format: text

text:
# Long wavelength spatial oscillations of high frequency current noise in 1D electron systems

## I Introduction

Current noise in mesoscopic systems has become an attractive research area, because it contains information that cannot be extracted from the current-voltage characteristics alone blant00 . Most of the theoretical discussions about current noise in one-dimensional (1D) systems focus on the zero frequency shot noise, because it may provide insights into quantization of charge and statistics of charge carriers in a quantum wire. In earlier theoretical work non interacting (Fermi liquid) 1D systems were analyzed in the spirit of the Landauer-Büttiker scattering matrix formalism lesov89 ; butti90 ; butti92 ; marti92 . Short wavelength spatial oscillations of shot noise close to an impurity in the quantum wire were investigated by Gramespacher and Büttiker grame99  based on the assumption of non interacting charge carriers. More recently, shot noise of strongly correlated electron systems has been addressed using different algebraic techniques, such as for instance bosonization kane94 , the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz fendl95a , and refermionization chamo96 . It has been shown by different groups ponom99a ; trauz02  that due to the coupling of a strongly correlated (Luttinger liquid) electron system to noninteracting (Fermi liquid) electron reservoirs, the ideal Poisson shot noise is not renormalized by the interaction, as might have been expected from earlier theoretical work kane94 ; fendl95a ; chamo96 .

Most of the theoretical investigations on current noise calculate the finite frequency noise at the impurity site, so that spatial oscillations remain unnoticed. However, Lesovik lesov99  has calculated the current-current correlator $`I(t,x)I(t^{},x^{})`$, and therefore the integrand of the current noise given by Eq. (8) below, in the most general form ($`tt^{}`$, $`xx^{}`$), but he has only analyzed this correlator for the case of a clean quantum wire, where spatial oscillations of finite frequency current noise do not exist. How averaging over space affects the shot noise of a two- and three-terminal 1D system was investigated by Gavish, Levinson, and Imry gavis01 . Furthermore, the wave behavior of a high-frequency current through a double-barrier tunneling structure was studied numerically by Cai, Hu, and Lax cai91 . Although most of these works have investigated certain aspects of the spatial structure of the current noise, a discussion of the long wavelength spatial dependence of finite frequency noise is lacking. This will be done in this article.

The spatial dependence of the noise becomes important in the high frequency regime, because, apart from the length of the quantum wire, $`v_F/\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the noise frequency and $`v_F`$ the Fermi velocity, provides an additional length scale, which affects current noise measurements. Only for $`\omega 0`$ charge conservation implies a noise strength independent of the position, where it is measured. We will show that once $`\omega `$ is finite, the current noise exhibits long wavelength spatial oscillations, which depend on the noise frequency, the Fermi velocity, and the distance between the point of measurement and the impurity in the quantum wire. We first address non interacting systems with linear dispersion, where the origin of the spatial oscillations is easily seen. However, these noise oscillations are affected by band curvature and Coulomb interaction. A finite band curvature calculation shows that the spatial oscillations decay away from the impurity site and show a beating behavior. Coulomb interaction, which we take into account by describing the quantum wire as a Luttinger liquid (LL), suppresses the amplitude of the noise oscillations by a factor $`g`$ and modifies its wavelength. Here, $`g`$ is the LL interaction parameter ($`g<1`$ for repulsive interactions).

The article is organized as follows. In Chapter II we describe the general model of a quantum wire with an impurity. Then, in Chapter III we calculate the finite frequency noise with special emphasis on the noise oscillations. Chapter IV treats the influence of band curvature, and Chapter V the effect of Coulomb interaction on the spatial oscillations. Finally, we summarize our results and point out open problems in Chapter VI. Throughout this article we formally treat spin-polarized (single channel) quantum wires, but our findings apply generally to the case of electrons with spin. For non interacting electrons, the effect of spin on the noise is trivial, leading to an overall factor 2. The results in Chapter V for electrons with Coulomb interaction, are also only trivially affected by the inclusion of spin, again leading to an overall factor 2. This is due to the fact that we restrict the discussion in Chapter V to the spatial oscillations of the equilibrium noise in a half-open wire, where charge and spin field operators are decoupled halda81 .

## II General model

Non interacting electrons of mass $`m`$ moving along a quantum wire with a $`\delta `$-scatterer at $`x=0`$ are described by the Schrödinger equation

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta (x)\right)\psi (x)=E\psi (x),$$
(1)
where the scattering potential is $`V(x)=(\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/m)\delta (x)`$ with a scattering strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For all positive energies $`E_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, the eigenstates ($`k>0`$)

$$\psi _k(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{ikx}+r_ke^{ikx}& (x<0)\hfill \\ \hfill t_ke^{ikx}& (x>0)\hfill \end{array},$$
(2)
where $`L`$ is the length of the quantum wire, describe a wave incident from the left, commonly called right-mover, that is partially transmitted and partially reflected and solves Eq. (1) with a transmission amplitude

$$t_k=\frac{1}{1+i\mathrm{\Lambda }/k}.$$
(3)
Likewise, there is a solution ($`k>0`$)

$$\varphi _k(x)\psi _k(x)=\psi _k(x)$$

describing a wave incident from the right, a so called left-mover eigenstate. We apply a voltage $`U`$ to the ends of the quantum wire by connecting them adiabatically to external leads with chemical potentials $`\mu _L=E_F+eU`$ and $`\mu _R=E_F`$, where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy. Consequently, the states $`\psi _k(x)`$ are filled up to $`k=(k_F^2+2meU/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}`$, while the states $`\varphi _k(x)`$ are only filled up to $`k=k_F`$. If we assume a rather small applied voltage $`U`$ (compared to $`E_F`$), the transmission ($`t_k`$) and reflection amplitudes ($`r_k`$) do not vary much in the $`k`$-range $`[k_F,(k_F^2+2meU/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}]`$ and can effectively be replaced by constant values at the Fermi edge, $`t_{k_F}t`$ and $`r_{k_F}r`$.

In the second quantized form, the eigenstates (2) allow to expand the electron field operator

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=\underset{k>0}{}\left(a_k\psi _k(x)+b_k\varphi _k(x)\right)e^{(i/\mathrm{})E_kt}$$
(4)
where the operators $`a_k^{}`$ ($`b_k^{}`$) and $`a_k`$ ($`b_k`$) are Fermi creation and annihilation operators obeying the usual anticommutation relations. Then, in the grand canonical ensemble

$$\rho =\frac{e^{\beta _k\left[\left(E_k\mu _L\right)a_k^{}a_k+\left(E_k\mu _R\right)b_k^{}b_k\right]}}{\mathrm{tr}\left\{e^{\beta _k\left[\left(E_k\mu _L\right)a_k^{}a_k+\left(E_k\mu _R\right)b_k^{}b_k\right]}\right\}}$$

the expectation values of products of creation and annihilation operators read

$`a_{k_1}^{}a_{k_2}`$ $`=`$ $`f(k_1;U)\delta _{k_1k_2},`$
$`a_{k_1}^{}b_{k_2}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`b_{k_1}^{}b_{k_2}`$ $`=`$ $`f(k_1;0)\delta _{k_1k_2}`$
with the standard Fermi distribution function

$$f(k;U)=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}[\beta (E_k(E_F+eU))]},$$

where $`\beta ^1=k_BT`$. For future reference, we now briefly discuss the calculation of the current through a 1D non interacting quantum wire. Inserting the expansion (4) into the standard expression for the quantum mechanical current operator $`I(t,x)`$ yields

$`I(t,x)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2mi}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}e^{(i/\mathrm{})(E_kE_k^{})t}\times `$
$`\left(a_k^{}\psi _k^{}+b_k^{}\varphi _k^{}\right)\widehat{}\left(a_k^{}\psi _k^{}+b_k^{}\varphi _k^{}\right),`$ (5)
where the operator $`\widehat{}`$ is defined by $`A\widehat{}B=A(B)(A)B`$. Note, that in Eq. (II) and in the rest of the article all $`\psi _k`$’s and $`\varphi _k`$’s depend explicitly on $`x`$. Then, the expectation value of the current becomes

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2mi}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\times `$
$`\left(a_k^{}a_k\psi _k^{}\widehat{}\psi _k+b_k^{}b_k\varphi _k^{}\widehat{}\varphi _k\right).`$ (6)
If we now consider the quantum wire, say, on the right side of the impurity ($`x>0`$) we find

$`\psi _k^{}\widehat{}\psi _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i2k}{L}}|t|^2={\displaystyle \frac{i2k}{L}}𝒯,`$
$`\varphi _k^{}\widehat{}\varphi _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i2k}{L}}(1|r|^2)={\displaystyle \frac{i2k}{L}}(1).`$
Here, $`𝒯=|t|^2`$ is the transmission coefficient of the current flow through the barrier and $`=|r|^2=1𝒯`$ the reflection coefficient. Going over to the continuum limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$) and changing variables $`kE_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, the current reads

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}𝒯{\displaystyle 𝑑E_k\left(f(E_k;U)f(E_k;0)\right)}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}𝒯U.`$
This is the well-known Landauer formula for the current through a quantum wire. Without inelastic scattering in the wire, Eq. (7) holds for finite, but moderate temperatures and applied voltages ($`k_BT,eUE_F`$) datta95 .

## III Noise oscillations

The finite frequency current noise at position $`x`$ of the quantum wire is defined by the expression

$$P(\omega ,x)=𝑑te^{i\omega t}\{\mathrm{\Delta }I(t,x),\mathrm{\Delta }I(0,x)\}_+,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }I(t,x)=I(t,x)I`$ is the current fluctuation operator. Without loss of generality, we assume $`\omega >0`$ and $`x>0`$. Inserting the current operator (II) into the definition of the current noise (8), we find

$`P(\omega ,x)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4m\mathrm{}L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_4}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|k_1|}}\delta _{k_1,(k_2^22m\omega /\mathrm{})^{1/2}}\times `$
$`\left[(a_{k_1}^{}\psi _{k_1}^{}+b_{k_1}^{}\varphi _{k_1}^{})\widehat{}(a_{k_2}\psi _{k_2}+b_{k_2}\varphi _{k_2})\right]\times `$
$`\left[(a_{k_3}^{}\psi _{k_3}^{}+b_{k_3}^{}\varphi _{k_3}^{})\widehat{}(a_{k_4}\psi _{k_4}+b_{k_4}\varphi _{k_4})\right]_c`$
$`+\text{h.c.},`$ (9)
where the $`t`$-integration in Eq. (8) has already been carried out, and the symbol $`\mathrm{}_c`$ represents the connected expectation value. Exploiting Wick’s theorem, see e.g. Ref. mahan90, , we can only pair $`k_1=k_4=(k_2^22m\omega /\mathrm{})^{1/2}`$ and $`k_2=k_3`$. To simplify our notation, we set $`k_2=k`$ and define $`k_\omega (k^22m\omega /\mathrm{})^{1/2}`$. Then, the resulting expression for the current noise reads

$`P(\omega ,x)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4m\mathrm{}}}L{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|k_\omega |}}\times `$
$`\{f^{aa}(k,\omega )\left(\psi _{k_\omega }^{}\widehat{}\psi _k\right)\left(\psi _k^{}\widehat{}\psi _{k_\omega }\right)`$
$`+f^{bb}(k,\omega )\left(\varphi _{k_\omega }^{}\widehat{}\varphi _k\right)\left(\varphi _k^{}\widehat{}\varphi _{k_\omega }\right)`$
$`+f^{ab}(k,\omega )\left(\psi _{k_\omega }^{}\widehat{}\varphi _k\right)\left(\varphi _k^{}\widehat{}\psi _{k_\omega }\right)`$
$`+f^{ba}(k,\omega )\left(\varphi _{k_\omega }^{}\widehat{}\psi _k\right)\left(\psi _k^{}\widehat{}\varphi _{k_\omega }\right)\},`$ (10)
where we have introduced the short-hand notation

$`f^{\alpha \beta }(k,\omega )=`$
$`f^\alpha (k_\omega )(1f^\beta (k))+(1f^\alpha (k_\omega ))f^\beta (k)`$
with $`f^a=f(k;U)`$ and $`f^b=f(k;0)`$. In the remaining part of this section we assume a linear dispersion relation, which is justified for instance in single wall carbon nanotubes lemay01  and is also appropriate to cleaved edge overgrowth quantum wires ausla02  for small applied voltages $`U`$ and low temperatures $`T`$. In that case, the energy $`E_k`$ of the right-mover eigenstates may be replaced by $`\mathrm{}v_F(kk_F)`$ and analogously the energy of the left-mover eigenstates by $`\mathrm{}v_F(kk_F)`$. We then find for the finite frequency current noise ($`x>0`$) at zero temperature

$`P(\omega ,x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2e^2v_F}{(2m)^2}}\times `$
$`\{{\displaystyle \underset{eU/\mathrm{}v_F+k_F^{}}{\overset{eU/\mathrm{}v_F+k_F}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}(2k+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{v_F}})^2𝒯^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k_F^{}}{\overset{eU/\mathrm{}v_F+k_F}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}𝒜(k,\omega )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k_F^{}}{\overset{k_F}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}[(2k+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{v_F}})^2\times `$
$`(12\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\omega x}{v_F}}\right)+^2)+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{v_F}}\right)^2]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{}\omega eU){\displaystyle \underset{eU/\mathrm{}v_F+k_F^{}}{\overset{k_F}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}𝒜(k,\omega )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(eU\mathrm{}\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k_F}{\overset{eU/\mathrm{}v_F+k_F^{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}𝒜(k,\omega )\},`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside function, $`k_F^{}k_F\omega /v_F`$, and

$$𝒜(k,\omega )\left[\left(2k+\frac{\omega }{v_F}\right)^2𝒯+\left(\frac{\omega }{v_F}\right)^2𝒯\right].$$

Since we are interested in the current noise away from the impurity site, in Eq. (III) we have omitted all contributions of Eq. (III) containing factors of $`\mathrm{exp}[i2kx]`$, which decay like $`1/x`$ after doing the $`k`$-integrals in Eq. (III). The neglected $`\mathrm{exp}[i2kx]`$-terms lead to short wavelength noise oscillations having the same origin as the well-known Friedel oscillations fried58 . If we now integrate over $`k`$ in Eq. (III) we obtain for $`eU,\mathrm{}\omega E_F`$ the current noise

$`P(\omega ,x)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}\{(|eU+\mathrm{}\omega |+|eU\mathrm{}\omega |)𝒯`$
$`+\mathrm{}|\omega |(12\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\omega x}{v_F}}\right)+^2+𝒯^2)\}.`$
With $`\mathrm{cos}(2\omega x/v_F)1`$, Eq. (III) was derived earlier by Yang yang92 . However, this low frequency approximation is not appropriate to determine the finite frequency current noise far away from the impurity. Let us consider two limits of Eq. (III). For $`\omega =0`$, the shot noise $`P(0,x)=2(e^3/h)𝒯|U|`$ is independent of the point of measurement as it should be. On the other hand, the equilibrium noise for $`U=0`$ reads

$`P_0(\omega ,x)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi }}|\omega |\times `$
$`\left\{𝒯+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(12\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\omega x}{v_F}}\right)+^2+𝒯^2\right)\right\}.`$
As a consequence of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem butti93 , $`P_0(\omega ,x)`$ is related to the real (dissipative) part of the frequency-dependent conductance by

$$P_0(\omega ,x)=2\mathrm{}|\omega |\text{Re}[G(\omega ,x)].$$
(13)
Therefore, $`\text{Re}[G(\omega ,x)]`$ is an oscillating function of frequency with a period $`\pi v_F/x`$ and shows peaks with a maximum height of $`2e^2/h`$, only truly reached for $`=1`$. These findings are in agreement with the analysis by Blanter, Hekking, and Büttiker of the dynamic conductance of an interacting quantum wire capacitively coupled to a gate blant98 .

The appearance of the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\omega x/v_F)`$-term in Eq. (III) is the main result of this chapter. Note, that the noise oscillations with the long wavelength $`v_F/\pi \omega `$ have to be distinguished from the Friedel-type noise oscillations with the short wavelength $`\pi /k_F`$ discussed in Ref. \[grame99, \]. Evidently, for a very strong backscatterer ($`1`$) the oscillating part of Eq. (III) is most pronounced. Therefore, to further analyze the noise oscillations, we will focus on the situation of a half-open quantum wire ($`=1`$ at the boundary) in the following. Then, the shot noise contribution of Eq. (III) vanishes and the equilibrium finite frequency current noise is given by

$$P(\omega ,x)=2\frac{e^2}{h}\mathrm{}|\omega |\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\omega x}{v_F}\right)\right].$$
(14)
At the point $`x`$ of measurement of the current noise the incoming and the reflected current noise waves interfere, leading to a suppression or an enhancement of the measured noise depending on the time $`2x/v_F`$ an electron needs to return to the position $`x`$ after a reflection at $`x=0`$. Remarkably, the noise oscillations at zero temperature in Eq. (14) do not decay away from the open boundary – a situation certainly due to idealizations. To see if and how those noise oscillations survive in more realistic systems we explicitly treat finite band curvature and intrinsic electron-electron interaction in the next two chapters.

## IV Effect of band curvature

Band curvature of the dispersion relation of electrons induces a decay of the noise oscillations away from the scatterer. To investigate how fast these noise oscillations decay, we go back to Eq. (III), but keep only track of the non-vanishing terms for a half-open quantum wire, where $`=1`$ ($`𝒯=0`$). Again we neglect all ($`2k_Fx`$)-oscillating contributions. Then, we find the following expression for the current noise at zero temperature

$`P(\omega ,x)=`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}e^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_F^\omega }{\overset{k_F}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}k\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(2\left(k_\omega k\right)x\right)\right]`$ (15)
with $`k_F^\omega =(k_F^22m\omega /\mathrm{})^{1/2}`$ and $`k_\omega =(k^22m\omega /\mathrm{})^{1/2}`$. While the result for $`P(\omega ,x)/P_0`$ (with $`P_0=2(e^2/h)\mathrm{}|\omega |`$) derived in the previous section, see Eq. (14), only depends on a single dimensionless parameter, namely $`\omega x/v_F`$, in Eq. (IV) a second dimensionless parameter arises. This is $`E_0\mathrm{}\omega /E_F`$, where $`E_F=\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$. In the limit $`E_00`$ with $`\omega x/v_F`$ fixed, the full result (IV) reduces to Eq. (14), the result with linear dispersion. A simple expansion of Eq. (IV) in powers of $`E_0`$ does not capture the qualitive behavior of the full solution (IV), characterized by a decay and a beat of the noise oscillations as a function of $`\omega x/v_F`$ (see Fig. 1). Similarly, an asymptotic expansion for large $`\omega x/v_F`$, which could explain the decay, does not give any information about the interesting parameter regime $`\omega x/v_F[0,2\pi ]`$. To further analyze the behavior of Eq. (IV), we have expanded the lower boundary $`k_F^\omega `$ as well as $`k_\omega `$ in the integrand in powers of $`2m\omega /\mathrm{}k_F^2`$ and $`2m\omega /\mathrm{}k^2`$, respectively. This procedure is reasonable for $`\mathrm{}\omega E_F`$, because the integration variable $`k`$ only takes values close to $`k_F`$, $`k[k_F^\omega ,k_F]`$, and the integrand of Eq. (IV) is smooth for $`k`$ near $`k_F`$. Then, we can do the integration in Eq. (IV) easily and find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\omega ,x)}{P_0}}=`$
$`1{\displaystyle \frac{2v_F\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{E_0\omega x}{2v_F}\right)}{E_0\omega x}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\omega x}{v_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_0\omega x}{2v_F}}\right).`$ (16)
Evidently, Eqs. (IV) and (IV) both reduce to Eq. (14) in the limit $`E_00`$ with $`\omega x/v_F`$ fixed. Furthermore, Eqs. (IV) and (IV) show qualitatively the same oscillating behavior superimposed by a beat as a function of $`\omega x/v_F`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the noise deduced from Eqs. (14), (IV), and (IV) is plotted versus $`\omega x/v_F`$.

A comparison of the full solution (IV) and our simple model (IV) tells us that the amplitude of the oscillations of $`P(\omega ,x)`$ decays at least like $`v_F/E_0\omega x`$ away from the scatterer and reaches asymptotically the value $`P_0`$. Additionally, we also see that the phase of the noise oscillations is modified by band curvature effects.

## V Effect of Coulomb interaction

Now, we turn to the effect of Coulomb interaction on the noise oscillations. A half-open strongly interacting 1D electron system can most easily be described in the framework of open boundary bosonization fabri95 . Following closely the notation of Fabrizio and Gogolin fabri95  we set $`\mathrm{}1`$ in this section, except for the final result. Then, the full Hamiltonian of the system reads

$$H=H_0+H_I$$
(17)
with the kinetic contribution

$$H_0=_L^0𝑑x\psi ^{}(x)ϵ(i_x)\psi (x)$$
(18)
and the electron-electron interaction contribution

$$H_I=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x𝑑y\psi ^{}(x)\psi ^{}(y)U(xy)\psi (y)\psi (x),$$
(19)
where $`ϵ(k)`$ is the dispersion relation of the 1D band, and $`\psi (x)`$ is the electron annihilation operator obeying the open boundary conditions

$$\psi (L)=\psi (0)=0.$$
(20)
To simplify the full Hamiltonian (17), Fabrizio and Gogolin have bosonized the fermionic operators in Eqs. (18) and (19) assuming a linear dispersion relation. The $`\psi `$ operator can be written down in terms of right and left moving fields

$$\psi (x)=e^{ik_Fx}\psi _R(x)+e^{ik_Fx}\psi _L(x).$$

Due to the boundary conditions (20) these fields are not independent, but satisfy by their definition fabri95

$$\psi _L(x)=\psi _R(x).$$

Therefore, all electron operators in the framework of open boundary bosonization can be expressed in terms of e.g. right moving fields only, living in the parameter space $`x[L,L]`$. In the usual way, the interacting electron field $`\psi _R(x,t)`$ can be bosonized with the help of a free boson field $`\varphi (x,t)`$

$$\psi _R(x,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a_0}}e^{i\varphi (x,t)/\sqrt{g}}.$$
(21)
Here, $`a_0`$ is the lattice constant of the underlying lattice model and $`g`$ is the LL interaction parameter, which is related to the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{U}(k0)`$ of the interaction potential $`U(xy)`$ in Eq. (19) halda81 . Then, $`0<g<1`$ for repulsive interactions and $`g1`$ in the noninteracting limit. In the next step, the field $`\varphi (x,t)`$ may be expanded in terms of boson creation $`b_q^{}`$ and annihilation $`b_q`$ operators, yielding

$$\varphi _R(x,t)=\underset{q>0}{}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{qL}}\left[e^{iq(xvt)}b_q+e^{iq(xvt)}b_q^{}\right]e^{a_0q/2}.$$
(22)
In that representation the momentum of the system takes quantized values $`q=\pi n/L`$. With the approximations of linear dispersion and short range interactions made, the bosonic Hamiltonian of the full interacting fermion systems, Eq. (17), takes a very simple form fabri95

$$H_b=v\underset{q>0}{}qb_q^{}b_q,$$
(23)
where $`v=v_F/g`$ is the renormalized sound velocity.

In terms of the bosonic field the electron density of right- and left-moving excitations reads

$$\rho _{R/L}(x,t)=\frac{k_F}{\pi }+\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{g}}_x\varphi (\pm x,t).$$

This allows us to write a bosonic form of the current operator

$$I(x,t)=\frac{ev_F}{2\pi \sqrt{g}}\left(_x\varphi (x,t)_x\varphi (x,t)\right),$$
(24)
which we combine with Eq. (8) to compute the current noise

$`P(\omega ,x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ev_F}{2\pi \sqrt{g}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle }dte^{i\omega t}\times `$ (25)
$`_x\{\varphi (x,t)\varphi (x,t),\varphi (x,0)\varphi (x,0)\}_+.`$
To proceed, we need to calculate the bosonic correlation function with respect to the groundstate of the Hamiltonian (23). At zero temperature, a straightforward calculation for large system size $`L`$ yields

$$\varphi (x,t)\varphi (x^{},0)=\mathrm{ln}\left(i\frac{\pi }{L}(xx^{}vt+ia_0)\right).$$
(26)
In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ this may be inserted into the expression (25) for the current noise to give

$`P(\omega ,x)={\displaystyle \frac{ge^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }dte^{i\omega t}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{(tia_0/v)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2x/vt+ia_0/v)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2x/v+tia_0/v)^2}}).`$ (27)
Doing the integral and then sending $`a_00`$, the final result reads

$$P(\omega ,x)=2g\frac{e^2}{h}\mathrm{}|\omega |\left(1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\omega g|x|}{v_F}\right)\right),$$
(28)
where we have re-introduced $`\mathrm{}`$. A comparison of Eqs. (14), (IV), and (28) shows, that unlike band curvature short range electron-electron interaction with a linear dispersion does not lead to a decay of the noise oscillations, but instead suppresses the amplitude by a factor $`g`$ and increases the wavelength of the oscillations by a factor $`1/g`$. This shows that the noise oscillations are also present in an interacting quantum wire with finite $`g`$. Only for very strong interactions ($`g0`$) the noise oscillations will vanish. That the noise oscillations survive in the presence of Coulomb interaction can be understood as a consequence of the lack of strict electroneutrality in a LL. In the presence of gates that screen the long range part of the Coulomb interaction, only the part $`(1g^2)Q`$ of a charge $`Q`$ on the quantum wire is screened internally, the remaining part $`g^2Q`$ being compensated by the nearby gates eggra97 . Therefore, if $`g>0`$, which is the typical experimental situation, the quantum wire can become charged and exhibit the spatial noise oscillations (28).

## VI Conclusions

To summarize, first, we have studied the finite frequency current noise of a non interacting quantum wire with an impurity. In the equilibrium part of the finite frequency current noise, which is related to the real part of the dynamic conductance by means of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, we have found long wavelength spatial oscillations, which can be explained by simple quantum mechanical wave dynamics. Those oscillations are absent in the shot noise limit ($`\omega 0`$) as well as the ballistic limit ($`𝒯1`$). The oscillations are most pronounced for a half-open quantum wire, where the boundary can be regarded as a very strong backscatterer. We have shown that finite band curvature leads to a moderate decay of the noise oscillations. The strength of this decay is proportional to $`E_0\mathrm{}\omega /E_F`$, where small $`E_0`$ means weak decay. Furthermore, we have discussed the noise oscillations in strongly interacting half-open 1D systems using the LL model. We have found that the amplitude of the spatial oscillations decreases with increasing electron-electron interaction, while the wavelength of the oscillations is enhanced by the LL interaction parameter. Finally, we remark that all results for the current noise derived here were obtained in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ of a very long quantum wire and thus only hold for frequencies $`\omega `$ above $`v_F/L`$. To treat frequencies below $`v_F/L`$, a finite $`L`$ calculation has to be carried out. Then, in particular for the case of interacting electrons in the quantum wire, the (non interacting) external reservoirs must explicitly be taken into account maslov .

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank M. Büttiker, M. Devoret, R. Egger, U. Gavish, Y. Imry, and A. Komnik for valuable discussions. This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under Grant No. GR 638/19.


text:
# Precise study of three-nucleon systems within a representation without explicit use of the isospin formalism

## 1 Introduction

Noticeable progress in precise calculations of the few-nucleon binding energies within variational approaches  stimulates the further development of optimal variational schemes and their possible refinement in order to achieve higher precision in calculations  of the main structural characteristics of the bound states of few-nucleon nuclei. The progress in this field enables one to obtain ”exact” results for various structural characteristics of the systems and to put forward the problem of precise fitting of the nucleon-nucleon potentials universal for all the light nuclei, as well as to carry out accurate variational calculations for heavier nuclei.

The achievement of a high accuracy in calculations of a few-particle quantum system is restricted both by the number of particles and the number of the wave function spatial components. At the first stage of studies of a simple qualitative type, rather rough assumptions were used about nuclear interaction potentials and the wave function spin structure (see ), thus an account of all the wave function spatial components was considered to be not necessary. But precise calculations with controlled accuracy need to take into account all the factors contributing to the result of a given accuracy. Such a statement of the problem is faced with rather nontrivial difficulties even for comparatively simple three- and four-nucleon systems. In the standard commonly used scheme with the use of the isospin formalism, an additional symmetry of the wave function and the mixture of states with different total isospins due to a consistent account of the Coulomb interaction lead to the essential growth of the number of spatial components of the wave function and thus to a serious complication of calculations. As a result, to find the total wave function of the 3He nucleus in the framework of the isospin formalism, one has to solve a system of six spatial equations, while in the case of 4He nucleus one has already to deal with twelve equations.

Here, we present our approach proposed in  without explicit use of the isospin representation and, using the example of three-nucleon systems, show the complete equivalence of such a more convenient approach to the traditional isospin formalism. It is shown for the wave functions in both approaches to be connected by certain relations, while all the physical observables calculated within both approaches are shown to coincide. The obtained much more simple systems of equations for the spatial components of the wave finctions of three nucleons in the bound state or scattering process (in the doublet or quartet spin states) enabled us to carry out precise calculations for three-nucleon nuclei and to analyze their structure.

## 2 Equivalence of the representations with and without isospin

In order to show the complete equivalence of the representation without explicit use of isospin (protons are not identical to neutrons) to the traditional isospin formalism, we recall the explicit form of equations for the three-nucleon system ($`2p,n`$) within the isospin formalism with common assumptions about the central exchange nuclear two-particle potential and the Coulomb interaction between protons. In bound state (3He nucleus), the system ($`2p,n`$) has spin $`S=1/2`$ and the isospin projection $`T_3=1/2`$, being in a mixed isospin state ($`T=1/2`$ and $`T=3/2`$). Thus, the total antisymmetric wave function can be represented in terms of standard spin-isospin functions and consists of six spatial components:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^a=\psi ^s\xi ^a+(\psi ^{}\xi ^{\prime \prime }\psi ^{\prime \prime }\xi ^{})+\psi ^a\xi ^s+(\phi ^{}\zeta ^{\prime \prime }\phi ^{\prime \prime }\zeta ^{})\chi _{3/2}.$$
(1)
After projecting the Schrödinger equation onto the basic spin-isospin functions, one has the system of six equations for the spatial components of the wave function:

$`\left[\widehat{K}E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{31}^s+U_{13}^s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_c^s\right]\psi ^s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(U_{31}^{}U_{13}^{}\right)\psi ^{}+\left(U_{31}^{\prime \prime }U_{13}^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi ^{\prime \prime }\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\psi ^{}+U_c^{\prime \prime }\psi ^{\prime \prime }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\phi ^{}+U_c^{\prime \prime }\phi ^{\prime \prime }\right)=0,`$
$`\left[\widehat{K}E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(U_{33}^s+U_{31}^s+U_{13}^s+U_{11}^s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_c^s\right]\psi ^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\left(U_{33}^{}U_{31}^{}U_{13}^{}+U_{11}^{}\right)\psi ^{\prime \prime }+\left(U_{33}^{\prime \prime }U_{31}^{\prime \prime }U_{13}^{\prime \prime }+U_{11}^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi ^{}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{31}^{}U_{13}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}U_c^{}\right)\psi ^s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{33}^{\prime \prime }U_{11}^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}U_c^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{\prime \prime }\phi ^{}+U_c^{}\phi ^{\prime \prime }\right)=0,`$
$`\left[\widehat{K}E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(U_{33}^s+U_{31}^s+U_{13}^s+U_{11}^s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_c^s\right]\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\left(U_{33}^{}U_{31}^{}U_{13}^{}+U_{11}^{}\right)\psi ^{}\left(U_{33}^{\prime \prime }U_{31}^{\prime \prime }U_{13}^{\prime \prime }+U_{11}^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi ^{\prime \prime }\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{31}^{\prime \prime }U_{13}^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}U_c^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi ^s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{33}^{}U_{11}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}U_c^{}\right)\psi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\phi ^{}U_c^{\prime \prime }\phi ^{\prime \prime }\right)=0,`$
$`\left[\widehat{K}E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{33}^s+U_{11}^s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_c^s\right]\psi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(U_{33}^{\prime \prime }U_{11}^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi ^{}\left(U_{33}^{}U_{11}^{}\right)\psi ^{\prime \prime }\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\psi ^{\prime \prime }U_c^{\prime \prime }\psi ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\phi ^{\prime \prime }U_c^{\prime \prime }\phi ^{}\right)=0,`$
$`\left[\widehat{K}E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{13}^s+U_{33}^s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_c^s\right]\phi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(U_{13}^{}U_{33}^{}\right)\phi ^{\prime \prime }+\left(U_{13}^{\prime \prime }U_{33}^{\prime \prime }\right)\phi ^{}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\psi ^{\prime \prime }+U_c^{\prime \prime }\psi ^{}+U_c^{}\psi ^sU_c^{\prime \prime }\psi ^a\right)=0,`$
$`\left[\widehat{K}E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(U_{13}^s+U_{33}^s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_c^s\right]\phi ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(U_{13}^{}U_{33}^{}\right)\phi ^{}\left(U_{13}^{\prime \prime }U_{33}^{\prime \prime }\right)\phi ^{\prime \prime }\right]`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(U_c^{}\psi ^{}U_c^{\prime \prime }\psi ^{\prime \prime }+U_c^{\prime \prime }\psi ^s+U_c^{}\psi ^a\right)=0,`$
where $`\widehat{K}`$ is the kinetic energy of three nucleons and

$$U^s=V(r_{12})+V(r_{13})+V(r_{23}),U^{}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(V(r_{13})+V(r_{23})),U^{\prime \prime }=V(r_{12})+\frac{1}{2}(V(r_{13})+V(r_{23}))$$
(3)
are the combinations of spatial components of the potentials (both nuclear and Coulomb ones) with a certain symmetry with respect to permutations of nucleons. The last two equations in (2) are present due to the mixing of different isospin states by Coulomb interaction. If we set $`U_c=0`$ in (2), we get the standard system of four equations  for 3He nucleus in both the spin ($`S=1/2`$) and isospin ($`T=1/2`$) doublet states, as well as a separate system of two equations for the three-nucleon system with $`S=1/2`$ and $`T=3/2`$.

The system of six spatial equations (2) is the basic one for studying the 3He nucleus (as well as the scattering and reactions in the system ($`2p,n`$) ) within the isospin formalism. In practice, however, precise calculations with the use of (2) have some difficulties because of a considerable number of equations. We reformulate the problem in an equivalent form using the fact that the reason for an increase in the number of equations in the few-nucleon problem is the additional antisymmetrization of wave functions (the generalized Pauli principle for nucleons) connected with the introduction of isospin for treating a proton and a neutron as an isotopic doublet. It appears that not all the spatial components of the wave function in (1) are independent, and Eqs. (2) contain an implicit relation between them. The analysis of system (2) shows that it is suitable to introduce six new components $`\varphi _1^{},`$ $`\varphi _2^{},`$ $`\varphi _3^{},`$ $`\varphi _1^{\prime \prime },`$ $`\varphi _2^{\prime \prime },`$ $`\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }`$ instead of $`\psi ^s,\psi ^{},\psi ^{\prime \prime },\psi ^a,\phi ^{},\phi ^{\prime \prime }`$

:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^{}\\ \\ \varphi _2^{}\\ \\ \varphi _3^{}\\ \\ \varphi _1^{\prime \prime }\\ \\ \varphi _2^{\prime \prime }\\ \\ \varphi _3^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{2}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ & & & & & \\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{2}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ & & & & & \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ & & & & & \\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0\\ & & & & & \\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0\\ & & & & & \\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^s\\ \\ \psi ^{}\\ \\ \psi ^{\prime \prime }\\ \\ \psi ^a\\ \\ \phi ^{}\\ \\ \phi ^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ .\end{array}$$
(4)
Then, as a result of the unitary (orthogonal) transformation, we get a new form of system (2) with only two explicitly independent equations from the set of six ones. Respectively, only two spatial components of the wave function are independent, the rest being expressible through these two ones with the account of the permutations of coordinates:

$$\varphi _1^{}\left(123\right)=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _3^{}\left(321\right)+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }\left(321\right),\varphi _1^{\prime \prime }\left(123\right)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\varphi _3^{}\left(321\right)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }\left(321\right),$$

$$\varphi _2^{}\left(123\right)=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _3^{}\left(132\right)\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }\left(132\right),\varphi _2^{\prime \prime }\left(123\right)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\varphi _3^{}\left(132\right)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }\left(132\right).$$
(5)
We note an important fact that the unitary transformation (2) is of universal form and does not depend on the specific form of interaction potentials but only on the spin-isospin symmetry in (1), (2). To find all the wave function components and to obtain the total antisymmetric function (1) for the system ($`2p,n`$), it is sufficient to solve the system of only two equations (instead of six ones) for two independent components $`\varphi _3^{}`$ and $`\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }`$ (further we introduce notations $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\varphi _3^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2\varphi _3^{\prime \prime }`$).

On the other hand, the same functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ can be found directly from the system of two equations formulated in an equivalent representation which does not use the notion of isospin and treats a proton and a neutron as different particles. In this case, the total antisymmetric (in protons) function of the system ($`2p,n`$) with total spin $`S=1/2`$ looks as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(p_1,p_2,n_3)=\zeta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(p_1,p_2,n_3)+\zeta ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p_1,p_2,n_3),$$
(6)
where $`\zeta ^{}`$ and $`\zeta ^{\prime \prime }`$ are the two known components of the spin function of three nucleons with total spin $`S=1/2`$. The spatial function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(p_1,p_2,n_3)`$ is symmetric, while $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p_1,p_2,n_3)`$ is antisymmetric with respect to permutations of identical protons. Within the representation free from the notion of isospin, the system of equations for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ has the following form:

$`\left[\widehat{K}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r_{12}}}+V_{s\left(pp\right)}^+\left(r_{12}\right)E\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(123\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij=13,23}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{+,}{}}\left[3V_{t\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)+V_{s\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)\right]\left[1\pm P\left(ij\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(123\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij=13,23}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{+,}{}}\left(1\right)^{i+j}\left[V_{s\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)V_{t\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)\right]\left[1\pm P\left(ij\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_2\left(123\right)=0,`$
$`\left[\widehat{K}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r_{12}}}+V_{t\left(pp\right)}^{}\left(r_{12}\right)E\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_2\left(123\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij=13,23}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{+,}{}}\left[V_{t\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)+3V_{s\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)\right]\left[1\pm P\left(ij\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_2\left(123\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij=13,23}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{+,}{}}\left(1\right)^{i+j}\left[V_{s\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)V_{t\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)\right]\left[1\pm P\left(ij\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(123\right)=0.`$ (7)
In the system of equations (7) for 3He nucleus, we take into account the dependence of charge-dependent nuclear potentials on spin and parity in the orbital momentum of nucleon pairs. In the case of 3H nucleus consisting of two neutrons and one proton with the total spin $`S=1/2`$, one has also Eqs. (7), but with exchanged indices $`np`$ and without the Coulomb potential. Thus, Eqs. (7) completely determine the properties of three nucleons in the doublet spin state ($`S=1/2`$) both in the bound states and scattering processes.

The proposed approach is also applicable to the system of three nucleons in the quartet state ($`S=3/2`$). All the properties of the system are determined in this case by only the triplet charge-dependent nuclear interaction potentials, and it is necessary to solve only one equation to find the spatial component of the wave function (the spin function of three nucleons is one-component in this case, and the spatial function of the system ($`2p,n`$) is antisymmetric with respect to permutations of the two protons). The equation looks as follows:

$$\left[\widehat{K}+\frac{e^2}{r_{12}}+V_{t\left(pp\right)}^{}\left(r_{12}\right)E\right]\mathrm{\Phi }\left(123\right)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij=13,23}{}\underset{+,}{}V_{t\left(np\right)}^\pm \left(r_{ij}\right)\left[1\pm P\left(ij\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }\left(123\right)=0.$$
(8)
It should be noticed that the complete equivalence of the systems with different numbers of equations in different representations does not seem to be a miracle if one rewrites the nuclear interaction operator in an equivalent form in terms of the Majorana exchange operator without explicit introduction of isospin operators. It follows from the general form of the central exchange interaction potentials presented in terms of the Majorana exchange operators that the transition to the equivalent representation without use of the isospin formalism is also possible for heavier nuclei and is reasonable for simplifying numerical calculations without any approximations.

## 3 Results of calculations

To study the properties of three-nucleon systems using the system of Eqs. (7), we develop an optimal variational scheme  with the use of a Gaussian basis. Precise calculations are carried out for the basic characteristics of the bound states of 3H and 3He nuclei for various nuclear interaction potentials. Table 1 contains the results of calculation of the binding energies $`B=E_0`$ and r.m.s. radii for the Afnan-Tang (ATS3) and Minnesota potentials ($`\mathrm{}^2/M=41.47`$ $`MeV`$ $`fm^2`$ in calculations with equal masses of a proton and a neutron, the Coulomb parameter being $`e^2=1.44`$ $`MeV`$ $`fm`$, and the parameters of potentials are taken from ). The more realistic Afnan-Tang potential with interaction only in even orbital states is denoted by AT-(S3)+. The results for energies and radii are given with the accuracy of one unit in the last digit with high probability (the exact results for the binding energies are slightly greater, but within not more than $`1`$ $`KeV`$).

High accuracy of the calculations and the convergence of the results with spreading the variational basis are obtained with the use of a comparatively small number of basis functions (about 60-100 ones for both the symmetric $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$and antisymmetric $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ functions). It is found that the optimal way to achieve a given accuracy is to take into account about three times more Gaussian components for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ than those for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. Due to the approach based on system (7) without explicit use of isospin, our numerical results are of higher precision than the known Varga-Suzuki ones , although we used a less number of Gaussian variational basis functions.

The greater the difference between the triplet and singlet interaction potentials and the greater the short-range repulsion, the more essential is the difference between the energies calculated exactly and those obtained in the spinless approximation. The complete calculation of energies with account of the difference in the neutron and proton masses ($`M_pM_n`$) shows the binding energy of 3H to increase a little and that of 3He to slightly decrease, while r.m.s. radii are practically unchangeable. For all used interaction potentials, the proton, neutron, and mass r.m.s. radii indicate the distinct specific structures of 3H and 3He nuclei. Namely, the proton radius in the 3H nucleus is essentially smaller than the neutron one (something like the neutron ”halo”), while the 3He nucleus reveals the inverse pattern (the proton ”halo”). The explanation of this effect lies in the fact that the attraction of a pair of nucleons in the singlet state is weaker than that in the triplet one.

The obtained wave functions, having a suitable Gaussian representation, enabled us to calculate the main structure functions of the three-nucleon nuclei for various nuclear potentials. Fig. 1 presents the proton density distribution $`\rho _p(r)`$ as well as the neutron one $`\rho _n(r)`$ for a 3H nucleus in the case of the AT-(S3)+ potential (the nucleons are considered to be point-like particles). The peripheral neutron ”halo” effect is seen distinctly due to the neutron density distribution being somewhat more long-range than the proton one (see also the r.m.s. radii in Table 1). At the same time, the proton density is essentially higher than the neutron one at the center of the nucleus. We have almost the same density distributions for the 3He nucleus (even from the quantitative point of view), but with the exchanged protons and neutrons $`pn`$. The main reason for such a regularity lies in the difference between the interactions in triplet and singlet states, while the Coulomb repulsion plays a negligible role. Fig. 2 shows the charge formfactors for 3H and 3He nuclei calculated with the same potential. Note that the formfactor profile of 3He falls down already at small $`q^2`$ more rapidly as compared to that of 3H, due to the greater radius of the proton density distribution in 3He as compared with that in 3H. And the formfactor of 3He changes its sign at smaller $`q^2`$ (experimental value $`q_{min,exp}^2=11.6`$ $`fm^2`$ for 3He) because of the essential role of short-range correlations between the protons. Fig. 3 presents the pair correlation functions of the 3H nucleus both for the pair of neutrons ( $`g_{2,nn}(r)`$) and for the neutron-proton pair ( $`g_{2,np}(r)`$) in the case of the AT-(S3)+ potential. A noticeable difference between them is connected with a difference in the interactions in triplet and singlet states, and with the fact that, in the 3H nucleus, the proton and a neutron interact mainly in the triplet state, while the two neutrons do in the singlet one. For comparison, we give also the deuteron wave function squared in the same figure for the same interaction potential (i.e., the pair correlation function of two nucleons in the triplet state; see the curve $`(np)_D`$ in Fig.3) . The high accuracy of the known approximation based on two-particle correlation functions for the few-nucleon nuclei is confirmed once again.

All the main conclusions are also valid for the Minnesota potential, in particular, those about the above-mentioned likeness of pair correlation functions of three- and two-particle systems. Moreover, for the both considered potentials, the pair correlation functions of 3H are similar to those of 3He (with the account of the substitution $`np`$ like for density distributions). The structure of the nuclei is determined mainly by the triplet and singlet interaction potentials, while the role of the Coulomb interaction is small and leads to a little and almost proportional expansion of the 3He nucleus in comparison with 3H. But, in the case of the Minnesota potential having essentially less short-range repulsion than the AT-(S3)+ one, the dips in the formfactors of 3H and 3He nuclei occur at greater $`q^2`$, and the pair correlation functions have an essentially less decrease at short distances.

## 4 Conclusions

Thus, using the example of three-nucleon systems with central interaction potentials, we show the complete equivalence of the isospin formalism (with the total wave function being antisymmetric in the space of spin, isospin, and coordinate variables) and the proposed representation without explicit use of isospin (with the total wave function being antisymmetric in identical nucleons in spin and spatial coordinate variables). The obtained equations in the representation without use of isospin are unitary equivalent to the standard approach using the isospin representation.

The proposed approach is much more suitable (due to the small number of spatial equations that is determined by the dimension of a spin Young scheme) and enables one to carry out a precise study (with given accuracy) of three-nucleon systems in the bound states or scattering processes with various central nuclear interaction potentials. Using certain optimization schemes for the variational method with Gaussian basis, we carried out the precise calculations of the bound states of three nucleons with several nucleon-nucleon interaction potentials. The results are of higher precision than those available in the literature. Density distributions, formfactors, and pair correlation functions are calculated as well.

The advantages of the proposed approach can reveal themselves in precise calculations of systems of four nucleons (when the total spin $`S=0`$, there are two equations for spatial components), five nucleons (there are five equations at $`S=1/2`$), and, perhaps, of six-nucleon systems (five equations for spatial components in the both cases of 6He and 6Li nuclei). The developed approach opens a real possibility to construct the realistic potentials describing completely, with reasonable accuracy, the main low-energy parameters of few-nucleon systems.

Figure captions

Fig.1

Profiles of proton and neutron density distributions for 3H nucleus (for the AT-(S3)+ interaction potential). Curves (1), (2) depict $`\rho (r)`$, while curves (3), (4) show $`r^2\rho (r)`$.

Fig.2

Charge formfactors for 3H and 3He nuclei (for the AT-(S3)+ interaction potential).

Fig.3

Pair correlation functions $`g_{2,np}(r)`$ and $`g_{2,nn}(r)`$ for 3H nucleus (for the AT-(S3)+ interaction potential). For comparison, the pair correlation function $`g_{2,pp}(r)`$ for 3He and the deuteron wave function squared are shown.

Table 1

Calculated binding energies $`B=E_0`$ ($`MeV`$) and r.m.s. radii ($`fm`$) for 3H and 3He nuclei. $`R_p`$, $`R_n`$, $`R_m`$ are the proton, neutron, and mass density distribution radii, respectively. (Experimental values: $`E_0=8.481`$ $`MeV`$ and $`R_p=1.57`$ $`fm`$ for 3H; $`E_0=7.716`$ $`MeV`$ and $`R_p=1.70`$ $`fm`$ for 3He).

|  |  |  | $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ |  |  | $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`AT(S3)^+`$ | $`ATS3`$ | $`Minnesota`$ | $`AT(S3)^+`$ | $`ATS3`$ | $`Minnesota`$ |
|  | $`E_0`$ | $`6.699`$ | $`6.699`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6.896}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5.998}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5.998}`$ | $`6.165`$ |
| spinless approx. | $`R_p`$ | $`1.738`$ | $`1.738`$ | $`1.730`$ | $`1.772`$ | $`1.772`$ | $`1.766`$ |
|  | $`R_n`$ | $`1.738`$ | $`1.738`$ | $`1.730`$ | $`1.756`$ | $`1.756`$ | $`1.750`$ |
|  | $`R_m`$ | $`1.738`$ | $`1.738`$ | $`1.730`$ | $`1.766`$ | $`1.766`$ | $`1.760`$ |
|  | $`E_0`$ | $`7.491`$ | $`7.616`$ | $`7.561`$ | $`6.833`$ | $`6.963`$ | $`6.882`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0`$ | $`R_p`$ | $`1.614`$ | $`1.591`$ | $`1.613`$ | $`1.790`$ | $`1.784`$ | $`1.796`$ |
|  | $`R_n`$ | $`1.758`$ | $`1.753`$ | $`1.761`$ | $`1.632`$ | $`1.608`$ | $`1.632`$ |
|  | $`R_m`$ | $`1.712`$ | $`1.701`$ | $`1.713`$ | $`1.739`$ | $`1.727`$ | $`1.743`$ |
|  | $`E_0`$ | $`8.491`$ | $`8.765`$ | $`8.386`$ | $`7.833`$ | $`8.110`$ | $`7.711`$ |
| total | $`R_p`$ | $`1.576`$ | $`1.546`$ | $`1.586`$ | $`1.780`$ | $`1.763`$ | $`1.798`$ |
|  | $`R_n`$ | $`1.749`$ | $`1.733`$ | $`1.763`$ | $`1.593`$ | $`1.560`$ | $`1.605`$ |
|  | $`R_m`$ | $`1.693`$ | $`1.673`$ | $`1.706`$ | $`1.720`$ | $`1.698`$ | $`1.736`$ |
|  | $`E_0`$ | $`8.495`$ | $`8.769`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8.389}`$ | $`7.826`$ | $`8.103`$ | $`7.706`$ |
| total$`(M_pM_n)`$ | $`R_p`$ | $`1.576`$ | $`1.546`$ | $`1.586`$ | $`1.781`$ | $`1.764`$ | $`1.799`$ |
|  | $`R_n`$ | $`1.748`$ | $`1.733`$ | $`1.762`$ | $`1.593`$ | $`1.561`$ | $`1.605`$ |
|  | $`R_m`$ | $`1.693`$ | $`1.673`$ | $`1.705`$ | $`1.721`$ | $`1.699`$ | $`1.736`$ |
|  | $`E_0`$ | $``$ | $`8.753`$ | $`8.380`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ |
|  | $`R_m`$ | $``$ | $`1.67`$ | $`1.698`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ |


text:
# Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers

## Abstract

We study the anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers by employing the powers of renormalized field theory. Using general arguments of symmetry and relevance, we introduce a minimal Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson elastic energy for nematic elastomers. Performing a diagrammatic low temperature expansion, we analyze the fluctuations of the displacement fields at and below the upper critical dimension 3. Our analysis reveals an anomaly of certain elastic moduli in the sense that they depend on the length scale. In $`d=3`$ this dependence is logarithmic and below $`d=3`$ it is of power law type with anomalous scaling exponents. One of the 4 relevant shear moduli vanishes at long length scales whereas the only relevant bending modulus diverges.

Nematic elastomers FinKoc81 ; WarTer96 ; Lubensky&Co\_2001  are elastic media with the macroscopic symmetry properties of nematic liquid crystals deGennesProst93\_Chandrasekhar92 . In addition to the degrees of freedom of ordinary elastomeric materials, liquid-crystalline elastomers possess an internal, orientational degree of freedom. For moderate crosslinking, the existence of the rubbery network has apparently little impact on the liquid crystalline phase behavior. However, because liquid-crystalline elastomers cannot flow, they have mechanical properties that differ significantly from standard liquid crystals.

Nematic elastomers have unique properties that make them candidates for device applications. Temperature change kuepfer\_finkelmann\_94  or illumination finkelmann\_etal\_01  can change the orientational order and cause the elastomer to extend or contract as much as $`400\%`$ FinWer00 . This qualifies nematic elastomers as contestants for use in artificial muscles hebert ; ratna . Moreover, nematic elastomers display a soft elasticity golubovic\_lubensky\_89 ; FinKun97\_VerWar96\_War99  characterized by vanishing shear stresses for a range of longitudinal strains applied perpendicular to the uniaxial direction.

The elastic energy of nematic elastomers was first studied by Golubović and Lubensky (GL) golubovic\_lubensky\_89 . Normally, the elastic energy of a uniaxial elastic medium features five independent elastic constants. However, when a nematic elastomer is synthesized by crosslinking in the isotropic phase, the uniaxial state arises from a spontaneous symmetry breaking at the isotropic to nematic transition. This has the important consequence that the elastic constant associated with shears in the plane containing the anisotropy axis vanishes. The work of GL indicated that the upper critical dimension $`d_c`$ for nematic elastomers is 3 or 5 in the absence or presence of random stresses, respectively. In each case, one can expect anomalous elasticity at or below the respective $`d_c`$ due to Grinstein-Pelcovits grinstein\_pelcovits\_81\_82  type renormalizations of the remaining elastic constants. Here, we study the anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers without random stresses by using the powerful methods of field theory amit\_zinn-justin  augmented by a renormalization group (RG) analysis. Our aim is to derive the anomalous scale dependence of the elastic moduli in and below 3 dimensions. Parallel to our work, Xing and Radzihovsky independently studied nematic elastomers without xing\_radzihovsky0  and with xing\_radzihovsky  random stresses. Though obtained by an entirely different formalism their final results xing\_radzihovsky0  completely agree with ours.

For our discussion, we first must devise an appropriate minimal model for nematic elastomers in form of a field theoretic Hamiltonian. Following GL, we use the Lagrangian formulation of elasticity landau\_lifshitz\_elasticity\_chaikin\_lubensky . In this formulation the mass points of the equilibrium undistorted medium are labeled by their position vectors $`𝐱`$ in $`d`$-dimensional (reference) space. When the medium is distorted, a mass point originally at $`𝐱`$ is mapped to a new point $`𝐑(𝐱)`$ in $`d`$-dimensional (target) space. Since $`𝐑(𝐱)=𝐱`$ when there is no distortion, it is customary to introduce the phonon variable $`𝐮(𝐱)=𝐑(𝐱)𝐱`$ that measures the deviation of $`𝐑(𝐱)`$ from $`𝐱`$. The energy of the distorted state relative to the reference state depends only on the relative amount of stretching $`d𝐑^2d𝐱^2=2u_{ij}dx_idx_j`$, where the Einstein convention is understood and where the $`u_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_iu_j+_ju_i+_iu_k_ju_k\right)`$ with $`i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},d`$ are the components of the familiar nonlinear Lagrangian strain tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$. By construction $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$ is invariant under arbitrary rotations in target space. This feature makes the Lagrangian strain tensor an adequate variable for formulating elastic energies because all elastic media are rotationally invariant in target space. This invariance is easy to understand: in the absence of aligning fields different physical orientations of the same sample have the same energy.

We are interested in nematic elastomers crosslinked in the isotropic phase whose uniaxial symmetry arises via a spontaneous breaking of the isotropic symmetry. Since the spontaneous symmetry axis can point in any direction, our elastic energy has to be rotationally invariant not only in the target but also in the reference space. Both invariances are taken into account by writing the stretching energy as

$`={\displaystyle }d^dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left(\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\right)^2+\mu \mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^2+A_1\left(\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\right)^3`$
$`+A_2\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^2+A_3\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^3+B_1\left(\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\right)^4+B_2\left(\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^2\right)^2`$
$`+B_3\left(\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\right)^2\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^2+B_4\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^3+B_5\mathrm{tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^4\}.`$ (1)
The first two expansion coefficients are known as the Lamé coefficients. Of course, terms of higher than fourth order are allowed by the symmetries of the system. However, these higher order terms turn out to be irrelevant in the RG sense and are hence neglected.

Suppose that the spontaneously uniaxially ordered elastomer is described in equilibrium by an equilibrium strain tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the anisotropy axis lies in the $`\widehat{𝐞}_d=(0,\mathrm{},1)`$ direction and that $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ is a diagonal matrix with the diagonal elements $`u_{0aa}=u_0`$ and $`u_{0dd}=u_0`$. Here and in the following we use the convention that indices from the beginning of the alphabet ($`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$) run from 1 to $`d_{}=d1`$. To describe deviations from the equilibrium configuration, we introduce the relative strain $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{w}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ and to expand $``$ in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{w}}`$. By dropping terms that depend only on $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ we find

$`={\displaystyle }d^dx\{a_1w_{dd}+a_2w_{aa}+b_1w_{dd}^2+b_2w_{dd}w_{aa}`$
$`+b_3w_{aa}^2+b_4w_{ab}^2+b_5w_{ad}^2+c_1w_{dd}w_{ad}^2+c_2w_{aa}w_{bd}^2`$
$`+c_3w_{ab}w_{ad}w_{bd}+d_1w_{ad}^2w_{bd}^2\},`$ (2)
where $`d^dx=d^d_{}x𝑑x_d`$ with $`d_{}=d1`$. In (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) we have discarded terms that turn out to be irrelevant. The new coefficients $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`b_1`$, and so on, depend on the old coefficients $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$, and so forth, as well as on $`u_0`$ and $`u_0`$.

Exploiting the rotational invariance in reference space we derived a set Ward identities relating the vertex functions implicit in (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers). At zero-loop or mean-field level these Ward identities correspond to relations between the elastic constants in (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers),

$`a_1a_2sb_5`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3a)
$`b_22b_3sc_2=0,`$ $`b_2+b_52b_1+sc_1=0,`$ (3b)
$`b_52b_4sc_3=0,`$ $`c_1c_2c_32sd_1=0,`$ (3c)
where $`s`$ is an abbreviation for $`u_0u_0`$. Since $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{w}}`$ describes deviations from the equilibrium $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ its thermal average $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{w}}`$ has to vanish. At zero temperature, where the mean-field approximation becomes exact, this means that the coefficients of the linear terms in (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) must be zero. Equation (3a) then leads to the observation that $`b_5=0`$ for $`u_0u_0`$. At finite temperatures thermal fluctuations become important and loop corrections renormalize the elastic constants including $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`b_5`$. For $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{w}}`$ to vanish the renormalized versions of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ have to satisfy equations of state to which $`a_1=0`$ and $`a_2=0`$ are the mean-field approximations. In the following we will assume that we have chosen $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ appropriately so that their respective equations of state are satisfied. In other words: we assume that we expand about the true equilibrium state. Then, the Ward identity generalizing (3a) guarantees that the renormalized $`b_5`$ vanishes for $`u_0u_0`$. The vanishing of the elastic constant $`b_5`$ has the striking consequence that nematic elastomers are soft with respect to certain deformations. This softness can be easily understood by looking at the terms of (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) that are leading for small deformations. Rewriting these terms in Fourier space, one sees that that the stretching energy cost is zero for phonon displacements $`\stackrel{~}{𝐮}(𝐪)`$ perpendicular to $`\widehat{𝐞}_d`$ with momentum $`𝐪`$ parallel to $`\widehat{𝐞}_d`$ and for $`\stackrel{~}{𝐮}(𝐪)`$ parallel to $`\widehat{𝐞}_d`$ with $`𝐪`$ perpendicular to $`\widehat{𝐞}_d`$.

For vanishing $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`b_5`$ one can rewrite $``$ after a suitable rescaling of $`x_d`$ and $`u_d`$ as

$`={\displaystyle }d^dx\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{2}}v_{dd}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}\left(_{}^2u_d\right)^2+C_2v_{dd}v_{aa}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{2}}v_{aa}^2+C_4v_{ab}^2\},`$ (4)
with $`v_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(_au_b+_bu_a_au_d_bu_d)`$ and $`v_{dd}=_du_d+\frac{1}{2}_au_d_bu_d`$. Here, we exclusively retained terms that relevant in the RG sense. The new elastic constants $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ are proportional to the $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ in (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers). Note that we have incorporated a relevant bending term featuring a bending modulus $`K`$. Bending is important in nematic elastomers since the pure stretching energy vanishes for soft deformations. Note also that $``$ resembles the form of the stretching energy originally discussed by GL. However, we have to keep in mind that the strain $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{v}}`$ is different from $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$. $``$ reduces to the elastic energy by GL if one neglects terms of higher than second order in $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$.

In principle we could use $``$ as it stands in Eq. (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) for our RG analysis. We find it convenient, however, to reduce the number of constants featured in the statistical weight $`\mathrm{exp}(/T)`$ at the onset of our calculation. To this end, we rescale $`T\sqrt{K^3/C_4}T`$, $`x_d\sqrt{C_4/K}x_d`$, $`u_d\sqrt{K/C_4}u_d`$ and $`u_a(K/C_4)u_a`$. After the rescaling, there remain 3 (dimensionless) couplings $`\omega =C_1/C_4`$, $`g=C_2/C_4`$, and $`f=C_3/C_4`$ in our Hamiltonian. Note that we choose to keep $`T`$ explicit and to use it as the expansion parameter for our field theoretic perturbation expansion.

For our RG analysis, two scaling symmetries are of great importance. First, under a global rescaling of the coordinates $`x_a\mu ^1x_a`$ and $`x_d\mu ^2x_d`$ with $`\mu ^1`$ having units of length, we find a scaling invariant theory provided that $`u_a\mu ^1u_a`$ and $`T\mu ^{3d}T`$. Thus, the naive dimension of $`u_a`$ is 1 and that of $`T`$ is $`\epsilon =3d`$. The field $`u_d`$ and the remaining parameters in $``$ have vanishing naive dimensions. Above $`d=3`$ dimensions, the naive dimension of $`T`$ is negative, and $`T`$ is irrelevant whereas it is relevant below $`d=3`$. Hence, we identify $`d_c=3`$ as the upper critical dimension of nematic elastomers. Second, $``$ is invariant under the transformation $`u_a(x_c,x_d)u_a(x_c\theta _cx_d,x_d)+\theta _au_d(x_c,x_d)`$ and $`u_d(x_c,x_d)u_d(x_c\theta _cx_d,x_d)+\theta _ax_a`$ provided that the $`\theta `$’s are small. Note that this transformation mixes the longitudinal and the transversal fields (mixing invariance). It can be viewed as a rudiment of the rotational invariance of the original theory in target space. This mixing invariance is valuable because it guarantees Ward identities that reduce the number of vertex functions to be calculated in perturbation theory.

Now we study fluctuations of the fields $`u_a(𝐱)`$ and $`u_d(𝐱)`$ by using perturbation theory augmented by renormalization group methods. As usual, we analyze vertex functions that require renormalization due to the presence of ultraviolet (UV) divergences in Feynman diagrams. To avoid infrared (IR) singularities in the Feynman diagrams, we supplement our Hamiltonian with a mass term $`\frac{\tau }{2}d^dxu_d^2`$. At the appropriate stage of the calculations we then sent $`\tau `$ to zero to recover the original situation.

In order to set up a diagrammatic perturbation expansion we have to determine its constituting elements. First, we have a Gaussian propagator that has the form of a $`d\times d`$ matrix. Its matrix elements are

$`G_{dd}`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \frac{B}{B\tau +Aq_d^2+B𝐪_{}^4}},`$ (5a)
$`G_{ad}`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \frac{g}{B\tau +Aq_d^2+B𝐪_{}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_aq_d}{𝐪_{}^2}},`$ (5b)
$`G_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`T\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}}{𝐪_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{D\tau +Cq_d^2+D𝐪_{}^4}{B\tau +Aq_d^2+B𝐪_{}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_aq_b}{𝐪_{}^4}}\right],`$ (5c)
where we have used the shorthand notations $`A=\omega (f+2)g^2`$, $`B=f+2`$, $`A=\omega (f+1)g^2`$, and $`B=f+1`$. Second, our diagrammatic expansion features the 4 vertices $`i(\omega g)/(2T)q_d^{(1)}q_b^{(2)}q_b^{(3)}`$, $`i(gf)/(2T)q_a^{(1)}q_b^{(2)}q_b^{(3)}`$, $`ih/Tq_a^{(2)}q_b^{(1)}q_b^{(3)}`$, and $`(\omega 2g+f+2)/(8T)q_a^{(1)}q_a^{(2)}q_b^{(3)}q_b^{(4)}`$. It is understood that the sum of the momenta at each vertex has to be zero.

Next we need to determine which of the vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(N,M)}`$ amit\_zinn-justin  with $`N`$ external $`u_a`$-legs and $`M`$ external $`u_d`$-legs are superficially UV divergent. Analyzing their topology, we find that the superficial degree of divergence $`\delta `$ of our diagrams is given at the upper critical dimension by $`\delta =4N2D_{}D_{}`$, where $`D_{}`$ ($`D_{}`$) is the number of longitudinal (transversal) derivatives on the external legs. Thus, the vertex functions containing superficially divergent diagrams are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{(0,1)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{(1,0)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dd}^{(0,2)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ad}^{(1,1)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{(2,0)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ddd}^{(0,3)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{add}^{(1,2)}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dddd}^{(0,4)}`$. All these vertex functions have to be taken into account in the renormalization procedure. By virtue of the mixing invariance, however, there exist several relations between the vertex functions in form of Ward identities. Due to these Ward identities it is sufficient for our purposes to actually calculate the 2-point functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dd}^{(0,2)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ad}^{(1,1)}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{(2,0)}`$. Once the equations of state are satisfied and the 2-point functions are renormalized, the Ward identities guarantee that the remaining vertex functions are cured of their UV divergences.

We calculate the two-point vertex functions to one-loop order using dimensional regularization. In dimensional regularization the UV divergences manifest themself in the form of poles in the deviation $`\epsilon =3d`$ from the upper critical dimension. We eliminate the $`\epsilon `$ poles from the vertex functions by employing the renormalization scheme

$`x_d\stackrel{˚}{x}_d=Z^{1/2}x_d,`$ $`u_d\stackrel{˚}{u}_d=Z^{1/2}u_d,`$ (6a)
$`u_a\stackrel{˚}{u}_a=Zu_a,`$ $`T\stackrel{˚}{T}=Z^{1/2}Z_T^1\mu ^\epsilon t,`$ (6b)
$`\omega \stackrel{˚}{\omega }=Z^1Z_T^1Z_\omega \omega ,`$ $`g\stackrel{˚}{g}=Z^1Z_T^1Z_gg,`$ (6c)
$`f\stackrel{˚}{f}=Z^1Z_T^1Z_ff,`$ (6d)
where the $`\stackrel{˚}{}`$ indicates unrenormalized quantities. The simplest way of determining the renormalization Z-factors is minimal subtraction. In this procedure the Z-factors are chosen so that they solely cancel the $`\epsilon `$ poles and otherwise leave the vertex functions unchanged. Our Z-factors are of the structure $`Z_{\mathrm{}}(t,\omega ,g,f)=1+tX_{\mathrm{}}(\omega ,g,f)/\epsilon `$, where the $`X_{\mathrm{}}(\omega ,g,f)`$ are rational functions.

Next, we set up a Gell-Mann–Low RG equation (RGE) for the vertex functions by exploiting the fact that the unrenormalized theory has to be independent of the arbitrary length scale $`\mu ^1`$ introduced by renormalization. At this stage we prefer to switch from the parameters $`\omega `$, $`g`$ and $`f`$ to $`\kappa =g/\omega =C_2/C_1`$, $`\rho =f/\omega =C_3/C_1`$ and $`\sigma =1/\omega =C_4/C_1`$. This step turns out to be helpful in studying the RG flow. Our RGE reads

$`\left\{𝒟_\mu \left(N+M/2\right)\gamma \right\}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(N,M)}(\{𝐪_{},q_d\};t,\kappa ,\rho ,\sigma ,\mu )=0,`$
where $`𝒟_\mu =\mu _\mu \frac{\gamma }{2}q_d_{q_d}+\beta _t_t+\beta _\kappa _\kappa +\beta _\rho _\rho +\beta _\sigma _\sigma `$, $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _\mu |_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _\mu |_0\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}`$ footnoteWilson . To solve the RGE we employ the method of characteristics. We introduce a flow parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ and look for functions $`\overline{\mu }(\mathrm{})`$, $`\overline{Z}(\mathrm{})`$, $`\overline{t}(\mathrm{})`$, $`\overline{\kappa }(\mathrm{})`$, $`\overline{\rho }(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }(\mathrm{})`$ determined by a set of characteristic equations. These equations specify how the parameters transform if we change the momentum scale $`\mu `$ according to $`\mu \overline{\mu }(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}\mu `$. In particular, we have

$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\overline{t}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{t}\epsilon +\overline{t}^2[3\overline{\kappa }^212\overline{\kappa }\overline{\sigma }+2\overline{\sigma }(3+19\overline{\sigma })`$ (7a)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\rho }(3+37\overline{\sigma })]/[\overline{\sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }],`$
$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\overline{\kappa }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{t}(\overline{\kappa }1)(\overline{\rho }+\overline{\sigma }\overline{\kappa }^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (7b)
$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\overline{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{t}[2\overline{\kappa }^2(1\overline{\rho })+2\overline{\rho }^24\overline{\kappa }\overline{\sigma }+\overline{\sigma }^2`$ (7c)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\rho }(4\overline{\sigma }2)]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta },`$
$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\overline{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{t}\overline{\sigma }(2+4\overline{\kappa }2\overline{\kappa }^2+\overline{\sigma })\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (7d)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{2+\overline{\rho }/\overline{\sigma }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=64\pi \sqrt{\overline{\rho }+2\overline{\sigma }\overline{\kappa }^2}`$.

First, we consider the case $`d<3`$. Being interested in the IR behavior of the theory, we study the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. We find that the quadruple of coupling constants $`(\overline{t}(\mathrm{}),\overline{\kappa }(\mathrm{}),\overline{\rho }(\mathrm{}),\overline{\sigma }(\mathrm{}))`$ flows, in a manner such that $`\overline{\kappa }(\mathrm{})\kappa ^{}\overline{\rho }(\mathrm{})\rho ^{}\overline{\sigma }(\mathrm{})`$ for small $`\mathrm{}`$, to an IR stable fixed point $`(t^{},\kappa ^{},\rho ^{},\sigma ^{})=(\frac{64}{59}\sqrt{6}\pi \epsilon ,1,1,0)`$. Note that this fixed point implies the existence of the following universal ratios: $`C_2/C_1=1`$, $`C_3/C_1=1`$ and $`C_4/C_1=0`$. These should be conveniently measurable in experiments. In addition to the stable fixed point, there is the unstable Gaussian fixed point $`t^{}=0`$ and there are two unstable fixed lines. Solving the RGE near the stable fixed point, in conjunction with dimensional analysis to account for the naive dimensions, reveals the scaling behavior of the vertex functions,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(N,M)}(\{𝐪_{},q_d\};t,\kappa ,\rho ,\sigma ,\mu )`$
$`=\mathrm{}^{(d+1)+dN+(d+1)M}Z(\mathrm{})^{(N+1)/2}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(N,M)}(\{{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪_{}}{\mathrm{}}},{\displaystyle \frac{q_d}{\mathrm{}^2Z(\mathrm{})^{1/2}}}\};t^{},\kappa ^{},\rho ^{},\sigma (\mathrm{}),\mu \mathrm{}),`$ (8)
where $`Z(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^{\frac{42}{59}\epsilon }`$ and $`\sigma (\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^{\frac{4}{59}\epsilon }`$.

Now, the scaling behavior of the elastic constants can be easily deduced from the two point functions. Choosing $`\mathrm{}=|𝐪_{}|`$ and switching back to the original variables featured in the elastic energy (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) we find for example that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dd}^{(0,2)}(𝐪_{},q_d)=T^1\left\{C_1q_d^2+K(𝐪_{})|𝐪_{}|^4\right\}`$ (9)
with a normal (constant) shear modulus $`C_1`$ and a momentum depending bending modulus $`K(𝐪_{})|𝐪_{}|^{\eta _K}`$ governed by the anomaly exponent $`\eta _K=\frac{38}{59}\epsilon `$. Note that $`K`$ diverges at large length scales. The scaling behavior of the remaining elastic constants can be derived by analogous means. We find that $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are normal whereas $`C_4(𝐪_{})|𝐪_{}|^{\eta _4}`$ is anomalous with $`\eta _4=\frac{4}{59}\epsilon `$, i.e., $`C_4`$ vanishes a large length scales. We mention that (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) does not correctly describe $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{(2,0)}`$ at $`𝐪_{}=0`$ because we omitted a dangerous irrelevant bending modulus. This intricacy, however, does not effect our results for the relevant elastic moduli and will be discussed elsewhere.

Since $`\epsilon `$ vanishes in $`d=3`$ the solutions to the characteristic equations are no longer of power law type. The flow of the temperature, for example, is described at leading order by $`\overline{t}(\mathrm{})/t=[1\frac{7\sqrt{6}t}{64\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})]^1`$ where $`t=\overline{t}(1)`$. Similarly, we have $`Z(\mathrm{})[\overline{t}(\mathrm{})/t]^{\frac{42}{59}}`$ and $`\sigma (\mathrm{})[\overline{t}(\mathrm{})/t]^{\frac{4}{59}}`$ at leading order. Equation (Anomalous elasticity of nematic elastomers) now implies that

$`K(𝐪_{})\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{7\sqrt{6}t}{64\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu /|𝐪_{}|\right)\right]^{38/59},`$ (10a)
$`C_4(𝐪_{})\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{7\sqrt{6}t}{64\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu /|𝐪_{}|\right)\right]^{4/59}.`$ (10b)
Of course, $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, and $`C_3`$ are normal as they are in $`d<3`$ and $`K`$ and $`C_4`$ diverge and vanish, respectively, at long length scales. Note that Eqs. (10) imply the existence of a nonlinear length scale $`\xi _t=\mu ^1\mathrm{exp}(\frac{64\pi }{7\sqrt{6}t})`$.

In summary, we have derived a field theoretic model for nematic elastomers and explored, on this basis, their fascinating anomalous elasticity in and below 3 dimensions. Our work underscores the intriguing properties of nematic elastomers and calls for experimental verification. We expect that our general approach is fruitful also for other liquid crystalline elastomers and that corresponding studies will appear in the future.

We acknowledge support by the Emmy Noether-Programm of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (OS) and the National Science Foundation under grant DMR 00-95631(TCL). We are grateful to H. K. Janssen, J. Toner, X. Xing, and L. Radzihovsky for fruitful discussion and to the latter two for pointing out an inconsistency in a preliminary version of this paper.