-1}_0(-p)-\sigma ( -p)]+\delta ( p ) \delta^ { * } ( p)}\end{aligned}\ ] ] to third order , we find : @xmath144g_0(-p)\end{aligned}\ ] ] where for consistency we have to take only the second order contribution @xmath63 ( given by eq.([eqsigmn2 ] ) ) to @xmath81 . the third order terms in the bracket are clearly the reducible contributions to @xmath145 , as it can be seen directly . they are displayed diagrammatically in fig.[figxxxx ] . in particular the last term of the bracket comes from the born term of @xmath146 . hence we have explicitely : @xmath147\end{aligned}\ ] ]    . in the first two terms @xmath148 is obtained from @xmath73 by excluding the born term , since it is taken into account explicitely by the third term.,width=377 ]    however it is now more convenient to work with @xmath127 rather than @xmath141 . hence we add to both members of eq.([eqdelta ] ) the reducible contributions . after multiplication by @xmath149 and taking into account eq.([eqf3 ] ) , we end up with : @xmath150 finally we obtain a closed equation by eliminating @xmath31 in favor of @xmath17 through eq.([eqdelta ] ) , or more simply through the definition eq.([bcs ] ) . multiplying eq.([eqf ] ) by @xmath151 and summing over @xmath18 we find : @xmath152 if we had only the first term in the right - hand side , we would merely have the linearized bcs gap equation . accordingly we proceed in the standard way @xcite to eliminate the bare potential in favor of the scattering amplitude . this is more easily understood by proceeding in a formal way . introducing the operator @xmath153 , with matrix elements @xmath154 , and the diagonal operator @xmath155 with matrix elements @xmath156 , the @xmath157-matrix for two fermions ( in the center of mass frame ) in vacuum satisfies @xmath158 , where the operator product implies naturally the summation on the intermediate variables with @xmath159 . this can just be written @xmath160 . if we note @xmath161 the second term in the right - hand side of eq.([eqf ] ) , we can rewrite eq.([eqgap1 ] ) as @xmath162 , or @xmath163 . inserting the above value of @xmath164 , this leads to @xmath165 , or @xmath166 . this is explicitely : @xmath167 where @xmath168 is the energy at which the @xmath157-matrix is calculated . in the present case , since @xmath169^{-1}$ ] , the total energy for the two fermions is @xmath170 ( @xmath19 for each fermion ) , as it can be seen directly by integrating the first term of eq.([eqgap1 ] ) over @xmath132 .    in standard scattering theory the scattering amplitude @xmath171 at energy @xmath172 ( the reduced mass is @xmath173 ) is obtained from the evaluation of the @xmath157-matrix `` on the shell '' , i.e. taking @xmath174 with @xmath175 . in the present case we deal with a potential with a short range of order @xmath176 . this implies that @xmath177 and @xmath178 have to vary on a typical scale @xmath179 in order to have a significant variation of @xmath174 . since in the case of ultracold atoms we are dealing with much smaller wavevectors , and we may replace @xmath174 by @xmath180 . hence the scattering amplitude is merely given by @xmath181 . on the other hand , in this same regime , the scattering amplitude is given by its s - wave component @xmath182^{-1}$ ] . this gives @xmath183^{-1}$ ] . now we evaluate eq.([eqgap2 ] ) for @xmath184 small compared to @xmath179 . we see that in this range @xmath185 is essentially a constant , which we call simply @xmath186 . on the other hand @xmath161 is a rapidly decreasing function @xcite of @xmath187 , on a typical scale @xmath188 . hence we may replace in eq.([eqgap2 ] ) @xmath189 by @xmath190 , which can be expressed in terms of the scattering amplitude . this leads explicitely to : @xmath191\,\delta_1=\frac{1}{2 }   \,\delta\ , |\delta |^2   \sum_{p}g_0(p)g_0(-p ) \phi ( p ,- p;0 , 0)\end{aligned}\ ] ] finally we take into account the fact that the sum over @xmath18 appearing in the right - hand side of eq.([eqgap3 ] ) is directly related to the dimer - dimer scattering amplitude @xmath192 in vacuum @xcite by : @xmath193 whereas : @xmath194 we note that , in eq.([eqt4 ] ) , we end up with @xmath192 being evaluated at a dimer energy @xmath195 , while the dimer - dimer scattering in eq.([eqam ] ) is related to @xmath192 evaluated at the binding energy @xmath196 . however at this stage the small difference between @xmath195 and @xmath197 is unimportant in @xmath192 , since it appears in the corrective term which is on the right - hand side of eq.([eqgap3 ] ) . in this term we may also , within the same level of accuracy , use @xmath198 . this leads finally to : @xmath199 when we substitute in this expression the relation @xmath200 found in section [ deltexp ] a , we obtain at the same level of accuracy : @xmath201 which is the standard mean field correction to the chemical potential , with the proper dimer - dimer scattering length @xmath1 . since the lhy terms come physically from the low energy collective mode , we need first to derive the expression for the collective mode propagator , as well as its anomalous counterpart . these propagators can be seen as the extension to the superfluid state of the dimer propagator in the normal state . for the normal component of this propagator , this is just the full vertex with two entering and two outgoing fermion lines , the two fermions having opposite spins . in the normal state , in the dilute limit , this vertex is just the single dimer propagator @xmath202 already used in ref.@xcite . it depends only on the total momentum @xmath203 and the total energy @xmath204 of the two fermions . in contrast with the above reference we work in the grand canonical ensemble and the energies are taken with respect to the chemical potential @xmath19 of single fermions . hence for all the energies @xmath205 used in ref.@xcite , we have to make the substitution @xmath206 . for the single dimer propagator we have to make @xmath207 . however we keep for simplicity the same notation as in ref.@xcite for the various quantities after having made this substitution . also for coherence , and in contrast with the preceding sections , we work in the present section with real frequencies , rather than with matsubara frequencies . this is also more natural physically since we are interested in particular in the ( real ) frequency of the collective mode . making use of the quadrivector notation @xmath208 we have thus , for this single dimer propagator in the dilute limit : @xmath209 where @xmath210 is the dimer binding energy , and we have made explicit the fact that @xmath211 . note that physically this propagator describes the bound state of the two fermions , through its pole at @xmath212 , as well as the continuum of scattering states where the dimer is broken , through the continuum in the spectral function starting at @xmath213 .        in the superfluid we want to obtain the correction to this normal state result to lowest order in @xmath214 . more precisely we want to correct what corresponds to the self - energy if we had a single particle propagator . in the present case this is the irreducible vertex in the particle - particle channel , which by definition can not be separated in two disconnected parts by cutting two fermion propagators . more precisely , since the bare interaction between fermions is already taken into account in @xmath108 , this is the part of this irreducible vertex beyond the bare interaction we are interested in . this part @xmath215 of the irreducible vertex depends on the quadrivectors @xmath123 and @xmath124 of the entering particles , as well as on those @xmath216 and @xmath217 of the outgoing particles . assuming for the moment quite generally that the full vertex @xmath218 depends also on these four quadrivectors , we can write a bethe - salpeter equation , which is shown diagrammatically in fig .  [ figgammaab]a : @xmath219 @xmath220 where @xmath221 . we have made explicit the fact that the normal state dimer propagator @xmath108 depends only on the sum @xmath222 of the incoming and outgoing fermions quadrivectors . in eq.([betsal ] ) the first sum is completely analogous to what should be written in the normal state . however we had also to write the second sum , which describes the anomalous processes where a dimer can be annihilated into the condensate or can be created from the condensate . this leads to introduce , in correspondance with the first sum , an anomalous irreducible vertex @xmath223 where four fermions are entering ( annihilated into the condensate ) and none is going out . correspondingly we need to introduce an anomalous full vertex @xmath224 with only outgoing fermion lines . naturally in order to close our set of equations we have to write for this vertex the corresponding bethe - salpeter equation , which is shown diagrammatically in fig . [ figgammaab]b , the major difference with the preceding one being that there is no normal state term : @xmath225 @xmath226 where we have introduced the irreducible vertex @xmath227 where there are only outgoing fermions , physically created from the condensate . now it is explicit in eq.([betsal ] ) that @xmath218 depends only on @xmath228 . by time reversal symmetry it depends also only on @xmath229 , this last equality resulting from momentum - energy conservation . hence , just as @xmath108 , it depends only on the total momentum and energy @xmath71 , and we merely denote this function as @xmath230 . similarly @xmath231 depends only on @xmath232 and we call it merely @xmath233 . in this way eq.([betsal ] ) becomes simply : @xmath234 and similarly : @xmath235 where we have introduced : @xmath236 these equations are naturally quite similar to the ones we had for the single fermion green s function . their solutions are : @xmath237 \left[t_2^{-1}(-p)-\gamma_{\mathrm irr}(-p)\right ] -\gamma^a_{\mathrm irr}(p){\bar \gamma}^a_{\mathrm irr}(-p)}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath238 \left[t_2^{-1}(-p)-\gamma_{\mathrm irr}(-p)\right ] -\gamma^a_{\mathrm irr}(p){\bar \gamma}^a_{\mathrm irr}(-p)}\end{aligned}\ ] ] as it could be expected physically , these equations are formally identical to those obtained for pure bosons @xcite . in the same spirit we note , for later use , that we could also introduce an anomalous full vertex @xmath239 with only ingoing fermion lines . it is easily shown , by writing the equivalent of eq.([betsalp ] ) with this vertex , to be related to the preceding ones by @xmath240 . this gives : @xmath241 \left[t_2^{-1}(-p)-\gamma_{\mathrm irr}(-p)\right ] -\gamma^a_{\mathrm irr}(p){\bar \gamma}^a_{\mathrm irr}(-p)}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we have now to find the expressions of @xmath242 , @xmath243 and @xmath227 within our expansion in powers of @xmath16 . since @xmath16 corresponds to diagrams with two ingoing fermions and @xmath64 to two outgoing fermions , particle conservation implies that the expansions start at second order with @xmath242 proportional to @xmath244 , @xmath243 proportional to @xmath91 and @xmath227 proportional to @xmath245 . since it can be seen that it is not required to go to higher order , the expressions of our irreducible vertices will be given by these second order expressions . since we have written explicitely the various factors @xmath16 and @xmath246 , the coefficients in the expressions of @xmath242,@xmath243 and @xmath227 correspond to diagrams containing only normal state propagators . for @xmath242 ( see fig . [ figxxabc]a ) , we have to write the expression for all the normal state diagrams with one ingoing dimer propagator and one outgoing dimer ( from the very definition of @xmath242 ) . moreover there are in addition two lines ingoing from @xmath64 and two lines outgoing to @xmath16 . these last two couples of lines have to be treated as dimer lines , which means that they are not allowed to interact immediately in the normal state diagrams we are drawing , because such interactions are already taken into account in @xmath16 and @xmath247 , and allowing them would amount to double counting . in summary we have to write all possible normal state diagrams with two ingoing dimer lines and two outgoing dimer lines ( these diagrams are automatically irreducible in the sense of the definition of @xmath242 , that is with respect to a single dimer propagator , since the four ingoing normal state lines can not disappear ) . this is depicted diagrammatically in fig . [ figxxabc]a . but this set of diagrams is just by definition the normal state dimer - dimer scattering vertex @xmath192 introduced in @xcite . more precisely , since the total momentum - energy linked to @xmath16 and @xmath247 is zero and the total momentum - energy of the ingoing lines is @xmath71 , this vertex is @xmath248 with the notations of ref.@xcite which gives for @xmath242 the explicit expression : @xmath249 with completely analogous arguments for @xmath243 , we obtain : @xmath250 and similarly : @xmath251 corresponding to the diagrams found in fig . [ figxxabc]b and fig .  [ figxxabc]c . in eq.([gammirra ] ) and ( [ gammirrba ] ) we had to put a 1/2 topological factor corresponding to the fact that , for example , exchanging the two factors @xmath16 in eq.([gammirra ] ) ( that is precisely the set of diagrams they correspond to ) does not produce a different diagram , whereas this diagram would appear twice if we had just written @xmath252 .    . a ) normal irreducible vertex @xmath253 . b ) and c ) anomalous irreducible vertices @xmath254 and @xmath255.,width=453 ]    finally it is worth pointing out that @xmath192 satisfies @xmath256 . this is physically obvious since it corresponds to state that exchanging the arguments of the two ingoing dimer lines does not change the value of the vertex , since we exchange two bosons . but this property can also be proved directly from the integral equation @xcite satisfied by @xmath192 . similarly we have @xmath257 . let us consider now more specifically the collective mode dispersion relation . it is given by the pole of the collective mode propagator , that is : @xmath258 \left[t_2^{-1}(-p)-\gamma_{\mathrm irr}(-p)\right ] -\gamma^a_{\mathrm irr}(p){\bar \gamma}^a_{\mathrm irr}(-p)}=0\end{aligned}\ ] ] naturally we have first to check that for zero wave vector @xmath259 , the frequency @xmath260 is zero , that is @xmath261 is solution of this dispersion relation . for this case we have from eq . ( [ 2vertex ] ) for the bare dimer propagator : @xmath262 on the other hand we have @xmath263 where the last equality comes from ref.@xcite , and we have used the fact that , in @xmath264 , we may , at the order we are working , replace @xmath265 by its zeroth order value , namely @xmath266 ( we recall that we have to shift all the frequencies of ref.@xcite by @xmath195 ) . since we have already found that @xmath267 , we can easily check that eq.([moddisp ] ) is indeed satisfied in this case . now , as we will see , we are more specifically interested in the collective mode dispersion relation for wave vectors @xmath268 and frequencies @xmath269 . since @xmath270 and @xmath271 are of the same order of magnitude , we can expand the bare dimer propagator to first order as : @xmath272 on the other hand the typical scale of variation of @xmath192 on its arguments is @xmath188 for the wave vectors and @xmath270 for the energies , since we deal with a normal state quantity and there are accordingly no other scales in the corresponding problem . hence , for the wave vectors and frequencies we are considering , we can still take : @xmath273 on the other hand the above result at @xmath261 implies also that we have @xmath274 , and eq . ( [ moddisp ] ) for the collective mode frequency @xmath275 can be rewritten as : @xmath276 where we have set @xmath277 and in the last step we have used the lowest order expressions for @xmath278 and @xmath214 to calculate this quantity . naturally eq.([bog ] ) is just the bogoliubov dispersion relation , with the proper scattering dimer - dimer scattering length . as we have already indicated in the introduction , the lhy term arises from the collective mode contributions to the self - energies . if we were to continue naturally our above procedure and go to next order in @xmath16 , i.e. to order @xmath279 for example in the calculation of the normal self - energy , we would find singular results ( as it can be checked by proceeding to such a formal expansion in the explicit calculations performed below ) . this is due to the fact that the collective mode is gapless , and the lack of gap in the excitation spectrum leads to a singularity in the perturbative expansion . hence , instead of the next order terms , we include the whole contribution coming from the collective mode . avoiding in this way to proceed immediately to a @xmath16 expansion is equivalent to a series resummation , which allows to take care of singularities . writing the collective mode contributions to the self - energy is formally easy , when one notices for example the analogy of the normal part of the collective mode propagator with the product of @xmath64 and @xmath16 . indeed the term @xmath64 acts as a source of fermions in our diagrams , coming physically out of the condensate , while @xmath16 acts as a sink of fermions going into the condensate . these source and sink related to the condensate are required since , at @xmath280 , no fermions are present except coming from the superfluid . however when we allow to insert the normal part of a collective mode propagator , the starting part of the propagator acts as a sink for the rest of the diagram while the end part acts as a source . hence we have just to substitute @xmath244 by the normal part of a collective mode propagator . we will proceed in a similar way for the anomalous parts . naturally we will have to take care that the self - energy contributions already calculated above are not counted twice , by removing the corresponding terms . hence the collective mode contribution @xmath281 to the normal self - energy is obtained by replacing , in our lowest order expression , the product @xmath244 by the collective mode propagator , more specifically its diagonal component @xmath282 given by eq.([gamn ] ) , as depicted diagrammatically in fig.[figxab ] . we have naturally to sum over the variable @xmath71 of the collective mode . corresponding to eq.([eqsigmn2 ] ) , this leads to : @xmath283    . the diagonal component @xmath282 of the collective mode propagator is depicted by the heavy line , width=226 ]    in principle this expression is improper because it contains , when we perform its expansion in powers of @xmath214 , contributions of zeroth and first order in @xmath214 which have already been taken explicitely into account in our above expansion . however in the present case these two contributions are zero . for the zeroth order term , this is fairly obvious physically since it corresponds to a normal state diagram with a normal state dimer propagator , and at @xmath14 no dimers are present which makes all diagrams of this kind equal to zero . mathematically this would happen because , in this diagram , the presence of a normal state dimer would necessarily imply , since there is no down - spin entering line , the presence of a down - spin loop ( if we calculate the up - spin self - energy ) which can not be present as explained in appendix [ appnoloop ] .     in the collective mode contribution to the normal self - energy eq.([eqsigmod ] ) depicted in fig.[figxab],width=226 ] the conclusion is the same for the first order term , but the argument is slightly more complicated . the factor of @xmath214 in this term is @xmath284 ^ 2t_4(p/2,p/2;p/2)$ ] , which is a normal state diagram ( see fig.[figaaaa ] ) . it is actually a part of the diagrams belonging to @xmath102 since it has one entering fermion line and one entering dimer line , with the same for the outgoing lines . however we have seen , as it is detailed in appendix [ appt3anal ] , that only the born term in @xmath73 gives a non zero contribution to the particle number . on the other hand the term @xmath284 ^ 2t_4(p/2,p/2;p/2)$ ] does obviously not contain the born term of @xmath73 since this last one reduces to a simple propagator , whereas the presence of the factor @xmath108 implies at least two lines , with interaction between them . actually one can see more precisely that our term is equal to zero , since it contains necessarily propagators going backward in time ( see appendix [ appnoloop ] and [ appt3anal ] ) . taking the born contribution for @xmath73 and @xmath192 in @xmath284 ^ 2t_4(p/2,p/2;p/2)$ ] gives a good example of this . finally , after these considerations , we see that we can still use eq.([eqsigmod ] ) for @xmath285 . the conclusion will be different for the mode contribution to the anomalous self - energy discussed below . now when we look for the contribution @xmath286 to the density corresponding to eq.([eqsigmod ] ) , we have to replace @xmath33 in eq.([eqdefn ] ) by @xmath287 , just as it is done below eq.([eqdefn ] ) . quite similarly it will be enough to replace here @xmath33 by @xmath40 to obtain the lowest order contribution of the collective mode we are interested in . this gives : @xmath288 ^ 2=   \sum_{p , p}\,t_3(p , p;p+p ) \,\gamma(p)\left[g_0(p)\right]^2\end{aligned}\ ] ] where again @xmath289 and @xmath290 . now the argument runs just as below eq.([eqdefn1 ] ) . we integrate first on the frequency variable @xmath96 of the quadrivector @xmath18 . as shown in appendix [ appt3anal ] , it turns out that , except for the born contribution , @xmath291 is analytical in the upper complex half - plane of the variable @xmath96 . since @xmath292 ^ 2=[i\nu -\xi_{\bf p } ] ^{-2}$ ] is also analytical in this half - plane , one obtains by closing the integration contour at infinity in this half - plane that only the born part @xmath293 of @xmath291 contributes to the result . hence for the integration over @xmath96 , we have just to calculate : @xmath294^{2}}\,\frac{1}{i\omega - i\nu- |\mu |-\epsilon _ { { \bf p}-{\bf p}}}= -\frac{1}{[i\omega -2|\mu |-\epsilon _ { \bf p}-\epsilon _ { { \bf p}-{\bf p } } ] ^{2}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and we are left with : @xmath295^{2}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the factor of @xmath282 is analytical in the upper complex half - plane of @xmath260 ( which corresponds to the negative frequency half - plane when we go back to the standard frequency language ) . hence by closing the @xmath204 contour in this half - plane , we are left to consider the singularities of @xmath282 . physically they correspond to the two - fermions excitations of the system , that is the collective mode and the broken molecule excited states . in the standard frequency language , the corresponding singularities are on the real frequency axis ( the imaginary axis for @xmath204 ) , on the negative as well as on the positive side . let us first consider the low frequency singularities . for a fixed value of @xmath296 , we have just as singularity a single pole corresponding to the collective mode frequency . let us call @xmath275 the positive solution of eq.([bog ] ) . our pole is located at @xmath297 . in eq.([gamn ] ) , which gives @xmath282 , for low frequency and wavevector , the denominator becomes @xmath298 , while from eq.([2vertex1 ] ) the numerator is @xmath299 $ ] . after going to imaginary frequency @xmath300 , this gives in @xmath282 , for the pole at @xmath301 , a residue : @xmath302\end{aligned}\ ] ] on the other hand , for small @xmath204 and @xmath296 , the @xmath187 integration in eq.([eqnmoda ] ) reduces to : @xmath303^{2}}=\frac{m^{3/2}}{8\pi \sqrt{2 |\mu |}}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this leads to : @xmath304\end{aligned}\ ] ] where in the last step we have made the change of variables @xmath305 . the numerical integral is @xmath306 and our final result is : @xmath307 where in the last equality we have made use of the lowest order result for @xmath214 , given by eq.([eqdefn3 ] ) . naturally , once we have taken care of @xmath73 , we are essentially back to the elementary boson theory @xcite and one recognizes in eq.([ncmfin ] ) the standard `` depletion of the condensate '' for the dilute bose gas , with @xmath308 being its coherence length . we have first considered the contribution of the low frequency singularities . we have now to finish up by showing that the higher frequency ones give a negligible contribution . first we see that , in eq.([eqnmoda ] ) , the denominator plays in this respect an unimportant role , since its modulus is larger than @xmath309 . hence to have an upper bound for the contributions we are investigating , we can replace this denominator by this lower bound , which gives after integration over @xmath187 an unimportant factor @xmath310 . hence we are again left with the evaluation of @xmath311 . it is now more convenient to go back to real frequencies ( equivalent to the change of variables @xmath312 ) . the integration is now over the imaginary @xmath313 axis and is closed in the negative @xmath313 half - plane . the contour can be deformed to merely enclose the negative @xmath313 axis , and corresponding to the singularities on this axis , @xmath314 has a jump across this axis . hence we have : @xmath315 now , from eq.([gamn ] ) , @xmath316 contains a first term @xmath317 which has all its singularities on the real positive @xmath313 axis , corresponding to the continuous spectrum of the broken dimer ( for @xmath108 ) and of the broken pair of dimers ( for @xmath318 ) . hence it is real on the negative @xmath313 axis and does not contribute to @xmath319 in eq.([eqcorr1 ] ) . from eq.([gamn ] ) the second term of @xmath320 is @xmath321 , which is directly proportional to @xmath322 from the product @xmath323 . accordingly we have proved basically our point since our result , being proportional to @xmath324 , is indeed negligible compared to the result eq.([ncmfin ] ) , which is proportional to @xmath2 .    actually , to complete our proof , we have to be more careful and evaluate the coefficient of @xmath322 . this is quite obvious since eq.([ncmfin ] ) is in fact a contribution contained in eq.([eqcorr1 ] ) ( we have made no approximation to reach eq.([eqcorr1 ] ) ) . this detailed analysis is performed in appendix [ normselfa ] . we will now proceed in a similar way to obtain the mode contribution @xmath325 to the anomalous self - energy @xmath326 . this contribution is obtained by replacing , in the diagrams which lead to the second term of eq.([eqdelta ] ) , any second order product @xmath244 , @xmath327 or @xmath328 , by the corresponding collective mode propagator . accordingly we replace specifically @xmath244 by the diagonal component @xmath282 , and @xmath327 by the off - diagonal one @xmath329 . this is depicted diagrammatically in fig.[figxabcd ] . just as in eq.([eqdelta ] ) this last term comes with a topological factor @xmath330 to avoid double counting . on the other hand , since the two dimer outgoing lines in the first term play inequivalent roles , such a topological factor does not apply to this first term . it is worth noticing that , since the collective mode propagator depends only on the total momentum - energy four - vector , we do not meet at this stage the problems linked to the @xmath177-dependence of @xmath326 , discussed in appendix [ appt3 ] .    . the diagonal component @xmath282 of the collective mode propagator is depicted by the heavy line with a single arrow and the off - diagonal one @xmath329 by the heavy line with two arrows . for the two diagrams the slash in the heavy lines means that the terms which are first order in @xmath214 have been removed.,width=377 ]    just as in section [ anomself ] , we should not include the terms of @xmath122 leading to reducible contributions to the self - energy . these are easily obtained from the diagrams displayed in fig.[figxxxx ] by making the above substitution of @xmath244 by @xmath282 . this implies in the same way the replacement of @xmath122 by @xmath331 . however , as in section [ anomself ] , it is more convenient to add these reducible terms to both members of the equation for @xmath16 . in the left - hand side one obtains @xmath332^{-1}f(p)[g_0(-p)]^{-1}$ ] , while in the right - hand side one recovers @xmath127 instead of @xmath141 . finally we restrict ourselves to the contribution of the low frequency collective mode , the higher frequency contributions being expected to be of order @xmath333 and thus negligible , just as in the preceding section [ modnormal ] . accordingly the variable @xmath71 in @xmath282 and @xmath329 is small . this implies that @xmath334 , which comes as a factor of @xmath282 , can be replaced by @xmath335 at the order we are working . similarly @xmath336 , which comes as a factor of @xmath329 , can also be replaced by @xmath335 . after multiplication by @xmath149 this leads to the equation : @xmath337\end{aligned}\ ] ] which comes in place of eq.([eqf3 ] ) .    in the preceding section [ modnormal ] we have already calculated @xmath338 at the level of eq.([eqintx ] ) and found @xmath339 , where @xmath340 is defined by eq.([ncmfin ] ) . in principle the calculation of @xmath341 follows the same line as the one of @xmath338 . one performs first the frequency integration by noticing that , for fixed @xmath296 , @xmath329 has a pole at @xmath297 . the corresponding residue @xmath342 is obtained from the residue @xmath343 for @xmath282 by comparing eq.([gama ] ) with eq.([gamn ] ) . one has to multiply @xmath343 by @xmath344 $ ] , evaluated at the pole , to obtain @xmath342 . this gives merely : @xmath345 now if we proceed as in eq.([eqintx ] ) we come to an integral with an ultraviolet divergence , which would invalidate our procedure . the reason for this problem is that we have not yet consistently removed in our calculation the terms of order zero and one in @xmath214 , as we have done precedingly . that we should do it was already appearent in eq.([eqfapp ] ) by the notation @xmath346 instead of @xmath347 ( which implies also a multiplication by @xmath348 ) . we recall that these terms have to be subtracted out because they have already been taken into account in our preceding lowest order calculation . however in the above preceding cases , it turned out that these terms were equal to zero , which made the subtraction transparent . here this is not the case . the most efficient way to perform this subtraction is to note that , from eq.([gamabar ] ) , @xmath329 contains already an explicit factor @xmath254 in the numerator , proportional to @xmath214 , which gives directly the factor @xmath349 in eq.([barza ] ) . hence the term of order @xmath214 to be subtracted is merely obtained by taking the other factors to order zero in @xmath214 , that is by replacing @xmath275 in eq.([barza ] ) by its zeroth order expression @xmath350 . actually this argument is a bit too fast . it misses the fact that we may at the same time evaluate @xmath351 in eq.([eqfapp ] ) with the chemical potential taken as @xmath352 , even for the @xmath353 term , as we had done in eq.([eqt4 ] ) . hence this whole step is taken up in more details in appendix [ muzero ] . we find in this way : @xmath354\end{aligned}\ ] ] making again the change of variables @xmath305 , this gives : @xmath355=\frac{32}{\pi } \mu _ b^{3/2}|\mu |^{1/2 } = \frac{24\pi \sqrt{2 |\mu |}}{m^{-3/2}}\,n_{cm}=3\sum_{p}{\gamma}(p)\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence the last bracket in eq.([eqfapp ] ) can be written @xmath356 . the rest of the argument proceeds just as in section [ anomself ] , provided @xmath353 is replaced by the above bracket . this leads to the replacement of eq.([mean ] ) by @xmath357\end{aligned}\ ] ] we may eliminate @xmath214 by making use of the number equation , which reads now from eq.([eqdefn2 ] ) : @xmath358 this gives : @xmath359=\pi a\ , a_m\left[n+4n_{cm}\right]\end{aligned}\ ] ] where in the last equality our replacement of @xmath360 by @xmath361 introduces only errors of order @xmath3 in the equation of state . to the same order this leads us to : @xmath362\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the last term we may replace @xmath286 by its expression eq.([ncmfin ] ) @xmath363 . this gives the familiar lee - huang - yang result for the chemical potential of a dimer , taking its binding energy as reference : @xmath364\end{aligned}\ ] ] in this paper we have presented a general theoretical framework to deal with fermionic superfluidity on the bec side of the bec - bcs crossover . our approach involves no approximation in principle , but in order to obtain explicit results we have to proceed to an expansion in powers ot the anomalous self - energy , which is basicallly equivalent to an expansion in powers of the gas parameter @xmath365 . we have applied our method to the @xmath14 thermodynamics and calculated the first terms in the expansion of the chemical potential in powers of the density . we have in this way shown explicitely that the mean - field contribution is indeed given by the standard expression in terms of the dimer - dimer scattering length @xmath1 . we have then proved that the lee - huang - yang contribution to the chemical potential retains also its standard expression from elementary boson superfluid theory provided @xmath1 is used in its expression . departures from elementary boson theory appear at the order @xmath3 . naturally our approach can be used to obtain other physical quantities and extended for example to finite temperature and dynamical properties . this will be considered elsewhere . `` laboratoire de physique statistique de lecole normale suprieure '' is `` associ au centre national de la recherche scientifique et aux universits pierre et marie curie - paris 6 et paris 7 '' . if we note @xmath367 the sum of all normal diagrams , with one single atom @xmath18 line going in and out , two entering atom lines @xmath368 ) and @xmath369 ) corresponding to an ingoing dimer , and two outgoing atom lines @xmath370 ) and @xmath371 ) corresponding to an outgoing dimer , we have : @xmath372 in order to obtain an expression for @xmath367 , one can find in the spirit of ref.@xcite integral equations for this quantity , and then identify in them a quantity which is precisely @xmath68 . another slightly more direct way is to separate , in @xmath373 , all the diagrams where 0 or 1 dimer lines are present , right at the beginning or right at the end of @xmath374 . we do not enter into the details but only give the result , on which the above mentionned separation is clear : @xmath375 ^ 2\,g(p')\,t_2(p - p')\,\delta_{p',p '' } \nonumber   \\   + g(p')g(-p ' ) g(p'')g(-p'')t_2(p - p')t_2(p - p'')t_3(p',p'';p)\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath376 is the kronecker symbol , and @xmath377 is the normal state dimer propagator . one can check , by making use of eq . ( [ eq2appt3 ] ) and of the integral equation @xcite satisfied by @xmath73 , that eq . ( [ eq1appt3 ] ) reduces to eq . ( [ eqsigmn2 ] ) when @xmath17 does not depend on @xmath18 . since we are at @xmath14 with a negative chemical potential , there is no fermi sea and no possibility of fermionic holes . when we consider the propagation of a fermionic atom , it has to be created before being destroyed . this corresponds to the fact that the free fermion propagator is retarded . in ( imaginary ) time and wavevector representation we have for the free atom green s function : @xmath378 where @xmath379 is the heaviside function . we consider now the contribution coming from any loop in a diagram . for clarity we do not write the wave vectors , which do not play any role in the argument . the loop starts for example at a vertex with time @xmath380 , with successive interactions at times @xmath381 . this implies in the term corresponding to this diagram the presence of the product @xmath382 . in order to have each term being non zero in this product of retarded green s function , we need @xmath383 , which is impossible to satisfy . hence one of the green s function in this product will necessarily be zero , and the contribution of any diagram with a loop will also be zero . note that the argument applies also if there is a single green s function in the loop @xcite . if we were to carry out calculations in frequency , rather than time , representation the corresponding free atom green s function is analytical in the upper complex half - plane , and the above result would appear through integration over frequencies with contours closed in the upper complex half - plane . we have considered for consistency the imaginary time formalism . naturally exactly the same arguments apply if we consider the real time representation . we give first an explicit proof of the analytical property of @xmath73 indicated in the text . we start from the integral equation satisfied by @xmath73 with at first essentially the notations of ref.@xcite : @xmath385 we follow ref.@xcite and perform the frequency integration in the second term , making use of the fact that the only singularity in the lower half complex plane comes from @xmath386 and is located at @xmath387 . we write then explicitely the resulting equation for @xmath388 , @xmath389 , while @xmath390 is replaced by @xmath391 , keeping in mind that the frequencies @xmath69 and @xmath70 have to be shifted by @xmath19 ( and @xmath391 by @xmath392 ) and that we work now with imaginary frequencies . this gives : @xmath393 @xmath394 when we write this equation for @xmath395 , we see that the first term , which is the born contribution , has a pole in the upper complex half - plane , at @xmath396 . on the other hand , in the integral , the first factor does not depend on frequency @xmath313 . the singularities coming from the dimer term will be in the lower complex half - plane with @xmath397 ( since we will have @xmath398 ) . regarding the @xmath399 term , if we write eq . ( [ 3vertex1 ] ) for the variable @xmath400 evaluated on the shell , i.e. @xmath401 , we obtain an integral equation for @xmath399 . in this equation the born term does not depend on frequency . the first term in the integral has its poles satisfying @xmath402 and the dimer term has again its singularities in the lower complex half - plane . hence by a recursive argument ( or equivalently by iteration of the equation ) , we conclude that the singularities of @xmath403 are also in the lower complex half - plane . this shows that indeed , except for the born contribution , @xmath384 is analytical in the upper complex half - plane of the frequency variable @xmath313 .     involved in the calculation of the particle number @xmath0 . we use the standard representation where the propagator starts at the destruction time and ends at the creation time . b ) born term in the diagrammatic expansion of the propagator represented in a ) . c ) example of a diagram which gives a zero contribution due to the presence of a loop.,width=566 ]    naturally we do not expect such a result to come by chance and we discuss now its physical origin . it is more easily seen in real time , rather than frequency , representation . the particle number eq.([eqdefn ] ) is merely given by : @xmath404 with @xmath405 . the average corresponds to a full propagator @xmath406 in time representation , where the particle is created at time @xmath407 , later than the time @xmath408 at which it is destroyed . in standard @xcite diagrammatic representation ( see fig.[figappc ] a ) ) , with time going from left to right and the propagator starting at the destruction time and ending at the creation time @xcite , we have to draw diagrams where the @xmath114 particle propagator starts from @xmath409 and goes globally forward ( that is to the right in fig.[figappc ] ) in time , ending up at @xmath407 . however when we write the perturbation expansion of this propagator , we have to use free particle propagators @xmath87 which are retarded and go only forward in time ( i.e. the arrows go to the left in fig.[figappc ] when we use the standard green s function representation @xcite ) . hence the zeroth order in our perturbation expansion is obviously zero . when we go to second order , corresponding to eq.([eqdefn1 ] ) , we can use @xmath64 which creates , at some given time , a pair of particles @xmath410 ( this process is instantaneous in time because , at lowest order , @xmath16 does not depend on frequency ) . similarly @xmath16 annihilates a pair of particles . the simplest combination of these ingredients , giving a non zero result for @xmath0 , is shown in fig.[figappc ] b ) : @xmath64 is located at positive time , and @xmath16 at negative time , allowing to have @xmath87 s going only to the left . this is just the born term of @xmath73 . however one sees easily that it is not possible to draw any other second order diagrams having the same property shown in fig.[figappc ] b ) . they would necessarily imply @xmath87 s going at some stage backward in time ( i.e. with arrows pointing to the right in fig.[figappc ] ) , which is not allowed . indeed we have to dispose of the @xmath114 propagator starting at @xmath409 , and this can only be done by annihilating it with @xmath16 at some negative time . similarly the @xmath114 propagator ending up at @xmath407 has to come from @xmath64 , acting at some positive time . then we are left with a @xmath115 propagator which can only go from @xmath64 to @xmath61 . any interaction between the @xmath114 and @xmath115 propagators is forbidden since this would merely amount to double count processes which are already taken into account in @xmath64 and @xmath61 . in this way we end up with the conclusion that only the born term leads to a non zero contribution to @xmath0 . in calculating the coefficient of @xmath322 in eq.([eqcorr1 ] ) , it is clear that we can evaluate all the other factors to zeroth order in @xmath16 , since we have already an explicit factor @xmath322 . this implies in particular to make @xmath411 in these terms . this leaves us with : @xmath412    @xmath413 . naturally this result could have been obtained more directly , by a straight expansion of @xmath282 in powers of @xmath16 , instead of resumming a whole perturbation series , as we have done in section [ collmod ] , and then expanding the result . we may first apply this formula for the collective mode contribution . in the present case it comes from the factor @xmath414 , which has a pole for @xmath415 . this is indeed the frequency of the bogoliubov mode , once the frequency is high enough for the zeroth order approximation in @xmath16 to be valid . correspondingly we have @xmath416 . on the other hand , we have for this value of the frequency @xmath417^{-1}$ ] . this has to be inserted in eq.([eqgam ] ) and the integration over @xmath296 has still to be performed . however if we concentrate on the low @xmath296 range ( where @xmath418 ) , we obtain a divergent integral @xmath419 . this is due to the fact that , in this range , our zeroth order handling in @xmath420 is not careful enough . from eq.([bog ] ) , we see that the dispersion relation has to be modified for @xmath421 . if we evaluate the low frequency contribution by putting a lower cut - off @xmath422 in the integral , we obtain @xmath423 and the overall result is of order @xmath2 . this is just the contribution eq.([ncmfin ] ) , where we have obtained the precise coefficient by our careful handling of this low frequency domain . now , if we define the low momentum region as @xmath424 , where @xmath425 is large compared to @xmath422 , but small compared to @xmath188 , our above treatment of the low frequency region is fully valid in this domain . on the other hand the integral in eq.([eqintx ] ) has already converged at the upper bound @xmath426 , and we may replace it by @xmath427 , just as we have done in eq.([eqintx ] ) . hence the contribution from the domain @xmath424 is exactly given by eq.([ncmfin ] ) . on the other hand , there are no divergences in the domain @xmath428 and its contribution is of order @xmath322 , and accordingly negligible compared to eq.([ncmfin ] ) . to be complete we have also to verify that there are no other sources of divergence in eq.([eqgam ] ) , analogous to what we have found at low momentum . since there is no singularity arising at finite frequency or momentum , the only possibility comes from the large frequency @xmath429 , large momentum @xmath430 region . in order to evaluate the contribution in this domain , it is more convenient to go back to the imaginary axis contour by performing backward the first step of eq.([eqcorr1 ] ) and write this overall contribution as : @xmath431 the scattering amplitudes @xmath432 and @xmath433 , introduced by @xmath254 and @xmath434 , may be shown to be equal and are dominated as expected in this range by the born contribution . they are real on this imaginary frequency axis . the born term has been obtained explicitely in @xcite , and @xmath432 is proportional to @xmath435 for large @xmath436 and @xmath437 . from eq.([2vertex ] ) there is in the modulus of the integrand a factor @xmath438^{3/4}$ ] coming from @xmath439 . then the overall integral is easily seen to be convergent for large @xmath436 and @xmath437 , which completes our proof . since there is no zeroth order term in powers of @xmath420 in @xmath329 , we have only to remove the term proportional to @xmath214 to avoid double counting , and go in this way from @xmath329 to @xmath440 . the corresponding diagram in @xmath31 is shown in fig.[figdiagsub ] . this leads to : @xmath441 where @xmath254 is given by eq.([gammirra ] ) . let us first replace the dimer propagator @xmath108 , given by eq.([2vertex ] ) , by its value @xmath442 where @xmath443 is replaced by its zeroth order value @xmath352 . when we consider the contribution from the low frequency and momentum contribution , we may replace @xmath254 by @xmath444 , and the pole of @xmath445 at @xmath446 gives : @xmath447= \frac{4\pi \mu _ b\sqrt{e_b}}{m^{3/2 } }   \frac{4m}{{\bf p}^2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this is indeed the second term in the right - hand side of eq.([eqgamaslash ] ) since in this last equation , which turns out to be of order @xmath448 , we have to make consistently @xmath449 ( and similarly we have to take @xmath450 , with @xmath451 ) . we are now left with the evaluation of the difference between our original expression and the one we have just considered , namely : @xmath452\end{aligned}\ ] ] which gives at the level of eq.([eqgap3 ] ) , after insertion at the level of eq.([eqfapp ] ) and summation over @xmath18 and @xmath71 : @xmath453 t_4(p,0;0 ) \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have used eq.([gammirra ] ) for @xmath254 and the relation ( see ref . @xcite ) between @xmath192 and @xmath127 , namely @xmath454 . we show now that this difference is just what is required to be allowed to replace @xmath455 in eq.([eqt4 ] ) by @xmath456 , which is directly related to the dimer - dimer scattering scattering length @xmath1 by eq.([eqam ] ) . indeed it has been shown in @xcite that scattering amplitude @xmath457 satisfies quite generally an integral equation analogous to the standard integral equation for elementary bosons , namely : @xmath458 where @xmath459 is the sum of all irreducible diagrams with respect to cutting two dimer propagators , which is itself obtained from an integral equation with explicit kernel @xcite . formally this equation can be rewritten in terms of operators as : @xmath460 where we have introduced the diagonal operator @xmath461 ( the factor @xmath330 is again topological ) . we consider now this equation for @xmath462 and @xmath259 . with respect to the energy variable corresponding to @xmath71 , we take the two values @xmath195 and @xmath463 ( we note the operators with this last value with a superscript @xmath464 ) . the crucial point is that the difference between @xmath465 and @xmath466 is of order @xmath467 , that is the expansion of @xmath465 in powers of @xmath467 is regular . such a difference is negligible at the order we are working at . the regularity of the expansion can be seen from the integral equation ( eq.(b2 ) of ref.@xcite ) satisfied by @xmath465 , which is completely analogous to the one satisfied by @xmath127 ( eq.(9 ) of ref.@xcite ) , except that the last term ( with two dimer propagators ) in the equation for @xmath127 is not present for @xmath465 . this integral equation can be transformed in the same way , leading to more explicit expressions ( see eq.(11 ) and eq.(13 ) of ref.@xcite ) . on these expressions one checks easily that , for @xmath19 in the vicinity of @xmath352 , the propagator @xmath202 is evaluated for values of its argument which are never in the vicinity of its pole . hence one can proceed to a regular expansion . by contrast one sees also on the equations for @xmath127 that , for the term containing two dimer propagators the argument does reach the pole value , which makes the expansion singular . this explains why we can not argue that the difference between @xmath468 and @xmath469 is of order @xmath467 and negligible . the equation for @xmath470 reads : @xmath471^{-1}=\left[t_4 ^ 0\right]^{-1}+d^0\end{aligned}\ ] ] writing the difference with eq.([eqform ] ) and taking into account @xmath472 , we have : @xmath473^{-1}-t_4^{-1}=d - d_0\end{aligned}\ ] ] which can be rewritten explicitely , after premultiplication by @xmath474 and postmultiplication by @xmath475 , as : @xmath476t_4(q,0;\{{\bf 0},-e_b\})\end{aligned}\ ] ] where in the last term we have been allowed to replace @xmath195 by @xmath270 at the order we are working . the same substitution is allowed in eq.([eqabc ] ) , which completes our proof . let us finally note that , with respect to this part , our procedure has obvious strong analogies with the work of beliaev @xcite . indeed , as soon as we have established the non trivial result that , at our level of approximation , the structure of @xmath465 can be omitted which makes it analogous to an effective interaction , our dimers behave as elementary bosons and we are basically back to the situation investigated by beliaev .    for a very recent review , see s. giorgini , l. p. pitaevskii and s. stringari , arxiv:0706.3360 and to be published in rev . j. bardeen , l. n. cooper and j. r. schrieffer , phys . rev . * 108 * , 1175 ( 1957 ) . l. p. pitaevskii , zh . . phys . * 37 * , 1794 ( 1959 ) [ sov . jetp * 10 * , 1267 ( 1960 ) ] ; l. n. cooper , r. l. mills and a. m. sessler , phys . rev . * 114 * , 1377 ( 1959 ) . s. a. moskalenko , fiz . tverd . tela * 4 * , 276 ( 1962 ) [ sov . solid state * 4 * , 199 ( 1962 ) ] ; j. m. blatt , k. w. ber and w. brandt , phys . rev . * 126 * , 1692 ( 1962 ) . l. v. keldysh and a. n. kozlov , zh . . phys . * 54 * , 978 ( 1968 ) [ sov . jetp * 27 * , 521 ( 1968 ) ] v. n. popov , zh . 50 * , 1550 ( 1966 ) , [ sov . jetp * 23 * , 1034 ( 1966 ) ] . d. m. eagles , phys . rev . * 186 * , 456 ( 1969 ) ; d.m . eagles , r.j . tainsh , c. andrikidis , physica c * 157 * , 48 ( 1989 ) . a. j. leggett , j. phys . ( paris ) , colloq . * 41 * , c7 - 19 ( 1980 ) ; in _ modern trends in the theory of condensed matter _ , edited by a. pekalski and j. przystawa ( springer , berlin ) p. nozires and s. schmitt - rink , j. low temp . * 59 * , 195 ( 1985 ) . s ' a de melo , m. randeria and j.r . engelbrecht , phys . rev . lett . * 71 * , 3202 ( 1993 ) . r. combescot , phys . * 91 * , 120401 ( 2003 ) . r. haussmann , z. phys . b * 91 * , 291(1993 ) . p. pieri and g. c. strinati , phys . lett . * 91 * , 030401 ( 2003 ) . p. pieri and g. c. strinati , phys . rev b , * 61 * , 15370 ( 2000 ) . d. s. petrov , c. salomon , and g.v . shlyapnikov , phys . * 93 * , 090404 ( 2004 ) . brodsky , a.v . klaptsov , m.yu . kagan , r. combescot and x. leyronas , j.e.t.p . letters * 82 * , 273 ( 2005 ) and phys . a * 73 * , 032724 ( 2006 ) . x. leyronas and r. combescot , phys . lett . * 99 * , 170402 ( 2007 ) . we set @xmath477 throughout the paper . t. d. lee and c. n. yang , phys . rev . * 105 * , 1119 ( 1957 ) ; t. d. lee , k. huang and c. n. yang , phys . rev . * 106 * , 1135 ( 1957 ) . s. t. beliaev , sov . jetp * 7 * , 289 ( 1958 ) . s. stringari , europhys . lett . * 65 * , 749 ( 2004 ) . g. e. astrakharchik , r. combescot , x. leyronas and s. stringari , phys . 030404 ( 2005 ) . g. e. astrakharchik , j. boronat , j. casulleras , and s. giorgini , phys . . lett . * 93 * , 200404 ( 2004 ) . a. altmeyer , s. riedl , c. kohstall , m. j. wright , r. geursen , m. bartenstein , c. chin , j. hecker denschlag , and r. grimm , phys . lett . * 98 * , 040401 ( 2007 ) . for an introduction to many - body techniques and superconductivity , see for example a. a. abrikosov , l. p. gorkov and i. e. dzyaloshinski , _ methods of quantum field theory in statistical physics _ ( dover , new york , 1975 ) and a. l. fetter and j. d. walecka , _ quantum theory of many - particle systems _ ( mcgraw - hill , new york , 1971 ) . d. vollhardt and p. wlfle , _ the superfluid phases of helium 3 _ ( taylor and francis , 1990 ) and references therein . v. m. galitskii , sov . jetp * 7 * , 104(1958 ) . for an introduction and references , see l. pitaevskii and s. stringari , _ bose - einstein condensation _ ( oxford , 2003 ) .
Abstract:

Answer: we present an exact many - body theory of ultracold fermionic gases for the bose - einstein condensation ( bec ) regime of the bec - bcs crossover . this is a purely fermionic approach which treats explicitely and systematically the dimers formed in the bec regime as made of two fermions . we consider specifically the zero temperature case and calculate the first terms of the expansion of the chemical potential in powers of the density @xmath0 . we derive first the mean - field contribution , which has the expected standard expression when it is written in terms of the dimer - dimer scattering length @xmath1 . we go next in the expansion to the lee - huang - yang order , proportional to @xmath2 . we find the far less obvious result that it retains also the same expression in terms of @xmath1 as for elementary bosons . the composite nature of the dimers appears only in the next term proportional to @xmath3 .