1: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

2: %\documentstyle[prb,aps,twocolumn,eqsecnum,epsfig]{revtex}

3: %\documentstyle[prb,aps,eqsecnum,preprint,epsfig]{revtex}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

5: \begin{document}

6: \title{Multi-particle effects in non-equilibrium electron

7: tunnelling and field emission}

8: \author{Andrei Komnik and Alexander O. Gogolin}

9: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, 180 Queen's Gate,

10: London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}

11: \date{\today}

12: %\maketitle

13: \begin{abstract}

14: We investigate energy resolved electric current from various

15: correlated host materials under out-of-equilibrium conditions. We

16: find that, due to a combined effect of electron-electron

17: interactions, non-equilibrium and multi-particle tunnelling, the

18: energy resolved current is finite even above the Fermi edge of

19: the host material. In most cases, the current density possesses a

20: singularity at the Fermi level revealing novel manifestations of

21: correlation effects in electron tunnelling. By means of the

22: Keldysh non-equilibrium technique, the current density is

23: calculated for one-dimensional interacting electron systems and

24: for two-dimensional systems, both in the pure limit and in the

25: presence of disorder. We then specialise to the field emission

26: and provide a comprehensive theoretical study of this effect in

27: carbon nanotubes.

28: \end{abstract}

29: \pacs{03.65.X, 71.10.P, 73.63.F}

30: 

31: \maketitle

32: \section{Introduction}

33: At the early stages of the development of the quantum theory it

34: became clear that electron tunnelling processes are of

35: fundamental importance for condensed matter physics \cite{mahan}.

36: Electron tunnelling became an essential concept in such fields as

37: semiconductor physics, particle transport in mesoscopic physics,

38: field emission, and many others. In a multitude of setups,

39: tunnelling processes have attracted attention over decades

40: and continue to do so.

41: 

42: For the purposes of this work, we shall visualise tunnelling

43: events as taking place between a metallic host material and a

44: lead material (another metal, a semiconductor, or indeed vacuum

45: as in the field emission effect). The host and the lead are

46: separated from each other by a substantial potential barrier. The

47: lead is supposed to contain a detector measuring the current

48: density. The presence of a finite current immediately implies that

49: one is dealing with a non-equilibrium (steady-state) system.

50: Apart from the total current, the energy resolved current

51: $j(\omega)$, i.~e. the amount of current in the energy window

52: $\omega$ to $\omega+d\omega$, is an important characteristics of

53: the tunnelling process. The total current $J$ is then the

54: integral of $j(\omega)$ over all energies. In the field emission

55: (FE) setup, the energy resolved current have been measured for

56: different emitters over some 30 years (see \cite{plummer}, and

57: also references below). We shall therefore adopt the terminology

58: of the Gadzuk and Plummer's review article, \cite{plummer}, and

59: refer to $j(\omega)$ as the total energy distribution or TED. We

60: are not aware of any direct measurements of TEDs in tunnelling

61: contacts.

62: 

63: From the physical point of view, the most interesting aspect of

64: the TED is the part of the spectrum above the Fermi edge,

65: $\omega>E_F$. At the leading order in the tunnelling amplitude,

66: $j(\omega)$ is simply proportional to tunnelling probability

67: times the electron energy distribution function in the host,

68: $n(\omega)$. The latter is identically zero (at zero temperature)

69: above the Fermi edge due to the Luttinger theorem

70: \cite{luttingertheorem}. The high-energy tail is due to a

71: combined effect of non-equilibrium, multi-particle tunnelling

72: processes, and mutual electron-electron interactions in the host

73: material (for non-equilibrium multi-particle effects {\it per se}

74: are not sufficient to smear the Fermi surface \cite{caroli}). So,

75: we shall also refer to this high-energy tail of the energy

76: resolved current distribution as `secondary' current, `primary'

77: current being the one below the Fermi edge (i.~e. the one which is

78: proportional to the tunnelling probability). In the grand

79: picture, the secondary current is akin to the Auger effect though

80: it is, of course, a more complex phenomenon taking place not in

81: an atom but in a fully interacting metallic host. Measurements of

82: the secondary current (the trivial thermal broadening of the

83: primary current being subtracted off) can thus provide a valuable

84: source of information about the electronic correlations in the

85: host \cite{plummer,my}. The effect was indeed first discovered

86: experimentally -- in FE measurements by Lea and Gomer

87: \cite{1stexp}. Theoretical analysis of this phenomenon was done

88: by Gadzuk and Plummer soon afterwards \cite{gadzuk}. Following

89: the pioneering paper by Fowler and Nordheim \cite{fowler} these

90: authors used the connection between the FE problem and the

91: tunnelling problem and studied Boltzmann-like equations for the

92: particle-hole balance in the low density approximation. To remove

93: such restrictions and to put the theory on the modern footing, so

94: that it becomes applicable to strongly-correlated emitters, we

95: embark in this paper on investigating the issue by employing

96: Keldysh diagram technique, appropriate for this non-equilibrium

97: situation \cite{keldysh,LLX}. This method allows us to

98: consistently write down series in the tunnelling amplitude for

99: all quantities of interest and for the TED in particular.

100: 

101: Our motivation is in fact two-fold. On one hand, we think that

102: the secondary current phenomenon has not received sufficient

103: attention of theorists. The physics of the interplay between

104: non-equilibrium multi-particle tunnelling and electron

105: correlations is worth a deeper study. In particular, we

106: investigate in this paper what aspects of the electron

107: correlations are responsible for the current above the Fermi edge

108: and in what setups, other than the FE, such current can occur. On

109: the other hand, since the original work \cite{1stexp,gadzuk}

110: there have been considerable advances in the emitter technology.

111: Perhaps the most important recent development is the usage of

112: carbon nanotubes as field emitters. Carbon nanotubes display a

113: remarkable array of electronic and mechanical properties and are

114: of potential technological importance \cite{dekker}. Electron

115: transport in these systems has been thoroughly investigated.

116: While single-wall nanotubes (SWNTs) exhibit one-dimensional (1D)

117: Luttinger liquid (LL) type transport properties and are pretty

118: well understood, the theory \cite{sammlung1,sammlung2,sammlung3}

119: and experiment being in agreement \cite{tans1,bockrath1},

120: multi-wall nanotubes (MWNTs) are more complex systems subject to

121: intensive current debate. MWNTs are composed from many (at least

122: ten) concentric graphite shells. Current experiments on them are

123: consistent with two-dimensional (2D) diffusion with

124: characteristic weak localisation \cite{bachtold1} features and

125: zero-bias anomalies

126: \cite{schoenenberger,bachtold2,eg2001,mishchenko}. What concerns

127: us here is that, apart from other uses, carbon nanotubes are

128: expected to act as field emitters in high-resolution displays and

129: cathode tubes \cite{wong1,saito1}. While there have been several

130: experimental investigations  of the FE from carbon nanotubes (see

131: \cite{french1} and the main text for more references), both from

132: SWNTs and MWNTs, the relevant theory has been lacking. So, the

133: second leg of our motivation is to discuss existing FE

134: experiments on carbon nanotubes and make further theoretical

135: predictions for these systems.

136: 

137: Having in mind applications to carbon nanotubes and taking into

138: account the fact that FE usually occurs from a tip of the tube

139: (both for SWNTs and MWNTs) we narrow the following considerations

140: from a number of imaginable setups to an appropriate tip geometry.

141: Apart from this restriction, we intent to advance in this paper a

142: general discussion of non-equilibrium multi-particle tunnelling

143: from strongly-correlated 1D and 2D hosts paying special attention

144: to carbon nanotubes. Some of the results on 1D emitters

145: (applicable to SWNTs) have been announced in our recent letter

146: \cite{my}.

147: 

148: The paper is organised as follows. In the next Section we present

149: some qualitative considerations concerning the physical nature of

150: the TED. Section \ref{general} contains general

151: (model-independent) results. We identify the relevant Keldysh

152: diagrams contributing to the TED above the Fermi edge and then

153: perform a spectral analysis of the involved correlation functions.

154: A simple application of the developed theory is contained in

155: Section \ref{seclocalinteraction}, where we treat an electron

156: system with local interactions confined to the vicinity of the

157: tunnelling point. In Section \ref{luttinger} we analyse the TED of

158: particles tunnelling from LLs. In subsequent Sections \ref{pure}

159: and \ref{disorder}, the same problem is studied for correlated 2D

160: electron systems, respectively in the pure limit and in the

161: presence of a disorder potential. In Section \ref{FE} we

162: specialise to the case of field emission from carbon nanotubes.

163: Finally, in Section \ref{LS} we discuss a more sophisticated

164: two-stage tunnelling via a localised state. Summary and

165: conclusions Section completes the paper.

166: 

167: 

168: \section{Physical picture} \label{secII}

169: Before proceeding with calculations, let us elaborate on

170: qualitative origins of the TED high-energy tails.

171: The simplest setting to start with involves two noninteracting electrodes

172: with a tunnelling contact between them, see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.

173: %The transmission coefficient does not depend on the energy of the particles.

174: Applying a finite voltage leads to a nonzero current through the

175: junction. Neglecting the charging effects and (for now) under the

176: assumption of constant electron densities of states and

177: transmission coefficient, the current is proportional to the

178: applied voltage $V$. On the right side of the contact, where the

179: chemical potential is supposed to be lower than on the left one,

180: the current is carried by the tunnelled electrons. On the left

181: side of the contact the current is carried by the holes moving in

182: the opposite direction away from the contact. As long as the

183: system is noninteracting, the TED of the electrons that tunnelled

184: out is uniform in the window between $E_F$ and $E_F-V$ and is

185: zero outside (this is evident but can be confirmed by simple

186: calculation in the spirit of \cite{caroli}, which we omit). From

187: now on we set $e=1$. $E_F$ is the Fermi level of the left

188: electrode.

189: 

190: This picture changes drastically if interactions between the

191: electrons are switched on. We restrict our considerations to the

192: case when only the left contact -- the host -- is correlated (see

193: also discussion in the next Section). Then the difference between

194: the actual energy distribution function in the lead and the

195: noninteracting distribution function gives the TED of particles

196: tunnelling out of the host. The holes left behind by electrons

197: tunnelling out below the Fermi energy (`primary' electrons)

198: experience scattering from the electron sea, thereby creating

199: electron-hole pairs. Contrary to the problem of hot electron

200: relaxation (see e.~g.~\cite{meden}, and references therein), we

201: are dealing here with a \emph{flow} of hot holes in a steady

202: state. Also, we are interested in a different object: the energy

203: distribution functions rather than momentum distribution

204: functions (the latter do, of course, have a non-zero tail above

205: the Fermi momentum solely due to correlations, without a need to

206: include tunnelling \cite{agd}). The emerging `secondary'

207: electrons can also be carried over to the lead by a successive

208: tunnelling process, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. This phenomenon

209: can be regarded as condensed matter analogy of the Auger process

210: known from the atomic physics. Since the energy of the holes,

211: measured from the Fermi edge $E_F$, can not exceed $V$, the upper

212: limit for the energy the secondary electrons can acquire in the

213: electron-hole pair creation process is given by $V$ as well.

214: \begin{figure}

215: %\begin{center}

216: %\epsfxsize=0.6\columnwidth

217: %\hfill

218: %\epsffile{diag3.eps}

219: %\hfill

220: %\vspace*{0.3cm}

221: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{setup1}

222: \caption[]{\label{fig1}

223: Tunnelling junction biased by finite voltage $V$. The left electrode is the

224: interacting one while the right one is uncorrelated. Tunnelling electrons with

225: energies higher than $E_F$ are due to hot hole (denoted by

226: $p_i$) scattering with creation of electron-hole pairs $e-p_c$ (see

227: inset).}

228: \end{figure}

229: At higher orders in the tunnelling probability this threshold is increased

230: so that the secondary electrons can, in fact, become more energetic than $V$.

231: In this case they ought to be successively scattered either from

232: another hot hole or from another hot electron.

233: This is, however, a process of higher order not only in the tunnelling but

234: also in the interaction.

235: Therefore secondary electrons with energies between $(n-1) V$ and $n V$

236: emerge in the processes of $2n$th order with respect to the tunnelling amplitude

237: as well as the interaction constant.

238: Obviously, in equilibrium $V=0$ all the high energy tails vanish, thereby

239: restoring the Fermi edge in accordance with the Luttinger theorem.

240: So, non-trivial interaction effects are encoded in the high-energy behaviour

241: of the non-equilibrium TED.

242: 

243: Theoretically, the most interesting limiting case is the

244: behaviour of the TED just above the Fermi edge, when certain

245: universality can be expected. Out of the considerations of

246: Ref.~\cite{gadzuk} a divergent TED emerged, with (simplifying

247: matters) the singularity approximately of the form $j(\omega)\sim

248: 1/(\omega-E_F)$. This turned out to be roughly consistent with

249: measurements at the time \cite{1stexp}. As detailed in the

250: following Sections, the present study supports the view that the

251: limiting form of the TED strongly depends on the nature of the

252: host material and the geometry of the setup (within a given

253: material type though, some universality does set in, so for

254: point-contacted LLs we find a power-law behaviour, etc.).

255: 

256: \section{Statement of the problem and general results} \label{general}

257: We now formalise the problem by writing down

258: the relevant tunnelling Hamiltonian:

259: \begin{equation} \label{ham0}

260:  H = H[c] + H[\psi] + \gamma \left[ \psi^\dag(0) c(0) + c^\dag(0) \psi(0)

261:  \right] \; .

262: \end{equation}

263: Here $\gamma$ is the tunnelling amplitude and $c$ and $\psi$ are the

264: annihilation operators for the electrons

265: in the lead and in the host, respectively.

266: The unperturbed part of the Hamiltonian $H_0=H[c] + H[\psi]$ describes

267: two decoupled electron systems at different chemical potentials

268: $\mu_\psi-\mu_c=V>0$.

269: 

270: A clarification on the following points is in order.

271: 

272: {\bf (i)} As we only want to consider a tip geometry, we have

273: explicitly assumed that the tunnelling occurs only locally at the

274: location of the tip: $x=0$. In reality, of course, there is a

275: small area over which the tunnelling takes place (strictly speaking,

276: a real-space integral is required in the tunnelling term in

277: Eq.(\ref{ham0})). As this has no qualitative influence, we shall

278: keep writing simple as long as we can. The locality assumption is

279: natural for carbon nanotubes because of the very shape of these

280: objects. It is however also justified for most bulk interfaces

281: and field emitters where, because of the roughness of the surface

282: and the pronounced exponential dependence of the penetration

283: coefficient on the distance between the electrodes, the main

284: contribution to the current comes from only few points between

285: the electrodes.

286: 

287: {\bf (ii)} Related to the above is the question of the energy

288: (momentum) dependence of the tunnelling amplitude. In real

289: systems it is energy dependent. So, for the FE setup the relevant

290: energy scale is determined by a combination of the work function

291: and the applied field. It is important to keep in mind, however,

292: that as the tunnelling amplitude is a single electron property,

293: regarding its energy dependence there is no special significance

294: to the Fermi edge. Therefore, when addressing observables

295: determined by scattering processes taking place close to the

296: Fermi surface, it is quite safe to neglect the energy dependence

297: of the tunnelling amplitude and replace it by a constant,

298: $\gamma$ ($\gamma^2$ being proportional to the transmission

299: coefficient of the potential barrier at the Fermi energy: ${\cal

300: D}(E_F)$.) In the literature on the subject the tunnelling term is

301: often quoted in the momentum representation in the form

302: $\gamma_{pk}\psi^\dagger_p c_k$ plus conjugate with some

303: unspecified matrix elements $\gamma_{pk}$. We take the view that,

304: for calculating quantities related to the Fermi surface, this

305: would only complicate formulae without conceptual gain. There

306: will be, however, instances in the following when the energy

307: dependence of the tunnelling amplitude is important, like when

308: there is a localised state or when we discuss generalisations of

309: the Fowler--Nordheim relations for nanotubes. In these cases

310: (Sections \ref{FE} and \ref{LS}) we shall take the relevant

311: energy dependence fully into account.

312: 

313: {\bf (iii)} Throughout this paper we assume that the lead is

314: non-interacting. Indeed one could not otherwise separate the

315: effect of correlations occurring in the host from those occurring

316: in the lead, which would seriously hamper meaningful

317: interpretation of measurements on such systems. This assumption is

318: justified for the FE setup, save for the Boersh effect, which is

319: not believed to be important for carbon nanotubes (see

320: \cite{fransen} and \cite{my}). For a general tunnelling junction

321: setup it would not be correct to {\it a priori} neglect

322: correlations in the lead. However, with care it is possible to

323: realise a reasonable setup involving, for instance, a nanotube in

324: contact with a low carrier density semiconductor or a quantum wire

325: opening up into a higher dimensional lead preferably screened by

326: a nearby gate (in fact most conductance measurements on quantum

327: wires are nowadays interpreted in terms of a junction with a

328: non-interacting lead \cite{tarucha,glazman}).

329: 

330: In the bulk of this paper we shall be investigating the secondary

331: current $j(\omega>0)$ (we set $E_F=0$ from now on). It is a

332: plausible statement that the secondary current should be

333: proportional to the high-energy tail $n(\omega>0)$ of the

334: electron energy distribution function {\sl inside} the emitter tip

335: (calculated to all orders in the tunnelling amplitude). Indeed

336: the latter quantity corresponds to the amount of electrons

337: available for tunnelling at a given energy $\omega$, while the

338: proportionality factor contains (unessential) information about

339: how these electrons are then carried over to the detector. In the

340: first part of this Section we establish this statement.

341: 

342: Since we are dealing with non-equilibrium phenomena we resort to the

343: Keldysh formalism. We denote by  $G(x,x';t-t')$ the

344: generalised Green's function for electrons in the lead,

345: \begin{equation} \label{first}

346: G(x,x';t-t') = -i \langle T_C [c(x,t)

347: c^\dag(x',t')\,S_C] \rangle_0 \, ,

348: \end{equation}

349: the Green's function in the host, $g$, being defined by an analogous

350: formula.

351: Here $T_C$ stands for the ordering operation along the Keldysh

352: contour, shown in Fig.~\ref{contour}, and $x$ corresponds to a

353: set of coordinates specifying the electron states in the lead.

354: (It should be understood as a distance from the emitter tip plus

355: possibly a transverse channel index which we suppress as it plays

356: no important part in the following). The average in

357: Eq.~(\ref{first}) is taken over the ground-states of the

358: unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$ and the contour $S_C$-matrix is

359: responsible for tunnelling events:

360: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Smatrix} \nonumber

361: S_C = T_C \exp\left(-i \gamma \int\limits_C \, dt \, [ \psi^\dag(t) c(t) +

362: c^\dag(t) \psi(t) ]\right) \, .

363: \end{eqnarray}

364: \begin{figure}

365: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{contour}

366: \caption[]{\label{contour} Schematic representation of the Keldysh contour.

367: The lower branch is time-ordered, while the upper

368: branch is anti-time-ordered.

369: }

370: \end{figure}

371: Note that because the system is not translationally invariant, all

372: Green's functions depend on both coordinates. However, all

373: functions still only depend on the time differences because the

374: system is in steady state. The time integration in

375: Eq.~(\ref{first}) is along the contour $C$. Keldysh

376: disentanglement of the time variables results in expressions with

377: integrations only along the real axis. Then, four different

378: Green's functions emerge in accordance with four possibilities to

379: arrange the times $t$ and $t'$ along the contour. This placement

380: of the time variables is reflected in additional superscripts of

381: the Green's functions. For instance, if the time $t$ lies on the

382: time-ordered part of the contour and $t'$ on the

383: anti-time-ordered one, see Fig.~\ref{contour}, evaluation of

384: Eq.~(\ref{first}) at the zeroth order in the tunnelling (indicated

385: by a subscript $0$) yields:

386: \begin{eqnarray}

387: G^{-+}_0(x,x';t-t') &=& -i \langle T_C [c(x,t)

388: c^\dag(x',t') ]\rangle_0 \nonumber \\ \nonumber &=& i \langle

389: c^\dag(x',t') c(x,t) \rangle_0 \, .

390: \end{eqnarray}

391: Its counterpart with an interchanged orientation

392: of time variables ($t$ on the $C_+$ and $t'$ on the $C_-$) is

393: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

394: G^{+-}_0(x,x';t-t') = -i \langle c(x,t) c^\dag(x',t') \rangle_0 \, .

395: \end{eqnarray}

396: Green's function in which both time variables lie on the same side

397: of the contour are the usual time-ordered and anti-time-ordered ones:

398: \begin{eqnarray}

399: G^{--}_0(x,x';t-t') &=& -i \langle T [c(x,t) c^\dag(x',t')

400: ]\rangle_0 \, , \nonumber \\ \nonumber G^{++}_0(x,x';t-t') &=& -i

401: \langle \widetilde{T}[ c(x,t) c^\dag(x',t') ]\rangle_0 \, ,

402: \end{eqnarray}

403: where $\widetilde{T}$ denotes the anti-time-ordering operation.

404: 

405: The local electron energy distribution function $N(x,\omega)$ in

406: the lead, which we shall also call TED by abuse of terminology,

407: is given by the defining relation with one of the Keldysh Green's

408: functions (see e.~g.~\cite{LLX}):

409: \begin{equation} \label{defEDF}

410:  N(x,\omega) = - i G^{-+}(x,x; \omega) \; .

411: \end{equation}

412: The lead being non-interacting, the TED of the tunnelling

413: particles is, up to a pre-factor, given by above

414: Green's function after subtracting off

415: the equilibrium distribution function.

416: Indeed, by examining the perturbative expansion in

417: the tunnelling amplitude $\gamma$ and keeping in mind

418: the fact that there is no correlations in the lead,

419: one can easily establish the following important identity,

420: \begin{eqnarray} \label{impform}

421: &~&~G(x,x'; t-t') = G_0(x,x';t-t') \\

422: \nonumber &~&~+\gamma^2 \int\limits_C\int\limits_C dt''dt'''

423: G_0(x,0;t-t'') g(0,0;t''-t''') \\

424: \nonumber &~&~\times G_0(0,x';t'''-t') \; .

425: \end{eqnarray}

426: The corresponding diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{equation}.

427: The function $g(0,0;t-t')$ appearing in this relation is the

428: exact one, so the formula is valid for arbitrary

429: interactions in the host and to all orders in the tunnelling amplitude.

430: \begin{figure}

431: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{equation}

432: \caption[]{\label{equation} Schematic representation of the equation

433: (\ref{impform}). Solid line denotes the electron's Green's function of the

434: lead and the dashed ones stand for particles in the host.

435: Thick lines they correspond to exact Green's functions to all

436: orders in tunnelling and interactions while thin lines represent Green's

437: functions with tunnelling neglected.

438: }

439: \end{figure}

440: 

441: By disentangling the Keldysh indices and changing over to the

442: energy representation, we extract the Green's function of interest

443: from the general expression, (\ref{impform}),

444: \begin{eqnarray} \label{dis}

445: && G^{-+}(x,x'; \omega) = G^{-+}_0(x,x';\omega) \\

446: \nonumber &+& \gamma^2  \sum_{i,j=\pm} (ij)

447: \, G^{-i}_0(x,0;\omega) g^{ij}(0,0;\omega) G^{j+}_0(0,x';\omega)\, .

448: \end{eqnarray}

449: Plugging this expression into Eq.~(\ref{defEDF})

450: one obtains the complete TED at all energies.

451: Let us take a closer look at this relation.

452: All terms on the right-hand-side, apart of the one with

453: $(i,j)=(-,+)$, contain the unperturbed $G_0^{-+}$ function.

454: The latter is, in turn, proportional to the TED in equilibrium.

455: Therefore, no matter what the Green's functions of the interacting

456: fermions look like, all these contributions represent the TED below the

457: Fermi energy (where the first term is the dominant contribution).

458: The term in Eq.~(\ref{dis}) with $(i,j)=(-,+)$ is not constrained in such

459: way and can, in principle, contribute above the Fermi edge.

460: Therefore the high-energy part of the TED is given by

461: \begin{eqnarray} \label{EDFexp}

462:  N_{>}(x;\omega) &=& -i\Theta(\omega) G^{-+}(x,x; \omega) \\ \nonumber &=&

463:  - \gamma^2 G^{--}_0(x,0;\omega) g_>^{-+}(0,0;\omega) G^{++}_0(0,x;\omega)

464: \; ,

465: \end{eqnarray}

466: where $\Theta(\omega)$ is the Heaviside step function and

467: $g_>^{-+}(0,0;\omega)$ stands for the high energy part of the corresponding

468: Green's function.

469: 

470: Similar properties can be established for the energy resolved

471: current $j(\omega)$, when we have

472: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

473:  j(\omega) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int \, dk \, v_k \,  N(k;\omega) \,

474: \end{eqnarray}

475: where $v_k$ is the velocity of the particle with wave number $k$.

476: Making use of Eqs.~(\ref{defEDF}) and (\ref{dis}) for the

477: high-energy part of the current one obtains,

478: \begin{eqnarray} \label{tokexp}

479: j_>(\omega) &=& -i \frac{\gamma^2}{\pi} \, g^{-+}_>(0,0;\omega) \\ \nonumber

480: &\times& \int \, dk \, k \int \, d(x-x') \, e^{i k (x-x')}\\

481: \nonumber &\times& \left[G^{--}_0(x,0;\omega)

482: G^{++}_0(0,x';\omega) \right] \, ,

483: \end{eqnarray}

484: where the product in brackets is actually translationally

485: invariant (only depends on $x-x'$), reflecting the fact that the

486: excess particles only travel in one direction, away from the

487: contact, in the (non-interacting) lead.

488: 

489: We now observe that both Eq.~(\ref{EDFexp}) and Eq.~(\ref{tokexp})

490: are proportional to the high-energy part of the TED of particles

491: at the tip of the interacting host,

492: \begin{eqnarray} \label{tokexp1}

493: n_>(\omega) = -i g^{-+}_>(0,0;\omega) \, ,

494: \end{eqnarray}

495: thereby proving the statement put forward at the beginning of

496: this Section. We stress again that $n_>(\omega)$ is supposed to

497: be exact both with respect to the interaction and the tunnelling.

498: Indeed, as one can easily see, this quantity is zero for a

499: noninteracting system, even if tunnelling is taken into account

500: to all orders. It is still zero for interacting hosts if

501: tunnelling is neglected or if the system is in equilibrium

502: (Luttinger theorem). Situation changes dramatically in the case

503: of an interacting host, finite tunnelling and finite bias voltage.

504: In the rest of this Section we shall explore what statements can

505: be made about the TED without assuming a concrete model for the

506: host material (other than that there is a two-body interaction

507: present).

508: 

509: As mentioned in the Introduction, there is a scattering process

510: that allows for creation of electrons above the Fermi energy. Let

511: us start with perturbative analysis. At the second order in the

512: interaction, the corresponding diagram for the Green's function

513: can be constructed by annihilating the particles in the same way

514: they were created. This essentially converts the scattering

515: amplitude for a given process into the corresponding probability.

516: The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}~a). Now we need to establish

517: the way the vertices can be decorated with the Keldysh

518: indices. Trivially the outmost points should have index $-$ on

519: the outward leg and $+$ on the inward leg in accordance with the

520: type of function ($-+$) we are calculating. Furthermore, there is

521: only one possibility to assign indices to interaction vertices.

522: In order to obtain a contribution above the Fermi energy the

523: inward Green's function should be of $++$ or anti-time ordered

524: type while the outward one has to carry $--$ indices, because all

525: other possibilities contain at least one $G^{-+}_0$ factor which

526: forces the diagram to vanish above $E_F$.

527: \begin{figure}

528: %\begin{center}

529: %\epsfxsize=0.6\columnwidth

530: %\hfill

531: %\epsffile{diag3.eps}

532: %\hfill

533: %\vspace*{0.3cm}

534: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{diag3}

535: \caption[]{\label{fig3} a) The only second order diagram

536: contributing to the TED above the Fermi energy. Solid lines

537: correspond to host electrons and the dashed one to those in the

538: lead while crosses denote the tunnelling vertices. Wiggly lines

539: represent interactions. b) This diagram has to be inserted into

540: a) at points denoted by circles in order to obtain high-order

541: diagram for the TED. }

542: %\end{center}

543: \end{figure}

544: We are left with two cross vertices of the inserted Green's function.

545: Since we do not have \emph{a priori} knowledge about them,

546: we have checked all possibilities explicitly.

547: It turns out that the only possibility is to insert the function

548: $G^{+-}_0$ because in all other cases the diagram vanishes for

549: $\omega > 0$.

550: Hence the only second-order diagram contributing to the TED

551: above the Fermi energy is the one shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}~a).

552: 

553: Let us now consider all orders in the interaction but remain at

554: the second order in the tunnelling amplitude thereby also

555: formally justifying the above choice of the Keldysh indices.

556: The way to proceed is to analyse the relevant Green's functions

557: in the Lehmann-type spectral representation.

558: In the time domain the local (tip) Green's function of

559: interest $g^{-+}(t_1,t_2)$ is given by

560: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

561: g^{-+}(t_1,t_2) = i \langle \psi^\dag(t_2) \psi(t_1)

562: \rangle = -i \langle T_C [\psi(t_1^-)\psi^\dag(t_2^+)] \rangle \; ,

563: \end{eqnarray}

564: where the superscripts indicate that the time variables $t_1$ and $t_2$

565: lie on the time-ordered ($T$) and anti-time-ordered ($\widetilde{T}$) parts of

566: the Keldysh contour, respectively.

567: Performing the straightforward $S$-matrix expansion in powers of the tunnelling

568: amplitude $\gamma$ one obtains at the lowest non-vanishing order

569: (second order in $\gamma$):

570: \begin{eqnarray} \label{gsum}

571: \delta g^{-+}(t_2,t_1) &=& \gamma^2 \int \, dt_3 \, dt_4 \, \sum_{ij = \pm}

572: {\cal K}^{-+}_{ij}(t_2,t_1; t_3,t_4) \nonumber \\

573: &\times& G^{ij}(t_3,t_4) \, ,

574: \end{eqnarray}

575: where ${\cal K}^{-+}_{ij}(t_2,t_1; t_3,t_4)$ are the following four-point

576: correlation functions:

577: \begin{eqnarray} \label{gammadef}

578:  {\cal K}^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4) &=& \langle \widetilde{T}

579: [\psi^\dag(t_2)\psi^\dag(t_3)] T[\psi(t_1) \psi(t_4)] \rangle_0

580: \, , \nonumber \\

581:  {\cal K}^{-+}_{-+}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4) &=& \langle \widetilde{T}

582: [ \psi(t_4) \psi^\dag(t_2)] T [ \psi(t_1) \psi^\dag(t_3)] \rangle_0

583: \, , \nonumber \\

584:  {\cal K}^{-+}_{--}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4) &=& \langle \psi^\dag(t_2)

585: T [\psi(t_1) \psi^\dag(t_3) \psi(t_4)] \rangle_0 \, , \nonumber \\

586:  {\cal K}^{-+}_{++}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4) &=& \langle \widetilde{T}

587: [ \psi^\dag(t_2) \psi^\dag(t_3) \psi^\dag(t_4)] \psi(t_1)

588: \rangle_0 \,

589: \end{eqnarray}

590: 

591: We shall first find the spectral representation of the term

592: containing ${\cal K}^{-+}_{+-}$,

593: \begin{eqnarray} \label{EDFB}

594: \delta^{(1)} g^{-+}(t_1,t_2) = \gamma^2 \int \,

595: \frac{d\epsilon}{2 \pi} G^{+-}(\epsilon) \nonumber \\

596: \times \int \, dt_3 dt_4 \, e^{-i \epsilon (t_3-t_4)}

597: {\cal K}^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4) \nonumber \\

598: = -i \gamma^2 \int_{-V}^{\infty} \, d\epsilon \,

599: \rho_c(\epsilon) P^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2;\epsilon) \, ,

600: \end{eqnarray}

601: where we have used the

602: bare $-+$ Green's function in the lead,

603: \begin{eqnarray} \label{G0omega}

604:  G^{+-}_0(\epsilon) = -i 2 \pi \Theta(\epsilon + V) \rho_c(\epsilon) \, ,

605: \end{eqnarray}

606: containing the local density of states $\rho_c(\epsilon)$ in the lead.

607: Partial Fourier transform of the correlation function appearing in

608: the above formula is defined by

609: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

610:  P^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2;\epsilon) = \int \, dt_3 \, dt_4 \,

611: e^{-i \epsilon (t_3-t_4)} {\cal K}^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4) \, .

612: \end{eqnarray}

613: According to definition (\ref{gammadef}), this correlation function contains

614: two different time orderings. Writing them down explicitly and

615: inserting between every two $\psi$ operators a complete set of exact states,

616: it is possible to perform all time integrations.

617: This procedure is a straightforward generalisation of the standard one for

618: the equilibrium case \cite{agd}.

619: The result is

620: \begin{eqnarray} \label{pis}

621: P^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2;\epsilon) = \sum_\mu e^{-i(E_\mu+\epsilon)(t_1-t_2)}

622: |{\cal B}^{(1)}_\mu (\epsilon)|^2 \, ,

623: \end{eqnarray}

624: with ${\cal B}^{(1)}_\mu (\epsilon)$ defined by

625: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

626: {\cal B}^{(1)}_\mu(\epsilon) = \sum_\nu a_{\mu \nu}a_{\nu

627: 0}\left[\frac{1}{E_\mu-E_\nu+\epsilon+i0} +\frac{1}{E_\nu+\epsilon-i0}\right]

628: \; , \nonumber

629: \end{eqnarray}

630: where Greek indices count all possible excited states of the

631: system with energies $E_{\nu, \lambda, \mu}$ and $a_{\mu \nu}$

632: stand for matrix elements of the operator $\psi$ , $a_{\mu

633: \nu}=\langle \mu| \psi | \nu \rangle$. In order to obtain the

634: actual correction to the TED we plug the two last equations back

635: into Eq.~(\ref{EDFB}) and compute the Fourier transform of the

636: latter with respect to the time difference $t_1-t_2$,

637: \begin{eqnarray} \label{specres1}

638: \delta n^{(1)}(\omega)= - i \int \, d(t_1-t_2) \, e^{i \omega (t_1-t_2)}

639: \, \delta^{(1)} g^{-+}(t_1,t_2) \nonumber \\

640:  = - 2 \pi \gamma^2 \sum_\mu \Theta(V - E_\mu - \omega) |{\cal

641:  B}^{(1)}_\mu(-V)|^2 \, .

642: \nonumber

643: \end{eqnarray}

644: Obviously, all $E_\mu$'s are larger than the ground state energy $E_0$

645: (which we have set to zero).

646: Therefore the upper boundary for $\omega$ is given by $V$.

647: 

648: The remaining three terms in Eq.~(\ref{gsum}) can be treated in a

649: similar manner. Repeating steps leading to (\ref{pis}), we obtain

650: for the term containing the second four-point correlation

651: function in Eq.~(\ref{gammadef}):

652: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

653:  P^{-+}_{-+}(t_1,t_2;\epsilon) =

654: \sum_\mu e^{i (E_\mu-\epsilon)(t_1-t_2)} |

655: {\cal B}^{(2)}_\mu(\epsilon) |^2 \, ,

656: \end{eqnarray}

657: with

658: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

659: {\cal B}^{(2)}_\mu (\epsilon) = \sum_\nu \left[ \frac{a_{0\mu}

660: a^*_{\mu \nu}}{E_\mu - \epsilon + i0} + \frac{a^*_{0 \mu}

661: a_{\mu \nu}}{E_\nu - E_\mu - \epsilon - i0} \right] \, ,

662: \end{eqnarray}

663: the corresponding contribution to the TED being

664: \begin{eqnarray} \label{specres2}

665:  \delta^{(2)}n (\omega) = 2 \pi

666: \gamma^2 \sum_\mu \Theta(-V - E_\mu - \omega) |{\cal B}^{(2)}_\mu (V) |^2 \, .

667: \end{eqnarray}

668: Contrary to Eq.~(\ref{specres1}), this term is bounded by $-V$

669: from above and hence does not contribute to the high-energy part

670: of the TED. One can use an even simpler argument in order to

671: show that the last two four-point correlation functions in

672: (\ref{gammadef}) do not contribute above the Fermi edge either.

673: By inserting only one complete set of states between the

674: time-ordered operators (i.~e. at the break of the time-ordering)

675: one obtains (for simplicity we set $t_1=0$)

676: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

677:  P^{-+}_{--}(0,t_2;\epsilon) &=& \int \int \, dt_3 \,

678: dt_4 \, e^{-i \epsilon (t_3-t_4)} \\ &\times& \sum_\nu

679: a^*_{0 \nu} e^{-i E_\nu t_2} \langle \nu | T [\psi(0)

680: \psi^\dag(t_3) \psi(t_4) ]| 0 \rangle \,  \nonumber

681: \end{eqnarray}

682: for the third term.

683: The corresponding correction to the TED is then given by

684: \begin{eqnarray}

685:  &~& \delta^{(3)} n(\omega) = i \gamma^2

686: \sum_\nu a^*_{0 \nu } \delta(-E_\nu - \omega) \int d\epsilon \,

687: G^{--}_0(\epsilon) \nonumber \\ \nonumber

688: &\times& \int dt_3 d t_4

689: \langle \nu | T [\psi(0) \psi^\dag(t_3) \psi(t_4)] | 0 \rangle \,

690: .

691: \end{eqnarray}

692: Since all $E_\nu$'s are always positive this expression is nonzero

693: only for negative energies $\omega<0$.

694: The same is true for the last four-point correlation function

695: ${\cal K}^{-+}_{++}$.

696: 

697: The above approach is quite general (i.~e. valid for all kinds of

698: interacting host materials) but it is also inconclusive in the sense

699: that the actual energy dependence of the TED is determined by

700: spectral weights encoded in the structure of matrix elements

701: $a_{\mu \nu}$ that is different for different hosts. One positive

702: result of the spectral method, however, is that we have

703: identified the Keldysh four-point correlation function

704: responsible for the secondary current effect:  ${\cal

705: K}^{-+}_{+-}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig4}. For some models we shall

706: calculate this correlation function exactly to all orders in the

707: interaction, for other models we'll resort to perturbative

708: expansions: note that diagram a) of Fig.~\ref{fig3} is a special

709: case (second-oder expansion) of the general Fig.~\ref{fig4} term.

710: 

711: Let us conclude the present Section by making one more observation

712: of a general character.

713: Returning back to the real time representation of the lead Green's

714: function (\ref{G0omega})

715: and doing simple manipulations

716: with the time integrations, we arrive at the alternative representation

717: for the TED:

718: \begin{eqnarray} \label{com}

719: &~&~n_>(\omega) = - 2i \gamma^2 \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty  dt

720: \frac{e^{i (\omega-V)t}}{t+i \alpha} \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty d\tau_1

721: \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty d\tau_2e^{i\omega(\tau_1+\tau_2)} \nonumber  \\

722: &~&~\times

723: \langle \widetilde{T}[\psi(\tau_1)\psi(0)]

724: T[\psi(t+\tau_1)\psi(t+\tau_1+\tau_2)]\rangle_0 \, ,

725: \end{eqnarray}

726: where $\alpha$ stands for the short-time (high-energy) cutoff

727: inversely proportional to the conductance band-width $D$. For the

728: sake of simplicity, we have assumed a constant density of states

729: in the lead but this assumption is not crucial.

730: \begin{figure}

731: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{diag5}

732: \caption[]{\label{fig4}

733: Generic diagram giving contributing to the TED above the Fermi energy.

734: The four-point correlation function ${\cal K}^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)$ is

735: represented by the shaded square. }

736: %\end{center}

737: \end{figure}

738: We now observe that if the $T$-ordering operation in the above

739: formula were dropped, the expression would vanish. Indeed,

740: inserting some complete sets one finds that then the integrand in

741: the above, proportional to

742: \begin{equation} \nonumber

743: \sim\langle 0 |\psi(t+\tau_1)|\nu\rangle\langle \nu|

744: \psi(t+\tau_1+\tau_2)|0\rangle

745: \sim e^{iE_\nu\tau_2} \, ,

746: \end{equation}

747: becomes an analytic function of the time variable $\tau_2$ in the

748: upper half plane and hence has vanishing Fourier transform for

749: $\omega>0$. By re-arranging time integrations in a different way,

750: one can easily show that the same statement is true about the

751: $\widetilde{T}$-ordering operation. Subtracting off the unordered

752: correlation function we arrive at the following remarkable

753: representation for the TED:

754: \begin{eqnarray} \label{combis}

755: &~&~n_>(\omega) = - 2i \gamma^2 \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty  dt

756: \frac{e^{i (\omega-V)t}}{t+i \alpha} \int\limits_{0}^\infty d\tau_1

757: \int\limits_{0}^\infty d\tau_2e^{i\omega(\tau_1+\tau_2)} \nonumber  \\

758: &~&~\times

759: {\cal R}(\tau_1,0;t+\tau_1,t+\tau_1+\tau_2) \, ,

760: \end{eqnarray}

761: with

762: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Rdef}

763: {\cal R} (t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)= \langle \{

764: \psi^\dag(t_1),\psi^\dag(t_2) \} \{ \psi(t_3),\psi(t_4) \}

765: \rangle \, ,

766: \end{eqnarray}

767: \vspace*{0.0cm}

768: 

769: \noindent where $\{.,.\}$ stands for the anti-commutator. The

770: advantage of this representation is that it is explicitly

771: vanishing in the non-interacting case as the field operators are

772: then anti-commuting at all times. The latter does not take place

773: in interacting systems. Generally, anti-commuting interacting

774: Fermi operators at different times would result in a complicated

775: object. However, there are systems for which the so-called

776: \emph{braiding relations} hold:

777: \begin{eqnarray} \label{braiding}

778:  \psi(t_1) \psi(t_2) = e^{i \varphi(t_1-t_2)} \psi(t_2) \psi(t_1) \,.

779: \end{eqnarray}

780: The exact shape of the phase function $\varphi(t)$ depends on the

781: system in question but it is usually proportional to the

782: interaction constant. The braiding relation reflects the time

783: evolution of an anti-commutators in particular models and can be

784: used to simplify (\ref{Rdef}) to

785: \begin{widetext}

786: \begin{eqnarray} \label{braiding2}

787:  {\cal R}(\tau_1,0 ; t+\tau_1,t+\tau_1+\tau_2)

788:  = (1+e^{-i \varphi(\tau_1)})(1+e^{-i \varphi(-\tau_2)})

789: \langle \psi^\dag(\tau_1)\psi^\dag(0)

790: \psi(t+\tau_1)\psi(t+\tau_1+\tau_2) \rangle \,

791: \end{eqnarray}

792: \end{widetext}

793: from which formula it is clear that the expansion of $n_>(\omega)$

794: in the interaction constant starts (at least) at the second order.

795: In the next Section we present two models where such braiding

796: relations exist.

797: 

798: In the following four Sections we apply the formalism developed

799: here to various physical systems.

800: 

801: \section{Models with local interactions} \label{seclocalinteraction}

802: We start with the simplest (toy) model we could think of:

803: the interactions are only present at one point - the tip of the

804: emitter.

805: The host Hamiltonian entering Eq.~(\ref{ham0}) is then of the form

806: \begin{equation}

807: H[\psi]=H_0[\psi]+ H_i[\psi]

808: \end{equation}

809: with the Hubbard on-site repulsion for the interaction term

810: \begin{equation} \label{intdefinition}

811: H_i = U_0 \psi^\dag_\uparrow(0) \psi^\dag_\downarrow(0) \psi_\downarrow(0)

812: \psi_\uparrow(0) \, .

813: \end{equation}

814: We take a half-infinite electron system with linear

815: dispersion relation for the left electrode

816: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

817: H_0[\psi]= -i \sum_s \int\limits_0^\infty \, dx \,

818: \Big[ \psi_{sR}^\dag(x) \partial_x \psi_{sR}(x) -

819: \psi_{sL}^\dag(x) \partial_x \psi_{sL}(x)\Big]  \; ,

820: \end{eqnarray}

821: and the same for the lead (but, of course, at chemical potential

822: of $-V$). Here $\psi_{sR(L)}$ stands for the annihilation operator

823: of the right(left)-moving electron species with spin $s$. To

824: simplify the formulae we have set $\hbar v_F=1$.

825: 

826: At first sight such model seems unphysical.

827: However, it can be regarded as a special case of a

828: correlated quantum dot contacted by two

829: noninteracting electrodes, see e.~g. Ref.~[\onlinecite{wingreen}], where the

830: contact to one of them is nearly perfect while the contact to the

831: other one is weak.

832: One should then decorate the electron field operator with a tunnelling

833: channel (transverse quantisation) index.

834: Its presence does not affect qualitative results, so we

835: drop the channel index in this Section.

836: 

837: For the half-infinite host, the bare Green's functions have

838: image structure of the form

839: \begin{equation} \label{goodformula}

840: g_{s0}(x,x';\omega) = g_0(x-x';\omega) - g_0(x+x';\omega) \; ,

841: \end{equation}

842: and are diagonal and $s\to -s$ symmetric in the spin space. The

843: Green's functions appearing on the right-hand-side in the above

844: formula are the translationally invariant (bulk) ones for the

845: corresponding spinless infinite system.

846: The simplest Green's functions are the retarded and advanced ones,

847: \begin{equation} \nonumber

848:  g_0^{R}(x;\omega) = [g_0^A(x;\omega)]^* = -i e^{i (k_F + \omega) |x| } \,

849: \end{equation}

850: to which the diagonal Keldysh functions are related via

851: \begin{equation} \nonumber

852: g_0^{--}(x;\omega) = \Theta(\omega) g_0^{R}(x;\omega)+

853: \Theta(-\omega) g_0^{A}(x;\omega)

854: \end{equation}

855: and $g_0^{++}(x;\omega)=-[g_0^{--}(x;\omega)]^*$,

856: while the off-diagonal Keldysh functions are:

857: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

858: g_0^{+-(-+)}(x;\omega)=i 2 \Theta(\pm \omega) \cos \Big[(k_F +

859: \omega)x\Big] \; .

860: \end{eqnarray}

861: 

862: Plugging these expressions into Eq.~(\ref{goodformula}) one

863: obtains all Keldysh components for the half-infinite system.

864: However, using them directly to evaluate $g^{-+}_{s>}(0,0;\omega)$

865: for electrons with spin orientation $s$ causes a technical problem

866: as at the origin all wave functions of the half-infinite system

867: vanish and so do the correlation functions. The reason for that

868: is the open boundary condition imposed on the wave functions.

869: Therefore we are in need of a regularisation. We now assume that

870: the underlying lattice model has a lattice constant $a_0$ so that

871: the tunnelling occurs between points with the spatial coordinate

872: $x<a_0$ in the left subsystem as well as in the right one.

873: Obviously, such regularisation does not influence the physics but

874: only creates some non-universal numerical factors in the TED. In

875: this regularisation all zeros in Eq.~(\ref{EDFexp}) are

876: understood to be substituted by $a_0$.

877: Suppressing this argument in the formulas, we obtain the following

878: expression for the second-order correction to the local (tip)

879: Green's function (diagram Fig.~\ref{fig3} with an appropriate

880: arrangement of the spin indices):

881: \begin{eqnarray} \label{bareint}

882:  &\,& g^{-+}_{s>}(\omega) = -

883: \gamma^2 4 U_0^2 \Theta(\omega) g_{0}^{++}(\omega)

884:  g_{0}^{--}(\omega) \nonumber \\ &\times&

885:  %\sum_{pqr} (\delta_{sr} \delta_{qp}+\delta_{sq} \delta_{rp} )

886:  \int d \epsilon_1 d \epsilon_2 \,

887:  g_{0}^{-+}(\omega-\epsilon_1) \nonumber

888:  \\ &\times&  g_{0}^{-+}(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)

889:  g_{0}^{--}(\epsilon_2) g_{0}^{++}(\epsilon_2)

890:  G_{0}^{+-}(\epsilon_2) \;

891: \end{eqnarray}

892: where the local Green's functions in the lead ($G$'s) are understood

893: to be the same as in the host but with energy measured from $-V$.

894: To evaluate this diagram, it is useful to remember that

895: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

896: g_{0}^{++}(\omega) g_{0}^{--}(\omega) = - |g^{R}_{0}(\omega)|^2 =

897: - 4 \sin^2 \left[(k_F + \omega) a_0\right] \; .

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: As we restrict our considerations to energy scales much smaller

900: than the Fermi energy, we can regard these products essentially

901: constant. The same is justified for other Green's functions

902: except, of course, the step functions appearing in front of

903: the off-diagonal Keldysh functions. Then, calculating energy

904: integrals in Eq.~(\ref{bareint}), we obtain the following result

905: for the TED:

906: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

907:  n_{s>}(\omega)=-ig^{-+}_{s>}(\omega)= C_0 \, \gamma^2 \,  U_0^2 \,

908:  \Theta(\omega)\Theta(V - \omega) (\omega-V)^2/2 \;

909: \end{eqnarray}

910: (with the non-universal constant $C_0 = 4^5 \sin^{10} (k_F a_0)$).

911: 

912: Note that in accordance with the discussion in Section \ref{secII}

913: no particles can have energy exceeding $V$ at the second order in

914: the interaction constant. Such particles, however, appear if one

915: takes into account processes of higher order. The corresponding

916: diagrams can easily be constructed, see Fig.~\ref{fig3}. So, at

917: the fourth order in the Hubbard $U$ we found

918: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

919:  g^{-+}_{s>}(\omega) = i \, C_0^\prime \, \gamma^4 \, U_0^4 \, \Theta(\omega)

920:  \Theta(2V - \omega) (\omega-2V)^4/24 \;

921: \end{eqnarray}

922: ($C_0^\prime$ is again a non-universal numerical pre-factor).

923: It is not difficult to calculate the particle spectrum for arbitrary $\omega$.

924: In the energy window between $V(n-1)$ and $Vn$ ($n=1,2,...$) it is dominated

925: by the term of the order $[\gamma U_0]^{2n}$ and shows

926: $(nV - \omega)^{2n}$ decay.

927: 

928: Another interesting local model is the local phonon model,

929: where the electron density operator is coupled to a local oscillator

930: at the tip $x=0$.

931: In the chiral formulation the Hamiltonian of the problem is

932: \begin{eqnarray} \label{phononH}

933:  H &=& i \int \, dx \, \psi^\dag(x) \partial_x

934:  \psi(x) + \Omega b^\dag b \nonumber \\

935:  &+& \lambda \psi^\dag(0) \psi(0) (b^\dag + b) \,

936: \end{eqnarray}

937: where $b^\dag$ and $b$ are the creation and annihilation

938: operators of the local phonon. The chirality of fermions takes

939: care of the reflecting boundary condition at the origin (see

940: e.~g.~Ref.~\cite{fg}) where the tunnelling processes take place.

941: In the anti-adiabatic approximation (justified for high-frequency

942: phonons, $\Omega\gg\lambda/a_0$), this Hamiltonian can be solved

943: via the Fr\"ohlich transformation \cite{frolich}

944: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Qtrafo}

945:  H' = e^{Q} H e^{-Q} \, ,

946: \end{eqnarray}

947: with

948: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Qdef}

949:  Q = \frac{\lambda}{\Omega} \psi^\dag(0) \psi(0) (b^\dag - b) \, .

950: \end{eqnarray}

951: 

952: Simple transformations of the field operators, which we omit here,

953: show that braiding relations are satisfied for this particular

954: model and the braiding phase $\varphi$ defined in

955: Eq.~(\ref{braiding}) is equal to:

956: \begin{eqnarray} \label{sinphase}

957:  \varphi(t) = \pi + \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\lambda}{\Omega a_0}\right)^2

958:  \sin [\Omega t] \, .

959: \end{eqnarray}

960: Using this result when evaluating Eqs.~(\ref{com}) and (\ref{Rdef})

961: we obtain for the TED:

962: \begin{widetext}

963: \begin{eqnarray}

964: n_>(\omega) &=& -2 i \gamma^2 \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} \,

965: dt \, \frac{e^{i(\omega-V)t}}{(t+i \alpha)^2} \nonumber

966: \int\limits_0^\infty \, d\tau_1 \, \int\limits_0^\infty \,

967: d\tau_2 \, e^{i\omega(\tau_1+\tau_2)}(1-e^{i (\lambda/\Omega

968: a_0)^2 \sin[\Omega \tau_1]/2})

969: (1-e^{-i  (\lambda/\Omega a_0)^2 \sin[\Omega \tau_2]/2}) \nonumber \\

970: &\times& \frac{\tau_1 \tau_2}{(\tau_1+\tau_2+t+i\alpha)(\tau_1+t+i

971: \alpha)(\tau_2+t+i \alpha)} \, . \nonumber

972: \end{eqnarray}

973: \end{widetext}

974: Expanding in powers of $\lambda/\Omega a_0$ the evaluation of

975: these integrals yields the main contribution to the TED

976: %(neglecting some logarithmic corrections)

977: of the form

978: \begin{eqnarray} \label{phononTED}

979:  n_>(\omega) \approx \frac{\pi \gamma^2}{2} \left( \frac{\lambda}{\Omega a_0}

980:  \right)^4 \Theta(V-\omega) \frac{\omega (V-\omega)}{\Omega^2-\omega^2} \, .

981: \end{eqnarray}

982: As expected, the emerging spectrum has a resonant character

983: having a sharp pole at the oscillator frequency $\Omega$. Under

984: appropriate conditions, the Fr\"ohlich transformation can also be

985: used for solving the bulk electron-phonon interaction where the

986: braiding relations still persist. We shall not pursue this issue

987: further in this paper.

988: 

989: \section{Luttinger liquid model} \label{luttinger}

990: Staying with 1D hosts, we now move on to the next level of difficulty

991: and discuss the bulk interactions.

992: The simplest model here is the spinless Luttinger liquid model \cite{haldane}.

993: Subject to minor modifications (see below) the LL results will also be

994: applicable to quantum wires and SWNTs.

995: The interacting term in the host Hamiltonian then is

996: \begin{equation} \nonumber

997: H_i = \int \, dx \, dy \, \psi^\dag(x)

998: \psi^\dag(y) U(x-y) \psi(y) \psi(x) \, .

999: \end{equation}

1000: where $U(x)$ is the interaction potential.

1001: 

1002: Although this model can be exactly solved,

1003: it is instructive to start with the perturbative expansion.

1004: Diagram a) in Fig.~\ref{fig3} still represents the only

1005: non-vanishing contribution to the TED above the Fermi edge.

1006: Compared to Eq.~(\ref{bareint}), the analytic expression for this diagram is

1007: slightly more complicated since all participating Green's

1008: functions acquire spatial dependence.

1009: Assuming local interaction, $U(x-y)\to U_0\delta(x-y)$, we write

1010: \begin{widetext}

1011: \begin{eqnarray} \label{bareint1}

1012:  g^{-+}_>(\omega) &=& - \gamma^2 U_0^2 \Theta(\omega) \int_{a_0}^\infty \,

1013:  dx_1 \, dx_2 \, g_0^{++}(x_2,a_0;\omega)

1014: g_0^{--}(a_0,x_1;\omega) \int d \epsilon_1 d

1015: \epsilon_2 \, g_0^{-+}(x_1,x_2;\omega-\epsilon_1) \nonumber \\

1016:  &\times& g_0^{-+}(x_1,x_2;\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)

1017:  g_0^{--}(x_1,a_0;\epsilon_2)

1018:  g_0^{++}(a_0,x_2;\epsilon_2) G_0^{+-}(a_0,a_0;\epsilon_2) \; .

1019: \end{eqnarray}

1020: %\end{widetext}

1021: We use the same regularisation as in Section \ref{seclocalinteraction}

1022: (that is why the lower boundary of the $x$-integration is the lattice

1023: constant $a_0$).

1024: Substituting the expressions for the corresponding bare Green's functions

1025: into this formula one obtains the following result:

1026: \begin{eqnarray}                 \label{LLfactorize}

1027: g^{-+}_>(\omega) &=& i \gamma^2 U_0^2 \, 8 C_0 \, \Theta(\omega)

1028: \Theta(V-\omega) \int_\omega^{V} \, d\epsilon_1

1029: \int_{-V}^{-\epsilon_1} \, d \epsilon_2 \, |

1030: H(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\omega)|^2 \, ,

1031: \end{eqnarray}

1032: %\end{widetext}

1033: where $C_0$ is a non-universal numerical constant and the

1034: function $H$ is defined as

1035: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1036: H(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\omega) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \, dx

1037: \, e^{i(\omega-\epsilon_2)x} \cos[(2 \epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 -

1038: \omega)x]  = -\frac{1}{4i}

1039: \frac{\epsilon_2-\omega}{\epsilon_1(\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 -

1040: \omega)} \, .

1041: \end{eqnarray}

1042: \end{widetext}

1043: We are ignoring terms containing rapidly oscillating integrands

1044: which are negligible on energy scales much smaller than $E_F$.

1045: 

1046: Performing the last energy integrals we obtain

1047: for the TED above the Fermi edge

1048: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1049: n_>(\omega) = \gamma^2 U_0^2 \, \Theta(\omega) \Theta(V - \omega) C_0 \Big\{

1050: \frac{V-\omega}{\omega} + F_0\Big(\frac{\omega}{V}\Big)

1051: \Big\} \, ,

1052: \end{eqnarray}

1053: where $F_0(x)$ is a function regular at $x=0$ and vanishing for

1054: $x>1$. While the TED vanishes smoothly in the vicinity of $\omega=V$,

1055: there is a sharp singularity towards the Fermi edge.

1056: 

1057: Since the Luttinger liquid model is solvable for arbitrary

1058: interaction strength, \cite{haldane}, it is possible to go beyond

1059: the perturbative expansion. In particular, the four-point

1060: correlation function in Eq.~(\ref{com}) can be calculated exactly.

1061: We remind the reader that the system under consideration is a

1062: half-infinite spinless LL with an open boundary across which

1063: tunnelling processes occur. Using the standard bosonization

1064: scheme for open boundary LLs (technical details can be found in

1065: the literature, see \cite{fg,book}), we write

1066: \begin{equation} \label{bosrepr}

1067:  \psi(x=0,t) = (2 \pi a_0)^{-1/2} \exp [i \phi(x=0,t)/\sqrt{g}] \,

1068: \end{equation}

1069: where $g$ is the LL parameter, defined by $g=(1+4 U_0/\pi)^{-1/2}$.

1070: The Gaussian chiral Bose field $\phi(x,t)$ has been rescaled

1071: and is governed by the LL Hamiltonian

1072: \begin{eqnarray}

1073: H_{LL}[\phi] = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int_{-L}^{L} \, dx \, (\partial_x \phi)^2 \, .

1074: \end{eqnarray}

1075: The Bose field is periodic in $2L$, where $L$ is the system size.

1076: In order to obtain the correct analytic properties of correlation

1077: functions we first work with a system of a finite length $L$,

1078: which makes the energy quantisation equal to $\epsilon_0 =

1079: \pi/L$, and then send $L$ to infinity. Using representation

1080: (\ref{bosrepr}) we obtain the four-point correlation function in

1081: question:

1082: \begin{eqnarray} \label{GF}

1083: {\cal K}^{-+}_{+-}(t_1,t_2; t_3,t_4)= (2 \pi b)^{-2}

1084: \mbox{sgn}(t_2-t_3) \mbox{sgn}(t_1-t_4) \nonumber \\

1085: \times \Big[\frac{F(|t_2-t_3|)F(|t_1-t_4|)F^2(0)}{F(t_2-t_1)F(t_2-t_4)F(t_3-t_1)F(t_3-t_4)}

1086: \Big]^{1/g} \, ,

1087: \end{eqnarray}

1088: where the function $F(t)$ is defined by

1089: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1090:  F(t)=1-e^{i\epsilon_0 (t+i \delta)} \, .

1091: \end{eqnarray}

1092: In the thermodynamic limit  $L\rightarrow \infty$, we expand Eq.~(\ref{GF})

1093: in powers of $\epsilon_0$.

1094: Then Eq.~(\ref{com}) can be brought into the following form

1095: \begin{widetext}

1096: \begin{eqnarray} \label{genLLres}

1097: n(\omega) &=& -2 i \gamma^2 e^{-i \pi/g} \cos^2(\pi/2g) \int dt

1098: \, \frac{e^{i(\omega-V)}}{(-t-i \alpha)^{1+1/g}} \int_0^\infty

1099: \int_0^\infty \, d\tau_1 d\tau_2 e^{i\omega(\tau_1+\tau_2)}

1100: \nonumber \\ &\times& \frac{(\tau_1

1101: \tau_2)^{1/g}}{[(-\tau_1-\tau_2-t-i\alpha) (-\tau_1 -t -i \alpha)

1102: (-\tau_2-t -i\alpha)]^{1/g}} \, , \nonumber

1103: \end{eqnarray}

1104: \end{widetext}

1105: where we used the fact that the LL field operators satisfy the

1106: braiding relations, (\ref{braiding}), with the braiding phase

1107: function

1108: \begin{eqnarray}

1109: \varphi(t) = \frac{\pi}{g}\, \mbox{sign} (t) \, .

1110: \end{eqnarray}

1111: Now we can perform the $\tau$-integrations

1112: using the integral representation

1113: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1114: (\tau_1+\tau_2-t-i\alpha)^{-1/g} &=& \frac{e^{i \pi/2g}}{\Gamma(1/g)}

1115: \int_0^\infty dp  \, p^{1/g-1} \\

1116: &\times& e^{-i(\tau_1+\tau_2-t)p} \, . \nonumber

1117: \end{eqnarray}

1118: Then

1119: \begin{eqnarray}

1120:  &~& n_>(\omega) = 2 i \gamma^2 e^{-i \pi/g} \cos^2(\pi/2g) \\

1121:  &\times&  \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dt \,

1122:  \frac{e^{i(\omega-V)}}{(-t-i \alpha)^{1+1/g}}

1123: \nonumber \\ &\times& \Gamma^2(1/g+1)

1124: \int_0^\infty \, dp \, p^{1/g-3} e^{i p t} \Psi^2(1/g,0; -i (p+\omega)t) \, , \nonumber

1125: \end{eqnarray}

1126: where $\Gamma$ and $\Psi$ are the gamma function and the Tricomi confluent

1127: hyper-geometric function, respectively \cite{bateman}.

1128: Deforming the $t$-integration contour from the real axis to

1129: the contour around the branch cut of the function $\Psi$ we arrive at a

1130: more convenient representation for the TED:

1131: \begin{eqnarray} \label{finalint}

1132: n_>(\omega) = A(g) \int_0^{V-\omega} dE \, \frac{E^{1/g-1}}{(E+\omega)^2}

1133: F_V(E+\omega) \, ,

1134: \end{eqnarray}

1135: where the spectral function is given by

1136: \begin{eqnarray} \label{psiintegral}

1137: F_V(p) = 2 \, \mbox{Im}\, e^{-i\pi/g} \int_\alpha^\infty d\xi \, \xi^{-1/g-1}

1138: e^{-(V-p)\xi} \nonumber \\

1139: \times \Psi^2(1/g,0,-p \xi+i\alpha) \, ,

1140: \end{eqnarray}

1141: and the pre-factor is

1142: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1143: A(g) = \Gamma^2(1/g+1) \gamma^2 \alpha^{2/g} \frac{\cos^2[\pi/ 2 g]}{2 \pi

1144: a_0^2 \Gamma(1/g)} \; .

1145: \end{eqnarray}

1146: In the limit of small energies, $\omega/V \ll 1$, the function

1147: $\Psi$ is nearly constant and the limiting form

1148: of the spectral function can easily be established:

1149: \[

1150: F_V(p) \approx \frac{2 \pi}{\Gamma^3(1+1/g)} (V-p)^{1/g} \, .

1151: \]

1152: Therefore we obtain the following asymptotic form

1153: for the TED in vicinity of the Fermi edge

1154: \begin{eqnarray} \label{cresult}

1155: n(\omega) \approx C_2 (\lambda+1)^2 (\omega/V)^{\lambda} \, ,

1156: \end{eqnarray}

1157: where $\lambda = 1/g-2$ and $C_2$ is a

1158: numerical pre-factor regular at $\lambda=-1$.

1159: 

1160: We investigated the behaviour of the TED near the upper threshold

1161: $\omega=V$ by numerical evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{finalint}). The

1162: result is given by another power law:

1163: \begin{equation} \label{exprelation}

1164:  n(\omega) \sim (V-\omega)^\nu \,\, , \,\, \nu=\lambda+2 \, .

1165: \end{equation}

1166: 

1167: In the limit of weak interactions, $g\rightarrow 1$, the exponent

1168: $\lambda$ approaches the perturbative result. Eq.~(\ref{cresult})

1169: can be regarded as consisting of two factors. The first factor is

1170: the universal $1/\omega$ divergence inherent to all interacting

1171: 1D systems. The second factor reflects power-law renormalisations

1172: occurring in the LLs and, in particular, contains the local

1173: density of states (LDOS) of the primary electron. The latter

1174: object is suppressed for repulsive interactions ($g<1$). So also

1175: the TED singularity is suppressed. At $g_c=1/2$ the LDOS

1176: suppression effectively wins over and the singularity disappears.

1177: It is noteworthy that in the case when the interaction constant is

1178: smaller than this critical value, the TED has a maximum between

1179: the upper and lower thresholds $\omega=0$ and $\omega=V$, as it

1180: is vanishing towards both limits.

1181: 

1182: In real systems the tunnelling amplitude $\gamma$ is small. The

1183: secondary current is already calculated in the next-to-leading

1184: (compared to to the primary current) approximation in $\gamma$.

1185: Still, it is a valid question to ask what happens at higher

1186: orders in the tunneling amplitude. For the case when the TED is

1187: divergent at the Fermi level ($\lambda<0$), a small energy scale

1188: $\omega^*$ may emerge below which these higher order

1189: contributions become important. We do not currently have full

1190: answer to this question. Our preliminary calculations indicate,

1191: however, that the most divergent 4-th order diagram is the one

1192: for which Fig.~\ref{fig4} acts as self-energy. This would lead to

1193: the estimate $\omega^*\sim V\gamma^{-2/\lambda}$. This issue

1194: deserves further investigation.

1195: 

1196: Thus far we have discussed the spinless LL. The above results can

1197: be straightforwardly generalised to spinful systems such as

1198: quantum wires. Due to the spin-charge separation the LDOS at the

1199: end of the wire is then given by the same expression as in the

1200: spinless case with $1/g$ substituted by $(1/g_c + 1/g_s)/2$,

1201: where $g_{c,s}$ are the interaction constants in the charge and

1202: spin sectors, respectively \cite{book}. Since the tunnelling

1203: processes conserve spin, the LDOS exponent is simply carried over

1204: to the TED, so that $\lambda$ in Eq.~(\ref{cresult}) should be

1205: changed to:

1206: \begin{equation} \label{lwires}

1207: \lambda\rightarrow\lambda=(1/g_c+1/g_s)/2-2\,.

1208: \end{equation}

1209: The relation between the lower and upper threshold exponents,

1210: Eq.~(\ref{exprelation}), is still valid. When the spin SU(2)

1211: symmetry is preserved, it forces $g_s=1$. The residual

1212: spin-backscattering interaction renormalises to zero under

1213: renormalisation group transformations (see \cite{book} for a

1214: recent review on 1D physics and further references). However, the

1215: presence of an irrelevant operator should probably cause

1216: multiplicative logarithmic corrections to our power-law formula

1217: (\ref{cresult}). We have not attempted to calculate these

1218: correction though we expect that this can be done by standard

1219: methods \cite{affleck}.

1220: 

1221: \section{Tunnelling from 2D systems: pure limit} \label{pure}

1222: In view of applications to MWNTs, we now consider tunnelling from

1223: a 2D electron system in tip geometry. Theoretically, this is a

1224: more complicated situation than in 1D. In some cases, relevant

1225: non-perturbative techniques exist, in other cases we shall present

1226: perturbative results. In this Section we discuss interacting

1227: 2D electron systems free from impurities (pure limit).

1228: 

1229: From the mathematical point of view we still have to calculate the same

1230: diagram [(a) in Fig.~\ref{fig3}].

1231: To accomplish this task in 2D it is convenient to change over to

1232: the momentum representation.

1233: The host Hamiltonian is $H[\psi]=H_0[\psi]+H_i[\psi]$,

1234: where

1235: \begin{equation}\label{H02D}

1236: H_0[\psi]=\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{2\pi}\xi(\vec{p})\psi_{\vec{p}}^{\dag}

1237: \psi_{\vec{p}}

1238: \end{equation}

1239: describes free 2D electron gas with dispersion relation $\xi(\vec{p})$

1240: and $\psi_{\vec{p}}$ is the Fourier transform of the electron field operator.

1241: The interaction term has the standard form. In real space:

1242: \begin{equation}\label{Hi2D}

1243: H_i = \int \, d\vec{r} \, d\vec{r'} \, \psi^\dag(\vec{r})

1244: \psi^\dag(\vec{r'}) U_0(|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}|) \psi(\vec{r'}) \psi(\vec{r}) \, ,

1245: \end{equation}

1246: where $U_0(r)$ is the interaction potential to be specified later.

1247: The relevant diagram is given by the following expression:

1248: \begin{eqnarray}                    \label{wholecontrib}

1249: g^{-+}_>(\omega) &=& \int \, \frac{d^2 \vec{q_1}}{(2\pi)^2} \, \int

1250: \frac{d^2\vec{q_2}}{(2\pi)^2} \, \int \frac{d \Omega}{2 \pi}

1251: \int \frac{d^2\vec{p}}{(2\pi)^2} \, \nonumber

1252: \\ &\times&  g^{--}_0(\omega,\vec{p}-\vec{q_1})

1253: g^{-+}_0(\omega-\Omega,\vec{p})

1254: \\ \nonumber &\times&

1255: U_0(q_1)\Pi(\Omega;\vec{q_1},\vec{q_2})U_0(q_2)

1256: g^{++}_0(\omega,\vec{p}-\vec{q_2})

1257: \end{eqnarray}

1258: Here $U_0(q)$ is the Fourier transform of the interaction potential,

1259: $\Pi(\Omega;\vec{q_1},\vec{q_2})$ stands for the inner polarisation

1260: bubble as in Fig.~\ref{fig3} (b) with vertex indices as in (a):

1261: \begin{eqnarray}                    \label{bubbledef}

1262:  \Pi(\Omega;\vec{q_1},\vec{q_2}) &=& \int \frac{d \epsilon}{2 \pi}

1263: \int \frac{d^2

1264:  \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^2} \,   g^{--}_0(\epsilon,\vec{p}+\vec{q_1}) \nonumber

1265:   \\

1266:  &\times& G^{-+}_0(\epsilon)  g^{++}_0(\epsilon,\vec{p}+\vec{q_2})

1267:  g^{-+}_0(\epsilon+\Omega,\vec{p}) \, . \nonumber

1268: \end{eqnarray}

1269: Without the tunnelling insertions, this would be a Keldysh analogy

1270: to the standard 2D Lindhard functions \cite{benard}.

1271: We define $\vec{p} = P_\omega \vec{n}_\phi$ with a unit 2D vector

1272: $\vec{n}_\phi$ in direction parametrised by the angle $\phi$.

1273: The quantity $P_\omega$ gives the on-shell magnitude of the

1274: momentum $\vec{p}$ and, for a quadratic dispersion relation,

1275: satisfies the following equation,

1276: \begin{eqnarray}                      \label{Pdef}

1277:  \frac{P_\omega^2}{2 m} = \frac{p_F^2}{2 m} + \omega \, ,

1278: \end{eqnarray}

1279: where $p_F$ is the Fermi momentum and $m$ is the effective mass.

1280: 

1281: We change over from the momentum integration to the energy-angle

1282: integration in the standard manner:

1283: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1284:  \int \frac{d^2 \vec{p}}{(2 \pi)^2} \rightarrow \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int d \xi

1285:  \rho(\xi) \int_0^{2 \pi} d \phi \, ,

1286: \end{eqnarray}

1287: where $\rho(\xi)$ is the density of states in the host.

1288: The polarisation bubble can then be written in the form

1289: \begin{widetext}

1290: \begin{eqnarray}

1291:  \Pi(\Omega;\vec{q_1},\vec{q_2}) = \rho_c  \Theta(\Omega-V)

1292:  \int_{-V}^{-\Omega} \, d\epsilon \, \rho(\epsilon + \Omega)

1293: \nonumber \int_0^{2 \pi}

1294:  d\phi g^{--}_0(\epsilon,P_{\epsilon+\Omega} \vec{n}_\phi + \vec{q_1})

1295: g^{++}_0(\epsilon,P_{\epsilon+\Omega} \vec{n}_\phi + \vec{q_2}) \, ,

1296: \nonumber

1297: \end{eqnarray}

1298: \end{widetext}

1299: where $\rho_c$ stands for the constant density of states in the lead.

1300: The diagonal bare Keldysh Green's functions are

1301: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1302: & & g^{--(++)}_0(\epsilon,P_{\epsilon+\Omega}\, \vec{n}_\phi + \vec{q})

1303: \\ \nonumber

1304: &=& \mp

1305:  \left[\Omega + \frac{1}{m}P_{\epsilon+\Omega}\,\vec{n}_\phi \vec{q} +

1306:  \frac{1}{2 m} q^2 \pm i0 \right]^{-1} \; .

1307: \end{eqnarray}

1308: In this expression we have taken into account the fact that $\epsilon < 0$

1309: if we are only interested in $\omega>0$ part of $g^{-+}$.

1310: The off-diagonal Keldysh function is

1311: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1312:  g^{-+}_0(\omega-\Omega,\vec{p}) = i 2 \pi n_F(\vec{p})\, \delta(

1313:  \omega-\Omega-\xi_{\vec{p}} ) \, ,

1314: \end{eqnarray}

1315: where $n_F(\vec{p})$ is the Fermi momentum distribution

1316: function. Using these expressions and relation (\ref{tokexp1})

1317: between the Green's function and the TED we obtain a formula

1318: similar to Eq.~(\ref{LLfactorize}) for the 1D case, namely

1319: \begin{eqnarray}                          \label{nbol}

1320:  n_{>}(\omega) = \frac{\rho_c}{2 \pi} \int_\omega^V \, d \Omega \,

1321:  \rho(\omega-\Omega) \int_{-V}^{-\Omega} \, d\epsilon \, \rho(\epsilon+\Omega)

1322:  \\ \nonumber \times

1323:  \int_0^{2 \pi} \, d\phi \, d\phi' |F_{\epsilon}(\Omega,\phi-\phi')|^2 \,

1324:  ,

1325: \end{eqnarray}

1326: where the function $F$ is defined by

1327: \begin{eqnarray}                                 \label{woher}

1328:  & & F_{\epsilon}(\Omega,\phi) = \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} \int_0^\infty

1329:  dq \, q \, U_0(q) \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta

1330:  \nonumber \\ \nonumber

1331:  &\times& [\Omega + \frac{1}{m} P_{\epsilon+\Omega} q

1332:  \cos(\theta-\phi/2) + \frac{1}{2m} q^2 + i0]^{-1}

1333:  \\ \nonumber

1334:  &\times&

1335:  [\Omega + \frac{1}{m} P_{\epsilon+\Omega} q

1336:  \cos(\theta+\phi/2) - \frac{1}{2m} q^2 + i0 ]^{-1} \, .

1337: \end{eqnarray}

1338: 

1339: To proceed, we now need to specify the interaction potential. It

1340: is natural to start with a contact interaction term,

1341: $U(\vec{r}-\vec{r'}) = U_0\,\delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r'})$ or

1342: $U_0(q)=U_0$ in the momentum space. However, an unexpected

1343: technical difficulty arises. If we follow the standard practice

1344: and linearise the electron spectrum in the vicinity of the Fermi

1345: surface, then the momentum integration in Eq.~(\ref{woher}) can

1346: be easily done but the remaining angle integration diverges at

1347: $\varphi=\pm\pi$. This latter singularity comes from large

1348: momenta in the previous momentum integral and corresponds to the

1349: special case of hot hole back-scattering. To obtain a finite

1350: result for the TED one either needs to take into account the

1351: decay of $U_0(q)$ for large $q$ or the non-linearity of the

1352: electron spectrum. Accordingly, we present two different

1353: calculations in the rest of this Section.

1354: 

1355: {\bf (i)} Contact potential: $U_0(q)=U_0$.

1356: 

1357: First we scale the integration variable $q

1358: \rightarrow \Omega q$ and introduce dimensionless quantities

1359: $\gamma_{1,2}= P_{\epsilon

1360: \pm \Omega}/ p_F$ and $\kappa = \Omega/4 E_F$.

1361: Then,

1362: \begin{eqnarray}                     \label{transformed}

1363:  & &  F_{\epsilon}(\Omega,\phi) = \frac{U_0}{4 \pi^2 v_F^2}

1364:  \int_0^\infty dq q \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta

1365:  \nonumber \\ \nonumber

1366:  &\times& [1+ \gamma_1 q \cos(\theta - \phi/2) + \kappa q^2 + i0]^{-1}

1367:  \\ \nonumber

1368:  &\times& [1+ \gamma_2 q \cos(\theta + \phi/2) - \kappa q^2 + i0]^{-1} \, .

1369: \end{eqnarray}

1370: Notice that $\gamma$'s approach unity whereas $\kappa$ linearly

1371: tends to zero in the limit of small $\Omega$.

1372: Furthermore, if we set $\kappa=0$, the angle integration is still divergent.

1373: Therefore we set $\gamma_{1,2}=1$ and keep $\kappa$ finite.

1374: As a next step we expand the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{transformed})

1375: using the standard formula \cite{gelfand},

1376: \begin{eqnarray}               \label{gshilov}

1377:   \frac{1}{f(x)+i 0} = {\cal P}

1378:  \frac{1}{f(x)} - i \pi \delta(f(x)) \, ,

1379: \end{eqnarray}

1380: where ${\cal P}$ denotes the principal value. This expansion

1381: produces three contributions: the first one contains the product

1382: of two principal parts and remains regular for $\Omega

1383: \rightarrow 0$, the second one contains products of one principal

1384: part and one delta function and is identically zero in the low

1385: energy regime, and the third contribution, $F^\delta_{\epsilon}$,

1386: containing a product of two delta functions is responsible for

1387: the divergency or the angle integral. Setting $v_F=1$ for the

1388: rest of this Section, we write

1389: \begin{widetext}

1390: \begin{eqnarray}

1391:  F^\delta_{\epsilon}(\Omega,\phi) = \frac{U_0}{4 \pi^2}

1392:  \int_0^\infty dq q \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta

1393:  \nonumber

1394:  \delta[ 1+ q \cos(\theta - \phi/2) + \kappa q^2 ]

1395: \delta[ 1+ q \cos(\theta + \phi/2) - \kappa q^2 ] \, .

1396: \end{eqnarray}

1397: The evaluation of the angle integration leaves us with

1398: \begin{eqnarray}

1399:  F^\delta_{\epsilon}(\Omega,\phi) = \frac{U_0}{4 \pi^2}

1400:  \int_0^\infty dq \, q \,[q^2-(1+\kappa q^2)^2]^{-1/2}

1401: \nonumber \nonumber

1402:  \delta[ 1-(1+\kappa q^2)\cos \phi + \sin \phi

1403: \sqrt{q^2-(1+\kappa q^2)^2}-\kappa q^2] \, .

1404: \end{eqnarray}

1405: \end{widetext}

1406: The argument of the delta function is zero for

1407: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1408:  q_0^2 = \frac{1}{2 \kappa^2} \sin^2(\phi/2)

1409: \Big( 1-\sqrt{1-16 \frac{\kappa^2}{\sin^2 \phi} } \Big) \, .

1410: \end{eqnarray}

1411: Therefore the remaining momentum integration yields

1412: \begin{eqnarray}                     \label{calculdF}

1413:  F^\delta_{\epsilon}(\Omega,\phi) &=&

1414: \frac{U_0}{2 \pi^2} \Big[ \sin \phi + \cos \phi \Big( \sin \phi

1415: \nonumber \\ \nonumber &-& \sqrt{\sin^2 \phi - 16 \kappa^2} \Big)

1416: - 4 \kappa \sin \phi \Big]^{-1} \, .

1417: \end{eqnarray}

1418: Plugging this expression into Eq.~(\ref{nbol}) and taking into account

1419: that for small $\Omega$ (and hence small $\kappa$) the main contribution

1420: to the angle integration originates for $\phi$ close to $\pm\pi$

1421: one finds for the following limiting form for the TED:

1422: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1423:  n_>(\omega) \approx \frac{U_0^2}{8 \pi^4} \rho_c \nu^2 E_F V

1424:  \ln \left(\frac{V}{\omega}\right) \, ,

1425: \end{eqnarray}

1426: where $\nu = \rho(0)$.

1427: 

1428: {\bf (ii)} Yukawa potential: $U_0(q) = 4 \pi e^2/\sqrt{q^2+\lambda^2}$.

1429: 

1430: Here $1/\lambda$ is the screening length. As $U_0(q)$ now tends

1431: to zero for large $q$ (which is, of course, always the case in

1432: real systems), we can linearise the dispersion relation. Then the

1433: function $F(\Omega,\phi)$ becomes independent of the energy

1434: variable $\epsilon$ and simplifies considerably:

1435: \begin{eqnarray}                       \label{newF}

1436:  F(\Omega,\phi) = \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} \int_0^\infty \, dq \, q \,

1437: U_0(\Omega q) \, I(q,\phi) \, ,

1438: \end{eqnarray}

1439: where $q$ has again been scaled by $\Omega$ and the function $I(q,\phi)$

1440: is defined by

1441: \begin{eqnarray}                        \label{Idef}

1442:  I(q,\phi) &=& \int_0^{2 \pi} \, d\theta \,\Big[(1+ q \cos(\theta-\phi/2)+i0)

1443:  \nonumber \\ &\times& (1+ q \cos(\theta+\phi/2)+i0)\Big]^{-1} \, .

1444: \end{eqnarray}

1445: This integral can be calculated and is real

1446: \begin{eqnarray}                      \label{I1}

1447:  I(q,\phi) = \frac{2 \pi}{[1-q^2 \cos^2(\phi/2)]\sqrt{1-q^2}} \, ,

1448: \end{eqnarray}

1449: for $q<1$ but contains an imaginary part

1450: \begin{eqnarray}                      \label{I2}

1451:  I(q,\phi) &=& -i \frac{2 \pi}{[1-q^2 \cos^2(\phi/2)]\sqrt{q^2-1}}

1452:   \\ \nonumber

1453:   &-& \frac{\pi^2}{\sqrt{q^2-1} \cos(\phi/2)} \delta[q-1/\cos(\phi/2)] \, .

1454: \end{eqnarray}

1455: for $q>1$, as incoherent particle production takes place in the

1456: latter regime. Using Eqs.~(\ref{I1}) and (\ref{I2}) we compute the

1457: momentum integral in Eq.~(\ref{newF}) which yields

1458: \begin{eqnarray}                         \label{finalF}

1459:  F(\Omega,\phi) &=& - \frac{2 e^2}{|\sin(\phi/2)|

1460: \sqrt{\Omega^2+\lambda^2 \cos^2(\phi/2)}} \nonumber \\

1461: &\times& \mbox{arccot} \Big[ \frac{\sqrt{\Omega^2 + \lambda^2

1462: \cos^2(\phi/2)}}{\lambda |\sin(\phi/2)|} \Big] \, .

1463: \end{eqnarray}

1464: Unfortunately we were not able to perform the last remaining angle

1465: integration in Eq.~(\ref{nbol}) in a closed form. However, to

1466: analyse the TED close to the Fermi surface $\omega\rightarrow 0$

1467: one merely requires the knowledge of $|F(\Omega,\phi)|^2$ for

1468: small $\Omega$'s. The latter can be easily read off

1469: Eq.~(\ref{finalF}) for $\Omega \ll \lambda$. There are two

1470: different regions in the parameter space $(\phi, \Omega)$: for

1471: most angles,  $|\phi\pm \pi|> 2\Omega/\lambda$, we find

1472: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1473: |F(\Omega,\phi)|^2 \approx \frac{4 e^4}{\lambda^2} \frac{\phi^2}{\sin^2 \phi}

1474: \end{eqnarray}

1475: whereas for large scattering angles  $|\phi\pm \pi|< 2\Omega/\lambda$

1476: one obtains a singular in $\Omega$ behaviour,

1477: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1478:  |F(\Omega,\phi)|^2 \approx \frac{\pi^2 e^2}{\Omega^2} \, .

1479: \end{eqnarray}

1480: The latter region, physically corresponding to hot hole

1481: back-scattering processes, is responsible for the leading

1482: contribution to the remaining integrals. With logarithmic

1483: accuracy we thus obtain the following threshold behaviour of the

1484: TED,

1485: \begin{eqnarray}                     \label{logresult}

1486:  n_>(\omega) \approx \rho_c \nu^2 \frac{2 \pi e^4}{\lambda}

1487: \ln \left[ \frac{\mbox{max}(V,\lambda)}{\omega} \right] \, .

1488: \end{eqnarray}

1489: Clearly the same logarithmic singularity will persist for other

1490: functional forms of $U_0(q)$ as long as it decays for large $q$.

1491: (We note that in the purely Coulomb case, $\lambda=0$, an

1492: additional divergence at small $q$ is introduced. Calculation

1493: shows that all the divergences cancel exactly in this special

1494: case with the second order result for the TED being identically

1495: zero for all $\omega>0$. The physical meaning of this observation

1496: escapes us.)

1497: 

1498: The net result is that we find a logarithmic singularity in the TED

1499: for 2D electron systems at the second order in the interaction.

1500: Such behaviour is in apparent contradiction with Ref.~\cite{gadzuk}

1501: where a stronger singularity was found.

1502: These differences may be due to the fact that

1503: Gadzuk and Plummer analysed a different set-up with a three-dimensional host

1504: and a 2D emitting surface (as opposed to our set-up with a 2D host and tip

1505: emission), or their stronger singularity may be an artifact of the

1506: low-density approximation.

1507: This issue as well as the role of higher-order scattering

1508: processes deserve

1509: more intensive study and will be discussed elsewhere.

1510: In view of applications to MWNTs, however, there are two

1511: more immediate questions: the role of the dynamical Coulomb screening

1512: and of the disorder potential.

1513: Both require a non-perturbative approach and will be discussed

1514: in the next Section.

1515: 

1516: \section{Tunnelling from disordered 2D systems} \label{disorder}

1517: Contrary to the SWNTs, MWNTs can be described by

1518: the LL theory only in some special cases when the

1519: radii of outer shells are not too large \cite{eggeronly}.

1520: Otherwise their physics is best described in

1521: terms of a disordered 2D electron liquid with Coulomb interaction.

1522: Such systems have been extensively studied in the 80's

1523: using non-linear sigma model and renormalisation group

1524: \cite{finkel,castellani,belitz}.

1525: Recently they attracted more attention due to the discovery

1526: of a possible metal-insulator transition in MOSFETs

1527: \cite{kravchenko}, which stimulated further theoretical research.

1528: Kamenev and Andreev (KA)  \cite{kamenev} have recently

1529: examined the Keldysh non-linear sigma model \cite{horbach}

1530: for the Coulomb case (long-range interaction).

1531: In this Section we apply their method to obtain the threshold

1532: behaviour of the TED for tunnelling from

1533: a 2D interacting disordered metal.

1534: 

1535: The Hamiltonian of the previous Section, composed from (\ref{H02D})

1536: and (\ref{Hi2D}) with $U_0(q)=4\pi e^2/q$, should now be supplemented

1537: by the disorder term

1538: \begin{equation} \label{Hd2D}

1539: H_{d}[\psi]=\int d\vec{r} V(\vec{r})\psi^{\dag}(\vec{r})\psi(\vec{r})

1540: \end{equation}

1541: with a $\delta$-correlated Gaussian disorder potential

1542: $V(\vec{r})$.

1543: 

1544: The formal procedure of deriving the Keldysh sigma model is

1545: described in the relevant literature (\cite{horbach,kamenev}, see

1546: also \cite{ludwig}) in detail. Therefore we only give a brief

1547: outline here. One starts with the Keldysh $S$-matrix. (This

1548: object is identically unity but it becomes a generating

1549: functional upon introducing auxiliary fields. If one wants to

1550: start with a diagonal bare Keldysh function, the contour is

1551: different from that in Fig.~\ref{contour}, see explanation in

1552: Refs. \cite{horbach,ludwig}). One can then integrate the disorder

1553: out obtaining a non-local in time four-fermion interaction term.

1554: The action is made quadratic in fermions by applying the

1555: Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation to the latter term as well as

1556: to the Coulomb interaction term. Hence there are two decoupling

1557: fields, $Q$ and $\Phi$ in the notation of Ref.~\cite{kamenev}. The

1558: fermions can now be formally integrated out resulting in the

1559: following expression for the generating functional \cite{kamenev}:

1560: \begin{eqnarray}\label{genfunc}

1561: \langle Z \rangle = \int {\cal D} \Phi e^{i \mbox{Tr}

1562: (\Phi^T U_0^{-1} \sigma_1 \Phi)} \int {\cal D} Q e^{i S[Q,\Phi]} \, .

1563: \end{eqnarray}

1564: with the sigma-model action (after Keldysh rotation)

1565: \begin{eqnarray}

1566: i S[Q,\Phi] &=& - \frac{\pi \nu}{4 \tau} \mbox{Tr} \, Q^2 \nonumber \\

1567: &+& \mbox{Tr} \, \ln [G_0^{-1} + \frac{i}{2 \tau_0} Q +

1568: \phi_\alpha \gamma^\alpha + \zeta ] \, , \nonumber

1569: \end{eqnarray}

1570: Here $\tau_0$ is the elastic mean free time and

1571: $U_0$ stands for the unscreened interaction potential.

1572: The decoupling field $Q$ depends on two time variables and

1573: is a 2$\times$2 matrix in the Keldysh space.

1574: The decoupling field $\Phi$ is a Keldysh doublet $(\phi_1, \phi_2)^T$.

1575: The vertex matrices are defined as follows:

1576: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1577: \gamma^1 = \left(  \begin{array}{rr}

1578:                   1 & 0 \\

1579:                   0 & 1

1580:                   \end{array}

1581:            \right)

1582:            \; , \;

1583: \gamma^2 = \sigma_1 = \left( \begin{array}{rr}

1584:                                 0 & 1 \\

1585:                                 1 & 0

1586:                              \end{array}

1587:                       \right) \, .

1588: \end{eqnarray}

1589: Doing the functional variation of the generating functional,

1590: (\ref{genfunc}), with respect to the auxiliary field $\zeta$

1591: and setting the latter to zero one obtains

1592: the complete set of single-particle Green's functions:

1593: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1594: \left. \frac{\delta}{\delta \zeta}

1595: \langle Z \rangle \right|_{\zeta=0}

1596: = \left( \begin{array}{cc}

1597: G^R & G^K \\

1598: 0   & G^A

1599: \end{array} \right) = {\cal G} \, .

1600: \end{eqnarray}

1601: where the function $G^K = (G^R-G^A)(1-2 n(E))$ is

1602: related to the single-particle

1603: energy distribution function $n(E)$ and

1604: $G^{R(A)}$ are  the retarded and advanced

1605: Green's functions, respectively.

1606: 

1607: We need to calculate of the four-point correlation function

1608: ${\cal K}_{+-}^{-+}(t_2,t_3;t_1,t_4)$.

1609: (A calculation of a different four-point function for a

1610: non-equilibrium noise problem has recently been done within a similar

1611: framework in \cite{grabert}.)

1612: This can be achieved by double variation of the generating

1613: functional with respect to the auxiliary field $\zeta$:

1614: \begin{eqnarray} \label{doubleW}

1615: {\cal K}_{+-}^{-+}(t_2,t_3;t_1,t_4) = \int {\cal D}

1616: \Phi e^{i \mbox{Tr} (\Phi^T V_0^{-1} \sigma_1 \Phi)}

1617: \int {\cal D} Q e^{i S[Q,\Phi]} \nonumber \\

1618: \times \left[ W(t_1,t_4)\otimes W(t_3,t_2) + W(t_1,t_2)\otimes

1619: W(t_3,t_4) \right]_* \,

1620: \end{eqnarray}

1621: where

1622: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1623: W(t_1,t_2) = \left[ G_0^{-1} + \frac{i}{2 \tau_0} Q +

1624: \phi_\alpha \gamma^\alpha \right]^{-1} \, .

1625: \end{eqnarray}

1626: A functional integral of this type with a single $W$ function

1627: yields the Green's function matrix ${\cal G}$ and was discussed

1628: in \cite{kamenev}. A product of two and more $W$ functions

1629: produces a complicated object, which is a tensor product

1630: containing all possible time orderings. The operation of

1631: extracting the particular component corresponding to ${\cal

1632: K}_{+-}^{-+}$ we denote by $[...]_*$. At this stage its exact

1633: definition is unimportant and we postpone it to the

1634: end of the Section.

1635: 

1636: We now evaluate the functional integral with the product

1637: of two $W$-functions in the saddle point approximation

1638: following KA's approach \cite{kamenev}.

1639: In this case

1640: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{Wsaddlpoint}

1641:  W(t,t') = - i \pi \nu \, e^{i k_\alpha(t) \gamma^\alpha} \,

1642:  \Lambda(t-t') \, e^{i k_\alpha(t') \gamma^\alpha} \, ,

1643: \end{eqnarray}

1644: where $\Lambda(t)$ denotes the mean-field non-interacting

1645: Green's function matrix in equilibrium (corresponding to

1646: non-crossing disorder diagrams \cite{agd})

1647: and $k_\alpha(t)$ is a linear functional of $\Phi$.

1648: The corresponding correlation matrix with respect

1649: to averaging over the $\phi$-fields is given by \cite{kamenev}:

1650: \begin{eqnarray} \label{corrmat}

1651: \langle k_\alpha(q,\omega)k_\beta(-q,-\omega) \rangle_\Phi =

1652: \frac{i}{2} {\cal V}_{\alpha \beta} (q,\omega) \, ,

1653: \end{eqnarray}

1654: \begin{eqnarray}    \label{mainVs}

1655: {\cal V}_{\alpha \beta} (q,\omega) &=&

1656: \left( \begin{array}{cc}

1657: {\cal V}^R(q,\omega) & {\cal V}^R(q, \omega) \\

1658: {\cal V}^A(q,\omega) & 0

1659: \end{array} \right) \nonumber \\

1660: {\cal V}^{R(A)}(q,\omega) &=& -

1661: \frac{1}{(d q^2\mp i\omega)^2}\left[

1662: \frac{1}{V_0} + \frac{\nu d

1663: q^2}{d q^2 \mp i \omega}\right]^{-1} \\

1664: {\cal V}^K &=& n_B(\omega) ({\cal V}^R(q,\omega) -

1665: {\cal V}^A(q,\omega)) \, , \nonumber

1666: \end{eqnarray}

1667: where $n_B(\omega)$ is the Bose distribution function

1668: and $d$ is the electron diffusion constant.

1669: Using the saddle point representation in Eq.~(\ref{Wsaddlpoint})

1670: the product of two $W$-functions can be re-written as

1671: \begin{eqnarray}                              \label{4pis}

1672: &~& \langle \left[ W(t_1,t_4) \otimes \nonumber W(t_3,t_2)

1673: \right]_* \rangle_\Phi \\ \nonumber &=& \frac{1}{4} \sum_{\mu_i}

1674: \left[ (\gamma^{\mu_1} \Lambda(t_1,t_4) \gamma^{\mu_4}) \otimes

1675: (\gamma^{\mu_3}

1676: \Lambda(t_3,t_2) \gamma^{\mu_2}) \right]_* \nonumber \\

1677: &\times& \langle p_{\mu_1}(t_1) (p_{\mu_4}(t_4))^* p_{\mu_3}(t_3)

1678: (p_{\mu_4}(t_2))^* \rangle_\Phi \, .

1679: \end{eqnarray}

1680: The operation of taking the correct time ordering is now

1681: separated from of the averaging over the field $\Phi$, which

1682: only affects the objects

1683: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1684: &~& p_\mu(t) = e^{i(k_1(t)+k_2(t))} + \mu

1685: e^{i(k_1(t)-k_2(t))} \\ \nonumber &=& s(t) + \mu \bar{s}(t) =

1686: e^{i \alpha (k_1(t)+ \beta k_2(t))} + \mu e^{i \alpha (k_1(t)-

1687: \beta k_2(t))}  \, .

1688: \end{eqnarray}

1689: The product of four $p_\mu$-operators is a sum of

1690: 16 products of different $s(t_i)$-operators.

1691: The latter objects can be evaluated using

1692: the correlation matrix, Eq.~(\ref{corrmat}),

1693: \begin{eqnarray} \label{manyVs}

1694: && \langle e^{i \alpha_1 (k_1(t_1)+ \beta_1 k_2(t_1))}

1695: e^{-i \alpha_4 (k_1(t_4)+ \beta_4 k_2(t_4))} \nonumber \\

1696: &\times& e^{i \alpha_3 (k_1(t_3)+ \beta_3 k_2(t_3))}

1697: e^{-i \alpha_2 (k_1(t_2)+ \beta_2 k_2(t_2))} \rangle_\Phi \nonumber \\

1698: &=& \exp \Big\{ -\frac{i}{2} \Big[ \alpha_1 \alpha_3 {\cal V}_{13}

1699: (\beta_1,\beta_3)-\alpha_1 \alpha_4 {\cal V}_{14}

1700: (\beta_1,\beta_4) \nonumber \\

1701: &-& \alpha_4 \alpha_3 {\cal V}_{43}(\beta_4,\beta_3)

1702: + \alpha_4 \alpha_2 {\cal V}_{42}(\beta_4,\beta_2) \\

1703: &-& \alpha_3 \alpha_2 {\cal V}_{32}(\beta_3,\beta_2) -

1704: \alpha_1 \alpha_2 {\cal V}_{12}(\beta_1,\beta_2) +

1705: 2 {\cal V}_0(\beta_1,\beta_1) \Big] \Big\} \nonumber \, ,

1706: \end{eqnarray}

1707: where we use the following definition

1708: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1709: {\cal V}_{ij}(\beta_i,\beta_j) = {\cal V}^K(t_i-t_j)

1710: + \beta_i {\cal V}^A(t_i-t_j) \nonumber \\

1711: + \beta_j {\cal V}^R(t_i-t_j) \, .

1712: \end{eqnarray}

1713: Taken separately these functions are divergent. Nevertheless

1714: Eq.~(\ref{manyVs}), being rewritten as a function of differences

1715: ${\cal V}_{ij}(\beta_i,\beta_j)-{\cal V}_{ii}(\beta_i,\beta_i)$,

1716: can be made convergent. In this case a special selection rule has

1717: to be fulfilled,

1718: \begin{eqnarray} \label{selrule}

1719: && \alpha_1 \alpha_3 {\cal V}_0(\beta_1,\beta_3) -

1720: \alpha_1 \alpha_4 {\cal V}_0(\beta_1,\beta_4) \nonumber \\

1721: &-& \alpha_4 \alpha_3 {\cal V}_0(\beta_4,\beta_3) +

1722: \alpha_4 \alpha_2 {\cal V}_0(\beta_4,\beta_2) \nonumber \\

1723: &-& \alpha_3 \alpha_2 {\cal V}_0(\beta_3,\beta_2) -

1724: \alpha_1 \alpha_2 {\cal V}_0(\beta_1,\beta_2) \nonumber \\

1725: &+& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1,..,4} {\cal V}_0(\beta_j,\beta_j) = 0

1726: \, ,

1727: \end{eqnarray}

1728: otherwise (\ref{manyVs}) is divergent. Using Eqs.~(\ref{mainVs})

1729: one can calculate the asymptotic behaviour of ${\cal

1730: V}_{ij}(\beta_i,\beta_j)-{\cal V}_{ii}(\beta_i,\beta_i)$ for

1731: large time differences (to calculate the limiting Fermi edge

1732: asymptotics of the TED this knowledge is sufficient as we shall

1733: see shortly). Fortunately, the limiting form turns out to be

1734: independent of the arrangement of the $\beta$-indices, with the

1735: result

1736: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1737: { \cal V}_{ij}(\beta_i,\beta_j)-{\cal V}_{ii}(\beta_i,\beta_i)

1738: \approx i \frac{e^2}{4 \pi f} \ln^2 \left| \frac{f^2 (t_i-t_j)}{d} \right| \, ,

1739: \end{eqnarray}

1740: where $f=2 \pi e^2 \nu d$.

1741: The last average in Eq.~(\ref{4pis}) is then given by

1742: \begin{eqnarray}

1743: \langle p_{\mu_1}(t_1) (p_{\mu_4}(t_4))^*

1744: p_{\mu_3}(t_3) (p_{\mu_4}(t_2))^* \rangle_\Phi \nonumber \\

1745: = \left(\prod_{j}(1+\mu_j)\right)\langle

1746: s(t_1)s^*(t_4)s(t_3)s^*(t_2)\rangle_\Phi \, . \nonumber

1747: \end{eqnarray}

1748: Obviously, the above is nonzero only if for all $i$ $\mu_i=+1$.

1749: That means that we can set all $\alpha_j$'s equal as well.

1750: Such choice automatically fulfils the selection rule, (\ref{selrule}).

1751: Therefore the full four-point correlation function is given by

1752: \begin{widetext}

1753: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fulldisK}

1754: {\cal K}_{+-}^{-+}(t_1,t_2; t_3, t_4) \approx Y(t_1,t_2; t_3, t_4)

1755: \exp \Big( - \frac{e^2}{8 \pi f} \Big\{ \ln^2 \left|

1756: \frac{f^4(t_1-t_4)(t_4-t_3)(t_3-t_2)(t_1-t_2)}{d^2

1757: (t_1-t_3)(t_4-t_2)} \right| \Big\} \Big)

1758: \end{eqnarray}

1759: \end{widetext}

1760: with

1761: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1762: Y(t_1,t_2; t_3, t_4) \nonumber =  \left[ (\gamma^{1} \Lambda(t_1,t_4)

1763: \gamma^{1})

1764: \otimes (\gamma^{1} \Lambda(t_3,t_2) \gamma^{1}) \right]_* \, .

1765: \end{eqnarray}

1766: The latter expression is basically the non-interacting four-point

1767: correlation function with special time ordering and is equal to

1768: $G^{+-}(t_1-t_4) G^{+-}(t_3-t_2)$. The second term in

1769: Eq.~(\ref{doubleW}) can be calculated in a similar manner

1770: resulting in the same, up to an interchange of time variables,

1771: exponential factor as in Eq.~(\ref{fulldisK}) and an appropriate

1772: pre-factor. The pre-factors can in principle be re-exponentiated

1773: but this would only results in logarithmic corrections which can

1774: be neglected in comparison to the main disorder part. In order to

1775: use formula (\ref{com}), we substitute $t_1=\tau_1$, $t_3=0$,

1776: $t_2=t+\tau_1$ and $t_4=t+\tau_1+\tau_2$. We are interested in

1777: the low-energy regime $\omega/V \ll 1$. Therefore the lower limit

1778: for the time integrations can be set to $1/D$ ($D$ being the

1779: conductance band-width) if it causes divergences and to zero

1780: otherwise. Thus we obtain

1781: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1782: n_>(\omega) &\sim& \int_0^\infty \, d\tau_1 \, \int_0^\infty \,

1783: d\tau_2 \, e^{i \omega (\tau_1 + \tau_2)} \\ \nonumber

1784: &\times& \exp \left\{ - \frac{e^2}{8 \pi f}

1785: \ln^2 \left| \frac{f^4(\tau_1+\tau_2)}{d^2 D} \right| \right\} \, .

1786: \end{eqnarray}

1787: Estimating the $\tau$-integrals for small $\omega$ yields the

1788: final result for the TED in vicinity of the Fermi edge:

1789: \begin{eqnarray}                                 \label{disorderresult}

1790: n_>(\omega) \sim \exp \left[ -\frac{e^2}{8 \pi f}

1791: \ln^2 \left( \frac{d^2 D}{f^4\omega}\right) \right] \, .

1792: \end{eqnarray}

1793: Thus we find that the combined effect of the disorder and the

1794: Coulomb interaction is to suppress the TED towards the Fermi

1795: surface. This result can be understood in terms of the well known

1796: Altshuler-Aronov-Lee anomaly \cite{aal} in the density of states

1797: of the primary electrons. Indeed, one of the important results of

1798: the KA's work \cite{kamenev} was to show that the negative

1799: logarithmic correction to the density of states can be

1800: exponentiated (and becomes a double-log due to the long-range

1801: Coulomb forces). Our formula (\ref{disorderresult}) achieves a

1802: similar exponentiation for the TED. As in \cite{kamenev}, this is

1803: only valid above certain energy scale $\epsilon^*$, due to the

1804: on-set of the fluctuation effects (corrections to the saddle-point

1805: approximation). In MWNTs the situation is further complicated by

1806: the dimensional cross-over effect; the corresponding energy scale

1807: $\epsilon^*\simeq d/L^2$ ($L$ being the tube's circumference) was

1808: estimated in \cite{eg2001}, see also \cite{kopietz2001} for

1809: further discussion.

1810: 

1811: \section{Field emission from carbon nanotubes}      \label{FE}

1812: Field emission setup is relatively simple. An electric field of

1813: strength $F$ is applied between a metallic tip of the emitter and

1814: a counter-electrode which are usually placed in a vacuum.

1815: Superposition of the confinement potential, the image potential

1816: and the electrostatic potential due to the external electric

1817: field leads to a formation of a barrier with a finite width

1818: allowing the electrons to tunnel out of the emitter even at zero

1819: temperatures, Fig.~\ref{FEsetup}.

1820: \begin{figure}

1821: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{FEsetup}

1822: \caption[]{\label{FEsetup} Schematic representation of the field

1823: emission setup.  Here $F$ is the applied electric field, $W$ is

1824: the work function and $D$ is the conduction band-width. The

1825: dashed line represents the confining potential without field and

1826: the dotted line stands for the image potential.}

1827: \end{figure}

1828: Therefore the FE process can be regarded as tunnelling into

1829: vacuum through a triangularly-shaped barrier whose upper part is

1830: rounded off by the image potential. However, at low temperatures

1831: the larger part of tunnelling electrons will have energies close

1832: to the Fermi energy, so the exact form of the barrier is

1833: unimportant.

1834: 

1835: Quantities of interest are the energy-resolved current

1836: $j(\omega)$ and the total current $J$.

1837: If the tunnelling amplitude is small (which it is for

1838: all real systems), then $j(\omega)$ is proportional to the

1839: probability $n(\omega)$ for an electron to have energy $\omega$,

1840: to the energy dependent transmission coefficient $\cal D (\omega)$,

1841: and to a factor $\cal F$ responsible for the tip geometry:

1842: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fnappr}

1843: j(\omega) = {\cal F} {\cal D}(\omega) n(\omega) \, .

1844: \end{eqnarray}

1845: In the noninteracting case and neglecting higher-order tunnelling

1846: processes, $n(\omega)$ coincides with the Fermi distribution

1847: function multiplied by the LDOS. The (quasi-classical) transmission

1848: probability for a triangular barrier is given by \cite{landau}:

1849: \begin{eqnarray}                          \label{tansmprob}

1850: {\cal D}(\omega)\sim \exp( -4\sqrt{2m}(W-\omega)^{3/2}/3\hbar F ) \, ,

1851: \end{eqnarray}

1852: where $m$ is the electron mass and $W$ is the work function. As

1853: discussed e.~g. in Ref.~\cite{plummer}, the transmission

1854: coefficient is only slightly affected by the image potential and

1855: for the field strength $F \ll (W-E_F)^2/e^3$ the barrier can be

1856: regarded as strictly triangular. At zero temperatures, the

1857: emerging (primary) spectrum has a sharp threshold at the Fermi

1858: energy (no particles above $E_F$) and is essentially constant

1859: in its vicinity.

1860: 

1861: The general picture does not change much even in the case of

1862: interacting electrons. For the LLs $n(\omega)$ is proportional to

1863: the relevant LDOS, which is known \cite{book,glazman} to be

1864: \begin{eqnarray}\label{LLraspr}

1865: n(\omega) = \Theta(-\omega) |\omega|^{1/g-1}/a_0 D^{1/g}

1866: \Gamma(1/g) \, .

1867: \end{eqnarray}

1868: Plugging this into Eq.~(\ref{fnappr}) one observes that

1869: at this lowest order in the tunnelling the TED above the Fermi energy

1870: is still zero, even for the strongly correlated LL.

1871: Below the Fermi energy the TED has a power-law singularity.

1872: Expanding the transmission coefficient in powers of $\omega/W$ (work function

1873: being the largest energy scale),

1874: and integrating over all energies we establish the

1875: Fowler-Nordheim (FN) formula for LLs:

1876: \begin{eqnarray}\label{FN}

1877:  J = \frac{\cal F}{a_0 D^{1/g}}

1878: \left[ \frac{F^2}{4k_F W} \right]^{1/2g}

1879: \exp\left( - \frac{4 k_F^{1/2} }{3F}W^{3/2} \right) \, ,

1880: \end{eqnarray}

1881: relating the full current to the electric field's strength

1882: \cite{fowler,plummer}.

1883: 

1884: The generalisation of these results for SWNTs is rather

1885: straightforward. Indeed, these systems are known to be described

1886: as four-channel LLs. Three channels $\phi_{c-}$ (charge-flavour),

1887: $\phi_{s+}$ (total spin), $\phi_{s-}$ (spin-flavour) are

1888: non-interacting. The fourth channel $\phi_{c+}$ (total charge, or

1889: the plasmon mode) possesses the LL parameter

1890: $K=(1+4U_0/\pi)^{-1/2}$, where $U_0$ is the zero Fourier

1891: component of the screened Coulomb potential. Note that though we

1892: now have four channels the field-operator actually factorises as

1893: \cite{sammlung1,sammlung2,sammlung3}

1894: \begin{equation} \label{factor}

1895: \psi\sim \exp\{i \phi_{c+}/(2\sqrt{K})+i(\phi_{c-}+

1896: \phi_{s+}+\phi_{s-})/2\} \, .

1897: \end{equation}

1898: Just as in the case of the spinless LL, the interaction constant $K$

1899: is included into the rescaled Bose fields and disappears from

1900: the Hamiltonian, which is given by

1901: \begin{eqnarray}

1902: H=\frac{1}{4\pi}

1903: \sum_{\delta=c,s j=\pm} \int \, dx \, (\partial_x \phi_{\delta j})^2 \, .

1904: \end{eqnarray}

1905: All the correlation functions also factorise. Hence the results

1906: for the LDOS \cite{book,glazman} as well as the results of Section

1907: \ref{luttinger}, Eqs.~(\ref{cresult}) and (\ref{exprelation}),

1908: are still valid for SWNTs given that the substitution

1909: \begin{equation}

1910: g^{-1}\rightarrow (K^{-1}+3)/4 \, .

1911: \label{subs}

1912: \end{equation}

1913: is made.

1914: 

1915: The typical value for $K$ in SWNTs lies near $0.2$ ($0.15$ to

1916: $0.3$), which fixes the effective $g$ to $\approx 0.5$

1917: \cite{sammlung1,sammlung2,sammlung3,tans1,bockrath1}. As a

1918: result, Eq.~(\ref{FN}) is reasonably well approximated by the

1919: classical FN law. This fact offers one possible explanation as to

1920: why the experimental data of Refs.~\cite{french1,japan} can be

1921: relatively well fitted by the conventional FN curve. In addition,

1922: all the experiments currently available were made on SWNT films

1923: where the nanotubes build a network with essentially a random 2D

1924: geometry. This case, when extra complications are bound to arise,

1925: is beyond the scope of this paper. To straightforwardly reveal

1926: the correlation effects in the primary current, measurement on a

1927: {\it single} SWNT are more appropriate. To our knowledge, this

1928: has not been done yet.

1929: 

1930: Let us now discuss the secondary current. The analysis of the

1931: secondary effects can also be made in terms of tunnelling into

1932: vacuum. Thereby we should bear in mind that the theory presented

1933: in Section \ref{general} assumes that the tunnelling amplitude is

1934: energy independent. Therefore, since the effective applied

1935: voltage is large in the FE setup (one has to send the chemical

1936: potential on the right electrode  to minus infinity), some

1937: integrals inevitably diverge. To overcome this difficulty and to

1938: made the theory more quantitative, we now recall that there are

1939: two candidates that can be used as the effective voltage. The

1940: first one is the characteristic energy scale in the exponential

1941: transmission coefficient ${\cal A} = F/2(k_F W)^{1/2}$, see

1942: Eq.~(\ref{tansmprob}). The second one is the width of the emitter

1943: conductance band $D$. Therefore the high-energy cutoff

1944: playing the role of $V$ in the FE setup is either $D$ or ${\cal

1945: A}$, whichever is smaller. We shall use $D$ through the rest of

1946: the paper. With this modification all results of the previous

1947: Sections for the TED $n(\omega)$ are valid with the understanding

1948: that the tunnelling probability is proportional to the

1949: transmission coefficient of the barrier at the Fermi energy,

1950: $\gamma^2 \sim {\cal D}(E_F)$. According to Eqs.~(\ref{tokexp})

1951: and (\ref{tokexp1}) the secondary current is proportional to the

1952: TED. For SWNT the TED possesses all the singularities

1953: characteristic for LLs, which we have already discussed. One

1954: thing worth noting is that the critical value of the coupling now

1955: is $K_c=1/5$, which is actually within the experimental range.

1956: Therefore we do not make a specific prediction regarding the

1957: character of the singularity (divergent versus convergent TED at

1958: the Fermi edge). Instead we think that both the divergent and the

1959: vanishing TEDs can be observed depending on the experimental

1960: setup. Unfortunately, in most recent experiments, both

1961: on SWNTs and MWNTs, only the total current is measured. Where the

1962: energy-resolved measurements were actually made

1963: \cite{french1,french2,japan}, in all cases but one, the

1964: temperatures were too high for the secondary effects to be

1965: visible. To our knowledge, so far only the experiments of

1966: Ref.~\cite{fransen} contain high-energy tails which can be

1967: attributed to secondary emission. However, the quality of the

1968: presented data hinders us from attempting to actually fit the

1969: curves.

1970: 

1971: \begin{figure}

1972: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{scenario.eps}

1973: \caption[]{\label{scenario} A sketch of the energy resolved current in a field

1974: emission process from LLs. An additional Lorentz peak due to

1975: tunnelling through a localised level (if exists) is depicted in the inset.}

1976: \end{figure}

1977: 

1978: We conclude this Section by summarising our scenario for the

1979: energy resolved current in the FE from LLs (and SWNTs). Well

1980: below the Fermi energy $j(\omega)$ is governed by the exponential

1981: growth of the transmission coefficient, $j(\omega) \sim

1982: \exp(\omega/{\cal A})$, see Fig.~\ref{scenario}, as is the case

1983: for any metallic emitter. Nearing the Fermi level, at energies

1984: given by $E_{0} \approx (1-1/g) {\cal A}$, the non-linear LL LDOS

1985: effects win over the exponential growth resulting in a maximum in

1986: the current profile $j(\omega)$. Further towards the Fermi energy

1987: it decreases according to the power-law: $\sim |\omega|^{1/g-1}$.

1988: The edge behaviour right above $E_F$ is given by $\sim

1989: \omega^{1/g-2}$. This changes shape depending on whether $g$ is

1990: smaller or larger than the critical coupling $g_c$. In the case

1991: of weak interactions, $1/2<g<1$, there is a singularity, while

1992: for strong correlations, $0<g<1/2$ this singular behaviour is

1993: suppressed and there is a power-law approach to zero. In the

1994: latter case $j(\omega)$ acquires an additional maximum at a

1995: cross-over energy $E^*$. For small applied fields, there is an

1996: upper threshold at energy $\mbox{min}(D,{\cal A})$ where the

1997: energy resolved current behaves as $\sim (\mbox{min}(D,{\cal

1998: A})-\omega)^{1/g}$.

1999: 

2000: \section{Tunnelling via localised states} \label{LS}

2001: Recent luminescence spectra measurements in FE experiments on

2002: carbon nanotubes \cite{french1,fransen} suggest that, at least in some

2003: cases, the emission process cannot be understood simply

2004: in terms of tunnelling into vacuum.

2005: They rather seem to be compatible with a model where

2006: the emitted electron tunnels out of the system through one or more localised

2007: states at the tip of the emitter \cite{french1,fransen}.

2008: In this Section, we generalise our formalism in order

2009: to analyse such a multiple stage tunnelling.

2010: 

2011: We start with the Hamiltonian of the system.

2012: Contrary to Eq.~(\ref{ham0}), the transfer of an electron between

2013: the host and the lead occurs in two stages.

2014: At the first stage, the electron populates a localised level with

2015: energy $-\Delta$, see Fig.~\ref{locur}.

2016: \begin{figure}

2017: \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{locur}

2018: \caption[]{\label{locur} A schematic representation of the

2019: electron tunnelling through a localised state $d$.}

2020: \end{figure}

2021: Let the tunnelling amplitude for this process be $\gamma_0$.

2022: At the second stage the electron tunnels from the

2023: localised state into the lead,

2024: \begin{eqnarray}

2025:  H_2 &=& H[\psi] + H_0[c] + \gamma_0 \left[ \psi(0)^\dag d + d^\dag \psi(0)

2026:  \right] \nonumber \\

2027:  &+& \gamma \left[ d^\dag c(0) + c^\dag(0) d \right] - \Delta d^\dag d \; ,

2028: \end{eqnarray}

2029: where we retain the notation $\gamma$ for the tunnelling amplitude

2030: of the second process and $d^\dag,d$ are the creation and

2031: annihilation operators of the localised state, respectively. We

2032: assume that $0 < -\Delta < -V$. This is not restrictive but

2033: reasonable. Indeed, the first inequality reflects the fact that

2034: the electric field applied to the emitter causes an effective

2035: lowering of energy of the states close to the tip. The second

2036: inequality is a trivial one because if the energy of the state

2037: $d$ lied below both Fermi levels it would have always been

2038: populated. For simplicity, we

2039: neglect any electrostatic interaction between the localised state

2040: and the leads and the Hubbard term for $d$. Like in the case of

2041: the simple tunnelling, the lead is assumed to be uncorrelated.

2042: 

2043: The problem of a localised state hybridised with a

2044: non-interacting continuum is, of course, exactly solvable

2045: \cite{mahan}. Therefore one way to proceed would be to eliminate

2046: the $\gamma$ hopping term from the Hamiltonian exactly and then

2047: apply perturbation theory in $\gamma_0$. However, in the FE setup

2048: $\Delta$ is expected to be much smaller than the conductance band

2049: width $D$. This implies that $\gamma_0 \gg \gamma$. Therefore we

2050: take an alternative route and first calculate the TED of the

2051: electrons on the level $d$ as a function of $g^{-+}(\omega)$ in

2052: the host ignoring tunnelling to the lead. (We did the

2053: alternative calculation as well and, at a given order of

2054: perturbation theory, obtained exactly the same results.) To

2055: proceed we define the Keldysh Green's function of the localised

2056: level:

2057: \begin{eqnarray}                             \label{Ddef}

2058:  D(t) = -i \langle T_C [d(t) d^\dag(0) S_C ]\rangle \, ,

2059: \end{eqnarray}

2060: where the $S$-matrix includes only the tunnelling

2061: between the host and the localised level,

2062: \begin{eqnarray}                             \label{newSMat}

2063:  S_C = T_C \exp\left( -i \gamma_0 \int_C \, dt \,

2064:  \left[ \psi^\dag(0,t) d(t) + d^\dag(t) \psi(0,t)

2065:  \right] \right) \; . \nonumber

2066: \end{eqnarray}

2067: Expanding the Green's function (\ref{Ddef}) and function $\langle

2068: T_C [d(t) \psi^\dag(0,t') S_C ]\rangle$ in powers of $\gamma_0$

2069: one obtains a set of coupled equations for them. Eliminating the

2070: latter object one then obtains the following Dyson-type equation

2071: for the Keldysh Green's function:

2072: \begin{eqnarray} \label{dysonequation}

2073:  D(t,t') = D_0(t,t') + \int_C \, d t'' \, D(t,t'') \kappa(t'',t') \; ,

2074: \end{eqnarray}

2075: where the kernel is given by

2076: \begin{equation}

2077:  \kappa(t'',t') =  \gamma_0^2 \int_C \, d t \, g_0(t'',t) D_0(t,t') \, .

2078: \end{equation}

2079: Here $g_0(t,t')$ and $D_0(t,t')$ denote the Green's functions of

2080: the host and the localised level in the absence the hopping term.

2081: Disentangling the Keldysh indices and Fourier transforming we

2082: obtain the following set of equations:

2083: \begin{eqnarray}

2084:  D^{-+}(\omega) = D^{-+}_0(\omega) + D^{--}(\omega) \kappa^{-+}(\omega) -

2085:  D^{-+}(\omega) \kappa^{++}(\omega) \; , \nonumber \\

2086:  D^{--}(\omega) = D^{--}_0(\omega) + D^{--}(\omega) \kappa^{--}(\omega) -

2087:  D^{-+}(\omega) \kappa^{+-}(\omega) \; . \nonumber

2088: \end{eqnarray}

2089: The solution is given by

2090: \begin{widetext}

2091: \begin{equation} \nonumber

2092:  D^{-+}(\omega) = \frac{D^{-+}_0 + \gamma_0^2 g^{-+}_0(\omega)

2093:  |D^{--}_0(\omega)|^2}{1+2 \gamma_0^2 \mbox{Re} [ g^{--}_0(\omega)

2094: D^{--}_0(\omega)] + \gamma_0^4 |g^{--}_0(\omega) D^{--}_0(\omega)|^2} \, .

2095: \end{equation}

2096: \end{widetext}

2097: This equation can be further simplified if one takes into account

2098: that $\mbox{Re}[g^{--}_0(\omega)]/|D^{--}_0(\omega)|^2$  vanishes for

2099: our system. Then the TED on the localised level is proportional to

2100: \begin{equation}                     \label{correctD-+}

2101:  D^{-+}(\omega) = \frac{\gamma_0^2 g^{-+}(\omega)}{(\omega+ \Delta)^2 +

2102:  \gamma_0^4 |g^{--}(\omega)|^2} \, .

2103: \end{equation}

2104: In the last relation we omitted the subscript $0$ of $g(\omega)$

2105: functions. Strictly speaking this constitutes an approximation.

2106: The reason is that since the tunnelling onto the localised level

2107: affects the Green's function of the host they have to be

2108: calculated self-consistently. However, the renormalisations

2109: occurring close to the Fermi energy should not strongly affect

2110: the shape of the localised state and vice versa. That is unless

2111: the localised level becomes resonant ($\Delta\to 0$), which case

2112: we shall not consider in this paper. 

2113: (We note though that the resonant level case can be approached

2114: via a mapping onto the Kondo problem \cite{resonantlevel}.) 

2115: For a non-interacting host

2116: $|g^{--}(\omega)|^2$ is simply a constant equal to $1/4v_F^2$.

2117: 

2118: As we know from Section \ref{general}, the TED in the

2119: non-interacting lead, is proportional to $D^{-+}(\omega)$ and the

2120: tunnelling probability $\gamma^2$:

2121: \begin{equation} \label{nf}

2122: n(\omega) = -i \gamma^2 D^{-+}(\omega) \, .

2123: \end{equation}

2124: 

2125: We now briefly discuss the picture for a non-interacting emitter.

2126: According to Eq.~(\ref{correctD-+}) there is a Lorentzian peak at

2127: $\omega=-\Delta$ with  height $4 v_F^2

2128: g^{-+}(-\Delta)/\gamma_0^2$ and width $\gamma_0^2/2 v_F$. At the

2129: second order in $\gamma^2$, there still is a sharp threshold at

2130: the Fermi energy. These results for non-interacting emitters are,

2131: of course, known (see e.~g.~\cite{plummer}). Here we have merely

2132: re-derived them using the Keldysh formalism.

2133: 

2134: Let us now turn to the open question of how the presence of a

2135: localised state would modify the FE process from a LL. For the

2136: primary current we can still use formula (\ref{fnappr}), where we

2137: have to substitute the TED of the electrons in the host by that

2138: of the electrons on the localised state. The energy resolved

2139: current is then given by the following expression (we again set

2140: $v_F=1$),

2141: \begin{eqnarray} \label{LSFNbare}

2142: {\cal J}(\omega) &=& -i {\cal F} \, {\cal D}(\omega) \,

2143: D^{-+} (\omega) \nonumber \\

2144: &=& \frac{{\cal F} \, \gamma^2 \gamma_0^2 \, \Theta(-\omega)}{a_0

2145: \, D^{1/g}\, \Gamma[1/g]} \,

2146: \frac{|\omega|^{1/g-1}}{(\omega+\Delta)^2+\gamma_0^4/4} \nonumber \\

2147: &\times& \exp\left( - 4 k_F^{1/2} \frac{(W-\omega)^{3/2}}{3F} \right) \, .

2148: \end{eqnarray}

2149: In comparison to the situation without the localised level, there

2150: is an additional feature: the Lorentzian resonance

2151: at $\omega= - \Delta$. To compute the total emitted current we

2152: re-write the energy integral in terms of the dimensionless

2153: variable $\xi = \omega/{\cal A}$ and expand the exponent in powers

2154: of $\omega/W$ as the work function is large compared to other

2155: energy scales. The total current then is

2156: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{LSFNintegral}

2157: {\cal J} &=& \frac{\gamma^2 \gamma_0^2 \, {\cal F}}{a_0 \, D^{1/g}

2158: \, \Gamma[1/g]} \, \exp \left( - 4 k_F^{1/2}\, \frac{W^{3/2}}{3F}

2159: \right) {\cal A}^{1/g-2} \nonumber \\&\times& \int_0^{\infty} \,

2160: d\xi \, \frac{\xi^{1/g-1}}{(\xi- \Delta/{\cal A})^2 +

2161: (\gamma_0^2/2 {\cal A})^2} \, e^{-\xi} \, .

2162: \end{eqnarray}

2163: This integral can be calculated exactly, resulting

2164: in the modified FN relation

2165: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

2166:  {\cal J} = J \, \frac{2 \gamma_0^2}{\cal A} \,  \mbox{Im}  \,

2167:  \left\{ w^{1/g-1} e^{w} \Gamma[1-1/g,w] \right\} \,

2168: \end{eqnarray}

2169: applicable for arbitrary parameters. Here $J$ is the total

2170: current in the absence of the localised state, see

2171: Eq.~(\ref{FN}), $\Gamma$ stands for the (incomplete) gamma

2172: function and we have introduced a dimensionless quantity $w$,

2173: defined by

2174: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

2175:  w =  \frac{1}{\cal A}\left( i \gamma_0^2/2 - \Delta \right) \, .

2176: \end{eqnarray}

2177: 

2178: There two important limiting cases.

2179: 

2180: {\bf (i)} The electric field is weak, $\Delta/{\cal A} \gg 1$, or

2181: $\Delta \gg F/2(k_F W)^{1/2}$. Then the resonance peak is far

2182: away from the Fermi edge in comparison with the characteristic

2183: decay scale of the transmission coefficient. The result of the

2184: integration in Eq.~(\ref{LSFNintegral}) is then essentially

2185: identical to the result for a system without a localised level

2186: Eq.~(\ref{FN}), up to numerical pre-factors. Therefore we would

2187: not expect that in this regime one can differentiate between the

2188: direct tunnelling and tunnelling via a localised state.

2189: 

2190: {\bf (ii)} The electric field is sufficiently strong, so that

2191: $\Delta/{\cal A} \ll 1$. Now the distance from the resonance to

2192: the Fermi edge is much smaller than the characteristic energy

2193: scale ${\cal A}$. If also $\gamma^2\ll\Delta$ (which is to be

2194: expected) the total current is still given by Eq.~(\ref{FN}), apart from

2195: the overall pre-factor, but with a different exponent: $1/2g$

2196: should now be substituted by $1/2g-1$. This change can be

2197: important for the analysis of experimental data on the SWNTs. For

2198: SWNTs in this regime, we expect the modified FN plot to be linear in

2199: the coordinates $\ln [{\cal J}/F^{(1/K-5)/4}]$ and $1/F$. For $K

2200: \approx 0.2$ the total current depends exponentially on the field

2201: strength (not a stretched exponential).

2202: 

2203: The calculation of the secondary current is more delicate.

2204: In the case of the localised state the

2205: insertion in the diagram for $g^{-+}(\omega)$,

2206: see Figs.~\ref{fig3} and \ref{fig4}, should be modified.

2207: It turns out that there is only one way to dress

2208: the Green's function $G^{+-}_0$ with

2209: the Green's functions of the localised level,

2210: $G^{+-}_0(\omega) \rightarrow D^{++}(\omega) G^{+-}_0(\omega) D^{--}(\omega)$,

2211: so that the diagram is non-zero above the Fermi edge.

2212: The time- and anti-time-ordered localised level Green's

2213: functions take the form

2214: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

2215:  D^{--(++)}(\omega) = \mp \frac{1}{\omega+\Delta

2216: \pm i(\alpha_d+\gamma_0^2/2)} \, .

2217: \end{eqnarray}

2218: The imaginary part in the denominators reflects the fact that the

2219: natural width of the localised level $\alpha_d$ is now widened by

2220: the hybridisation with the continuum of states in the host. Using

2221: the Fourier transform of the new insertion, which must now  be

2222: substituted instead of the Fourier transform of

2223: $G^{+-}_0(\omega)$ (given in Eq.~(\ref{com}) by

2224: $\exp{i(\omega-V)t}/(t+i \alpha)$), we construct the localised

2225: level counterpart of Eq.~(\ref{com}):

2226: \begin{widetext}

2227: \begin{eqnarray} \label{com2}

2228: n_>(\omega) &=& i \frac{\gamma^2}{2 \pi (\alpha_d + \gamma_0^2)}

2229: \int_{-\infty}^\infty  dt e^{i (\omega+\Delta)t} (e^{(\alpha_d +

2230: \gamma_0^2)t} \Gamma[t(\alpha_d + \gamma_0^2 + i (\Delta+D))] -

2231: e^{-(\alpha_d + \gamma_0^2)t} \Gamma[t(-\alpha_d - \gamma_0^2 + i

2232: (\Delta+D))]) \nonumber \\ &\times& \int_0^\infty d\tau_1

2233: \int_0^\infty d\tau_2e^{i\omega(\tau_1+\tau_2)} {\cal

2234: K}(\tau_1,0;t+\tau_1,t+\tau_1+\tau_2) \, .

2235: \end{eqnarray}

2236: \end{widetext}

2237: The asymptotic behaviour of

2238: the $n_>(\omega)$ close the Fermi edge is not affected (apart from a

2239: numerical pre-factor) by the presence of the localised state.

2240: There is an important difference -- the upper threshold for the

2241: TED is now given by $\Delta$ instead of $D$. The reason is that in

2242: the presence of the localised state the upper energy limit of the

2243: hot hole is given by the energy of the $d$-level instead of the

2244: band-width $D$ (or the applied voltage $V$).

2245: 

2246: Thus, in the case of tunnelling via a localised state the TED

2247: obtains an additional feature, namely a Lorentzian peak below the

2248: Fermi edge, see the inset in Fig.~\ref{scenario}. Recent

2249: luminescence experiments of Ref.~\cite{french1} suggest a similar

2250: structure -- two superimposed peaks in the spectrum of emitted

2251: light. The Lorentzian shape of the peaks was probably hidden by

2252: the intrinsic Gaussian broadening introduced by the apparatus (a

2253: Gaussian fit was adopted in Ref.~\cite{french1}). The calculation

2254: of the emerging luminescence spectra is beyond the scope of this

2255: paper and will be discussed elsewhere.

2256: 

2257: \section{Summary and conclusions} \label{conclusions}

2258: In this paper,  we studied the energy resolved current (or the

2259: TED) emitted from a tip of a correlated host material under

2260: out-of-equilibrium conditions. In the uncorrelated case the TED

2261: has a sharp threshold at the Fermi edge and there are no

2262: particles with energies above it. In the presence of interactions

2263: there is a finite high-energy tail due to the hot hole relaxation

2264: process. For most systems, the TED is singular right above the

2265: Fermi edge.

2266: 

2267: In the repulsive Luttinger liquid model, where the LDOS is

2268: renormalised by interactions and vanishes towards the Fermi edge,

2269: the TED below the Fermi edge shows a power-law behaviour with the

2270: LDOS exponent. Above the Fermi energy, we also find a power-law

2271: but with a new exponent. There is a critical coupling and the TED

2272: is divergent for weak interactions but convergent for strong

2273: interactions. In the latter case, the TED has a maximum above the

2274: Fermi level. Although the high-energy tail still exists in

2275: systems with local interactions confined to the tip, the TED is

2276: then a regular function of the energy. Additional features in the

2277: TEDs arise in a situation when the tunnelling occurs in two

2278: stages via a localised state. In this case there is a Lorentzian

2279: peak centred at the energy of this localised level and of the

2280: width which depends on the hybridisation with the continuum

2281: states on both sides of the contact. All the singularities of the

2282: TED above the Fermi energy survive the introduction of the

2283: localised level. The singularities in high-energy tails are

2284: suppressed as soon as the disorder is introduced. We have

2285: calculated the TED of particles tunnelling from a correlated

2286: disordered 2D system. In this case the LDOS is exponentially

2287: suppressed and this suppression is carried over to the TED.

2288: Contrary, in the pure limit, we find a weak (logarithmic)

2289: singularity in the TED above the Fermi edge.

2290: 

2291: We then specialised our results to the case of the FE from

2292: carbon nanotubes, both SWNTs and MWNTs.

2293: While they are in qualitative agreement with existing experiments,

2294: there is little data currently available to test our predictions

2295: for the secondary current in these systems.

2296: We hope that this work may encourage more measurements,

2297: especially at low temperatures ($\ll$ 300K).

2298: This could provide additional information about the nature of

2299: interactions in nanotubes.

2300: 

2301: Throughout the paper we consistently worked at zero

2302: temperatures. All our results can be generalised to

2303: finite temperatures by standard methods (though

2304: this may not be of immediate interests until there

2305: is more experimental data).

2306: There are, of course, other open questions (like the role

2307: of higher orders in the tunnelling amplitude) and potentially

2308: interesting extensions of this work, which are detailed

2309: in the main text.

2310: 

2311: Also interesting, though more difficult, could be experiments on

2312: tunnelling junctions if the TED in such setups were accessible

2313: e.~g. by means of a tunnel probe \cite{devoret}. In this case both

2314: threshold asymptotics could reveal essential details about the

2315: correlations. Even if direct measurements of the TED are not

2316: possible, there is another possibility to identify the secondary

2317: effects. Since the hot hole decay is a relaxation process, an

2318: electron-hole recombination can occur with an irradiation of a

2319: photon. Such a current-driven luminescence effect could be

2320: observable in quantum dot systems, where the corresponding

2321: experimental techniques became widespread in the recent years

2322: \cite{dekel}.

2323: 

2324: \acknowledgments We have benefited from illuminating discussions

2325: with Nathan Andrei, David Edwards, Reinhold Egger, Fabian Essler,

2326: and Yang Chen. This work was supported by the EPSRC of the UK

2327: under grants GR/N19359 and GR/R70309. The authors also participate

2328: in the EC training network DIENOW.

2329: 

2330: 

2331: \bibliography{prb}

2332: 

2333: \end{document}

2334: