1: As we have seen in the last section, there are infrared stable fixed

2: points that cannot be identified with either weak- or strong- hopping

3: limit in the bosonized representation Eq.~(\ref{eq:SB-set-up})

4: with the Klein factors.

5: 

6: The presence of the phase factors due to the fermionic statistics,

7: encoded in the Klein factors, makes the

8: analysis more difficult than that for the standard problems with only

9: bosonic terms in the boundary action. The extra phases due to the

10: fermionic statistics appear, for example, if one attempts a

11: perturbative expansion in the hopping amplitude $\Gamma$. The

12: coefficients appearing in each order in perturbation theory are

13: different than those obtained without the phase factors, and hence

14: they alter the nature of the strong hopping limit.

15: 

16: In this section, we develop an alternative representation,

17: in which the fermionic statistics of electrons are encoded

18: without using the Klein factors.

19: Namely, we will show that the perturbative series in the

20: hopping amplitude $\Gamma$ for the Y-junction problem is identical to

21: the series obtained for the dissipative Hofstadter model (quantum

22: motion of a single particle under a magnetic field and a periodic

23: potential, subject to dissipation) studied by Callan and Freed in

24: Ref.~\cite{CF}. In the dissipative Hofstadter action, phase factors

25: arise from the motion in a magnetic field, but the action contains

26: solely bosonic terms, and hence it is amenable to standard methods

27: for determining the strong coupling behavior, such as instanton

28: expansions.

29: 

30: \subsection{Generalized Coulomb gas from the Y-junction}

31: 

32: We consider the perturbation theory in the hopping parameter

33: $\Gamma$, starting from the bosonized

34: representation Eq.~(\ref{eq:SB-set-up}) with the Klein factor.

35: The partition function $Z_Y$ of the system can be expanded as 

36: \begin{widetext}

37: \begin{eqnarray}

38: Z_Y=\sum_{n}

39: %\sum_{n=0}^\infty

40: %\frac{1}{n!}\;

41: \;\Gamma^n

42: \int_{\tau_{n-1}}^\infty \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n}\;

43: \int_{\tau_{n-2}}^{\tau_{n}} \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n-1}\;

44: \cdots

45: \int_{-\infty}^{\tau_{2}} \!\!\!\! d\tau_{1}\;

46: \sum_{\{L_j\}}

47: %\left[

48: %\zeta_{\vec L_n}(\tau_n)

49: %\cdots

50: %\zeta_{\vec L_2}(\tau_2)\;

51: %\zeta_{\vec L_1}(\tau_1)

52: %\right]

53: \left[

54: \zeta_{\vec L_n}

55: \cdots

56: \zeta_{\vec L_2}\;

57: \zeta_{\vec L_1}

58: \right]

59: \;

60: \langle

61: e^{i \vec{L}_{n} \cdot \vec{\Phi}(\tau_n)}

62: \ldots

63: e^{i \vec{L}_{2} \cdot \vec{\Phi}(\tau_2)}

64: e^{i \vec{L}_{1} \cdot \vec{\Phi}(\tau_1)}

65: \rangle_0

66: \;,

67: \label{eq:Z_Y}

68: \end{eqnarray}

69: \end{widetext}

70: where ${\vec L}_j=q_j{\vec K}_{a_j}$ is one of the six vectors $\pm

71: \vec{K}_{1,2,3}$ ($q_j=\pm 1$ and $a_j=1,2,3$), and $\langle \ 

72: \rangle_0$ denotes the expectation value with the Neumann boundary

73: condition on $\vec{\Phi}$. The $\zeta_{\vec

74: L_j}=(-i)^{q_j}\,e^{iq_j\phi/3}\,\eta_{a_j}$ in the $[\ldots]$ term in

75: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_Y}) keep track of the phase factors.

76: 

77: Now, each term in the expansion Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_Y}) corresponds to a

78: closed directed path

79: formed by the vectors

80: ${\vec L}_1,{\vec L}_2,\ldots, {\vec L}_n$,

81: on the triangular lattice

82: spanned by the primitive vectors ${\vec K}_1$ and ${\vec K}_2$.

83: An

84: example of a closed path is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pathex}. A charge vector

85: ${\vec L}_j$ is associated to each vertex operator $e^{i{\vec L}_j\cdot

86: \vec\Phi}$, and the condition that the sequence of vectors must form a

87: closed path is a consequence of the charge neutrality condition of the

88: Coulomb gas expansion.

89: 

90: \begin{figure}

91: \begin{center}

92: \includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{pathex.eps}

93: \caption{A typical closed path occurring in perturbative expansion

94: of partition function}

95: \label{fig:pathex}

96: \end{center}

97: \end{figure}

98: 

99: Let us now argue that the total phase factor for a given path ${\cal

100: L}=({\vec L}_1,{\vec L}_2,\ldots, {\vec L}_n)$,

101: \begin{equation}

102: e^{i\Upsilon_{\cal L}}=

103: \left[

104: \zeta_{\vec L_n}

105: \cdots

106: \zeta_{\vec L_2}\;

107: \zeta_{\vec L_1}

108: \right]

109: \; ,

110: \end{equation}

111: is the sum of the phase contributions from all the elementary

112: triangles enclosed by the loop. The phase contributions from ``up''

113: and ``down'' triangles, however, are different. The phase factor for a

114: counterclockwise loop on the up triangle [see part (a) of 

115: Fig.~\ref{fig:updown}]  is  determined to be

116: \begin{equation}

117:  e^{i \upsilon_{\bigtriangleup}}=

118: (-i \eta_3) e^{i \phi/3} (-i \eta_2) e^{i \phi/3} (-i \eta_1) e^{i \phi/3}

119:  = e^{i \phi}\label{up}

120: \end{equation}

121: while that for the counterclockwise loop on the down triangle

122: [see part (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:updown}] is

123: \begin{equation}

124: e^{i \upsilon_{\bigtriangledown}}=

125: (i \eta_3) e^{- i \phi/3} (i \eta_2) e^{- i \phi/3}

126: (i \eta_1) e^{- i \phi/3}  = e^{i (\pi - \phi)}.

127: \label{down}\end{equation}

128: Namely, loops on the triangular lattice pick up a phase as if there is

129: a staggered magnetic flux of $\phi$ and $\pi - \phi$ in each

130: elementary triangle. The total phase accumulated due to the loop

131: ${\cal L}$ is thus

132: \begin{equation}

133: \Upsilon_{\cal L}=

134: N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})\;\upsilon_\bigtriangleup+

135: N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})\;\upsilon_\bigtriangledown

136: \; ,

137: \label{phaseY}\end{equation}

138: where $N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})$ and $N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})$

139: are the {\it net} numbers of up and down triangles enclosed by the path 

140: (a triangle contributes $\pm 1$ to $N_\bigtriangleup$ 

141: and $N_\bigtriangledown$ depending on whether

142: it is traversed clockwise or counter-clockwise).

143: 

144: \begin{figure}

145: \begin{center}

146: \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{up-down-triangle.eps}

147: \caption{(a) a counter-clockwise loop around an ``up triangle''. 

148: (b) A counter-clockwise loop around a ``down triangle''.}

149: \label{fig:updown}

150: \end{center}

151: \end{figure}

152: 

153: The argument why the phase for a given path  ${\cal L}$ is the sum of

154: the phases due to the enclosed elementary triangles is constructed

155: inductively.  First consider the special case where the closed path

156: consists of a single non-intersecting

157: closed loop.  This implies that each vertex on the loop is visited

158: a single time except for the first vertex which is visited twice,

159: at the beginning and end of the loop. The phase from this

160: loop is equal to the sum of phases of elementary triangular

161: loops into which it can be decomposed.

162:  Say it is so for all paths enclosing up to $m$ triangles,

163: and then consider a loop enclosing $m+1$ triangles; we must argue that

164: the phase accumulated around the loop enclosing $m+1$ triangles is

165:  equal to the sum of the phases enclosed by two smaller area paths

166: with $m_1$ and $m_2$ triangles ($m_1+m_2=m+1, m_{1,2}\le m$).

167: 

168: Consider then an arbitrary non-intersecting loop ${\cal L}=({\vec L}_1,{\vec

169: L}_2,\ldots, {\vec L}_n)$, which we break into two loops by adding an

170: internal segment that splits the loop into two

171: loops. Let the segment be the

172: sequence of vectors ${\vec L'}_1,{\vec L'}_2,\dots,{\vec L'}_p$.

173:  It is easy to show

174: that

175: \begin{equation}

176: \left[

177: \zeta_{-\vec L'_1}\;

178: \zeta_{-\vec L'_2}\;

179: \cdots

180: \zeta_{-\vec L'_p}

181: \right]

182: \left[

183: \zeta_{\vec L'_p}

184: \cdots

185: \zeta_{\vec L'_2}\;

186: \zeta_{\vec L'_1}

187: \right]

188: =\openone

189: \; ,

190: \end{equation}

191: so that

192: \begin{widetext}

193: \begin{equation}

194: e^{i\Upsilon_{\cal L}}=

195: \left[

196: \zeta_{\vec L_n}

197: \cdots

198: \zeta_{\vec L_{j+2}}\;

199: \zeta_{\vec L_{j+1}}\;

200: \;

201: \zeta_{-\vec L'_1}\;

202: \zeta_{-\vec L'_2}\;

203: \cdots

204: \zeta_{-\vec L'_p}

205: \right]

206: \left[

207: \zeta_{\vec L'_p}

208: \cdots

209: \zeta_{\vec L'_2}\;

210: \zeta_{\vec L'_1}

211: \zeta_{\vec L_j}

212: \cdots

213: \zeta_{\vec L_2}\;

214: \zeta_{\vec L_1}

215: \right]

216: =e^{i\Upsilon_{{\cal L}_1}}\;e^{i\Upsilon_{{\cal L}_2}}

217: \; ,

218: \end{equation}

219: \end{widetext}

220: for two loops ${\cal L}_{1,2}$ that encircle areas smaller than the

221: original loop ${\cal L}$ , {\it i.e.}, $l_{1,2}\le m$ and with

222: $l_{1}+l_{2}=m+1$, as required by the induction argument.

223: An example of a decomposition of a non-crossing loop into

224: elementary triangles is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:loopdec}.

225: \begin{figure}

226: \begin{center}

227: \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{loopdec.eps}

228: \caption{Decomposition of a non-crossing loop into

229: elementary triangles}

230: \label{fig:loopdec}

231: \end{center}

232: \end{figure}

233: 

234: 

235: Finally we must argue that an arbitrary closed path can be

236: decomposed into a set of non-intersecting loops such that the

237: total phase of the path is the sum of phases for each

238: non-intersecting loop. This can be seen as follows.

239: Consider following an arbitrary oriented path. Consider the first

240: time that any vertex on the path is visited for a second time.

241: Label this vertex $V_1$.

242: The sequence of edges between the first and second visit to $V_1$

243: defines a non-intersecting closed loop, $L_1$. (This follows since

244: the first intersection on the path occurs at $V_1$ at the

245: instant of the second visit.) The phase due to this closed

246: non-intersecting loop may be calculated unambiguously and

247: makes an additive contribution to the total phase of

248: the path. This follows since the product of the Klein factors

249: around a closed loop is always proportional to the identity matrix.

250: Now excise the closed loop, $L_1$, from the path. The remaining path

251: remains closed.  Consider the first time that any vertex

252: on this excised path is visited twice, at some other

253: vertex, $V_2$. This defines another closed loop $L_2$ which

254: we again excise. We continue in this way until we finally

255: revisit the first point on the path. This final revisitation

256: defines a final closed loop $L_n$.

257: An example of the decomposition of a path into

258: non-crossing loops is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:pathdec}.

259: Note that when a path (or an

260: excised path)

261: makes a U-turn and retraces a link this counts as a closed

262: loop of length 2 and zero area. The total phase

263: associated with the path is the sum of phases of each

264: non-intersecting closed loop.  These phases can each be

265: expressed as a sum of phases of elementary triangles into

266: which they can be decomposed. Adding up the net number of

267: up triangles and down triangles in all the non-intersecting loops

268: gives us Eq. (\ref{phaseY}) for the total phase.

269: \begin{figure}

270: \begin{center}

271: \includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{pathdec.eps}

272: \caption{Decomposition of a path into

273: non-crossing loops}

274: \label{fig:pathdec}

275: \end{center}

276: \end{figure}

277: 

278: 

279: Let us now turn to the correlation function entering in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_Y}):

280: \begin{eqnarray}

281: \lefteqn{

282: \langle

283: e^{i \vec{L}_{n} \cdot \vec{\Phi}(\tau_n)}

284: \ldots

285: e^{i \vec{L}_{2} \cdot \vec{\Phi}(\tau_2)}

286: e^{i \vec{L}_{1} \cdot \vec{\Phi}(\tau_1)}

287: \rangle_0 = } \nonumber \\

288: & \delta_K(\sum_j \vec{L}_j)&

289:  \exp{\left[ \frac{1}{g}\sum_{j>k} \vec{L}_j \cdot \vec{L}_k

290:       \ln{|\tau_j - \tau_k|}^2 \right]},

291: \label{eq:loop}

292: \end{eqnarray}

293: where $\delta_K(\vec{L}) = 1$ if $\vec{L}=0$, and 

294: $\delta_K(\vec{L}) = 0$ otherwise. 

295: % MO -- edited 5 Sep 2005

296: The factor $\delta_K(\sum_j \vec{L}_j)$ enforcing the charge

297: vectors ${\vec L}_j$ must form a closed path, as we mentioned above,

298: explicitly follows from of charge conservation in the Coulomb gas

299: expansion.

300: 

301: Using this expression, in conjunction with the phase factor

302: we discussed above, we can rewrite the partition function as:

303: \begin{widetext}

304: \begin{eqnarray}

305: Z_Y=\sum_{n}

306: %\sum_{n=0}^\infty

307: %\frac{1}{n!}\;

308: \;\Gamma^n

309: \int_{\tau_{n-1}}^\infty \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n}\;

310: \int_{\tau_{n-2}}^{\tau_{n}} \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n-1}\;

311: \cdots

312: \int_{-\infty}^{\tau_{2}} \!\!\!\! d\tau_{1}\;

313: \sum_{{\cal L}=(\vec L_1,\dots,\vec L_n)}

314: %\left[

315: %\zeta_{\vec L_n}(\tau_n)

316: %\cdots

317: %\zeta_{\vec L_2}(\tau_2)\;

318: %\zeta_{\vec L_1}(\tau_1)

319: %\right]

320: \delta_K(\sum_j \vec{L}_j)\;\;e^{i\Upsilon_{\cal L}}

321: \;\;

322: %\exp{[

323: e^{\frac{1}{g}\sum_{j>k} \vec{L}_j \cdot \vec{L}_k

324:       \ln{|\tau_j - \tau_k|}^2 }

325: %]}

326: \;.

327: \label{eq:Z_Y2}

328: \end{eqnarray}

329: \end{widetext}

330: Thus, the partition function $Z_Y$ is written in a similar form

331: to the so-called Coulomb gas (particles interacting with the

332: logarithmic potential) 

333: in one dimension.

334: The difference from the standard Coulomb gas is in the

335: phase factor $e^{i\Upsilon_{\cal L}}$, which is indeed the consequence

336: of the Fermi statistics of the electron and of the Aharonov-Bohm phase.

337: We may call this a ``generalized Coulomb gas.''

338: In fact, below we show that this is indeed identical to the generalized

339: Coulomb gas which appeared in a quite different problem --

340: the dissipative Hofstadter model on a triangular lattice.

341: 

342: \subsection{Generalized Coulomb gas from the dissipative Hofstadter model}

343: 

344: Dissipative quantum mechanics (also known as

345: quantum Brownian motion)

346: is the problem

347: of the quantum motion of a single particle subject to 

348: dissipation (see Ref.~\cite{Leggett-etal} for a review).

349: In the presence of any periodic potential, single-particle quantum mechanics

350: implies that the particle never localizes due to the tunneling effect.

351: However, if the dissipation is sufficiently strong, the

352: tunneling can be suppressed and the particle may be localized.

353: When the dissipation is Ohmic, there is a surprising mapping

354: of the problem to the boundary problem of the free boson field

355: theory. Here, the bulk of the free boson is related to

356: the heat bath in the dissipative quantum mechanics, and only the

357: boundary field is related to the original particle. 

358: By integrating over the bulk degrees of freedom, the boundary

359: problem can be reduced to the one-dimensional Coulomb gas.

360: 

361: Dissipative quantum mechanics in the presence of the periodic potential and 

362: the magnetic field

363: is known as the dissipative Hofstadter problem.

364: It is again related to the boundary problem of the free boson,

365: or the following one-dimensional generalized Coulomb gas.

366: The ``free'' action for the dissipative Hofstadter model, namely

367: the effective action in the absence of the potential (but with

368: the magnetic field and the dissipation), is

369: \begin{equation}

370: S_0[\vec{X}] = \frac{1}{2} \int \frac{d\omega}{(2\pi)^2}

371: \left[

372: \alpha |\omega| \delta_{\mu \nu} + \beta \omega \epsilon_{\mu \nu} \right]

373: X^*_{\mu}(\omega) X_{\nu}(\omega),

374: \label{eq:S_0}\end{equation}

375: where $\mu,\nu=1,2$ and $\epsilon_{12}=-\epsilon_{21}=1$,

376: $\epsilon_{11}=\epsilon_{22}=0$. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are

377: related to the dissipation and the magnetic field, respectively.

378: This determines the propagator:

379: \begin{eqnarray}

380: \lefteqn{

381:  D_{\mu \nu}(\tau) = \langle X_{\mu}(\tau) X_{\nu}(0) \rangle = }

382: \nonumber \\

383: &&  \!\!\!\!\!\!

384: - \frac{\alpha}{\alpha^2 + \beta^2}\ln{\tau^2} \;\delta_{\mu \nu}

385: + i \pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}\; \sgn{\,\tau} \;\epsilon_{\mu \nu} .

386: \label{eq:D}\end{eqnarray}

387: We now introduce a potential term with the periodicity of the

388: triangular lattice (notice the difference from the ``rectangular'' one

389: in Ref.~\cite{CF}), as

390: \begin{equation}

391: S_V[\vec{X}]

392: = - V e^{i \delta/3}\int d\tau \sum_{a=1}^3

393: e^{i \vec{K}_a \cdot \vec{X}} + \mbox{c.c.},

394: \label{eq:CFpot}

395: \end{equation}

396: where $V$ and $\delta$ are chosen to be real.

397: Expanding the partition function in powers of $V$, one obtains

398: \begin{widetext}

399: \begin{eqnarray}

400: Z_\shbox{DHM}=\sum_{n}

401: %\sum_{n=0}^\infty

402: %\frac{1}{n!}\;

403: \;V^n

404: \int_{\tau_{n-1}}^\infty \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n}\;

405: \int_{\tau_{n-2}}^{\tau_{n}} \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n-1}\;

406: \cdots

407: \int_{-\infty}^{\tau_{2}} \!\!\!\! d\tau_{1}\;

408: \sum_{\{L_j\}}

409: \left[

410: \kappa_{\vec L_n}

411: \cdots

412: \kappa_{\vec L_2}\;

413: \kappa_{\vec L_1}

414: \right]

415: \;

416: \langle

417: e^{i \vec{L}_{n} \cdot \vec{X}(\tau_n)}

418: \ldots

419: e^{i \vec{L}_{2} \cdot \vec{X}(\tau_2)}

420: e^{i \vec{L}_{1} \cdot \vec{X}(\tau_1)}

421: \rangle_0

422: \;,

423: \label{eq:Z_DHM}

424: \end{eqnarray}

425: \end{widetext}

426: where again

427: ${\vec L}_j=q_j{\vec K}_{a_j}$

428: is one of the six vectors

429: $\pm \vec{K}_{1,2,3}$

430: ($q_j=\pm 1$ and $a_j=1,2,3$), and the

431: $\kappa_{\vec L_j}=e^{iq_j\delta/3}$ in the $[\ldots]$ term keep track

432: of phase factors due to $\delta$. The correlation function is given by

433: \begin{eqnarray}

434: \lefteqn{\langle

435: e^{i \vec{L}_n \cdot \vec{X}(\tau_n)}

436: \ldots

437: e^{i \vec{L}_2 \cdot \vec{X}(\tau_2)}

438: e^{i \vec{L}_1 \cdot \vec{X}(\tau_1)}

439: \rangle_0 = } \nonumber \\

440: &\delta_K(\sum_j \vec{L}_j) &  \exp{\Big[  \frac{\alpha}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}

441:     \sum_{j>k} \vec{L}_j \cdot \vec{L}_k

442:       \ln{|\tau_j - \tau_k|}^2  } 

443: \nonumber \\

444: &&   \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!

445: -i \pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2} \sum_{j>k}\vec{L}_j \times \vec{L}_k

446: \;\sgn(\tau_j - \tau_k) \Big].

447: \label{eq:loopCF}

448: \end{eqnarray}

449: (Because of the time ordering, notice that $\sgn(\tau_j - \tau_k)=1$

450: for all terms in the sum.)

451: 

452: Notice that the $\kappa_{{\vec L}_j}$ in the $[\ldots]$ of

453: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_DHM}) commute with one another, in contrast to the

454: Klein factors $\zeta_{{\vec L}_j}$ in the $[\ldots]$ of

455: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_Y}). However, the $\langle\ \rangle_0$ term in

456: Eq.~(\ref{eq:loopCF}) contains phase factors not present in

457: Eq.~(\ref{eq:loop}). While the phases entering the perturbative

458: expansions for $Z_Y$ and $Z_\shbox{DHM}$

459: are arising from different sources,

460: their net effect turns out to be identical, as we show below.

461: 

462: The phases in the expansion of the dissipative Hofstadter model can

463: also be associated with the closed paths ${\cal L}=({\vec L}_1,{\vec

464: L}_2,\ldots, {\vec L}_n)$. The contribution from the

465: $\vec{L}_j\times\vec{L}_k$ terms amounts to a flux through the

466: oriented area ${\cal A}_{\cal L}$ enclosed by ${\cal L}$.

467: To see this we again decompose any closed path into a set of

468: closed non-intersecting loops. The oriented area of such

469: a non-intersecting loop is

470: \begin{equation}

471: {\cal A}_{\cal L}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j>k}\vec{L}_j\times\vec{L}_k

472: \; .

473: \end{equation}

474: Thus, the accumulated phase $\Lambda_{\cal L}$ due to the magnetic

475: flux is

476: \begin{eqnarray}

477: \Lambda_{\cal L}&&=2\pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2} \;{\cal A}_{\cal L}

478: \\

479: &&= 2\pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}\; A \left[

480: N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})+

481: N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})

482: \right]

483: \;,

484: \end{eqnarray}

485: where ${A}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}$

486: is the area of an elementary triangle,

487: and $N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})$, $N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})$

488: are the {\it net} numbers of enclosed elementary up and down triangles,

489: as before.

490: 

491: Now we turn to the phase due to the $[\dots]$ in

492: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_DHM}). The total phase factor for a given closed path ${\cal

493: L}=({\vec L}_1,{\vec L}_2,\ldots, {\vec L}_n)$,

494: \begin{equation}

495: e^{i\;\Xi_{\cal L}}=

496: \left[

497: \kappa_{\vec L_n}

498: \cdots

499: \kappa_{\vec L_2}\;

500: \kappa_{\vec L_1}

501: \right]

502: \; ,

503: \end{equation}

504: is the sum of the phase contributions from all the elementary

505: triangles enclosed by the path. The argument for this is carried out

506: by induction, identically to what we have used for the products of the

507: $\zeta_{\vec{L}_j}$ above.

508: 

509: The phase contributions from ``up'' and ``down'' triangles are again

510: different. The phase factor for a counterclockwise loop on the

511: up triangle is determined determined to be

512: \begin{equation}

513: %e^{i \xi_{\bigtriangleup}}=

514: e^{i \delta/3}\;e^{i \delta/3}\;e^{i \delta/3}=

515: e^{i \delta}\label{upDHM}

516: \end{equation}

517: while that for the counterclockwise loop on the down triangle is

518: \begin{equation}

519: %e^{i \xi_{\bigtriangledown}}=

520: e^{-i \delta/3}\;e^{-i \delta/3}\;e^{-i \delta/3}=

521: e^{-i \delta}\label{downDHM}

522: \;.

523: \end{equation}

524: Namely, loops on the triangular lattice pick up a phase as if there is

525: a staggered magnetic flux of $\delta$ and $-\delta$ in each elementary

526: triangle. The total phase accumulated due to the loop ${\cal L}$ is

527: thus

528: \begin{equation}

529: \Xi_{\cal L}=

530: N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})\;\delta-

531: %\xi_\bigtriangleup+

532: N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})\;\delta

533: %\xi_\bigtriangledown

534: \; ,

535: \end{equation}

536: where $N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})$ and $N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})$

537: are the net numbers of up and down triangles enclosed by the loop.

538: 

539: The total phase factor due to the loop ${\cal L}$ is the sum

540: $\tilde\Upsilon_{\cal L}=\Lambda_{\cal L}+\Xi_{\cal L}$:

541: \begin{equation}

542: \tilde\Upsilon_{\cal L}=

543: N_\bigtriangleup({\cal L})\;\tilde\upsilon_\bigtriangleup+

544: N_\bigtriangledown({\cal L})\;\tilde\upsilon_\bigtriangledown

545: \; ,

546: \end{equation}

547: where

548: \begin{eqnarray}

549: \tilde\upsilon_\bigtriangleup&&=2\pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2} A+\delta

550: \label{vup}\\

551: \tilde\upsilon_\bigtriangledown&&=2\pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2} A-\delta

552: \; .\label{vdown}

553: \end{eqnarray}

554: 

555: We can now rewrite the partition function for the dissipative

556: Hofstadter model on the triangular lattice as:

557: \begin{widetext}

558: \begin{eqnarray}

559: Z_\shbox{DHM}=\sum_{n}

560: %\sum_{n=0}^\infty

561: %\frac{1}{n!}\;

562: \;V^n

563: \int_{\tau_{n-1}}^\infty \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n}\;

564: \int_{\tau_{n-2}}^{\tau_{n}} \!\!\!\!\!  d\tau_{n-1}\;

565: \cdots

566: \int_{-\infty}^{\tau_{2}} \!\!\!\! d\tau_{1}\;

567: \sum_{{\cal L}=(\vec L_1,\dots,\vec L_n)}

568: %\left[

569: %\zeta_{\vec L_n}(\tau_n)

570: %\cdots

571: %\zeta_{\vec L_2}(\tau_2)\;

572: %\zeta_{\vec L_1}(\tau_1)

573: %\right]

574: \delta_K(\sum_j \vec{L}_j)\;\;e^{i\tilde\Upsilon_{\cal L}}

575: \;\;

576: %\exp{[

577: e^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}\sum_{j>k} \vec{L}_j \cdot \vec{L}_k

578:       \ln{|\tau_j - \tau_k|}^2 }

579: %]}

580: \;.

581: \label{eq:Z_DHM2}

582: \end{eqnarray}

583: \end{widetext}

584: Following Callan and Freed~\cite{CF},

585: we may regard the DHM partition function

586: as the partition function of a generalized classical 1-dimensional Coulomb

587: gas.  $\tau_j$ is the position of the j$^{th}$ particle

588: and $\vec L_j$ is its generalized ``charge'', a vector quantity

589: taking on six possible values.

590: 

591: \subsection{Mapping of the Y-junction to the dissipative Hofstadter model}

592: \label{subsec:mapping}

593: The expression for $Z_\shbox{DHM}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_DHM2}) is identical to

594: that for $Z_{Y}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z_Y2}),

595: provided the following conditions are satisfied.

596: % Edited by MO -- 5 Sep 2005.

597: First we need the relation

598: \begin{equation}

599: \frac{\alpha}{\alpha^2+\beta^2} = \frac{1}{g},

600: \label{eq:alpha}

601: \end{equation}

602: for the scaling dimension of the leading perturbation to be matched

603: between the two theories.

604: Furthermore, in order to match the phase factor, 

605: we require

606: $\tilde\Upsilon_{\cal L}\equiv\Upsilon_{\cal L} \mod{2\pi}$, or

607: equivalently

608: \begin{eqnarray}

609: &&\tilde\upsilon_\bigtriangleup \equiv

610: \upsilon_\bigtriangleup \; \mod{2\pi},

611: \label{eq:upcond}

612: \\

613: &&\tilde\upsilon_\bigtriangledown \equiv

614: \upsilon_\bigtriangledown \; \mod{2\pi}

615: \label{eq:downcond}

616: \;,

617: \end{eqnarray}

618: i.e.

619: \bea

620: {\sqrt{3}\pi \over 2}{\beta \over \alpha^2+\beta^2}+\delta

621: &=&\phi \ \ \mod{2\pi} , \nonumber \\

622: {\sqrt{3}\pi \over 2}{\beta \over \alpha^2+\beta^2}-\delta

623: &=&\pi -\phi \ \ \mod{2\pi} .

624: \eea

625: The above two equations imply:

626: \bea

627: \sqrt{3}  \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2 + \beta^2} &=& (2n - 1) \nonumber \\

628: \delta &=& \phi + \pi (1/2-n).

629: \label{eq:n}\eea

630: for an arbitrary integer, $n$. Because the phases, $\phi$ and $\delta$, are

631: only defined modulo $2\pi$, there is actually an infinite number of

632: different choices of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ labeled by the integer $n$.

633: Eqs. (\ref{eq:alpha}) and (\ref{eq:n}) give:

634: \bea \alpha &=& {3g\over 3+(2n-1)^2g^2}\nonumber \\

635: \beta &=& {\sqrt{3}(2n-1)g^2\over 3+(2n-1)^2g^2}.\label{eq:ndef}\eea

636: 

637: To understand the ambiguity in the integer $n$, 

638: let us define the Coulomb gas charge density

639: \be \vec \rho (\tau )\equiv \sum_{j=1}^N\vec L_j \; \delta (\tau -\tau_j).\ee

640: The generalized ``energy'', $E$, of an

641: arbitrary classical gas configuration is determined by the $N$

642: positions, $\tau_j$ and charges, $L_j$.  This generalized

643: ``energy'' is now a complex quantity and $\exp (-E/T)$

644: (where $T$ is the classical temperature)  is given by   Eq. (\ref{eq:Z_DHM}).

645: i.e.

646: \begin{widetext}

647: \be -\frac{E}{T}=\sum_{j=1}^n[\ln V +i\delta\, q_j/3] +

648:  \frac{\alpha}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}

649:     \sum_{j>k} \vec{L}_j \cdot \vec{L}_k

650:       \ln |\tau_j - \tau_k|^2

651: -i \pi \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2+\beta^2} \sum_{j>k}\vec{L}_j \times \vec{L}_k

652:  \;\sgn(\tau_j - \tau_k),

653: \ee \end{widetext}

654: where $q_j$ is defined by $\vec L_j\equiv q_j\vec K_{a_j}$ as before.

655: Since $\vec L_j\times \vec L_k$ is always $0$ or $\pm \sqrt{3}/2$,

656: $\exp [-E/T]$ is invariant under a shift:

657: \be {\pi \sqrt{3}\over 2}{\beta \over \alpha^2+\beta^2}\to

658: {\pi \sqrt{3}\over 2}{\beta \over \alpha^2+\beta^2}+2\pi .\ee

659: Eqs. (\ref{vup}), (\ref{vdown}) imply that there is also a symmetry under:

660: \bea {\pi \sqrt{3}\over 2}{\beta \over \alpha^2+\beta^2}&\to&

661: {\pi \sqrt{3}\over 2}{\beta \over \alpha^2+\beta^2}+\pi \nonumber \\

662: \delta &\to & \delta - \pi ,\eea

663: which corresponds to shifting the integer $n$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:ndef}) by $1$.

664: Since the energy of any configuration is independent of $n$,

665: it follows that the Coulomb gas charge density correlation function,

666: $\langle \rho_\mu (\tau )\rho_\nu (\tau ')\rangle$, is also

667: $n$-independent.

668: 

669: On the other hand, the correlation function $\langle

670: X^\mu (\tau )X^\nu (\tau ')\rangle$, {\it does} depend on $n$.

671: These two correlation functions can be simply related to

672: each other by adding an external source, $\vec a(\tau )$, to the action,

673: coupling to the Coulomb gas charge density. That is,

674: we modify the energy of the Coulomb gas by:

675: \be -E/T \to -E/T -i\int d\tau\; \vec a(\tau )\cdot \vec \rho (\tau ).\ee

676: The Coulomb gas correlation function is given by the functional

677: derivative of the partition function with respect to the source term:

678: \begin{equation}

679:   \frac{ \partial^2 \ln{Z}}{\partial a^{\mu}(\omega_n )

680: \partial a^{\nu}(\omega_n' )}

681:   = - {1\over (2\pi )^2}\langle \rho_{\mu}(-\omega_n ) \rho_{\nu} (-\omega_n' )\rangle .

682: \label{eq:Zaa}

683: \end{equation}

684: Note that the Coulomb gas energy arises from the functional

685: integral over $\vec X$:

686: \be  e^{-E/T}={1\over Z_0}

687: V^n e^{i(\delta /3)\sum_jq_j}

688:  \int [d\vec X (\tau )]e^{-S_q(\vec X)}, \ee

689: where:

690: \be S_q \equiv S_0(\vec X)-i\int d\tau \vec X(\tau )\cdot \vec \rho (\tau ).

691: \ee

692: Here $Z_0$ is the functional integral with $S_q$ replaced by $S_0$,

693: which is given by Eq. (\ref{eq:S_0}).

694: Thus, adding a source term to the Coulomb gas corresponds to

695: a modification of the potential term in the DHM action:

696: \begin{equation}

697: S_V[\vec{X}]

698: \to  - V e^{i \delta/3}\int d\tau \sum_{a=1}^3

699: e^{i \vec{K}_a \cdot [\vec{X}(\tau )+\vec a(\tau )]} + \mbox{c.c.},

700: \label{eq:CFpot2}\ee

701: Alternatively, we may shift $\vec X (\tau )\to \vec X (\tau )-\vec a(\tau)$,

702: removing the source term from the potential term in the DHM action

703: but inserting it into the non-interaction term, $S_0$:

704: \begin{widetext}

705: \be S_0\to {1\over 2}\int {d\omega_n \over (2\pi )^2}

706: [X^\mu (\omega_n )-a^\mu ]^*(\omega_n )

707: \;\left(D^{-1}\right)_{\mu \nu}(\omega_n )\;

708: [X^\nu (\omega_n )-a^\nu ] (\omega_n ).\ee

709: \end{widetext}

710: Here we have introduced the inverse of the DHM propagator, defined

711: in Eq. (\ref{eq:D}), which is simply the matrix appearing

712: in $S_0$, in Eq. (\ref{eq:S_0}):

713: \be \left( D^{-1}\right)_{\mu \nu}\equiv \alpha \delta_{\mu \nu}|\omega |

714: +\beta \epsilon_{\mu \nu}\omega .\ee

715: Taking a second derivative with respect to $a^{\mu}$ we see that:

716: \begin{widetext}

717: \be

718: \langle \rho_{\mu}(-\omega ) \rho_{\nu} (-\omega   ' )\rangle

719: =\delta (\omega   +\omega   ')\left( D\right)^{-1}_{\mu \nu}(-\omega   )

720: -{1\over (2\pi )^2}\left( D^{-1}\right)_{\mu \sigma}(-\omega   )

721: \langle X^{\sigma}(-\omega   )X^{\lambda}(-\omega   ')\rangle

722: \left( D\right)^{-1}_{\lambda \nu}(\omega   '),\label{eq:rrXX}

723: \ee

724: %\end{widetext}

725: or, equivalently:

726: %\begin{widetext}

727: \begin{equation}

728: \langle X^{\mu}(-\omega_n )X^{\nu}(-\omega_n ')\rangle

729: =(2\pi )^2\delta (\omega_n+\omega_n')

730: D^{\mu \sigma}(-\omega_n )

731: -(2\pi )^2 D^{\mu \sigma}(-\omega_n )

732: \langle \rho_{\sigma }(-\omega_n ) \rho_{\lambda} (-\omega_n ' )\rangle

733:  D^{\lambda \nu}(\omega_n ')\label{eq:XX}

734: \end{equation}

735: \end{widetext}

736: Due to the complicated dependence of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on $n$,

737: given by Eq. (\ref{eq:ndef}), and hence the complicated dependence of

738: $D^{\mu \nu}$ on $n$,  we see that

739: $\langle X^{\mu}X^{\nu}\rangle$ is $n$-dependent.

740: 

741: However,

742: what we are interested in here, for obtaining properties of the

743: Y-junction, is only the Coulomb gas correlation functions,

744: which are $n$-independent.  Hence we may choose any value of

745: $n$ that we find convenient. It will sometimes be useful to

746: deduce the long time behavior of $\langle X^{\mu}X^{\nu}\rangle$

747: by RG and physical arguments and then use Eq.~(\ref{eq:rrXX})

748: to deduce the Coulomb gas correlation function. In so doing

749: we may choose any value of $n$. In general,

750: the behavior of $\langle X^{\mu}X^{\nu}\rangle$ will

751: depend strongly on $n$ but this $n$-dependence will cancel

752: when we compute $\langle \rho_{\mu}\rho_{\nu}\rangle$ using

753: Eq. (\ref{eq:rrXX}).

754: 

755: Let us now use this mapping between the Y-junction problem and the

756: dissipative Hofstadter model and consider the case of $g>1$. Then, as

757: we have already discussed, the electron hopping is a relevant

758: perturbation in the disconnected limit. In the DHM, for any choice of

759: $n$, $V$ is a relevant perturbation for $g>1$. We would like to find

760: the infrared stable fixed point reached in the low energy limit. A

761: simple guess is that it occurs at $V\to \infty$.  The stability of the

762: $V\to \infty$ fixed point can be determined using the instanton

763: method~\cite{CF}.  Namely, in the strong potential limit, the

764: $\vec{X}$ field is pinned at one of the minima of the potential

765: (\ref{eq:CFpot}).  The leading perturbation to this limit is given by

766: a tunneling process between the neighboring minima, represented by an

767: ``instanton.''  This is a classical solution, $\vec X_{\shbox{cl}}(\tau )$

768: which interpolates between two adjacent minima of the potential

769: as $\tau$ goes from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. The nature of

770: these solutions is discussed in Callan and Fried and, in more detail,

771: in Ref.~\cite{Freed-Harvey}. To determine the scaling dimension

772: of the tunneling operator we must consider the classical action

773: of a dilute multi-instanton configuration which tunnels successively

774: from minimum to minimum with each tunneling event well separated

775: in time from the rest. This instanton gas is dilute because,

776: in the limit of large $V$, the action of an instanton goes to

777: infinity, so the density of instantons goes to zero.

778: In the dilute limit, we can approximate

779: such a multi-instanton by a sum of the form:

780: \be \vec X(\tau ) \approx \vec X_0 +

781: \sum_{j=1}^n\vec X_{j}(\tau -\tau_j),\label{eq:inst}\ee

782: where

783: \bea \vec X_{j}(\tau )  &\to & 0,\ \  (\tau \to -\infty)\nonumber \\

784: &\to & \vec M_{j},\ \  (\tau \to \infty ).\eea

785: Here the $j^{\shbox{th}}$ tunneling event takes place at time $\tau_j$

786:  and involves the particle tunneling between two

787: adjacent minima of $V(\vec X)$, displaced by $\vec M_{j}$.  In

788: the dilute limit each function $\vec X_{j}(\tau )$ is a

789: single instanton solution.  In the long time low energy limit

790: of interest to us, we may regard the single instanton solutions

791: as having the form:

792: \be \vec X_{a_j}(\tau ) \approx \vec M_{j} \,f(\tau ),\ee

793: for a real function, $f(\tau )$ which interpolates between

794: $0$ and $1$.

795: The Fourier transform of the multi-instanton

796: solution can then be approximated as:

797: \be \vec X(\omega )\approx \sum_j \vec M_{j}\,e^{i\omega \tau_j}

798: f(\omega ).\ee

799: The low frequency behavior of $f(\omega )$, which

800: follows from the long time asymptotic behavior of the interpolating 

801: function $f(\tau)$, is given by:

802: \be f(\omega ) \to {1\over i\omega}

803: \label{eq:fas}.\ee

804: The important interaction term

805: in the instanton action comes simply from $S_0$ and is

806: obtained by substituting Eq. (\ref{eq:inst}) into $S_0$ in

807: Eq. (\ref{eq:S_0}).  This gives the

808: instanton interaction term in the action:

809: \begin{widetext}

810: \be S_{\shbox{int}}\approx

811: \sum_{i>j}M_{i,\mu}M_{j,\nu}

812: \int {d\omega \over (2\pi )^2}\;e^{i\omega (\tau_j-\tau_i)}\;

813: \left[ \alpha |\omega |\delta_{\mu \nu}+\beta \epsilon_{\mu \nu}\omega\right]|f(\omega )|^2.

814: \ee \end{widetext}

815: In the dilute limit, where the  time separations

816: are large, we may use the asymptotic form of $f(\omega )$ in

817: Eq. (\ref{eq:fas}).

818: In this we recover the Coulomb gas energy:

819: \begin{widetext}

820: \be S_{\shbox{int}}\approx -{\alpha \over (2\pi )^2}

821: \sum_{i>j}\vec M_i\cdot \vec M_j \ln

822: |\tau_i-\tau_j|^2 +{i\pi \beta \over (2\pi )^2}

823: \sum_{i>j}\vec M_i\times \vec M_j\;

824: \hbox{sgn} (\tau_i-\tau_j).\ee \end{widetext}

825: We see that this expansion is equivalent to the weak $V$ expansion

826: and therefore that the tunneling events are relevant only if

827: \be|\vec M_i|^2\alpha^2/(2\pi )^2  <1.  \ee

828: 

829: Thus we see that the separation of the minima of the potential,

830: $|\vec M_i|$ is a crucial quantity in determining the stability

831: of the localized fixed point. This separation is determined by

832: a simple classical analysis of the potential, $V(\vec X)$

833: in Eq. (\ref{eq:CFpot}). The stationary points of $V(\vec X)$

834: occur at the points:\be

835: {\vec X} = {4\pi \over 3}\sum_{i=1}^2 n_i\;\vec K_i, \ee

836: independent of $\delta$ and forming

837: a triangular lattice.  However, the energies (values of $V$)

838:  at these stationary

839: points depend on $\delta$.  For general values of $\delta$, these

840: energies are different at the 3 sub-lattices into which the

841: triangular lattice can be partitioned:

842: \bea V(\vec 0) &=& -6V \cos (\delta /3)\nonumber \\

843: V\left( {4\pi}\;\vec K_1/3\right)

844:  &=& -6V\cos [(2\pi -\delta )/3]\nonumber \\

845: V\left( -{4\pi}\;\vec K_2/3\right)&=& -6V\cos [(2\pi +\delta )/3].\eea

846: The sub-lattice containing $\vec 0$, is a triangular lattice

847: with basis vectors, $2\pi \vec R_i$ ($i=1,2$) with

848: \be \vec R_i\equiv (2/\sqrt{3})\;\vec K_i\times \hat z.

849: \label{eq:Rdef}\ee

850: Of course, the other sub-lattices are simply displaced from this

851: one by the fixed vectors, $(4\pi /3)\vec K_1$ and $(4\pi /3)\vec K_2$.

852: Therefore, the vectors $\vec M_i$ occurring in the instanton

853: solutions are $\pm 2\pi \vec R_1$, $\pm \vec 2\pi R_2$

854: and $\pm 2\pi (\vec R_1+\vec R_2)$ with length $4\pi /\sqrt{3}$.

855: As we vary $\delta$ the relative energies on the three sub-lattices

856: change.

857: % Edited by MO 5 Sep 2005

858: For $\delta =0$, the potential minima occur on the $\vec X=0$

859: sublattice.  As we increase $\delta$ from zero,

860: the minima remains on the $\vec X=0$ sublattice until we

861: reach $\delta =\pi$. For $\pi < \delta < 2 \pi$, the minima

862: are rather on the $\vec X=(4\pi /3)\vec K_1$ sub-lattice.

863: Right at $\delta =\pi$, there are degenerate minima on both $\vec X=0$ and

864: $\vec X=(4\pi /3)\vec K_1$ sub-lattices. These two sub-lattices

865: define a honeycomb lattice with lattice spacing $4\pi /3$,

866: smaller by a factor of $1/\sqrt{3}$ compared to

867: that of the triangular lattices.

868: 

869: Thus, from the dilute instanton analysis, we conclude that, for

870: general $\delta$,

871: the localized phase is stable when

872: \be \Delta\equiv {\alpha |2\pi R_i|^2\over (2\pi )^2}={4\alpha \over 3}

873: = {4g\over 3+(2n-1)^2g^2}>1.\ee

874: While this does not prove rigorously that

875: the DHM is in a localized phase for small $V$ when

876: this inequality is satisfied, it is

877: reasonable to believe that the system is in a localized

878: phase for large enough $V$, in this region of $\alpha$.

879: 

880: For $n\neq 0$ or $1$, the localized phase is never stable,

881: for any value of $g$.  This follows since the maximum

882: value of $\Delta$, with respect to $g$, for fixed $n$

883: is $2/[\sqrt{3}|2n-1|]$, which is $<1$ for $n\neq 0$ or $1$.

884: On the other hand, for $n=0$ or $1$, $\Delta <1$, for

885: $1<g<3$. Thus is it reasonable to assume that

886: the behavior of the Y-junction, at least for large $\Gamma$,

887: corresponds to the localized phase of the DHM in

888: the $n=0$, or $1$ representation. This result appears

889: at first peculiar because we might just as well have

890: chosen a different value of $n$, in which case

891: we would conclude that the DHM is {\it not} in the

892: localized phase. For $g>1$, the DHM is not in the

893: freely diffusing phase either, since $V$ is relevant.

894: It therefore must be in some intermediate phase which

895: is neither freely diffusing nor localized. Remarkably,

896: Eq. (\ref{eq:XX}) allows us to determine $\langle XX \rangle$

897: in these intermediate phases by determining $\langle \rho

898: \rho \rangle$ using $n=0$ or $1$~\cite{CF}.

899: 

900: However, an ambiguity still remains because both $n=0$ and $1$

901: give stable localized fixed points.  However, the localized

902: fixed points for these two values of $n$ predict different

903: $\langle \rho \rho \rangle$.  Consistency requires that,

904: while both of these fixed points is stable at large $V$,

905: the RG flow goes all the way to the localized fixed point,

906: starting from a small $V$, for only one of these two

907: values of $n$. For the other value of $n$ the RG

908: flow should go to an intermediate $V$ fixed point, which

909: must give the same $\langle \rho \rho \rangle$.

910: 

911: The particular cases $\phi = \pm \pi /2$, which maximally break

912: time-reversal, are instructive in understanding the resolution of this

913: ambiguity. From Eq. (\ref{eq:n}), for $\phi=\pi/2$, the choice $n=1$ ($\beta$

914: positive) gives $\delta=0$, and the potential minima forms a triangular

915: lattice as usual. However the other choice $n=0$ ($\beta$ negative) gives

916: $\delta=\pi$, for which the potential minima form a honeycomb lattice with

917: spacing $4\pi /3$, making the strong potential limit unstable for all $g$.

918: Similarly, for $\phi = - \pi/2$, $n=0$ ($\beta$ negative) is the unique

919: choice that gives a stable fixed point. This suggests that these localized

920: fixed points $\chi_{\pm}$ reflect the breaking of time reversal symmetry due

921: to the magnetic flux $\phi$. Indeed, the conductance at these fixed points

922: exhibits a chiral behavior breaking the time reversal invariance, as we show

923: below.

924: 

925: Let us next consider the case when $\phi$ is very close to, but not

926: exactly equal to, $\pi /2$. If one chooses $n=1$, $\delta$ will be

927: close to zero, and the potential minima forms a triangular lattice

928: with a large separation between the true minima and secondary minima.

929: However, if one chooses  $n=0$ instead of $n=1$, the minima of

930: the potential $V(\vec X)$ will form a triangular lattice with spacing

931: $4\pi /\sqrt{3}$, but there are local minima with only slightly larger

932: energy such that the distance between a true minimum and the nearest

933: local minima is $4\pi /3$. We could then envision another type of

934: approximate instanton solution where the particle tunnels from a true

935: minimum to a local minimum where it lingers for a long but finite time

936: but must eventually tunnel to a true minimum. The typical time that

937: the particle spends at a minimum is determined by the instanton

938: fugacity, and grows exponentially as $V\to \infty$. Thus this other

939: type of instanton might never be important for sufficiently large $V$.

940: However, for intermediate values of $V$, these instantons could play

941: an important role, effectively preventing the RG flow to go to

942: infinite $V$ for the $n=0$ choice. This argument suggests that the

943: choice of $n=1$ should represent the stable fixed point around a

944: vicinity of $\phi=\pi/2$. Of course, similar statements hold regarding

945: the case $\phi$ very close to $-\pi /2$, for which $n=0$ should

946: represent the stable fixed point.

947: 

948: We are thus led to conjecture that the localized fixed point for $n=1$ ($n=0$)

949: corresponds to the stable fixed point of the Y-junction, for $1<g<3$,

950: even for small bare $V$, for a range of $\phi$ around $\pi /2$ ($-\pi /2$).

951: While none of our arguments have proven rigorously that the

952: RG flow really goes all the way from $V=0$ to $V=\infty$ (i.e. to the

953: localized phase) for any values of $g$ and $\phi$, this

954: seems like the most ``economical'' assumption since otherwise there

955: would necessarily be intermediate $V$ fixed points for all values of $n$.

956: On the other hand, for $\phi =0$ or $\pi$, the $n=0$ and $n=1$ fixed points

957: appear equally stable. Since, as we show in the next sub-section,

958: the conductance exhibits broken time-reversal symmetry for these localized

959: fixed points, we expect that neither of them is stable at $\phi =0$. There

960: must be some other stable fixed point, corresponding to intermediate $V$,

961: in this case. We refer to this fixed point as M (for mysterious).

962: 

963: It is convenient to now think about the RG flow in the space of the

964: physical parameters of the Y-junction, $\Gamma$ and $\phi$. We have

965: proposed (unique) stable fixed points for $\phi$ near $\pi /2$ ($\chi_+$)

966: or $-\pi /2$ ($\chi_-$) and another fixed point, M, stable for $\phi =0$.

967: While the $\chi_{\pm}$ fixed points are stable against a small change in

968: the flux, we do not know whether the M fixed point has such a stability.

969: The simplest assumption is that it is does not. In this case the RG flows

970: might go to the

971: $\chi_{\pm}$ fixed points for any non-zero $\phi$, starting from

972: arbitrarily small $V$. Alternatively, it is possible that

973: the M fixed point is stable against adding a small flux.  In that

974: case, there would have to be additional unstable fixed points

975: defining the boundaries between the basins of attraction of the

976: M, $\chi_+$ and $\chi_-$ fixed points. So again, an ``economy''

977: principle, suggests the simple picture with only 3 stable fixed points,

978: for $1<g<3$, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:Chiflow}.

979: 

980: 

981: \subsection{Calculation of the conductance tensor}

982: 

983: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

984: 

985: Let us calculate the conductance tensor $G_{jk}$

986: as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:def-of-conduc-tensor}) at

987: the chiral fixed points $\chi_{\pm}$.

988: There are two convenient ways of introducing the voltages drops. They

989: can either occur right at the junction, or else can be spread over finite

990: regions of the wires which are long compared

991: to microscopic length scales like $k_F^{-1}$

992: but could still be short compared to the length of the wires

993: and other long length scales such as an inelastic scattering length.

994: Both lead to the same results. The former

995: approach has the advantage that it allows the conductance tensor to be

996: expressed in terms of the Coulomb gas correlation function.  The

997: latter approach is useful when the BCFT formalism is used and is the

998: only method at our disposal in the case of the Dirichlet fixed

999: point. We discuss each in turn, one in this section and the other in

1000: the next. For convenience, we set the electron charge, $e$, to $-1$. (In

1001: our convention the actual electron charge $e<0$.) 

1002: We also set $\hbar =1$.

1003: 

1004: We first consider the case where the voltage drop occurs right at the

1005: junction. We then modify the tunneling Hamiltonian by time-dependent

1006: phases, $A_j(t)$:

1007: \be H_T\to -\Gamma e^{i\phi /3}\sum_j\psi^\dagger_j\psi_{j-1}e^{i(A_j-A_{j-1})}

1008: +h.c.\label{HTA}\ee

1009: Note that, in the case where $A_j(t)=-V_jt$, that this

1010: corresponds to the replacement:

1011: \be \psi^\dagger_j(t)\to e^{-iV_jt}\psi^\dagger_j(t).\ee

1012: This corresponds to a potential $V_j$ on wire $j$, so we see that:

1013: \be dA_j/dt = -V_j.\ee

1014: It is convenient to define $I_j$ as

1015: the current on wire $i$, headed towards the junction:

1016: \be I_j= -dN_j/dt=i[N_j,H].

1017: \ee

1018: Here $N_j$ is the total number of particles on wire $j$.  Since

1019: only the tunneling terms destroy conservation of particle

1020: number on each wire separately, we readily obtain:

1021: \begin{widetext}

1022: \be I_j=-i\Gamma\left[ e^{i\phi /3}\,e^{i(A_j-A_{j-1})}\,

1023: \psi^\dagger_j\psi_{j-1}

1024: +e^{-i\phi /3}\,e^{i(A_j-A_{j+1})}\,

1025: \psi^\dagger_j\psi_{j+1}\right] +h.c.\ee

1026: Expanding to first order in the $A_j$'s gives:

1027: \be  \langle I_j \rangle = \langle I_j^0 \rangle 

1028: -[(A_j-A_{j-1})+(A_j-A_{j+1})]\;

1029: E_T/3.\label{Ij}\ee

1030: Here $E_T$ is the tunneling energy:

1031: \be E_T=-\Gamma e^{i\phi /3}\sum_j 

1032: \langle \psi_j^\dagger \psi_{j-1} \rangle +c.c.

1033: =-3\Gamma e^{i\phi /3} \langle \psi_j^\dagger \psi_{j-1} \rangle +c.c.\ee

1034: where the $Z_3$ symmetry was used in the last step. $I_j^0$ is

1035: the current operator to zero$^{\shbox{th}}$ order in the $A_k$:

1036: \be I_j^0\equiv -i\Gamma \left[e^{i\phi /3}\psi^\dagger_j\psi_{j-1}

1037: +e^{-i\phi /3}\psi^\dagger_j\psi_{j+1}\right] + h.c.\ee

1038: $ \langle I_j^0 \rangle $ is calculated to first order in $A_j(t)$ using:

1039: \be

1040: H\approx H_0+H'=H_0+\sum_j I_j^0\;A_j.

1041: \ee

1042: \be  \langle I_j^0(t) \rangle =-i\int_{-\infty}^t dt'\; \langle [I_j^0(t),H'(t')] \rangle 

1043: =-i\sum_k\int_{-\infty}^tdt'\; \langle [I_j^0(t),I_k^0(t')] \rangle \;A_k(t')

1044: =\sum_k \int_{-\infty}^\infty dt'\;K_{jk}^{\shbox{ret}}(t-t')\,A_k(t').\ee

1045: \end{widetext}

1046: Here $K_{ij}^{\shbox{ret}}$ is the retarded Green's function

1047: of the $I_j^0$ operators. Fourier transforming,

1048: \be A_j(\omega )\equiv \int dt \;e^{i\omega t}\;A_j(t),\ee

1049: and including the ``diamagnetic term'' in Eq. (\ref{Ij}), we obtain

1050: the Kubo formula in the form:

1051: \be  \langle I_j \rangle (\omega )=\sum_k G_{jk}(\omega )\,V_k(\omega ).\,\ee

1052: where the conductance matrix is given by:

1053: \be G_{jk}(\omega )={1\over i\omega }\left[K_{jk}^{\shbox{ret}}

1054: (\omega )-C_{jk}\right],

1055: \label{eq:asp-cond}

1056: \ee

1057: and the $\omega$-independent symmetric matrix, $C_{jk}$ is given by:

1058: \bea C_{jj}&=&2E_T/3,\nonumber \\

1059: C_{jk}&=& -E_T/3\ \  (j\neq k).\eea

1060: Note that 

1061: \be 

1062: \sum_jC_{jk}=\sum_kC_{jk}=0

1063: \;,

1064: \ee

1065: which combined with Eqs.~(\ref{eq:conduc-aspen}) and (\ref{eq:asp-cond})

1066: implies

1067: \be \sum_jK_{jk}^{\shbox{ret}}

1068: =\sum_kK_{jk}^{\shbox{ret}}=0.\ee

1069: The retarded Green's function may be obtained by analytic continuation

1070: from the Matsubara Green's function:

1071: \be K^M_{jk}(\omega_n)\equiv -\int d\tau \;e^{i\omega_n\tau}\;

1072: \langle {\cal T}\, I^0_j(\tau )\,I^0_k(0) \rangle .\ee

1073: Here $\omega_n=2\pi nT$ for integer $n$,

1074:  at temperature $T$, $\tau$ is imaginary

1075: time and ${\cal T}$ represents time ordering. The retarded Green's

1076: function is obtained, as usual, by:

1077: \be K^{\shbox{ret}}_{jk}(\omega)=\lim_{\delta \to 0^+}K^M_{jk}(\delta

1078: -i\omega).\ee

1079: The conductivity can be conveniently derived from the imaginary

1080: time path integral, with a vector potential, $A_j(\tau )$, defined

1081: as in Eq. (\ref{HTA}) which

1082: depends on imaginary time. The imaginary time partition function,

1083: $Z_I[A_j(\tau )]$, is obtained from the path integral of

1084: $\exp [-S_0-\int d\tau \;H_T(\tau )]$, where $S_0$ is the imaginary

1085: time action

1086: for the three independent leads. We see that:

1087: \be {\delta \ln Z_I\over \delta A_j(\tau )}=- \langle I_j(\tau ) \rangle \ee

1088: and, at $A_j\to 0$,

1089: \be {\delta^2 \ln Z_I\over \delta A_j(\tau )\,\delta A_k(\tau ')}

1090: =-K^{M}_{jk}(\tau -\tau ')+\delta (\tau -\tau ')C_{jk}.\ee

1091: Fourier transforming:

1092: \be {\delta^2 \ln Z_I\over \delta A_j(\omega_n) \,\delta A_k(\omega_n  ')}

1093: ={\delta (\omega_n +\omega_n ')\over 2\pi}[-K^M_{jk}(\omega_n)+C_{jk}].\ee

1094: The conductivity can be obtained from this by analytic continuation.

1095: Explicitly, writing:

1096: \be {\delta^2 \ln Z_I\over \delta A_j(\omega_n ) \,\delta A_k(\omega_n  ')}

1097: ={1\over (2\pi )^2}\delta (\omega_n +\omega_n ')Z_{jk}(\omega_n),\ee

1098: the dc conductance is given by:

1099: \be

1100: G_{jk}=\lim_{\omega_n\to 0}{1\over 2\pi

1101: \omega_n}Z_{jk}(\omega_n).\label{Zcond}\ee

1102: Here the limit $\omega_n\to 0$ must be taken by first continuing

1103: $\omega_n$ into the complex plane and then taking $\omega_n\to 0$

1104: along the imaginary axis with a small positive real part.

1105: This version of the Kubo formula is convenient because this second

1106: derivative of $\ln Z_I$ is proportional to

1107: the Coulomb gas density correlation function in the DHM. To make

1108: this connection it is convenient

1109:  to rewrite the three vector potentials, $A_j(\tau )$

1110: in terms of a pair of vector potentials, $a^\mu (\tau )$ such that:

1111: \be A_j-A_k=\sum_l\epsilon_{jkl}\;\vec K_l\cdot \vec a.\label{a}\ee

1112: Here $\epsilon_{jkl}$ is the antisymmetric unit tensor

1113: ($\epsilon_{123}=1$ etc.) and the Greek indices run over $1$ and $2$ only.

1114: Then the tunneling term is modified to:

1115: \be H_T\to i\Gamma e^{i\phi /3}\sum_{j=1}^3\eta_ie^{i\vec K_j\cdot

1116: (\vec \Phi +\vec a)}+ h.c.\ee

1117: The corresponding modification of the DHM action is the shift:

1118: \be \vec X\to \vec X +\vec a.\ee

1119: This is precisely the source term coupled to the Coulomb gas

1120: density discussed above, which appeared in Eq. (\ref{eq:CFpot2}).

1121: 

1122: We now see that the Y-junction conductivity is directly related to the Coulomb

1123: gas correlation function. To make the connection we use:

1124: \be \sum_jK^{\mu}_jK^{\mu}_j=(3/2)\delta^{\mu \nu}\ee

1125: to invert (\ref{a}):

1126: \be \vec a=\sum_{j,k,l}\vec K_j\epsilon_{jkl}(A_k-A_l)/3.\label{aA}\ee

1127: This implies:

1128: \be {\partial a^\mu \over \partial A_k}={2\over 3}\sum_{j,l}K^\mu_j

1129: \epsilon_{jkl}={2\over 3}\sum_jK^\mu_j\epsilon_{jk}.\ee

1130: Here we use an  anti-symmetric $3\times 3$  tensor, $a_{jk}$, defined by:

1131: \be \epsilon_{ij}\equiv \sum_k\epsilon_{ijk}\ee

1132: with $\epsilon_{12}=\epsilon_{23}=\epsilon_{31}=1$.

1133: We may thus write:

1134: \begin{widetext}

1135: \begin{equation}

1136:   \frac{ \partial^2 \ln{Z}}{\partial A_j(\omega_n ) \,\partial A_k(\omega_n')}

1137:   = \frac{4}{9} \sum_{m,n,\mu,\nu}

1138:   \epsilon_{jm} \epsilon_{kn} K_m^{\mu} K_n^{\nu}

1139:  \; \frac{ \partial^2 \ln{Z}}{\partial a^{\mu}(\omega_n) \,\partial a^{\nu}

1140: (\omega_n')}.

1141: \label{eq:ZAA}

1142: \end{equation}

1143: The derivative on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:ZAA}) is proportional

1144: to the Coulomb gas correlation function. $\langle \rho_\mu (\omega_n)

1145: \rho_\nu (\omega_n')\rangle$ as we observed in Eq. (\ref{eq:Zaa}).

1146: 

1147: There are two simple limits of the DHM.  One is the case

1148: where the potential, $V$, is irrelevant. Then the correlators

1149: of the $X$-fields are determined by $S_0$:

1150: \be  \langle X^{\sigma}(-\omega_n )X^{\lambda}(-\omega_n ') \rangle 

1151: =(2\pi )^2 \delta (\omega_n +\omega_n')

1152: \;(D^{-1})^{\sigma \lambda}(-\omega_n ),\ee

1153: \end{widetext}

1154: and so the Coulomb gas correlation function vanishes. This corresponds

1155: to the limit of disconnected wires and zero conductance.

1156: The other simple limit  the corresponds to the potential, $V$,

1157: renormalizing to infinity and pinning the $X$ co-ordinates at one

1158: of its minima. The Coulomb gas correlation function is then

1159: given by the first term only in Eq. (\ref{eq:rrXX}).

1160: Thus,

1161: \be Z_{jk}(\omega_n)=

1162:  -\frac{4}{9} \sum_{m,n,\mu,\nu}

1163:   \epsilon_{jm} \epsilon_{kn} K_m^{\mu} K_n^{\nu}\;

1164: D_{\mu \nu}(-\omega_n)

1165: .\ee

1166: Using

1167:  this gives:

1168: \be Z_{jk}(\omega_n)={2\over 3}(3\delta_{jk}-1)\,\alpha \,|\omega_n|

1169: +{2\over \sqrt{3}}\beta \,\omega_n \,\epsilon_{jk}.\ee

1170: Thus, from Eq. (\ref{Zcond}), the dc conductivity is given by:

1171: \be G_{jk}={e^2\over h}\left[{2\over 3}(3\delta_{jk}-1)\,\alpha +

1172: {2\over \sqrt{3}}\,\beta\,

1173: \epsilon_{jk}\right] .\ee

1174: We have restored the factors of $e^2$ and $\hbar$ which we had previously set

1175: equal to one. The values of $\alpha,\beta$ for the chiral fixed points are

1176: obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:ndef}) with $n=1$ and $n=0$, and lead to the

1177: conductance tensor

1178: \begin{equation}

1179:   G_{jk}^{\pm} =\frac{e^2}{h}\;

1180: {2g\over (3+g^2)} [(3 \delta_{jk}  -1)

1181:          \pm g \,\epsilon_{jk}],

1182: \label{eq:GDGA}

1183: \end{equation}

1184: with $\pm$ corresponding to the fixed points $\chi_{\pm}$. It is interesting

1185: to check that the same result can be obtained by applying electric fields

1186: uniformly to the entire wire $j$, which we do in the next section, where we

1187: address the Y-junction problem using BCFT.

1188: 

1189: 

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: 

1194: 

1195: 

1196: