TKM2 2016
TKM2 2016
Jörg Schmalian
Contents
I Introduction 2
1
III Diagrammatic perturbation theory at finite T 39
6 The Matsubara function 41
6.1 Periodicity of the Matsubara function and Matsubara frequencies 41
6.2 Relation to the retarded function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.3 Evolution with imaginary time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7 Wick theorem 46
7.1 Time evolution of creation and annihilation operators . . . . . . 46
7.2 Wick theorem of time-independent operators . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.3 Wick theorem for time dependent operators . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
12 Physics of Graphene 64
13 Superconductivity 64
13.1 off-diagonal long range order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
13.2 the superconducting order parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
13.3 The pairing instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
13.4 The BCS theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Part I
Introduction
This course is concerned with phenomena in quantum condensed matter systems
that can be most efficiently analyzed and solved using quantum field theoretical
methods. To this end we first physically motivate, introduce, and investigate
retarded Green’s functions. We will use the equation of motion method to
solve several problems such as itinerant ferromagnetism, superconductivity, and
dynamical screening of the Coulomb interaction. For a more systematic analysis
of many-body systems we will then introduce the Feynman-diagram technique
of thermal Green’s functions and, once again, investigate superconductivity, but
also disordered systems. Finally we will discuss the non-equilibrium version of
many-body theory by using the Schwinger-Keldysh approach. As example, we
2
investigate quantum transport of graphene. Thus, the course is concerned with
learning techniques and applying them to solve given many-body problems.
In case of the screening of the Coulomb interaction, we consider for example
the Hamiltonian of non-relativistic electrons (no spin-orbit interaction) in a
crystalline potential U (r) and with electron-electron interaction V (r − r0 ):
ˆ 2 2
X ~ ∇
H = dd r ψα† (r) − − µ + U (r) ψα (r)
2m
ˆα
1X
= dd rdd r0 ψα† (r) ψβ† (r0 ) V (r − r0 ) ψβ (r0 ) ψα (r) . (1)
2
αβ
Here ψα (r) is the fermionic field operator that annihilates an electron with spin
α at position r, obeying standard fermionic anti-commutation relation
h i
ψα (r) , ψβ† (r0 ) = δαβ δ (r − r0 ) . (2)
+
If we include a similar Hamiltonian for the motion of the nuclei, along with
the electron-nucleus Coulomb interaction, we pretty much have a complete de-
scription of a solid within the non-relativistic limit. Thus, it is possible to fully
define the standard model of condensed matter physics in the introductory lines
of a lecture. One might then be tempted to conclude that this area of physics
must be conceptually pretty trivial. All that seems left to do is to solve for the
eigenstates and eigenvalues of H, a task that one leaves to a gifted programmer
or a clever mathematician. However, except for small systems or systems with a
large number of conserved quantities, these many-body systems simply cannot
be solved exactly. We need to find ways to analyze such an Hamiltonian, or a
simplified version of it, that allow to make as rigorous statements as possible. In
fact, the beauty of condensed matter theory is to make predictions about new
states of matter and universal behavior that is emergent, i.e. that is not obvi-
ous if one looks at the initial degrees of freedom of the Hamiltonian. If nothing
else, these considerations reveal that simply writing down a fundamental the-
ory, doesn’t yield a whole lot of insight that goes beyond the understanding of
what the elementary building blocks of this theory are. Emergent phenomena,
such as spontaneous symmetry breaking, composite particles, new topological
states of matter etc. etc. require a detailed analysis that is primarily guided
by experiment and, of course, by some good physical intuition. The author of
these lecture notes is rather convinced that this is the same, regardless whether
we talk about the physics of a piece of metal, a neutron star, or the universe as
a whole.
3
Part II
Observables and Green’s
functions
1 Linear response
We consider a system that is, at least initially, in thermodynamic equilibrium.
The expectation value of a physical observable is then given by
4
of a magnetic system. Another example is interaction
X
W (t) = − Pi · E (t) (8)
i
c†iα Ri ciα
X
Pi = e (9)
α
5
response. The subsequent formalism can be (and has been) extended to include
higher order non-linearities. Here we will, however, only consider the leading
order, linear effects.
To proceed we go to the interaction representation
Note, ρ(I) (t) corresponds to the interaction picture of the Hamiltonian Htot .
The Hamiltonian of our system of interest is of course H (W (t) is only used to
probe this system). If considered with regards to H, ρ(I) (t) corresponds to the
Heisenberg picture. This is the reason why we will below state that operators
are taken in the Heisenberg picture.
Performing the time derivative gives
One can now generate a systematic expansion with regards to W (t) if one
solves this integral equation via recursion. At zeroth order holds of course
−βH
ρ (t) = ρ = e Z . At first order we can insert this zeroth order solution in the
right hand side and obtain
ˆ t
i 0 0
ρ (t) = ρ − dt0 e−iH (t−t )/~ [W (t) , ρ] eiH (t−t )/~ . (20)
~ −∞
One can cyclically change the order under the trace operation:
6
which gives
ˆ t
i Dh iE
hAit = hAi − dt0 A(I) (t) , W (I) (t0 ) . (23)
~ −∞
with (we will frequently not write down explicitly the limit δ → 0+ )
Before we give further examples and discuss the physical implications of our lin-
ear response analysis, we will therefore discuss in some detail the mathematical
properties of such functions.
7
To simplify our notation we will from now on use a convention where ~ = 1, i.e.
frequencies and energies are measured in the same units. We further dropped
the superscript (I) for the interaction representation. Keep in mind, that it
is anyway the Heisenberg picture if we refer this to the Hamiltonian H of the
system we are interested in:
Finally, we introduced
[A, B]η = AB + ηBA (31)
Because of our insight that retarded Green’s functions determine the linear
response, we predominantly investigate this function. The advanced and time-
ordered functions can be easily analyzed along the same lines. In fact all func-
tions contain essentially the same information.
8
The correlation functions are explicitly given as
1 −βH iHt −iHt iHt0 −iHt0
hA (t) B (t0 )i = tr e e Ae e Be
Z
1 0 0
= tr e−βH eiH (t−t ) Ae−iH (t−t ) B
Z
= hA (t − t0 ) B (0)i (36)
0 0
and similar for hB (t ) A (t)i = hB (0) A (t − t )i. Thus, it follows
The reason why we could demonstrate this behavior is that the thermal aver-
age, with Boltzmann weight e−βH and the unitary time evolution, with e−iHt
commute. They are both governed by the same Hamiltonian. Physically it cor-
responds to the fact that there is no preferred absolute time in a system that
is in equilibrium. An implication is that any stationary distribution function,
even those that are not in equilibrium but that yield states without preferred
time point must have a density matrix ρ = ρ (H, Xi ) that only depends on the
Hamiltonian and maybe on other conserved quantities Xi of the system with
[H, Xi ] = 0.
where t now refers to the relative time. The last expression can itself be written
as a retarded Green’s function
r D E
Gr[A,H]− ,B (t) = [A (t) , H]− ; B (t0 )
9
Thus, in order to determine one Green’s function one needs to know another one.
We will see that in case of non-interacting systems the newly generated Green’s
functions form a closed set, which allows, at least in principle, for a full solution.
On the other hand, for a generic interacting many body system a closed solution
only exists when one analyzes conserved quantities with [A, H]− = 0 or at least
densities of conserved quantities. These aspects will all be discussed in greater
detail below.
Because of Eq.(37) follows that we can Fourier transform the Green’s func-
tion ˆ ∞
r
GAB (ω) = dtGrAB (t) eiωt . (41)
−∞
The equation of motion for the Fourier transforms are then easily obtained as
D E
ωGrA,B (ω) = [A, B]η + Gr[A,H]− ,B (ω) . (42)
10
The same analysis can be performed for hB (0) A (t)i and yields
For the inverse transform J (ω), which we also call the spectral function, follows
ˆ ∞
J (ω) = dteiωt hB (0) A (t)i
−∞
ˆ ∞
1 X −βEm
= e hl |A| mi hm |B| li dteit(ω+El −Em ) . (48)
Z −∞
l.m
´∞
We use −∞
dteitω = 2πδ (ω) and obtain:
2π X −βEm
J (ω) = e hl |A| mi hm |B| li δ (ω + El − Em ) . (49)
Z
l.m
2
Notice that in case where B = A† follows hl |A| mi hm |B| li = |hl |A| mi| ≥
0. Thus, the spectral function is real with J (ω) ≥ 0. With our above results
for the two correlation functions follows immediately
ˆ ∞
dω βω
hA (t) B (0)i = e J (ω) e−iωt . (51)
−∞ 2π
11
To proceed we need to analyze the integral
ˆ ∞
f (ω) = dteiωt θ (t)
−∞
ˆ ∞
= dteiωt
0
ˆ ∞
= lim+ dtei(ω+iδ)t
δ→0 0
i
= . (53)
ω + i0+
To insert the converging factor seems a bit arbitrary. To check that this is
indeed the right thing to do, let us perform the inverse transform
ˆ ∞
dω ie−iωt
F (t) = . (54)
−∞ 2π ω + i0+
We want to evaluate this integral using the residue theorem. For t > 0 we can
close the contour in the lower half plane, i.e. the contour encircles the pole at
ω = −i0+ . The residue of the pole is 1 (because of the sense of orientation of
the contour). For t < 0 we have to close the contour in the upper half plane.
As there is no pole in this half plane, the integral vanishes. Thus, we obtain
F (t) = θ (t) as expected. This analysis also reveals that causality, expressed
in terms of the θ-function, implies that we should consider frequencies ω + i0+
with a small positive imaginary part.
It follows for the Green’s function
ˆ ∞
0
dω 0 e
βω
+ η J (ω 0 )
GrAB (ω) = . (55)
−∞ 2π ω − ω 0 + i0+
which reveals that a retarded Green’s function, once considered with complex
frequency argument ω, is analytic everywhere, except infinitesimally below the
real axis. In fact one can consider the function
12
Repeating our analysis for the advanced Green’s function yields
For B = A† , where the product of the two matrix elements is real, the ad-
vanced function is the complex conjugate of the retarded function. Considering
once again the frequent situation where B = A† it holds
where
1
nη (ω) = (63)
eβω + η
is, depending on whether we use the commutator or anti-commutator, the Bose
or Fermi function, respectively.
In case of B = A† we also obtain the famous Kramers-Kronig relation
ˆ ∞
dω 0 ImGrAA† (ω 0 )
GrAA† (ω) = − , (64)
−∞ π ω − ω 0 + i0+
which reveals that the information about the Green’s function is fully contained
in its imaginary part, a result that is a consequence of the constraints brought
about by causality. This result also allows for the analysis the function G (z)
introduced above and yields
ˆ ∞
dω 0 ImGrAA† (ω 0 )
GAA† (z) = − . (65)
−∞ π z − ω0
13
In particular, we can use this expression to determine static expectation values
(e.g. in case of B = A† )
ˆ ∞
† dω
A A =− nη (ω) ImGrAA† (ω) .
−∞ π
The previous results finally allow for a proper interpretation of the equation
of motion in frequency representation. We obtain a Green’s function with proper
boundary conditions if we simply analyze
D E
ω + i0+ GrA,B (ω) = [A, B]η + Gr[A,H]− ,B (ω) .
(67)
This immediately guarantees that the back-transform GrAB (t) obeys the correct
boundary condition and vanishes for t < 0.
As will be discussed in greater detail, one can also show easily that Green’s
functions obey certain sum rules, the easiest of which is
ˆ ∞ D E
dωGrA,B (ω) = −iπ [A, B]η . (68)
−∞
14
The key assumption of the usual description of photoemission is the so called
sudden approximation, where we assume that the excited photoelectron does not
couple to the remaining N − 1 electron system, i.e. it is excited highly above
the Fermi energy of the solid and rapidly leaves the system. This is at least
consistent with the usual view that photoelectrons originate only from a few
top-most layers of the solid near the surface. Thus, we write
Ψf = ψ † ΨN −1
N
kf β l (72)
B = A† (76)
If we recall our earlier result that J (ω) = −2nη (ω) ImGrAA† (ω) it seems most
natural to use for the photoelectron spectrum of occupied states a quantity that
15
−1
is proportional to the Fermi function n+ (ω) = f (ω) = eβω + 1 . Thus we
opt for the anticommutator Green’s function with η = +1 and define
h i
Grk,k0 αα0 (ω) = −iθ (t − t0 ) (t) ψkα (t) , ψk† 0 α0 (0) , (77)
+
such that
X α0 ,β∗
Ikf β (ω) = −2f ω − kf dβ,α r
kf ,k ImGk,k0 αα0 ω − kf dk0 ,kf . (78)
kk0 ,αα0
Thus, except for the dipole matrix elements, the photoemission intensity is
determined by the imaginary part of the retarded fermion Green’s function.
Let us consider a system of non-interacting fermions with Hamiltonian
†
X
H= (εk − µ) ψkα ψkα . (79)
kα
16
Thus, as expected we finD that the occupation number of free fermions is given
by the Fermi function. It turns out that knowledge of the retarded Green’s
function is sufficient to determine all thermodynamic properties of a many body
system of electrons. We will prove this result below for an interacting electron
system.
For the photoemission spectrum follows finally:
2 X β,α 2
Ikf β (ω) = f ω − kf dkf ,k δ ω − kf − εkα + µ . (86)
π
k,α
The experiments then probes the occupied states of a solid and can be used
to determine the energy-momentum relation. Often, one assumes momentum
conservation, at least for the components of the momentum parallel to the
surface and finds
Ikf β (ω) ∝ f ω − kf δ ω − kf − εkf + µ .
where c†i and cj are creation and annihilation operators of fermions or bosons in
states with single particle quantum numbers i and j, respectively. Those quan-
tum numbers could be momentum, lattice sites in a solid, spin, or a combination
of spin and momentum, depending on the problem at hand. The fact that we
confine ourselves to bilinear forms (only two operators) reflects that we consider
noninteracting particles. We do, however, not assume that hij is a diagonal
matrix, whose diagonal elements are then the single particle eigenstates. In
case of bosons (fermions) we use the well known commutator (anticommutator)
relations
h i
ci , c†j = δij ,
η
h i
[ci , cj ]η = c†i , c†j = 0, (88)
η
with η = −1 (η = −1).
We first determine the so called single particle Green’s functions2
h i
Grij (t) = −iθ (t) ci (t) , c†j . (89)
η
17
For the analysis of the equation of motion we have to analyze the commutator
h i
hlm ci , c†l cm
X
[ci , H]− = (90)
−
lm
It holds
h i
ci , c†l cm = ci c†l cm − c†l cm ci
−
which yields X
[ci , H]− = him cm , (92)
m
regardless of whether we consider bosons or fermions.
For our equation of motion follows then
X
ω + i0+ Grij (ω) = δij + him Grmj (ω) .
(93)
m
We see that the equation of motion closes in the sense that only Green’s functions
of the type defined in Eq.(89) are needed. It is also natural to introduce a matrix
Ĝ (ω) with matrix elements Gij (ω) and similarly ĥ for the matrix representation
of the Hamiltonian with elements hij . Then follows3
or
ω − ĥ Ĝ (ω) = 1̂. (95)
This leads to
−1
Ĝ (ω) = ω − ĥ . (96)
ω → ω + i0+ .
18
a result that we obtained earlier already for free fermions.
In a solid, with discrete translation invariance, the eigenstates are the bands
εk,n where the momenta are from the first Brillouin zone and we find accordingly
Grk,n (ω) = ω+i0+1−εk,n .
Ĝ−1 = ω − ĥ0 − V̂
−1
= Ĝ0 − V̂ , (99)
−1
where Ĝ0 = ω − ĥ0 is the Green’s function of the bare Hamiltonian, i.e. the
bare Green’s function. It is a fully diagonal matrix, i.e. we have
δij
G0,ij (ω) = . (100)
ω − ε0i
Eq.(99) is called the Dyson equation for single particle systems, i.e. for systems
without interactions. We can multiply Eq.(99) from the left with Ĝ0 and from
the right with Ĝ and obtain
19
The remaining commutator or anticommutator is easily calculated as:
h i
ci , c†j c†k cl = ci c†j c†k cl + ηc†j c†k cl ci
η
If we use our earlier result for the single particle Green’s function we can write
this as X D E D E
−1
Ĝ (ω) Gm,jkl (ω) = δij c†k cl − ηδik c†j cl , (106)
im
m
ˆ
fk = dd rf (r) e−ik·r (109)
20
with back transform
1 X ik·r
f (r) = e fk . (110)
V
k
´
Here we used that dd reik·r = V δk,0 and V1 k e−ik·r = δ (r). Note, that
P
those are not √
the only conventions used in the literature. Frequently one finds
a prefactor 1/ V in front of both, the sum and the integral in the above defini-
tions. The justification of our
Pchoice is´that it allows without problems to take
the limit V → ∞, where V1 k · · · → dd k · · · and V δk,0 → δ (k). With this
convention follows for example for fermionic operators:
ˆ
ψkα = dd rψα (r) e−ik·r (111)
follows accordingly
1 X †
H0 = ε (k) ψkα ψkα . (114)
V
kα
It follows
Xˆ
ρq = dd rψα† (r) ψa (r) e−iq·r
α
ˆ
1 X 0
= dd re−ir·(q+k−k ) ψkα
†
ψk0 α
V2
αkk0
1 X †
= ψkα ψk+qα . (116)
V
αk
Another famous example for a Fourier transformation is for the Coulomb inter-
action ˆ
1 4π
d3 re−iq·r = 2. (117)
|r| q
21
5.1 Density response and dielectric function
Let us consider a system of electrons exposed to the external electric potential
as perturbation ˆ
W (t) = d3 rρel (r) ϕext (r, t) , (118)
where the external time and space dependent potential ϕext (r, t) couples to the
electron charge density
X
ρel (r) = −e ψα† (r) ψa (r) . (119)
α
Here we used that electrons are negatively charged, i.e. we work with e > 0.
Below it will be more convenient to work with the particle density introduced
in Eq.(115), i.e. ρel (r) = −eρ (r).
If we are interested in the induced electron charges we can use our linear
response formalism:
ˆ ∞
dt0 ρel (r, t) ; W (t0 ) .
el
el
ρ (r) t = ρ (r) +
−∞
ˆ ∞
dt0 d3 r0 hhρ (r, t) ; ρ (r0 , t0 )ii ϕext (r0 , t0 )(120)
el 2
= ρ (r) + e
−∞
22
As required by charge neutrality, the total induced charge vanishes without the
external potential.
The above relation between ρind (r, t) and ϕext (r0 , t0 ) is a convolution with
respect to the temporal and spatial arguments. This can be simplified by going
to momentum and frequency space according to:
ˆ ˆ
F (q, ω) = d r dte−i(q·r−ωt) F (r, t) .
3
(125)
It follows:
ρind (q, ω) = −e2 χ (q, ω) ϕext (q, ω) . (126)
The perturbation W (t) can alternatively be written as
ˆ
ρel (r) ρext (r0 , t)
W (t) = d3 rd3 r0 , (127)
|r − r0 |
where the external charges are simply the sources of the external potential
ˆ
ρext (r0 , t)
ϕext (r, t) = d3 r0 , (128)
|r − r0 |
i.e. it is the solution of the Poisson equation with external charges as sources:
This formulation allows to make contact with the usual formulation of the elec-
trodynamics of continua where the sources of the electric field are all charges,
external and internal ones
∇ · E = 4π ρind + ρext ,
(130)
while the displacement field is introduced as the field that has only the external
charges as sources
∇ · D = 4πρext . (131)
The linearized relation between the two fields is
ˆ ∞
D (r, t) = dt0 d3 r0 ε (r − r0 , t − t0 ) E (r0 , t0 ) . (132)
−∞
The above equations for the electric field and the displacement field become in
Fourier space
23
Expressing D(q, ω) in the second equation by ε (q,ω) E(q, ω) allows us to write
1
ρind (q, ω) = − 1 ρext (q, ω). (135)
ε (q, ω)
Thus, the dielectric function relates the external sources to the induced charges.
On the other hand, Eq.(126) established a relation between the induced charges
and the external potential. As discussed, the external charge density and the
external potential are related by the Poisson equation, which becomes in Fourier
space
q 2 ϕext (q, ω) = 4πρext (q, ω). (136)
With this relation we obtain
1 4π ext
ρind (q, ω) = −1 ϕ (q, ω). (137)
ε (q, ω) q2
Comparing this with Eq.(126) yields
1 4πe2
= 1 − 2 χ (q, ω) . (138)
ε (q, ω) q
Thus, the retarded density-density Green’s function χ (q, ω) determines the di-
electric function. An interesting implication of this result is that the dielectric
function diverges for for q → 0 if χ (q, ω) does not vanish at least as q 2 . We
will see by explicitly analyzing the density-density response function that this
is indeed the case and leads to a qualitative change in the space dependence of
the effective Coulomb interaction, i.e. the screening of the Coulomb interaction.
More specifically, Eq.(138) allows to study the effective potential
1
ϕ (q, ω) = ϕext (q, ω) (139)
ε (q, ω)
that has as sources the total charge, i.e.
∇2 ϕ (r, t) = −4π ρind (r, t) + ρext (r, t) .
24
5.2 Density response of non-interacting electrons
A central quantity in our analysis of the Coulomb interaction is the retarded
density-density Green’s function (times −1):
χ (r, t) = iθ (t) [ρ (r, t) , ρ (0, 0)]− , (142)
with electron density ρ (r, t) = α ψα† (r, t) ψa (r, t). The Fourier transform of
P
this function with regards to the spatial degrees of freedom is
1 XD E
χq (t) = iθ (t) [ρq (t) , ρ−q0 (0)]−
V 0
q
1 X
= − hhρq (t) ; ρ−q0 ii
V 0
q
Recall that our result for the single particle Green’s function
h i
Gk,k0 (t) = −iθ (t) ψkα (t) , ψk† 0 α (144)
+
is
V δk,k0
Gk,k0 (ω) = , (145)
ω − ε (k)
as follows from the equation of motion.
To determine the density-density Green’s function it is convenient to analyze
the general two-particle Green’s function
DD EE
†
ψkα (t) ψk+qα (t) ; ψk† 0 β ψk0 −q0 β . (146)
25
This can be solved and leads to
DD
†
EE V 2 δαβ δk0 ,k+q δq,q0 (fk − fk+q )
ψkα ψk+qα ; ψk† 0 β ψk0 −q0 β = .
ω − εk+q + εk
1
χq (ω) = − hhρq ; ρ−q ii . (148)
V
Inserting the result for the two-particle Green’s function gives after a few steps
0 1 X fk+q − fk
χrq (ω) = , (149)
V ω + i0+ − εk+q + εk
αk
χrq=0 (ω 6= 0) = 0. (151)
On the other hand we can take the static limit ω = 0. For small q follows that
1 X ∂fk
χrq→0 (ω = 0) = −
V ∂εk
αk
ˆ ˆ
dd k ∂fk ∂f (ε)
= −2 d ∂ε
= − dερ (ε) . (152)
(2π) k ∂ε
χrq→0 (ω = 0) = ρF (153)
with density of states at the Fermi energy ρF . We observe that the limits q → 0
and ω → 0 do not commute for a system with finite density of states at the Fermi
surface.
26
For the imaginary part holds
ˆ
d3 k
Imχrq (ω) = −2π 3 (fk+q − fk ) δ (ω − εk+q + εk ) . (154)
(2π)
27
k
as well as p = kF and obtain
ˆ 1 ˆ 1
!
mkF pdp 1 1
Reχrq (ω) = 2 dµ ν Q
− ν Q
(161)
Q 0 (2π) −1 pQ + p −µ pQ − p −µ
The
√
density of states of a three dimensional parabolic spectrum is ρ (ε) =
2m3/2 √
π2 ε, where we included the spin degeneracy already in ρ (). With ρF =
ρ (εF ) follows
mkF
ρF = (162)
π2
such that
ˆ 1 ˆ 1 !
ρ F 1 1
Reχrq (ω) = pdp dµ ν Q
− ν Q
(163)
4Q 0 −1 pQ + p − µ pQ − p − µ
We observe that for the real part it is indeed possible to express the density re-
sponse in terms of the dimensionless Lindhard function of Eq.(150). We perform
the integration over µ and obtain
ˆ 1
p+ ν +Q p+ ν −Q
ρF Q Q
Reχrq (ω) =
pdp log . (164)
4Q 0 ν
p− Q −Q p− Q +Q ν
and 2
ν 2
ν Q +1 −Q
lim log 2 =1
Q→0 4Q ν
Q − 1 − Q2
28
the desired result that
L (0, ν) = 0. (167)
For ω = 0, i.e. ν = 0 we obtain
1 − Q2
1 1 − Q
L0 (Q) ≡ L0 (Q, 0) = 1+ log . (168)
2 2Q 1 + Q
1
For large momenta holds L0 (Q 1) ∼ 3Q 2 while for small momenta holds
1 2
L0 (Q 1) ∼ 1 − 3 Q . For Q → 1 the derivative of L0 (Q) diverges logarith-
mically, while L0 (Q = 1) = 12 is finite.
An interesting application of this result is the response of an ideal gas of
fermions to a point-like potential, i.e.
If we use our linear response formalism, it follows for the induced charge-density4
ˆ ∞ ˆ
hρ (r)it = dt0 d3 r0 χ (r − r0 , t − t0 ) V ext (r0 , t0 ) . (170)
−∞
hρ (r)i = V0 χ (r, ω = 0)
ˆ
d3 q
q
= ρF V0 3 L0 eiq·r . (171)
(2π) 2kF
29
other hand, the combination of Fermi functions implies that the occupancy of
the states with momentum k and k + q is different. Taken together, this implies
|k| < kF
|k + q| > kF . (174)
Thus, the imaginary part is sensitive to particle-hole excitations with energy ω.
To proceed we use the version of Eq.(154) after the shift of momenta in the
first term and obtain
ˆ
d3 k
Imχrq (ω) = −2π 3 (δ (ω − εk + εk−q )
k<kF (2π)
−δ (ω + εk − εk+q )) . (175)
After analogous steps as for the real part we obtain
ˆ kF ˆ 1
r m mω q
Imχq (ω) = − kdk dµ δ + −µ
2πq 0 −1 kq 2k
mω q
− δ − −µ . (176)
kq 2k
We can perform the integration over µ = cos θ, switch to dimensionless units,
and consider the function
q ω
Imχrq (ω) = ρF L00 , (177)
2kF 4εF
with
ˆ 1
00 π ν ν
L (Q, ν) = pdp θ p + − Q θ p − + Q
2Q 0 Q Q
ν ν
− θ p+ +Q θ p− −Q (178)
Q Q
The integration over p finally yields
(" 2 # 2 !
00 π ν ν
L (Q, ν) = 1− −Q θ 1− −Q
4Q Q Q
" 2 # 2 !)
ν ν
− 1− +Q θ 1− +Q . (179)
Q Q
The imaginary part is finite between the two curves (we only consider ν > 0 at
the moment)
ν1 = Q + Q2
2
ν2 = Q − 1 + (Q − 1)
Within this regime and for ν3 < Q (1 − Q) the imaginary part is simply linear
in frequency with
πν
L00 (Q, ν) = .
Q
30
5.4 Hartree-Fock analysis of the Coulomb interaction
We finally consider an interacting problem of electrons with long ranged Coulomb
interaction. In real space, our Hamiltonian is given as
Xˆ
H = d3 rψα† (r) ε (−i∇) ψα (r)
α
ˆ
e2 X ψ † (r) ψα† 0 (r0 ) ψα0 (r0 ) ψα (r)
+ d3 rd3 r0 α . (180)
2 0
|r − r0 |
αα
1 X †
H = εk ψkα ψkα
V
kα
1 †
ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα
X
+ vkk0 (q) ψkα (181)
2V 3 0 0
kk qαα
4πe2
vk,k0 (q) = . (182)
q2
The indices k and k0 are of course not necessary. We included them here to
allow for an analysis of more general potentials.
We first analyze the single particle Green’s function
DD EE
†
Gk (t) = ψkα (t) ; ψkα (183)
1 X
[ψkα , H] = εk ψkα + vk,k0 (q) ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα (184)
V2 0 0
k qα
31
Later we will see that it is efficient to define a so called self-energy via
DD EE
1
ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα ; ψkα
†
P
k0 qα0 vk,k (q)
0
V2
ω
Σk (ω) = DD EE , (185)
†
ψkα ; ψkα
ω
which yields
1
Gk (ω) = . (186)
ω − εk − Σk (ω)
At this point this definition is not overly useful, but we will see that the self
energy has a comparatively easy definition in terms of Feynman diagrams. This
form of the Green’s function reminds us of the Dyson equation
−1 −1
Gk (ω) = G0k (ω) − Σk (ω) , (187)
We use that the the Green’s functions are diagonal in the momentum and spin
†
indices and obtain with nkα = ψkα ψkα :
DD EE
ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα ; ψkα
†
= Gk (ω) V (δq,0 hnk0 α0 i − ηδk,k0 +q δαα0 hnk0 α i)
ω
32
If we insert this into the equation of motion or, alternatively, into our definition
for the self energy, we find
1 X
Σk (ω) = vk,k0 (q) (δq,0 hnk0 α0 i − ηδk,k0 +q δαα0 hnk0 α0 i)
V 0 0
k qα
1 X 1 X
= vk,k0 (0) hnk0 α0 i − η vk,k0 (k − k0 ) hnk0 α i (191)
V 0 0 V 0
kα k
This is the Hartree-Fock approximation for the self-energy. The first term cor-
responds to the Hartree term and the second to the Fock term. The philosophy
of it’s derivation is indeed the same as in the ordinary, first-quantized formula-
tion of quantum mechanics, where one evaluates expectation values with regards
to an assumed Slater determinant, i.e. a free-particle wave function. Here we
also evaluated interaction effects in the equation of motion, pretending that the
higher order Green’s function can be analyzed the same way as for free particles.
There is a simple rule that exists for the evaluation of these higher order
Green’s function. We consider the operator ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα and replace a
pair made out of a creation and an annihilation operator, once they are next to
each other, by its expectation value. If it is necessary to change the order a minis
sign might occur for due to the anti-commutation rules. Thus we approximate
D E
ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα ≈ ψk† 0 α0 ψk0 +qα0 ψk−qα
D E
− ψk† 0 α0 ψk−qα ψk0 +qα0 . (192)
If we further use that the momenta and spins in the expectation value have to
be the same, it follows
Inserting this expression into the Green’s function yields the above result for
the self energy.
If we insert this self energy into the Dyson equation we finally obtain a
result for the Green’s function within Hartree-Fock approximation. This Green’s
function can then be used to determine expectation values like hnk0 α0 i. Since
the self-energy itself depends on those expectation values, one sees that one is
confronted with a self-consistency issue. Thus, one has to assume a certain result
for hnk0 α0 i, use this ansatz to determine the self energy and Green’s function
and check whether resulting hnk0 α0 i agrees with the initial ansatz. If not, one
has to use a better ansatz. A good approach to solve this self-consistency
problem is to use the occupation one just obtained and an improved ansatz
and iterate this problem until convergence is reached. This self consistency
procedure demonstrates that one includes in the Hartree-Fock approach effects
to arbitrary order in the interaction. This sounds encouraging, however, one
certainly didn’t include all effects. Only the first order contribution to the self
33
energy that is completely contained in the approach. We will discuss these issues
later-on during the course.
Returning to the Coulomb problem one should get rather nervous if one looks
at the Hartree term. Here one has to analyze the matrix element vkk (q = 0)
while the interaction diverges like q −2 for small q. Here the self energy amounts
to a shift in energy
4πe
δ = − lim 2 ρ0
q→0 q
´ d3 k P
where ρ0 = −e (2π)3 α hnkα i is the electron density in equilibrium. Thus,
this energy can be written as
ˆ
ρ0
δ = −e d3 r (194)
|r|
Physically this is the Coulomb repulsion of a given electron by all other electrons
in the system. This yields an infinite shift of the energy of each individual
electron and seems to suggest that the system is not stable. In fact we know that
for an infinite system the energy density of a homogeneously charged plasma is
infinite because of Coulomb’s law. In the real solid this is compensated by the
attractive potential that each electron feels because of the positively charged
ions. The instability we obtained is solely a consequence of the fact that we
forgot to include the positively charged ions in our Hamiltonian. Since ρ0 =
−ρion and because we consider a jellium model with homogeneously charged
background, we include this Coulomb interaction by shifting all energies by
ˆ
ρion
δion = −e d3 r (195)
|r|
ε∗k = εk + Σk (197)
As long as the Coulomb interaction does not break the rotational symmetry of
the system, the renormalized dispersion will continue to depend on the magni-
tude of the momentum: k = |k|. Thus, the system will be characterized by a
34
Fermi momentum kF . Since the Green’s function looks like the one of a free
Fermi system, it must furthermore hold at T = 0 that hnkα i = 1 for k < kF
and hnkα i = 0 for k > kF , which yields that kF must be unchanged by the
interaction and is fixed by the total density. If follows
ˆ kF ˆ 1
e2 02 0 1
Σk = − k dk dµ
2 + k 02 − 2kk 0 µ
π 0 −1 k
ˆ
e2 kF 0 0 k + k0
= − k dk log
πk 0 k − k0
ˆ 1
e2 kF2
k/kF + p
= − pdp log
πk 0 k/kF − p
2 !
e2 kF
1 (k/kF ) − 1 k/kF + 1
= − 1+ log
π 2 k/kF k/kF − 1
2
We see that at kF the self energy is ΣkF = − e πkF . This quantity can alterna-
tively be absorbed in the new chemical potential, needed to obtain the correct
density. More interesting is the momentum dependence of the self energy. It
holds for k near kF that
e2 kF
∂Σk 2kF
= log
, (198)
∂k π k − kF
∂ε∗k k ∂Σk
vk∗ = = + . (199)
∂k m ∂k
This result played a role in the early stages of the theory of interactions in met-
als5 However, the inclusion of higher order processes of the perturbation theory
strongly suggests that this divergency is spurious. Nevertheless, the Hartree-
Fock approximation is a useful tool to get a first idea about an interacting
many-body system.
35
The additional calculation is the hdetermination of
i the commutator recall that
†
we already used the commutator ψkα ψk+qα , HC where HC is the Coulomb-
−
interaction in the Hamiltonian H. It holds
h i
† †
ψk† 1 α1 ψk1 −q1 α1 ψk+q+q1 α
X
ψkα ψk+qα , HC = v (q) ψkα
−
k1 q1 α1
† †
− ψk+q ψ
1 α k1 α1
ψk 1 +q α
1 1
ψ k+qα , (201)
where we used that v (q) = v (−q). Just like in the case of the Hartree-Fock
approximation, we express certain operators in the Green’s function by expec-
tation values. For the first term in the above commutator follows
†
ψkα ψk† 1 α1 ψk1 −q1 α1 ψk+q+q1 α ≈ †
hnk1 α1 i δq1 ,0 ψkα ψk+q+q1 α
+ hnkα i δq1 ,−q ψk† 1 α1 ψk1 −q1 α1
− hnkα i δk,k1 −q1 δαα1 ψk† 1 α1 ψk+q+q1 α
†
− hnk1 α1 i δk1 ,k+q+q1 δαα1 ψkα ψk1 −q1 α1(202)
where we “contracted” two operators that are next to each other to their ex-
pectation value. The minus signs are a result of the fact that we had to bring
operators next to each other.
†
ψk+q ψ † ψk1 +q1 α1 ψk+qα
1 α k1 α1
≈ †
hnk1 α1 i δq1 ,0 ψk+q1α
ψk+qα
+ hnkα i δq1 ,q ψk† 1 α1 ψk1 +q1 α1
− hnkα i δk,k1 δαα1 ψk† 1 α1 ψk+qα
†
− hnk1 α1 i δk1 ,k+q δαα1 ψk+q 1α
ψk1 +q1 α1(203)
where
Ek,q = ε∗k+q − ε∗k
are the Hartree-Fock corrected single particle energies. In what follows we will
ignore these Hartree-Fock corrections. It turns out that the term with v (k − k1 )
cannot be expressed in terms of the density-density correlation function. It
corresponds to other degrees of freedom but the density, which are coupled to
density fluctuations via the Coulomb interaction. A frequent assumption is that
those degrees of freedom are not coherently coupled to density fluctuations and
36
will be damped out rapidly. In what follows we will also ignore this term. This
is called the random phase approximation.
It follows for the density-density Green’s function
χq (ω) = χ(0)
q (ω) (1 − v (q) χq (ω)) (204)
(0)
χq (ω)
χq (ω) = (0)
, (205)
1 + v (q) χq (ω)
where
1 X fk+q − fk
χ(0)
q (ω) = (206)
V ω + i0+ − εk+q + εk
αk
4πe2 (0)
ε (q, ω) = 1 + χ (ω) (207)
q2 q
Let us first analyze the response to a static test charge, i.e. the limit ω = 0. In
this limit follows
q 2 + 4πe2 ρF L0 2kqF
ε (q, 0) = (208)
q2
with
1 − Q2
1 1 − Q
L0 (Q) = 1+ log
. (209)
2 2Q 1 + Q
In the long wave length limit follows L0 (Q 1) ∼ 1 − 31 Q2 and we obtain
2
q 2 1 − 2πe
3kF2
ρF
+ 4πe2 ρF
ε (q, 0) = . (210)
q2
If we are in the limit of a good metal, we would expect that the typical kinetic
energy is larger than the typical Coulomb interaction, i.e.
kF2 e2
(211)
2m λF
2π 2πe2 ρF
with Fermi wave number λF = kF . This yields 3kF2 1 and we obtain
q 2 + qT2 F
ε (q, 0) = , (212)
q2
37
with Thomas-Fermi wave vector qT F determined by
follows
3 2
ω 2 = ωpl
2
+ q (219)
5m2
with plasma frequency
2 4πne2
ωpl = . (220)
m
Since the imaginary part of the Lindhard function vanishes at small q and
finite ω, these collective modes are undamped. The correspond to the emergent
response of a charged fluid to an external charge perturbation. The plasma
frequency of usual metals is in the regime of several electron volts, i.e. it is a
very high frequency collective mode.
38
Part III
Diagrammatic perturbation
theory at finite T
In the previous chapters we learned that retarded Green’s function can be de-
termined from an analysis of the equation of motion. The approach is very
straightforward and powerful for non-interaction systems. However, as soon as
one wants to incorporate effects of interactions, the method is not very trans-
parent and efficient. An elegant alternative is the analysis of Green’s functions
using Feynman diagrams. A diagrammatic perturbation theory can be devel-
oped for time ordered Green’s functions. Historically the formulation was done
first for the so called causal Green’s function
c
GcA,B (t, t0 ) = hhA (t) ; B (t0 )ii
≡ −i hT A (t) B (t0 )i , (221)
H = H0 + V (223)
that consists of a free part H0 and an interaction part V . The time evolution
is governed by
0 0
e−iH (t−t ) = e−iH0 t S (t, t0 ) eiH0 t (224)
which defines the S-matrix. With this definition follows for the time dependence
of an arbitrary operator in Heisenberg representation
where
à (t) = e−iH0 t Ae−iH0 t . (226)
39
In order to determine the S-matrix we consider the time derivative of
0 0
S (t, t0 ) = eiH0 t e−iH (t−t ) e−iH0 t . (227)
It holds
0 0
∂t S (t, t0 ) = iH0 eiH0 t e−iH (t−t ) e−iH0 t
0 0
− eiH0 t (iH) e−iH (t−t ) e−iH0 t
0 0
= eiH0 t (iH0 − iH) e−iH (t−t ) e−iH0 t
0 0
= −eiH0 t (iV ) e−iH0 t eiH0 t e−iH (t−t ) e−iH0 t
= −iṼ (t) S (t, t0 ) (228)
S (t, t) = 1. (229)
Let us demonstrate that this is indeed the correct solution. The boundary
condition is clearly obeyed. Next, we expand the exponential function:
∞
X
0
S (t, t ) = Sn (t, t0 ) (231)
n=0
with
n ˆ t ˆ t ˆ t
(−i)
Sn = T dtn · · · dt2 dt1 Ṽ (tn ) · · · Ṽ (t2 ) Ṽ (t1 ) . (232)
n! t0 t0 t0
There are n! possibilities to order of the time variables ti . We could for example
relabel the ti such that the earliest is called t1 , followed by t2 etc. Then holds
ˆ t ˆ t3 ˆ t2
n
Sn = (−i) T dtn · · · dt2 dt1 Ṽ (tn ) · · · Ṽ (t2 ) Ṽ (t1 ) . (233)
t0 t0 t0
Of course with this specific relabeling we may also skip the time ordering oper-
ation, i.e.
ˆ t ˆ t3 ˆ t2
n
Sn = (−i) dtn · · · dt2 dt1 Ṽ (tn ) · · · Ṽ (t2 ) Ṽ (t1 ) . (234)
t0 t0 t0
It follows
∂t Sn (t, t0 ) = −iṼ (t) Sn−1 (t, t0 ) , (235)
40
where obviously holds that S−1 (t, t0 ) = 0. This yields
∞
X
∂t S (t, t0 ) = −iṼ (t) Sn−1 (t, t0 )
n=0
∞
X
= −iṼ (t) Sn (t, t0 )
n=−1
A (τ ) = eτ H Ae−τ H (236)
and defines
GAB (τ, τ 0 ) = − hT A (τ ) B (τ 0 )i . (237)
with
T A (τ ) B (τ 0 ) = θ (τ − τ 0 ) A (τ ) B (τ 0 ) − ηθ (τ 0 − τ ) B (τ 0 ) A (τ ) . (238)
t → −iτ. (239)
41
Since τ − mβ > 0 we can drop the time ordering symbol:
1
GAB (τ − mβ) = − tr e−βH e(τ −mβ)H Ae−(τ −mβ)H B
Z
1
= − tr e(τ −(m+1)β)H Ae−(τ −mβ)H B
Z
1
= − tr e−βH Be(τ −(m+1)β)H Ae−(τ −(m+1)β)H
Z
1
= − tr e−βH BA (τ − (m + 1) β)
(242)
Z
If τ < 0 holds
BA (τ ) = −ηT A (τ ) B.
Since τ − (m + 1) β < 0 it follows
η
tr e−βH T A (τ − (m + 1) β) B
GAB (τ − mβ) =
Z
= −ηGAB (τ − (m + 1) β) (243)
In particular follows for m = −1 that:
GAB (τ ) = −ηGAB (τ + β) . (244)
Matsubara functions are periodic (anti-periodic) for bosonic (fermionic) choice
of the time ordering. Since both functions are periodic with period 2β we can
always expand in the Fourier series
∞
1 X −iωn τ
G (τ ) = e G (ωn ) (245)
β n=−∞
42
In summary, we have discrete Matsubara frequencies that are distinct for bosonic
and fermionic propagators:
(
2nπ/β for bosons
ωn = . (249)
(2n + 1) π/β for fermions
If we compare this with the general Lehmann representation that was derived
earlier, it follows
GAB (ωn ) = GAB (z = iωn ) . (252)
We already discussed that we can define Green’s function in the entire complex
plane and that the only source for non-analyticity is the real axis. Now we
see that the Matsubara function yields the complex Green’s function at the
purely imaginary Matsubara frequencies. Thus, if we determine the Matsubara
function, we can determine the retarded function via analytic continuation
Thus, knowledge of the Matsubara function allows for the determination of the
retarded function.
This immediately yields information about the single-particle Matsubara
Green’s function. Consider the Hamiltonian
X ˆ dd k
H0 = ε ψ† ψ .
d k kα kα
(254)
α (2π)
43
We obtain for the Fourier transform of
D E
†
G0k (τ ) = − T ψkα (τ ) ψkα (255)
0
that
1
G0,k (ωn ) = . (256)
iωn − εk
Here we indicate with h· · · i0 that the average is with regards to the Hamiltonian
H0 .
A (τ ) = eτ H Ae−τ H (257)
∂τ A (τ ) = HA (τ ) − A (τ ) H
= − [A (τ ) , H] (258)
eτ H e−τ H = 1, (259)
i.e. −1
eτ H = e−τ H . (260)
In full analogy of the S-matrix we can introduce
0 0
S (τ, τ 0 ) = eH0 τ e−H (τ −τ ) e−H0 τ . (261)
S (τ1 , τ2 ) S (τ2 , τ3 ) = eH0 τ1 e−H(τ1 −τ2 ) e−H0 τ2 eH0 τ2 e−H(τ2 −τ3 ) e−H0 τ3
= S (τ1 , τ3 ) . (264)
44
The time evolution of the full Hamiltonian is written as
A (τ ) = eτ H e−τ H0 Ã (τ ) eτ H0 e−τ H
= S (0, τ ) Ã (τ ) S (τ, 0) , (266)
where
à (τ ) = eτ H0 Ae−τ H0 . (267)
The equation of motion for the imaginary-time version of the S-matrix follows
in full analogy to the case with real times
0 0
−∂τ S (τ, τ 0 ) = −eH0 τ (H0 − H) e−H (τ −τ ) e−H0 τ
= Ṽ (τ ) S (τ, τ 0 ) . (268)
The solution of this operator differential equation is obtained along the lines
discussed above and yields
´τ
dτ 00 Ṽ (τ 00 )
S (τ, τ 0 ) = T e− τ0 .
This result can for example we used to express the partition function or
Green’s functions in a manner that is well suited for a perturbation theory. In
case of the partition function holds:
Z = tre−βH
tr e−βH0 S (β, 0)
=
= Z0 hSi0 (269)
with our earlier definition for the average w.r.t. H0 and with
´β
dτ 00 Ṽ (τ 00 )
S ≡ S (β, 0) = e− 0 . (270)
Thus, we can express the fully interacting partition sum in terms of expectation
values of the noninteracting problem. The same reasoning can be performed for
the single particle Green’s function as
1 †
Gk (τ ) = − tr e−βH T ψkα (τ ) ψkα (0)
Z
1 †
= − tr e−βH0 S (β, 0) S (0, τ ) ψ̃kα (τ ) S (τ, 0) ψ̃kα (τ 0 )
Z
1 †
= − tr e−βH0 T S (β, τ ) ψ̃kα (τ ) S (τ, 0) ψ̃kα (0)
Z
1 †
= − tr e−βH0 T S (β, τ ) S (τ, 0) ψ̃kα (τ ) ψ̃kα (0)
Z
1 †
= − tr e−βH0 T ψ̃kα (τ ) ψ̃kα (0) S (β, 0) (271)
Z
45
If we combine this with our representation for the partition function we obtain
D E
†
T ψ̃kα (τ ) ψ̃kα (0) S (β, 0)
0
Gk (τ ) = −
hS (β, 0)i0
D E
†
T ψ̃kα (τ ) ψ̃kα (0) S
0
= − (272)
hSi0
The appeal of this formulation is that we can develop a perturbation theory in
the potential V by expanding the exponentials in the numerator and denomi-
nator, respectively.
7 Wick theorem
The formulation of the Matsubara function in the previous section demonstrated
that we need to evaluate expectation values of higher order operators with re-
gards to a non-interacting Hamiltonian. In our earlier analysis of retarded
Green’s functions of free particles we already noticed that higher order Green’s
functions can be evaluated for free particles. In what follows we develop an
efficient formalism to do this for the Matsubara function. We consider a Hamil-
tonian X †
H0 = εi ci ci , (273)
i
where i stands for an arbitrary set of single particle quantum numbers, for
example spin and momentum. We will also use the shorthand notation
αi = ci or c†i . (274)
∂τ ci (τ ) = − [ci (τ ) , H0 ]
= −εi ci (τ ) , (276)
which yields
ci (τ ) = e−τ εi ci (0) = e−τ εi ci . (277)
Thus, it follows
ci e−τ H0 = e−τ H0 ci e−τ εi . (278)
An analogous expression follows for
46
and yields
c†i (τ ) = eτ εi c†i (280)
as well as
c†i e−τ H0 = e−τ H0 c†i eτ εi . (281)
Let us stress our notation. While c†i
is obviously the hermitian conjugate of ci ,
this does not hold that ci (τ ) and ci (τ ) once τ 6= 0. c†i (τ ) merely refers to the
†
†
time evolution of c†i , while (ci (τ )) = c†i (−τ ).
We can summarize our findings as follows
where
αi = c†i
+1 if
si = . (283)
−1 if αi = ci
+ α1 α2 α3 α4 · · · α2n−1 α2n
+ ···}, (285)
where the sum goes over all possible pairwise contractions. A contraction is
defined as
αi αj = hαi αj i0 (286)
and interchanging contracted operators produces a sign η,
αi αj αk αl = −ηαi αk αj αl , (287)
[αi , αj ]η = αi αj + ηαj αi
h i
†
δ ij for ci , cj
iη
h
†
= ηδij for ci , cj . (288)
h η i
for [ci , cj ]η or c†i , c†j
0
η
47
To proof this statement we use
αi αj = −ηαj αi + [αi , αj ]η . (289)
and write
α1 α2 α3 · · · α2n = [α1 , α2 ]η α3 · · · α2n
− ηα2 α1 α3 · · · α2n . (290)
If we look at the second term, we find similarly
α2 α1 α3 · · · α2n = α2 [α1 , α3 ]η · · · α2n
− ηα2 α3 α1 · · · α2n . (291)
If we repeat this 2n − 1 times, it follows
2n
X j−2
α1 α2 · · · α2n = (−η) α2 · · · αj−1 [α1 , αj ]η αj+1 · · · α2n
j=2
2n−1
+ (−η) α2 α3 · · · α2n α1 . (292)
2n−1
It holds of course that (−η) = −η.
Next we perform the thermodynamic average
1
tr e−βH0 α2 α3 · · · α2n α1
hα2 α3 · · · α2n α1 i0 =
Z0
es1 βε1
tr e−βH0 α1 α2 α3 · · · α2n
=
Z0
= hα1 α2 α3 · · · α2n i0 . (293)
Here we used our previous result Eq.(282). From Eq.292 follows then
2n
X j−2
[α1 , αj ]η
hα1 α2 α3 · · · α2n i0 = (−η) hα2 · · · αj−1 αj+1 · · · α2n i0 .
j=2
1 + ηes1 βε1
(294)
Since we are dealing with free particles, it holds of course that
D E δij ηδij
c†i cj = βε
= ,
0 e +η i 1 + ηeβεi
h i h i
c†i , cj c†i , cj
η η
= = (295)
1 + ηeβεi 1 + ηesi βεi
as well as
D E D E δij
ci c†j = δij − η c†j ci = .
0 0 1 + ηe−βεl
h i
ci , c†j
η
= , (296)
1 + ηesi βεi
48
D E
while c†i c†j = hci cj i0 = 0. With our definition of a contraction, it follows
0
then
[αi , αj ]η
= αi αj . (297)
1 + ηesi βεi
which leads to:
2n
X j−2
hα1 α2 α3 · · · α2n i0 = (−η) hα2 · · · αj−1 α1 αj αj+1 · · · α2n i0 . (298)
j=2
αi αj αk αl = −ηαj αi αk αl
= −ηαi αj αl αk
= αj αi αl αk (299)
We can now repeat the procedure for the remaining operators and obtain the
sum over all possible pairwise contractions, which proves Wick’s theorem.
Two examples are:
D E
c†1 c2 c†3 c4 = c†1 c2 c†3 c4 + c†1 c2 c†3 c4
0
D E D E D E D E
= c†1 c2 c†3 c4 + c†1 c4 c2 c†3 (301)
0 0 0 0
and
D E
c†1 c†2 c3 c4 = c†1 c†2 c3 c4 + c†1 c†2 c3 c4
0
D E D E D E D E
= c†1 c4 c†2 c3 − η c†1 c3 c2 c†4 .
0 0 0 0
49
For the evaluation of Gk (τ ) and even for the partition function Z = Z0 hSi0 ,
we consider time dependent expectation values
D E
T ci1 (τ1 ) · · · cin (τn ) c†jn (τn0 ) · · · cj1 (τ10 ) . (302)
0
αi (τ ) = ci (τ ) or c†i (τ ) . (303)
αi (τ ) = esi τ εi αi , (304)
αi = c†i
+1 if
si = . (305)
−1 if αi = ci
Here the time ordering operator arranges the time independent αi corresponding
to the associated time τi . Let us for the time beeing assume that the operators
are already time ordered, i.e. that
This implies
hT α1 (τ1 ) α2 (τ2 ) · · · α2n (τ2n )i0 = α1 (τ1 ) α2 (τ2 ) α3 (τ3 ) α4 (τ4 ) · · · α2n−1 (τ2n−1 ) α2n (τ2n )
50
where the sum goes again over all possible pairwise contractions and each cross-
ing of contraction brackets amount to a factor −η.
In our analysis we made the asssumption that the operators are already time
ordered. Suppose this is not the case. Then we need to perform p changes in the
p
order of the operators, amounting to a factor (−η) . This resulting expression
can then be analyzed using Wick’s theorem. We can then reorder the operators
to return to the original, not-time ordered order. However, given our sign-
p
rules for contractions, this also just amounts to another factor (−η) . The total
2p
factor is then (−η) = 1. Thus, the above expansion is equally valid even if the
operators are not yet time ordered. These insigts can alternatively be written
as that the higher order Green;s function
D E
G0 (i1 , · · · in ; j1 · · · jn ) = (−1) T ci1 · · · cin c†jn · · · cj1 ,
(n) n
(312)
0
can be expressed as
(n)
X P
G0 (i1 , · · · in ; j1 · · · jn ) = (−η) G0 i1 ; jP (1) · · · G0 in ; jP (n) . (313)
P
P
The sum P runs over all possible permutations of the indices and P itself
is the order of the permutation (i.e. it is even or odd, depending on whether
an even or odd number of pairwise exchanges had to be done to achieve the
permutation). example, it holds
(2)
G0 (i1 , i2 ; j1 j2 ) = G0 (i1 ; j1 ) G0 (i2 ; j2 ) − ηG0 (i1 ; j2 ) G0 (i2 ; j1 ) . (314)
Z = Z0 hSi0
with ´β
dτ 00 Ṽ (τ 00 )
S ≡ S (β, 0) = T e− 0 . (315)
Thus, we obtain
∞ n ˆ
Z X (−1)
= dτ1 · · · dτn hT V (τ1 ) · · · V (τn )i0 . (316)
Z0 n=0
n!
1 X
V (τ ) = v (k, l; n, m) c†k (τ ) c†l (τ ) cm (τ ) cn (τ ) (317)
2
klmn
51
The n-th term in the perturbation expansion is then
n ˆ
(−1) X X
δn = n
dτ1 · · · dτn ··· v (k1 , l1 ; m1 , n1 ) . . . v (kn , ln ; mn , nn )
n!2
k1 l1 m1 n1 kn ln mn nn
D E
× T c†k1 (τ1 ) c†l1 (τ1 ) cm1 (τ1 ) cn1 (τ1 ) · · · c†kn (τn ) c†ln (τn ) cmn (τn ) cnn (τn ) (318)
0
The time ordered expectation value can now be evaluated using Wick’s theorem
and be expressed in terms of the known non-interacting Green’s function.
Let us now take a closer look at the object Π(q, Ωn ) inside the logarithm. We will
first focus on the Matsubara summation, therefore we suppress all momentum
dependences. It will be straightforward to restore these later. Then Π(Ωm ) is
given by the expression
X
Π(Ωm ) = T G1 (ωn )G2 (ωn + Ωm ),
n
where the indices 1, 2 refer to the suppressed variables. As was derived before,
the Matsubara Green’s functions G(ωn ) are equal to the complex Green’s func-
tions G(z) evaluated at z = iωn . We use this and rewrite the sum as a contour
integral. This provides us with the formula
X
Π(Ωm ) = T G1 (iωn )G2 (iωn + iΩm )
n
˛
dz
= − f (z)G1 (z)G2 (z + iΩm ), (319)
2πi
where f (z) = eβz1+1 is the Fermi function. The contour integral is taken as
shown in the figure. We now want to deform this contour and transform it
into a real integration. In doing this we have to be careful, since the complex
Green’s function has poles on the real-axis. This in turn means that we have
to avoid the real axis, since our integrand contains G1 (z). On the other hand,
the integrand also contains G2 (z + iΩm ), thus we must avoid the horizontal line
that goes through z = −iΩm also. We therefore choose a contour as shown in
the figure. Clearly this contour gives the same result as the previous one, since
we enclose the same poles as before.
As usual, the semicircular arcs do not contribute to the integrals. Therefore only
the four horizontal lines have to be taken into account. Let us first consider the
two horizontal paths at the bottom. These two paths run in opposite directions
52
and are infinitesimally displaced relative to each other. We parametrize the two
paths by z = + i0+ and z = − i0+ respectively. Since f (z) and G2 (z) do
not have poles near these paths we can ignore the infinitesimal shifts in these
functions. Then the sum of the two integrals yields for the contour Cl , along
the two lower paths the value
˛ ˆ∞
dz d
f ()G2 (+iΩm ) G1 ( + i0+ ) − G1 ( − i0+ ) .
− f (z)G1 (z)G2 (z+iΩm ) = −
2πi 2πi
Cl −∞
Similarly, the two paths on the top are parametrized by z = −iΩm + i0+ + and
z = −iΩm − i0+ + . Here f (z) and G1 (z) are analytic near these two paths,
thus we can ignore the infinitesimal shifts for these functions. Thus we have
˛ ˆ∞
dz d
f (−iΩm )G1 (−iΩm ) G2 ( + i0+ ) − G2 ( − i0+ ) .
− f (z)G1 (z)G2 (z+iΩm ) = −
2πi 2πi
Cu −∞
ˆ∞
d
f ()G2 ( + iΩm ) G1 ( + i0+ ) − G1 ( − i0+ )
Π(Ωm ) = −
2πi
−∞
ˆ∞
d
f ()G1 ( − iΩm ) G2 ( + i0+ ) − G2 ( − i0+ ) ,
−
2πi
−∞
1
where in the second integrand we used the fact that f ( − iΩm ) = eβ(−iΩ m ) +1
=
1 + + +
eβ +1
= f (). Now we recall that G1 (+i0 )−G1 (−i0 ) = 2iIm[G1 (+i0 )] =
2iG00r1 (), i.e. the imaginary part of the retarded Green’s function and this holds
analogously for G2 . Then we are left with
ˆ∞ ˆ∞
d d
Π(Ωm ) = − f ()G2 ( + iΩm )G00r1 () − f ()G1 ( − iΩm )G00r2 ().
π π
−∞ −∞
iΩm = Ω + i0+ .
This gives us
ˆ∞ ˆ∞
d d
Πr (Ω) = − f ()Gr2 ( + Ω)G00r1 () − f ()G∗r1 ( − Ω)G00r2 ().
π π
−∞ −∞
53
Let us now look first at the imaginary part of this expression for Πr (Ω). This
gives us
ˆ ˆ∞
∞
d d 00
Im[Πr (Ω)] = − f ()G00r2 ( + Ω)G00r1 () − f ()Gr1 ( − Ω)G00r2 ()
π π
−∞ −∞
ˆ ˆ∞
∞
d d 00
= − f ()G00r2 ( + Ω)G00r1 () − f ( + Ω)Gr1 ()G00r2 ( + Ω)
π π
−∞ −∞
ˆ∞
d
= − (f () − f ( + Ω)) G00r2 ( + Ω)G00r1 ().
π
−∞
X ˆ d
∞
1
= − f () [−πδ( − k )]
π + Ω + i0+ − k+q
k −∞
ˆ∞
X d 1
− f () [−πδ( − k+q )]
π − Ω − i0+ − k
k −∞
X f (k ) X f (k+q )
= +
+
k + Ω + i0 − k+q k+q − Ω − i0+ − k
k k
X f (k ) − f (k+q )
= .
k − k+q + Ω + i0+
k
54
This is the Lindhard function that we already found via the equation-of-motion
technique.
Let us now return to the evaluation of partition function. There the correc-
tion due to the interaction term had the form
X
T log [1 − v(q)Π(q, Ωn )] .
n
55
9 Diagram rules for the single particle Green’s
function
Next we perform the diagramatic analysis of the single particle Green’s function
D E
†
T ψ̃kα (τ ) ψ̃kα (0) S
0
Gk (τ ) = − . (320)
hSi0
~k 2
εfree
k = . (321)
2m
The quantum numbers of the excited many-body states of a free Fermi gas are
the occupations nkσ of single-particle states; the corresponding single-particle
states are characterized by momentum and spin: |kσi.
where kF is the same as for an ideal Fermi gas with same density:
ˆ
N d3 k (0)
= 2 3 nkσ
V (2π)
ˆ kF
1 2 kF3
= k dk = (323)
π2 0 3π 2
56
1/3
which yields kF = 3π 2 N/V . Excitations are now characterized by changes
δnkσ of the occupations, i.e.
(0)
nkσ = nkσ + δnkσ . (324)
Since the labeling of quantum numbers is the same compared to the free fermi
system, purely statistical aspects, like the entropy, should also only be deter-
mined by the corresponding ideal Fermi gas expressions:
X
S = −kB (nkσ log nkσ + (1 − nkσ ) log (1 − nkσ )) . (326)
k,σ
P
Maximizing
P this expression with the condition that E = k,σ εkσ nkσ and N =
k,σ n kσ , yields
1
nkσ = βε , (327)
e kσ + 1
where the excitation energy εkσ is measured relative to the Fermi energy.
In general, the energy εkσ [nk0 σ0 ] is a functional of the occupations of all
states in the system. If we first add only one particle to the ground state, we
can safely say that
ε0kσ ≡ εkσ n0k0 σ0
(328)
is the dispersion of the single particle, where n0kσ = θ (kF − k). Near EF we
make the assumption
ε0kσ = v (k − kF ) , (329)
where the parameter v = kF /m∗ is often expressed in terms of the effective
mass m∗ . This immediately leads to the density of states
m∗ kF
ρF = , (330)
π 2 ~2
that is modified by the factor m∗ /m compared to the free fermion expression.
An immediate consequence of this modified density of states emerges for the
heat capacity
ˆ ∞
X d d 1
C = εkσ nkσ = ρF dεε
dT −∞ dT eε/(kB T ) + 1
k,σ
= γT, (331)
where
π 2 kB
2
m∗
γ= ρF = γfree . (332)
3 m
57
Here, γfree is the heat capacity of non-interacting fermions.
A key additional aspect of the Landau theory is that in case of excitations
with more than one particle, the changes in the occupations δnkσ will lead to
changes δεkσ of the quasi-particle energies. Thus one writes generally
where
1 X
δεkσ = fkσ,k0 σ0 δnk0 σ0 . (334)
N 0 0
k ,σ
s 0 a
fkσ,k0 σ0 = fk,k 0 + σσ fk,k0 . (335)
In addition we assume that all relevant momenta are on the Fermi surface, i.e.
k =kF ek and k0 =kF ek0 where e2k = e2k0 = 1 are unit vectors. In an isotropic
s,a
system like 3 He, with no preferred direction, one expects that fk,k 0 only depend
0
on the angle θ between k and k , i.e. on cos θk,k0 = ek · ek0 :
s,a s,a
fk,k 0 = f cos θk,k0 . (336)
∞
X
s,a
Fls,a Pl cos θk,k0
F cos θ k,k0 = (338)
l=0
∞ X
l
X Fls,a ∗
F s,a cos θk,k0 = 4π
Ylm (ek ) Ylm (ek0 ) . (339)
2l + 1
l=0 m=−l
58
allows for the representation
ˆ
s,a 2l + 1 1
Fl = d cos θF s,a (cos θ) Pl0 (cos θ)
2 −1
ˆ ˆ π
2l + 1 2π
= dϕ sin θdθF s,a (cos θ) Pl0 (cos θ)
4π 0 0
ˆ ˆ π ˆ
2l + 1 2π
= dϕ sin θdθ dεF s,a (cos θ) Pl0 (cos θ) δ (ε)
4π 0 0
2 (2l + 1) 1 X s,a
= Fk,k0 Pl cos θk,k0 δ (εk ) . (341)
ρF N 0
k
10.2 Susceptibilities
Suppose we are at T = 0 we add an external perturbation of the type
1 ∂V ∂n
κ=− = n−2 .
V ∂p ∂µ
which holds for a system where the free energy can be written as F (V, N ) =
N f (n), where n = N/V is the particle density.
In case of a free Fermi gas follows
59
where the mass in the density of states ρ0F is m, not m∗ .
Since fermions of a Fermi liquid are interacting there is no reason that an
external field or chemical potential change will change the quasiparticle energies
εkσ in the exact same fashion as δε0kσ . Thus, we assume
1 X
δεkσ = δε0kσ + fkσ,k0 σ0 δnk0 σ0
N 0 0
k ,σ
= (tsl + a
σtl ) Ylm (ek ) , (347)
which yields
δnkσ = −δ ε0kσ δεkσ .
(349)
This result can now be inserted into Eq.347 which yields
1 X
δεkσ = δε0kσ − fkσ,k0 σ0 δ ε0k0 σ0 δεk0 σ0
(350)
N 0 0
k ,σ
or equivalently
1 X 0
tσl Ylm (ek ) = vlσ Ylm (ek ) − fkσ,k0 σ0 δ ε0k0 σ0 tσl Ylm (ek0 ) (351)
N 0 0
k ,σ
and obtain
1 X σ0 Fls + σσ 0 Fla
tσl = vlσ − t . (354)
2 0 l 2l + 1
σ
60
If we consider for example a change in the chemical potential with, v0σ =
−δµ/4π, it follows for tσ0 = t0 spin independent, that
t0 = v0 − t0 F0s (355)
which leads to
v0
t0 = . (356)
1 + F0s
It is now straightforward to determine the charge susceptibility via
1 ∂N 1 1 ∂N
χc = =−
V ∂ (δµ) 4π V ∂v0
1 1 ∂N ∂t0
= −
4π V ∂t0 ∂v0
1 1 1 ∂N
= − . (357)
1 + F0s 4π V ∂t0
−1 1 ∂N
To determine 4π V ∂t0 we use
1
nkσ =
kF
β m∗
(k−kF )+4πt0
e +1
P
The derivative of N = k,σ nkσ with respect to t0 can be performed, e.g. by
resorting to our above result for the charge susceptibility of a free electron gas
(with the difference that we need to consider the effective mass, not the bare
mass). It follows −1 1 ∂N
4π V ∂t0 = ρF and we obtain
ρF
χc =
1 + F0s
Thus, the charge susceptibility is different from the free fermi gas value in two
ways. First, in the density of states the mass m is replaced by the effective
−1
mass m∗ . In addition the interactions lead to an overall coefficient (1 + F0s ) .
s s
The theory is therefore stable as long as F0 < −1. If F0 → −1 the system will
undergo a transition to a regime where different densities phase segregate.
As will be discussed in a homework assignment, if the system in Gallilei
invariant, one can further derive a relationship between the effective mass m∗
and the Landay parameter F1s :
m∗ 1
= 1 + F1s . (358)
m 3
61
Whenever we have to deal with a conserved quantity, it is often natural to
introduce an associated density ρ (r, t), such that
ˆ
O= dd rρ (r, t) . (360)
V
∂t ρ + ∇ · j = 0, (361)
which determines the associated current density in the long wave-length limit.
Integrating this equation over a volume V yields the Gauss’-theorem
ˆ
∂t O = − j · dS, (362)
∂V
where ∂V is the surface of V and dS refers to the surface element directed along
the outward normal of the surface. If the volume V is chosen to correspond to
the entire system, the current of a conserved quantity obviously has to vanish.
Let us consider a system with Hamiltonian
H = H0 + V, (363)
where
†
X
H0 = εk ψkα ψkα . (364)
kα
with form factor φαβ (k). The charge density corresponds to φαβ (k) = δαβ , and
j
a spin density amounts to the φαβ (k) = σαβ for the three Pauli matrices.
In what follows we consider systems where [ρq , V ] = 0. This is the case for
the charge density with electron-electron Coulomb interaction. In case of the
62
spin-density it is true for all systems without spin-orbit interaction. In order
to obtain the associated current, we evaluate the commutator of ρq with the
Hamiltonian, where we only need to focus on the commutator with the kinetic
energy: X
†
[H0 , ρq ] = εk+ q2 − εk− q2 ψk+ q φαβ (k) ψk− q α .
α 2
(368)
2
kαβ
Since we consider generalized densities with form factor φαβ (k), it is useful to
analyze:
ˆ D E
†
αβγδ
Qk,k0 ,q (Ω) = dτ eiΩτ T ψk+ q
α
(τ ) ψk− q2 β (τ ) ψk† 0 − q γ (0) ψk0 + q2 δ (0) . (371)
2 2
Just like for the retarded function we can exploit the equation of motion
D E D E
∂τ T ρq (τ ) ψk† 0 − q γ (τ 0 ) ψk0 + q2 δ (τ 00 ) = T [H (τ ) , ρq (τ )] ψk† 0 − q γ (τ 0 ) ψk0 + q2 δ (τ 00 )
2 2
D h i E
+ δ (τ − τ ) T ρq (τ ) , ψk† 0 − q γ (τ 0 ) ψk0 + q2 δ (τ 00 )
0
D h2 iE
†
00
+ δ (τ − τ ) T ψk0 − q γ (τ ) ρq (τ ) , ψk0 + q2 δ (τ 00 ) .
0
2
We can now insert the density and current and Fourier transform the resulting
correlator
ˆ
00
Gαβγδ
k,k0 ,q (Ω, ω) = dτ dτ 0 eiΩτ +ωτ
D E
†
× T ψk+ q
α
(τ ) ψk− q2 β (τ ) ψk† 0 − q γ (0) ψk0 + q2 δ (τ 00 )
2 2
63
which yields in particular for Qαβγδ
k,k0 ,q (Ω), needed in the determination of sus-
ceptibilities, that X αβγδ
Qαβγδ
k,k0 ,q (Ω) = T Gk,k0 ,q (Ω, ω) . (373)
ω
The above Ward identity allows to draw conclusions for the two susceptibilities:
(4)αβγδ
X X
χρ (q, Ω) = T φαβ (k) φγδ (k0 ) Gk,k0 ,q (Ω, ω)
k,k0 ,ω αβγδ
X X ∂εk γδ 0 ∂εk (4)αβγδ
χij
J (q, Ω) = T φαβ (k) φ (k ) G 0 (Ω, ω) .
∂ki ∂kj k,k ,q
k,k0 ,ω αβγδ
12 Physics of Graphene
13 Superconductivity
The microscopic theory of superconductivity was formulated by John Bardeen,
Leon N. Cooper, and J. Robert Schrieffer. It is among the most beautiful and
successful theories in physics. The BCS-theory starts from an effective Hamil-
tonian of fermionic quasiparticle excitations that interact via a weak attractive
64
interaction. It yields a ground-state many-body wave function and thermal
excitations to describe superconductivity. Historically, the first underlying mi-
croscopic mechanism that lead to such an attraction was the exchange of lattice
vibrations. In the meantime ample evidence exists, in particular in case of the
copper-oxide high-temperature superconductors, for superconductivity that is
caused at least predominantly by electronic interactions. Other materials that
are candidates for electronically induced pairing are the heavy electron systems,
organic charge transfer salts and the iron based superconductors.
h
Φ0 = ≈ 2.067833758(46) × 10−15 Tm2 , (375)
2e
where h is Planck’s constant and e the magnitude of the electron charge e. By
discussing in some detail the concept of off-diagonal long range order we give
precise microscopic criteria that lead to the Meissner effect and to flux quanti-
zation. A theory of superconductivity consistent with these criteria is therefore
guaranteed to correctly describe these fundamental experimental observations.
As we will see later, the BCS theory is such a theory.
Off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) is a natural generalization of the
Bose-Einstein condensation of free bosons to the regime of interacting systems.
It was introduced to capture the nontrivial physics of superfluid 4 He[?, ?] and
later generalized to describe superconductivity and superfluidity of fermions[?].
The formal definition is based on the single-particle and two-particle density
matrix ρ(1) and ρ(2) , respectively:
(1)
ραα0 (r, r0 ) ψα† (r) ψα0 (r0 ) ,
=
D E
(2)
ραβα0 β 0 (r1 , r2 , r01 , r02 ) = ψα† (r1 ) ψβ† (r2 ) ψβ 0 (r02 ) ψα0 (r01 ) . (376)
65
ψα† (r) and ψα (r) are the creation and annihilation operators of a boson or
fermion at position r and with spin α, respectively. The operators are in the
Schrödinger picture such that the ρ(n) are independent on time in thermal equi-
librium. Generalizations to an n-particle density matrix ρ(n) with n > 2 or
averages with respect to a non-equilibrium scenario are straightforward. Before
we define ODLRO, we summarize a few properties of these density matrices.
We obtain immediately the expected normalization
ˆ X (1)
trρ(1) = dd r ραα0 (r, r) = N (377)
α
as well as
ˆ
(2)
X
trρ(2) = dd r1 dd r2 ραβαβ (r1 , r2 , r1 , r2 ) = N (N − 1) . (378)
αβ
For a translation invariant system further holds that ρ(1) (r, r0 ) = ρ(1) (r − r0 ),
i.e. the quantum number p corresponds to the momentum vector p. In the
6 Consider a hermitian matrix A with eigenvectors x(n) and eigenvalues λ(n) , i.e.
X
Aij x(n)j = λ(n) x(n)i .
j
We can consider the matrix Aij for given j as vector with components labelled by i and
expand with respect to the complete set of eigenvectors. The same can be done for the other
index. This implies X
Aij = α(p,q) x(p)i x∗(q)j .
pq
Inserting this expansion intoP
the eigenvalue equation and using the orthogonality and normal-
ization of the eigenvectors ( j x∗(p)j x(q)j = δpq ) it follows
X X
Aij x(n)j = α(p,n) x(n)i .
j p
66
thermodynamic limit holds that limr→∞ ρ(1) (r) = αN/V with α a generally
complex coefficient where |α| is of order unity. Here V is the volume of the
system and we used φ0 ≈ √1V .
We first consider the case of free bosons where φp (r) = √1V eip·r and the
eigenvalues are given by the Bose-Einstein distribution function:
1
np = . (381)
eβ((p)−µ) −1
We consider the regime above the Bose-Einstein condensation temperature with
−2/3 2
3 ~ 2/3
kB TBEC = 2πς (N/V ) , (382)
2 m
where µ < 0 and the occupation of all single-particle states behaves in the
thermodynamic limit as limN →∞ np /N = 0. np decays for increasing momenta
exponentially on the scale 2π/λT with thermal de Broglie wave length
s
2π~2
λT = . (383)
kB T m
It follows ˆ
1 X d3 p
ρ(1) (r) = np eip·r = 3 np e
ip·r
(384)
V p (2π)
N 1 X
ρ(1) (r) = α + np eip·r (385)
V V p>0
The second term decays exponentially, with the same reasoning as for T > TBEC
while the first term gives rise to ODLRO. Our reasoning is in fact more general.
In case of a macroscopic occupation of a momentum state, i.e. np0 = α0 N holds
N ip0 ·r
lim ρ(1) (r) = α0 e (386)
r→∞ V
as long as the occupation of all other momentum states decays sufficiently fast
for large momenta, they will not contribute in the limit of large r. Thus, we
have established that the macroscopic occupation of states is rather generally
related to large distant correlations of the one particle density matrix.
Next we discuss some physical implications of this observation and demon-
strate that charged bosons with ODLRO are subject to the Meissner effect and
flux quantization. The discussion is adapted from Refs.[?, ?] where fermionic
67
systems were discussed. We start from the Hamiltonian of a system of bosons
in a uniform magnetic field B:
X } ∇j + e A (rj ) 2 X
i c
H= + V (ri − rj ) . (387)
j
2m
i6=j
alternatively as
X } ∇j + e A (rj ) 2 X
e
P
i c
+ V (ri − rj ) ei ~c j χa (rj ) Ψν (rj − a)
j
2m
i6=j
e
P
= Eν ei ~c j χa (rj )
Ψν (rj − a) ,
with χa (r) given above. In addition to the many-body wave functions Ψν (rj )
we have the alternative choice
e
P
Ψ0ν (rj ) = ei ~c j χa (rj )
Ψν (rj − a) . (390)
The density matrix can therefore we evaluated using the original or the primed
wave functions. For the density matrix expressed in terms of the primed wave
functions follows
ˆ X e−βEν
0
ρ(1) (r, r0 ) = e−i ~c (χa (r)−χa (r )) N dd r2 · · · dd rN
e
ν
Z
× Ψ∗ν (r − a, r2 − a, · · · , rN − a)
× Ψν (r0 − a, r2 − a, · · · , rN − a) . (391)
68
All other phase factors ∝ χa (rj ) for j = 2 · · · N cancel. Using periodic boundary
conditions we can shift the integration variables rj → rj − a and obtain
0
ρ(1) (r, r0 ) = e−i ~c (χa (r)−χa (r )) ρ(1) (r − a, r0 − a) .
e
(392)
Let us now assume ODLRO, i.e. for large distance between r and r0 holds
Eq.380. This implies
0
φ∗0 (r0 ) φ0 (r) = e−i ~c (χa (r)−χa (r )) φ∗0 (r0 − a) φ0 (r − a)
e
(393)
Since the wave function is single valued, the two phase factors that relate the
two wave functions must be the same and we find the condition:
e e
e−i ~c (χb (r)+χa (r−b)) = e−i ~c (χa (r)+χb (r−a)) , (397)
69
which is independent on the position r. Our condition for the above phases can
therefore be written as:
e
B · (a × b) = 2πn, (401)
~c
where n is an integer.
The displacement vectors a and b are arbitrary. Thus, we can continuously
vary the vectors a and b on the left hand side. On the other hand, since n is an
integer, we cannot continuously vary the right hand side. The only acceptable
uniform field is therefore
B = 0. (402)
This is the Meissner effect of charged bosons with ODLRO. A system with
ODLRO cannot support a uniform magnetic field.
This derivation of the Meissner effects makes very evident the importance
of macroscopic condensation. Without condensation, we could still perform a
similar analysis for the density operator and obtain the condition
~c
2πn = χb (r) + χa (r − b) − χa (r) − χb (r − a)
e
− (χb (r0 ) + χa (r0 − b) − χa (r0 ) − χb (r0 − a)) . (403)
Inserting our above expression for the sum of the phases the right hand side
gives a zero, i.e. we merely obtain the condition n = 0, without restriction on
B. In other words, as long as the density matrix is determined by a sum over
many eigenstates, no Meissner effect occurs. Only the condensation in one state
and a density matrix
We consider the combined index (r1 α, r2 β) that describes the two-particle ma-
trix. Expanding ρ(2) with respect to its eigenfunctions
(2)
X
ραβα0 β 0 (r1 , r2 , r01 , r02 ) = np φ∗p (r1 α, r2 β) φp (r01 α0 , r02 β 0 ) , (405)
p
in the limit where |ri − r0i | → ∞ while |r1 − r2 | and |r01 − r02 | remain finite.
70
From the antisymmetry of the fermionic wave function follows
(2) (2)
ραβα0 β 0 (r1 , r2 , r01 , r02 ) = −ρβαα0 β 0 (r2 , r1 , r01 , r02 )
(2)
= −ραββ 0 α0 (r1 , r2 , r02 , r01 ) . (407)
This is the two particle generalization of our earlier result Eq.394 for bosons.
Meissner effect and flux quantization followed rather directly from this result.
The Meissner effect follows from two consecutive displacements in alternate
order:
e e
φ0 (r1 α, r2 β) = e−i ~c (χb (r1 )+χb (r2 )) e−i ~c (χa (r1 −b)+χa (r2 −b))
× fa fb φ0 (r1 − a − bα, r2 − a − bβ) (411)
and
e e
φ0 (r1 α, r2 β) = e−i ~c (χa (r1 )+χa (r2 )) e−i ~c (χb (r1 −a)+χb (r2 −a))
× fa fb φ0 (r1 − a − bα, r2 − a − bβ) , (412)
which requires that the two phase factors must be the same. We already found
that
χb (r) + χa (r − b) − χa (r) − χb (r − a) = B · (a × b) . (413)
The condition of identical phases then corresponds to
2e
B · (a × b) = 2πn. (414)
~c
71
The only difference to the case of single-particle ODLRO is the new factor 2 that
is a consequence of the two-particle ODLRO considered here. In case one were
le
to analyze ODLRO in ρ(l) one would have a coefficient ~c . The argumentation
which implied that a homogeneous magnetic field must vanish is now the same
as before: The left hand side of the above condition can be continuously varied
while the right hand side cannot and the only solution is:
B = 0. (415)
where we allowed for an explicit time dependence of the density matrix, that
exists in out-of-equilibrium situations. This suggest to introduce the quantity
p
Ψ (r, t) = n0 (t)φ0 (r, t) . (417)
which follows from the normalization to unity of the eigenfunction φ0 (r, t). The
behavior of the eigenfunction φ0 under gauge transformations, suggests that
the function Ψ (r, t) behaves in many ways like a condensate wave function.
Frequently, the order parameter of a Bose condensate is also defined via the
expectation value of the field operator
72
to the Hamiltonian and taking the limit η → 0 after the thermodynamic limit.
It turns out that hψ (r, t)i =
6 0 when the system establishes ODLRO. The density
matrix can be decomposed as
where the first term remains finite for large r − r0 , while the second one de-
cays. We will not demonstrate this here, but rather perform the corresponding
analysis when we discuss fermionic systems.
While the definition Ψ (r, t) in terms of the condensate eigenfunctions of the
density matrix is conceptually more satisfying, the usage of hψ (r, t)i is very
convenient in mean-field theories like the Bogoliubov theory of dilute or weakly
interacting condensed bosons.
In full analogy to the case of charged bosons, the natural choice of the order
parameter of a fermionic system with ODLRO is the condensate wave function
p
Ψ (R, r, α, β, t) = n0 (t)φ0 (r1 α, r2 β) , (422)
where we use instead of the individual particle coordinates r1 and r2 the relative
coordinate r = r1 − r2 and the center of gravity coordinate R = 21 (r1 + r2 ),
respectively. An alternative approach is motivated by the theory of magnetism.
Consider a magnet with global SU (2) spin-rotation invariance. Applying a
finite magnetic field B (r), the symmetry is spontaneously broken if the expec-
tation value
1 X
A physical realization of the source field ηαβ (r1 , r2 ) is the coupling to another
superconductor via a weak Josephson junction (see below). Just like in case
of a magnet, we perform the limit η → 0 after the thermodynamic limit. One
expects ODLRO to be identical to a finite expectation value
While a general proof for the equivalence between these two definitions does
not seem to exist, we will later show that they are identical within the BCS
73
theory. This formulation makes evident the statement that at a superconducting
transition the global U (1) symmetry
is spontaneously broken. Breaking the global U (1) symmetry implies that the
particle number conservation is spontaneously broken. While one frequently en-
counters the notion that at the superconducting transition the electromagnetic
gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken, it seems more adequate to simply
refer to a global U (1) symmetry as the same symmetry is also broken in neu-
tral fermionic superfluids. What is unique about charged superfluids is however
associated with the condensed matter realization of the Higgs mechanism in
superconductors that we will discuss later. For a lucid discussion of the issue of
gauge symmetry breaking at the superconducting transition, see Ref.[?].
The source field ηαβ (r1 , r2 ) has well defined behavior upon exchanging par-
ticles. Fermi statistics implies that
If we now relabel the indices r1 α ←→ r2 β the source field must compensate for
the minus sign to recover the original Hamiltonian, i.e.
The first term behaves like a singlet two particle wave function; it is antisym-
metric with respect to the spin indices, i.e. it must be symmetric with respect to
the spatial indices. The opposite is the case for the second term that describes
the triplet part of the source field.
The same is of course true for the order parameter itself, i.e. we expand
Consider now a three dimensional system with inversion symmetry. Then each
operator should either be even or odd under r → −r. The spin is a pseudo-
vector, i.e. it does not change under parity. Thus, it must hold that
74
It follows that a superconducting state with inversion symmetry must either
form ODLRO of triplets or of singlets. For a combination of the singlet and
triplet pairing, the total wave function would have no well defined parity eigen-
value. It is interesting that our proof is valid even if one includes spin orbit
interaction. In crystals without inversion symmetry or on the surface of a three
dimensional crystal, both pairing states can of course exist simultaneously.
The two-particle density matrix ρ(2) is an equal-time correlation function.
Using the fluctuation-dissipation theorem we can therefore relate it to a retarded
Green’s function (we use the abbreviation {ri } = (r1 , r2 , r01 , r02 )
D E
(2)
ραβα0 β 0 ({ri }) = ψα† (r1 ) ψβ† (r2 ) ψβ 0 (r02 ) ψα0 (r01 )
ˆ ∞
dω Imχαβα0 β 0 ({ri } , ω + i0+ )
= − ,
−∞ π eβω − 1
´∞
where χ us the Fourier transform (χ (ω) = −∞ dtχ (t) eiωt ) of the retarded
function
h i
χαβα0 β 0 ({ri } , t) = −iθ (t) ψα† (r1 , t) ψβ† (r2 , t) , ψβ 0 (r02 , 0) ψα0 (r01 , 0) ,
−
where the operators are now in the Heisenberg picture.Dχ is the pair-susceptibility
E
of the system, i.e. the change of the expectation value ψβ† (r2 , t) ψα† (r1 , t) with
respect to a rime dependent source field ηα0 β 0 (r01 , r02 , t0 ):
D E
δ ψβ† (r2 , t) ψα† (r1 , t)
χαβα0 β 0 ({ri } , t − t0 ) = . (433)
δηα∗ 0 β 0 (r01 , r02 , t0 )
η,η ∗ →0
As before, the limit of vanishing source fields must be taken after the thermo-
dynamic limit.
We will see that the analysis of this continuum’s model is ill defined without
proper regularization. Therefore we consider a model where we restricts our-
selves to an effective low energy theory, i.e. we consider a system where the
75
fermionic excitations are confined to an energy scale ±Λ around the Fermi en-
ergy. We explore the behavior of this toy model.
In our Hamiltonian it suffices to consider a singlet wave function and to focus
on r1 = r2 and r01 = r02 , i.e. we analyze the pairing susceptibility.
h i
χ (r, r0 , t) = −iθ (t) ψ↑† (r, t) ψ↓† (r, t) , ψ↓ (r0 , 0) ψ↑ (r0 , 0) . (435)
−
Fourier transformation and Wick rotation to the imaginary time axis yields
D E
χ (r, r0 , τ ) = − Tτ ψ↑† (r, τ ) ψ↓† (r, τ ) ψ↓ (r0 , 0) ψ↑ (r0 , 0) . (436)
This expression makes evident that some appropriate cut off procedure is re-
quired to analyze the pairing susceptibility. While the above integral is well
defined for any lattice model of a solid, where the density of states of individual
bands has some upper and lower cut off, the continuum’s theory diverges at the
76
upper cut off. As mentioned above, an appropriate approach is to define the
theory in an energy window [µ − Λ, µ + Λ] around the Fermi energy and assume
that the density of states is constant in this window. Then we have to evaluate:
ˆ Λ
1
χ0 (T ) = ρF d tanh . (442)
−Λ 2 2T
We perform the integration to leading logarithmic accuracy:
ˆ Λ ε
ˆ βΛ/2
tanh 2T tanh (x)
dε = dx
−Λ 2ε 0 x
ˆ βΛ/2
log (x) βΛ/2
= − 2 dx + tanh (x) log x|0
0 cosh (x)
π Λ T
= γE − log + log +O
4 2T Λ
γE
2Λe T
= log +O . (443)
πT Λ
We obtain for the pairing susceptibility of a free electron gas
2ΛeγE
χ0 (T ) = ρF log .
πT
For any finite temperature the free electron pairing-susceptibility is finite. How-
ever the logarithmic increase of χ0 (T ) for T → 0 already indicates that a
Fermi gas becomes increasingly susceptible if one adds an external pairing source
y
ηαβ = ηs iσαβ .
Next we include electron-electron interactions. To this extend we sum ladder
diagrams for the pairing susceptibility. We obtain:
2 2
χ0 (q, iνm ) = χ0 (q, iνm ) − V χ0 (q, iνm ) + V 2 χ0 (q, iνm ) · · ·
χ0 (q, iνm )
= . (444)
1 + V χ0 (q, iνm )
In case of a negative (attractive) interaction V < 0, follows that the q = 0 and
νm = 0 susceptibility diverges at the transition temperature when
|V | χ0 (Tc ) = 1. (445)
77
attractively interacting electrons? Based on the insight that the leading instabil-
ity occurs at zero center-of-mass momentum we model the attractive interaction
between electrons, mediated by phonons via he BCS or pairing Hamiltonian:
V0 X
εk c†kσ ckσ − γk,k0 c†k0 ,↑ c†−k0 ,↓ c−k,↓ ck,↑
X
H= (447)
N 0
k,σ k,k
with
A = c†k0 ↑ c†−k0 ↓
B = c−k↓ ck↑ . (450)
This choice for A and B is motivated by the expectation, that hAi = 6 0 and
hBi =
6 0 amount to pairing of electrons, as discussed earlier. Performing the
mean field decoupling yields:
2
X |∆|
εk c†kσ ckσ + ∆∗k c−k↓ ck↑ + ∆k c†k↑ c†−k↓ + N
X
MF
HBCS = , (451)
V0
k,σ k
∆ is the value of ∆k for momenta with |εk | < ωD . The last term is a consequence
of the hAi hBi expectation value, where we used
V02 X
∆2 = γk,k0 hc−k,↓ ck,↑ ihc†k0 ,↑ c†−k0 ,↓ i (453)
N 0
k,k
78
2
since γk,k0 = γk,k 0.
MF
which allows us to express HBCS in a form that resembles more the usual free
fermion problem:
∆2 X
c†k hk ck + N
X
MF
HBCS = + εk , (455)
V0
k k
with 2 × 2-matrix
εk ∆k
hk = . (456)
∆∗k −εk
2
The eigenvalues of hk are determined by (E − εk ) (E + εk ) − |∆k | = 0, which
yields
Ek± = ±Ek (457)
with q
2
Ek = ε2k + |∆k | > 0. (458)
hk is diagonalized by a unitary transformation Uk . The columns of Uk are the
(i)
eigenvectors uk of hk . Interestingly there is some nontrivial structure in the
matrix hk that is worth exploring as it can be very helpful for more complex
systems such as multi-band superconductors or inhomogeneous systems. It holds
with γ = iσ y (note γ 2 = −1) that
79
which obeys
(2)∗ (1) (1)
γuk = −γ 2 uk = uk (461)
(2)
uk is also an eigenvector but with eigenvalue −Ek . To show that this is
the case, we take the complex conjugate of the second eigenvalue equation
(2)∗ (2)∗ (2)∗ (2)∗
h∗k uk = −Ek uk and write it as γh∗k γ −1 γuk = −γEk uk which yields
(2)∗ (2)∗ (1)
−hk γuk = −γEk uk amd leads to the first eigenvalue equation hk uk =
(1)
Ek uk , proving our assertion. Thus, the eigenvalues of the mean field Hamil-
tonian occur in a pair of opposite sign and with eigenvalues related by the
unimodular transformation γ. The unitary transformation that diagonalizes
the above 2 × 2 matrix is
uk −vk∗
Uk = (462)
vk u∗k
∆k
uk = vk . (463)
Ek − εk
Ek a†kσ akσ −
X X
= Ek (465)
k,σ k
80
The mean field Hamiltonian is then given as:
∆2 X
q
Ek a†kσ akσ + N
X 2
MF
HBCS = + εk − ε2k + |∆k | . (466)
V0
k,σ k
∆2 X
q
2 2
E0 = N + εk − εk + |∆k | . (467)
V0
k
The fermionic excitations only describe excitations above the ground state.
In order to determine ∆ at T = 0 , we minimize E0 with respect to ∆. We
perform the momentum integration via an integration over energy and subtract
the value of the energy for ∆ = 0, i.e. δE0 (∆) = E0 (∆)−E0 (∆ = 0). It follows
ˆ ∞ ˆ ∞
∆2 p
δE0 /N = + ρ () dε ε − ε2 + ∆2 − 2 ρ () dεθ (−ε) ε
V0 −∞ −∞
ˆ ωD
∆2 p
= + 2ρ dε ε − ε2 + ∆2
V0 0
∆2
2 ∆ ρ
= + ρ∆ log − ∆2 (468)
V0 2ωD 2
81
which yields
c−k↓ = −vk∗ a†k↑ + u∗k a−k↓
This can be used to express the operator product ck↑ c−k↓ that is needed to
determine ∆k . It holds:
ck↑ c−k↓ = u∗k ak↑ + vk a†−k↓ u∗k a−k↓ − vk∗ a†k↑
which yields D E
hc−k,↓ ck,↑ i = vk uk 2 a†−k↓ a−k↓ − 1
and we obtain fo the gap equation:
V0 X ∆
∆=− (2f (Ek ) − 1) . (470)
N 2Ek
k
We first analyze the gap quation at T = 0. Since Ek > 0 follows that f (Ek ) = 0
in the limit of T = 0 and the gap equation simplifies to
ˆ ωD
∆
∆ = V0 ρ dε √
−ωD 2 ε + ∆2
2
r !
ωD ω 2
D
= λ∆ log + 1+
∆ ∆
2ωD
' λ∆ log . (471)
∆
This yields the result:∆ (T = 0) = 2ωD exp (−1/λ) in full agreement with the
one we obtained from the minimization of the ground state energy.
In the vicinity of the transition temperature the gap ∆ is small and we can
linearize the gap-equation. The linearized gap equation is
X ∆
βξk
∆=V tanh (472)
2ξk 2
k
82
and obtain
2ωD eγE
∆ = V ρ∆ log . (475)
πTc
which yields for the transition temperature:
2ωD eγE
1 1
Tc = exp − ' 1.134ωD exp − (476)
π λ λ
4ωD exp − λ1
2∆ (T = 0)
= 2eγE 1
kB Tc π ωD exp − λ
= 2πe−γE ' 3.527 3 (477)
To proceed, we assume
φk c†−k↑ c†k↓ † †
P Y
|ΦBCS i = Ce k |0i = C eφk ck↑ c−k↓ |0i , (479)
k
Here |0i is the vacuum state of the original operators, i.e. ciσ |0i = 0. We next
determine φk from the condition Eq.478. We write explicitly:
Eq.478 is equivalent to
φk c†k↑ c†−k↓
X
θ= (482)
k
83
It is easy to show that [ck↑ , θ] = b†−k↓ with operator b†−k↓ = φk c†−k↓ . Further-
h i
more, it follows that b†−k↓ , θ = 0. It is now easy to apply ck↑ to each term in
the sum of Eq.483 separately. It holds:
The condition akσ |ΦBCS i = 0 expressed in form of Eq.481 can now be expressed
as
n
The last step is a consequence of the fact that due to Pauli Principle c†k↑ c†k↓ =
0 if n > 1. This approach allows to project the BCS-wave function into the space
of fixed number of electrons N .
!2N
φk c†k↑ c†k↓
X
|ΨBCS , N i = C |0i . (487)
k
This projection can alternatively be realized if one starts from the BCS ground
state and adds a global phase ϕ of the function φk :
ˆ 2π
dϕ −iN ϕ/2 Y
|ΨBCS , N i = e uk + vk eiϕ c†k↑ c†k↓ |0i . (488)
0 2π
k
84
There exists an interesting relation between the phase ϕ and the pair number
operator N̂p which should give 2N in case of |ΨBCS , N i. With phase ϕ of φk
we have:
!Np
† †
X
iϕ
|ΨBCS , N i = C e φk ck↑ ck↓ |0i
k
!Np
φk c†k↑ c†k↓
X
iϕNp
= e C |0i . (489)
k
85