text:
# Templeting of Thin Films Induced by Dewetting on Patterned Surfaces

## Abstract

The instability, dynamics and morphological transitions of patterns in thin liquid films on periodic striped surfaces (consisting of alternating less and more wettable stripes) are investigated based on 3-D nonlinear simulations that account for the inter-site hydrodynamic and surface-energetic interactions. The film breakup is suppressed on some potentially destabilizing nonwettable sites when their spacing is below a characteristic lengthscale of the instability ($`\lambda _h`$), the upper bound for which is close to the spinodal lengthscale. The thin film pattern replicates the substrate surface energy pattern closely only when, (a) the periodicity of substrate pattern matches closely with the $`\lambda _h`$, and (b) the stripe-width is within a range bounded by a lower critical length, below which no heterogeneous rupture occurs, and an upper transition length above which complex morphological features bearing little resemblance to the substrate pattern are formed.

Self-organization during dewetting of thin films on deliberately tailored chemically heterogeneous substrates is of increasing promise for engineering of desired nano- and micro-patterns in thin films by templetingLenz ; Gau ; Kumar ; Rockf ; Bolt ; Nisato ; Gleiche ; Kataoka ; Hlggins ; Karim ; Lopez . On a chemically heterogeneous substrate, dewetting is driven by the spatial gradient of micro-scale wettability Kon , rather than by the non- wettability of the substrate itself. The latter occurs in the so called spinodal dewetting on homogeneous surfaces Reiter ; Sharma . While the rupture of a thin film on a single heterogeneous patch is now well understood, patterned substrates pack a large density of surface features that are closely spaced. How does hydrodynamic interactions between the neighboring heterogeneities affect the pattern evolution dynamics and morphology in thin films? This question, which is addressed here, is central to our understanding of how faithfully the substrate patterns are reproduced in a thin film spontaneously, i.e., how effective is the templeting of soft materials by dewetting route and what are the conditions for ideal templeting? An associated question for both the patterned and naturally occurring heterogeneous surfaces is whether all the potentially dewetting sites remain active or “live” in producing rupture when they are in close proximity. These questions are resolved based on 3-D nonlinear simulations of the stability, dynamics and morphology of thin films on periodic chemically heterogeneous surfaces.

The substrate considered consists of alternating less wettable and more wettable (or completely wettable) stripes that differ in their interactions with the overlying film. The key parameters of the substrate pattern are its periodicity interval (center-to-center distance between two consecutive stripes, $`L_p`$) and the length-scale of the less wettable stripe (stripe-width, $`W`$). The following nondimensional thin film equation governs the stability and spatio- temporal evolution of a thin film system subjected to the excess intermolecular interactions Kon .

$$H/T+[H^3(^2H)][H^3\mathrm{\Phi }]=0$$
(1)
H(X,Y,T) is non-dimensional local film thickness scaled with the mean thickness $`h_o`$; $`\mathrm{\Phi }=[2\pi h_o^2/|A_s|][\mathrm{\Delta }G/H])`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is the excess intermolecular interaction energy per unit area and $`A_s`$ is the effective Hamaker constant for van der Waals interaction; $`X`$, $`Y`$ are the non-dimensional coordinates in the plane of the substrate, scaled with a lengthscale $`(2\pi \gamma /|A_s|)^{1/2}h_o^2`$; and the non-dimensional time $`T`$ is scaled with $`12\pi ^2\mu \gamma h_o^5/A_s^2`$; $`\gamma `$ and $`\mu `$ refer to the film surface tension and viscosity, respectively. The lengthscale of the spinodal instability on a uniform surface is given by, $`\lambda =(4\pi ^2\gamma /(^2\mathrm{\Delta }G/h^2))^{1/2}`$. On a chemically heterogeneous striped surface, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(H,X,Y)`$. At a constant film thickness, we model the variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in X direction by a periodic step function of periodicity, $`L_p`$. Gradient of force $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, at the boundary of the stripes causes flow from the less wettable (higher pressure) stripes to the more wettable (lower pressure) stripes, even when the spinodal stability condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }/H>0`$ is satisfied everywhere Kon . It is known that a single stripe in the absence of its neighbors can cause rupture only if its width exceeds a critical lengthscale, $`W_c<<\lambda `$ Kon .

We consider general representation of antagonistic (attractive/repulsive) long range and short range intermolecular interactions applicable to the aqueous films (eq. 2) Thiele ; Sharma  and polymer films on high energy surfaces like sillicon (eq. 3) Kim ; Kon ; Rockf . In both the cases the long range van der Waals force is stabilizing and thus films thinner (thicker) than a critical thickness are unstable (metastable).

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G=(A_s/12\pi h^2)+S_p\mathrm{exp}(h/l_p)$$
(2)
This potential represents aqueous films when the effective Hamaker constant, $`A_s`$ and $`S_p`$ are both negative (long-range van der Waals repulsion combined with shorter-range attraction, e.g. hydrophobic attraction)Van . On the hydrophobic stripes ($`A_s^h=1.41`$ x $`10^{20}`$ J, $`S_p^h=65`$ mJ/$`m^2`$ and $`l_p`$ = 0.6 nm), the film is spinodally unstable ($`\mathrm{\Phi }/H<0`$) below a critical thickness, $`h_c`$ of 7.4 nm. The equilibrium contact angle obtained from extended Young-Dupre equation, $`cos\theta =1+\mathrm{\Delta }G(h_e)/\gamma `$ is $`61^o`$; where $`h_e`$ is the equilibrium thickness. On the hydrophilic stripes ($`A_s`$ = $`1.41`$ x $`10^{20}`$ J, $`S_p`$ = $`0.61`$ mJ/$`m^2`$ and $`l_p`$ = 0.6 nm), the film of any thickness is spinodally stable ($`\mathrm{\Phi }/H>0`$) and completely wets the surface.

Equation (1) was numerically solved using a central difference scheme in space combined with Gears algorithm for stiff equations for time marching and periodic boundary condition. The critical length, $`W_c`$ of a single heterogeneity (hydrophobic patch) that engenders rupture on a large hydrophilic substrate in this case is $`0.08\lambda `$.

Ideal templating requires that dewetting should occur on every less wettable site on the patterned substrate. Fig. 1a shows a single rupture on a substrate containing four potentially dewetting sites ($`n_S`$ = 4) when the periodicity interval is small, $`L_p`$ = $`0.45\lambda `$. The resulting lone drop spans across the remaining “inactive” hydrophobic sites. Fig 1a to 1c show increased number of dewetted stripes ($`n_D`$ = 1, 2, 4) and resulting liquid domains as $`L_p`$ is increased from $`0.45\lambda `$ $``$ $`0.68\lambda `$ $``$ $`0.9\lambda `$. This, as well as a large number of simulations not displayed here showed that on a substrate containing many potentially destabilizing sites, only the sites (randomly picked) separated by a characteristic lengthscale of the instability, $`\lambda _h`$, of the order of the spinodal scale, $`\lambda `$ remain “live” or effective in causing the film rupture. Dewetting on the remaining intervening sites is suppressed since rupture on each site would require surface deformations on smaller scales resulting in high surface energy penalty. The ratio of this characteristic lengthscale, $`\lambda _h`$, to the spinodal length scale, $`\lambda `$, obtained from simulations, decreases as the potential difference across the stripe bounadry, ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$) increases (Fig. 2), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Phi }^h\mathrm{\Phi }`$), evaluated at the initial thickenss. For a large value of spinodal parameter (e.g. for thinner films), the ratio approaches very close to 1 unless $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is very large (curves 2 and 3 of Fig. 2). A simple scale analysis ($`H=1+ϵ`$, $`^2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/cL^2`$, $`c<1`$), of Eq. (1) Kon  leads to the following characteristic lengthscale for growth of instability: $`\lambda _h[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/ϵc\mathrm{\Phi }/H]^{0.5}`$. Thus the ratio of heterogeneous to spinodal lengthscale, $`\lambda _h/\lambda (1+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/(ϵc\mathrm{\Phi }/H))^{0.5}`$; and $`\lambda _h\lambda `$ when spinodal term $`\mathrm{\Phi }/H`$ is very strong compared to the applied potential difference.

For very large potential difference, $`\lambda _h/\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^{0.5}`$. Thus the upper limit of the characteristic lengthscale of the instability is always bound by the spinodal length, $`\lambda `$. An interesting implication is that even when the rupture occurs by the heterogeneous mechanism on a substrate containing a large density of heterogeneities, the lengthscale of the resulting pattern can give the illusion of spinodal dewetting by mimicking the characteristic lengthscale of the latter. Differentiating true spinodal dewetting from heterogeneous dewetting therefore requires a careful consideration of their distinct time scales and morphological featuresKon . Further, the contact line always remains pinned at the boundary of the stripes whenever alternate stripes are completely wettable (Figures 1a $``$ 1d).

Decreased mean film thickness increases both the terms, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }/h`$ and thus decreases $`\lambda _h`$ nonlineraly. Thus, a greater number of nonwettable heterogeneities become active in causing the film breakup for thinner films. Comparison of figs. 1b (thickness = 6 nm, $`\lambda `$ = 0.67 $`\mu `$m) and 1d (thickness = 5.5 nm, $`\lambda `$ = 0.42 $`\mu `$m) clearly shows this for an identical substrate pattern. This transition uncovered based on dynamical simulations is also in conformity with the earlier equilibrium energy considerations Lenz  that are related however only to the equilibrium structures.

From the above discussion, a necessary condition for good templating is that $`L_p\lambda _h(<\lambda )`$ which ensures dewetting on every less wettable site ($`n_D=n_S`$). The condition $`L_p`$ $``$ $`\lambda _h`$, for $`n_D=n_S`$, also remains valid when both the stripes are nonwettable. However, in this case the contact line can move across the boundary of the stripes to the more wettable part. We simulated the 3D morphologies during the evolution of a polymer like film on an oxide (low-energy) covered silicon (high-energy) substrate. An analytical representation of combined antagonistic (attractive/repulsive) long and short-range intermolecular interactions for a polymer-like film on a coated (e.g. oxide covered) substrate isKon :

$`12\pi \mathrm{\Delta }G=[(A_sA_{c1})/(h+d_{c1}+d_{c2})^2`$
$`+(A_{c1}A_{c2})/(h+d_{c2})^2+A_{c2}/h^2]`$ (3)
Negative value of the effective Hamaker constant on the substrate \[$`A_s=A_s^h=1.88`$ x $`10^{20}`$ J\] signifies a long-range repulsion, whereas a positive value on coating \[$`A_{c1}=A_{c1}^h=1.13`$ x $`10^{20}`$ J\] represents an intermediate-range attractionKon . The non-wettable coating (e.g. oxide) thickness \[$`d_{c1}=2.5`$ nm, $`d_{c1}^h=4`$ nm\] is increased on alternating stripes which causes the macroscopic contact angle to increase from $`0.58^o`$ on the more wettable stripes to $`1.7^o`$ on the less wettable stripes. A still shorter- range repulsion may arise due to chemically adsorbed or grafted layer of the polymer ($`A_{c2}=0.188`$ x $`10^{20}`$ J, $`d_{c2}=1`$nm are the film Hamaker constant and the thickness of the adsorbed layer, respectively)Kon . The representation, eq., is chosen for illustration without affecting the underlying physics, which we have verified for many different potentials.

Figures 3A $``$ 3D depict the effect of periodicity interval, $`L_p`$ on the self- organization of a 5 nm thin film that is spinodally unstable on both type of stripes. In each case, the evolution starts with local depressions on the less-wettable stripes (Figs. 3A $``$ 3D). For $`L_p`$ sufficiently smaller than $`\lambda `$($`L_p=1\mu `$m, $`\lambda =1.51\mu `$m based on $`\gamma =38`$ mJ/$`m^2`$ and $`\mu =1kg/m.s`$), the isolated holes or depressions that form along the less wettable stripes grow onto the more wettable regions and coalesce with each other rapidly (Fig. 3A) leading to a disordered structure and very poor templeting. Increasing periodicity ($`L_p=1.2\mu `$m; Fig. 3B) leads to more ordered dewetting, but the number of dewetted regions remain less than the number of less wettable stripes, and defects evolve at late times (e.g., holes in the liquid ridge; image 4 of fig. 3B). For $`L_p\lambda `$ (Figures 3C and 3D), the number of dewetted stripes equal the number of less wettable stripes. However, templeting in the form of liquid ridges with straight edges is best at an intermediate periodicity, $`L_p\lambda _h(<\lambda )`$ (Fig. 3C). A further increase in $`L_p`$ makes the width of dewetted region bigger than the width of the less wettable stripe (image 4 of Fig. 3D), i.e., the contact line resides in the interior of the more wettable stripe, rather than close to the boundary.

The transition of surface morphology can also be clearly understood from Fig. 4, which shows that ideal templeting occurs for an intermediate thickness (3rd image of Fig. 4) for which the spinodal wavelength, $`\lambda (=3\mu `$m) is equal to $`L_p`$. Thinner films evolve by the formation of droplets on the more wettable stripes due to the spinodal mechanism assisted by the Rayleigh instability. For thicker films ($`\lambda >L_p`$), dewetting occurs on fewer stripes with the formation of holes in broad liquid ridges (e.g., last image of Fig.4).

We found that besides $`L_p`$, the other parameter that governs the thin film pattern is the stripe-width ($`W`$). It is already known that for a single heterogeneity on a large substrate, increase in the width of the heterogeneity shifts the onset of dewetting from the center of the heterogeneity to the boundary of the heterogeneity Kon . Figs.

5A $``$ 5D shows the transition of patterning with the increase of the stripe-width ($`W`$), keeping the periodicity, $`L_p`$ fixed ($`>\lambda `$). For small stripe-width ($`0.4\lambda `$; Fig. 5A), rupture is initiated at the center of less wettable stripes by the formation of depressions that coalesce to form rectangular dewetted regions of widths greater than the stripe- width. For a larger stripe-width ($`W0.8\lambda `$), dewetting is initiated by a layer of holes at each of the two boundaries of the stripe (image 2 of Fig. 5B). Coalescence of these two layers of holes leads to the dewetted regions containing some residual droplets (image 4 of Fig. 5B). Further increase in the stripe width leads to the formation of two layers of holes on each stripe separated by an elevated liquid cylinder (image 2 of Fig.5C). Thus, at an intermediate stage of evolution, the number of cylindrical liquid ridges becomes twice of the number of more wettable stripes on the substrate (image 3 of Fig. 5C). Eventually, liquid ridges on the less wettable region disintegrate into droplets (not shown). Laplace pressure gradients cause ripening of the structure leading to the merging of droplets with the liquid ridges (image 4 of Fig. 5C). Further increase in the stripe-width breaks the whole order of the substrate pattern due to the formation and repeated coalescence of several layers of holes on each stripe that eventually evolve into arrays of irregular droplets. Thus, a good synchronization of the thin film morphology with the substrate pattern requires an upper limit on the stripe-width ($`W_t<0.8\lambda `$, for this case). Based on a large number of simulations for different film thickness and for different systems, we have verified that a breakdown of templeting due to the off-center dewetting occurs at stripe- widths in excess of about $`0.7\lambda 0.8\lambda `$.

In conclusion, the 3-D thin film morphology on a patterned substrate during dewetting can be modulated profoundly by a competition among the time scales (spinodal and heterogeneous) and length scales (spinodal, stripe-width, periodicity, thickness) of the problem. On a striped substrate, ideal templeting in the form of cylindrical liquid ridges covering the more wettable stripes occurs when (e.g., image 4 in fig. 3C): (a) periodicity of the substrate pattern is very close to the characteristic lengthscale, $`\lambda _h`$ , and (b) the stripe width is larger than a critical width, $`W_c`$, which is effective in causing rupture by the heterogeneous mechanism, but smaller than a transition width ($`W_t0.7\lambda 0.8\lambda `$), that ensures initiation of dewetting at the stripe- center. Even a very weak wettability contrast (e.g. Fig.3) is sufficient to align the thin film pattern with the templete under the above conditions. Predictions of our simulations show close resemblance to the recently reported experimental observations on dewetting of polymers on patterned surfaces that reveal: (a) best templeting for an intermediate thickness filmNisato ; Karim  and (b) correspondence between the natural length scale and periodicity of the substrate pattern for good templetingRockf ; Bolt ; Nisato . Finally, on a completely wettable substrate containing many potentially destabilizing sites, only the sites (randomly picked) separated by a characteristic lengthscale (of the order of the spinodal scale), $`\lambda _h`$ remain “live” or effective in causing the film rupture. It is hoped that this study will help in the design and interpretation, creation and rational manipulation of self organized microstructures in thin films by templeting.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with G. Reiter are gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Spin-orbit induced anisotropy in the magnetoconductance of two-dimensional metals

## Abstract

It is shown that the spin-orbit coupling due to structure inversion asymmetry leads to a characteristic anisotropy in the magnetoconductance of two-dimensional metals. Relevance for recent experiments is discussed.

Over the last five years there has been a significant amount of experimental evidence of a metallic-like temperature dependent resistivity for a certain electron density range in Si-MOSFETs and semiconductor heterostructures. This has called for a better understanding of the possible ground states of two-dimensional (2D) systems. For such an endeavour it is important from the outset to identify the relevant physical mechanisms at play. A recent summary of the main experimental facts and suggested theoretical models can be found in Ref.. In the 2D systems which are experimentally investigated, the spin-orbit interaction, as due to the lack of structural inversion symmetry, has been proposed as a potentially relevant mechanism for the observed resistivity behaviour . However, there is no consensus at present about the importance of this spin-orbit interaction.

Magneto-transport experiments are very powerful tools in selecting processes which are affected by the presence of a magnetic field. In the case of 2D systems one of the most puzzling features is the magnetoresistance in a parallel magnetic field. For carrier densities of interest the resistance increases by roughly one order of magnitude on the scale of several Tesla before saturating at high magnetic fields. It has been generally assumed that a parallel magnetic field affects the system only via the coupling to the electron spin, and there is experimental evidence supporting this view. However the importance of the coupling of the magnetic field to the orbital motion of the electrons as a consequence of the finite layer thickness of the 2D structure has also been proposed.

In order to shed light on the problem there has recently been the proposal that, in the presence of the spin-orbit interaction, an in-plane magnetic field gives rise to an anisotropy in the magnetoresistance, depending on whether one measures the current in the direction perpendicular or parallel to the magnetic field. This has stimulated more experimental work, where anisotropy in the magnetoresistance has been found in $`GaAs`$ hole systems, Si-MOSFETs, and $`GaAs`$ electron systems. The prediction of Ref. has been made in the deeply insulating limit and this makes a direct comparison with the experiments a little difficult. This fact has motivated us to investigate the interplay of the spin-orbit interaction and an in-plane magnetic field in the metallic regime. Here we calculate the conductivity in the framework of the Drude-Boltzmann theory. We do not worry about the microscopic orign of the scattering which is, for example, responsible for the strong magnetic field dependence of the conductivity. Our concern is the anisotropy of the conductance and its behaviour as a function of the various physical parameters. The most important findings are: a) the magnetoresistance is anisotropic; b) the sign of the anisotropy depends on the type of scattering potential seen by the charge carriers; c) the anisotropy factor has a maximum as function of the magnetic field, with the maximum position scaling with the density. In the following we present details of our calculations and discuss its possible experimental relevance.

We start from the model Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\alpha \sigma 𝐩𝐞_z\frac{1}{2}g\mu _B\sigma 𝐁$$
(1)
with $`\alpha `$ a parameter describing the spin-orbit interaction due to the confinement field and $`\sigma `$ being a vector whose components are the Pauli matrices. The unit vector $`𝐞_z`$ is perpendicular to the 2D plane and defines the $`z`$-axis. The magnetic field is chosen to lie in $`x`$-direction. One finds then two bands with the dispersion

$$E_\pm (𝐩)=p^2/2m\pm \mathrm{\Omega }(𝐩),$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐩)=|\alpha 𝐩𝐞_z\omega _s𝐞_x|`$.

In the problem we have several energy scales: the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F`$ (in the absence of magnetic field with no spin-orbit coupling), the Zeeman energy $`\omega _s=\frac{1}{2}g\mu _BB`$ (note that this differs by a factor two from the standard definition), and the spin-orbit energy $`\alpha p_F`$. It is useful to make a few estimates. In Si inversion layers one has a density-of-states $`N_0=1.59\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{meV}^1`$, which for the range of densities considered in Ref. (i.e. $`n=0.71.3\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) gives for the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F=5.19.5\mathrm{K}`$. By assuming $`g=2`$ a magnetic field of $`1`$T gives $`\omega _s=0.6`$K. For the spin-orbit interaction, we take from Ref. $`\alpha =6\times 10^6`$K cm, which gives a spin-orbit energy $`\alpha p_F=3.36`$ K. Considering transport introduces another scale, which we characterize by the scattering rate $`1/\tau `$. We assume throughout this paper that $`ϵ_F\tau `$ is larger than unity as is appropriate for the metallic regime (in units with $`\mathrm{}=1`$). A realistic mobility of $`4\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^2/`$Vs gives then a relaxation rate $`1/\tau 12`$K. In the following we choose parameters having the Si systems in mind. Measuring energies in units of $`ϵ_F`$ one has that $`1/\tau =0.10.4`$, $`\alpha p_F=0.30.7`$ and $`\omega _s=0.060.15`$ per Tesla.

A simple estimate for the conductivity and its anisotropy may be obtained with the semi-classical Boltzmann equation in the relaxation time approximation. Assuming a single transport time, i.e. momentum- and band-independent, the conductivity is

$$\sigma _{ij}=e^2\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}\underset{s=\pm }{}N_sv_s^iv_s^j_{FS}$$
(3)
where the sum is over the two bands, $`N_\pm `$ is the density of states, $`𝐯_\pm =_𝐩E_\pm (𝐩)`$ the velocity, and $`\mathrm{}_{FS}`$ the average over the Fermi surface. It is apparent that the transport time drops, when we consider the conductivity relative to its value in the absence of magnetic field and spin-orbit coupling, $`\sigma _0=e^2N_0v_F^2\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$.

In Fig.1 we plot the anisotropy in the magneto-conductance for various strengths of the spin-orbit coupling. One observes a negative anisotropy, i.e. the conductivity perpendicular to the field is larger than that parallel to the field, with a maximum in the region $`\omega _sϵ_F`$. Some insight in the results reported in Fig.1 is obtained from the analytic expressions in the weak ($`\omega _s<ϵ_F`$) and strong magnetic field limits. For the given dispersion relation the velocities are $`𝐯_\pm =𝐩/m\pm \alpha 𝐞_𝐩`$, with $`𝐞_𝐩=(\alpha 𝐩\omega _s𝐞_y)/\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐩)`$. In the weak magnetic field limit, one finds that only the anomalous part of the velocity contributes to the anisotropy in the conductance. We obtain then

$$\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}=2e^2N_0\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}\alpha ^2(𝐞_𝐩𝐞_x)^2(𝐞_𝐩𝐞_y)^2_{FS}.$$
(4)
For $`\alpha p_F>\omega _s`$ the polarization vector $`𝐞_𝐩`$ makes a full rotation when averaging over the Fermi surface. In the limit $`\omega _s>\alpha p_F`$ however the polarization vector becomes locked with $`𝐞_𝐩𝐞_y`$. It is clear that one then finds a negative anisotropy in the conductance. Going explicity through the algebra we arrive at

$$\frac{\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}}{\sigma _0}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha p_F}{ϵ_F}\right)^2\frac{1(\omega _s/\alpha p_F)^2}{(\omega _s/\alpha p_F)^2}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\frac{\omega _s}{\alpha p_F}1\right),$$
(5)
which has an edge at $`\omega _s=\alpha p_F`$ and becomes constant when $`\omega _s\alpha p_F`$. In the strong field limit the arguments are different. For large field only the lower band is occupied. The Fermi surface again is almost rotational symmetric, but there is a weak elliptic distortion which leads to an anisotropy:

$$\frac{\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}}{\sigma _0}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\alpha p_F)^2}{\omega _sϵ_F}.$$
(6)
From these considerations we find that the anisotropy for $`\omega _sϵ_F`$ scales as $`(\alpha p_F/ϵ_F)^2`$.

In order to have a more microscopic calculation of the conductivity we now go beyond the relaxation time approximation. We introduce a disorder potential $`U`$, which will be treated in the self-consistent Born approximation and the conductivity will be calculated using the Green function formalism. For simplicity we assume a impurity potential with short range Gaussian correlations

$$U(𝐱)U(𝐱^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi N_0\tau }\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(7)
The self-energy is determined self-consistently by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{2\pi N_0\tau }\underset{p}{}G(p),$$
(8)
where $`G(p)`$ is the Green function. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`G(p)`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices. Expanding the self-energy in Pauli matrix components, it turns out that the self-energy has no $`\sigma _2`$ and $`\sigma _3`$ components. As a result the self-energy will have the form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\sigma _0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\sigma _1`$. The real part of the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ shifts the energy spectrum by a constant. Since we have to adjust the chemical potential in order to keep the particle number at a given value $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ can be safely neglected. The real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ gives rise to a renormalization of the Zeeman energy. For the imaginary part, we find in the limit of weak disorder

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^R=1/2\tau _0`$ $``$ $`(N_++N_{})/4N_0\tau `$ (9)
$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^R=1/2\tau _1`$ $``$ $`(N_{}N_+)/4N_0\tau `$ (10)
The sum or difference $`1/\tau _{}=1/\tau _0\pm 1/\tau _1`$ are roughly the scattering rates for the two subbands. For weak magnetic field $`(\omega _s<ϵ_F)`$, the density of states in the two subbands are identical and therefore $`1/\tau _\pm =1/\tau _0=1/\tau `$. In the strong field limit $`(\omega _s>ϵ_F)`$ the upper band is depopulated, so that $`1/\tau _1=1/\tau _0=1/2\tau `$.

The current operator, which is necessary for the evaluation of the conductivity, is modified in the presence of the spin-orbit interaction:

$$𝐣=\frac{𝐩}{m}\alpha \sigma 𝐞_z.$$
(11)
The conductivity is obtained by the formula

$`\sigma _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\mathrm{Tr}[j^iG^RJ_{RA}^jG^Aj^iG^RJ_{RR}^jG^R`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`j^iG^RJ_{RA}^jG^Aj^iG^AJ_{AA}^jG^A].`$ (13)
The dressed vertex $`J^j`$ depends upon whether it is connected to a pair of retarded and advanced Green functions or a pair of Green functions with equal analytic properties.

In order to evaluate the conductivity, we have to determine the renormalized vertices and perform the momentum integrals. Before showing the complete results it is useful to consider the conductivity in the absence of vertex corrections and compare with the above Boltzmann equation analysis.

The result is shown in Fig.(2)(dashed lines). The conductivity may be expressed as a sum of intra- and interband contributions. Because of the gap between the two spin subbands, the interband terms do not contribute much unless the disorder is strong enough to produce a broadening of the Fermi surface of the two bands. The condition for weak disorder is then $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau 1`$. In the weak disorder limit one reproduces – when $`\omega _s<ϵ_F`$ – the results obtained from the Boltzmann equation (the solid line). For large magnetic field the Boltzmann result is not reproduced, even for very weak disorder. The reason is that even an isotropic scattering potential generates an anisotropic quasi-particle lifetime as demonstrated here below. Let us denote the scattering probability from state $`𝐩`$ to $`𝐩^{}`$ by $`W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}`$. When going from the spin- to the eigenstate basis the scattering probability in the lower band becomes

$$W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+𝐞_𝐩𝐞_𝐩^{}\right)W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}\left(1\alpha ^2\frac{(p_xp_x^{})^2}{4\omega _s^2}\right).$$
(14)
From this anisotropic scattering probability the inverse lifetime of an electron in state $`𝐩`$ is determined as $`1/\tau _𝐩[1(\alpha p_x)^2/4\omega _s^2]/\tau `$ which definitely depends on the position on the Fermi surface. The anisotropic scattering rate then also contributes to the anisotropy in the magneto-conductance.

We are now ready to consider the vertex corrections. For the choice of disorder potential we have made, these corrections usually vanish expressing the fact that the relaxation of momentum is governed by the quasiparticle lifetime. However, in the present problem there are specific current vertices due to the spin-orbit interaction which acquire a vertex correction. The vertex corrections are obtained in the standard way by solving the equation

$$J_{RA}^i=j^i+\frac{1}{2\pi N_0\tau }\underset{𝐩}{}G^RJ_{RA}^iG^A.$$
(15)
By separating the $`p`$-dependent (i.e., proportional to the $`𝐩`$ vector) and $`p`$-independent parts $`j^i=p^i/m+\gamma ^i`$ and $`J^i=J_0^i(p)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$, one notices that as a consequence of isotropic scattering, the $`p`$-dependent part is not dressed, i.e., $`J^i=p^i/m+\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$. The equation for the momentum independent part of the current vertex reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss^{}}^i=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ss^{}}^i+\frac{1}{2\pi N_0\tau }\underset{𝐩}{}\underset{ab}{}G_{sa}^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^iG_{bs^{}}^A.$$
(16)
We included here the matrix (=spin) indices $`s`$, $`s^{}`$, $`a`$, and $`b`$. The quantities $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i`$ are a sum of the bare vertices $`\gamma ^i`$ and a term which is generated by $`𝐩/m`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ss^{}}^i=\gamma _{ss^{}}^i+\frac{1}{2\pi N_0\tau }\underset{𝐩}{}\underset{a}{}G_{sa}^R(p^i/m)G_{as^{}}^A.$$
(17)
The above equation may be solved by expanding all matrices in terms of the Pauli matrix basis, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=_{\mu =0,3}\sigma _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^i`$. By skipping the details of the derivation we present the numerical results for the renormalized vertices and the conductivity in Figs.(3) and (4), respectively. One observes that for weak magnetic field the quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ become very small so that $`𝐉_{RA}𝐩/m`$ i.e. the anomalous velocity is cancelled by the vertex corrections! Only for fields which are at least of the order of the Fermi energy does an anomalous velocity contribution survive.

Concerning the conductivity the most striking result is that the vertex corrections, for not too strong magnetic field, change the sign of the anisotropy. (See Fig.4).

To understand the effect of the vertex correction, it is again useful to consider the scattering rate in the eigenstate basis, see eq.(14). One then observes that along the $`𝐱`$ direction, forward scattering is enhanced compared to backward scattering, while along the $`𝐲`$ direction there is no difference between forward and backward. Because vertex corrections increase conductivity if forward scattering is favoured, one expects that vertex corrections enhance $`\sigma _{xx}`$ most contributing to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ with a positive term, which for low and moderate magnetic fields overcomes the negative contribution discussed previously.

We now comment on our results in the light of the available experiments. Both in the relaxation time approximation and in the Green function calculation the maximum anisotropy in the conductivity occurs at $`\omega _sϵ_F`$ irrespective of the value of the spin-orbit energy $`\alpha `$. This means that the energy of the peak scales with the electron density. This is in agreement with the experiments. A second feature is that the peak strength is controlled by the spin-orbit energy in units of $`ϵ_F`$. Hence the peak strength must scale with the inverse density, so that the effect is expected to decrease going more deeply into the metallic regime. This again is in agreement with the experimental findings. Concerning the sign of the effect, inclusion of the vertex corrections in the Green function calculation spoils the agreement with the experiments. A possible reason for this discrepancy may be due to our simplifying assumption of a short range p-independent disorder potential. Our analysis has shown in fact that the sign of the anisotropy depends crucially on the effective p-dependence of the scattering rate in the eigenstate basis. It is then reasonable to expect that the specific choice of the scattering potential may indeed play a role in determining the sign of the effect a low fields. This analysis, while it is worth pursuing, is however beyond the scope of the present paper. The anisotropy in the magnetoresistance observed in $`GaAs`$ heterostructures presents a rather complex pattern. Two crystallographic directions with different mobilities have been investigated. The one with higher mobility, shows anisotropy with both $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma <0`$ at not too large magnetic fields and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma >0`$ at larger fields. At low fields (where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma <0`$) the value of the field at which the anisotropy is maximum seems to scale with the density (cf. right column of Fig.2 of Ref.). At this stage one can only speculate that the actual sign of the anisotropy may depend on the interplay of the details of the scattering potential with the spin-orbit coupling effect discussed here.

In conclusion, our theory explains how the spin-orbit coupling may give rise to the anisotropy in the conductivity, although the interpretation of the experiments may require more realistic models of disorder, as for example that due to scattering by impurities located outside the 2D plane, which favours small-angle scattering. It is also our hope that this work will stimulate more experimental effort toward the investigation of anisotropic conductivity as a function of the scattering potential or in sample with different mobilities.

This work was partially supported by MURST under contract no. 9702265437 (R.R. and C.C.), by INFM under the PRA-project QTMD (R.R.) and the European Union TMR program (M.L.) and the DFG through SFB 484 (P.S. and R.R.).


text:
# An alternative field theory for the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition

## 1 Introduction

The two-dimensional Coulomb gas has found an abundant number of applications, ranging from the melting of two-dimensional crystals , vortices in superfluid films  and thin superconductors  and arrays of Josephson contacts  to topological defects of thin liquid-crystal films . Common to these systems is the existence of two types of topological, point-like defects (positive and negative ‘charges’), which interact according to the two-dimensional Coulomb law, i.e. the potential energy grows logarithmically with distance. At low temperatures positive and negative defects are bound together and form neutral dipoles, which start to unbind at a certain critical temperature – the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition point . In fact, an energy of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{log}A`$ ($`A`$ is the system size) is needed to break up two bound charges. On the other hand, the unbinding process implies a gain of entropy, which is also of the order of $`\mathrm{log}A`$. Above the critical temperature entropy wins and a plasma-like gas of free charges is formed. The high-temperature phase is characterized by the existence of a screening length: The Coulomb interaction is shielded beyond the so called Debye-Hückel length due to the formation of a cloud of opposite charges around a (test-) charge. This phase is well described by a Gaussian model for the continuous charge density $`\rho `$ (Debye-Hückel model) with the Hamiltonian

$$/T=\frac{K_A}{2}^2x^2x^{}\rho (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝝆\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^2\mathrm{x}\frac{𝝆^2}{2\mathrm{z}}\mathbf{,}$$
(1.1)
where $`G_\mathrm{r}(2\pi )^1\mathrm{log}(r/\mathrm{})+`$const ($`\mathrm{}`$ is a microscopic lengthscale) is the Green function of the two-dimensional Laplacian $`(^2G(r)=\delta (\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$, $`K_A`$ is the charge-charge coupling strength and the mass $`z`$ measures the distance to the transition temperature $`zTT_c`$ and controls the density of charge pairs. The charge–charge correlation function reads (in Fourier space)

$$C(p)\left(1\frac{K_Az}{p^2+K_Az}\right)$$
(1.2)
where the screening length (Debye-Hückel length $`\mathrm{}_{DH}`$) is given by $`\mathrm{}_{DH}=(K_Az)^{1/2}`$. The Gaussian functional (1.1) applies to temperatures well above the transition temperature - it does not predict the essential singularity of the correlation length $`\xi \mathrm{exp}(b/\sqrt{TT_c})`$ closer to the transition point.

The aim of this paper is to propose a novel model Hamiltonian for the high temperature phase of the two-dimensional Coulomb gas, describing the fluctuations of the internal electrical potential. Contrary to the sine–Gordon theory, which has an unphysical auxiliary variable as its fundamental field, our model is based on a physical quantity (the potential) and, therefore, leads to a more intuitive understanding of the Kosterlitz–Thouless transition.

The resulting continuum model displays the correct divergence of the correlation length in the vicinity of the critical point, as will be demonstrated within a variational calculation and, in addition, within renormalized perturbation theory.

## 2 The model

We start with the (Gaussian) Debye-Hückel model (1.1) and introduce the internal electrical potential $`\varphi `$ via $`^2\varphi =\rho `$. The partition function for the model reads

$$𝒵=D[\varphi ]𝒲[\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{K_A}{2}^2x(\varphi )^2\frac{\mu }{2}^2x(^2\varphi )^2\right)$$
(2.1)
with the (trivial) measure $`𝒲[\varphi ]1`$. Can we do better and find an appropriate measure $`𝒲[\varphi ]`$ for the internal potential, which singles out the relevant configurations and, therefore, go beyond the Gaussian case? Here is a suitable candidate:

$$𝒲[\varphi ]=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{u}{4}^2x(^2\varphi )^2\delta _\lambda (\varphi )\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(_1/T\right)$$
(2.2)
with the Gaussian (‘delta function’) $`\delta _\lambda (\mathrm{E}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}2𝝅𝝀\mathbf{)}^\mathbf{}1\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{E}^2\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}2𝝀\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$.

First, we investigate the mathematics of this ansatz. For $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ the measure $`𝒲[\varphi ]`$ is Gaussian and simply renormalizes the mass $`z`$. For small $`\lambda `$, on the other hand, the function $`\delta _\lambda (\varphi )`$ picks up zeros of $`\varphi `$, i.e. local maxima, minima and saddle points of the potential $`\varphi `$. We expand $`\varphi `$ in the vicinity of an extremal point $`\mathrm{x}_0`$ (where $`\varphi (\mathrm{x}_0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}0`$) up to second order in $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathrm{x}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}_0`$:

$$\varphi (\mathrm{x}_0\mathbf{+}𝝃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{x}_0\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}1\mathbf{/}2\mathbf{)}𝜶_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}𝝃_\mathrm{i}𝝃_\mathrm{j}\mathrm{i}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{j}\mathbf{=}1\mathbf{,}2$$

(summation over double indices is assumed) and find for the contribution of this extremum (for $`\lambda 0`$)

$`_1/T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4}}{\displaystyle ^2x(^2\varphi )^2\delta _\lambda (\varphi )}`$ (2.3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4}}{\displaystyle ^2\xi (\alpha _{ii})^2\frac{1}{2\pi \lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}\xi _j\xi _k}{2\lambda }\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`u\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1+\eta _2}{2}}\right)^2/\left|\eta _1\eta _2\right|`$
where $`\eta _{1,2}`$ are the eigenvalues of the second derivative $`_i_j\varphi =\alpha _{ij}`$ right at the extremal point. Maxima/minima yield a contribution $`_1/Tu`$, since $`\eta _1\eta _2>0`$. For a symmetric maximum/minimum $`\eta _1=\eta _2`$ and consequently $`_1/T=u`$; on the other hand, a ‘symmetric’ saddle point yields zero, since $`\eta _1=\eta _2`$. Therefore, the nonlinear term acts as a kind of chemical potential for the number of extremal points 111The number of saddles is equal to the number of maxima and minima for a flat geometry.:

$$_1/Tu\times \mathrm{\#}(\text{local maxima and minima of }\varphi ).$$
(2.4)
To summarize this point, the nontrivial measure $`𝒲[\varphi ]`$ favours potentials with only few maxima and minima, which are in fact the physically relevant ones. Consider a typical charge configuration of a Coulomb gas system right above the transition temperature. Apart from a large number of dipols, which give rise to an effective dielectric constant, we find few free charges $`q_i=\pm 1`$ at positions $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{i}`$. The corresponding potential $`\varphi (\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{q}_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{r}\mathbf{}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{i}\mathbf{)}`$ has (few) maxima and minima at the locations of the charges $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{i}`$ (if we use a short-distance regularized Green function $`G`$, otherwise the potential $`\varphi `$ would diverge at the locations $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{i}`$) and symmetric saddle points elsewhere, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}0`$ for $`\mathrm{r}\mathbf{}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{i}`$.

We rescale the potential $`\sqrt{\mu }\varphi \varphi `$ and the constant $`\mu \lambda \lambda `$, define the mass $`\tau K_A/\mu `$, and obtain as the final model

$$/T=^2x\left(\frac{1}{2}(^2\varphi )^2+\frac{\tau }{2}(\varphi )^2+\frac{u}{4}(^2\varphi )^2\delta _\lambda (\varphi )\right).$$
(2.5)
The coupling constants $`u,\lambda `$ are dimensionless, whereas $`\tau `$ is a relevant coupling with dimension $`\tau \text{length}^2`$–it is a measure for the deviation from the critical point $`\tau TT_c`$.

## 3 Variational approach

We calculate an upper bound of the free energy $``$ of our model (2.5) with the help of

$$=\mathrm{log}D[\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}(/T)_v+_v_v$$
(3.1)
and the ansatz

$$_v/T=\frac{A}{2}^2x\left((^2\varphi )^2+\omega (\varphi )^2\right)$$
(3.2)
where $`A`$ and $`\omega `$ are variational parameters, $`_v`$ is the free energy with respect to $`_v`$ and $`\mathrm{}_v`$ denotes the corresponding average. In fact, the optimal Gaussian fit has the form given above—a more general ansatz is not necessary and would reduce to an expression such as (3.2). To evaluate $`(^2\varphi (\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}^2𝜹_𝝀\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}_v`$ we note that $`\varphi (\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`^2\varphi (\mathrm{r}\mathbf{)}`$ are uncorrelated Gaussian variables and, therefore (we drop the argument $`\mathrm{r}`$ from now on),

$`(^2\varphi )^2\delta _\lambda (\varphi )_v=(^2\varphi )^2_v{\displaystyle ^2E\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{E}^2\mathbf{/}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{)}^2\mathbf{}_\mathrm{v}\mathbf{}\mathrm{E}^2\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}2𝝀\mathbf{)}\right)}{\pi (\varphi )^2_v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \lambda }}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(^2\varphi )^2_v}{\pi (\varphi )^2_v+2\pi \lambda }}.`$ (3.3)
The expectation value $`(\varphi )^2_v`$ diverges for $`\omega 0`$ and, therefore, the width $`\lambda `$ of the Gaussian $`\delta _\lambda `$ becomes irrelevant, justifiying the introduction of a sharp delta-function ($`\lambda 0`$) in the model (2.5). Up to the constant $`_v_v`$, we obtain the upper bound of the free energy per area $`f`$

$`8\pi f{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}s\mathrm{log}(A(s+\omega ))+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}s{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{As(s+\omega )}}+\tau {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}s{\displaystyle \frac{s}{As(s+\omega )}}`$
$`+2u{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}s{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{As(s+\omega )}}\left({\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}s{\displaystyle \frac{s}{As(s+\omega )}}\right)^1`$ (3.4)
where the first term represents $`_v`$, the second and third term are the expectation value of the Gaussian part of (2.5) and the last term represents $`_1_v`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the upper cutoff momentum and $`s=p^2,\pi s=\pi pp=^2p`$ using polar coordinates. Next, we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ (equivalently we can introduce dimensionless couplings), eliminate $`A`$ (variation of the bound $`f`$ with respect to $`A`$ yields $`A=1+(\tau \omega )\mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )`$) and arrive at

$`8\pi f\mathrm{log}\left(1+(\tau \omega )\mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )\right)+\mathrm{log}(1+\omega )+\omega \mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )`$
$`+2u\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )}}\omega \right).`$ (3.5)
It can be tested afterwards that $`\omega `$ and $`(\tau \omega )\mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )`$ become small enough in the critical region to approximate $`\mathrm{log}(1+(\mathrm{}))(\mathrm{})`$ in the first two terms of (3). The expression is especially simple for $`u=1/2`$

$$8\pi f\tau \mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )+\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1+1/\omega )}$$
(3.6)
yielding the minimum $`\mathrm{log}\left(1+1/\omega \right)=1/\sqrt{\tau }`$ or

$$\omega \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau }}\right)$$
(3.7)
where we have used $`1+\omega ^1\omega ^1`$ for $`\tau 0`$. $`\xi =\omega ^{1/2}`$ is the correlation length of the best Gaussian fit, hence an estimate for the correlation length as a function of $`\tau `$

$$\xi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\tau }}\right)$$
(3.8)
which is the celebrated essential singularity of the correlation length in the vicinity of the Kosterlitz–Thouless transition. For general $`u`$ we obtain $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2u/\tau })`$.

## 4 Renormalized perturbation theory

We have also studied the model Hamiltonian (2.5) within a simple (renormalized) perturbation expansion. Using the formalism presented in , we have calculated the two-point vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p)`$, which is the reciprocal Fourier transform of the Green function $`\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$, to lowest order in the coupling constant $`u`$. Details of the derivation can be found in the appendix. The vertex function displays a highly unconventional large-scale behaviour if compared to usual critical field theory. The resulting effective couplings are in fact finite in the limit $`\tau 0`$ and fixed cutoff. Since an instability shows up as a mere artefact of the expansion, we have to introduce a (finite) shift of the mass $`\tau \tau +u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$, where we treat $`u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2x(\varphi )^2/2`$ along with the interaction term as a perturbation. For fixed spatial dimension $`d=2`$, fixed cutoff momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, a sharp delta function $`\lambda 0`$ and up to $`\mathrm{O}(u^2)`$, the two-point vertex function reads (see appendix)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p)=A_{\text{eff}}\left(p^4+\tau _{\text{eff}}p^2\right)$$
(4.1)
with the effective couplings

$`\tau _{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau +u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{2u}{\left(\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau )\right)^2}}`$ (4.2)
$`A_{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2u}{\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau )}}.`$ (4.3)
As a consequence of the $`\delta (\varphi )`$term and in contrast to ordinary field theories, the $`\mathrm{log}`$terms show up in the denominator and, consequently, the effective couplings remain finite in the critical limit $`\tau 0`$. However, at a particular $`\tau `$, provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0`$, the effective mass becomes negative, signalling the breakdown of the naive perturbation theory. Even worse, the correction to the mass, divided by $`\tau `$ itself, tends to infinity in the limit $`\tau 0`$ . To absorb this divergence, we renormalize the mass by setting

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\frac{2}{\left(\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau )\right)^2}.$$
(4.4)
Now, the effective mass reads $`\tau _{\text{eff}}=\tau `$ and the deviation from the critical point is $`\tau _0=\tau +u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ for small $`\tau `$. We arrive at

$$\tau _0=\frac{2u}{\left(\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau _{\text{eff}})\right)^2}$$
(4.5)
or $`\tau _{\text{eff}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{2u/\tau _0}\right)`$ in agreement with the variational calculation.

## 5 Conclusions

We have proposed an alternative model for the high-temperature phase of the two-dimensional Coulomb gas. It describes the fluctuations of the internal electrical potential with the help of a measure term, which favours potentials corresponding to configurations of only few charges. The range of validity of this model apparently extends down to the critical point—the model yields the correct singular behaviour of the correlation length while approaching the Kosterlitz–Thouless point from above, as shown within a simple (renormalized) perturbation expansion. In addition, a Gaussian variational approximation scheme turned out to be successful, in contrast to the sine–Gordon theory , where an analogous Gaussian variational ansatz fails and yields a wrong singularity for the correlation length .

Several questions could not be addressed, for example how to extract the singular behaviour of the free energy or the universal critical superfluid density. In our opinion, the model deserves future investigations—thanks to its fascinating and unconventional properties.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge discussions with R Blossey, R Bausch, H K Janssen, B Schmittmann, R K P Zia and H A Pinnow. This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under SFB 237.

## Appendix A Calculation of the two-point vertex function

For fixed spatial dimension $`d=2`$, $`\lambda 0`$ and up to $`\mathrm{O}(u^2)`$, the two-point correlation function reads

$`\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}=\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}_0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4}}{\displaystyle }^2z(\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}_02\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (\varphi (\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)})^2+\left(^2\varphi (\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\right)^2\delta (\varphi (\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)})_0`$
$`\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}2\mathrm{\Delta }𝝉\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}^2\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}^2𝜹\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}_0)+\mathrm{O}(u^2)`$
where $`\mathrm{}_0`$ denotes the (Gaussian) average with respect to the quadratic part $`_0=(1/2)^2x((^2\varphi )^2+\tau (\varphi )^2)`$ of the Hamiltonian (2.5). As explained in the main text, we have introduced a mass shift $`\tau \tau +u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ and treat $`u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2x(\varphi )^2/2`$ as a counterterm (additional perturbation). The bare Green function reads

$$G_0(p)=^2x\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}0\mathbf{)}_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}\mathrm{p}\mathbf{}\mathrm{x}\right)=\frac{1}{p^2(p^2+\tau )}.$$
(1.2)
The counterterm adds

$$G_c(p)=u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau G_0(p)^2p^2=u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \frac{1}{p^2(p^2+\tau )^2}.$$
(1.3)
More involved are the contributions from the measure. We define the Gaussian variables $`\varphi _1\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }_2\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝝆\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{E}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}`$, the five-component vector $`M(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\rho ,\mathrm{E}\mathbf{)}`$, and write down the distribution of $`M`$ with the help of a Gaussian transformation

$$P(M)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}^5\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{5}{}}C_{ij}\stackrel{~}{M}_i\stackrel{~}{M}_j+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{M}M\right)$$
(1.4)
where $`C_{ij}=M_iM_j_0`$ denotes the correlation matrix. Explicitly, we have (we drop the subscript $`0`$ from now on)

$`()\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}^2𝜹\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (1.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{E}}\varphi _1\varphi _2\rho ^2\mathrm{E}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2^2)\varphi ^2+\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2(^2\varphi )^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{E}}^2(\varphi )^2/2`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}+2\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}+2\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi (\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{E}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{E}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi (\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)})`$
$`+\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi _2+\stackrel{~}{\rho }\rho +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{E}}\mathrm{E}))\varphi _1\varphi _2\rho ^2\delta (\mathrm{E}\mathbf{)}`$
where the correlations $`^2\varphi (\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}`$ vanish by symmetry. Next, we perform the trivial $`\mathrm{E}`$ integration and the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{E}}`$ integration and obtain

$`()`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3\pi (\varphi )^2}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\stackrel{~}{\rho }\varphi _1\varphi _2\rho }`$ (1.6)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1^2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2^2)\varphi ^2+\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2(^2\varphi )^2`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}+2\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}+2\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi (\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\varphi )^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi (\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)})^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi _2+\stackrel{~}{\rho }\rho ))\varphi _1\varphi _2\rho ^2.`$
The variables $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\rho `$ are still Gaussian variables, with, however, modified correlations which can be found from (1.6). Therefore, using Wick’s theorem

$`()={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi (\varphi )^2}}\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\varphi (\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^2\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}`$ (1.7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(^2\varphi )^2}{\pi (\varphi )^2}}\left(\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{2\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}\varphi (\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{z}\mathbf{)}}{(\varphi )^2}}\right).`$
One of these terms is cancelled by (see chapter 3)

$$\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}(^2\varphi )^2\delta (\varphi )=\varphi (\mathrm{x}\mathbf{)}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{)}\frac{(^2\varphi )^2}{\pi (\varphi )^2}$$
(1.8)
yielding the following contribution of the measure term:

$$G_1(p)=\frac{u}{2\pi (\varphi )^2}\left(\frac{1}{(p^2+\tau )^2}\frac{(^2\varphi )^2}{(\varphi )^2p^2(p^2+\tau )^2}\right).$$
(1.9)
The vertex function reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p)`$ $`=`$ $`(G_0+G_c+G_1)^1=p^2(p^2+\tau )+u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau p^2`$ (1.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2\pi (\varphi )^2}}\left(p^4{\displaystyle \frac{(^2\varphi )^2}{(\varphi )^2}}p^2\right)+\mathrm{O}(u^2)`$
$``$ $`A_{\text{eff}}\left(p^4+\tau _{\text{eff}}p^2\right)`$
with the effective coupling constants (up to order $`\mathrm{O}(u^2)`$ and cutoff momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$)

$$A_{\text{eff}}=1+u/\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }_{|p|<\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2p\frac{1}{p^2+\tau }\right)=1+\frac{2u}{\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau )}$$
(1.11)
and

$`\tau _{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau +u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\tau u}{2\pi (\varphi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(^2\varphi )^2}{2\pi (\varphi )^2^2}}`$ (1.12)
$`=`$ $`\tau +u\mathrm{\Delta }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{2u}{\left(\mathrm{log}(1+1/\tau )\right)^2}}.`$
## References