1: \documentclass[aps,floats,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{amsmath}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: 

5: \def\GroupeEquations#1{\begin{subequations}  #1  \end{subequations}}

6: \def\moy#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

7: \def\ppint{P\int}

8: \def\Im{\hbox{Im}}

9: \def\Tr{\text{Tr}}

10: \def\sgn{\text{sgn}\,}

11: \def\parent#1{\left(#1\right)}

12: \def\fig#1#2{\includegraphics[height=#1]{#2}}

13: 

14: \begin{document}

15: 

16: \title{Quantum Fluctuations of a Nearly Critical Heisenberg Spin Glass}

17: 

18: \author{A. Georges}

19: \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique Th{\'e}orique, Ecole Normale

20: Sup{\'e}rieure, 24 Rue Lhomond 75005 Paris FRANCE}

21: \author{O. Parcollet}

22: \affiliation{Center for Material Theory,

23: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ

24: 08854 USA}

25: \author{S. Sachdev}

26: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT

27: 06520 USA}

28: \begin{abstract}

29: We describe the interplay of quantum and thermal fluctuations in

30: the infinite-range Heisenberg spin glass. This model is

31: generalized to $SU(N)$ symmetry, and we describe the phase

32: diagram as a function of the spin $S$ and the temperature $T$.

33: The model is solved in the large $N$ limit and certain universal

34: critical properties are shown to hold to all orders in $1/N$. For

35: large $S$, the ground state is a spin glass, but quantum effects

36: are crucial in determining the low $T$ thermodynamics: we find a

37: specific heat linear in $T$ and a local spectral density of spin

38: excitations, $\chi^{\prime\prime}_{loc} ( \omega ) \sim \omega$

39: for a spin glass state which is marginally stable to fluctuations

40: in the replicon modes. For small $S$, the spin-glass order is

41: fragile, and a spin-liquid state with $\chi^{\prime\prime}_{loc}

42: \sim \tanh (\omega/2T)$ dominates the properties over a

43: significant range of $T$ and $\omega$. We argue that the latter

44: state may be relevant in understanding the properties of

45: strongly-disordered transition metal and rare earth compounds.

46: \end{abstract}

47: 

48: \maketitle

49: 

50: 

51: The study of intermetallic compounds of the transition metals and

52: rare earths has been a subject at the forefront of condensed

53: matter physics for some time now \cite{itp,coleman}. 

54: A rich and complex variety of

55: behaviors is observed in low temperature electrical and magnetic

56: measurements, much of which lacks a comprehensive theoretical

57: description. The complexity arises from the dominant role played

58: by the local magnetic moments on the $d$ and $f$ orbitals and

59: their interactions with each other and the itinerant charge

60: carriers.

61: 

62: It is convenient to begin our discussion in a phase with

63: well-established magnetic order, in which

64: each magnetic

65: moment is effectively static. This static moment could be

66: polarized in a regular manner (as in a commensurate

67: antiferromagnet or an incommensurate spin density wave), or point

68: in random directions (as in a spin glass state). In most realistic

69: systems, the magnetic moment is either quite small, or has

70: averaged to zero by dynamic quantum fluctuations: so it is

71: useful to consider mechanisms which reduce the magnetic moment,

72: and eventually cause it to vanish at a quantum phase transition to

73: some paramagnetic state. Two distinct routes to such a quantum

74: phase transition can be envisaged, and, we believe, the interplay

75: between them is at the heart of the complexity of the problem. In

76: the first route, originally discussed by Doniach \cite{Doniach}, the moment is

77: quenched by Kondo screening by the itinerant electrons: theories

78: of such quantum critical points have been proposed\cite{Hertz,Millis,SRO,AG}

79: in which the

80: predominant role of the itinerancy is to overdamp the collective

81: magnetic excitations. In the second route, the exchange

82: interactions between the moments play a more fundamental role:

83: a pair of spins interacting with an antiferromagnetic exchange

84: prefers to form a singlet valence bond, and the proliferation of

85: such singlets can destroy the magnetic order. Analytic theories

86: for such transitions has been made mainly for systems without

87: quenched disorder\cite{SachdevBook}.

88: Simple models of crossovers between these two

89: routes have also been presented\cite{SCS,GS,AMS}.

90: 

91: This paper will present a detailed study of the second route

92: to destruction of magnetic order for the case of a strongly random

93: system with spin glass magnetic order. There are a number of

94: motivations for

95: focusing on random systems. First, randomness is

96: inevitably present in all materials, and it is clear that it

97: strongly perturbs the low temperature properties. Spin glass order

98: is present in a number of systems, while others appear to be in the

99: vicinity of such a state. Finally, a technical motivation is in

100: the structure of the mean-field theory we shall present: it builds

101: in important feedback effect between the inter-site magnetic

102: correlations and the single-site spin dynamics, and this is

103: crucial to all the non-trivial spin correlations we shall

104: describe. Such a feedback is absent in previous studies of the

105: magnetic quantum critical point, and it has been argued that this

106: is an important limitation for them\cite{AG,AMS}.

107: A different route to

108: incorporating these feedback effects has been taken in some recent

109: studies\cite{Si}; however, they discuss only the paramagnetic state of

110: their model, and the extent to which magnetically ordered states

111: preempt their results remains to be clarified.

112: 

113: This paper is organized as follows : In Section \ref{outline}, we

114: present our spin glass model and give an outline of our results,

115: including the phase diagram.  Section

116: \ref{ParamagneticPhases} is devoted to the nature of the

117: paramagnetic solutions, and more specifically to the quantum

118: critical regime. Section \ref{SpinGlassPhases} is devoted to the

119: spin glass phase and to the various regimes within this phase, as

120: a function of temperature and of the size of the spin. The

121: Appendices contain technical details and some additional results

122: on the quantum rotor and Ising spin glasses of

123: Ref.~\onlinecite{rsy}.

124: 

125: \section{Model and outline of the results}\label{outline}

126: 

127: The numerous recent studies of quantum

128: fluctuations in spin glasses \cite{RevueBhatt},

129: have focused either on infinite-range models of Ising

130: and rotor models \cite{millerhuse,rsy}

131: %(which don't have Berry phases in their quantum

132: %path integral because the ground state of each site, when

133: %decoupled from the others, is non-degenerate)

134: or models in low dimensions which flow to

135: strong disorder fixed points \cite{dsf,Pich,Motrunich}.

136: Here we shall continue the study of infinite range models,

137: but will consider a model of Heisenberg spins :  in this case,

138: the path integral for each spin has a important Berry phase term

139: which imposes the spin

140: commutation relations.

141: %, and each site, when decoupled,has

142: % a $2S+1$ fold degeneracy.

143: As we will see, this leads to a great deal of

144: new physics\cite{SachdevYe} and non-trivial dynamic spin correlations

145: even in the spin glass state.

146: More specifically, we present a complete solution of

147: the quantum Heisenberg spin glass on a fully

148: connected lattice of $\cal N$ sites with strong Gaussian disorder,

149: both in the paramagnetic and the glassy phase,

150: when the spin symmetry group is extended from $SU(2)$ to $SU(N)$ and the

151: large-$N$ limit is taken.

152: In the limit of large connectivity, (dynamical) mean-field techniques

153: apply and the

154: model can be reduced to the study of a self-consistent single-site

155: problem, which  is however

156: still highly non-trivial  because of quantum effects.

157: The large-$N$ limit is instrumental in allowing for an explicit

158: solution. Nevertheless some of our results regarding the quantum

159: critical regime have been extended beyond the large-N limit.

160: In a recent publication \cite{NotreLettre}, we summarized the main

161: results of the present study. Here, we provide detailed derivations

162: and new results, such as  a full discussion of the paramagnetic

163: phases and a discussion beyond large-$N$.

164: 

165: The  model considered in this paper is defined by the Hamiltonian:

166: \begin{equation}\label{DefSachdevYe}

167: H = \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\cal N}N}} \sum_{i<j} J_{ij}

168: \vec{S}_{i}\cdot \vec{S}_{j},

169: \end{equation}

170: where the magnetic exchange couplings $J_{ij}$ are independent,

171: quenched random variables  distributed according to a Gaussian distribution

172: \begin{equation}\label{DefLoiJ}

173: P (J_{ij}) = \frac{1}{J\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-J_{ij}^{2}/ (2J^{2})}

174: \end{equation}

175: As already pointed out by Bray and Moore \cite{BrayMoore},

176: after using the replica trick to

177: average over the disorder \cite{MezardParisiBook}, the mean-field (infinite

178: dimensional) limit maps the model onto a {\sl self-consistent  single

179: site model} with the action (in imaginary time $\tau$, with $\beta$ the

180: inverse temperature)  :

181: \begin{equation}\label{ActionEffective}

182: S_{eff} = S_{B} - \frac{J^{2}}{2N} \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau  d\tau'\,

183: Q^{ab} (\tau -\tau')

184: \overrightarrow{S}^{a} (\tau )\cdot \overrightarrow{S}^{b} (\tau')

185: \end{equation}

186: and the self-consistency condition

187: \begin{equation}\label{CondCoherence}

188: Q^{ab} (\tau -\tau') = \frac{1}{N^{2}}

189: \moy{

190: \overrightarrow{S}^{a} (\tau )\cdot  \overrightarrow{S}^{b}(\tau')

191: }_{S_{eff}}

192: \end{equation}

193: where $a,b=1,\cdots,n$ denote the replica indices (the limit

194: $n\rightarrow 0$ has to be taken later) and $S_{B}$ is the Berry

195: phase of the spin \cite{SachdevYe}. Due to their time-dependence,

196: the solution of these mean-field equations remains a very

197: difficult problem for $N=2$, even in the paramagnetic phase.

198: Thus, in Ref.~\onlinecite{BrayMoore}, as well as in most

199: subsequent work \cite{kopec}, the {\it static approximation} was

200: used, neglecting the $\tau-$dependence of $Q^{ab}(\tau)$. This

201: approximation may be reasonable in some regimes but prevents a

202: study of the quantum equilibrium dynamics, and is particularly

203: inappropriate in the quantum-critical regime. However, this

204: imaginary time dynamics has been explicitly studied in a Quantum

205: Monte Carlo simulation {\sl in the paramagnetic phase} with spin

206: $S=1/2$ by Grempel and Rozenberg \cite{Grempel1}. Recently, we

207: introduced  a large-$N$ solution of the mean field problem

208: \cite{NotreLettre}, in which the problem is exactly solvable and,

209: as explained below, the solution provides a good description of

210: the physics of the $N=2$ mean field model, to the extent the

211: latter is understood. More specifically, in the following we will

212: consider two different types of spin representations for the $SU

213: (N)$ spins :

214: \begin{itemize}

215: \item [a)] {\sl Bosonic} representations : the spin operator $S$ is

216: represented using Schwinger bosons $b$ by $S_{\alpha \beta}=

217: b^{\dagger}_{\alpha }b_{\beta } - S\delta_{\alpha \beta }$,

218:   with the constraint $\sum_{\alpha}

219: b^{\dagger}_{\alpha }b_{\alpha }= SN$  ($0\leq S$). In

220: the language of Young tableaux, these representations are described by

221:  one line of length $SN$.  They

222: are a natural generalisation of an $SU (2)$ spin of

223: size $S$.

224: \item [b)] {\sl Fermionic} representations : the spin operator $S$ is

225: represented using Abrikosov fermions $f$ by $S_{\alpha \beta}=

226: f^{\dagger}_{\alpha }f_{\beta } - q_{0} \delta_{\alpha \beta }$,

227:  with the constraint $\sum_{\alpha}

228: f^{\dagger}_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }= q_{0}N$  ($0\leq q_{0}\leq 1$). In

229: the language of Young tableaux, these representations are described by

230: one column of length $q_{0}N$.

231: Note that for $SU (2)$, only $S=0$ and $S=1/2$ can be represented in this

232: manner.

233: \end{itemize}

234: In the following, we refer to the model with bosonic (resp.

235: fermionic) representations

236: as the bosonic (resp. fermionic) model. In the

237: fermionic model,  quantum fluctuations are so strong in large-$N$

238: that the spin glass ordering is destroyed \cite{SachdevYe},

239: contrary to the bosonic model, where a spin glass phase exists,

240: as explained below. The two models have different theoretical

241: interest : if one wants to concentrate on the quantum critical

242: regime, above the spin glass ordering temperature, one can use the

243: fermionic model (as e.g. in Ref.~\onlinecite{Slush}). However,

244: since we are interested in the spin glass phase itself, we will

245: now focus on the bosonic model. Nevertheless, our results on

246: the paramagnet will be valid for both cases with only slight

247: modifications explicitly quoted below.

248: 

249: 

250: In the $N\rightarrow \infty$ limit, the mean field self-consistent

251: model (\ref{ActionEffective}) reduces to

252: an integral equation for the Green's function of the boson

253:  $G_{b}^{ab} (\tau) \equiv  - \overline{\moy{T b^{a} (\tau)

254: b^{\dagger b} (0)}}$ where the bar denotes the average over disorder

255: and the brackets the thermal average  \cite{SachdevYe} :

256: \begin{subequations}\label{EqBase}

257: \begin{align}

258: (G_{b}^{-1})^{ab} (i\nu_{n}) &=i\nu_{n}\delta_{ab} +

259: \lambda^{a}\delta_{ab} - \Sigma_{b}^{ab} (i\nu

260: _{n}) \\

261: \Sigma^{ab}_{b}(\tau ) &=\ J^{2} \bigl( G_{b}^{ab} (\tau)\bigr)^{2}

262: G_{b}^{ab} (-\tau) \\

263: G_{b}^{aa} (\tau=0^{-} ) &= - S

264: \end{align}

265: \end{subequations}

266: Similarly for the fermionic model, we have :

267: \begin{subequations}\label{EqBasefermions}

268: \begin{align}

269: (G_{f}^{-1})^{ab} (i\omega_{n}) &=i\omega_{n}\delta_{ab} +

270: \lambda^{a}\delta_{ab} - \Sigma_{f}^{ab} (i\omega

271: _{n}) \\

272: \Sigma^{ab}_{f}(\tau ) &=\ -J^{2} \bigl( G_{f}^{ab} (\tau)\bigr)^{2}

273: G_{f}^{ab} (-\tau) \\

274: G_{f}^{aa} (\tau=0^{-} ) &=  q_{0}

275: \end{align}

276: \end{subequations}

277: In these equations, $\nu$ (resp. $\omega$) are the bosonic (resp.

278: fermionic)  Matsubara frequencies and the inversion should be

279: taken with respect to the replica indices $a,b$. Note that our

280: conventions for the sign of the Green functions in this paper

281: slightly differ from those  of Ref.~\onlinecite{SachdevYe}. Note

282: that, although the equations are written in term of $G$, the

283: physical quantity is the {\it local } spin susceptibility

284: $\chi_{loc} (\tau )=\moy{S (\tau )S (0)}$ which is given in the

285: large-$N$ limit by

286: \begin{equation}\label{DefChi}

287: \chi_{loc} (\tau )= G_{b}^{aa} (\tau)G_{b}^{aa} (-\tau )

288: \end{equation}

289: In many instances below (where we mostly focus on the bosonic case),

290: we shall drop the index $b$ in $G_b$.

291: 

292: From both analytical and numerical analysis of these integral

293: equations, we have constructed the phase diagram displayed on Figure

294: \ref{DiagrammePhase}, as a function of the size of

295: the spin $S$ and the temperature $T$.

296: \begin{figure}[ht]

297: \[

298: \fig{10cm}{DiagrammePhase.eps}

299: \]

300: \caption{\label{DiagrammePhase}

301: \sl

302: Phase diagram of the mean field bosonic model. There is a spin glass

303: phase below the spin glass temperature $T_{sg}^{c}$, which is determined

304: with the marginality condition (See Section

305: \ref{SpinGlassPhases}). $T^{eq}_{sg}$ is the spin glass temperature as

306: determined with the stationarity criterion.}

307: \end{figure}

308: %

309: Let us give here a brief overview of the main features of this

310: phase diagram, which will be studied in great detail in the rest

311: of this paper. As is evident from Fig~\ref{DiagrammePhase}, it is

312: useful to divide the discussion into models with $S$ large and

313: $S$ small. Both regimes are accessible in the large $N$ limit,

314: where $S$ is effectively a continuous parameter taking all

315: positive values. For the physical case $N=2$, we will present

316: evidence later that at least $S=1/2$ is in the small $S$ regime

317: for the infinite-range model; moreover, we can expect that at least

318: some of the consequences of increased quantum fluctuations in

319: a realistic model with

320: finite-range interactions are mimicked by taking small $S$ values

321: in the large $N$ theory of the infinite-range model.

322: 

323: For large $S$, the ground state must clearly be a spin glass

324: (Fig~\ref{DiagrammePhase}). However, even for very large $S$, it is

325: necessary to consider quantum effects in understanding the low $T$

326: excitations and thermodynamics, and these have not been previously

327: described. In this paper (Sections~\ref{sec:largeS}

328: and~\ref{Thermo}) we will show that the local spin

329: susceptibility has a low energy density of states which increases

330: linearly with energy. At the same time, the specific heat also has

331: a linear dependence upon temperature. These results hold for

332: temperatures $T < J \sqrt{S}$, although characteristic excitations

333: have an energy of order $JS$ for $T < JS$; we will provide scaling

334: functions which determine the dynamic response functions at these

335: energies. At even higher $T$, there is a phase transition to a

336: paramagnet at $T \sim J S^2$. For large $S$ the static properties of this

337: phase transition

338: are well-described by a purely classical theory in which the

339: $\vec{S}$ in (\ref{DefSachdevYe}) are commuting vectors of length

340: $S$. Notice also that we indicate two critical temperatures,

341: $T_{sg}^c$ and $T_{sg}^{eq}$: as we discuss in Section

342: \ref{SpinGlassPhases}, these are a consequence of peculiarities in

343: the nature of replica symmetry breaking, where the dynamic

344: freezing into the spin glass phase ($T_{sg}^c$), happens

345: at a slightly higher temperature than the equilibrium transition

346: ($T_{sg}^{eq}$).

347: 

348: For small $S$, we also find a spin glass phase

349: (Fig~\ref{DiagrammePhase}) at $T=0$, but the order vanishes at a

350: small $T$. Moreover, its excitations and finite $T$ properties

351: are very different from those at large $S$. These are now

352: dominated by signals of a ``spin-liquid'' state discussed in

353: Ref.~\onlinecite{SachdevYe} and described in

354: Section~\ref{SubSectSpinliquid}. In particular, we describe a

355: novel quantum-critical region in the paramagnet where

356: $\mbox{max}(\omega, T)$ is the characteristic energy scale, and

357: the local dynamic spin susceptibility obeys

358: $\chi^{\prime\prime}_{loc} (\omega ) \sim \tanh(\omega/2T)$. We

359: believe that aspects of this regime may be relevant to disordered

360: transition metal and rare earth compounds in regimes where

361: exchange interactions between the magnetic moments are playing a

362: dominant role. Completion of this picture requires an

363: understanding of the stability of the ``spin-liquid'' picture to

364: mobile charge carriers, and this has also been addressed in a

365: previous work \cite{Slush}.

366: 

367: 

368: \section{Paramagnetic phase}\label{ParamagneticPhases}

369: 

370: Contrary to the classical case, the paramagnetic phase of quantum

371: spin-glass models is non trivial in mean field theory. An early

372: discussion of these solutions has been given in

373: Ref.~\onlinecite{SachdevYe}, but we present here a much more

374: complete description, and compare our results to the $N=2$ case,

375: when numerical results are available. Since in this section we

376: look for paramagnetic solutions, we will consider only {\sl

377: replica diagonal} solutions of (\ref{EqBase}) : $G^{ab}\propto

378: \delta_{ab}$. Two types of paramagnetic solutions have been

379: found, that we will now consider successively : the {\it

380: spin-liquid} solutions and the {\it local moment} solutions.

381: 

382: \subsection{Spin-liquid solutions}\label{SubSectSpinliquid}

383: 

384: \subsubsection{The large-$N$ limit}

385: 

386: A low-frequency, long-time analysis of the integral equations

387: (\ref{EqBase}) reveals that, under the condition that

388: $\lambda-\Sigma(i0^+)$ vanishes at low temperature, a solution

389: can be found which displays a power law decay of the Green's

390: function at long time \cite{SachdevYe}: $G (\tau )\sim

391: 1/\sqrt{\tau}$. These solutions display  a singularity in the

392: complex plane of frequencies, $z$, at $z =0$, with an amplitude

393: which can be parameterized by an angle $\theta$ as:

394: \begin{equation}\label{SingulariteSpinliquid}

395: G (z)\sim \frac{Ae^{-i\pi /4-i\theta }}{\sqrt{z}} \qquad \qquad

396: \text{ for } z\rightarrow 0,\  \Im z>0

397: \end{equation}

398: (Values of $z$ on the imaginary frequency axis at the Matsubara

399: frequencies will be denoted by $\nu_n$, while on the real axis

400: will be denoted, $\omega$.)

401:  Thus, these solutions display a slow local spin dynamics :

402:  $\Im \chi _{loc} (\omega )\propto \sgn \omega $ for

403:  $\omega \rightarrow 0, T=0$. Moreover, the {\it local} susceptibility

404: $\chi_{loc} (T)\equiv \int_{0}^{\beta }\chi_{loc} (\tau ) \, d\tau $

405: diverges as $\chi_{loc}

406: (T) \sim \ln T/J$ at low temperature.

407: More precisely, one can find the thermal scaling function characterizing

408: the $\tau \rightarrow \infty, T\rightarrow 0 $ limit, as explained in

409: a previous paper \cite{Slush} :

410: \begin{equation}\label{FormeEchelle}

411: \chi_{loc} (\tau ,\beta )

412: \propto \left(\frac{\pi /\beta }{\sin \pi \tau /\beta }

413: \right) + \dots \qquad \qquad \qquad

414: J\,\chi_{loc}^{\prime\prime}(\omega,T) \propto

415: \tanh\frac{\omega}{2T}

416: \end{equation}

417: Note that in the paramagnetic phase of  {\it quantum} models, the local

418: susceptibility $\chi_{loc} (T)$ (which is the response to a {\it

419: local} magnetic field) differs from the uniform susceptibility $\chi (T)$

420: (response to a constant magnetic field), contrary to {\it classical}

421: spin glass models where $\chi = \chi_{loc}$ \cite{MezardParisiBook} :

422: this is a consequence of

423: the commutation relations of the spin, as can be seen for example in

424: the high-temperature expansion in the $SU (2)$ model.

425: In this large-$N$ limit, it can be  shown that $\chi (T) \ll

426: \chi_{loc} (T)$ for $T\rightarrow 0$ and numerical computations

427: indeed suggest that $\chi (T)\sim \mbox{const.}$ \cite{Slush}.

428: 

429: Remarkably, the parameter $\theta$ which characterizes the {\sl

430: spectral asymmetry} \cite{KondoLong} of the spectral density at

431: low frequency can be explicitly related to the size $S$ of the

432: spin (which involves a priori an integral of the spectral density

433: over all frequencies). This is very similar to a kind of Friedel

434: sum rule applying to this problem, and indeed the derivation

435: follows a very similar route, based on the existence of a

436: Luttinger-Ward functional. (Interestingly enough, the ``boundary

437: term'' which usually vanishes in such derivations contributes

438: here a finite value). This derivation is presented in detail in

439: Appendix \ref{AppSpectralAsym}, where the following relation

440: between $\theta$ and $S$ is established:

441: \begin{equation}\label{ValueOfTheta}

442: \frac{\theta }{\pi } + \frac{\sin 2\theta }{4} =

443: \left\{

444: \begin{aligned}

445: \frac{1}{2} + S& \text{ \qquad in the bosonic model}\\

446: \frac{1}{2} - q_{0}& \text{\qquad  in the fermionic model}

447: \end{aligned}

448: \right.

449: \end{equation}

450: This relation has important consequences for the physical properties of the

451: spin-liquid solutions. First, we note that the spectral density must

452: obey the positivity conditions: $\Im G_f(\omega+i0^+) < 0$ and

453: $\mbox{sgn}(\omega)\Im G_b(\omega+i0^+) < 0$.

454: Hence, in the fermionic case, $\theta$ must obey $-\frac{\pi }{4}\leq \theta \leq

455: \frac{\pi }{4}$. It is easily checked from (\ref{ValueOfTheta}) that

456: $\theta$ precisely describes this range of parameters as $q_0$ is varied

457: from $q_0=0$ to $q_0=1$, and that the $\theta(q_0)$ relation is unique.

458: This suggests that the spin-liquid solution

459: is an acceptable low-temperature solutions for the whole range of

460: $q_0$ in the fermionic case.

461: \begin{figure}[ht]

462: \[

463: \fig{6cm}{CompTheoNumSLB.eps}

464: \]

465: \caption{\label{PlotOfTheta}

466: \sl

467: $S$ as a function of $\theta$ for the bosonic model.

468:  The solid line is given by relation

469: (\ref{ValueOfTheta}) and the points were obtained previously from a

470: numerical solution of the saddle-point equation at zero

471: temperature \cite{SachdevYe}.}

472: \end{figure}

473: %

474: In contrast, in the bosonic case, the plot in Fig.\ref{PlotOfTheta}

475: shows that (\ref{ValueOfTheta}) actually defines {\it two} values of

476: $\theta$ (in the allowed range $\frac{\pi }{4}\leq \theta \leq

477: \frac{3\pi }{4}$) for a given spin $S$ as long as $S<S_{max}\simeq

478: 0.052$, while no value of $\theta$ is found for $S>S_{max}$. This

479: implies that no paramagnetic solution of the spin-liquid type is found

480: {\it at zero-temperature} in the bosonic case as soon as $S>S_{max}$

481: (note that furthermore $S_{max}$ is very small). For $S<S_{max}$, such

482: solutions exist at zero temperature

483:  (even though they are not the true ground-state,

484: see below) with the locally stable solution corresponding to the

485: smallest of the two values of $\theta$.  However, even for $S>S_{max}$,

486: {\it at low ($T<J$) but finite temperature}, the spin liquid solutions

487: do exist in the bosonic model.  By this, we mean that a

488: numerical computation in imaginary time gives a solution which

489: exhibits the scaling form (\ref{FormeEchelle}), for which a

490: unambiguous value of

491: the spectral asymmetry $\theta$ can be defined and computed

492: numerically.

493: At very low temperature, these solutions are unstable to the spin glass solution,

494: but above the spin glass temperature at low spin, they are relevant

495:  in the quantum critical regime associated

496: with the quantum critical point at $S=0$.

497: We shall comment in more detail, at the end of the following section, on the

498: nature of the paramagnetic solutions found at low temperature for small

499: values of $S$, in the bosonic case.

500: 

501: Another  consequence of relation

502: (\ref{ValueOfTheta}) is that it allows to predict that these

503: spin-liquid solutions have a {\it non-zero extensive entropy} at

504: zero-temperature and to calculate the value of this entropy

505: analytically. The derivation of this result follows very closely a

506: similar analysis of the overscreened multichannel Kondo problem

507: in the large-N limit, performed in

508: Ref.~\onlinecite{KondoLong,KondoPRL} and only the main steps will

509: be repeated here. This can be done either in the bosonic model or

510: in the fermionic one, with slight modifications. Since the spin liquid

511: solutions are relevant at zero temperature only in the fermionic model,

512: we shall present the result in this case.

513: First, denoting by ${\cal S}$ the value of the

514: entropy per spin at zero temperature, one establishes the

515: following thermodynamic equality:

516: \begin{equation}

517: \frac{\partial{\cal S}}{\partial q_{0}} =

518: -\frac{{\partial\lambda}}{{\partial T}}|_{T=0}

519: \end{equation}

520: Then, a low temperature expansion is used which allows to relate the slope

521: of $\lambda(T)$ to

522: the spectral asymmetry parameter $\theta$ above, so that one

523: finally gets (in the fermionic case):

524: \begin{equation}

525: \frac{\partial{\cal S}}{\partial q_{0}} =

526:  \ln

527: \frac{\sin(\pi/4-\theta)}{\sin(\theta+\pi/4)}

528: \end{equation}

529: The entropy is then obtained by integration over the size of the

530: spin, with the physically obvious boundary conditions

531: ${\cal S}(q_0=0)={\cal S}(q_0=1)=0$. The resulting

532: value of the entropy as a function of $q_0$ is plotted in

533: Fig.\ref{PlotEntropy}.

534: \begin{figure}[ht]

535: \[

536: \fig{6cm}{Entropie.eps}

537: \]

538: \caption{\label{PlotEntropy}

539: \sl

540: Entropy as a function of the size of the spin ($q_{0}$) in the

541: fermionic model.}

542: \end{figure}

543: 

544: 

545: Finally, we comment on the physical nature of the spin-liquid

546: paramagnetic solutions found in this section. These solutions

547: correspond to a partial screening of the local moment at each

548: site, due to the interaction with the other spins. As a result

549: the local susceptibility diverges logarithmically (much slower

550: than a Curie law), but an extensive entropy is still present at

551: $T=0$, indicating a degenerate state. From a local point of view,

552: the physics is somewhat similar to an overscreened Kondo system,

553: but here the gapless bath which quenches the spin is not external

554: but self-consistently generated by the other spins. We suspect

555: that the physics of this phase has to do with the degeneracy of

556: the (large-$N$ generalization) of the ``triplet'' state in which two

557: spins are bound whenever a strong ferromagnetic bond $J_{ij}$ is

558: encountered. In Section \ref{SpinLiquidN=2}, we show that this

559: spin-liquid regime is not a peculiarity of the large-$N$ limit but

560: indeed survives in the mean-field description of the quantum

561: critical regime of a $SU(2)$ quantum Heisenberg spin-glass. It

562: would be very valuable to gain a more direct understanding of

563: this gapless spin-liquid regime from a study of the problem for a

564: fixed configuration of bonds, before averaging over disorder.

565: This could be achieved numerically and is left for future studies.

566: 

567: \subsubsection{Beyond the large-$N$ limit}

568: \label{SpinLiquidN=2}

569: This subsection will show how

570: recent renormalization group analysis of related models\cite{AMS,SBV,VBS}

571: imply that

572: the above spin-liquid solution applies to all orders in $1/N$. In

573: particular, the large $N$ solution with $\mbox{Im} \chi_{loc}

574: \propto \mbox{sgn}~ \omega$ for small $\omega$ acquires no

575: corrections to its functional form: the only changes are to the

576: non-universal proportionality constant.

577: All the discussion below will be in a paramagnetic

578: phase where it is sufficient to consider only a single replica,

579: and so we will drop replica indices in this subsection.

580: 

581: We begin by rewriting (\ref{ActionEffective}) in the following

582: form\cite{AMS}

583: \begin{equation}

584: S_{eff} = S_B - \gamma_0 \int_0^{\beta} d\tau \overrightarrow{S} (\tau)

585: \cdot \overrightarrow{\phi} (\tau)

586: \label{ss1}

587: \end{equation}

588: where $\gamma_0$ is a coupling constant and

589: $\overrightarrow{\phi}$ is an annealed Gaussian random field

590: with $\langle \overrightarrow{\phi} (\tau) \cdot

591: \overrightarrow{\phi} (0) \rangle = 1/|\tau|^{2-\epsilon}$.

592: It is reasonable to expect that the spin correlations in the

593: quantum ensemble defined by (\ref{ss1}) decay with the power-law

594: $\langle  \overrightarrow{S} (\tau) \cdot

595: \overrightarrow{S} (0) \rangle \sim 1/|\tau|^{\sigma}$, and we are

596: interested in determining the value of the exponent $\sigma$.

597: A simple extension\cite{SachdevYe} of the

598: solution discussed above implies that in the large $N$ limit

599: $\sigma = \epsilon$. Here we will argue that this equality is in fact

600:  {\em exact for all $N$}. Now using the self-consistency condition

601: (\ref{CondCoherence}) we obtain $\sigma=\epsilon=1$, which then

602: implies $\mbox{Im} \chi_{loc}

603: \propto \mbox{sgn}~ \omega$.

604: 

605: The field-theoretic renormalization group analysis of (\ref{ss1})

606: was discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{VBS}, and we will highlight the

607: main results. The key observation is that renormalization of the

608: theory (\ref{ss1}) requires only a single wave-function

609: renormalization factor $Z$, and that there is no independent

610: renormalization of the coupling constant $\gamma_0$. This result

611: was established diagrammatically in Ref.~\onlinecite{VBS}, and we

612: will not reproduce the argument here. So if we renormalize the

613: spin by $\overrightarrow{S} = \sqrt{Z} \overrightarrow{S}_R$,

614: then the coupling constant renormalization is simply $\gamma_0 =

615: \mu^{\epsilon/2} \gamma /\sqrt{Z}$, where $\mu$ is a

616: renormalization scale. The renormalization constant is in general

617: a complicated function of $\gamma$, and was determined to

618: two-loop order in Ref.~\onlinecite{VBS}:

619: \begin{equation}

620: Z = 1 - \frac{2\gamma^2}{\epsilon} + \frac{\gamma^4}{\epsilon} +

621: \ldots

622: \label{ss2}

623: \end{equation}

624: in a minimal subtraction scheme. However, even though $Z$ is not

625: known exactly, the exponent $\sigma$ can be determined exactly.

626: Standard field-theoretical technology shows that the above

627: renormalizations imply the $\beta$-function

628: \begin{equation}

629: \beta (\gamma) = - \frac{\epsilon \gamma}{2} \left( 1 -

630: \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial \ln \gamma}

631: \right)^{-1}.

632: \label{ss3}

633: \end{equation}

634: Furthermore, the exponent $\sigma$ is given by the value of

635: \begin{equation}

636: \sigma (\gamma) = \beta(\gamma) \frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial

637: \gamma}

638: \label{ss4}

639: \end{equation}

640: at the fixed point $\gamma=\gamma^{\ast}$ where $\beta(\gamma)$

641: vanishes. Comparing (\ref{ss3}) and (\ref{ss4}) we see that

642: \begin{equation}

643: \beta (\gamma) = -(\epsilon - \sigma(\gamma)) \gamma/2.

644: \label{ss5}

645: \end{equation}

646: Clearly, a zero of the $\beta$ function must have $\sigma =

647: \epsilon$, and this establishes the required result.

648: 

649: We note that similar examples of a critical exponent being valid to all

650: orders (in spite of a non-trivial $\beta$-function) can be found for

651: other models in the statistical mechanics of disordered systems

652: (see e.g \cite{forster,honko}).

653: 

654: \subsection{``Local moment'' solutions}

655: 

656: In a mean field  model, one usually expects to find locally stable

657: (while possibly unstable to ordering) paramagnetic solutions of the

658: mean-field equations down to zero temperature. Hence, the absence

659: of solutions of the spin-liquid type for $S>S_{max}$ suggests that

660: a different kind of paramagnetic solution should exist for those

661: values of the spin. Indeed, we have found that the integral equations

662: (\ref{EqBase}) have another class of paramagnetic solutions

663: in the bosonic case.

664: These solutions actually exist for all values of the spin $S$ and down

665: to zero temperature. Hence, they coexist at low $S$ with the spin-liquid

666: solutions in some range of temperature.

667: Their physical nature is very different from the previous spin-liquid

668: solutions, and as discussed below they are not very physical solutions

669: when considered at low temperature. They are characterized

670: by a Green's function which does not decay at long times and obeys the

671: asymptotic behavior:

672: $G_{b} (\tau ) \simeq  -S - e^{-J^{2}\beta S^{3}\tau}$. In contrast to

673: the spin-liquid case, $\lambda$ diverges for $T\rightarrow 0$ in this

674: regime:

675: \begin{equation}\label{NewParaLambdaLowT}

676: \lambda \sim \frac{J^{2} S^{3}}{T}

677: \end{equation}

678: Finding numerically these solutions of (\ref{EqBase}) requires

679: some care. We have used an algorithm in which

680: we solve (\ref{EqBase}) in imaginary time for $G(\tau)$, for a fixed

681: value of $r=\int_{0}^{\beta }G (\tau )d\tau$,

682: and then adjust the number of particles to $S$ by a dichotomy on $r$.

683: %

684: \begin{figure}[ht]

685: \[

686: \fig{6cm}{Ki.eps}

687: \]

688: \caption{\label{KiNewParaFig}

689: \sl

690: $\chi_{loc} (\tau )$ extracted from a numerical solution

691: of saddle point equation (\ref{EqBase}) in

692: imaginary time, for $S=1$, $J=1$.

693: The solid curve is low temperature ($J\beta =10$), the dashed curve is

694: high temperature ($J\beta =.1$); for intermediate temperatures, the

695: curves interpolate between the two.}

696: \end{figure}

697: %

698: The local susceptibility $\chi_{loc} (\tau )$ obtained in this manner

699: is displayed on Figure

700: \ref{KiNewParaFig}. At high temperature, we find $\chi_{loc} (T)=

701: \frac{S (S+1)}{T}$ as expected since the spin is

702: essentially free. At low temperature, we find  another Curie law, with a

703: reduction of the  Curie constant due to quantum fluctuations  :

704: \begin{equation}\label{ReducedCurie}

705: \chi_{loc} (T) = \frac{S^{2}}{T} \qquad\qquad  \hbox{  for  }

706: T\rightarrow 0

707: \end{equation}

708: Hence, for these solutions, the effect of the interactions with the other

709: spins is not strong enough to result in a qualitatively different

710: screening regime, resulting merely in a reduction of the Curie constant.

711: This is analogous to an {\it underscreened} Kondo regime.

712: 

713: These solutions are of a similar type than those found in in a

714: quantum Monte-Carlo simulation of the $SU (2)$ model

715: \cite{Grempel1}. There also, a reduction of the Curie constant

716: from $S (S+1)/3$ to $S^{2}/3$ was clearly observed. Thus,

717: contrary to one of the conclusions of Ref.~\onlinecite{Grempel1},

718: the large-$N$ limit correctly reproduces the paramagnetic local

719: moment solution found for the physical $N=2$ case. Moreover, a

720: numerical solution of the large-N integral equations

721: (\ref{EqBase}) for real frequencies can also be obtained both at

722: high and low temperature. The results are presented in Figure

723: \ref{NewParaOmega} for both $\rho_{b} (\omega )\equiv -1/\pi  \Im

724: G_{b} (\omega )$ and $\chi_{loc}'' (\omega )\equiv 1/\pi \Im

725: \chi_{loc} (\omega )$. At high temperature, $\rho_{b}$ is centered

726: around $\lambda \sim T\ln ((S+1)/S)$ and $\chi_{loc}'' (\omega )$

727: is a simple peak. At low temperature, we find in  $\chi_{loc}''

728: (\omega)$ a delta-function peak at zero frequency with weight

729: $S^{2}$, which is associated with longitudinal relaxation (see

730: Ref.~\onlinecite{Grempel1} for a discussion for $N=2$)  and two

731: peaks, centered around $\pm \lambda \propto 1/T$ (Cf Eq.

732: (\ref{NewParaLambdaLowT})) with a constant width, which are

733: associated with transverse relaxation. Again, these results are

734: very similar to the conclusions reached in

735: Ref.~\onlinecite{Grempel1} from a fit of the imaginary-time data

736: for $N=2$, using a model $\chi^{''}(\omega)$. The only difference

737: is that the central peak is not broadened by thermal fluctuations

738: in the large-$N$ limit.

739: \begin{widetext}

740: \begin{figure}[ht]

741: \[

742: \includegraphics[height=10cm]{LocalMoment.eps}

743: \]

744: \caption{

745: \sl

746:  \label{NewParaOmega}

747: Spectral densities for $G_{b}$ (left) and for the local

748: susceptibility $\chi_{loc}$ (right), for high temperature (top)  and a

749: very low temperature (bottom).  These results are

750: extracted from a numerical solution of saddle point equation (\ref{EqBase}) in

751: real frequencies.}

752: \end{figure}

753: \end{widetext}

754: Finally, since these solutions describe the formation of a

755: local moment at low

756: temperature, and that the onset of the quenching temperature

757: (at which the reduction of the Curie constant sets in) turns out to be

758: lower than the temperature where spin-glass ordering occurs (as shown in the

759: next section),

760: we consider these solutions as a mean-field artefact of the spin glass

761: ordering.  Static limits of such solutions are actually known

762: to occur in the classical SK model. We also note that the internal

763: energy of these solutions have an unphysical divergence

764: as $T\rightarrow 0$.

765: 

766: We close this section by noting that, for small values of the spin

767: $S$, a rather intricate pattern emerges for the stability and

768: coexistence of the two kinds of paramagnetic solutions described

769: above. We have studied this numerically in some detail but do not

770: report this here, since most of these phenomena occur below the

771: spin-glass ordering temperature anyway. The important features

772: have been displayed on Fig.\ref{DiagrammePhase}. We emphasize

773: again that the spin-liquid solutions are the relevant solutions

774: describing the whole quantum-critical regime. Even though they

775: are unstable at $T=0$ for $S>S_{max}$ they remain consistent

776: {\it finite temperature} solutions in a much wider range of values

777: of $S$ for $T<J$. At higher $S$ and above the spin-glass ordering

778: temperature, the paramagnetic phase behaves as a local moment,

779: with a Curie constant getting gradually reduced as $T$ is lowered.

780: 

781: \section{The spin-glass phase}\label{SpinGlassPhases}

782: 

783: In this section, we investigate spin-glass ordering in this model.

784: The first observation that we make (Sec.\ref{sg_susc}) is that the

785: spin-glass susceptibility (i.e the response to a spin-glass ordering field)

786: is actually of order $1/N$ in the large-N limit. This does not

787: preclude a spin-glass phase, but means that the transition is not

788: associated associated with a linear instability. Indeed, we shall

789: find explicit solutions in the ordered phase in the bosonic case,

790: while the fermionic case does not have a spin-glass phase at

791: $N=\infty$ (but does order as soon as $1/N$ corrections are

792: considered).

793: 

794: \subsection{Spin-glass susceptibility}\label{sg_susc}

795: 

796: Here, we derive an exact expression for the spin-glass

797: susceptibility, valid for arbitrary $N$ in this mean-field model.

798: The derivation is most conveniently performed using replicas. We

799: note that in the presence of spin-glass order, the correlation

800: function $\moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{a} (\tau )\cdot

801: \overrightarrow{S}^{b}(\tau')}$ acquires a non-zero value for

802: $a\neq b$, which is however static, i.e independent of

803: $\tau-\tau'$ (see e.g Ref.~\onlinecite{SachdevBook}). This crucial

804: point is due to the fact that different replicas are independent

805: of one another before averaging, so that for $a\neq b$:

806: \begin{equation}

807: \overline{\moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{a}(\tau )\cdot

808: \overrightarrow{S}^{b}(\tau')}} =

809: \overline{\moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{a} (\tau )}\cdot

810: \moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{b}(\tau')}} =

811: \overline{\moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{a} (0)}\cdot

812: \moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{b}(0)}}

813: \end{equation}

814: In the following, we shall denote by $q_{ab}$ the (normalized) off-diagonal

815: correlation function which is an order parameter for the

816: spin-glass phase:

817: \begin{equation}

818: q_{ab} \equiv \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{a\neq b}

819: \overline{\moy{\overrightarrow{S}^{a} (\tau )\cdot

820: \overrightarrow{S}^{b}(\tau')}}

821: \end{equation}

822: We consider the stability of the paramagnetic phase to this type

823: of ordering, and introduce an ordering field $H_{ab}$ conjugate to

824: $q_{ab}$. This has two effects:

825: 

826: i) It adds to the effective action (\ref{ActionEffective}) an

827: explicit term:

828: \begin{equation}

829: \delta S = \frac{1}{N}

830: \int d\tau\int d\tau' \sum_{a\neq b} H_{ab}\,

831: \vec{S}_a(\tau)\cdot\vec{S}_b(\tau')

832: \end{equation}

833: The normalization of $H_{ab}$ has been chosen in such a way

834: that the change in the total free-energy is of order $N$.

835: 

836: ii) It modifies the value of the self-consistent field $Q^{ab}$.

837: The change of the off-diagonal component, to linear order, is

838: imposed by the self-consistency condition (\ref{CondCoherence})

839: to be: $\delta Q^{ab}=\delta q_{ab}$, with $\delta q_{ab}$ the

840: induced order parameter.

841: 

842: One can then perform an expansion of the off-diagonal correlation

843: function up to linear order in both $H_{ab}$ and $\delta Q^{ab}$.

844: This yields:

845: \begin{equation}

846: \delta q_{ab} = \frac{1}{N}

847: \chi_{loc}^2\,\left(H_{ab}+J^2\delta Q^{ab}\right)

848: \end{equation}

849: in which $\chi_{loc}$ is the local susceptibility of the

850: paramagnetic phase. Since $\delta Q^{ab}=\delta q_{ab}$, this

851: finally yields the susceptibility to spin-glass ordering:

852: \begin{equation}

853: \label{ChiSG}

854: \chi_{sg} \equiv \frac{\delta q_{ab}}{H_{ab}} =

855: \frac{1}{N}\,\frac{\chi_{loc}^2}{1-(J\chi_{loc})^2/N}

856: \end{equation}

857: This formula has two important consequences. The susceptibility

858: to spin-glass ordering is of order $1/N$

859: and any spin-glass instability at $N=\infty$ must be associated

860: with a non-linear effect of higher order (i.e come from terms of

861: higher than quadratic order in $q_{ab}$ in the free energy).

862: Furthermore, (\ref{ChiSG}) shows that for finite $N$, a (linear)

863: instability into a spin-glass phase will occur when

864: $J\chi_{loc}(T)=\sqrt{N}$. Hence the fermionic model, for which

865: $\chi_{loc}$ diverges at low-T, will have a spin-glass instability

866: for arbitrary large but finite $N$. More precisely, since

867: the low-temperature behavior $J\chi_{loc} \sim \ln \frac{J}{T}$

868: has been shown above to hold for all N for the paramagnetic solution of

869: the fermionic case, we conclude from (\ref{ChiSG}) that the spin-glass

870: transition temperature depends on $N$ in that case as :

871: $T_c^{f}\sim J e^{-\sqrt{N}}$.

872: 

873: 

874: 

875: \subsection{Spin glass solutions and the ``replicon'' problem}

876: 

877: We now turn to the explicit construction of solutions of the

878: integral equations (\ref{EqBase}) with spin-glass ordering, in the

879: bosonic case. The same reasoning as above shows that the Green's

880: function $G^{ab} (\tau )$ does not depend on $\tau$ for $a\neq b$.

881: Thus the most general Ansatz for the Green's function $G^{ab}$ can be

882: written as :

883: \begin{equation}\label{AnsatzParisi}

884: G^{ab} (\tau ) =\left\{

885: \begin{aligned}

886: \widetilde{G} (\tau ) - g_{1}   & \qquad \qquad (a=b)\\

887:  - g_{ab}  & \qquad \qquad (a\neq b)\\

888: \end{aligned}

889: \right.

890: \end{equation}

891: where $\widetilde{G} (\tau )$ is a function of the imaginary time,

892: $g_{ab}$ a constant matrix and $g_{1}$ a constant.

893: By definition, $g_{1}$ is fixed  so that  $\widetilde{G}$ is

894: regular at $T=0$, {\sl i.e. } $\widetilde{G} (\tau) \rightarrow 0$ as

895: $\tau \rightarrow \infty$.

896: In the following discussion, we will restrict ourselves to solutions

897: given by a Parisi Ansatz for $g_{ab}$ (a replica symmetry breaking scheme).

898: In the $n\rightarrow 0$ limit (where $n$ is the number of replica),

899: this matrix becomes a function $g (u)$ of a

900: continuous variable $u$ with  $0\leq u\leq 1$ \cite{MezardParisiBook}.

901: 

902: Our equations (\ref{EqBase}) involve the Green function $G$, whereas the

903: physical quantity is the susceptibility $\chi^{ab} (\tau )=G^{ab}

904: (\tau )G^{ab} (-\tau )$. The order parameter $q_{ab}$ widely introduced in

905: the spin glass literature \cite{MezardParisiBook} is

906: given here by $q_{ab} =g_{ab}^{2}$, or in the limit  $n\rightarrow 0$ :

907: \begin{equation}

908: q (u) = g (u)^{2}

909: \end{equation}

910: The Edwards-Anderson parameter is  $q_{EA}  = q (1)=g (1)^{2}$

911: \cite{MezardParisiBook,SachdevBook}. Since at zero temperature,

912: in the long time limit, we find $\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty

913: }{G^{aa} (\tau )G^{aa} (-\tau )} = q_{EA}$ we find $g_{1} = g

914: (1)$, by definition of $g_{1}$. More precisely, we look for

915: solutions in which these two definitions of $q_{EA}$ coincide but

916: it is not really an assumption in our computation : if this

917: relation was violated, we would simply find for $\widetilde{G}$ a

918: non vanishing limit for $\tau \rightarrow \infty$.

919: 

920: Among the various possible replica symmetry breaking schemes

921: \cite{MezardParisiBook}, we will now focus on {\it one-step}

922: solutions, since we have not found any other,  either two-steps

923: or with continuous replica symmetry breaking. In this case, the

924: function $g(u)$ is piecewise constant : $g (u)= \overline{g}$ for

925: $0<u<x$ and $g(u)=g$ for $x\leq u\leq 1$. In the following, we

926: will refer to $x$ as the {\sl breakpoint}. According to

927: (\ref{EqBase}), the self-energy $\Sigma$ has the form :

928: \begin{equation}\label{AnsatzParisiSigma}

929: \Sigma^{ab} (\tau ) = \left\{

930: \begin{aligned}

931: \widetilde{\Sigma} (\tau ) - J^{2} g^{3}   & \qquad \qquad (a=b)\\

932:                      -J^{2} g_{ab}^{3}   & \qquad \qquad (a\neq b)\\

933: \end{aligned}

934: \right.

935: \end{equation}

936: with $\widetilde{\Sigma }$ is given by (\ref{EqSG_DefSigTilde}).

937: Using the standard formulas to invert the Parisi matrices

938: in the limit $n\rightarrow 0$ \cite{MezardParisiManifold}, we find :

939: \begin{align}\label{Intermed1}

940:  \widetilde{G}^{-1} (i\nu_{n}) = i\nu_{n} + \lambda

941: -\widetilde{\Sigma}(i\nu_{n})  \\

942: \label{Intermed2} J^{2} g^{2} \widetilde{G}(i\nu_n = 0)^{2} = 1 +

943: J^{2} \beta x g^{3} \widetilde{G} (i \nu_n = 0)

944: \end{align}

945: At this stage, it is useful to introduce here a new parameter $\Theta$

946: defined by :

947: \begin{equation}\label{DefTheta}

948: \widetilde{G} (i \nu_n  ) = -\frac{\Theta}{Jg}

949: \end{equation}

950: We then eliminate $\lambda$ in (\ref{Intermed1}) and $\widetilde{G} (0)$

951: in (\ref{Intermed2}) and obtain finally a closed set of equations for

952: $\widetilde{G}$ and $g$ :

953: \begin{subequations}\label{EqSG}

954: \begin{equation}\label{EqSG_Dyson}

955: \left( \widetilde{G} (i\nu_{n})\right)^{-1} = i\nu_{n} - \frac{Jg}{\Theta } -

956: \left(\widetilde{\Sigma} (i\nu_{n}) - \widetilde{\Sigma} (0) \right)

957: \end{equation}

958: \begin{equation}\label{EqSG_DefSigTilde}

959: \widetilde{\Sigma} (\tau ) = J^{2} \left(

960: \widetilde{G}^{2} (\tau )\widetilde{G} (-\tau ) -

961:  2 g \widetilde{G} (\tau ) \widetilde{G} (-\tau)  -  g

962: \widetilde{G}^{2} (\tau )  + 2 g^{2} \widetilde{G} (\tau )

963: +  g^{2} \widetilde{G} (-\tau )\right)

964: \end{equation}

965: \begin{equation}\label{EqSG_NumberParticle}

966: \widetilde{G} (\tau =0^{-}) = - (S - g)

967: \end{equation}

968: \begin{equation}\label{EqSG_x}

969: \beta x = \frac{1}{J g^{2}} \left(\frac{1}{\Theta} - \Theta  \right)

970: \end{equation}

971: \end{subequations}

972: %

973: The crucial observation at this point is that  these

974: saddle-point equations possess a one parameter family of solutions,

975: parametrised by  $\Theta $ or equivalently by the breakpoint $x$.

976: This phenomenon already occur in other models which have

977: a {\sl one-step} replica symmetry breaking solution \cite{GiamLedou}.

978: The determination of the breakpoint turns out to be the most difficult

979: question of this analysis.

980: Two possible criteria are :

981: \begin{enumerate}

982: \item To minimize the free energy ${\mathcal F}(x)$ as a function of $x$, as would be

983: required by the thermodynamics. In the

984: following, we will refer to this as the  {\sl equilibrium

985: criterion}. This criterion has been used in a previous attempt to

986: understand this spin glass phase \cite{kopec}.

987: \item To impose a vanishing lowest eigenvalue of the fluctuation matrix

988: in the replica space. We will refer to this as

989: the {\sl marginality} or {\sl replicon } criterion.

990: Although it is not really justified up to now, we

991: will argue that it is the correct choice.

992: \end{enumerate}

993: This problem is not due to  the quantum aspect of our model :

994: it already appears similarly in some classical spin glass

995: models, in the $p$-spin model for example.

996: In this classical model, the study of the dynamics shows the existence

997: of a dynamical transition  $T^{dyn}$ above the static spin glass

998: temperature $T^{eq}$ given by the  static solution of the mean field

999: model. It turns out that, in this classical  model, the

1000: replicon criterion has been proven to give

1001: the same transition temperature $T^{c}=T^{dyn}$.

1002: Moreover, it has been shown \cite{CugliandoloPspinQ,LeticiaPspin}

1003: that the same

1004: phenomenon occurs in some {\sl quantum } version of the p-spin model.

1005: Thus, using this condition, it is possible in some sense to mimic the

1006: dynamics by simply solving a static problem, although this is not

1007: fully understood at present.

1008: 

1009: In the present model, the two criteria give a coherent solution

1010: but with totally different spectra of {\it equilibrium}

1011: fluctuations : the equilibrium criterion leads to a gap in $\chi''

1012: (\omega )$ whereas the replicon criterion is the only one which

1013: give a {\sl gapless } $\chi''(\omega )$ (a similar observation was

1014: made in Ref.~\onlinecite{GiamLedou} in a one dimensional quantum

1015: model with disorder). We believe that in this quantum Heisenberg

1016: spin glass the replicon criterion  provides us with the correct

1017: physical solution ($T_{c}$), contrary to the equilibrium

1018: solution, which gives the static transition temperature

1019: ($T_{eq}$). However this claim cannot be proved in the present

1020: context : in particular, the static solution does give a full

1021: solution of (\ref{EqBase}). A study of the true Hamiltonian

1022: dynamics in real time and finite temperature of this quantum

1023: problem is necessary for a deeper understanding of this question,

1024: but this is beyond the scope of this paper. Let us now examine

1025: the two criteria separately in more details.

1026: 

1027: \subsubsection{The replicon criterion}

1028: \label{sec:replicon}

1029: To apply the replicon criterion, we need to study the

1030: fluctuations of the free energy in the replica space around the one-step

1031: solution.

1032: In the large-$N$ limit, the free energy is given by the expression :

1033: \begin{equation}\label{FormuleF1}

1034: {\mathcal F}[G^{ab}, \lambda ] = \frac{1}{\beta } \sum_{n} \Tr

1035: \ln \Bigl(i\nu_{n} + \lambda  - \Sigma^{ab} (i\nu_{n}) \Bigr) +

1036: \frac{3J^{2}}{4} \sum_{ab} \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau \, \left[

1037: G^{ab} (\tau ) G^{ab} (-\tau) \right]^2  - \lambda S

1038: \end{equation}

1039: Under infinitesimal variation   $\delta g_{ab}$ for $a\neq b$,

1040:  the variation of the free energy is (up to second order)

1041: \begin{equation}\label{DefMatrixFluctuations}

1042: \delta {\mathcal F}=\sum_{a>b\atop c>d} M_{ab,cd}\delta

1043: g_{ab}\delta g_{cd}.

1044: \end{equation}

1045: Strictly speaking, as this is a quantum problem,

1046: we have to simultaneously consider the

1047: variation of the diagonal component, $\delta\widetilde{G}(\tau)$ in

1048: (\ref{AnsatzParisi}) in a study of the fluctuations. In a spin

1049: glass phase, there is indeed a coupling between $\delta g_{ab}$

1050: and $\delta \widetilde{G} (\tau)$ which modifies the fluctuation

1051: eigenvalues. Fortunately however, as we show in Appendix

1052: \ref{AppReplicon}, this coupling does not modify the eigenvalue

1053: $e_{1}$ and our main result (\ref{ThetaMarginality}) below, and so

1054: we will neglect $\delta \widetilde{G} (\tau)$ here.

1055: The diagonalization of the $n (n-1)/2 \times n (n-1)/2 $ matrix $M$ is

1056: briefly explained in Appendix \ref{AppReplicon} and gives three eigenvalues

1057: \begin{eqnarray}\label{EigenvaluesFluct}

1058: \nonumber

1059: &e_{1} = 3\beta  J^{2}g^{2} (1-3\Theta^{2})\\

1060: &e_{2} = \frac{3\beta  J^{2}g^{2}}{\Theta^{2}}\left(\Theta^{2} -3

1061: +3\beta Jg^{2}\Theta (1+\Theta) \right)\\

1062: \nonumber

1063: &e_{3} = 6\beta  J^{2}g^{2}\left(3\beta  J g^{2} \Theta -1 \right)

1064: \end{eqnarray}

1065: 

1066: A first consequence of this analysis is that replica symmetric

1067: solutions are unstable, since from Eq. (\ref{EqSG_x}) they correspond

1068: to $\theta =1$ and then $e_{1}<0$.

1069: Hence, these solutions will not be considered in the following discussion.

1070: 

1071: A full solution of Eqs.(\ref{EigenvaluesFluct}) is required to show the

1072: positivity of $e_{2},e_{3}$, but we immediately see that $e_{1}=0$ for

1073: \begin{equation}\label{ThetaMarginality}

1074: \Theta_{R}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}

1075: \end{equation}

1076: 

1077: Quite remarkably, we will see below in Section~\ref{sec:largeS}

1078: and Appendix~\ref{app:gapless} that precisely the same

1079: value of $\Theta$ is selected by a criterion which is seemingly

1080: entirely independent. We will study the dynamic spectral functions

1081: in the spin-glass phase, as defined by $\widetilde{G}(\tau)$,

1082: and show that their associated spectral densities are non-zero

1083: as $|\omega| \rightarrow 0$ only for the value of $\Theta$ in

1084: (\ref{ThetaMarginality}). So marginal stability in replica

1085: space appears to be connected to a gapless quantum excitation

1086: spectrum. We may intuitively understand this as due to the

1087: availability of many low energy states when the system first

1088: freezes, but a better understand should emerge from a real-time

1089: analysis.

1090: 

1091: \subsubsection{The equilibrium criterion}

1092: To apply the equilibrium criterion, we start from the expression

1093: of the free energy ${\mathcal F}$ and solve for $x$ :

1094: \begin{equation}\label{Critere1}

1095: \frac{d{\mathcal F} (x)}{dx}=0

1096: \end{equation}

1097: The computation of the {\sl total} derivative (\ref{Critere1})

1098: reduces to $\partial_{x}{\mathcal F} (x)|_{\widetilde{G},\lambda}$

1099: because the saddle-point equations (\ref{EqBase}) {\sl for finite

1100: $n$} are equivalent to

1101: \begin{equation}\label{PropF1}

1102: \frac{\partial {\mathcal F}}{\partial G^{ab}} =\frac{\partial

1103: F}{\partial\lambda }= 0

1104: \end{equation}

1105: as can be checked by an explicit calculation. Computing the

1106: logarithm in (\ref{FormuleF1}) (using Appendix II of

1107: Ref.~\onlinecite{MezardParisiManifold}) and taking the derivative

1108: leads to :

1109: \begin{equation}

1110: \frac{3}{4} J^{2} g^{4} - \frac{2}{(\beta x)^{2}}  \ln \bigl(-J g

1111: \widetilde{G} (i\nu_n = 0)) = - \frac{ g}{\beta x \widetilde{G}

1112: (i\nu_n = 0) }

1113: \end{equation}

1114: and finally to a equation for  $\Theta$ :

1115: \begin{equation}\label{ThetaStationnarity}

1116: 2 \ln  \Theta  + \frac{1}{4\Theta^{2}} + \frac{1}{2} -

1117: \frac{3\Theta^{2} }{4}=0

1118: \end{equation}

1119: This equation has two solutions : the replica symmetric one

1120: $\Theta=1$ (unstable, as explained above),

1121: and a non trivial one $\Theta =\Theta_{eq}\approx 0.4421\dots$.

1122: Contrary to the previous solution, we will

1123: see in Section~\ref{sec:largeS} that $\Im \widetilde{G}$ has a gap

1124: for this value of $\Theta$.

1125: 

1126: \subsection{The phase diagram}

1127: 

1128: Once $\Theta $ has been determined, the equations (\ref{EqSG}) can be

1129: solved either numerically (both in

1130: imaginary time and in real frequency) or analytically in the

1131: $S\rightarrow \infty$ limit. In the following, we

1132: will mainly restrict ourselves to $\Theta =\Theta_{R}$ since we believe that

1133: it is the correct solution. However all calculations have been redone for

1134: $\Theta =\Theta_{eq}$ with related results.

1135: 

1136: \subsubsection{Numerical solution}

1137: First, the critical temperature, is obtained from the numerical solution of

1138: Eqs.(\ref{EqSG}) in imaginary time : the spin glass order

1139: parameter $q (T) = g^{2} (T)$ and the breakpoint $x (T)$ are displayed

1140: in Figure \ref{TcFig} as a function of the temperature.

1141: %

1142: \begin{figure}[ht]

1143: \[

1144: \fig{6cm}{Tc.eps}

1145: \]

1146: \caption{\label{TcFig} \sl The Edwards-Anderson parameter $q_{EA}$ and the

1147: breakpoint $x$ as a function of the temperature $T$ for a fixed value

1148: of the size of the spin $S=1$ ($J=1$). The transition to the

1149: paramagnet is given by the condition $x=1$.}

1150: \end{figure}

1151: %

1152: $x$ increases linearly with $T$ from 0 at $T=0$ (there is no

1153: replica symmetry breaking at zero temperature) and  $T_{sg}$ is determined

1154: by the condition $x (T_{sg})=1$, since we must have $0\leq x\leq 1$ by

1155: definition \cite{MezardParisiBook}.

1156: Hence there is a discontinuity in $q$ at the transition, but we will

1157: show below that the transition is second order.

1158: A careful numerical study shows that the transition is always driven

1159: by $x=1$ for all values of $S$ and produces  the critical temperature

1160: displayed on Figure \ref{DiagrammePhase}. The computation is similar

1161: for the critical temperature $T^{c}_{sg}$ given by the ``replicon''

1162: criterion and for the critical temperature $T^{eq}_{sg}$ given  by

1163: the equilibrium criterion.  Moreover,

1164: we find that  $T^{c}_{sg}$, the {\sl dynamic} transition temperature, is {\bf

1165: higher} than $T^{eq}_{sg}$, the {\sl static} transition temperature :

1166: this is required by our physical interpretation of the two solutions

1167: but it was  not obvious a priori from the integral equations solved.

1168: 

1169: \subsubsection{The large-$S$ limit and spectral densities}

1170: \label{sec:largeS}

1171: 

1172: Further analytical insight into the spin glass phase itself can be obtained  by

1173: considering various large-$S$ limits, which differ by the manner in which

1174: temperatures and frequencies are scaled with $S$ (See

1175: Fig~\ref{DiagrammePhase}).

1176: 

1177: In a first simple large-$S$ limit, we take $T$ large enough so

1178: that $T/JS^2$ is of order unity. This is the simple classical

1179: limit in which we can neglect all non-zero Matsubara frequencies,

1180: and (\ref{DefSachdevYe}) reduces to the classical problem in which

1181: $\vec{S}$ are commuting vectors of length $S$. The equations

1182: (\ref{EqBase}) are analytically solvable and we can obtain a

1183: closed form expression for the critical temperature at which

1184: spin-glass order vanishes:

1185: \begin{equation}\label{TsgClass}

1186: T^{c}_{sg} \sim \frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}} JS^{2}.

1187: \end{equation}

1188: 

1189: A second, more sophisticated limit, valid at lower temperatures (well within

1190: the spin-glass phase) is when we examine $\omega$ and $T$ of order

1191: $JS$. It is therefore useful to define the variables

1192:  $\overline{\omega} =\omega /(JS)$ and $\overline{T}=T/(JS)$, which remain of order

1193:  unity at large $S$.

1194:  With this scaling,

1195: the integral equations (\ref{EqSG}) reduce to independent quartic equations for

1196: each frequency.

1197: More precisely, if we make the following Ansatz for the Green's

1198: function

1199: \begin{equation}\label{DefScalingLimitLargeS}

1200: \widetilde{G} (\omega ,T) = \frac{1}{JS} g_{1}  (\overline

1201: {\omega} ,\overline{T}) + \frac{1}{JS^{2}} g_{2}

1202: (\overline{\omega} ,\overline{T}) + \dots,

1203: \end{equation}

1204: then to leading order in $1/S$, (\ref{EqSG}) reduce to

1205: \begin{eqnarray}\label{EqQuartic}

1206: g (T) &=& S - \int_{-\infty }^{\infty} \rho_{1} (\overline{\omega}

1207: ) d\overline{\omega} \nonumber \\

1208: g_{1} (\overline{\omega} )^{-1} &=& \overline{\omega}  -

1209: \frac{1}{\Theta }- 3\Theta - 2g_{1} (\overline{\omega} ) -

1210: \overline{g_{1} (-\overline{\omega})}

1211: \end{eqnarray}

1212: where $\rho_{1} =- \Im g_{1}/\pi $ as usual. Eliminating the

1213: frequency $-\overline{\omega} $, we find a quartic equation for

1214: $g_{1} (\overline{\omega} )$. We do not explicitly display the far

1215: more complicated equation for the subleading term $g_2$.

1216: 

1217: The solution of the quartic equation for $\Theta=\Theta_R$

1218: is presented on Figure

1219: \ref{FigRho}  together with a numerical solution of the full integral

1220: equation for $S=5$.

1221: From the solution of the quartic equation we find that $\rho_1$

1222: vanishes linearly frequency at low frequencies; indeed, we find the analytic expansion

1223: \begin{equation}

1224: g_1 (\overline{\omega}) = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} - \frac{(1+i)}{2}

1225: \overline{\omega} + \frac{(2-3i)\sqrt{3}}{4} \overline{\omega}^2

1226: \label{ss10}

1227: \end{equation}

1228: at low frequencies. We expect that the full Green's function in

1229: (\ref{DefScalingLimitLargeS}) also has a similar low frequency

1230: expansion, although 

1231: this has not been proved. It is not difficult to show that the linear

1232: low frequency 

1233: spectral density holds at higher orders in the $1/S$ expansion;

1234: moreover, our numerical 

1235: results, shown in Fig~\ref{FigRho}, also clearly indicate a linear

1236: behavior at small $\omega$.  At dominant order in the present large $S$ theory, the spin susceptibility is given by :

1237: \begin{equation}\label{KiInSpinGlass}

1238: \chi'' (\omega ) = - \pi \int_{0}^{\omega } \, dx \rho_{1} (x)

1239: \rho_{1} (x-\omega )

1240: + g\pi \left(\rho_{1} (\omega ) - \rho_{1} (-\omega ) \right) + \pi

1241: g^{2} \beta \omega 

1242: \delta (\omega )

1243: \end{equation}

1244: and this is also shown in Figure \ref{FigRho}.

1245: \begin{figure}[ht]

1246: \[

1247: \fig{5cm}{Rho.eps} \kern  2cm \fig{6cm}{Kiom.eps}

1248: \]

1249: \caption{\label{FigRho} \sl

1250: {\sl a)} $\rho_{1} (\omega )$ at $T\approx 0$ for $S=5$ and

1251: $\Theta=\Theta_R$ :  the solid line

1252: is the numerical

1253: solution for the integral equation (\ref{EqSG}), the dashed line is

1254: the solution of the quartic equation (\ref{DefScalingLimitLargeS}) for

1255: $g_{1}$.

1256: {\sl b)} $\chi'' (\omega )/\omega $ at $T\approx 0$ from the quartic

1257: equation.}

1258: \end{figure}

1259: 

1260: It is important to realize that the deceptively simple structure

1261: in (\ref{ss10}) relies on the special value $\Theta=\Theta_R =

1262: 1/\sqrt{3}$ determined by the entirely different replicon

1263: argument in Section~\ref{sec:replicon}. For arbitrary values of

1264: $\Theta$ we either find no physically sensible solution of the

1265: large $S$ quartic equation (this is the case at the replica

1266: symmetric value $\Theta = 1$ where the spectral density does not

1267: satisfy the required positivity criteria) or a solution with a

1268: spectral gap. In the latter case, the solution for $g_1$ is real

1269: for small real $\overline{\omega}$, and there is an onset in the

1270: imaginary part $\sim (\overline{\omega} -

1271: \overline{\omega}_c)^{1/2}$ above some critical frequency

1272: $\overline{\omega}_c$. The solution for $\Theta=\Theta_{eq}$ is of

1273: the second type: it has a finite energy gap, but does not violate

1274: any spectral positivity criteria.

1275: 

1276: This subsection has so far identified two distinct large $S$ regimes.

1277: In the regime $T \sim JS^2$ we have purely classical behavior (the non-zero

1278: Matsubara frequencies can be neglected for static properties) and

1279: a phase transition at a critical temperature in (\ref{TsgClass}) where

1280: the spin-glass order vanishes. At lower temperatures, $T \sim JS$, we are well

1281: within the spin-glass phase, and the semiclassical dynamics is described

1282: by the solution of a quartic equation defined by (\ref{EqQuartic}).

1283: As we noted in Fig~\ref{DiagrammePhase}, there is a third ``quantum''

1284: regime at even lower temperatures, $T \sim J \sqrt{S}$, and this

1285: becomes evident in a study of the thermodynamic properties presented

1286: in the following section.

1287: 

1288: \subsection{Thermodynamics}\label{Thermo}

1289: 

1290: We now turn to the internal energy $U$ and the specific heat $C$.

1291: By computing the average of the Hamiltonian in the $N\rightarrow

1292: \infty $ limit, we find that $U$ is given by :

1293: \begin{equation}\label{FormulaU}

1294: U (T) = -\frac{J^{2}}{2}\int_{0}^{\beta } d \tau \left[

1295: G^{ab}(\tau ) G^{ab} (-\tau ) \right]^2

1296: \end{equation}

1297: Using (\ref{AnsatzParisi}) and the one-step replica symmetry

1298: breaking Ansatz in the spin glass phase, we find :

1299: \begin{equation}\label{FormuleDeveloppeeU}

1300: U (T)  = \left\{

1301: \begin{aligned}

1302: -&\frac{J^{2}}{2}\int_{0}^{\beta } G(\tau )^{2}G(-\tau )^{2}d\tau

1303: & \qquad \text{ in the paramagnetic phase} \\

1304:  -&\frac{J^{2}}{2}\int_{0}^{\beta }

1305: \bigl (\widetilde{G}(\tau) -g \bigr )^{2} \bigl

1306: (\widetilde{G}(-\tau )-g \bigr )^{2}d\tau - \frac{J^{2}}{2} \beta

1307: (x-1)g^{4}

1308: &   \qquad \text{ in the spin glass phase} \\

1309: \end{aligned}

1310: \right.

1311: \end{equation}

1312: 

1313: A numerical computation of the internal energy $U (T)$ and the

1314: specific heat $C (T)$ is displayed in Figure \ref{CetU} for

1315: $\Theta=\Theta_R$.

1316: \begin{figure}[ht]

1317: \[

1318: \fig{8cm}{CetU.eps}

1319: \]

1320: \caption{\label{CetU} \sl The specific heat $C (T)$ and the

1321: internal energy $U (T)$ vs. the temperature $T$, from a numerical

1322: solution of Eqs. (\ref{EqSG}) for $S=5$ and $\Theta=\Theta_R$. }

1323: \end{figure}

1324: The condition for the phase transition between the two phases is

1325: that the breakpoint in the Parisi function reaches its limiting

1326: value $x=1$. In this limit the equations determining the

1327: parameters in the spin glass phase, (\ref{EqSG}), transform

1328: continuously to those for the paramagnet. As the equations are

1329: believed to have a unique solution, this implies that there is no

1330: discontinuity in the internal energy at the transition, indicating

1331: its second-order nature. This is confirmed by the numerical

1332: solution displayed on Figure \ref{CetU}.

1333: 

1334: Moreover, in the large-$S$ limit defined above, we can perform a

1335: low temperature expansion of the internal energy. Inserting

1336: (\ref{DefScalingLimitLargeS}) and (\ref{EqQuartic}) into

1337: (\ref{FormulaU}), and keeping the dominant terms at large $S$ we

1338: find

1339: \begin{eqnarray}

1340: U(T) &=& - \frac{J}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\Theta} + 3 \Theta \right)

1341: g^2 -J^2 g^2 \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{\nu_n} \left[ \widetilde{G} (

1342: i \nu_n ) \widetilde{G} ( - i \nu_n) + 2 \widetilde{G}^2 (i \nu_n

1343: )

1344: \right] + \ldots \nonumber \\

1345: &=& - \frac{JS^2 }{2} \left( \frac{1}{\Theta} + 3 \Theta \right)

1346: + J S \left( \frac{1}{\Theta} + 3 \Theta \right)  \overline{T}

1347: \sum_{\overline{\nu}_n} g_1 ( i \overline{\nu}_n) -J S

1348: \overline{T} \sum_{\overline{\nu}_n} \left[ g_1 (i

1349: \overline{\nu}_n ) g_1 ( - i \overline{\nu}_n) + 2 g_1^2 ( i

1350: \overline{\nu}_n ) \right] + {\cal O} (JS^0) \label{ssU}

1351: \end{eqnarray}

1352: where $\overline{\nu}_n = \nu_n / (JS)$. Clearly, this result

1353: indicates that the leading term in $U(T)$ is a

1354: temperature-independent constant of order $JS^2$, followed by a

1355: term of order $JS$ whose coefficient is a function only of

1356: $(T/JS)$. Evaluation of the latter function at low $T$ for

1357: $\Theta=\Theta_R$ yields a curious accident: the gapless

1358: structure of the spectral functions suggests that the low $T$

1359: expansion should depend only on even powers of $T/JS$, but it is

1360: not difficult to show using (\ref{ss10}) that the coefficient of

1361: the term of order $S(T/JS)^2$ vanishes. The first non-vanishing,

1362: $T$-dependent term among those shown explicitly in (\ref{ssU})

1363: turns out to be order $JS (T/JS)^4$. To obtain the true low $T$

1364: behavior we need to expand (\ref{ssU}) to one higher-order in

1365: $1/S$, and this requires use of the second term, $g_2$, in

1366: (\ref{DefScalingLimitLargeS}). We do not expect any cancellation

1367: of the term of order $(T/JS)^2$ at this point, and so the low $T$

1368: expansion for $U$ looks like

1369: \begin{equation}\label{DevEnergy}

1370: U(T) = U(0) + a S (T/JS)^{4} + b (T/JS)^{2} +\dots

1371: \end{equation}

1372: Rather than numerically evaluating the values $a$ and $b$, we

1373: will be satisfied by the full numerical solution of (\ref{EqSG}),

1374: followed by the evaluation of (\ref{FormuleDeveloppeeU}). The

1375: results are shown in Fig~\ref{CetU} and are consistent with

1376: (\ref{DevEnergy}). The structure of the expansion in

1377: (\ref{DevEnergy}) suggests that these results are valid for $T < J

1378: \sqrt{S}$, where the specific heat depends linearly on the

1379: temperature. Although the present discussion has been carried out

1380: for large $S$, we expect, and this is supported by our numerical

1381: results, that the linear $T$ dependence of the specific heat holds

1382: even for small $S$ as $T \rightarrow 0$.

1383: 

1384: In Appendix~\ref{rotor} we describe the computation of the

1385: specific heat of the quantum rotor and Ising spin glasses

1386: considered in Ref.~\onlinecite{rsy}. As noted in the introduction,

1387: these models are simpler because they do not have quantum Berry

1388: phases in their effective action. Further, at low orders in their

1389: Landau theory, the solution for the spin glass phase is

1390: replica-symmetric. However, understanding the true $T \rightarrow

1391: 0$ behavior requires inclusion of higher-order, ``dangerously

1392: irrelevant'' terms which induce replica symmetry breaking; this

1393: is carried out in Appendix~\ref{rotor}, and we find that these

1394: quantum spin glasses also have a linear specific heat at low $T$.

1395: 

1396: \section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion}

1397: We believe that the results of this paper provide a reasonably

1398: complete understanding of the infinite-range quantum Heisenberg

1399: spin glass. While there have been a large number of previous

1400: studies of quantum spin glasses of Ising spins and rotors

1401: (including models with $(p>2)$-spin interactions), none of these

1402: models contain quantum Berry phases in their effective actions,

1403: as is the case with the Heisenberg model.

1404: They have strong consequences: the spin-liquid solution of

1405: Section~\ref{SubSectSpinliquid} and its spectral density

1406: (\ref{FormeEchelle}) are novel properties of the Heisenberg

1407: model. There is an intricate interplay in stability between this

1408: spin-liquid state and the state with spin-glass order at low $T$

1409: which we have also described. At sufficiently low $T$, the

1410: spin-glass order always appears, and we have also described the

1411: thermodynamic properties of this state.

1412: 

1413: An important issue not resolved in our analysis is the origin of

1414: the marginal stability criterion in the fluctuation eigenvalues

1415: in replica space. We imposed this criterion in a rather {\em ad

1416: hoc} manner, and found that it was the unique case under which the

1417: quantum excitation spectrum was gapless. Ultimately, the

1418: selection criterion for the spin glass state has to be a dynamic

1419: one, and this requires an analysis of the approach to equilibrium

1420: in real-time dynamics. Such an analysis was not carried out here,

1421: and is an important direction for future research.

1422: 

1423: Another interesting open problem is to extend the study of

1424: (\ref{DefSachdevYe}) to cases where $J_{ij}$ has a non-zero

1425: average value. This will allow for ground states with other types

1426: of magnetic order, ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic, and their

1427: competition with the spin glass state should be of some

1428: experimental interest. Interesting transitions in the

1429: paramagnetic states from the spin liquid state discussed also

1430: appear possible.

1431: 

1432: We have already mentioned a recent study \cite{Slush} of the

1433: quenching of the spin liquid state by mobile charge carriers into

1434: a disordered Fermi liquid. Combining this with models just

1435: mentioned, with a non-zero average $J_{ij}$, should lead to

1436: results of direct physical interest in the heavy fermion and

1437: cuprate series of compounds.

1438: 

1439: \begin{acknowledgements}

1440: We thank G. Biroli, L. Cugliandolo, D. Grempel, P. Le Doussal,

1441: M. Rozenberg for useful discussions.

1442: S.S. was supported by US NSF Grant No DMR 96--23181.

1443: O.P is supported by the Center of Material Theory, Rutgers University, NJ,USA.

1444: \end{acknowledgements}

1445: 

1446: \begingroup

1447: \appendix

1448: 

1449: \section{Computation of the spectral asymmetry}\label{AppSpectralAsym}

1450: This appendix is devoted to the derivation of Eqs

1451: (\ref{ValueOfTheta}).

1452:  We will consider

1453: hereafter the fermionic case (the bosonic one is very similar).

1454: At zero temperature, the number of particles is given by

1455: \begin{equation}\label{NbrePart}

1456: q_{0} =i \int_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1457: G_{f}^{F}(\omega )e^{i \omega 0^{+}}

1458: =i \ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1459: \partial_{\omega } \ln  G_{f}^{F} (\omega ) e^{i \omega 0^{+}}

1460: - i \ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1461: G_{f}^{F} (\omega ) \partial_{\omega }\Sigma_{f}^{F} (\omega)

1462:  e^{i \omega 0^{+}}

1463: \end{equation}

1464: where $G^{F}$ is the Green function with Feynman prescription on the

1465: real axis, and the symmetric principal part is defined by

1466: \begin{equation}\label{DefPP}

1467: \ppint_{-\infty}^{\infty} = \lim_{\eta \rightarrow 0 }{

1468: \int_{-\infty}^{-\eta} + \int_{\eta }^{\infty }}

1469: \end{equation}

1470: Using the relation between $G^{F}$ and the {\it retarded Green

1471: function} $G^{R}$, we find for the first term :

1472: \begin{equation}\label{Terme1}

1473: i \ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1474: \partial_{\omega } \ln  G_{f}^{F} (\omega ) e^{i \omega 0^{+}}

1475: = \frac{\arg G_{f}^{R} (0^{-}) - \arg G_{f}^{R} (-\infty)}{\pi} +

1476: i \ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1477: \partial_{\omega } \ln  G_{f}^{R} (\omega ) e^{i \omega 0^{+}}

1478: \end{equation}

1479: The arguments can be extracted from the low-energy and the high-energy

1480: behavior of the Green function, which leads to $\arg G_{f}^{R}

1481: (0^{-}) = -3 \pi /4 -\theta$ and $\arg G_{f}^{R} (-\infty) = -\pi $

1482: respectively. The  integral on the right of (\ref{Terme1}) can be

1483: easily evaluated : we close the contour of integration, avoiding  the

1484: singularity at $\omega =0$ and use the analyticity of the retarded

1485: Green function in the upper half plane, in which it has no zeros nor

1486: poles.

1487: We find finally :

1488: \begin{equation}\label{Finalq01}

1489: q_{0} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\theta }{\pi} -

1490:  i \ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1491: G_{f}^{F} (\omega ) \partial_{\omega }\Sigma_{f}^{F} (\omega)

1492:  e^{i \omega 0^{+}}

1493: \end{equation}

1494: 

1495: The problem is now reduced to the computation of the integral in

1496: (\ref{Finalq01}) as function of $\theta$, which turn out to be

1497: the most difficult point. An analogous computation was performed

1498: in the overscreened regime of a large-$N$ description of Kondo

1499: effects \cite{KondoPRL,KondoLong}, but it turns out to be more

1500: complex here. Proceeding along the lines of

1501: Ref.~\onlinecite{KondoPRL,KondoLong}, we note the existence of

1502: Luttinger-Ward functional

1503:  $\Phi_{LW} = \int dt \,G^{2} (t)G^{2} (-t)$

1504: which has two properties : first we have $\Sigma^{R} (\omega ) =

1505: \delta \Phi_{LW} /\delta G^{R} (\omega )$; second $\Phi_{LW }$ is invariant

1506:  in the  transformation $G (\omega )\rightarrow G (\omega +\epsilon)$.

1507: From this, we could naively think that the integral of

1508: (\ref{Finalq01}) vanishes. However, it is not possible to find a

1509: regularization for the integral for which we could use the invariance

1510: of the Luttinger-Ward functional and a more careful analysis shows that :

1511: \begin{equation}\label{Anomalie}

1512: i \ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi }  \,\,

1513: G_{f}^{F} (\omega ) \partial_{\omega }\Sigma_{f}^{F} (\omega)

1514: = \frac{\sin 2\theta }{4}

1515: \end{equation}

1516: 

1517: To obtain this result, we introduce the following parametrisation of

1518: the singularity at $\omega =0$ :

1519: \begin{equation}\label{DefC+C-}

1520: \rho (\omega ) \sim

1521: \left\{

1522: \begin{aligned}

1523: \frac{C_{+}}{\sqrt{\omega}}  &\text{\qquad \qquad for $\omega >0$}\\

1524: \frac{C_{-}}{\sqrt{|\omega|}} &\text{\qquad \qquad for $\omega <0$}

1525: \end{aligned}

1526: \right.

1527: \end{equation}

1528: The principle of the computation is very simple : we  compute

1529: explicitly the integral  with a regulator $\eta>0$ and

1530: then perform the limit $\eta \rightarrow 0$.

1531: Going to the real axis, we find :

1532: \begin{equation}\label{ExprSigF}

1533: \Sigma^{F}(\omega ) = -

1534: \int_{\substack{\\ \\

1535: \omega_{1}>0\\

1536: \omega_{2}>0\\

1537: \omega_{3}<0\\

1538: }

1539: \substack{\\ \\ \\ \text{ ou }\\ \\}

1540: \substack{\\ \\

1541: \omega_{1}<0\\

1542: \omega_{2}<0\\

1543: \omega_{3}>0\\

1544: }

1545: }

1546: %

1547: d \omega_{1} d \omega_{2} d \omega_{3} \,\,

1548: \frac{\rho (\omega_{1})\rho (\omega_{2})\rho (\omega_{3})}{

1549: \omega_{1} + \omega_{2}-\omega_{3} -\omega -i0^{+}\sgn \omega_{1}}

1550: \end{equation}

1551: Using the notations  $a = \overline{a} +  i\epsilon_{a}$, $b =

1552: \overline{b} + i\epsilon_{b}$, $\epsilon_{a/b} = \pm 0^{+}$ and

1553: $\psi_{\eta }(x) = \Theta \left(|x| - \eta  \right)$

1554: ($\overline{a}$ are $\overline{b} $ real and $\Theta$ is the

1555: Heaviside function), we obtain (using the definition of the

1556: principal part (\ref{DefPP}))

1557: \begin{align}\label{Utile1}

1558: \phi_{\eta } (a,b) = &  \ppint_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dz}{\left(z-a

1559: \right)^{2} (z-b)}\\ 

1560: \nonumber

1561:  = & \frac{1}{(a-b)^{2}}

1562: \left(

1563: \ln \left| \frac{(\eta +b) (\eta -a)}{(\eta -b) (\eta +a)} \right|

1564: + i\pi \psi_{\eta } (b) \sgn \epsilon_{b}  - i\pi  \psi_{\eta }(a)

1565: \sgn \epsilon_{a}

1566: \right)

1567:   + \frac{1}{a-b}\left(\frac{1}{\eta -a} + \frac{1}{\eta +a} \right)

1568: \end{align}

1569: Using the spectral representation for  $G^{F}$ and (\ref{ExprSigF}),

1570: we find :

1571: \begin{equation}\label{R1}

1572: {\cal  I} = -

1573: \int_{\Delta_{1}\cup \Delta_{2}}^{}\prod_{k=0}^{3} d \omega_{k} \,\,

1574: \rho (\omega_{0})\rho (\omega_{1})\rho (\omega_{2})\rho (\omega_{3})

1575: \phi_{\eta} (\omega_{1} +\omega_{2}-\omega_{3}-i\epsilon_{1}\sgn

1576: \omega_{1}, \omega_{0} - i\epsilon_{0}\sgn \omega_{0})

1577: \end{equation}

1578: with an explicit integration over  $\omega $ with  (\ref{Utile1}).

1579: In this  expression, the integration domains are defined as :

1580: \begin{equation}\label{Domaines}

1581: \Delta_{1} =

1582: \left\{\begin{aligned}

1583: \omega_{0}&<0\\

1584: \omega_{1}&>0\\

1585: \omega_{2}&>0\\

1586: \omega_{3}&<0

1587: \end{aligned}\right\}

1588: \bigcup

1589: \left\{\begin{aligned}

1590: \omega_{0}&>0\\

1591: \omega_{1}&<0\\

1592: \omega_{2}&<0\\

1593: \omega_{3}&>0

1594: \end{aligned}\right\}

1595: \qquad \qquad

1596: \Delta_{2} =

1597: \left\{\begin{aligned}

1598: \omega_{0}&>0\\

1599: \omega_{1}&>0\\

1600: \omega_{2}&>0\\

1601: \omega_{3}&<0

1602: \end{aligned}\right\}

1603: \bigcup

1604: \left\{\begin{aligned}

1605: \omega_{0}&<0\\

1606: \omega_{1}&<0\\

1607: \omega_{2}&<0\\

1608: \omega_{3}&>0

1609: \end{aligned}\right\}

1610: \end{equation}

1611: Since  $\phi_{\eta } (-a,-b) = - \phi_{\eta } (a,b)$,

1612: a simple change of  variable leads to :

1613: \begin{align}\label{R2}

1614: \nonumber

1615: {\cal I} &=

1616: -\int_{x_{i}>0}

1617: \Biggl[

1618: \Bigl(

1619: \rho(\omega_{1})\rho(\omega_{2})\check\rho(\omega_{3})\check\rho(\omega_{0})-

1620: \check\rho(\omega_{1})\check\rho(\omega_{2})\rho(\omega_{3})\rho(\omega_{0})

1621: \Bigr)

1622: \phi_{\eta} (x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3} - i\epsilon_{1},-x_{0}+i\epsilon_{0})\\

1623: & + \Bigl(

1624: \rho(\omega_{1})\rho(\omega_{2})\check\rho(\omega_{3})\rho(\omega_{0})-

1625: \check\rho(\omega_{1})\check\rho(\omega_{2})\rho(\omega_{3})

1626: \check\rho(\omega_{0})   

1627: \Bigr)

1628: \phi_{\eta} (x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3} - i\epsilon_{1},x_{0}-i\epsilon_{0})

1629: \Biggr]

1630: \end{align}

1631: with $\check \rho (\omega ) = \rho (-\omega )$.

1632: To take the limit  $\eta \rightarrow 0$, we use the new variables

1633: $x_{i}=\eta u_{i}$ and the behavior of  $\rho (x)$ for $x\rightarrow

1634: 0$, parametrised according to (\ref{DefC+C-}).

1635: The first integral in  (\ref{R2}) vanishes at dominant order in

1636: $\eta$ (this term is proportional to   $C_{+}^{2}C_{-}^{2}

1637: -C_{-}^{2}C_{+}^{2}=0 $), but the second integral gives :

1638: \begin{equation}\label{R3}

1639: {\cal I}= \int_{u_{i}>0} \frac{C_{+}^{3}C_{-} -

1640: C_{-}^{3}C_{+}}{\sqrt{u_{0}u_{1}u_{2}u_{3}}}

1641: \phi_{\eta=1} (u_{1}+ u_{2} + u_{3} -i\epsilon_{1},u_{0}-i\epsilon_{0})

1642: \end{equation}

1643: Using  $x=u_{0}$, $y=u_{1}+u_{2}+u_{3}$ and polar coordinates in

1644: $\sqrt{u_{i}}$, we find

1645:  ${\cal I} = 2\pi (C_{+}^{3}C_{-} - C_{-}^{3}C_{+}) {\cal I}_{2 }$

1646: with

1647: \begin{multline}\label{R4}

1648: {\cal I}_{2} =  \int_{0}^{\infty }\!\!\!\! \int_{0}^{\infty }

1649: \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x}} \sqrt{y}dy

1650: \left[ \frac{1}{(x-y+i\epsilon )^{2}}

1651:  \left(

1652:       \ln \left| \frac{1+x}{1-x}\frac{1-y}{1+y} \right|

1653:         +  i \pi \left(\psi_{1} (y) - \psi_{1} (x) \right)

1654:  \right) +   \right.\\

1655: \left. \frac{1}{y-x-i\epsilon }

1656:   \left(\frac{1}{1-y+i\epsilon_{1}} + \frac{1}{1+y-i\epsilon_{1}} \right)

1657: \right]

1658: \end{multline}

1659: After an integration by parts on $y$ and using %:

1660: %\begin{equation}\label{R5}

1661: %{\cal I}_{2} = -\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{\infty }\!\!\!\! \int_{0}^{\infty }  \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x}}

1662: %\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y}}  \frac{1}{x-y+i\epsilon}

1663: %\left( \ln \left|\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right| + \ln \left|\frac{1-y}{1+y}\right|+

1664: %i\pi \parent{\psi_{1} (y) - \psi_{1} (x)}

1665: %\right)

1666: %=  -2 i\pi \int_{0}^{1} \frac{dx}{x} \ln \left|\frac{1+x}{1-x} \right|

1667: %\end{equation}

1668: %Since

1669: \begin{equation}\label{Utile2}

1670: \int_{0}^{1} \frac{dx}{x} \ln \left|\frac{1+x}{1-x} \right| = \frac{\pi^{2}}{4}

1671: \end{equation}

1672: we find

1673: \begin{equation}\label{R7}

1674: i\ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}  \,\,

1675: G_{f}^{F} (\omega ) \partial_{\omega }\Sigma_{f}^{F} (\omega)  =

1676: \frac{\pi^{3}}{2}(C_{+}^{3}C_{-} - C_{-}^{3}C_{+})

1677: \end{equation}

1678: Finally, a analogous computation can be performed in the bosonic case,

1679: leading in both cases to :

1680: \begin{equation}\label{FinalThetaPre}

1681: i\ppint_{-\infty }^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}  \,\,

1682: G^{F} (\omega ) \partial_{\omega }\Sigma^{F} (\omega)  =

1683: \frac{\sin 2\theta }{4}

1684: \end{equation}

1685: (in this expression, $-\pi \leq\theta \leq \pi $).

1686: These expressions have been shown to agree perfectly with  numerical

1687: computations in

1688: imaginary time for the fermionic case and on the real axis at zero temperature

1689: in the bosonic case.

1690: 

1691: Let us note finally that we can guess the result if we admit a priori

1692: that the integral is given

1693: by an homogeneous polynomial of degree 4 : due to the particle-hole

1694: symmetry (in the fermionic case : $f\leftrightarrow f^{\dagger}$, the

1695: result can be expressed as a function of $C^{4}_{+}-C^{4}_{-}$ and

1696: $C_{+}^{3}C_{-} - C_{-}^{3}C_{+}$. The first term is rejected since it

1697: leads to a singularity at $\theta =\pm \pi /4$. The proportionality

1698: coefficient is fixed by imposing $\theta =\pi /4$ for $q_{0}=0$.

1699: 

1700: 

1701: \section{The marginality criterion}\label{AppReplicon}

1702: \subsection{Diagonalization of the fluctuation matrix}

1703: First, we diagonalize the fluctuation matrix $M$ in the

1704: replica space defined by Eq. (\ref{DefMatrixFluctuations}).

1705: A priori $M$ is a $n (n-1)/2\times n (n-1)/2$ matrix. However, we have

1706: taken for $g_{ab}$ the simple one step replica symmetry breaking

1707: Ansatz on $g_{ab}$, {\it i.e.} the $n\times n $ matrix splits into

1708: $n/m\times n/m$ blocks : $g_{ab}=g$ if $\lfloor a/m \rfloor  = \lfloor

1709: b/m \rfloor $, 0 otherwise.

1710: Thus $M$ splits into $n/m$ identical $m (m-1)/2\times m (m-1)/2$

1711: blocks ($M_{ab,cd}$ does not vanish if and only if all indices are in

1712: the same block

1713: $\lfloor a/m \rfloor  = \lfloor b/m \rfloor =\lfloor c/m \rfloor  = \lfloor

1714: d/m \rfloor $).

1715: Hence the diagonalization is to be performed only on one block (we set

1716: $1\leq a,b,c,d \leq m$), which elements are given by (with $a,b,c,d$

1717: distinct replica indices) :

1718: \begin{align}\label{AppRepValueM}

1719: M_{ab,ab}&=A \equiv 3 \beta J^{2}g^{2} \left[1-3

1720: \beta^{2}J^{2}g^{2}\left (g^{2} +\Bigl(g + \frac{\Theta }{\beta Jg}

1721: \Bigr)^{2}\right) \right] \\

1722: M_{ab,ac}&=B\equiv

1723: -9\beta ^{3}J^{4}g^{5} \left(2g +\frac{\Theta }{\beta J g} \right)\\

1724: M_{ab,cd}&=C\equiv  -18\beta^{3}J^{4}g^{6}

1725: \end{align}

1726: This matrix has already been diagonalized in

1727: Ref.~\onlinecite{DeAlmeida} and its eigenvalues are given by :

1728: \begin{align}\label{AppRepValeurde_e}

1729: e_{1} &= A-2B+C \\

1730: e_{2} &= A +2 (m-2)B + (m-2) (m-3)C/2\\

1731: e_{3} &= A + (m-4) B  - (m-3)C

1732: \end{align}

1733: Moreover, the degeneracies of $e_{1}$, $e_{2}$ and $e_{3}$ are

1734: $n (m-3)/2$, $n/m$ and $n (m-1)/m$ respectively.

1735: Using (\ref{AppRepValueM}) and (\ref{AppRepValeurde_e}), we find

1736: finally the result of the text (\ref{EigenvaluesFluct}).

1737: 

1738: The above calculation has entirely ignored perturbations,

1739: $\delta \widetilde{G}(\tau)$

1740: in the

1741: diagonal elements of (\ref{AnsatzParisi}). Including these greatly

1742: complicates the analysis, but a simple observation will suffice

1743: for our purposes. Our main attention is on the cross-coupling

1744: between $\delta \widetilde{G}(\tau)$ and the $\delta g_{ab}$. A

1745: simple consequence of the block-diagonal structure of the $g_{ab}$

1746: in the mean-field solution is that this cross-coupling has the

1747: form

1748: \begin{equation}

1749: \delta {\cal F} \sim \sum_{a>b, \lfloor a/m \rfloor  = \lfloor

1750: b/m \rfloor} \int_0^{\beta} d \tau \delta \widetilde{G}

1751: (\tau) \delta g_{ab}.

1752: \label{ssapp}

1753: \end{equation}

1754: Now we can expand $\delta g_{ab}$ in terms of the eigenvectors

1755: associated with (\ref{AppRepValeurde_e}), which were computed in

1756: Ref.~\onlinecite{DeAlmeida}. The key observation is that after

1757: the sum over $a,b$ in (\ref{ssapp}), the cross-terms

1758: corresponding to all the eigenvectors associated with $e_{1}$

1759: vanish. Consequently these eigenvectors remain eigenvectors even

1760: upon including $\delta \widetilde{G} (\tau)$, and the eigenvalue

1761: $e_1$ remains unchanged. A similar argument shows that the

1762: eigenvalue $e_3$ also remains unchanged, and only the

1763: eigenvectors associated with $e_2$ are modified non-trivially by

1764: the coupling to $\delta \widetilde{G} (\tau)$.

1765: 

1766: \subsection{The replicon solution is gapless}

1767: \label{app:gapless}

1768: 

1769: Let us assume that there is no gap in the boson spectral density and

1770: more precisely that for small $\omega$ :

1771: \begin{equation}\label{AppGaplessAnsatz}

1772: \widetilde{G} (\omega ) = \frac{\Theta }{Jg} + (a+ib)\omega^{\alpha}

1773: \Theta (\omega ) + (a'+ib')|\omega|^{\alpha}\Theta (-\omega ) + o

1774: (|\omega|^{\alpha})

1775: \end{equation}

1776: where $\Theta $ is the Heaviside function, $a,b,a',b'$ are real

1777: constants, and $\alpha >0$.

1778: Then from (\ref{EqSG_DefSigTilde}) we obtain for $\omega >0$ :

1779: \begin{align}

1780: \Im  \left(\widetilde{\Sigma } (\omega )\right)  &= J^{2}g^{2}

1781: \Im \left( 2 \widetilde{G} (\omega ) + \overline{\widetilde{G}

1782: (-\omega )} \right) + \dots \\

1783: \widetilde{\Sigma } (\omega ) &= c+ \left(d+ i (2b-b')J^{2}g^{2}

1784: \right) \omega^{\alpha}

1785: \end{align}

1786: where $c$ and $d$ are real constants.

1787: The other terms are subdominant in the limit

1788: $\omega \rightarrow 0$ as can be seen using a spectral representation.

1789: We then expand (\ref{EqSG_Dyson}) to second order and obtain

1790: at first order $\lambda =c +\frac{Jg}{\Theta }$ and for the imaginary

1791: part at second order :

1792: \begin{equation}

1793: b - (2b-b')\Theta^{2} = b' - (2b'-b)\Theta^{2}=0

1794: \end{equation}

1795: which leads to ($\Theta =1$ is excluded since $b>0$ and $b'<0$)

1796: \begin{equation}

1797: \Theta^{2}=\frac{1}{3}

1798: \end{equation}

1799: Thus the value of $\Theta $ given by the replicon

1800: condition is {\sl the only one} that leads to a gapless bosonic

1801: spectral density.

1802: 

1803: \section{Free energy of quantum rotor and Ising spin glasses}

1804: \label{rotor}

1805: 

1806: Quantum spin glasses of quantum rotors and Ising spins were

1807: studied extensively in Ref.~\onlinecite{rsy}. However, while the

1808: paramagnetic phase and the vicinity of the quantum-critical point

1809: were fairly completely described, the $T \rightarrow 0$

1810: thermodynamics within the spin glass phases were only studied in

1811: the replica-symmetric solution. A proper understanding of this

1812: low $T$ limit requires consideration of replica symmetry

1813: breaking, and we will provide that here. We will find, as in the

1814: more complex Heisenberg spin model considered in the body of the

1815: paper, that the specific heat is linear in $T$ at low $T$.

1816: 

1817: As we are restricting our attention to mean-field theory, we can

1818: neglect the spatial dependence of all degrees of freedom.

1819: Further, we will also restrict ourselves to the Ising case, and

1820: the generalization to the multi-component rotor case is

1821: immediate. As discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{rsy}, the effective

1822: action of the quantum Ising spin glass is expressed in terms of

1823: the order parameter functional

1824: \begin{equation}

1825: Q^{ab} (\tau, \tau^{\prime} )  = \langle \sigma^a (\tau) \sigma^b

1826: (\tau^{\prime} ) \rangle \label{rsy1}

1827: \end{equation}

1828: where $\sigma^a$ is the Ising spin in replica $a$. The important

1829: low-order terms in the free energy density are

1830: \begin{eqnarray}

1831: {\mathcal F} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa} \int d \tau \sum_a \left. \left[

1832: \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_1} \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_2}

1833: + r \right] Q^{aa} (\tau_1, \tau_2 ) \right|_{\tau_1 = \tau_2 =

1834: \tau} -\frac{\kappa}{3} \int d \tau_1 d \tau_2 d \tau_3 \sum_{abc}

1835: Q^{ab} (\tau_1 , \tau_2 ) Q^{bc} (\tau_2, \tau_3) Q^{ca} (\tau_3,

1836: \tau_1 ) \nonumber \\

1837: &~&~~~~~~~+ \frac{u}{2} \int d \tau \sum_a Q^{aa} (\tau,\tau)

1838: Q^{aa} (\tau,\tau) - \frac{y}{6} \int d \tau_1 d \tau_2 \sum_{ab}

1839: \left[ Q^{ab} (\tau_1 , \tau_2 ) \right]^4. \label{rsy2}

1840: \end{eqnarray}

1841: Here $r$ is the parameter which tunes across the spin glass

1842: transition, and $\kappa$, $y$ measure the strength of various

1843: non-linearities. The analysis of thermodynamic properties in the

1844: spin-glass phase  in Ref.~\onlinecite{rsy} was carried out with a

1845: vanishing coefficient of the quartic term, $y=0$: in this case

1846: the order parameter has replica symmetry, and it was found that

1847: the specific heat $\sim T^3$ as $T \rightarrow 0$. Here, we will

1848: extend the solution to small $y \neq 0$, and show that the

1849: solution with broken replica symmetry has a linear specific heat.

1850: 

1851: Time-translational symmetry requires that the mean-field solution

1852: take the form

1853: \begin{equation}

1854: Q^{ab} (\tau_1 , \tau_2 ) = \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{\nu_n} Q^{ab}

1855: (i \nu_n) e^{i \nu_n (\tau_1 - \tau_2 )}. \label{rsy3}

1856: \end{equation}

1857: As in (\ref{AnsatzParisi}), we choose the following Ansatz for

1858: $Q^{ab}$:

1859: \begin{equation}

1860: Q^{ab} (i \nu_n) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} D(i \nu_n) + \beta

1861: q_{EA}

1862: & \qquad & a=b \\

1863: \beta q_{ab} & \qquad & a \neq b

1864: \end{array}

1865: \right. \label{rsy4}

1866: \end{equation}

1867: where the off-diagonal terms, $q_{ab}$, are time-independent and

1868: characterized by the Parisi function $q(u)$, and $q(1) \equiv

1869: q_{EA}$. We have included an additive factor of $\beta q_{EA}$ in

1870: the diagonal term for convenience, and without loss of

1871: generality: as in the discussion below (\ref{AnsatzParisi}), we

1872: will find that this ensures that at $T=0$ the solution for

1873: $D(\tau)$ vanishes as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$. Also, the

1874: diagonal components $q_{aa}$ do not appear in the above, and we

1875: are therefore free to choose them as $q^{aa} = 0$. Here, and in

1876: the remainder of this appendix we are assuming that $r$ is

1877: sufficiently negative so that the system has a spin glass ground

1878: state; for larger $r$, the ground state is a paramagnet \cite{rsy}

1879: with $q_{EA}=q_{ab} =0$ whose properties are not addressed here.

1880: 

1881: We now need to insert (\ref{rsy4}) into (\ref{rsy2}) and find the

1882: saddle-point with respect to variations in the functions $q(u)$

1883: and $D ( i \nu_n)$. This is, in principle, a straightforward

1884: exercise, but the computations are somewhat lengthy.

1885: 

1886: We first identify just the terms that depend upon $q^{ab}$; these

1887: have the form

1888: \begin{equation}

1889: {\mathcal F} =  - R_1 \mbox{Tr} q^2 - \frac{R_2}{3} \mbox{Tr} q^3

1890: - \frac{R_3}{6} \sum_{ab} q_{ab}^4 + \ldots, \label{rsy5}

1891: \end{equation}

1892: where

1893: \begin{eqnarray}

1894: R_1 &=& \beta \kappa (D(0) + \beta q_{EA}) \nonumber \\

1895: R_2 &=& \kappa \beta^2 \nonumber \\

1896: R_3 &=& \beta y. \label{rsy6}

1897: \end{eqnarray}

1898: We first address the problem of determining the saddle-point of

1899: (\ref{rsy5}) with respect to variations in $q(u)$. Fortunately,

1900: this problem has been completely solved in the classical spin

1901: glass literature \cite{HertzBook}, and we can directly borrow the

1902: results: the function $q(u)$ increases linearly as a function of

1903: $u$ for $0 < u < 1 - (1- 4 R_1 R_3/R_2^2)^{1/2}$, where it

1904: saturates until $u=1$ at the constant value

1905: \begin{equation}

1906: q_{EA} = \frac{R_2 - (R_2^2 - 4 R_1 R_3)^{1/2}}{2 R_3}.

1907: \label{rsy7}

1908: \end{equation}

1909: Combining (\ref{rsy7}) with (\ref{rsy5}), we obtain the simple

1910: result

1911: \begin{equation}

1912: q_{EA}^2 = - \kappa D(0)/y \label{rsy8}

1913: \end{equation}

1914: 

1915: Next, we consider the variation of ${\mathcal F}$ in (\ref{rsy2})

1916: with respect to $D(i \nu_n)$. This is most easily done for $\nu_n

1917: \neq 0$, for which we obtain the following saddle-point equation

1918: \begin{eqnarray}

1919: && \frac{1}{\kappa} ( \nu_n^2 + r) - \kappa D^2 (i \nu_n) + u

1920: \left[ \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{\nu^{\prime}_n} D( i \nu^{\prime}_n )

1921: +

1922: q_{EA} \right] - 2 y q_{EA}^2 D(-i \nu_n) \nonumber \\

1923: &&~~- \frac{2 y q_{EA}}{\beta} \sum_{\nu^{\prime}_n} D(i

1924: \nu^{\prime}_n) D(- i\nu_n - i\nu^{\prime}_n) - \frac{2 y}{3

1925: \beta^2} \sum_{\nu^{\prime}_n, \nu^{\prime\prime}_n}

1926: D(i\nu^{\prime}_n) D(i\nu^{\prime\prime}_n) D(- i\nu_n -

1927: i\nu^{\prime}_n-i\nu^{\prime\prime}_n)=0. \label{rsy10}

1928: \end{eqnarray}

1929: Upon consideration of the saddle point equation for $D(0)$ one

1930: initially finds a number of additional term associated with the

1931: coupling of $D(0)$ to the $q_{ab}$. However, our parameterization

1932: in (\ref{rsy4}) was chosen judiciously, and has the feature that

1933: all these additional terms vanish upon using (\ref{rsy8}); so,

1934: the result (\ref{rsy10}) applies {\em also} for $\nu_n = 0$.

1935: 

1936: Let us also note the complete expression for the free energy

1937: density, obtained by inserting (\ref{rsy4}) and (\ref{rsy10})

1938: into (\ref{rsy2}):

1939: \begin{eqnarray}

1940: {\mathcal F}/n &=& \frac{q_{EA} r}{\kappa} + \frac{y^2 q_{EA}^5}{5

1941: \kappa} + \frac{1}{\beta \kappa} \sum_{\nu_n} ( \nu_n^2 + r) D(i

1942: \nu_n) - \frac{\kappa}{3 \beta} \sum_{nu_n} D^3 (i \nu_n) +

1943: \frac{u}{2} \left[ \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{\nu_n} D( i\nu_n ) +

1944: q_{EA} \right]^2 \nonumber \\

1945: &&~~-  \frac{y q_{EA}^2}{\beta} \sum_{\nu_n} D(i\nu_n) D(-i\nu_n)

1946: - \frac{2 y q_{EA}}{3 \beta^2} \sum_{\nu_n, \nu^{\prime}_n}

1947: D(i\nu_n) D(i\nu^{\prime}_n) D(- i\nu_n - i\nu^{\prime}_n)

1948: \nonumber

1949: \\ &&~~~~~ - \frac{ y}{6 \beta^3} \sum_{\nu_n, \nu^{\prime}_n,

1950: \nu^{\prime\prime}_n} D(i\nu_n) D(i\nu^{\prime}_n)

1951: D(i\nu^{\prime\prime}_n) D(- i\nu_n -

1952: i\nu^{\prime}_n-i\nu^{\prime\prime}_n). \label{rsy11}

1953: \end{eqnarray}

1954: 

1955: We are now left with the task of solving the saddle-point

1956: equations (\ref{rsy8}) and (\ref{rsy10}) for $q_{EA}$ and

1957: $D(i\nu_n)$, and inserting the result in (\ref{rsy11}). This is

1958: clearly a daunting task, and we will be satisfied in describing

1959: the $T \rightarrow 0$ limit to first order in $y$. This is

1960: similar in spirit to the large $S$ expansion of

1961: Sections~\ref{sec:largeS}, \ref{Thermo}, and we expect that

1962: higher-order corrections in $y$ will not modify the nature of the

1963: low $T$ limit.

1964: 

1965: First, we consider the case $y=0$. Here a complete analytical

1966: solution is possible, and was presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{rsy}.

1967: We have at $y=0$:

1968: \begin{eqnarray}

1969: q_{EA}^{0} &=& \frac{1}{\beta \kappa} \sum_{\nu_n} |\nu_n| -

1970: \frac{r}{\kappa u} \nonumber \\

1971: D^0 (i\nu_n) &=& - \frac{|\nu_n|}{\kappa} \nonumber \\

1972: {\mathcal F}^0 (T)/n &=& \frac{2}{3 \beta \kappa^2} \sum_{\nu_n}

1973: |\nu_n|^3 - \frac{r^2}{2\kappa^2 u}\nonumber \\

1974: &=& {\mathcal F}^0 (0)/n - \frac{4 \pi^3 T^4}{45 \kappa^2}.

1975: \label{rsy12}

1976: \end{eqnarray}

1977: We observe that the free energy density behaves as $T^4$, while

1978: the specific heat $\sim T^3$ as $T \rightarrow 0$. Notice also

1979: that positivity of $q_{EA}^{0}$ requires an upper bound on $r$,

1980: which we have assumed to hold.

1981: 

1982: Before considering explicit corrections in powers of $y$, we make

1983: an observation that is valid to all orders in $y$. The solution

1984: for $D(i\nu_n)$ in (\ref{rsy12}), when analytically continued to

1985: real frequencies, $\omega$, has an imaginary part which vanishes

1986: linearly in $\omega$ at small $\omega$. We now show that this

1987: conclusion holds to all orders in $y$; the constraint

1988: (\ref{rsy8}) will play a key role in establishing this result.

1989: Let us write $D(\omega)  = D(0) + i D_1 \omega + \ldots$ for small

1990: $\omega$, where $D(0)$ and $D_1$ are some real constants.

1991: Inserting this in (\ref{rsy10}) and evaluating it at $T=0$ for

1992: small $\omega$, we note that the last two terms in (\ref{rsy10})

1993: have imaginary parts which vanish as $\omega^3$ and $\omega^5$.

1994: Keeping only the leading $\omega$ dependence of the imaginary

1995: part, we obtain the simple expression

1996: \begin{equation}

1997: -2 i \kappa D(0) D_1 \omega - 2 y q_{EA}^2 i D_1 \omega = 0.

1998: \label{rsy12a}

1999: \end{equation}

2000: From (\ref{rsy8}) we see that this condition is satisfied, and so

2001: $D_1$ can be non-zero.

2002: 

2003: Now, we consider explicit first-order corrections in $y$: we will

2004: see that this leads to terms in the thermodynamics which vanish

2005: more slowly as $T \rightarrow 0$. We can easily use (\ref{rsy8})

2006: and (\ref{rsy10}) to determine the corrections to $D(i\nu_n)$ and

2007: $q_{EA}$ to linear order in $y$; however, these are not needed

2008: here as the shift in the free energy due to such corrections will

2009: only appear at order $y^2$, because the free energy is at a saddle

2010: point. Indeed, to obtain the free energy correct to first order in

2011: $y$, we need only insert (\ref{rsy12}) into (\ref{rsy11}). It is

2012: then quite easy to see that the free energy will have a term of

2013: order $y T^2$, and that the coefficient of this term will be

2014: non-universal and dependent upon the nature of the high energy

2015: cutoff. The required term comes from the $T$ dependence of

2016: $q_{EA}^0$, which from (\ref{rsy12}) is seen to be

2017: \begin{equation}

2018: q_{EA}^0 (T) = q_{EA}^0 (0) - \frac{\pi T^2}{3

2019: \kappa}.\label{rsy13}

2020: \end{equation}

2021: Upon inserting (\ref{rsy13}) and (\ref{rsy12}) into (\ref{rsy11})

2022: we will now obtain numerous terms in which the above $T^2$ term

2023: multiplies $T$-independent, cutoff-dependent terms coming from

2024: the upper bounds in the summations over the $D (i\nu_n)$. As the

2025: relative values of these contributions will depend upon the

2026: nature of the cutoff, there is no general reason for them to

2027: cancel against each other. Hence we obtain a $T^2$ contribution

2028: to ${\cal F}$ and a linear $T$ term in the low $T$ specific heat.

2029: 

2030: \endgroup

2031: 

2032: %\nocite{*}

2033: %\bibliographystyle{revtex}

2034: %\bibliography{SG}   

2035: 

2036: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2037: \providecommand*{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

2038: \providecommand*{\eprint}[1]{#1}

2039: \providecommand*{\url}[1]{#1}

2040: \bibitem{itp}

2041: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys.: Condens. Matt.} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{8}},

2042:   \bibinfo{pages}{9675} (\bibinfo{date}{1996}), conference on Non-Fermi Liquid

2043:   Behavior in Metals.

2044: \bibitem{coleman}

2045: \bibinfo{author}{P.~Coleman}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica B}

2046:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{259-261}}, \bibinfo{pages}{353}

2047:   (\bibinfo{date}{1999}).

2048: \bibitem{Doniach}

2049: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Doniach}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica B}

2050:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{213} (\bibinfo{date}{1977}).

2051: \bibitem{Hertz}

2052: \bibinfo{author}{J.~Hertz}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2053:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{14}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1165} (\bibinfo{date}{1976}).

2054: \bibitem{Millis}

2055: \bibinfo{author}{A.~Millis}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2056:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{48}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7183} (\bibinfo{date}{1993}).

2057: \bibitem{SRO}

2058: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, \bibinfo{author}{N.~Read}, and

2059:   \bibinfo{author}{R.~Oppermann}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2060:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10286} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2061: \bibitem{AG}

2062: \bibinfo{author}{A.~Sengupta} and \bibinfo{author}{A.~Georges},

2063:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{52}},

2064:   \bibinfo{pages}{10295} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2065: \bibitem{SachdevBook}

2066: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, \bibinfo{title}{\emph{Quantum phase transition}}

2067:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge University Press}, \bibinfo{year}{1999}).

2068: \bibitem{SCS}

2069: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, \bibinfo{author}{A.~Chubukov}, and

2070:   \bibinfo{author}{A.~Sokol}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2071:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{51}}, \bibinfo{pages}{14874} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2072: \bibitem{GS}

2073: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev} and \bibinfo{author}{A.~Georges},

2074:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{52}},

2075:   \bibinfo{pages}{9520} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2076: \bibitem{AMS}

2077: \bibinfo{author}{A.~Sengupta}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2078:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4041} (\bibinfo{date}{2000}).

2079: \bibitem{Si}

2080: \bibinfo{author}{J.~Smith} and \bibinfo{author}{Q.~Si}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.

2081:   Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5184}

2082:   (\bibinfo{date}{2000}).

2083: \bibitem{rsy}

2084: \bibinfo{author}{N.~Read}, \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, and

2085:   \bibinfo{author}{J.~Ye}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2086:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6411} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2087: \bibitem{RevueBhatt}

2088: \bibinfo{author}{R.~Bhatt} (\bibinfo{date}{1997}), in "Spin Glasses and Random

2089:   Fields", A.P. Young eds. World Scientific.

2090: \bibitem{millerhuse}

2091: \bibinfo{author}{J.~Miller} and \bibinfo{author}{D.A.Huse},

2092:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{70}},

2093:   \bibinfo{pages}{3147} (\bibinfo{date}{1993}).

2094: \bibitem{dsf}

2095: \bibinfo{author}{D.~Fisher}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2096:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{51}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6411} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2097: \bibitem{Pich}

2098: \bibinfo{author}{C.~Pich} and \bibinfo{author}{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.

2099:   Rev. Lett.} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{81}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5916}

2100:   (\bibinfo{date}{1998}).

2101: \bibitem{Motrunich}

2102: \bibinfo{author}{O.~Motrunich}, \bibinfo{author}{S.~Mau},

2103:   \bibinfo{author}{D.~Huse}, and \bibinfo{author}{D.~Fisher},

2104:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{61}},

2105:   \bibinfo{pages}{1160} (\bibinfo{date}{2000}), \eprint{cond-mat/9906322}.

2106: \bibitem{SachdevYe}

2107: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev} and \bibinfo{author}{J.~Ye},

2108:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{70}},

2109:   \bibinfo{pages}{3339} (\bibinfo{date}{1993}).

2110: \bibitem{NotreLettre}

2111: \bibinfo{author}{A.~Georges}, \bibinfo{author}{O.~Parcollet}, and

2112:   \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2113:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{840} (\bibinfo{date}{2000}).

2114: \bibitem{BrayMoore}

2115: \bibinfo{author}{A.~Bray} and \bibinfo{author}{M.~Moore}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

2116:   Phys. C : Solid. St. Phys} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{13}},

2117:   \bibinfo{pages}{L655} (\bibinfo{date}{1980}).

2118: \bibitem{MezardParisiBook}

2119: \bibinfo{author}{M.~M{\'e}zard}, \bibinfo{author}{G.~Parisi}, and

2120:   \bibinfo{author}{M.~Virasoro}, \bibinfo{title}{\emph{Spin Glass Theory and

2121:   beyond}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{World Scientific}, \bibinfo{year}{1987}).

2122: \bibitem{kopec}

2123: \bibinfo{author}{T.~{Kope\' c}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2124:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{9590} (\bibinfo{date}{1995}).

2125: \bibitem{Grempel1}

2126: \bibinfo{author}{D.~Grempel} and \bibinfo{author}{M.~Rozenberg},

2127:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{80}},

2128:   \bibinfo{pages}{389} (\bibinfo{date}{1998}).

2129: \bibitem{Slush}

2130: \bibinfo{author}{O.~Parcollet} and \bibinfo{author}{A.~Georges},

2131:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{59}},

2132:   \bibinfo{pages}{5341} (\bibinfo{date}{1999}), in this paper only the

2133:   fermionic model is considered but the results apply also to the paramagnet in

2134:   the bosonic model (with minor changes).

2135: \bibitem{KondoLong}

2136: \bibinfo{author}{O.~Parcollet}, \bibinfo{author}{A.~Georges},

2137:   \bibinfo{author}{G.~Kotliar}, and \bibinfo{author}{A.~Sengupta},

2138:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{58}},

2139:   \bibinfo{pages}{3794} (\bibinfo{date}{1998}).

2140: \bibitem{KondoPRL}

2141: \bibinfo{author}{O.~Parcollet} and \bibinfo{author}{A.~Georges},

2142:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{79}},

2143:   \bibinfo{pages}{4665} (\bibinfo{date}{1997}).

2144: \bibitem{SBV}

2145: \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, \bibinfo{author}{C.~Buragohain}, and

2146:   \bibinfo{author}{M.~Vojta}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

2147:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{286}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2479} (\bibinfo{date}{1999}).

2148: \bibitem{VBS}

2149: \bibinfo{author}{M.~Vojta}, \bibinfo{author}{C.~Buragohain}, and

2150:   \bibinfo{author}{S.~Sachdev}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

2151:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{15152} (\bibinfo{date}{2000}).

2152: \bibitem{forster}

2153: \bibinfo{author}{D.~Forster}, \bibinfo{author}{D.~Nelson}, and

2154:   \bibinfo{author}{M.~Stephen}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A}

2155:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{732} (\bibinfo{date}{1977}).

2156: \bibitem{honko}

2157: \bibinfo{author}{J.~Honkonen} and \bibinfo{author}{E.~Karjalainen},

2158:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. A} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{21}},

2159:   \bibinfo{pages}{4217} (\bibinfo{date}{1988}), for a review see also : J. P

2160:   Bouchaud and A. Georges {\sl Phys. Reports} {\bf 195} 127 (1990).

2161: \bibitem{MezardParisiManifold}

2162: \bibinfo{author}{M.~M{\'e}zard} and \bibinfo{author}{G.~Parisi},

2163:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. I} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{1}},

2164:   \bibinfo{pages}{809} (\bibinfo{date}{1991}).

2165: \bibitem{GiamLedou}

2166: \bibinfo{author}{T.~Giamarchi} and \bibinfo{author}{P.~{Le Doussal}},

2167:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{53}},

2168:   \bibinfo{pages}{15206} (\bibinfo{date}{1996}).

2169: \bibitem{CugliandoloPspinQ}

2170: \bibinfo{author}{L.~Cugliandolo}, \bibinfo{author}{C.~{Da Silva Santos}}, and

2171:   \bibinfo{author}{D.~Grempel}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2172:   \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2589} (\bibinfo{date}{2000}).

2173: \bibitem{LeticiaPspin}

2174: \bibinfo{author}{L.~Cugliandolo} and \bibinfo{author}{G.~Lozano},

2175:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{59}},

2176:   \bibinfo{pages}{915} (\bibinfo{date}{1999}).

2177: \bibitem{DeAlmeida}

2178: \bibinfo{author}{A.~{de~Almeida}} and \bibinfo{author}{D.~Thouless},

2179:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. A} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{11}},

2180:   \bibinfo{pages}{983} (\bibinfo{date}{1978}), reprinted in

2181:   \cite{MezardParisiBook}.

2182: \bibitem{HertzBook}

2183: \bibinfo{author}{K.~Fischer} and \bibinfo{author}{J.~Hertz},

2184:   \bibinfo{title}{\emph{Spin Glasses}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge

2185:   University Press, Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{1993}).

2186: \bibitem{Brooke}

2187: \bibinfo{author}{J.~Brooke} and \bibinfo{author}{al.},

2188:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{284}},

2189:   \bibinfo{pages}{779} (\bibinfo{date}{1999}).

2190: \bibitem{CugliandoloKurchan}

2191: \bibinfo{author}{L.~F. Cugliandolo} and \bibinfo{author}{J.~Kurchan},

2192:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \bibinfo{volume}{\textbf{71}},

2193:   \bibinfo{pages}{173} (\bibinfo{date}{1993}).

2194: 

2195: \end{thebibliography}

2196: 

2197: \end{document}   

2198: