text:
# References

Understanding BCS Theory

X. H. Zheng

Department of Pure and Applied Physics, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland

> New calculation reveals that $`E`$ is constant in a thin layer across the Fermi surface, befitting the definition of energy gap parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ varies dramatically. The BCS self-consistent equation has a simple and exact solution, showing that the well-known ratio 3.5 must be replaced by 4. A simple formula is found to estimate energy gap from first principles with reasonable accuracy, useful to the current research into high $`T_c`$ superconductivity.
>
> PACS numbers: 74.20.Fg, 02.30.Rz

According to Bardeen, Schrieffer and Cooper (BCS) the superconducting energy gap is measured by the minimum value of $`E`$. In the original approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a constant that equals the minimum value of $`E`$ . In the literature $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has become synonymous with energy gap. However, we find that $`E`$ is constant in a thin layer across the Fermi surface, befitting the definition of energy gap parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ varies dramatically. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has played such a pivoting role in the current study of superconductivity, this matter appears to be serious enough to warrant attention.

While the BCS theory is deep and fundamental, specific results from this theory could be improved, because these results arise from approximations employed to ease mathematical difficulties. In particular the BCS self-consistent equation at $`T>0`$ has a simple and exact solution which can be proved by simple inspection. This exact solution leads to a rather surprising conclusion that the well-known BCS ratio 3.5 $`must`$ be replaced by 4.

Furthermore, we believe that the BCS theory has significant power of prediction which was unnoticed previously. We use the well-established method of iteration  to solve the BCS self-consistent equation. We use the Mott-Jones assumption as our first approximation  which leads to a simple formula allowing us to estimate energy gap quantitatively from first principles, the first time to our knowledge. We find from 14 superconducting metals that on average the energy gap is $`15.7\times 10^4`$eV, compared with the experimental value $`11.3\times 10^4`$eV. This could be interesting, in the light of the current intensive effort to search how high $`T_c`$ might be for various novel superconductive materials.

We start with the BCS self-consistent equation at $`T>0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐤\right)=\underset{𝐪}{}V(𝐤,𝐪)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)}{E\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{E\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)}{2k_BT}\right]$$
(1)
where $`E=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+ϵ^2)^{1/2}`$, $`ϵ`$ is the electron energy relative to the Fermi level, k and q electron and phonon vectors, respectively . We solve this equation through iteration . As our first approximation, we assume $`ϵ(𝐤+𝐪)ϵ(𝐤)`$ which was used successfully by Mott and Jones to study metal conductivity for the reason that, when colliding with atoms, electrons tend to change momentum rather than jump into orbits already occupied by other electrons . In addition to this, we are going to see that $`ϵ(𝐤+𝐪)ϵ(𝐤)`$ is actually the condition to have a superconducting gap. We consider a spherical Fermi surface, so that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`E`$ depend only on $`ϵ`$. Therefore our assumption $`ϵ(𝐤+𝐪)ϵ(𝐤)`$ ensures $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤+𝐪)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ and $`E(𝐤+𝐪)E(𝐤)`$, which lead through Eq. (1) to

$$E=E_0\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E}{2k_BT}\right)$$
(2)
where

$$E_0=\underset{𝐪}{}V(𝐤,𝐪)$$
(3)
which is just the value of $`E`$ at $`T=0`$: $`\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)1`$ when $`T0`$ in Eq. (2).

The iteration method was not used by BCS to solve Eq. (1). Instead, they assumed $`V=const.`$ in that equation, and converted the summation there into integration, giving

$$\frac{1}{N\left(0\right)V}=_0^\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E}{2k_BT}\right)\frac{dϵ}{E}$$
(4)
which is one of the key equations of the BCS theory, where $`N(0)`$ is the density of state near the Fermi surface, $`\omega `$ an unspecified phonon frequency. Further approximation was applied to find the well-known ratio $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c=3.5`$ . However, it is interesting that $`E`$ from Eq. (2) is also the $`exact`$ solution of Eq. (4), provided that $`\mathrm{}\omega N(0)V=E_0`$: approximation is not necessary. This can be checked easily by simple inspection. Since $`\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)E/2k_BT`$, we find from Eq. (2) $`TE_0/2k_B`$ which means $`T_c=E_0/2k_B`$ and therefore

$$\frac{2E_0}{k_BT_c}=4$$
(5)
which reduces to $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c=4`$ when $`ϵ=0`$. Therefore the ratio 3.5 $`must`$ be replaced by 4, regardless of whether Eq. (1) is solved via the original BCS approximation or not. Indeed, the ratio 3.5 does not appear to have much advantage: we find from 23 superconducting elements in the literature  that on average $`2E_0/k_BT_c=3.8`$ with standard deviation 0.597. The deviation is 0.627 from the ratio 4.0, compared with 0.672 from ratio 3.5.

Now we evaluate $`E_0`$ in Eq. (3) quantitively. We have

$$V(𝐤,𝐪)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{2\mathrm{}\omega _l\left(𝐪\right)_l^2(𝐤,𝐪)}{\left[\mathrm{}\omega _l\left(𝐪\right)\right]^2\left[ϵ\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)ϵ\left(𝐤\right)\right]^2}$$
(6)
where $`\omega _l`$ is the phonon frequency, $`l`$ identifies phonon branch (excluding transverse phonons, which do not interact with electrons in $`N`$-processes) . Eq. (6) is slightly different from that in  where phonon polarization is neglected. The matrix element

$$_l(𝐤,𝐪)=\stackrel{~}{q}_l\left[\frac{\mathrm{}N}{2M\omega _l\left(𝐪\right)}\right]^{1/2}_\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _{𝐤+𝐪,\sigma }^{}\left(𝐫\right)\delta 𝒱\left(𝐫\right)\psi _{𝐤,\sigma }\left(𝐫\right)𝑑𝐫$$
(7)
measures the strength of electron-phonon interaction. Here $`\psi `$ is the electron wave function, $`\sigma `$ spin $``$ or $``$, $`M`$ mass of an atom, $`N`$ number of atoms in unit volume, r coordinates in real space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ a volume surrounding the atom, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ its boundary, and $`\delta 𝒱(𝐫)=𝒱(𝐫)𝒱(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)`$, $`𝒱`$ being the potential field. We define $`\stackrel{~}{q}_l`$ as the $`l`$-th component of $`U𝐪`$, $`U`$ being the $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix found when solving the classical equation of motion for the atom. Mott and Jones found matrix elements when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the Wigner-Seitz cell . We find Eq. (7) when $`𝒱(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)`$ is constant (this defines $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ in a natural manner).

We use free electron energy to evaluate Eq. (6). This means that the Fermi surface is spherical, our assumption when solving Eq. (1). As a result, the denominator of Eq. (6) becomes $`4ϵ_Fϵ_𝐪[\delta _l^2(\zeta +\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]`$, $`ϵ_F=(\mathrm{}^2/2m)|𝐤|^2`$ is the Fermi energy (we study $`|𝐤|`$ near the Fermi surface), $`ϵ_𝐪=(\mathrm{}^2/2m)|𝐪|^2`$, $`\delta _l^2=(m/2)v_l^2/ϵ_F`$, $`v_l=\omega _l(𝐪)/𝐪|`$ the sound velocity. In the Debye approximation $`\delta _l=(Z/16)^{1/3}\mathrm{\Theta }_D/\mathrm{\Theta }_F10^3`$ in all superconducting metals, where $`Z`$ is the valency, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_F`$ are the Debye and Fermi temperatures. It is apparent that $`V(𝐤,𝐪)>0`$ (condition to have an energy gap) holds in Eq. (6) only when $`\zeta +\mathrm{cos}\theta 0`$, $`\zeta =|𝐪|/|2𝐤|`$, $`\theta `$ being the angle between k and q, so that $`|𝐤+𝐪|^2=|𝐤|^2+|𝐪|^2+2|𝐤||𝐪|\mathrm{cos}\theta |𝐤|^2`$. Thus $`ϵ(𝐤+𝐪)ϵ(𝐤)`$: electrons change momentum but not energy in scattering, the assumption by Mott and Jones .

We substitute Eq. (6) into Eq. (3) and replace the summation over q with an integration over $`(4\pi /3)k_D^3`$ (volume of the first Brillouin zone), which exists in the sense of the Cauchy principal value (used by Kuper to verify the BCS theory) , i.e. positive and negative contributions of $`V(𝐤,𝐪)`$, if finite, are cancelled on a series of spherical surface, the singular point ignored. We are entitled to do so, because Eq. (6) is defined on a grid of k and q, which may not be in precise combinations to let $`V(𝐤,𝐪)=\mathrm{}`$. We can also avoid such combinations by suppressing a few phonons with little physical consequence. This principal value varies little among phonon branches, allowing us to use $`_l\stackrel{~}{q}_l^2=𝐪^tU^tU𝐪=|𝐪|^2`$ ($`U`$ unitary) to simplify the result. We use the expression for metal resistivity  to calibrate $`\delta 𝒱`$ in Eq. (7) and find

$$E_0=\frac{\mathrm{}e^2}{k_BT_\rho }\eta n\rho v^2$$
(8)
where $`e`$ and $`n`$ are electron charge and density, respectively, $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant, $`\rho `$ the resistivity at temperature $`T_\rho `$ (not necessarily low), $`v=k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_D/\mathrm{}k_D`$ the Debye sound velocity, $`k_D`$ being the phonon cut-off wavenumber, and

$$\eta =\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\left(4Z\right)^{1/3}}F^2\left(x\right)\frac{\zeta ^2d\zeta }{1\zeta ^2}/_0^{\left(4Z\right)^{1/3}}F^2\left(x\right)\zeta ^3𝑑\zeta 1$$
(9)
Here $`F(x)=3(x\mathrm{cos}x\mathrm{sin}x)/x^3`$ is the overlap integral function, $`x=3.84\alpha ^{1/3}Z^{1/3}\zeta `$, $`\alpha =N\mathrm{\Omega }_0/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the fraction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ in a primitive cell, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the unit volume. We assume $`|𝐪|/|2𝐤|=\zeta <(4Z)^{1/3}<1`$, because Eq. (6) arises from a canonical transformation  where operator commutation requires $`𝐪\pm 2𝐤`$.

FIG. 1. (A) Extended solution of the BCS self-consistent equation, $`E_𝐤=E`$ or $`ϵ`$, when $`E<ϵ<E`$ or $`ϵ<E`$, respectively. (B) $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(E^2ϵ^2\right)^{1/2}`$ which varies dramatically when $`E<ϵ<E`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ only when $`ϵ0`$.

It is apparent from Eqs. (2) and (8) that $`E`$ and $`E_0`$ are constant. In contrast $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(E^2ϵ^2)^{1/2}`$ varies dramatically when $`E<ϵ<E`$. Beyond this range Eq. (1) does not have non-trivial solution in first iteration. This justifies the approach of BCS to integrate Eq. (1) only in a thin layer across the Fermi surface . However Eq. (1) has an extended solution (Fig. 1)

$$E_𝐤=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E:& \hfill E<ϵ<E\\ \hfill ϵ:& \hfill ϵ<E\end{array}$$
(10)
where $`E_𝐤=ϵ`$ arises from the trivial solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ of Eq. (1). The pair occupancy (Fig.2)

$$h_𝐤=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{ϵ}{E_𝐤}\right)$$
(11)
varies linearly when $`E<ϵ<E`$, but equals 1 when $`ϵ<E`$. This also justifies the BCS approach to integrate Eq. (1) only in a thin layer: otherwise we have $`h_𝐤>1`$ or $`<0`$. The over-all probability of occupancy at $`T>0`$ is given by $`h_𝐤(12f_𝐤)`$. Here

$$f_𝐤=1/\left[1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_𝐤}{k_BT}\right)\right]$$
(12)
is the probability of excitation which, unlike the Fermi-Dirac distribution, drops towards the interior of the Fermi sea (Fig. 2) where electrons are apparently more difficult to excite. Curves in Figs. 1 and 2 all have a kink at $`ϵ=E`$, which is likely to be smoothed out after further iterations.

FIG. 2. (A) Electron pair occupancy, and (B) schematic of excitation probability.

In the original BCS paper $`E_𝐤=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+ϵ^2)^{1/2}`$ is known as the dispersion law . In Eq. (10) this dispersion law is reduced to the normal law once $`ϵ<E`$, consistent with the physics that no electron-phonon interaction takes place deep inside the Fermi sea. In the view of BCS the energy gap is measured by the minimum value of $`E_𝐤`$ . It is clear from Fig. 1 that $`E`$ fits this definition. In comparison $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ appears to be a parameter to measure the electron-phonon interaction, which weakens dramatically with increasing distance from the Fermi surface, and cuts off when $`|ϵ|>E`$. Furthermore, $`E_0`$ in Eq. (8) matches experimental values of the superconducting gaps of metals reasonably well, despite that on surface the combination of various fundamental constants in that equation appears to be a very long shot. Apparently, a good superconductor must have numerous free electrons (large $`n`$) scattered frequently by atoms (large $`\rho `$) moving quickly to facilitate pairing (large $`v`$). When $`\alpha =1`$, Eq. (8) yields $`2E_0=2.2`$, 18 and 27 for Cd, Ta and Nb (1.5, 14 and 30.5 experimentally, in $`10^4`$eV), which are of the right order, although over and under-estimations are possible. On average Eq. (3) yields $`2E_0=15.7`$ for Zn, Cd, Hg, Al, Ga, Tl, Sn, Pb, V, Nb, Ta and Mo (11.3 experimentally).

Although accepted by many, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=const.`$ is from approximation, employed to ease the mathematical difficulty to evaluate the BCS theory, and therefore not as fundamental as the theory itself. In fact $`\mathrm{\Delta }=const.`$ leads to several conclusions that have to be justified. For example $`E=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+ϵ^2)^{1/2}`$ increases when $`ϵ>0`$. It is not clear why pairs above the Fermi surface are more difficult to break, despite their higher energy. The dispersion law $`E_𝐤=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+ϵ^2)^{1/2}`$ reduces to the normal law only when $`|ϵ|>>\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is not clear why this normal law is distorted inside the Fermi sea, where no electron-phonon interaction is supposed to take place. Furthermore $`\mathrm{\Delta }=const.`$ leads to Eq. (4) which is not easy to be compared with experimental data.

In conclusion the BCS theory has significant power of prediction when evaluated via the well-established method of iteration. This could be of current interest, because some novel theories for high $`T_c`$ superconductors resemble the BCS theory quite closely . These theories are often phenomenological, but nonetheless detailed enough for one to evaluate the matrix element . Therefore a formula similar to Eq. (8) might arise, which could be useful when comparing the theory with experiments.


format: text

text:
# Ghost excitonic insulator transition in layered graphite

## Abstract

Some unusual properties of layered graphite, including a linear energy dependence of the quasiparticle damping and weak ferromagnetism at low doping, are explained as a result of the proximity of a single graphene sheet to the excitonic insulator phase which can be further stabilized in a doped system of many layers stacked in the staggered ($`ABAB\mathrm{}`$) configuration.

The continuing interest in carbon-based materials has intensified both experimental and theoretical efforts to understand their electronic properties and interaction-driven transitions in these systems.

The problem of electronic instabilities in a single sheet of graphite has been previously studied by means of the Hartree-Fock and density functional methods with a focus on the short-ranged (including on-site and nearest neighbor) Hubbard-like repulsive interactions, and the inter-site repulsion was found to favor a charge density wave (CDW) ground state . This analysis did not provide, however, a proper account of the Coulomb forces that remain long-ranged due to the lack of conventional screening in semimetals, such as graphite.

In contrast, the authors of Ref. specifically focused on the role of the Coulomb interactions. From the renormalization group calculation in the second order in the dimensionless Coulomb coupling $`g=2\pi e^2/\epsilon _0v`$ they concluded that the renormalized coupling monotonously decreases at low energies and, therefore, it can not cause any instability of the gapless paramagnetic ground state of graphite.

Besides, the authors of Ref. suggested a possible explanation for the experimentally observed  linear energy dependence of the quasiparticle damping (defined as the imaginary part of the quasiparticle dispersion $`ϵ=E_𝐩+i\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$ ) which they found to behave as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)ϵ/\mathrm{ln}^2ϵ`$ at low energies. However, the large estimated value of the bare coupling constant $`(g10)`$ calls these results into question and warrants further investigation.

In the present Letter, we revisit the problem of the Coulomb interacting electrons in layered graphite and study the nature of the ground state and the quasiparticle spectrum at strong coupling. This time around, we employ a non-perturbative approach by solving a non-linear equation for the electron Green function, which will allow us to ascertain the status of the previous results obtained in perturbation theory and test our theoretical predictions against several pieces of the existing experimental evidence.

The semimetallic energy band structure of a single graphene sheet gives rise to the conduction and valence bands’ touching each other in the two inequivalent $`K`$-points located at the corners of the hexagonal two-dimensional (2D) Brillouin zone. In the absence of interactions, the low-energy quasiparticle excitations with the momenta in the vicinity of these points labeled as $`i=1,2`$ have linear dispersion $`E_𝐩^{(0)}=\pm v𝐩`$, the velocity $`v`$ being proportional to the width of the electronic $`\pi `$-band $`t2.4eV`$ .

These excitations can be formally described by a pair of two-component (Weyl) spinors $`\psi _{i\sigma }`$, each carrying a spin index $`\sigma `$, which are composed of the Bloch states residing on the two different sublattices of the bi-partite hexagonal lattice of the graphene sheet. In what follows, we choose to combine them into one four-component Dirac spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma =(\psi _{1\sigma },\psi _{2\sigma })`$ and also treat the number of the spin components $`N`$ as an adjustable parameter, the physical case corresponding to $`N=2`$.

The use of the Dirac spinor representation allows one to cast the free quasiparticle Hamiltonian in the relativistic-like form where $`v`$ is playing the role of the speed of light

$$H_0=iv\underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{N}{}}_𝐫\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (\widehat{\gamma }_1_x+\widehat{\gamma }_2_y)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma $$
(1)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma =\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0`$ and the reducible representation of the $`4\times 4`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\widehat{\gamma }_{0,1,2}=(\tau _3,i\tau _2,i\tau _1)\tau _3`$ given in terms of the triplet of the Pauli matrices $`\tau _i`$ satisfies the usual anticommutation relations: $`\{\widehat{\gamma }_\mu ,\widehat{\gamma }_\nu \}=2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{g}(1,1,1)\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

In the four-spinor representation, the electron Coulomb interaction reads as

$$H_C=\frac{v}{4\pi }\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (𝐫)\widehat{\gamma }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (𝐫)\frac{g}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\gamma }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})$$
(2)
Despite the apparent lack of the Lorentz invariance, Eq.(2) remains invariant under arbitrary $`U(2N)`$ rotations of the $`2N`$-component vector $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\sigma },\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\sigma })`$ composed of the chiral Dirac fermions defined as: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}\pm \widehat{\gamma }_5)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$, where the matrix $`\widehat{\gamma }_5=\mathrm{𝟏}\tau _2`$ anticommutes with any $`\widehat{\gamma }_\mu `$.

The chiral invariance of Eqs.(1,2) brings about the possibility of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking (CSB), akin the phenomenon that has long been studied in the relativistic fermion theories. The CSB transition manifests itself in the appearance of a fermion mass and gapping of the fermion spectrum, thus breaking the continuous chiral symmetry from $`U(2N)`$ down to $`U(N)U(N)`$ and developing a non-zero expectation value $`<_\sigma ^N\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (𝐫)>=<_\sigma ^N(\psi _\sigma ^{}(A)\psi _\sigma (A)\psi _\sigma ^{}(B)\psi _\sigma (B))>`$. The latter corresponds to the electron density modulation which alternates between the two sublattices ($`A`$ and $`B`$).

In light of the above, one can identify the CSB order parameter with the site-centered CDW and thus relate it to the $`p=0`$ value of the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ appearing in the renormalized (and, generally, non-Lorentz invariant) fermion Green function

$$\widehat{G}_p=Z_p[(ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0v_p\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }})+\mathrm{\Delta }_p]^1$$
(3)
where the interaction effects can also give rise to the non-trivial wave function ($`Z_p`$) and velocity ($`v_p/v`$) renormalization factors.

Because of its intrinsically non-perturbative nature, the phenomenon of CSB evades weak-coupling analysis based on perturbation theory. Nonetheless, similar to its relativistic counterpart , the CSB can be revealed by a non-perturbative solution of the system of non-linear equations for the fermion Green function (hereafter $`\widehat{p}=ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0v\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}`$)

$$\widehat{G}_p^1=\widehat{p}+\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,k}\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{G}_{p+k}\widehat{\gamma }_0V_k,$$
(4)
vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,k}`$, and effective Coulomb interaction $`V_k=1/[(𝐪/gv)+N\chi (\omega ,𝐪)]`$ which gets strongly modified by the intra-layer polarization of the Dirac fermions

$$\chi _k=\mathrm{Tr}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,k}\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{G}_{p+k}\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{G}_p$$
(5)
A further analytical progress is hindered by the fact that, as a result of the interaction’s $`V_k`$ being explicitly non-Lorentz invariant, the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ can feature separate dependencies on the energy $`ϵ`$ and momentum $`𝐩`$ variables. Therefore, we choose to proceed directly with the finite temperature counterpart of Eq.(4), in which case the Lorentz invariance is broken regardless of the symmetry of the fermion interactions.

In order to get a preliminary insight into the problem we resort to the same approximations as those made in the previous studies of CSB in the context of $`QED_3`$ . To this end, we first neglect the wave function, velocity, and vertex renormalizations ($`Z_p=v_p/v=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,k}=1`$) in Eq.(4) whose scalar part then becomes a closed equation for the fermion gap function. As shown in , neglecting the above renormalizations in the gap equation suffices for establishing the existence of its non-trivial solution(s) and estimating a critical value $`N_c`$ of the only remaining free parameter, the number of fermion species.

Taking the sum over the discrete Matsubara frequencies we then arrive at the momentum-dependent gap equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩={\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}E_𝐤/2T}{E_𝐤}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤}{|𝐤𝐩|/gv+N\chi (0,𝐤𝐩)}}`$ (6)
where $`E_𝐩=\sqrt{v^2𝐩^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩^2}`$. Next, we approximate the exact finite temperature fermion polarization (5) by that computed in the massless case. By doing so, we overestimate the contribution of the fermion momenta $`𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩`$ which is, however, unimportant, as long as the gap remains much smaller than the high-momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ comparable to the maximum span of the Brillouin zone. As shown below, this condition is indeed satisfied for $`N`$ close to the critical value $`N_c`$.

At $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩=0`$ the fermion polarization is given by the approximate formula

$`\chi (0,𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{2T}{\pi v_F^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}[2\mathrm{cosh}({\displaystyle \frac{v𝐪}{2T}}\sqrt{x(1x)})]`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8v^2}}[v𝐪+cT\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{v𝐪}{cT}})]`$ (8)
which, for $`c=16\mathrm{ln}2/\pi `$, provides an up to a few percent accurate interpolation between the two opposite limits: $`v𝐪T`$ where Eq.(8) agrees with the zero-temperature result $`\chi _k\sqrt{k^2}`$ and $`v𝐪T`$ where it exhibits thermal screening $`\chi _0T`$ .

Notably, at strong coupling ($`g1`$) the screened Coulomb interaction $`V_k`$ becomes independent of the bare coupling constant and assumes a universal form $`V_k1/\chi (0,𝐤)`$ governed by the fermion polarization (7).

Upon differentiating Eq.(6) with respect to the momentum $`𝐩`$ one finds that for $`E_𝐩>T`$ this non-linear integral equation reduces to a linear differential one

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩}{d𝐩^2}+\frac{2}{𝐩}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩}{d𝐩}+\frac{2}{\pi N}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩}{𝐩^2}=0$$
(9)
which has to be supplemented by the boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0<\mathrm{}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩+𝐩d\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩/d𝐩)|_{𝐩=\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$.

In turn, Eq.(9) can be readily identified with the radial Schroedinger equation for the $`s`$-wave zero energy level in the potential that behaves as $`1/𝐩^2`$ for $`𝐩>T/v`$. From the textbook solution of this problem  we infer that for $`N>N_c=8/\pi `$ there are two independent solutions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩^\pm 1/𝐩^{(1\pm \sqrt{1N_c/N})/2}`$, neither of which can satisfy the above boundary conditions. In contrast, for $`N<N_c`$ there exists a solution with infinitely many nodes, consistent with the infinite number of the negative energy levels in the $`1/𝐩^2`$-potential. Thus, only in this ”centerward downfall” regime does the solution

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩\frac{T^{3/2}}{\sqrt{v𝐩}}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{N_c}{N}1}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v𝐩}{T})$$
(10)
monotoneously decrease in the interval $`T/v<𝐩<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and satisfy the boundary condition at $`𝐩=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which reads as

$$\sqrt{\frac{N_c}{N}1}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v\mathrm{\Lambda }}{T}=2\pi n2\mathrm{tan}^1(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{N_c}{N}1})$$
(11)
where $`n`$ is a positive integer. We note, in passing, that due to the formal similarity between the underlying equations, a solution with the similar critical properties has also been discovered in the context of the 2D Cooper pairing near the antiferromagnetic instability .

The highest critical temperature $`T_c(N)`$ below which the CSB order parameter sets in corresponds to $`n=1`$:

$$T_c(N)v\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{N_c/N1}})$$
(12)
According to Eq.(11), at non-zero temperatures the critical number of fermion species gets reduced: $`N_c(0)N_c(T)4\pi ^2N_c(0)/\mathrm{ln}^2(v\mathrm{\Lambda }/T)`$.

In the case of $`QED_3`$, the progressively more and more refined numerical simulations  have demonstrated that the results of the original analytical approach of Ref. which yielded a solution similar to Eq.(9) remain robust against relaxing the above approximations and taking into account both the wave function renormalization and the vertex function satisfying the Ward identity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,0}=Z_p`$.

Likewise, a numerical analysis of the coupled Eqs.(4) and (5) confirms the existence of the solution (9) in a whole domain bordered by the critical line (11) in the $`NT`$ plane .

Also, the numerically evaluated characteristic ratio $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/T_c10`$ appears to be close to that found in Ref. which is substantially greater than the BCS value corresponding to the solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩=const`$ of the gap equation with a momentum-independent kernel.

As far as the nature of the CSB transition is concerned, the observed $`N`$-dependence of the zero-momentum fermion gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}(2\pi /\sqrt{N_c/N1})`$ prompts one to identify the breaking of the continuous chiral symmetry as a topological (Kosterlitz-Thouless-type) phase transition in $`2+1`$ dimensions . Thus, the finite temperature CSB transition occurs between the two phases which are both chirally symmetrical, and therefore a bosonic Goldstone mode must be present in the quasi-ordered phase.

As regards the critical number of fermion species itself, the recent symmetry-based argument made in the context of $`QED_3`$ shows that the gap equation systematically overestimates the actual value of $`N_c`$ which may, in fact, be as low as $`3/2`$  while the gap equation yields $`N_c^{QED}=32/\pi ^2`$ .

The demonstrated formal relationship between the finite temperature $`QED_3`$ and the problem of a single graphene sheet suggests that in the latter case the actual critical number of fermion species might also be less than two, hence no CSB occurs.

Nonetheless, even at $`N>N_c`$ the nearby CSB transition, albeit unreachable at any $`g`$, can still have a profound effect on the quasiparticle spectrum both above and below the crossover into the quantum-critical regime associated with the zero-temperature quantum-critical point at $`N_c`$.

In the quantum disordered (low-temperature) regime $`TT^{}(N)`$, where the crossover temperature $`T^{}(N)`$ vanishes at $`NN_c+0`$ in the same manner as $`T_c(N)`$ given by Eq.(11) for $`NN_c0`$, the only solution of Eqs.(4) and (5) is a massless fermion propagator which exhibits a suppression of the residue of the bare quasiparticle pole: $`Z_p0`$ for $`p0`$, while the velocity $`v_p`$ undergoes singular renormalization and monotonously increases with decreasing momentum, unlike in the Lorent-invariant $`QED_3`$ where it remains constant.

By contrast, in the quantum-critical regime $`TT^{}(N)`$ the fermion propagator features a simple pole, whereas the temperature- (but no longer momentum-) dependent factors $`Z_T`$ and $`v_T`$ control its residue and the effective velocity, respectively. The fermion damping is then determined by the self-consistent equation

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega d𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}}\{\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon +\omega }{2T}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\}\times `$ (13)
$`\mathrm{Im}[{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon +\omega +i\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon +\omega )}{(\epsilon +\omega +i\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon +\omega ))^2v^2𝐪^2}}]\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi (\omega ,𝐪)}}`$ (14)
which yields the universal solution: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)\mathrm{max}(ϵ,T)`$, in a general agreement with the time-resolved two-photon photoemission data taken in the energy range $`0.4<ϵ<2eV`$ . One can expect that this characteristic signature of the CSB-related quantum-critical behavior will be even more pronounced in the case of a graphite monolayer deposited on an insulating surface, whereas a conducting substrate would hamper the possibility of observing the linear damping due to strong metallic screening.

The predicted linear damping should be possible to observe in angular-resolved photoemission which can specifically probe the vicinity of the $`K`$-points. On the contrary, the angular-averaged data are going to be affected by such details of the graphite bandstructure as, e.g., the saddle point in the quasiparticle dispersion which occurs at $`ϵ1.5eV`$ if the momentum resides at one of the $`M`$-points of the Brillouin zone. This saddle point was recently argued to be a likely cause of the additional plateau-like feature observed in the angular-averaged $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$  which is, therefore, unrelated to the many-body phenomena discussed in this Letter.

In a stack of graphite layers with the inter-layer spacing $`d`$, the screened intra-layer Coulomb interaction remains dominated by the polarization $`\chi _k`$ only at $`𝐪>1/Ngd`$. At still lower momenta the kernel in Eq.(6) becomes less singular ($`V_k1/\sqrt{𝐪}`$), thus reducing the range of temperatures and/or energies where the quantum-critical behavior associated with the nearby CSB transition can be observed in electron photoemission.

A finite inter-layer hopping $`t_{}0.27eV`$ provides another cutoff below which the particle-hole pairing correlations cease to drive the system towards the opening of the excitonic gap, and the quasiparticle damping becomes quadratic in energy for $`ϵt_{}`$.

In contrast, the inter-layer Coulomb interaction has the opposite effect of nudging a stack of graphite layeres closer to the CSB instability. To elucidate this point, we recall that the common form of graphite has a crystal structure of well-separated hexagonal layers stacked in a staggered ($`ABAB\mathrm{}`$) configuration. As a result, each layer gets naturally divided into two sublattices formed by the atoms positioned just above and below the centers and corners of the hexagons in the two adjacent layers, respectively.

Thus the inter-layer Coulomb repulsion strengthens the system’s propensity towards developing the CDW instability by favoring spontaneous depletion of one of the two sublattices (accompanied by excess occupation of the complementary one) which alternates between the layers in order to keep the electrons in the neighboring layers as far apart as possible.

Formally, one can incorporate this effect of the inter-layer Coulomb interaction into the effective single-layer description by adding a short-ranged four-fermion term $`\lambda (_\sigma ^N\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma )^2`$ into Eq.(2). With such a term present, the CSB transition occurs for any number of fermion species, including $`N>N_c`$, provided that the strength of this coupling exceeds a certain critical value ($`\lambda >\lambda _c(N)`$) which grows with $`N`$ .

By further elaborating on the solution of Eq.(6) obtained in the physical case $`N=2`$ we also find out that, upon doping the system of graphite layers, the excitonic insulating ground state tends to spontaneously develop a non-zero spin polarization $`<\psi _\sigma ^{}(A)\psi _\sigma (A)+\psi _\sigma ^{}(B)\psi _\sigma (B)>\mu \delta _{\sigma \sigma _0}`$ proportional to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ introduced by doping .

This observation sheds light on the possible origin of weak ferromagnetism which was recently observed in highly oriented pyrolitic graphite (HOPG) . Our fundings suggest that the latter might be not that different from the mechanism proposed in the recent studies of hexaborides believed to be 3D excitonic insulators . Notably, the authors of Ref. excluded magnetic impurities as a possible cause of the ferromagnetic behavior of the magnetization hysteresis loops (also consistent with the electron spin resonance data) observed in the samples showing the insulator-like temperature dependence of the resistivity. Elaborating on the analysis of Ref. we predict that if the excitonic instability proved to be at work, the weak ferromagnetism would have to disappear above a certain level of doping corresponding to the chemical potential $`\mu _c\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

In summary, we study the problem of the Coulomb interaction-driven electronic instabilities in layered graphite and propose a new explanation for the experimentally observed linear quasiparticle damping which might be a result of the relative proximity of a single graphene sheet to the zero-temperature quantum-critical point corresponding to the transition to the 2D excitonic insulator. In lightly doped layered graphite, the excitonic instability give rise to the formation of the site-centered CDW ground state exhibiting weak ferromagnetism, as observed experimentally. Together with the recently proposed explanation  of the apparent semimetal-insulator transition in applied magnetic field  as a phenomenon of the magnetic field-driven CSB, it lends a further support to the discovered formal relationship between the problem of layered graphite and the behaviors found in the relativistic theories of the 2D Dirac fermions.

The author is grateful to Y. Kopelevich for communicating his experimental results prior to publication and S. Washburn for a discussion. This research was supported by the NSF under Grant No. DMR-0071362.