Correlations in the Low-Density Fermi Gas: Fermi-Liquid ...bqmc.upc.edu/pdfs/doc898.pdfCorrelations...

Correlations in the Low-Density Fermi Gas:Fermi-Liquid state, BCS Pairing, and Dimerization

With Hsuan-Hao FanDepartment of Physics, University at Buffalo SUNY

and Robert ZillichInstitute for Theoretical Physics, JKU Linz, Austria.

Barcelona, June 7, 2017

Outline

1 GenericaThe equation of state

2 MethodsVariational wave functions and optimizationVerification: Bulk quantum fluids

3 Structure CalculationsWhat we expect and what we getThe normal Fermi Liquid

4 Pairing with strong correlationsPairing interactionMany-Body effectsResultsQuo vadis ?

5 A visitor6 Summary7 Acknowledgements

The equation of stateEasy questions, hard (?) answers...

A truly microscopic many-bodytheory should:

Be robust against the choice ofinteractions;

r (some units)

Molecules/AtomsHard spheresCoulomb

Generica The equation of state

Be able to deal with self-boundsystems;

r (some units)

ρ (some units)

bosons

fermions

Have no answers if “mothernature” does not have them;

r (some units)

ρ (some units)

bosons

fermions

Have no answers if “mothernature” does not have them;

Technically: Sum at least the“parquet” diagrams.

r (some units)

ρ (some units)

bosons

fermions

What physics tells us:

Binding and saturation =⇒ short-ranged structure:“bending” of the wave function at small interparticle distances;“local screening” or “local field corrections” in electron systems.

“No answers when mother nature does not have them”:Show correct instabilities;Deal properly with long-ranged correlations;

Translate this into the language of perturbation theory:

Short-ranged structure ⇒ Ladder diagramsLong-ranged structure ⇒ Ring diagramsConsistency ⇒ parquet diagrams

Correlated wave functions: Putting things together

What looked like a “simple quick and dirty” method:

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

Φ0(1, . . . ,N) “Model wave function” (Slater determinant)

An intuitive way to include

Methods Variational wave functions and optimization

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

Density profiles of 4Hefilms

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.068 Å-2

0.137 Å-2

z (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

Correlation- anddistribution functions

0 2 4 6 8 10

exp(u2(r))

r (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,core exclusion

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

0 2 4 6 8 10

exp(u2(r))

r (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,core exclusion and statistics;

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

0 2 4 6 8 10

] g(r)

r (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,core exclusion and statistics;Diagram summation methods fromclassical statistics (HNC);

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

0 2 4 6 8 10

exp(u2(r))

r (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,core exclusion and statistics;Diagram summation methods fromclassical statistics (HNC);Optimization δE/δun = 0 makescorrelations unique;

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

0 2 4 6 8 10

] g(r)

r (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,core exclusion and statistics;Diagram summation methods fromclassical statistics (HNC);Optimization δE/δun = 0 makescorrelations unique;Express everything in terms of physicalobservables;

Ψ0(1, . . . ,N) = exp12

u1(ri) +∑

u2(ri , rj) + . . .

Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

≡ F (1, . . . ,N)Φ0(1, . . . ,N)

0 2 4 6 8 10

] g(r)

r (Å)

An intuitive way to include inhomogeneity,core exclusion and statistics;Diagram summation methods fromclassical statistics (HNC);Optimization δE/δun = 0 makescorrelations unique;Express everything in terms of physicalobservables;

Same as summing localized parquetdiagrams.

Microscopic ground state calculationsAn overkill at low densities ?

Assume an attractive square-well potential

Vsc(r) = ǫθ(σ − r)

or a Lennard-Jones potential

VJL(r) = 4ǫ[(σ

)12−

)6] −4

0 5 10 15 20

Methods Verification: Bulk quantum fluids

VJL(r) = 4ǫ[(σ

)12−

Adjust potential depth ǫ to produce thedesired scattering length,

0 5 10 15 20

VJL(r) = 4ǫ[(σ

)12−

Microscopic many-body calculationsprovide energetics, structure, and stability.

0 5 10 15 20

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

kF (arbitrary units)

Schematic equation of stateof a self−bound Fermi Fluid

spinodal points

VJL(r) = 4ǫ[(σ

)12−

Microscopic many-body calculationsprovide energetics, structure, and stability.

Interested in “low-density regime” asfunction of the scattering length a.

0 5 10 15 20

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

Verification I: The Lennard-Jones liquidHow well it works (Bragbook)

Equation of state for Bosons

−6.0

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

ρ (σ−3)

e =10e = 7e = 6e = 5e = 2e = 1

PIGS−MCHNC−EL/0HNC−EL/5+T

Equation of state for Fermions

−6.0

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

ρ (σ−3)

e =10e = 7e = 6e = 5e = 2e = 1

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

3Henuclear matter

FHNC−EL//0FHNC−EL/5+T

ρ (σ−3)

“Quick and dirty” version haspercent accuracy below0.25*(saturation density). Nonew physics is learned fromdoing a better calculation.

−6.0

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

ρ (σ−3)

e =10e = 7e = 6e = 5e = 2e = 1

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

3Henuclear matter

ρ (σ−3)

Works the same in 2D

−6.0

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

ρ (σ−3)

e =10e = 7e = 6e = 5e = 2e = 1

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

3Henuclear matter

ρ (σ−3)

Works the same in 2D

FHNC-EL (or parquet) has nosolutions if “mother nature”cannot make the system: Theequation of state ends at thespinodal points.

−6.0

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

ρ (σ−3)

e =10e = 7e = 6e = 5e = 2e = 1

−4.0

−2.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

3Henuclear matter

ρ (σ−3)

Low-density limitsSince everybody talks about cold gases....

Equation of state for Bosons (Lee-Yang)

ELY = 4π~

2ρa2m

1 +128

15π1/2

ρa3)1/2

+ . . .

. . . if the system exists !

ELY = 4π~

2ρa2m

1 +128

15π1/2

ρa3)1/2

+ . . .

Equation of state for Fermions (Huang-Yang)

4(11 − 2 ln 2)35

︸︷︷︸

=1.098

+ . . .

ELY = 4π~

2ρa2m

1 +128

15π1/2

ρa3)1/2

+ . . .

4(11 − 2 ln 2)35

︸︷︷︸

=1.098

+ . . .

Local correlation operator (“fixed node”) gives 1.53517

ELY = 4π~

2ρa2m

1 +128

15π1/2

ρa3)1/2

+ . . .

4(11 − 2 ln 2)35

︸︷︷︸

=1.098

+ . . .

2nd order correlated basis functions perturbation theory repairs

ELY = 4π~

2ρa2m

1 +128

15π1/2

ρa3)1/2

+ . . .

4(11 − 2 ln 2)35

︸︷︷︸

=1.098

+ . . .

2nd order correlated basis functions perturbation theory repairs

The same problem, same solution with electrons:(0.05690 ln rs instead of the exact value 0.06218 ln rs).

Low-density limitThe moment of truth....

4(11 − 2 ln 2)35

︸︷︷︸

=1.098

+ . . .

+ BCS corrections for a < 0.

0.010 0.100

square−well

a = −1a = −2a = −3a = −4

0.010 0.100

Lennard−Jones

a = −1a = −2a = −3a = −4

Microscopic ground state calculations– the many-body effects

Three (not two) range regimes

Short-ranged correlations0 ≤ r ≤ λσ determined byinteraction(λσ a typical interaction range)

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Lennard−Jones

Γ dd(

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Square−well

Γ dd(

r)r/σ

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

Medium-ranged correlationsλσ ≤ r ≤ 1/kF determined byvaccum properties, ψ(r) ∝ a0/r

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Lennard−Jones

Γ dd(

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Square−well

Γ dd(

r)r/σ

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

Medium-ranged correlationsλσ ≤ r ≤ 1/kF determined byvaccum properties, ψ(r) ∝ a0/r

Long-ranged correlations1/kF ≤ r ≤ ∞ determined bymany-body properties:ψ(r) ∝ F s

0 /(r2k2

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Lennard−Jones

Γ dd(

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Square−well

Γ dd(

r)r/σ

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

Microscopic ground state calculationsWhat we expect –

For a0 > 0, no bound state→ repulsive Fermi gas;

0 5 10 15 20

Structure Calculations The normal Fermi Liquid

For a0 < 0 (“BCS” regime):BCS pairing;

0 5 10 15 20

For a0 > 0 (“BEC” regime):No homogeneous solution ?dimerization ?

0 5 10 15 20

For a0 < 0 (“BCS” regime):spinodal instabilites.

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

What one might expect

(ρ)/m

Microscopic ground state calculationsWhat we expect – what we get

For a0 > 0, no bound state→ repulsive Fermi gas; X

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

(ρ)/m

For a0 < 0 (“BCS” regime):BCS pairing; X

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

(ρ)/m

For a0 > 0 (“BEC” regime):No homogeneous solution ?dimerization ? X

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

(ρ)/m

For a0 > 0 (“BEC” regime):No homogeneous solution ?dimerization ? X

For a0 < 0 (“BCS” regime):spinodal instabilites. ✗

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

(ρ)/m

Microscopic ground state calculationsWhat we got – and what it means

For SC potentials, there is nohigh-density homogeneousphase and no upper spinodalpoint

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal point

It is impossible to get close tothe lower instability;

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal point

1e−08 1e−07 1e−06 1e−05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

(ρ)/m

ρ (σ−3)

strong − weak

square−well potential

For LJ potentials, we have arepulsive high-density regimeand an upper spinodal point;

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

It is easy to get close to theupper instability,

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

1e−08 1e−07 1e−06 1e−05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

(ρ)/m

ρ (σ−3)

strong − weak

Lennard−Jones potential

It is easy to get close to theupper instability,

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

spinodal points

1e−08 1e−07 1e−06 1e−05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

(ρ)/m

ρ (σ−3)

strong − weak

Lennard−Jones potential

Microscopic ground state calculationsWhat it means

The pair distribution functiong↑↓(r) develops a huge peakat the origin:

0 1 2 3 4 5

g ↑↓

SWLJkF = 0.01/σ

a0 = −3.5a0 = −3.0a0 = −2.5a0 = −2.0a0 = −1.5a0 = −1.0a0 = −0.5

Hard to see for hard-coreinteractions;

0 1 2 3 4 5

g ↑↓

SWLJkF = 0.01/σ

a0 = −3.5a0 = −3.0a0 = −2.5a0 = −2.0a0 = −1.5a0 = −1.0a0 = −0.5

Seen in the divergence of thein-medium scattering length⇒Formation of dimers ?

0 1 2 3 4 5

g ↑↓

SWLJkF = 0.01/σ

a0 = −3.5a0 = −3.0a0 = −2.5a0 = −2.0a0 = −1.5a0 = −1.0a0 = −0.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

−kF a0

This is a many-body effect(“phonon-exchange drivendimerization”) !

0 1 2 3 4 5

g ↑↓

SWLJkF = 0.01/σ

a0 = −3.5a0 = −3.0a0 = −2.5a0 = −2.0a0 = −1.5a0 = −1.0a0 = −0.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

−kF a0

This is a many-body effect(“phonon-exchange drivendimerization”) !

A similar effect seen in 2D3He-4He mixtures

0 1 2 3 4 5

g ↑↓

SWLJkF = 0.01/σ

a0 = −3.5a0 = −3.0a0 = −2.5a0 = −2.0a0 = −1.5a0 = −1.0a0 = −0.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

−kF a0

On the BCS side: Theory with strong correlationsHow (not to) derive a BCS wave function with correlations

Early attempt:∣∣BCS

uk + vka†k↑a

†−k↓

] ∣∣0⟩,

∣∣CBCS

∣∣∣m(N)

⟩⟨

m(N)∣∣∣BCS

EK and J. W. Clark, Nucl. Phys. A333, 77 (1980):Expand in the deviation of the Bogoljubov amplitudes uk, vk fromtheir normal state values;

Pairing with strong correlations

uk + vka†k↑a

†−k↓

] ∣∣0⟩,

∣∣CBCS

∣∣∣m(N)

⟩⟨

m(N)∣∣∣BCS

EK and J. W. Clark, Nucl. Phys. A333, 77 (1980):Expand in the deviation of the Bogoljubov amplitudes uk, vk fromtheir normal state values;S. Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. A363, 381 (1981):Attempt full FHNC summation.

uk + vka†k↑a

†−k↓

] ∣∣0⟩,

∣∣CBCS

∣∣∣m(N)

⟩⟨

m(N)∣∣∣BCS

EK and J. W. Clark, Nucl. Phys. A333, 77 (1980):Expand in the deviation of the Bogoljubov amplitudes uk, vk fromtheir normal state values;S. Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. A363, 381 (1981):Attempt full FHNC summation.

The problem:

∆k = −12

Pkk′

∆k′

(ek′ − µ)2 +∆2k′/z2(k′)

where z(k) → ∞ for long ranged correlations.Pairing with strong correlations

On the BCS side: Theory with strong correlationsHow to derive a BCS wave function with correlations

Getting it right:

∣∣CBCS

∣∣∣m(N)

m(N)∣∣∣F 2

∣∣∣m(N)

⟩1/2

m(N)∣∣∣BCS

EK, R. A. Smith and A. D. Jackson: Phys Rev. B24, 6404 (1981):Correlated Basis Functions corrections

Getting it right:

∣∣CBCS

∣∣∣m(N)

m(N)∣∣∣F 2

∣∣∣m(N)

⟩1/2

m(N)∣∣∣BCS

H.-H. Fan. Ph. D. Thesis: Carry out full FHNC summation andoptimization.

Getting it right:

∣∣CBCS

∣∣∣m(N)

m(N)∣∣∣F 2

∣∣∣m(N)

⟩1/2

m(N)∣∣∣BCS

H.-H. Fan. Ph. D. Thesis: Carry out full FHNC summation andoptimization.

The problem solved:

∆k = −12

Pkk′

∆k′

(ek′ − µ)2 +∆2k′

On the BCS side: Theory with strong correlationsHow about a fixed particle number state ?

Just look at an uncorrelated system, let uk = cos ηk, vk = sin ηk,

δηkδηk′

BCS∣∣∣H − µN

∣∣∣BCS

⟩∣∣∣∣0

= (1 − 2n0(k))(1 − 2n0(k′))

[2 |ek − µ| δkk′ +

⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣V

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

where n0(k) = θ(kF − k) is the normal Fermi distribution.

On the BCS side: Theory with strong correlationsHow about a fixed particle number state ?

Just look at an uncorrelated system, let uk = cos ηk, vk = sin ηk,

δηkδηk′

BCS∣∣∣H − µN

∣∣∣BCS

⟩∣∣∣∣0

= (1 − 2n0(k))(1 − 2n0(k′))

[2 |ek − µ| δkk′ +

⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣V

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

where n0(k) = θ(kF − k) is the normal Fermi distribution.

Same for number-projected state:∣∣∣BCS(N)

we get

δηkδηk′

BCS(N)∣∣∣H − µN

∣∣∣BCS(N)

BCS(N) | BCS(N)⟩

∣∣∣∣∣∣0

= −⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣V

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

for k > kF and k ′ < kF or vice versa, zero otherwise.

BCS Theory with strong correlationsAnalysis of the pairing interaction:

At low density we can ignore non-localities:

Pkk′ =⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣W(1, 2)

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

+(|ek − µ|+ |ek ′ − µ|)⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣N (1, 2)

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

[W(k − k′) + (|ek − µ|+ |ek ′ − µ|)N (k − k′)

The gap is (mostly) determined by the matrix element⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣W(1, 2)

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

Pairing with strong correlations Pairing interaction

BCS Theory with strong correlationsAnalysis of the pairing interaction:

At low density we can ignore non-localities:

Pkk′ =⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣W(1, 2)

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

+(|ek − µ|+ |ek ′ − µ|)⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣N (1, 2)

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

[W(k − k′) + (|ek − µ|+ |ek ′ − µ|)N (k − k′)

The gap is (mostly) determined by the matrix element⟨k ↑,−k ↓

∣∣W(1, 2)

∣∣k′ ↑,−k′ ↓

The “energy numerator” term regularizes the integral forzero-range interactions.

BCS Theory with strong correlationsCompare with what is known:

cf. Pethick and Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases,Cambridge University Press 2008

Zero temperature gap equation:

∆k =1

U(k, k′)∆k′

ǫk′

ǫ2k = ∆2k + (ǫ0k − µ)2

∆k =1

U(k, k′)∆k′

ǫk′

ǫ2k = ∆2k + (ǫ0k − µ)2

Eliminate bare interaction by sero-energy T -matrix:

T0(k, k′, 0) = U(k, k′)−1

k′′

U(k, k′′)1

2ǫ0k′′ − iδT0(k′′, k, 0)

∆k =1

U(k, k′)∆k′

ǫk′

ǫ2k = ∆2k + (ǫ0k − µ)2

T0(k, k′, 0) = U(k, k′)−1

k′′

U(k, k′′)1

2ǫ0k′′ − iδT0(k′′, k, 0)

Take zero-range limit

∆k =U0

1ǫk′

ǫ0k − µ

∆k =1

U(k, k′)∆k′

ǫk′

ǫ2k = ∆2k + (ǫ0k − µ)2

T0(k, k′, 0) = U(k, k′)−1

k′′

U(k, k′′)1

2ǫ0k′′ − iδT0(k′′, k, 0)

Take zero-range limit

∆k =U0

1ǫk′

ǫ0k − µ

Second term regularizes k → ∞ limit.Pairing with strong correlations Pairing interaction

BCS Theory with strong correlationsAnalysis of the gap equation:

Recall

Pkk′ =1N

[W(k − k′) + (|ek − µ|+ |ek ′ − µ|)N (k − k′)

If the gap is small, let

WF ≡1

∫ 2kF

0dkkW(k) = NWkF,kF .

1 = −WF

∫d3k ′

(2π)3ρ

(ek ′ − µ)2 +∆2kF

−|ek ′ − µ|

(ek ′ − µ)2 +∆2kF

SF(k ′)

t(k ′)

→ −WF

∫d3k ′

(2π)3ρ

t2(k ′)

BCS Theory with strong correlationsApproximate solution of the gap equation

At low density, let

4πρ~2WF

∆F ≈8e2 eF exp

2aF kF

Corrections: aF → a0 for ρ→ 0+If aF = a0

1 + αa0kFπ

∆F ≈8e2 eF exp

Questions:

What influences the pre-factor (Gorkov-corrrections etc..):

At low density, let

4πρ~2WF

∆F ≈8e2 eF exp

2aF kF

1 + αa0kFπ

∆F ≈8e2 eF exp

Questions:

How accurate is the solution ?

At low density, let

4πρ~2WF

∆F ≈8e2 eF exp

2aF kF

1 + αa0kFπ

∆F ≈8e2 eF exp

Questions:

How accurate is the solution ?

Are there non-universal effects ?Pairing with strong correlations Pairing interaction

BCS Theory with strong correlationsWhat’s new ?

The gap is determined by aF

Corrections:

Interaction corrections (“phonon exchange”)

W(0+) =4πρ~2

4πρ~2

1 + α′a0kF

Pairing with strong correlations Many-Body effects

Corrections:

W(0+) =4πρ~2

4πρ~2

1 + α′a0kF

Finite-range corrections: Note that

WF ≡1

∫ 2kF

0dkkW(k) 6= W(0+)

Corrections:

W(0+) =4πρ~2

4πρ~2

1 + α′a0kF

WF ≡1

∫ 2kF

0dkkW(k) 6= W(0+)

The value of WF is influenced by the regime 0 ≤ k ≤ 2kF

Corrections:

W(0+) =4πρ~2

4πρ~2

1 + α′a0kF

WF ≡1

∫ 2kF

0dkkW(k) 6= W(0+)

The value of WF is influenced by the regime 0 ≤ k ≤ 2kF

The value of WF is influenced real space correlations in theinteraction regime r > 1/kF !

BCS Theory with strong correlationsFinite-range effects

Pair correlations

0.0001

1 10 100 1000 10000

Γ dd(

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

0.0001

Γ dd(

kF=0.001kF=0.010kF=0.040

Pairing interaction

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

LJ SWkFσ = 0.04

LJ SWkFσ = 0.01

Interaction dominated regime

Solution of the gap equation... and what approximations do

∆F =8e2 eF exp

10−12

10−10

10−8

10−6

10−4

10−2

0.01 0.1 1

∆ F/E

SW Potential

full solutionaFa0

Pairing with strong correlations Results

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Can be far off

∆F =8e2 eF exp

10−12

10−10

10−8

10−6

10−4

10−2

0.01 0.1 1

∆ F/E

SW Potential

full solutionaFa0

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Can be far off

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Not too bad

Full solution 10−12

10−10

10−8

10−6

10−4

10−2

0.01 0.1 1

∆ F/E

SW Potential

full solutionaFa0

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Can be far off

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Not too bad

10−10

10−8

10−6

10−4

10−2

0.01 0.1 1

∆ F/E

SW Potential

full solutionaFa0

Exponential behavior becomes universal, prefactor not.

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Can be far off

∆F =8e2 eF exp

Not too bad

10−10

10−8

10−6

10−4

10−2

0.01 0.1 1

∆ F/E

SW Potential

full solutionaFa0

Exponential behavior becomes universal, prefactor not.

Low density expansion valid only for physically uninterestingcases.

What’s next ?Strong coupling ?

Go back to∣∣CBCS

⟨m(N)

∣∣F 2

∣∣m(N)

⟩−1/2FN∣∣m(N)

⟩⟨m(N)

∣∣BCS

Pairing with strong correlations Quo vadis ?

⟨m(N)

∣∣F 2

∣∣m(N)

⟩−1/2FN∣∣m(N)

⟩⟨m(N)

∣∣BCS

Develop diagrammatic expansions at the “parquet” level1

2+ − − − − +

− +1

2+ + + −

+ + − −2

2− − +2 +

− +2 −2 +4 + −2 + −2 +

−2 −

⟨m(N)

∣∣F 2

∣∣m(N)

⟩−1/2FN∣∣m(N)

⟩⟨m(N)

∣∣BCS

Develop diagrammatic expansions at the “parquet” level1

2+ − − − − +

− +1

2+ + + −

+ + − −2

2− − +2 +

− +2 −2 +4 + −2 + −2 +

−2 −

Solve simultaneously Euler and BCS equation

A visitor... to my office on a cold spring afternoon

A visitor

A visitor... came back and brought something

A visitor

Summary... is good many body theory an overkill ?

There are non-universal corrections to the low-densityHuang-Yang equation of state

Long–ranged properties are determined by many-body effects,not by vacuum

FHNC-EL diverges for phase transitions:in the particle-hole channel for spinodal decomposition,in the particle-particle channel for BCS pairing

Many-Body effects for long-ranged correlations r > 1/kF implyMany-Body effects for long wavelengths k < kF

Non-universal behavior of the pairing matrix element.

Summary

Thanks to collaborators in this project

Hsuan Hao Fan University at BuffaloRobert Zillich JKU Linz

Thanks for your attentionand thanks to our funding agency:

Acknowledgements

Correlations in the Low-Density Fermi Gas: Fermi-Liquid ...bqmc.upc.edu/pdfs/doc898.pdfCorrelations...

Documents

Transcript of Correlations in the Low-Density Fermi Gas: Fermi-Liquid ...bqmc.upc.edu/pdfs/doc898.pdfCorrelations...

ECE3080-L-4-Density of states fermi energialan.ece.gatech.edu/ECE3080/Lectures/ECE3080-L-4-Density of states...Volume of a “fermi-sphere”: 3 4 V 3 ... Quantum Mechanics tells us

Splitting in the Fermi surface of ZrTe3: A surface charge density wave system · 2017-01-17 · Splitting in the Fermi surface of ZrTe 3: A surface charge density wave system Moritz

ECE3080-L-4-Density of states fermi energi...Georgia Tech ECE 3080 - Dr. Alan Doolittle Lecture 4 Density of States and Fermi Energy Concepts Reading: (Cont’d) Notes and Anderson2

Revisiting the Fermi Surface in Density Functional Theory · Revisiting the Fermi Surface in Density Functional Theory Mukunda P Das1 and Frederick Green2 1 Department of Theoretical

Energy bands, carrier density and Fermi energy in Bi in a

Last Time Free electron model Density of states in 3D Fermi Surface Fermi-Dirac Distribution Function Debye Approximation.

The metallic states of the cuprates - Harvard Universityqpt.physics.harvard.edu/talks/natal15a.pdf · mentum space. • Area enclosed by Fermi surface = total density of electrons

II. My first density functional: Thomas-Fermi Theory · theory, where many electrons are present at high densities. We describe in the rest of this chapter the Thomas Fermi theory,

Thomas–Fermi Approximation and Basics of the Density Functional ...

The Fermi function and the Fermi level The occupancy of semiconductor energy levels Effective density of states Conduction and valence band density of.

Rational approximation to the Fermi-Dirac function with applications in Density ...saad/PDF/umsi-2008-279.pdf · 2009-02-10 · Rational approximation to the Fermi-Dirac function

Density of states fermi energi.pdf

II. My first density functional: Thomas-Fermi Theoryvintage.fh.huji.ac.il/~roib/LectureNotes/DFT/dft02.pdf · 2014. 7. 5. · II. My first density functional: Thomas-Fermi Theory

Electron density functional theory - huji.ac.il · 1.5. The electron density 23 1.6. Electron pair density 28 1.7. The density matrix 29 Chapter 2. My ﬁrst density functional: Thomas-Fermi

E ective free dynamics of a tracer-particle coupled to a Fermi gas … · 2016. 1. 27. · E ective free dynamics of a tracer-particle coupled to a Fermi gas in the high-density limit

Density functional theory for atomic Fermi gases · Density functional theory for atomic Fermi gases Ping Nang Ma1, Sebastiano Pilati1,2, Matthias Troyer1*and Xi Dai3 The interplay

Lecture 23. Degenerate Fermi Gas & Bose-Einstein condensation (Ch. 7) Today’s plan: high density limit n ~ n Q 1.Fermion: Degenerate Fermi Gas (7.3) 2.Boson:

Density of States - Arun Kumar Darunkumard.yolasite.com/resources/LP3-Density of states.pdf · 2016-02-25 · Fig. 1.11. A Plot Between Number of States and Energy Fermi level Above

Fermi liquids vs non-Fermi liquids

ECE3080-L-4-Density of states fermi energi