1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prb,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3:
4: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8:
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12: \usepackage{epsfig,float,afterpage,amssymb,wrapfig,psfrag}
13:
14:
15:
16: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
17: \newcommand{\cc}{\mbox{\scriptsize{c}}}
18: \newcommand{\s}{\mbox{\scriptsize{S}}}
19: \newcommand{\ii}{\mbox{\scriptsize{i}}}
20: \newcommand{\jj}{\mbox{\ssz{j}}}
21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \newcommand{\mut}{\tilde{\mu}_0}
24: \newcommand{\host}{\mbox{\ssz{host}}}
25: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}
27: \newcommand{\spec}{\pi\Delta_0D(\w) \mbox{ vs } \tilde{\w}=\w/\Delta_0}
28: \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}
29: \newcommand{\ssz}{\scriptsize}
30: \newcommand{\rmd}{\mbox{d}}
31: \newcommand{\Or}{\mbox{O}}
32: \newcommand{\Atype}{\mbox{\ssz{A}}}
33: \newcommand{\Btype}{\mbox{\ssz{B}}}
34: %\newcommand{\fl}{\flushleft}
35: \newcommand{\ei}{\epsilon_{\ii}}
36: \newcommand{\scrG}{{\cal G}}
37: \newcommand{\retadv}{\scriptsize{\stackrel{\mbox{R}}{\mbox{A}}}}
38: \newcommand{\ret}{\mbox{\scriptsize{R}}}
39: \newcommand{\adv}{\mbox{\scriptsize{A}}}
40: \newcommand{\w}{\omega}
41: \newcommand{\K}{\mbox{\scriptsize{K}}}
42: \newcommand{\m}{\mbox{\scriptsize{m}}}
43: \newcommand{\wm}{\w_{\m}}
44: \newcommand{\wk}{\w_{\K}}
45: \newcommand{\wl}{\w_{\mbox{\scriptsize{L}}}}
46: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{i}}
47: \newcommand{\subi}{\mbox{\scriptsize{I}}}
48: \newcommand{\subr}{\mbox{\scriptsize{R}}}
49: \newcommand{\SUBI}{\mbox{\scriptsize{I}}}
50: \newcommand{\SUBR}{\mbox{\scriptsize{R}}}
51: \newcommand{\band}{\mbox{\scriptsize{b}}}
52: \newcommand{\delr}{\Delta_0^{\frac{1}{1-r}}}
53: \newcommand{\up}{\uparrow}
54: \newcommand{\eit}{\tilde{\epsilon}_{\ii}}
55: \newcommand{\eito}{\tilde{\epsilon}_{\ii \mbox{\ssz{o}}}}
56: \newcommand{\st}{\tilde{\Sigma}}
57: \newcommand{\ut}{\tilde{U}}
58: \newcommand{\Tt}{\tilde{T}}
59: \newcommand{\wt}{\tilde{\w}}
60: \newcommand{\down}{\downarrow}
61: \newcommand{\dn}{\downarrow}
62: \newcommand{\nb}{\bar{n}}
63: \newcommand{\mb}{\bar{\mu}}
64: \newcommand{\eistar}{{\epsilon_{\ii}^*}}
65: \DeclareMathAlphabet{\bi}{OML}{cmm}{b}{it}
66: \newcommand{\kk}{\bi{k}}
67: \newcommand{\sru}{\Sigma^{\subr}_{\up}}
68: \newcommand{\srd}{\Sigma^{\subr}_{\down}}
69: \newcommand{\nimp}{n_{\mbox{\ssz{imp}}}}
70: \newcommand{\srs}{\Sigma^{\subr}_{\sigma}}
71: \newcommand{\sts}{\tilde{\Sigma}_{\sigma}}
72: %********************************************thomas commands
73:
74: \newcommand{\del}{\Delta_0}
75: \newcommand{\llangle}{\langle\!\langle}
76: \newcommand{\rrangle}{\rangle\!\rangle}
77: %********************************************thomas commands
78:
79: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
80: %\renewcommand{\thefigure}{\arabic{figure}}
81: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
82: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
83: \newcommand{\bb}{\mbox{\ssz{b}}}
84: \newcommand{\pp}{\mbox{\ssz{p}}}
85: \renewcommand{\Or}{\cal{O}\rm}
86: \newcounter{saveeqn}
87: \newcommand{\alpheqn}{\setcounter{saveeqn}{\value{equation}}%
88: \setcounter{equation}{0}%
89: \addtocounter{saveeqn}{1}%
90: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}%
91: }
92:
93: \newcommand{\reseteqn}{\setcounter{equation}{\value{saveeqn}}%
94: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}}
95: %\newcommand{\seceq}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}
96:
97: %\jl{3}
98: \setlength{\jot}{.2in}
99: %\newcommand{\prb}{{\it Phys. Rev.} B }
100: \newcommand{\PR}{{\it Phys. Rev.}}
101: \newcommand{\jpcm}{{\it J. Phys.: Condens. Matter}}
102: %\newcommand{\prl}{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }}
103: \newcommand{\pr}{{\it Phys. Rev. }}
104: %\newcommand{\rmp}{{\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }}
105: \newcommand{\ptp}{{\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }}
106: \newcommand{\ptps}{{\it Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. }}
107: \newcommand{\ssc}{{\it Sol. St. Com. }}
108: \newcommand{\pss}{{\it Phys. Stat. Sol. }}
109: \newcommand{\seceq}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}
110:
111: \usepackage{graphics}
112: \begin{document}
113:
114:
115: \title{Local quantum critical point in the pseudogap Anderson model: finite-$T$ dynamics
116: and $\w/T$ scaling}
117: \author{Matthew T Glossop}
118: \altaffiliation[Current address: ]{Department of Physics, University of Florida,
119: Gainesville, Florida 32611-8440, USA.}
120: \author{Gareth E Jones}
121: \author{David E Logan}
122: \email{dlogan@physchem.ox.ac.uk}
123:
124:
125: \date{\today}
126:
127:
128: \affiliation{Oxford University, Physical and Theoretical
129: Chemistry Laboratory, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QZ, UK.}
130:
131: \begin{abstract}
132: The pseudogap Anderson impurity model is a paradigm for
133: locally critical quantum phase transitions. Within the framework of the
134: local moment approach we study its finite-$T$ dynamics, as embodied in the
135: single-particle spectrum, in the vicinity of the symmetric quantum
136: critical point (QCP) separating generalized Fermi-liquid (Kondo screened)
137: and local moment phases. The scaling spectra in both phases, and at the
138: QCP itself, are obtained analytically. A key result is that pure
139: $\w/T$-scaling obtains at the QCP, where the Kondo resonance has just
140: collapsed. The connection between the scaling spectra in either phase and
141: that at the QCP is explored in detail.
142: \end{abstract}
143:
144: \pacs{75.20.Hr, 71.10.Hf, 71.27.+a}
145:
146: \maketitle
147:
148: \section{Introduction}
149:
150: Proximity to a magnetic quantum critical point is one mechanism
151: for non-Fermi liquid behaviour in heavy fermion metals, a topic of
152: great current interest \cite{gs,coleman}. Experimentally, the
153: temperature below which certain heavy fermion materials become
154: antiferromagnetically ordered can be tuned to $T = 0$ either chemically
155: by doping (e.g. CeCu$_{6-x}$M$_x$ with M =
156: Au or Ag \cite{vl,heuser,kuch1}) or through applied pressure (e.g. CeIn$_3$
157: \cite{ndm}) or a magnetic
158: field
159: (e.g. YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ \cite{ot}). The transition point then becomes a
160: quantum
161: critical
162: point and leads to non-Fermi liquid behaviour extending over
163: large regions of the phase diagram.
164:
165: An example that has received much attention is CeCu$_{6-x}$Au$_x$
166: \cite{vl,schroder,os}. For $x
167: < x_{\cc}\simeq 0.1$ it is a paramagnet with properties consistent with a
168: highly renormalized Landau Fermi liquid. The localized magnetic moments
169: provided by the Ce atoms, manifest as a Curie-Weiss law at high
170: temperatures, are screened by conduction electrons at low temperatures in
171: a lattice analogue of the familiar Kondo effect for magnetic impurities in
172: metals. For $x>x_{\cc}$ by contrast, coupling between local moments wins out and the
173: ground state has antiferromagnetic long-ranged order.
174:
175: The observed non-Fermi liquid behaviour of CeCu$_{5.9}$Au$_{0.1}$
176: \cite{schroder,os}, probed by neutron scattering experiments, cannot however be
177: understood in terms of the standard Hertz-Millis mean-field description of a magnetic
178: quantum phase transition based on long wavelength fluctuations of the
179: order parameter
180: \cite{hertz,millis,moriya} --- the spin dynamics are found to display fractional exponents throughout the Brillouin zone, and satisfy pure
181: $\w/T$-scaling. This suggests the emergence at the QCP of local
182: moments that are temporally critical, and that temperature is the only
183: energy scale in the problem, cutting of critical quantum fluctuations
184: after a correlation time on the order of $\hbar/k_{\mbox{\ssz{B}}}T$.
185:
186: An alternative picture, where critical {\it local} fluctuations coexist
187: with spatially extended ones, has recently been proposed to explain the
188: above results. Si {\it et al} \cite{sinat} have shown that such a local
189: quantum
190: critical
191: point arises in the Kondo lattice model through competition between the
192: Kondo exchange coupling --- describing the interaction of conduction
193: electron spin and local moment at each lattice site --- and the RKKY
194: interaction, which characterizes the coupling between local moments at
195: different lattice sites. At this local QCP the lattice system reaches its
196: magnetic ordering transition at precisely the same point that the Kondo
197: screening becomes critical.
198: Thus the Kondo lattice model, and the self-consistent Bose-Fermi Kondo
199: model to which it reduces with an extended dynamical mean-field theory
200: treatment, are the focus of much current theoretical research
201: \cite{sinat,smith,zhu,grempel,zhuetal,burdin}.
202:
203: However, significant progress in understanding local QCPs
204: has followed from the study of a simpler problem: the pseudogap Anderson
205: [Kondo] impurity model (PAIM), which serves as a paradigm for locally
206: critical quantum phase transitions, and is the focus of this work.
207: Proposed over a decade ago by Withoff and Fradkin \cite{wf}, the model
208: represents a
209: generalization of the familiar Anderson [Kondo] impurity model
210: (AIM) \cite{pwa}
211: describing a single magnetic impurity embedded in a non-interacting
212: metallic host (for reviews see Ref.\ \onlinecite{hew,gehring}), and itself enjoying a
213: resurgence of interest in the context of quantum dots and STM
214: experiments \cite{revival,qdots}.
215:
216: In the PAIM the fermionic host is described by a power-law density of
217: states vanishing at the Fermi level: $\rho(\w) \propto |\w|^r$ with $r>0$
218: ($r=0$ recovers the case of a metallic host).
219: Many specific examples of pseudogap systems \emph{per se} have also been
220: proposed, including various zero-gap semiconductors \cite{vp}, one-dimensional
221: interacting systems \cite{voit}, and the Zn- and Li-doped cuprates
222: \cite{voj,vb02}. And the possibility
223: that pseudogap physics might be realized in a quantum dot system has also
224: recently been suggested \cite{hopkinson}.
225: The essential physics of the PAIM is by now well understood via a number of
226: techniques, e.g.\ perturbative scaling
227: \cite{wf,ki96,gbi96}, numerical renormalization group
228: \cite{cj,bph97,gbi98,bglp,ingsi02,vb02}, perturbative renormalization
229: group \cite{mvrecent}, local moment approach
230: \cite{bglp,lg00,gl03,gl032}, large-$N$ methods \cite{wf,cf,ingsi98,voj},
231: non-crossing approximation \cite{bork} and bare perturbation theory in the
232: interaction strength $U$ \cite{gl00}.
233: In contrast to the regular metallic AIM, which exhibits Fermi liquid physics and a
234: Kondo effect for all $U$ [or $J$ in its Kondo model limit], the
235: PAIM displays in general critical
236: local moment fluctuations and a destruction of the Kondo effect at a
237: finite critical $U_{\cc}$ [or $J_{\cc}$]. The quantum critical point,
238: with spin correlations that are critical in time yet spatially local,
239: separates a Fermi liquid Kondo-screened phase ($U<U_{\cc}$) from a local
240: moment phase with the characteristics of a free spin-$1/2$. The key
241: features of the model are summarized in \S 2.
242: \newline\indent In an effort to understand better the physics of critical local moment
243: fluctuations, the most recent work on pseudogap impurity models has
244: naturally focused on the QCP itself \cite{voj,ingsi02,gl03,mvrecent},
245: which has
246: been established as
247: a non-Fermi liquid interacting fixed point for $r<1$ (the upper critical
248: dimension of the problem). For example, Ingersent and Si
249: \cite{ingsi02} have recently
250: shown that for $r < 1$ the dynamical spin susceptibility at the critical
251: point exhibits $\w/T$-scaling with a fractional exponent, which features
252: closely parallel those of the local QCP of the Kondo lattice. A very
253: recent perturbative renormalization group study \cite{mvrecent} has
254: developed critical
255: theories for the transition, confirming that, for $0<r<1$ the transition
256: is described by an interacting field theory with universal local moment
257: fluctuations and hyperscaling, including $\w/T$-scaling in the dynamics.
258: \newline\indent In this paper, using the local moment approach (LMA), we develop an analytical description of finite-$T$ dynamics in the vicinity of the QCP, as embodied in the local single-particle
259: spectrum $D(\w)$.
260: Developed originally to describe metallic AIMs at $T = 0$ \cite{let,dl01,gl02},
261: and
262: subsequently extended to handle finite temperatures \cite{ld02} and magnetic
263: fields
264: \cite{ld01a,ldb01}, the LMA has also been applied to the PAIM \cite{lg00,gl03,gl032}
265: leading to a number of
266: new predictions that have since been confirmed by NRG calculations
267: \cite{bglp}. We also add that the approach can encompass lattice-based
268: models
269: within dynamical mean-field theory, e.g. the periodic Anderson model
270: appropriate to the paramagnetic metallic phase of heavy fermion
271: materials \cite{raja,ves,raja2}.
272: \newline\indent The paper is organized as follows. After the necessary background,
273: section 2, we present in section 3 a number of exact results for the
274: scaling spectra in both phases of the model, and at the QCP itself, using
275: general scaling arguments. In section 4 a brief description is given of
276: the finite-$T$ local moment approach to the problem, along with a
277: numerical demonstration of scaling of the single-particle dynamics. An
278: analytical description, arising within the LMA, of the finite-$T$
279: scaling spectrum for both phases and at the QCP is given in section 5, and
280: is found to be in excellent agreement with the numerics. The connection
281: between the scaling spectra in either phase and that at the QCP itself is
282: explored fully, $\w/T$-scaling of $D(\w)$ at the QCP being one key result.
283: The paper concludes with a brief summary.
284:
285:
286:
287:
288: \seceq
289: \section{Background}
290: \label{background} The Hamiltonian for an AIM is given in standard
291: notation by \be
292: \hat{H}=\sum_{\kk,\sigma}\epsilon_{\kk}\hat{n}_{\kk\sigma}+\sum_{\sigma}(\epsilon_{\ii}+\frac{U}{2}\hat{n}_{\ii-\sigma})\hat{n}_{\ii\sigma}
293: +\sum_{\kk,
294: \sigma}V_{\ii\kk}(c^{\dagger}_{\ii\sigma}c_{\kk\sigma}+\mbox{h.c.}) \ee
295: where the first term describes the non-interacting host with
296: dispersion $\epsilon_{\kk}$ and density of states $\rho(\omega) =
297: \sum_{\kk}\delta(\omega - \epsilon_{\kk})$ (with $\omega =0$ the
298: Fermi level). The second term describes the correlated impurity,
299: with energy $\epsilon_{\ii}$ and local interaction $U$, and the
300: third the host-impurity coupling (via \rm $V_{\ii\kk} \equiv V$).
301:
302: For a conventional metallic host the Fermi level density of states $\rho(0)
303: \neq 0$, and low-energy states are always available for screening. In
304: consequence the impurity spin is quenched and the system a Fermi liquid for
305: all $U$ (see e.g.\ \cite{hew}). For the pseudogap AIM (PAIM) by contrast the
306: host density of states is soft at the Fermi level, $\rho(\omega) \propto
307: |\omega|^{r}$ ($r>0$) \cite{wf}. Due to the depletion of host states around
308: the Fermi level, the PAIM exhibits a quantum phase transition
309: \cite{wf,ki96,gbi96,cf,ingsi98,voj,cj,bph97,gbi98,bglp,vb02,ingsi02,lg00,gl03,gl032}
310: at a critical $U=U_{\cc}(r)$, the quantum critical point (QCP) separating a
311: degenerate local moment (LM) phase for $U>U_{\cc}$ from a `strong coupling'
312: or generalized Fermi liquid (GFL) phase, $U < U_{\cc}$, in which the impurity
313: spin is locally quenched and a Kondo effect manifest. As $r \rightarrow 0$
314: the critical $U_{\cc}(r)$ diverges ($\sim 1/r$)
315: \cite{bph97,gbi98,bglp,lg00,gl03,gl032}, symptomatic of the absence of a
316: transition for the conventional metallic AIM corresponding to $r=0$, and
317: whose behaviour is recovered smoothly in the $r \rightarrow 0$ limit
318: \cite{lg00,gl03,gl032}. In the present paper we focus on the so-called
319: symmetric QCP that arises in both the particle-hole (p-h) symmetric and
320: asymmetric PAIM \cite{gbi98}. To that end we consider explicitly the p-h
321: symmetric model, with $\epsilon_{\ii} = -\frac{1}{2}U$ (and impurity charge
322: $n_{\ii} = \sum_{\sigma}\langle\hat{n}_{\ii\sigma}\rangle = 1$). In this case the QCP is
323: known to separate GFL/LM phases for all $0<r<\frac{1}{2}$
324: \cite{bph97,gbi98,bglp,lg00,gl03} (for $r>\frac{1}{2}$ the LM phase alone
325: arises for any $U >0$).
326:
327: Our focus here is on single-particle dynamics at finite-$T$, embodied
328: in the (retarded) impurity Green function $G(\omega,T)$
329: ($\leftrightarrow
330: -\im\theta(t)\langle\{c_{\ii\sigma}(t),c_{\ii\sigma}^{\dagger}\}\rangle$),
331: with $D(\omega,T) = -\frac{1}{\pi}$Im$G(\omega,T)$ the
332: single-particle spectrum. $G(\omega,T)$ may be expressed as
333: \begin{equation}
334: G(\omega,T) = [\omega^{+} - \Delta(\omega) - \Sigma(\omega,T)]^{-1}
335: \end{equation}
336: with $\omega^{+} = \omega + \im 0^{+}$ and $\Sigma(\omega,T) =
337: \Sigma^{\subr}(\omega,T) - \im\Sigma^{\subi}(\omega,T)$ the
338: conventional single self-energy (defined to exclude the trivial
339: Hartree term which precisely cancels $\epsilon_{\ii} =
340: -\frac{1}{2}U$), such that $\Sigma(\omega,T) =
341: -[\Sigma(-\omega,T)]^{*}$ by p-h symmetry. All effects of
342: host-impurity coupling at the one-electron level are embodied in
343: the hybridization function $\Delta(\omega) = \sum_{\kk}
344: V^{2}_{\ii\kk} [\omega^{+} - \epsilon_{\kk}]^{-1}$
345: $=\Delta_{\SUBR}(\omega) - \im \Delta_{\SUBI}(\omega)$. For the
346: PAIM considered here, $\Delta_{\SUBI}(\omega) = \pi V^{2}
347: \rho(\omega)$ is given explicitly by $\Delta_{\SUBI}(\omega) =
348: \Delta_{0}(|\omega|/\Delta_{0})^{r}\theta(D-|\omega|)$ with
349: $\Delta_{0}$ the hybridization strength, $D$ the bandwidth and
350: $\theta(x)$ the unit step function. Throughout the paper we
351: take $\Delta_{0} \equiv 1$ as the energy unit, i.e.\
352: \begin{equation}
353: \Delta_{\SUBI}(\omega) = |\omega|^{r}\theta(D-|\omega|).
354: \end{equation}
355: The real part of the hybridization function follows simply from Hilbert transformation,
356: \begin{equation}
357: \Delta_{\SUBR}(\omega) = -
358: \mbox{sgn}(\omega)\left[\beta(r)\Delta_{\SUBI}(\omega) + {\cal{O}}
359: \left(\frac{|\omega|}{D}\right)\right]
360: \end{equation}
361: with $\beta(r) = \mbox{tan}(\frac{\pi r}{2})$. That this form for
362: the hybridization is simplified is of course irrelevant to the
363: low-energy scaling behaviour of the problem, in the same way that
364: the usual `flat band' caricature of the metallic host is
365: immaterial to the intrinsic Kondo physics of the metallic AIM
366: \cite{hew}.
367:
368: We now summarize key characteristics of the problem at $T=0$
369: \cite{wf,ki96,gbi96,cf,ingsi98,voj,cj,bph97,gbi98,bglp,vb02,ingsi02,lg00,gl03,gl032}
370: that are required in the remainder of
371: the paper, including the essential manner in which the underlying transition
372: is directly apparent in single-particle dynamics.
373:
374: \subsection{GFL phase}
375: For \it all \rm $U < U_{\cc}(r)$ in the GFL
376: phase ($0<r<\frac{1}{2}$), the leading low-$\omega$ behaviour of
377: $D(\omega,0)$ is entirely unrenormalized from the non-interacting
378: limit and given by
379: \begin{equation}
380: \pi D(\omega,0) \stackrel{|\omega| \rightarrow 0}{\sim}
381: \mbox{cos}^{2}(\frac{\pi r}{2}) |\omega|^{-r}.
382: \end{equation}
383: This is an exact result \cite{gl00}. It arises because
384: $\Sigma^{\SUBR/\SUBI}(\omega,0)$ vanish as $\omega \rightarrow 0$
385: more rapidly than the hydridization ($\propto |\omega|^{r}$),
386: reflecting in physical terms the perturbative continuity to the
387: non-interacting limit that in essence defines a Fermi liquid. The
388: leading low-$\omega$ behaviour of $\Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0)$ is in
389: fact given by
390: \begin{equation}
391: \Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0) \stackrel{\omega \rightarrow 0}{\sim}
392: -\left(\frac{1}{Z} -1\right) \omega
393: \end{equation}
394: as one would cursorily expect from p-h symmetry
395: ($\Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0) = -\Sigma^{\SUBR}(-\omega,0)$); with the
396: quasiparticle weight (or mass renormalization) $Z$ defined as usual by $Z = [1-
397: (\partial\Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0)/\partial\omega)_{\omega
398: =0}]^{-1}$. By virtue of equation (2.5) the most revealing
399: expos\'e of GFL dynamics at $T=0$ lies in the modified spectral
400: function ${\cal{F}}(\omega,0)$ \cite{bglp,lg00,gl03,gl032}, defined generally by
401: \begin{equation}
402: {\cal{F}}(\omega,T) =\pi\ \mbox{sec}^{2}(\mbox{$\frac{\pi
403: r}{2}$})|\omega|^{r} D(\omega,T)
404: \end{equation}
405: such that ${\cal{F}}(0,0) = 1$ (i.e.\ the $T=0$ modified spectrum
406: is `pinned' at the Fermi level, a result that reduces to the
407: trivial dictates of the Friedel sum rule for the $r=0$ metallic
408: AIM \cite{hew}).
409:
410: The Kondo resonance
411: is directly apparent in ${\cal{F}}(\omega,0)$ \cite{bglp,lg00,gl03,gl032} ---
412: see e.g.\
413: figure 16 of Ref. \onlinecite{lg00}, and figure 3 below.
414: Indeed on visual inspection it is barely
415: distinguishable from its $r=0$ metallic counterpart, to which it
416: reduces for $r=0$. The resonance is naturally characterised by a
417: low-energy Kondo scale $\wk$, usually defined in practice by the
418: width of the resonance \cite{bglp}. Most importantly, as $U
419: \rightarrow U_{\cc}-$ and the GFL$\rightarrow$LM transition is
420: approached, the Kondo scale becomes arbitrarily small (vanishing
421: at the QCP itself, where the Kondo resonance collapses). For
422: $r\ll 1$ it is well-established from previous LMA work and NRG
423: calculations \cite{bglp,lg00,gl03,gl032} that $\wk$ vanishes according to
424: $\wk\propto(1-U/U_{\cc}(r))^{\frac{1}{r}}$.
425:
426: In consequence, in the vicinity of the transition,
427: ${\cal{F}}(\omega,0)$ exhibits \emph{universal scaling behaviour} in
428: terms of $\omega/\wk$ \cite{bglp,lg00}. It is of course in this
429: scaling behaviour that the underlying quantum phase transition is
430: directly manifest \cite{gl03,gl032}.
431:
432: \subsection{LM phase}
433: The local moment phase is more subtle than naive expectation
434: might suggest. Here it is known, originally from NRG calculations
435: \cite{bph97}, that the leading low-$\omega$ behaviour of
436: $D(\omega,0)$ is
437: \begin{equation}
438: D(\omega,0) \stackrel{|\omega| \rightarrow 0}{\sim} c|\omega|^{r}
439: \end{equation}
440: (with Re$G(\omega,0) \sim
441: -\mbox{sgn}(\omega)\pi\beta(r)D(\omega,0)$ following directly from
442: Hilbert transformation). From this alone, simply by inverting
443: equation (2.2), the leading low-$\omega$ behaviour of the single
444: self-energy $\Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0)$ is given by
445: \begin{equation}
446: \Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0) \stackrel{|\omega| \rightarrow 0}{\sim}
447: \mbox{sgn}(\omega) \mbox{sin}(\pi r) \frac{1}{2\pi D(\omega,0)}
448: \hspace{0.3cm} \propto |\omega|^{-r}
449: \end{equation}
450: (and likewise $\Sigma^{\SUBI}(\omega,0) \propto
451: \Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega,0)$). This divergent low-$\omega$ behaviour
452: is radically different from the simple analyticity of its
453: counterpart equation (2.6) in the GFL phase, and illustrates the
454: basic difficulty:
455: the need to capture within a common framework such distinct behaviour
456: in the GFL and LM phases, indicative
457: of the underlying phase transition and as such requiring an inherently
458: non-perturbative description. We do not know of any theoretical approach based on
459: the conventional single self-energy that can handle this issue.
460:
461: There is however nothing sacrosanct in direct use of the single
462: self-energy, which is merely defined by the Dyson equation
463: implicit in equation (2.2). Indeed for the doubly-degenerate LM
464: phase, a physically far more natural approach would be in terms of
465: a two-self-energy description (as immediately obvious by
466: consideration e.g.\ of the atomic limit --- the `extreme' LM
467: case). Here the rotationally invariant $G(\omega,T)$ is expressed
468: as
469: \begin{equation}
470: G(\omega,T) = \frac{1}{2} [G_{\uparrow}(\omega,T) + G_{\downarrow}(\omega,T)]
471: \end{equation}
472: with the $G_{\sigma}(\omega,T)$ given by
473: \begin{equation}
474: G_{\sigma}(\omega,T) = [\omega^{+} - \Delta(\omega) -
475: \tilde{\Sigma}_{\sigma}(\omega,T)]^{-1}
476: \end{equation}
477: in terms of spin-dependent self-energies
478: $\tilde{\Sigma}_{\sigma}(\omega,T)$ ($=
479: \tilde{\Sigma}_{\sigma}^{\SUBR}(\omega,T) -
480: \im\tilde{\Sigma}_{\sigma}^{\SUBI}(\omega,T)$); satisfying
481: \begin{equation}
482: \tilde{\Sigma}_{\sigma}(\omega,T) =
483: -[\tilde{\Sigma}_{-\sigma}(-\omega,T)]^{*}
484: \end{equation}
485: for the p-h symmetric case considered. It is precisely this
486: two-self-energy framework that underlies the LMA
487: \cite{lg00,gl03,gl032,let,dl01,gl02,ld02,ld01a,ldb01} (with the single
488: self-energy
489: obtained if desired as a byproduct, following simply from direct
490: comparison of equations (2.10,
491: 11) with equation (2.2)); requisite
492: details will be given in section 4. The LM phase is then characterised
493: by \emph{non-vanishing}, spin-dependent `renormalized levels'
494: $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0,0) =
495: -\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{-\sigma}(0,0)$ (so called because they
496: correspond to $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\ii\sigma} = \epsilon_{\ii} +
497: \tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0,0)$ if the Hartree contribution
498: is explicitly retained in the
499: $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(\omega,0)$). From this, using
500: equations (2.10,11), the low-$\omega$ behaviour embodied in
501: equation (2.8) (and hence equation (2.9) for the single
502: self-energy) \emph{follows directly}, namely
503: \begin{equation}
504: \pi D(\omega,0) \stackrel{|\omega| \rightarrow 0}{\propto}
505: |\omega|^{r}/ [\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0,0)]^{2}
506: \end{equation}
507: (assuming merely that $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBI}_{\sigma}(\omega,0)$
508: vanishes no more rapidly than the hybridization $\propto
509: |\omega|^{r}$). As $U \rightarrow U_{\cc}+$ and the
510: LM$\rightarrow$GFL transition is approached, the renormalized
511: level $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0,0) \rightarrow 0$
512: \cite{gl03,gl032}; and
513: $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0,0) =0$ remains throughout the
514: (`symmetry unbroken') GFL phase $U < U_{\cc}$ \cite{lg00,gl03,gl032},
515: such that the characteristic low-$\omega$ spectral behaviour equation
516: (2.5) is likewise correctly recovered.
517:
518: The underlying two-self-energy description is thus
519: capable of handling both phases simultaneously, and hence the
520: transition between them. Further, since the renormalized level
521: $|\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0,0)|$ vanishes as the
522: LM$\rightarrow$GFL transition is approached, it naturally generates a
523: low-energy scale $\wl$ characteristic of the LM phase (defined precisely
524: in section 5.2); in terms of
525: which LM phase dynamics in the vicinity of the transition have
526: recently been shown \cite{gl03,gl032} to exhibit universal scaling.
527: This behaviour is of course the counterpart of the Kondo scale
528: $\wk$ and associated spectral scaling in the GFL phase, but now for
529: the LM phase on the other side of the underlying quantum
530: phase transition.
531:
532:
533: \seceq
534: \section{Scaling: general considerations}
535:
536:
537: Close to and on either side of the quantum phase transition, the problem
538: is thus characterised by a single low-energy scale, denoted
539: generically by $\omega_{*}$ (the Kondo scale for the GFL phase;
540: $\wl$ for the LM phase). Given this, and without recourse to any
541: particular theory, we now show that general scaling arguments may
542: be used to obtain a number of exact results for the finite-$T$ scaling
543: spectra, in both the GFL and LM phases \it and at the QCP itself
544: \rm (where $\omega_{*} =0$ identically). These are important in
545: themselves, and in addition provide stringent dictates that should
546: be satisfied by any approximate theoretical approach to the
547: problem.
548:
549: We consider first the case of $T=0$, for which general
550: scaling arguments made by us in \cite{gl032} serve as a starting
551: point. In the following we denote the spectrum
552: by $D(U;\omega)$, with the $U$-dependence temporarily
553: explicit. As the
554: transition is approached, $u =|1-U/U_{\cc}(r)| \rightarrow 0$,
555: the
556: low-energy scale $\omega_{*}$ vanishes, as
557: \begin{equation}
558: \omega_{*} = u^a
559: \end{equation}
560: with exponent $a$. $D(U;\omega)$ can now be expressed generally in
561: the scaling form $\pi D(U;\omega) =
562: u^{-ab}\Psi_{\alpha}(\omega/u^a)$ in terms of two exponents $a$
563: and $b$ (and with $\alpha =$ GFL or LM denoting the appropriate
564: phase), i.e.\ as
565: \begin{equation}
566: \pi\omega_{*}^{b}D(U;\omega) = \Psi_{\alpha}(\omega/\omega_{*})
567: \end{equation}
568: with the exponent $a$ eliminated and the $\omega$-dependence encoded solely
569: in $\omega/\omega_{*} = \tilde{\omega}$. Equation (3.2) simply embodies the
570: universal scaling behaviour
571: of the $T=0$ single-particle spectrum close to the QPT. Using it, three results
572: follow:
573:
574: (i) That the exponent $b=r$ for the GFL phase (and for all $r$
575: where the GFL phase arises). This follows directly from equation
576: (3.2) using the fact that the leading $\omega \rightarrow 0$
577: behaviour of $D(U;\omega)$ throughout the GFL phase is given
578: exactly by equation (2.5), together with the fact that
579: $\Psi_{\alpha}(x)$ is universal; i.e.\
580: \begin{equation}
581: \pi\omega_{*}^{r}D(U;\omega) = \Psi_{\alpha}(\omega/\omega_{*}).
582: \end{equation}
583:
584: (ii) Now consider the approach to the QCP, $\omega_{*} \rightarrow 0$ and hence
585: $\omega/\omega_{*} \rightarrow \infty$. Since the QCP itself must be `scale free'
586: (independent of $\omega_{*}$), equation (3.3) implies
587: \begin{equation}
588: \Psi_{\alpha}(\omega/\omega_{*}) \stackrel{|\omega|/\omega_{*}\rightarrow \infty}
589: {\sim} C(r)(|\omega|/\omega_{*})^{-r}
590: \end{equation}
591: with $C(r)$ a constant (naturally $r$-dependent). From equations (3.3,4) it follows
592: directly that precisely at the QCP ($\omega_{*} =0$),
593: \begin{equation}
594: \pi D(U_{\cc};\omega) = C(r)|\omega|^{-r}
595: \end{equation}
596: which gives explicitly the $\omega$-dependence of the ($T=0$) QCP spectrum.
597:
598: (iii) Assuming naturally that the QCP behaviour is independent of the phase
599: from which it is approached, equation (3.4) applies also to the LM phase. From
600: equations (3.2) and (3.4) it follows that the exponent $b=r$ for the LM phase
601: as well (as one might expect physically).
602:
603: The above behaviour is indeed as found in practice from the
604: LMA at $T=0$ \cite{lg00,gl03,gl032}, with the scaling for
605: equation (3.3) also confirmed by NRG calculations \cite{bglp}. But
606: the important point here is that these results are general,
607: independent of approximations (be they analytical or numerical),
608: and as such holding across the entire $r$-range for which the symmetric
609: QCP exists, i.e.\ $0<r< \frac{1}{2}$ \cite{gbi98}.
610: We add morover that while the argument above for $b=r$ leading to
611: equation (3.3) is particular to the symmetric PAIM considered
612: explicitly here,
613: % (and hence applicable to $0 < r < \frac{1}{2}$),
614: recent LMA results for the asymmetric PAIM for $0<r<1$ \cite{gl032}, and
615: NRG results \cite{vb02} for the asymmetric pseudogap Kondo
616: model for $\frac{1}{2} < r < 1$, are also consistent with the
617: exponent $b=r$. The QCP behaviour equation (3.5) then
618: follows directly, and the LMA/NRG results of Ref.\ \onlinecite{vb02,gl032} are
619: likewise consistent with it.
620:
621:
622: The arguments above \cite{gl032} can now be extended to finite
623: temperature. The scaling
624: spectra may again be cast generally in the form $\pi
625: D(U;\omega,T)
626: = u^{-ar}\Psi_{\alpha}(\omega/u^a, T/u^a)$, i.e.\ as
627: \begin{equation}
628: \pi \omega_{*}^{r}D(U;\omega,T) =
629: \Psi_{\alpha}(\omega/\omega_{*},T/\omega_{*})
630: \end{equation}
631: expressing the fact that $\omega_{*}^{r}D(U;\omega,T)$ is
632: a universal function of $\tilde{\omega} =\omega/\omega_{*}$ \it
633: and \rm $\tilde{T} = T/\omega_{*}$. From this follow three results,
634: new to our knowledge:-
635:
636: (i) Consider first the approach to the QCP at finite-$T$, i.e.\
637: $\tilde{\omega} \rightarrow \infty$ and $\tilde{T} \rightarrow
638: \infty$ such that $\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{T} = \omega/T$ is fixed.
639: Again, since the QCP must be scale free,
640: $\Psi_{\alpha}(\tilde{\omega} \rightarrow \infty, \tilde{T}
641: \rightarrow \infty)$ must be of form $\tilde{T}^{p}S(\omega/T)$
642: with the exponent $p=-r$ from equation (3.6), i.e.\
643: \begin{equation}
644: \Psi_{\alpha}(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{T}) \sim \tilde{T}^{-r}S(\omega/T).
645: \end{equation}
646:
647: (ii) From equations (3.6,7) it follows directly that precisely at the
648: QCP ($\omega_{*} =0$):
649: \begin{equation}
650: \pi T^{r} D(U_{\cc};\omega,T) = S(\omega/T)
651: \end{equation}
652: i.e.\ $T^{r}D(U_{\cc};\omega,T)$ exhibits \it pure
653: $\omega/T$-scaling\rm.
654:
655: (iii) The large-$x$ behaviour of $S(x)$ --- and hence the `tail'
656: behaviour of the QCP scaling spectrum $S(\omega/T)$ --- may be
657: deduced on the natural assumption that the limits $\omega_{*}
658: \rightarrow 0$ and $T \rightarrow 0$ commute; i.e.\ that the $T=0$
659: QCP spectrum may either be obtained at $T=0$ from the limit
660: $\omega_{*} \rightarrow 0$ (as in equation (3.5)), or from the $T
661: \rightarrow 0$ limit of the finite-$T$ QCP scaling spectrum
662: equation (3.8) (in which $\omega_{*} \rightarrow 0$ has been taken
663: first). With this, comparison of equations (3.5,8) yields the
664: desired result
665: \begin{equation}
666: S(\omega/T) \stackrel{|\omega|/T \rightarrow \infty}{\sim}
667: C(r)(|\omega|/T)^{-r}.
668: \end{equation}
669:
670: The behaviour embodied in equations (3.7--9) follows
671: on general grounds. In particular, the $\omega/T$-scaling of the
672: QCP scaling spectrum is a key conclusion. Neither is such scaling
673: specific to single-particle dynamics. For the dynamical local
674: magnetic susceptibility, recent NRG calculations \cite{ingsi02} are
675: consistent with $\omega/T$-scaling at the QCP (for $0<r<1$), as
676: supported further by approximate analytic results for small $r$
677: based on a procedure analogous to the standard
678: $\epsilon$-expansion. The preceding arguments do \emph{not} of course
679: determine the functional form of the scaling spectra embodied in
680: the $\Psi_{\alpha}(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{T})$ and $S(\omega/T)$,
681: save for their asymptotic form equations (3.4,9): for that a
682: `real' (inevitably approximate) theory is required, as considered
683: in the following sections; and from which the general results
684: above should of course be recovered.
685: We note in passing that the
686: arguments above also encompass the role of a local
687: magnetic field, $h = \frac{1}{2}g\mu_{\mbox{\ssz{B}}}H_{\mbox{\ssz{loc}}}$ (with $\tilde{h}
688: = h/\omega_{*}$ in the following): replacing $T$ by $h$ in
689: equations (3.6-9) gives the appropriate scaling behaviour in terms
690: of $\tilde{\omega}$ and $\tilde{h}$ (for $T=0$). At the QCP in
691: particular $h^{r}D(U_{\cc};\omega,h)$ exhibits \it pure
692: $\omega/h$-scaling\rm,
693: \begin{equation}
694: \pi h^{r}D(U_{\cc};\omega,h) = S^{\prime}(\omega/h)
695: \end{equation}
696: with the large-$|\omega|/h$ `tail' behaviour $S^{\prime}(\omega/h)
697: \sim C(r)(|\omega|/h)^{-r}$.
698:
699:
700: \subsection{The low-energy scale}
701:
702: Before proceeding we return briefly to an obvious issue: the physical
703: nature of the low-energy scale $\omega_{*}$. In the GFL phase for
704: example, how is it related to the quasiparticle weight $Z
705: =[1-(\partial\Sigma^{\SUBR}(\omega;0)/
706: \partial\omega)_{\omega=0}]^{-1}$, which we likewise expect to vanish as $U \rightarrow
707: U_{\cc}(r)-$,
708: \begin{equation}
709: Z \sim u^{a_{1}}
710: \end{equation}
711: with exponent $a_{1}$? That question may be answered most simply
712: (albeit partially here) by considering the limiting low-frequency
713: `quasiparticle form' for the impurity Green function, whose
714: behaviour reflects the adiabatic continuity to the non-interacting
715: limit that is intrinsic to the GFL phase. This follows from the
716: low-$\omega$ expansion of the single self-energy,
717: $\Sigma(\omega;0) \sim -(\frac{1}{Z}-1)\omega$ (with the imaginary
718: part neglected as usual \cite{hew}); using which with equations
719: (2.2--4) yields the quasiparticle behaviour
720: \begin{equation}
721: \pi D(U;\omega) \sim \frac{|\omega|^{r}} {(\frac{\omega}{Z} +
722: \mbox{sgn}(\omega)\beta(r)|\omega|^{r})^{2}+ |\omega|^{2r}}
723: \end{equation}
724: which itself must be expressible in the scaling form equation (3.3). This in
725: turn implies that $\omega_{*}$ and $Z$ are related by
726: \begin{equation}
727: \omega_{*} = [k_{1}Z]^{\frac{1}{1-r}}
728: \end{equation}
729: (with $k_{1}$ an arbitrary constant up to which low-energy scales are defined),
730: such that equation (3.12) reduces to the required form
731: \begin{equation}
732: \pi \omega_{*}^{r}D(U;\omega) \sim \frac{|\tilde{\omega}|^{r}}
733: {(k_{1}|\tilde{\omega}| +
734: \mbox{sgn}(\omega)\beta(r)|\tilde{\omega}|^{r})^{2} +
735: |\tilde{\omega}|^{2r}}
736: \end{equation}
737: with $\tilde{\omega} = \omega/\omega_{*}$. For the GFL phase the
738: $\omega_{*}$ ($\equiv \omega_{K}$) scale and the quasiparticle
739: weight $Z$ are thus related by equation (3.13) (and hence the
740: exponents $a$ (equation (3.1)) and $a_{1}$ (equation (3.11)) by $
741: a_{1} = a(1-r))$. That behaviour is correctly recovered by the
742: LMA, which in addition shows $\omega_{*}$ to be equivalently the
743: characteristic Kondo spin-flip scale associated with transverse
744: spin excitations; see section 5.1 below.
745:
746: In contrast to the GFL phase where the leading low-$\omega$ spectral behaviour
747: is $D(U;\omega) \propto |\omega|^{-r}$ as above, the corresponding
748: behaviour for the LM phase is given by $\pi D(U;\omega) \propto
749: |\omega|^{r}/ [\tilde{\Sigma}^
750: {\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0;0)]^{2}$
751: (equation (2.13)) in terms of the `renormalized level'
752: $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0;0)$, which is non-zero in the
753: LM phase and vanishes as $U \rightarrow U_{\cc}(r)+$ \cite{gl03,gl032};
754: i.e.\
755: \begin{equation}
756: |\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0;0)| \sim u^{a_{2}}
757: \end{equation}
758: with exponent $a_{2}$. Since equation (2.13) must be expressible in the scaling
759: form equation (3.3) it follows that $\omega_{*} (\equiv \omega_{L})$ in the LM
760: phase is related simply to the renormalized level by
761: \begin{equation}
762: \omega_{*} =
763: [k_{2}|\tilde{\Sigma}^{\SUBR}_{\sigma}(0;0)|]^{\frac{1}{r}}
764: \end{equation}
765: (and hence the exponents $a$ and $a_{2}$ by $a_{2}=ar$). We emphasize again
766: that the exponents obtained above are exact, valid for all $0<r<\frac{1}{2}$.
767:
768: After the above general considerations we now consider the
769: finite-temperature scaling properties of the PAIM within the local moment
770: approach.
771:
772: \seceq
773: \section{Local moment approach: finite $T$}
774: Regardless of the phase considered the LMA uses the two-self energy
775: description embodied in equations (2.10,11), with the self-energies
776: separated for convenience as \be \sts(\w^+,
777: T)=-\frac{\sigma}{2}U|\mu|+\Sigma_{\sigma}(\w^+, T) \ee into a
778: purely static Fock piece with local moment $|\mu|$ (that is
779: retained alone at mean-field level); and an all important dynamical contribution
780: $\Sigma_{\sigma}(\w^+,T)$ containing the spin-flip physics that
781: dominates at low-energies. The $G_{\sigma}(\w,T)$ (equation (2.11)) may be recast equivalently as \be
782: G_{\sigma}(\w,T)=\left[\scrG_{\sigma}(\w)^{-1}-\Sigma_{\sigma}(\w^+,T)\right]^{-1}
783: \ee in terms of the mean-field (MF) propagators \be
784: \scrG_{\sigma}(\w)=[\w^++\frac{\sigma}{2}U|\mu|-\Delta(\w)]^{-1}
785: \ee and with $\Sigma_{\sigma}\equiv \Sigma_{\sigma}[\{\scrG_{\sigma}\}]$ a
786: functional of the $\{\scrG_{\sigma}(\w)\}$.
787:
788:
789:
790:
791: \begin{figure}
792: % Use the relevant command for your figure-insertion program
793: % to insert the figure file.
794: % For example, with the option graphics use
795: \resizebox{0.3\columnwidth}{!}{%
796: \includegraphics{f1.eps}}
797: % If not, use
798: %\vspace{5cm} % Give the correct figure height in cm
799: \caption{Standard LMA diagram for the dynamical contribution
800: $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ to the self-energies.}
801: \label{fig:1} % Give a unique label
802: \end{figure}
803:
804: The standard LMA diagrammatic approximation for the $t$-ordered
805: two-self-energies is depicted in figure 1. For full details, including
806: their physical interpretation, the reader is referred to
807: \cite{lg00,let,gl02}. In retarded form at finite temperature, $\Sigma_{\up}(\w)$
808: is given by \cite{ld02} \bea
809: \Sigma_{\up}(\w^+,T)&=&U^2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\rmd
810: \w_1}{\pi}\ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\rmd \w_2\
811: \chi^{+-}(\w_1,T) \nonumber \\
812: &\times& \frac{D^0_{\down}(\w_2)}{\w+\w_1-\w_2+\im\eta}\ g(\w_1;
813: \w_2) \eea where
814: $D^0_{\sigma}(\w)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\scrG_{\sigma}(\w)$ is the MF
815: spectral density; and $g(\w_1;\w_2)=\theta(-\w_1)$ $[1-f(\w_2;
816: T)]+\theta(\w_1)f(\w_2; T)$ with $f(\w; T)
817: =[1+\mbox{exp}(\w/T)]^{-1}$ the Fermi function.
818: $\chi^{+-}(\w,T)\equiv \mbox{Im}\Pi^{+-}(\w,T)$
819: is the spectrum of transverse spin excitations, with $\Pi^{+-}(\w,T)$
820: the finite-$T$ polarization propagator, calculated via an RPA-like p-h
821: ladder sum \cite{ld02}. $\Sigma_{\down}(\w)=-[\Sigma_{\up}(-\w)]^{*}$ follows
822: trivially by
823: particle-hole symmetry; we thus choose to work with
824: $\Sigma_{\up}(\w)$.
825:
826:
827:
828:
829: The $T$-dependence of the $\chi^{+-}(\w,T)$, and also of
830: the local moment $|\mu|=|\mu(T)|$ entering the MF propagators
831: (equation(4.3)) and self-energies (equation (4.1)),
832: is found to be insignificantly
833: small, provided we remain uninterested in temperatures on the order
834: of the non-universal energy scales in the problem.
835: This is precisely as for the $r=0$ case \cite{ld02} and we
836: thus work with $\chi^{+-}(\w,T)\simeq\chi^{+-}(\w,T=0)
837: \equiv\mbox{Im}\Pi^{+-}(\w)$ and local moment $|\mu(0)|\equiv |\mu|$. The
838: remaining $T$-dependence, describing the universal scaling regime, is controlled
839: solely by $g(\w_1; \w_2)$ entering equation (4.4).
840:
841:
842:
843:
844: In describing the GFL phase within the LMA, the key concept is that
845: of symmetry restoration (SR) \cite{lg00,gl032,let,gl02}: self-consistent
846: restoration of the symmetry broken at pure MF level. In mathematical terms
847: this is encoded simply in $\st_{\up}(0^+,T=0)
848: =\st_{\down}(0^+,T=0)$ and hence, via particle-hole symmetry,
849: \be \left[\st_{\up}(0^+; T=0 )\equiv\right]\
850: \Sigma_{\up}(0)-\frac{1}{2}U|\mu|=0.\ee Equation (4.5) guarantees in particular
851: the correct Fermi
852: liquid form ${\cal F}(0,0)=1$ (see equation (2.7)). It is
853: satisfied in practice, for any given $U<U_{c}$, by varying the local moment
854: $|\mu|$ entering the MF propagators from the pure MF value $|\mu_0|<|\mu|$
855: until equation (4.5) --- a single condition at the Fermi level $\omega =0$
856: --- is satisfied.
857: In so doing a low-energy
858: scale is introduced into the problem through a strong resonance in
859: $\mbox{Im}\Pi^{+-}(\w)$ centred on $\w =
860: \wm \equiv \wm(r)$. This is the Kondo or spin-flip scale $\wm
861: \propto \wk$ and sets the timescale for symmetry restoration,
862: $\tau \sim h/\wm$ \cite{lg00,gl032,let,gl02}.
863:
864: In the LM phase, by contrast, it is not possible to satisfy the
865: symmetry restoration condition equation (4.5) and $|\mu|=|\mu_0|$
866: \cite{lg00,gl032}:
867: $\mbox{Im}\Pi^{+-}(\w)$ then correctly contains a delta-function contribution at
868: $\w = 0$, reflecting physically the zero-energy cost for spin-flips in the
869: doubly-degenerate LM phase. The `renormalized levels' (see section 2.2)
870: $\{\sts(0,0)\}$ are here found to be non-zero and sign-definite.
871:
872: The GFL/LM phase boundary, i.e. $U_{\cc} \equiv {U}_{\cc}(r)$, may then be accessed
873: either as the limit of solutions to equation (4.5), where $\wm\ra
874: 0$; or, coming from the LM side, as the limiting ${U}$ for which the
875: $\{\sts(0,0)\}$ vanish. In either case the \emph{same} ${U}_{\cc}(r)$
876: obtains; and both GFL and LM phases are correctly found to arise for all
877: $0<r<\frac{1}{2}$, while solely LM states occur for all $r>\frac{1}{2}$
878: and ${U}>0$ \cite{lg00}. For $r \rightarrow 0$ the LMA recovers the
879: exact result that $U_{\cc}=8/\pi r$ which, together with the low-$r$ result
880: $a=1/r$ (see equation (3.1)) \cite{lg00} recovers the exact exponential
881: dependence of the regular $r=0$ metallic AIM \cite{hew}.
882:
883: The practical strategy for solving the problem at finite-$T$ is likewise
884: straightforward. Once the local moment $|\mu|$ is known from symmetry
885: restoration
886: (for any given $r$ and $U$), the dynamical self-energy
887: $\Sigma_{\up}(\w^{+}, T)$ follows from equation (4.4). The full
888: self-energy then follows immediately from equation (4.1) and $G(\w,T)$ in turn via
889: equations (4.2) and (2.10).
890: We now give numerical
891: results obtained in this way for the GFL phase at finite-$T$.
892:
893: \subsection{Numerical results: GFL phase scaling}
894: Here we show that the LMA correctly captures scaling of
895: the single-particle spectrum $D(\w,T)$ as the transition is
896: approached, $U\ra U_{\cc}(r)-$. That is, $\wm^rD(\w,T)$
897: scales in terms of both $\tilde{\w}=\w/\wm$ and $\tilde{T}=T/\wm$,
898: as expressed in equation (3.6); or equivalently that
899: ${\cal F}(\w, T)\equiv F(\tilde{\w},\tilde{T})$.
900:
901: \begin{figure}
902: \begin{center}
903: \psfrag{xaxis1}[bc][bc]{$\wt$}
904: \psfrag{yaxis1}[bc][bc]{${\cal F}(\w, T)$}
905: \psfrag{xaxis2}[bc][bc]{$\w$}
906: \epsfig{file=f2.eps, width=5cm, angle=270}
907: \caption{GFL phase scaling spectrum ${\cal
908: F}(\w,T)=\pi\mbox{sec}^2(\frac{\pi}{2}r)|\w|^rD(\w,T)$ versus
909: $\tilde{\w}=\w/\wm$, for fixed $\tilde{T}=T/\wm=1$ and four values
910: of the interaction strength $U$ approaching $U_{\cc}\simeq 16.4$.
911: The inset shows ${\cal F}(\w,T)$ on an absolute scale.}
912: \end{center}
913: \end{figure}
914:
915:
916:
917:
918: Figure 2 shows the numerically determined spectral function ${\cal F}(\w,T)$
919: versus $\tilde{\w}=\w/\wm$ for $r=0.2$, a fixed temperature
920: $\tilde{T}=T/\wm=1$ and four values of ${U}<{U}_{\cc}(r)$ as the
921: transition is approached (${U_{\cc}}\simeq 16.4$). The spectra
922: --- very different on an absolute scale as shown in the inset to
923: the figure --- indeed clearly collapse to a common scaling form as ${U}\ra
924: {U}_{\cc}(r)-$ and $\wm$ becomes arbitrarily small.
925:
926: This
927: behaviour is not of course
928: particular to the choice $\tilde{T}=1$, but rather is found to
929: arise for all (finite) $\tilde{T}$.
930: Figure 3 shows the resultant scaling spectra for a representative range of
931: $\tilde{T}$, labelled in the figure.
932: For $T=0$ the GFL phase
933: Kondo resonance is fully present and ${\cal F}(\w=0,T=0)=1$, as
934: discussed in section 3. As temperature is raised through a range
935: on the order of the Kondo scale itself ($\tilde{T}\sim
936: \Or(1)$) the Kondo resonance is thermally destroyed. First it is
937: split --- reflecting the fact that the Fermi level $D(\w =0,T)$ is finite
938: for $T>0$ (see inset) --- and then progressively eroded as $\tilde{T}$
939: increases. For any given temperature $\tilde{T}$ the principal effect
940: of temperature
941: arises on frequency scales $|\tilde{\w}|\lesssim \tilde{T}$, such
942: that for $\tilde{\w}\gg \tilde{T}$ the spectrum is essentially
943: coincident with the $\tilde{T}=0$ limit. This behaviour is
944: observed clearly in the inset to figure 3 wherein e.g.\ the $\tilde{T}=1$
945: scaling spectrum is coincident with that for $\tilde{T}=0$ for
946: $|\tilde{\w}|\gtrsim 10$; and that for $\tilde{T}=10$ coincides
947: with $\tilde{T}=0$ for $|\tilde{\w}|\gtrsim 50$. We also add that the small
948: spectral feature at $\wt \simeq 1$, seen e.g.\ in the inset to figure 3,
949: is entirely an artefact of the specific RPA form for Im$\Pi^{+-}(\w)$ that,
950: as discussed in detail in previous work \cite{dl01}, can be removed entirely
951: with both little effect on the appearance of the spectrum and no effect on any
952: asymptotic results.
953:
954:
955:
956: \begin{figure}
957: \begin{center}
958: \psfrag{xaxis}[bc][bc]{$\wt$}
959: \psfrag{yaxis}[bc][bc]{${\cal F}(\w, T)$}
960: \psfrag{xlabel}[bc][bc]{$\wt$}
961: \psfrag{ylabel}[bc][bc]{\hspace{0.5cm}${\wm}^rD(\w, T)$}
962: \psfrag{t0}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T} = 0$}
963: \psfrag{t0.1}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=0.1$}
964: \psfrag{t1}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=1$}
965: \psfrag{t10}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=10$}
966: \psfrag{xxxt100}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=100$}
967: \epsfig{file=f3.eps,width=7cm, angle=270} \caption{Numerical results: GFL phase scaling
968: spectrum ${\cal F}(\w,T)$ versus $\wt=\w/\wm$ for a range of
969: $\tilde{T}=T/\wm$. The generalized Kondo resonance is thermally
970: destroyed, with the principal effects of temperature arising for
971: $|\wt| \lesssim \tilde{T}$. The inset shows $\wm^rD(\w,T)$ versus
972: $\wt$ on a logarithmic scale for the same $\tilde{T}$, increasing top
973: to bottom; see text for comments. }
974: \end{center}
975: \end{figure}
976:
977:
978: \seceq
979: \section{Results}
980: We now turn to an analytical description of the finite-$T$ scaling
981: spectrum in the strong coupling ($=$ strongly correlated) limit of ${U}\gg 1$. As in
982: Ref.\ \onlinecite{gl03}, and in contrast to the results of section 3, this formally restricts discussion to $r\ll 1$, although as demonstrated below such an analysis does rather well in accounting for the numerical results given in section 4.1 for
983: $r=0.2$. For this reason we present only analytical results in
984: the remainder of the paper, where we focus in turn on the GFL phase, LM phase
985: and the QCP itself.
986:
987: \subsection{GFL phase} To obtain the scaling behaviour of $D(\w)$
988: we consider finite $\tilde{\w} =\w/\w_{m}$ in the formal limit $\wm\ra 0$,
989: thereby projecting out irrelevant non-universal spectral features (e.g.\ the
990: Hubbard bands at $\omega \sim \pm U/2$).
991: Using equations (2.10,11) the scaling
992: spectrum $\wm^rD(\w,T)$ is thus given
993: by \be
994: \wm^rD(\w,T)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\mbox{Im}\sum_{\sigma}\left[( \wm^r)^{-1}
995: (\Delta(\w)-\sts(\w,T)\right]^{-1} \ee
996: where (from equations (2.3,4)) the hybridization
997: $\Delta(\w)=\Delta(\tilde{\w}\wm)$ reduces simply to
998: $( \wm^r)^{-1}\Delta(\w)=-\mbox{sgn}(\w)[\beta(r)+\im]|\wt|^r$
999: (and, trivially, the bare $\w=\wm\wt$ of equation (2.11) may be neglected).
1000: We consider explicitly $\w \geq 0$ in the following, since
1001: $D(-\w,T)=D(\w,T)$ from particle-hole symmetry.
1002:
1003: Our task now is to demonstrate that $( \wm^r)^{-1}\st_{\up}(\w,T)$ is a
1004: function solely of $\wt$ and $\Tt$ in the GFL phase.
1005: It follows from equation (4.4) that
1006: \bea
1007: \Sigma_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)&=& U^2\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\rmd \w_1\
1008: \chi^{+-}(\w_1)D^0_{\down}(\w_1+\w) \\
1009: &\times&\left[\theta(\w_1)f(\w_1+\w)+\theta(-\w_1)(1-f(\w_1+\w))\right]
1010: \nonumber
1011: \eea
1012: (with the temperature dependence of $f(\w,T)$ temporarily
1013: omitted).
1014: In the requisite strong coupling regime $U\gg 1$,
1015: $\chi^{+-}(\w,T)\simeq\mbox{Im}\Pi^{+-}(\w)=\pi\delta(\w-\wm)$ is readily shown
1016: to reduce asymptotically to a $\delta$-function centred
1017: on $\w =\w_{m}$; and
1018: thus $\Sigma_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)=\pi U^2
1019: D_{\down}^0(\wm[1+\wt])f(1+\wt,\Tt)$ (noting
1020: that $f(\w,T)$ depends solely on the ratio $\w/T$).
1021: Using equation (4.3), $D_{\downarrow}^{0}(\omega) \sim 4|\w|^{r}/\pi U^{2}$
1022: in strong coupling;
1023: whence \be (
1024: \wm^r)^{-1}\Sigma_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)=4|1+\wt|^rf(1+\wt,\Tt)\ee
1025: which is indeed universally dependent solely on $\wt$ and $\Tt$.
1026: We now consider the real part $\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)$. For $T=0$ it is
1027: known to be given by \cite{gl03} \be (
1028: \wm^r)^{-1}\st_{\up}^{\subr}(\w,0)=-\gamma(r)[|1+\wt|^r-1]\ee
1029: where $\gamma(r)=4/\mbox{sin}(\pi r)\sim 4/\pi r$, scaling
1030: solely in terms of $\wt$ and correctly satisfying symmetry restoration
1031: ($\st_{\up}^{\subr}(0,0)=0$) for the GFL phase. The finite-$T$
1032: difference
1033: $\delta\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)=\Sigma^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)-\Sigma^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,0)$
1034: is readily calculated via Hilbert transforms using
1035: equation (5.2). After some manipulation it is found to be given by \be (
1036: \wm^r)^{-1}\delta\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)=-\frac{4}{\pi}\Tt^r
1037: H\left(\frac{|1+\wt|}{\Tt}\right).\ee $H(y)$ is
1038: defined as \be H(y)=\int^{\infty}_0\rmd\w\
1039: \frac{\w^r}{\mbox{exp}(\w)+1}\ {\cal P}\left(
1040: \frac{1}{\w+y}+\frac{1}{\w-y}\right)\ee
1041: and is trivial to evaluate numerically; its $y>>1$ and $y<<1$ asymptotic
1042: behaviour is also obtainable in closed form, as used below.
1043: From equations (5.4,5),
1044: we thus obtain \bea
1045: ( \wm^r)^{-1}\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)=&-&\gamma(r)[|1+\wt|^r-1]\nonumber\\
1046: &-&\frac{4}{\pi}\Tt^r H\left(\frac{|1+\wt|}{\Tt}\right).\eea
1047:
1048:
1049: The complete GFL scaling spectrum now follows from equations (5.1)
1050: and (5.3,7); and, as required, $ \wm^rD(\w,T)$ is seen to be a universal
1051: function of $\wt =\w/\wm$ and $\Tt =T/\wm$.
1052:
1053: Before proceeding to a comparison with
1054: figure 3 however, we add that $ \wm^rD(\w,T)$ is
1055: equivalently a universal function of $\w/T\equiv
1056: \w'$ and $\Tt^{-1}$. To see this note that
1057: equations (5.3,7) may be rewritten as \be (
1058: T^r)^{-1}\Sigma_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)=4\left|\w'+\frac{1}{\Tt}\right|^rf\left(
1059: \frac{1}{\Tt}+\w'\right)\ee and \bea (
1060: T^r)^{-1}\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)=&-&\gamma(r)\left[\left|\w'+\frac{1}{\wt}\right|^r-
1061: \Tt^{-r}\right]\nonumber\\
1062: &-&\frac{4}{\pi}H\left(\left|\w'+\frac{1}{\Tt}\right|\right)\eea
1063: (with notation $f(z)\equiv f(z,1)=[\mbox{exp}(z)+1]^{-1}$ for the Fermi
1064: functions), which depend solely on $\w'$ and $\Tt^{-1}$.
1065: From equation (5.1) it follows directly that
1066: \be \pi T^rD(\w,T)=-\frac{1}{2}\mbox{Im}\sum_{\sigma}\left\{( T^r)^{-1}
1067: \left[\Delta(\w)-\sts(\w,T)\right]\right\}^{-1} \ee
1068: which is thus of form
1069: \be
1070: \pi T^rD(\w,T)\equiv
1071: S_{\mbox{\ssz{GFL}}}\left(\frac{\w}{T},\frac{1}{\Tt}\right). \ee
1072: The importance of this result is that from it the finite-$T$ spectrum
1073: \emph{at the QCP itself} (\emph{cf} equation (3.8)) may be
1074: obtained explicitly, since the QCP corresponds
1075: to $\wm = 0$ i.e.\ $\Tt^{-1}=0$. We consider this issue
1076: explicitly in section 5.3.
1077:
1078:
1079: \begin{figure}
1080: \begin{center}
1081: \psfrag{xaxis}[bc][bc]{$\wt$}
1082: \psfrag{yaxis}[bc][bc]{${\cal F}(\w, T)$}
1083: \psfrag{t1}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=0.1$}
1084: \psfrag{t2}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=1$}
1085: \psfrag{t3}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=10$}
1086: \psfrag{t4}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=100$}
1087: \psfrag{t0}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=0$}
1088:
1089:
1090:
1091: \epsfig{file=f4.eps,width=6cm, angle=270} \caption{Analytical results: GFL
1092: phase scaling spectrum ${\cal F}(\w,T)$ versus $\wt=\w/\wm$ for
1093: $r=0.2$ and the sequence of temperatures shown.}
1094: \end{center}
1095: \end{figure}
1096:
1097:
1098: First we compare directly the analytic results above for
1099: the GFL phase, with the numerical results given in figure 3. Figure
1100: 4 shows the modified spectral function ${\cal F}(\w)$ versus
1101: $\wt=\w/\wm$ for $r=0.2$ arising from equation (5.1,3,7), for
1102: the same range of `scaled' temperature $\Tt=T/\wm$.
1103: The agreement is seen to be excellent: all features
1104: of the numerical spectra are captured by the analytical form; quantitative
1105: differences are small, and arise
1106: because the equations hold asymptotically as $r\ra 0$.
1107:
1108: Two specific points concerning the large-$\wt$ behaviour of the
1109: GFL phase scaling spectrum may now be made. First,
1110: the observation (section 4.1) that for frequencies
1111: $|\wt|\gg\Tt$ the scaling spectra are effectively independent of
1112: $\Tt$. For $|\wt|\gg\mbox{max}(1,\Tt)$ the argument of
1113: $H(|1+\wt|/\Tt)$ is large and $H(|1+\wt|/\Tt)\simeq 0$ may be
1114: neglected in equation (5.7) ($H(y)\sim -\pi^2/6y^2$ for $y\gg
1115: 1$). Hence $( \wm^r)^{-1}\st_{\up}^{\subr}(\w,T)\sim
1116: -\gamma(r)[|\wt|^r-1]$ and $(
1117: \wm^r)^{-1}\st_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)\sim 4|\wt|^r\theta(-[1+\wt])$
1118: from equations (5.7,3),
1119: and from equation (5.1) it follows that
1120: \bea \pi
1121: \wm^rD(\w,T)&\sim&\frac{1}{2|\wt|^r}\left\{\frac{1}{[\beta(r)+
1122: \gamma(r)(1-|\wt|^{-r})]^2+1}\right. \nonumber\\
1123: &+&\left.\frac{5}{[\beta(r)-\gamma(r)(1-|\wt|^{-r})]^2+25}\right\}.
1124: \eea The key point here is that equation (5.12) is independent of
1125: $\Tt$, showing explicitly that for
1126: $|\wt|\gg\mbox{max}(1,\Tt)$ the scaling spectrum indeed coincides
1127: with its $T=0$ limit \cite{gl03}.
1128:
1129: Second, equation (5.12) shows that the leading large $\wt$ behaviour
1130: $(|\wt|^r\gg 1)$ of the GFL scaling spectrum is \bea \pi
1131: \wm^rD(\w,T)&\sim&\frac{1}{2|\wt|^r}\left\{\frac{1}{[\beta(r)+
1132: \gamma(r)]^2+1}\right. \nonumber\\
1133: &\ \ \ +&\left.\frac{5}{[\beta(r)- \gamma(r)]^2+25}\right\} \eea
1134: -- i.e.\ $\wm^rD(\w,T)\propto|\wt|^{-r}$
1135: which, for small $r$, is very slowly varying. The onset of this powerlaw
1136: behaviour for $|\w|^r\gg 1$ is readily seen in the inset to figure 3.
1137:
1138: Finally, since $\gamma(r) =4/\mbox{sin}(\pi r) \sim 4/\pi r$ and
1139: $\beta(r)=\mbox{tan}(\frac{\pi r}{2}) \sim \frac{\pi r}{2}$ for $r<<1$,
1140: the leading low-$r$ behaviour of the high-frequency
1141: asymptotic `tails' equation (5.13) is \be \pi \wm^rD(\w,T)\sim
1142: \frac{3\pi^2r^2}{16}|\wt|^{-r}\ee precisely as found hitherto for
1143: $T=0$ \cite{gl03}; and since the scale $\wm^r$ drops out of equation (5.14),
1144: the low-$\w$ behaviour of the $T=0$ QCP spectrum itself (where $\wm=0$) follows
1145: immediately as \cite{gl03}
1146: \be
1147: \pi D(\w,0)=\frac{3\pi^2r^2}{16}|\w|^{-r}
1148: \ee
1149: which result is believed to be asymptotically exact as $r \ra 0$.
1150:
1151:
1152:
1153:
1154:
1155: \subsection{LM phase}
1156:
1157: While the general form equation (5.10) for $T^{r}D(\w,T)$ naturally applies
1158: to both phases, symmetry is not of course restored for $U>U_{c}$ in the
1159: LM phase \cite{gl03,gl032}: the renormalized level $\st_{\up}^{\subr}(0,0)$
1160: is non-zero.
1161: But it necessarily
1162: vanishes as $U\rightarrow U_{c}+$ and the LM$\rightarrow$GFL transition is
1163: approached, and in consequence determines a low-energy scale $\wl$ characteristic of
1164: the LM phase as discussed in \S 3.1. Given explicitly by
1165: \be \wl=
1166: [|\st_{\up}^{\subr}(0,0)|/\gamma(r)]^{\frac{1}{r}}
1167: \ee
1168: this is the natural scaling counterpart to $\wm$ in the GFL phase, such that the
1169: $T=0$ LM phase spectrum scales universally as a function of
1170: $\wt = \w/\wl$ \cite{gl03,gl032}.
1171:
1172:
1173: The required results for $\tilde{\Sigma}_{\uparrow}(\w,T)$ in the LM phase
1174: are obtained most directly from their counterpart equations (5.8,9) in the GFL
1175: phase (in which $1/\tilde{T} = \wm/T$ and $1/\wt =\wm/\w$),
1176: by setting $\wm =0$ therein --- recall that
1177: the spin-flip scale vanishes identically throughout the LM phase, where
1178: $\chi^{+-}(\w,T)\simeq\mbox{Im}\Pi^{+-}(\w)=\pi\delta(\w)$. Equation (5.8)
1179: then yields
1180: \be ( T^r)^{-1}\Sigma_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)=4|\w'|^rf(\w').\ee
1181: $T^{-r}[\tilde{\Sigma}^{R}_{\up}(\w,T) -
1182: \tilde{\Sigma}^{R}_{\up}(0,0)]$ is likewise obtained by setting $\wm =0$
1183: in the right side of equation (5.9). Using equation (5.16) for
1184: $\tilde{\Sigma}^{R}_{\up}(0,0) = - |\tilde{\Sigma}^{R}_{\up}(0,0)|$,
1185: this gives
1186: \be (T^r)^{-1}\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)=-\gamma(r)[\Tt^{-r}+
1187: |\w'|^r]-\frac{4}{\pi}H(\w')\ee
1188: in which $\Tt=T/\wl$ (and $\w' = \w/T \equiv \wt/\Tt$).
1189:
1190:
1191: \begin{figure}
1192: \begin{center}
1193:
1194: \psfrag{yaxis}[bc][bc]{${\wl}^rD(\w, T)$}
1195: \psfrag{xaxis}[bc][bc]{$\wt$}
1196: \psfrag{t1}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=0.1$}
1197: \psfrag{t2}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=1$}
1198: \psfrag{t3}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=10$}
1199: \psfrag{t4}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=100$}
1200: \psfrag{t5}[bl][bl]{$\tilde{T}=0$}
1201:
1202:
1203: \epsfig{file=f5.eps,width=6cm, angle=270} \caption{LM phase scaling spectrum
1204: $\wl^rD(\w, T)$ versus $\wt=\w/\wl$ for $r=0.2$ and a sequence of
1205: temperatures $\Tt =T/\wl$.} \end{center}
1206: \end{figure}
1207:
1208:
1209: Equations (5.17,18) and (5.10) generate the LM phase scaling spectrum. It is
1210: thus seen to be of form
1211: \be
1212: \pi T^rD(\w,T)=S_{\mbox{\ssz{LM}}}\left(\frac{\w}{T},\frac{1}{\Tt}\right) \ee
1213: scaling universally in terms of $\w'$ and $\Tt$; or, entirely equivalently,
1214: that $\wl^{r}D(\w,T)$ scales in terms of $\wt =\w/\wl$ and $\Tt$.
1215: The scaling spectra so obtained are shown in
1216: figure 5 for a range of $\Tt$. It is again readily shown that
1217: for
1218: $|\wt|\gg\Tt$ the LM phase scaling spectra are effectively
1219: independent of $\Tt$ and coincide with the $\Tt=0$ limit \cite{gl03}, and
1220: from which the low-$\w$ behaviour of the $T=0$ QCP spectrum (equation (5.15))
1221: correctly follows by taking $\wl\ra 0$.
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225: \subsection{Quantum critical point}
1226:
1227: We turn now to the quantum critical point itself. It has been shown in
1228: \S 3 that the QCP spectrum must exhibit pure $\w' =\w/T$ scaling, \emph{ie} that
1229: $\pi T^rD(\w,T)=S(\w')$.
1230: In \S s 5.1,2 we have also shown that this general
1231: behaviour is correctly recovered by the local moment approach (which is distinctly
1232: non-trivial, bearing in mind that
1233: the QCP is an interacting, non-Fermi liquid fixed point).
1234: Our aims now are twofold. First to obtain explicitly the scaling function $S(\w')$
1235: arising within the LMA for $r\ll 1$;
1236: and then to show that it is uniformly recovered from
1237: GFL/LM scaling spectrum as $\Tt=T/\w_*\ra \infty$ (we remind the reader that
1238: $\w_* \equiv \wm$ in the GFL phase and $\w_* \equiv \wl$ for the LM phase).
1239:
1240:
1241: Taking $\Tt^{-1}=0$ in equations (5.17,18) (or equations (5.8,9))
1242: gives
1243: \be
1244: (T^r)^{-1}\Sigma_{\up}^{\subi}(\w,T)=4|\w'|^rf(\w')\ee
1245: \be ( T^r)^{-1}\st^{\subr}_{\up}(\w,T)=-\gamma(r)
1246: |\w'|^r -\frac{4}{\pi}H(\w').\ee
1247: The QCP scaling spectrum $\pi T^r
1248: D(\w,T)\equiv S(\w')$ now follows directly from equation (5.10).
1249:
1250: \begin{figure}
1251: \begin{center}
1252: \psfrag{yaxis}[bc][bc]{$T^rD(\w,T)$}
1253: \psfrag{xaxis}[bc][bc]{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\w/T$}
1254: \psfrag{a}[bc][bc]{$|\w'|^{r}$}
1255: \psfrag{b}[bc][bc]{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $|\w'|^{-r}$}
1256: \epsfig{file=f6.eps,width=5cm, angle=270} \caption{QCP scaling spectrum
1257: $T^rD(\w,T)$ versus $\w' = \w/T$ for $r=0.2$. $\w'\simeq 1$ marks a
1258: crossover from $|\w'|^{-r}$ behaviour for $|\w'|\gg 1$ to $|\w'|^r$
1259: behaviour for $|\w'|\ll 1$. } \end{center} \end{figure}
1260:
1261: Figure 6 shows the resultant QCP spectrum for $r=0.2$, as a
1262: function of $\w'=\w/T$ on a logarithmic scale. From this it is clear
1263: that two distinct power law behaviours dominate.
1264: For $|\w'|\ll 1$, where $H(\w')\sim
1265: r^{-1}(1-|\w'|^r)+c$ (with
1266: $c=\mbox{ln}(\frac{\pi}{2}\mbox{exp}(-C))\simeq -0.125$ a constant,
1267: and $C$ Euler's constant), it follows that \be \pi T^rD(\w,T)\stackrel{|\w'|\ll
1268: 1}{\sim}\frac{3\pi^2r^2}{16}|\w'|^r.\ee This behaviour is clearly seen
1269: in the figure 6, and in practice sets in for $|\w'|\lesssim 1$.
1270:
1271: For $|\w'|\gg 1$ by contrast, where $H(\w')\simeq 0$ may be neglected, equations
1272: (5.10,20,21) give
1273: \be\pi T^rD(\w,T)\stackrel{|\w'|\gg
1274: 1}{\sim}\frac{3\pi^2r^2}{16}|\w'|^{-r}.\ee
1275: This form is also
1276: clearly evident in figure 6, in practice setting in above
1277: $|\w'|\gtrsim 1$. Such
1278: behaviour is also precisely the general form deduced in section 3 (equation (3.9))
1279: on the assumption that the limits $\w_*\ra 0$ and $T\ra 0$ commute;
1280: with the explicit $r$-dependence $C(r) = 3\pi^{2}r^{2}/16$, which we believe
1281: to be asymptotically exact as $r \ra 0$, obtainable
1282: because the result now arises from a microscopic many-body theory.
1283:
1284:
1285: \begin{figure*}
1286: \begin{center}
1287: \psfrag{xaxis}[bc][bc]{$\w/T$}
1288: \psfrag{yaxis}[bc][bc]{$T^rD(\w, T)$}
1289: \epsfig{file=f7.eps,width=6cm, angle=270} \caption{The left (right) panel shows
1290: the GFL (LM) phase scaling spectrum
1291: $T^rD(\w,T) \equiv S_{\mbox{\ssz{GFL}}}(\w', \tilde{T}^{-1})$ versus
1292: $\w'=\w/T$ for $\tilde{T} = 10^{-1}$,
1293: $10^0$, $10^1$, $10^2$, $10^3$, $10^4$, $10^5$ and $\infty$
1294: (in sequence top$\ra$bottom for the GFL phase and bottom$\ra$top
1295: for LM). In
1296: either case the QCP spectrum
1297: $\tilde{T}=\infty$ is shown as a thick line; the dotted line shows the
1298: $\tilde{T}\ra 0$ spectrum.} \end{center}
1299: \end{figure*}
1300:
1301: As discussed in section 3 and above, the GFL/LM scaling spectra may be
1302: expressed as functions of $\w'=\w/T$ for any given $\Tt$. One
1303: obvious question then arises: how do the GFL/LM scaling spectra
1304: evolve with temperature $\Tt$ to approach their ultimate limit of
1305: the QCP spectrum as $\Tt\ra \infty$? This is illustrated in
1306: figure 7 where the analytic results of sections 5.1 and 5.2 are
1307: replotted versus $\w'=\w/T$ for a sequence of increasing
1308: temperatures $\Tt=T/\w_{*}$. The QCP scaling spectrum is shown as a thick dashed
1309: line. From figure 7 we see that --- for all $\Tt$ --- the GFL and LM scaling
1310: spectra coincide both with each other and with the QCP scaling
1311: spectrum for $|\w'|\gg 1$. This is a reflection of two facts.
1312: First, as discussed in sections 5.1 and 5.2, that the high-frequency behaviour
1313: of the GFL and LM phase spectra coincide with their $\Tt=0$
1314: limits. And second, that the high-frequency tails of the $T=0$
1315: GFL/LM scaling spectrum coincide with those of the $T=0$ QCP
1316: spectrum.
1317:
1318: Most importantly, however, figure 7 shows that the QCP scaling
1319: spectrum is obtained `uniformly' from the GFL/LM phase scaling
1320: spectrum upon increasing temperature $\Tt$. That is,
1321: with progressively increasing $\Tt$ the
1322: GFL/LM phase scaling spectra ever increasingly coincide with the
1323: QCP scaling spectrum (thick line) over a larger and larger
1324: frequency interval,
1325: such that in the limit $\Tt\ra\infty$ the QCP spectrum for all
1326: $\w/T$ is obtained smoothly. This is an important result,
1327: providing as it does a direct connection between the QCP scaling
1328: spectrum and scaling spectra in the GFL or LM phases at any finite
1329: $\Tt$.
1330:
1331: \section{Summary} We have considered a local moment approach to the
1332: pseudogap Anderson impurity model, close to the symmetric quantum critical
1333: point where the Kondo resonance has just collapsed. Building on previous
1334: work \cite{gl03,gl032,ld02}, we have focused on
1335: single-particle dynamics at finite temperature, obtaining an analytical
1336: description of the finite-$T$ scaling behaviour for small $r$, in both
1337: generalized
1338: Fermi liquid (Kondo screened) and local moment phases.
1339: A key result obtained on general grounds is that pure $\w/T$-scaling
1340: obtains at the QCP itself, consistent with an interacting fixed point and recent
1341: results for the local dynamical susceptibility \cite{ingsi02}.
1342: We have succeeded both in obtaining explicitly the QCP scaling spectrum, and
1343: in understanding its continuous emergence with increasing $T/\w_*$ from the
1344: scaling dynamics appropriate to the Kondo screened and local moment phases
1345: on either side of the quantum phase transition.
1346:
1347: Related results have also been obtained for the PAIM with finite local
1348: magnetic field, $h=g\mu_{\mbox{\ssz{B}}}H_{\mbox{\ssz{loc}}}$ \cite{ld01a,ldb01}; i.e.\
1349: pure
1350: $\w/h$-scaling of the single-particle spectrum at the QCP. These
1351: will be discussed elsewhere.
1352:
1353: \hspace{1cm}
1354:
1355: \noindent{\it Acknowledgements} \newline
1356: The authors would like to express their
1357: appreciation to the EPSRC, Leverhulme Trust and Balliol College Oxford
1358: for support; and to Kevin Ingersent for helpful discussions regarding the
1359: present work.
1360:
1361:
1362:
1363: \begin{thebibliography}{60}
1364:
1365:
1366: \bibitem{gs} Stewart G R 2001 {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 73} 797
1367: \bibitem{coleman} Coleman P {\it et al\ } 2001 \jpcm {\bf \ 13} R723;
1368: Coleman P 1999 {\it Physica} B {\bf 261} 353
1369:
1370:
1371: \bibitem{vl} v. L\"{o}hneyson H {\it et al} (1994) \prl {\bf 72} 3262
1372: \bibitem{heuser} Heuser K {\it et al} 1998 \prb {\bf 57} R4198
1373: \bibitem{kuch1}K\"{u}chler R {\it et al} 2004 cond-mat/0407798
1374: \bibitem{ndm} Mathur N D {\it et al} 1998 {\it Nature} {\bf 394} 39
1375:
1376:
1377: \bibitem{ot} Trovarelli O {\it et al} 2000 \prl {\bf 85} 626
1378: \bibitem{schroder} Schr\"{o}der A {\it et al} 2000 {\it Nature} {\bf 407}
1379: 351; 1998 \prl {\bf 80} 5623
1380: \bibitem{os}Stockert O {\it et al} 1998 \prl {\bf 80} 5627
1381:
1382:
1383: \bibitem{hertz} Hertz J A 1976 \prb {\bf 14} 1165
1384: \bibitem{millis} Millis A J 1993 \prb {\bf 48} 7183
1385: \bibitem{moriya} Moriya T and Takimoto T 1995 {\it J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.} {\bf
1386: 64} 960
1387:
1388:
1389:
1390:
1391: \bibitem{sinat} {Si Q., Rabello S., Ingersent K. and Smith J. L.} 2001
1392: $Nature$
1393: {\bf 413}\ {804}
1394:
1395:
1396:
1397: \bibitem{smith} Smith J L and Si Q 1999 Europhys. Lett. {\bf 45} 228
1398: \bibitem{zhu} Zhu L and Si Q 2002 \prb {\bf 66} 024426
1399: \bibitem{grempel} Grempel D R and Si Q 2003 \prl {\bf 91} 026401
1400: \bibitem{zhuetal} Zhu L {\it et al} 2003 \prl {\bf 91} 156404
1401: \bibitem{burdin} Burdin S {\it et al} 2003 \prb {\bf 67} 121104
1402:
1403:
1404: \bibitem {wf} Withoff D and Fradkin E 1990 \prl {\bf 64} 1835
1405:
1406:
1407: \bibitem {pwa} Anderson P W 1961 {\it \PR} {\bf 124} 41
1408: \bibitem {hew} Hewson A C 1993 {\it The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions}
1409: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
1410: \bibitem{gehring} Gehring G A 2002 \jpcm {\bf 14} V5
1411: \bibitem{revival} Kouwenhoven L and Glazman L 2001 (January) {\it Physics
1412: World} 33
1413: \bibitem{qdots} Cronenwett {\it et al} 1998 {\it Science} {\bf 281} 540
1414:
1415:
1416:
1417: \bibitem{vp}Volkov B A and Pankratov O A 1985 {\it Pis. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.}
1418: {\bf42} 145 \\ (ENGL. TRANSL. 1985 {\it JETP Lett.} {\bf 42} 178)
1419: \bibitem{voit} Voit J 1995 Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 58} 977
1420:
1421: \bibitem {voj} Vojta M 2001 \prl {\bf 87}\ 097202
1422:
1423: \bibitem {vb02} {Vojta M and Bulla R} 2002 \prb \ {\bf 65}\ {014511}
1424: \bibitem{hopkinson}Hopkinson J {\it et al} (2004) cond-mat/0407583
1425: \bibitem{ki96} Ingersent K 1996 \prb {\bf 54} 11936
1426: \bibitem{gbi96} Gonzalez-Buxton C and Ingersent K 1996 \prb {\bf 54} 15614
1427:
1428:
1429:
1430:
1431: \bibitem {cj} Chen K and Jayaprakash C 1995 \jpcm \ {\bf 7} L491
1432: \bibitem {bph97} Bulla R, Pruschke Th and Hewson A C 1997 \jpcm {\ \bf 9}
1433: 10463
1434: \bibitem {gbi98} Gonzalez-Buxton C and Ingersent K 1998 \prb {\bf 57} 14254
1435: \bibitem {bglp} Bulla R, Glossop M T, Logan D E and Pruschke T 2000 \jpcm \
1436: {\bf 12} 4899
1437:
1438: \bibitem {ingsi02} {Ingersent K. and Si Q.} 2002 \prl \ {\bf 89}\ {076403}
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443: \bibitem{mvrecent} Fritz L and Vojta M 2004 cond-mat/0408543
1444:
1445:
1446: \bibitem {lg00} Logan D E and Glossop M T 2000 \jpcm\ {\bf 12} 985
1447: \bibitem {gl03} Glossop M T and Logan D E 2003 {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf
1448: 61}
1449: 810
1450: \bibitem {gl032} Glossop M T and Logan D E 2003 {\jpcm} {\bf 15} 7519
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455: \bibitem{cf} Cassanello C R and Fradkin E 1996 \prb {\bf 53} 15079
1456: \bibitem{ingsi98} Ingersent K and Si Q 1998 cond-mat/9810226
1457:
1458:
1459:
1460:
1461: \bibitem{bork} Borkowski L S 1997 Acta Physica Polonica A {\bf 91} 359
1462:
1463: \bibitem{gl00} Glossop M T and Logan D E 2000 {\it Eur. Phys. J.} B {\bf 13}
1464: 513
1465:
1466:
1467:
1468:
1469:
1470: \bibitem {let} Logan D E, Eastwood M P and Tusch M A 1998 { \jpcm} {\bf \
1471: 10} 2673
1472: \bibitem {dl01} Dickens N L and Logan D E 2001 \jpcm {\bf \ 13} 4505
1473: \bibitem {gl02} Glossop M T and Logan D E 2002 \jpcm {\bf \ 14} 6737
1474: \bibitem {ld02} Logan D E and Dickens N L 2002 \jpcm {\bf \ 14} 3605
1475: \bibitem {ld01a} Logan D E and Dickens N L 2001 {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf
1476: 54} 227
1477: \bibitem {ldb01} Logan D E and Dickens N L 2001 \jpcm {\bf \ 13} 9713
1478: \bibitem {raja} Vidhyadhiraja N S, Smith V E, Logan D E and Krishnamurthy H R
1479: 2003 \jpcm {\ \bf 15} 4045
1480: \bibitem{ves} Smith V E, Logan D E and Krishnamurthy H R 2003 {\it Eur. Phys.
1481: J.} B {\bf 32} 49
1482: \bibitem{raja2} Vidhyadhiraja N S and Logan D E 2004 {\it Eur. Phys.
1483: J.} B {\bf 39} 313
1484:
1485:
1486: \end{thebibliography}
1487: %
1488: % BibTeX users please use
1489: % \bibliographystyle{}
1490: % \bibliography{}
1491: %
1492: % Non-BibTeX users please use
1493: %\begin{thebibliography}{}
1494: %
1495: % and use \bibitem to create references.
1496: %
1497: %\bibitem{RefJ}
1498: % Format for Journal Reference
1499: %Author, Journal \textbf{Volume}, (year) page numbers.
1500: % Format for books
1501: %\bibitem{RefB}
1502: %Author, \textit{Book title} (Publisher, place year) page numbers
1503: % etc
1504: %\end{thebibliography}
1505:
1506:
1507: \end{document}
1508:
1509: % end of file template.tex
1510: