format: text

text:
# Diophantine Geometry over Groups and the Elementary Theory of Free and Hyperbolic Groups*

## References


text:
# Local correlations in a strongly interacting 1D Bose gas

## I Introduction

Recently, one-dimensional (1D) Bose gases have been created in long cylindrical traps by tightly confining the transverse motion of particles to zero-point oscillations ExpGr ; ExpGo ; ExpSc . In the present stage, one of the main goals is to achieve the strong-coupling Tonks-Girardeau (TG) regime Girardeau60-65 ; LiebLiniger1963 , where due to repulsion between particles the 1D Bose gas acquires fermionic properties. These studies have revived an interest in dynamical and correlation properties of 1D gases. In most cases, correlations and dynamics of trapped atomic gases in the 1D regime can be investigated TPSW ; TGW ; TDLO ; TMS ; TOS ; Gangardt ; Karen  by using the Lieb-Liniger model LiebLiniger1963 , which assumes that particles interact via a delta-function repulsive potential. Of particular importance are local 3-body and 2-body correlations Gangardt ; Karen  as they govern the rates of inelastic processes, such as 3-body recombination and photoassociation in pair collisions. The measurement of these rates provides a way to identify the strong-coupling Tonks-Girardeau regime, and the intrinsic decay process of recombination in 3-body collisions is crucial for the stability of the gas.

The Lieb-Liniger model for a uniform system of $`N`$ bosons belongs to the class of integrable models of statistical physics Exact1D . The ground state and spectrum of elementary excitations for this model were found by Lieb and Liniger LiebLiniger1963  and a theory for finding thermodynamic functions at finite temperatures was constructed by C.N. Yang and C.P. Yang Yang1969 . These quantities are determined by relatively simple integral equations for the distribution of quantum numbers (quasi-momenta or rapidities). On the other hand, the problem of correlation properties is far from being completely resolved, except for some correlation functions in the limiting cases of weak and strong interactions. For example, the case of infinitely strong interactions is to a certain extent equivalent to that of free fermions and the interactions play the role of Pauli principle Girardeau60-65 . In this limit, any correlation function of the density is given by the corresponding expression for fermions, and the one-particle density matrix is the determinant of a certain integral operator Lenard ; Vaidya . The expressions for the one-body and two-body correlations for an arbitrary interaction strength were obtained by using the Inverse Scattering Method KorepinBook . However, closed analytical results can be found only as perturbative expansions in the limiting cases of weak and strong interactions Jimbo ; Korepin ; Creamer .

In this paper, we calculate local many-body correlations, that is the expectation value of a product of $`2m`$ field operators ($`m=2,3,\mathrm{}`$) at zero space and time separation. The locality allows us to obtain closed analytical results at zero and finite temperatures in the limiting cases of strong and weak interactions. The paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the Hamiltonian and introduce relevant parameters of the problem. Section III contains the main result of the paper, the derivation of local correlation functions at zero and finite temperature in the strong-coupling regime. In Section IV we use this result for the particular case of two-body and three-body correlations. For the sake of completeness, local correlations for the weak-coupling regime, following from the Bogoliubov approach, are presented in Section V. We conclude in Section VI.

## II  Interacting Bose gas in 1D

We consider the system of $`N`$ bosons on a 1D ring of length $`L`$ in the thermodynamic limit $`N,L\mathrm{}`$, with a fixed density $`n=N/L`$. The particles interact via a repulsive delta-function interaction potential and are described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_j}^2+2c\underset{i<j}{}\delta (x_ix_j)\right].$$
(1)
Here $`M`$ is the particle mass, $`x_j`$ is the coordinate of the $`j`$-th particle, and $`c=mg/\mathrm{}^2`$, with $`g>0`$ being the coupling constant. The quantity $`c`$ is the inverse interaction length for the 2-body problem with the delta-function potential $`g\delta (x)`$. In other words, the wave function of two particles decreases on a distance scale $`1/c`$ as they approach each other.

The Hamiltonian (1) is diagonalized by means of the Bethe Ansatz LiebLiniger1963 . The many-body wave function is symmetric with respect to permutation of particle coordinates, and in the domain $`0<x_1<\mathrm{}<x_N<L`$ the wave function reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)=\frac{1}{𝒩(c)}\underset{P}{}a(P)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle k_{P_j}x_j}}.$$
(2)
In Eq. (2) the sum runs over $`N!`$ permutations $`P`$ acting on $`N`$ indices of quantum numbers (quasi-momenta) $`k_j`$. These quantum numbers are chosen such that $`k_1<k_2<\mathrm{}<k_N`$. They determine the amplitudes

$$a(P)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\frac{ic+k_{P_i}k_{P_j}}{ick_{P_i}+k_{P_j}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(3)
of each term in Eq. (2) and their quantization in a finite system follows from the requirement of periodicity of the wave function (2). The corresponding eigenenergy is $`E=k_j^2`$, and $`𝒩(c)`$ in Eq. (2) is the normalization constant. The latter has been calculated in Refs. GaudinBook ; Gaudin1981 .

The key parameter of the system is the ratio of the mean interparticle separation $`1/n`$ to the interaction length $`1/c`$:

$$\gamma =\frac{c}{n}=\frac{mg}{\mathrm{}^2n}.$$
(4)
At sufficiently low temperatures, for $`\gamma 1`$ the gas is in the strong-coupling regime: the many-body wave function strongly decreases at interparticle distances much smaller than $`1/n`$. In the extreme case $`\gamma =\mathrm{}`$ the amplitudes (3) are determined by the sign of the permutation:

$$a(P)=(1)^P.$$
(5)
So, the wave function (2) vanishes when at least two particle coordinates coincide. In this limit any correlation function of the density operators can be calculated by using the theory of free fermions, since in the domain $`0<x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_N<L`$ the wave function (2) is the Slater determinant constructed out of the plane waves with momenta $`k_j`$. In the case of large but finite $`\gamma `$, the calculations can be performed perturbatively as expounded in the next Section for the local density correlations.

In the opposite limit, $`\gamma 1`$, the gas is in the weak-coupling regime. In this case the ground state of the system is well described by the Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field theory, and correlation functions at $`T=0`$ can be found on the basis of the Bogoliubov-Popov approach (see Popov ). This approach also covers a significant part of the weak-coupling regime at finite temperatures.

For finite temperatures, aside from $`1/c`$ and $`1/n`$, one has another length scale, the thermal de Broglie wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/mT)^{1/2}`$. The latter is especially important at temperatures $`T>T_d`$, where $`T_d=\mathrm{}^2n^2/2m`$ is the temperature of quantum degeneracy. The relation between the three length scales determines various finite-temperature regimes of the 1D Bose gas, which we discuss below in the limits of strong and weak interactions.

## III  Local correlations in the strong-coupling limit

We now consider the strong coupling limit $`\gamma 1`$ and calculate the local $`m`$-particle correlation function

$$g_m(\gamma )=\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0)\right)^m\left(\mathrm{\Psi }(0)\right)^m,$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)`$,$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ are the creation and annihilation operators of bosons. At $`T=0`$ the expectation value $`\mathrm{}`$ is taken with respect to the ground state of the system, and at finite temperatures we assume the average in the grand-canonical ensemble. We first present the derivation at zero temperature and then generalize the method to the case of finite temperatures.

For $`T=0`$, in first quantization the correlation function $`g_m`$ (6) reads

$$g_m(\gamma )=\frac{N!}{m!(Nm)!}𝑑x_{m+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_N\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\gamma )}(0,\mathrm{},0,x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N)\right|^2,$$
(7)
where the ground state wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\gamma )}`$ is given by by the Bethe Ansatz expression (2). In the strong-coupling limit the amplitudes $`a(P)`$ (3) can be expanded in inverse powers of the interaction strength

$$a(P)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\frac{ic+k_{P_i}k_{P_j}}{ick_{P_i}+k_{P_j}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=(1)^P\underset{i<j}{}\left(1+\frac{k_{P_i}k_{P_j}}{ic}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(8)
The quasi-momenta are close to their ground state values at $`\gamma =\mathrm{}`$, given by the uniform Fermi-Dirac distribution in the interval $`[k_F,k_F]`$, with the Fermi momentum $`k_F=\pi n`$. One then sees that in fact Eq. (8) gives the expansion in inverse powers of $`\gamma `$. For $`\gamma 1`$, we extract the leading behavior of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^\gamma `$ at $`m`$ coinciding points by appropriately symmetrizing the amplitudes $`a(P)`$ for each permutation:

$$\frac{1}{m!}\underset{p}{}a(P_{p_1},P_{p_2},\mathrm{},P_{p_m},P_{m+1},\mathrm{}P_N)\frac{(1)^P}{(ic)^{m(m1)/2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_m(k_{P_1},\mathrm{},k_{P_m}),$$
(9)
where the sum runs over $`m!`$ permutations $`p`$ of numbers $`1,2,\mathrm{},m`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_m(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)=\underset{i<j}{}(k_ik_j)$$
(10)
is the Vandermonde determinant. Up to the leading term in $`1/c`$, the ground state wave function at $`m`$ coinciding points is therefore given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\gamma )}(0,\mathrm{},0,x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N)=\frac{1}{(ic)^{m(m1)/2}}\frac{1}{𝒩(\mathrm{})}\underset{P}{}(1)^P\mathrm{\Delta }_m(k_{P_1},\mathrm{},k_{P_m})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{N}{}}k_{P_j}x_j\right).$$
(11)
This allows us to express $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\gamma )}(0,\mathrm{},0,x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N)`$ through spatial derivatives of the wave function of non-interacting fermions,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\mathrm{})}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩(\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}(1)^P\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}k_{P_j}x_j\right).`$
From Eq. (11) we find

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\gamma )}(0,\mathrm{},0,x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N)=\left(\frac{1}{c}\right)^{m(m1)/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_{x_1},\mathrm{},_{x_m})\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{(\mathrm{})}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m,x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N)|_{x_1=\mathrm{}=x_m=0}.$$
(12)
Returning to Eq. (7), one sees that the local correlation function is given by derivatives of the $`m`$-particle correlation function of free fermions at $`x_1=\mathrm{}=x_m=y_1=\mathrm{}=y_m=0`$:

$$g_m=\frac{1}{c^{m(m1)}}\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_{x_1},\mathrm{},_{x_m})\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_{y_1},\mathrm{},_{y_m})\psi ^{}(x_1)\mathrm{}\psi ^{}(x_m)\psi (y_m)\mathrm{}\psi (y_1).$$
(13)
The operators $`\psi ^{}`$, $`\psi `$ are now fermionic field operators with canonical anticommutation relations. Using Wick’s theorem we express the expectation value of these operator as a product of one-particle Green functions:

$$\psi ^{}(x_1)\mathrm{}\psi ^{}(x_m)\psi (y_m)\mathrm{}\psi (y_1)=\underset{p}{}(1)^pG(x_1,y_{p_1})G(x_2,y_{p_2})\mathrm{}G(x_m,y_{p_m}).$$
(14)
The one-particle Green function is given by

$$G(x,y)=G(xy)=\psi ^{}(x)\psi (y)=\frac{1}{L}\underset{k}{}N^0(k)e^{ik(xy)},$$
(15)
where $`N^0(k)`$ is the ground state Fermi-Dirac distribution. Then, from Eqs. (15), (14) and (13) we obtain

$$g_m=\frac{1}{c^{m(m1)}}\underset{p}{}\frac{(1)^p}{L^m}\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_x)\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_y)\underset{k_1\mathrm{}k_m}{}N_{k_1}^0\mathrm{}N_{k_m}^0e^{ik_1(x_1y_{p_1})}\mathrm{}e^{ik_m(x_my_{p_m})}|_{\begin{array}{c}x_1=\mathrm{}=x_m=0\\ y_1=\mathrm{}=y_m=0\end{array}},$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_x)`$ stands for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_{x_1},\mathrm{},_{x_m})`$. This expression can be further simplified as the Vandermonde determinant is a totally antisymmetric function of its variables. Therefore, reordering $`y_{p_j}`$ arguments cancels the factor $`(1)^p`$. Using this fact, acting with derivatives on the corresponding arguments in the exponents, and noting that all permutations give the same result, we arrive at the equation:

$$g_m=\frac{m!}{c^{m(m1)}}\frac{1}{L^m}\underset{k_1\mathrm{}k_m}{}N^0(k_1)\mathrm{}N^0(k_m)\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m).$$
(17)
The developed method was briefly outlined in Ref. Gangardt  for 3-particle local correlations. It is readily generalized to the case of finite temperatures. In the grand canonical ensemble the expression for the $`m`$-particle local correlation function $`g_m`$ (6) reads:

$`g_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\text{Tr}\left\{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0)\right)^m\left(\mathrm{\Psi }(0)\right)^m\mathrm{exp}\{(H\mu N)/T\}\right\}=`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^N}{N!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}e^{E_\alpha /T}{\displaystyle \frac{N!}{m!(Nm)!}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_{m+1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_N\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(\gamma )}(0,\mathrm{},0,x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N)\right|^2},`$
where $`Z`$ is the partition function, $`z=\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$ is the fugacity, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and the index $`\alpha `$ labels eigenstates of the system. Expanding the eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(\gamma )}`$ at coinciding points exactly as above in the case of the ground state wave function, we express the leading contribution to $`g_m`$ through derivatives of the finite-temperature correlation function of free fermions at $`x_1=x_2=\mathrm{}=x_m=y_1=\mathrm{}=y_m=0`$:

$`g_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^{m(m1)}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_x)\mathrm{\Delta }_m(_y)\psi ^{}(x_1)\mathrm{}\psi ^{}(x_m)\psi (y_m)\mathrm{}\psi (y_1)_T`$ (19)
The finite-temperature $`m`$-fermion correlation function is again calculated with the use of Wick’s theorem. This gives Eq. (14) in which $`G(x_i,y_{P_i})`$ are now finite-temperature Green functions for free fermions. We then proceed in the same way as at $`T=0`$ and arrive at Eq. (17), with $`N^0(k)`$ replaced by the Fermi-Dirac distribution at finite temperatures:

$$N(k)=\frac{z\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k^2/4\pi )}{1+z\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k^2/4\pi )}.$$
(20)
At temperatures $`TT_d`$ the characteristic momentum of particles is the thermal momentum $`k_T1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore, the small parameter for the expansion of the amplitudes $`a(P)`$ in Eq. (8) is $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }c`$. Thus, one must satisfy the inequality $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c1`$, which requires temperatures

$$T\gamma ^2T_d.$$
(21)
From this point on we consider together the cases of zero and finite temperature. In the thermodynamic limit, expressing the momenta in terms of the size of the Fermi zone, $`k=2k_Fx=2\pi nx`$, we have

$$\frac{g_m}{n^m}=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\gamma }\right)^{m(m1)}m!I_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }n,z),$$
(22)
where the $`m`$-fold integral $`I_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }n,z)`$ depends on the ratio of the de Broglie wavelength to the mean interparticle separation and on the fugacity $`z`$ (or chemical potential), and is given by

$$I_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }n,z)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_mN(x_1)\mathrm{}N(x_m)\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m),$$
(23)
where $`N(x)`$ is given by Eq. (20) with $`k=2\pi nx`$. In order to keep the density constant one must fix $`z`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n`$ by the normalization condition

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}N(x)𝑑x=1.$$
(24)
Under this condition the integral in Eq. (23) becomes a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n`$ only. For calculating this function we employ the method of orthogonal polynomials used in Random Matrix theory MehtaRandMatr . Consider a set of polynomials $`P_j(x)=x^j+\mathrm{}`$ for $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, orthogonal with the weight $`N(x)`$ on an infinite interval:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}N(x)P_i(x)P_j(x)𝑑x=h_i\delta _{ij}.$$
(25)
Then the value of the integral (23) is expressed through the normalization coefficients $`h_j`$ as follows:

$$I_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }n,z)=m!h_0\mathrm{}h_{m1}.$$
(26)
At $`T=0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n=\mathrm{}`$. In this limit the distribution function $`N(x)`$ is uniform in the interval $`1/2<x<1/2`$, and is zero otherwise. Polynomials $`P_j(x)`$ can be expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials AbramowitzStegunChap22  and we obtain

$$I_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }n)=m!\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)\right]^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)},\mathrm{\Lambda }n=\mathrm{}.$$
(27)
From Eq. (22) we then obtain the local correlation function

$$\frac{g_m(\gamma )}{n^m}=A_m\left(\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\right)^{m(m1)},$$
(28)
where the coefficients $`A_m`$ satisfy the recurrence relation

$$\frac{A_{m+1}}{A_m}=\pi \frac{2m+1}{2^{2m+2}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+3/2)}\right]^2,A_1=1.$$
(29)
Although general expressions for the normalization coefficients $`h_j`$ in Eq. (25) are not known, for sufficiently small $`m`$ these coefficients can be calculated straightforwardly as they are related to the moments of the distribution function $`N(x)`$. For example, one finds

$$h_0=1,h_1=<x^2>,h_2=<x^4><x^2>^2,<x^{2j}>=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}x^{2j}N(x)𝑑x.$$
(30)
We finally consider high temperatures $`TT_d`$ that still satisfy Eq. (21). In this case the fugacity is $`z=\mathrm{\Lambda }n`$, and the distribution function is Gaussian: $`N(x)=z\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2n^2x^2)`$. The polynomials $`P_j(x)`$ are Hermite polynomials, and we find

$$I_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }n)=\frac{m!}{(\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }n)^{m(m1)}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+j),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}/c\mathrm{\Lambda }1/n.$$
(31)
Then Eq. (22) for the local correlation function takes the form

$$\frac{g_m}{n^m}=B_m\left(\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }c}\right)^{m(m1)},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}/c\mathrm{\Lambda }1/n,$$
(32)
where the recurrence relation for the coefficients $`B_m`$ reads $`B_{m+1}=(m+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+2)B_m`$, and $`B_1=1`$.

## IV  Three-body and two-body correlations

In this Section we use the general results of Section III for the particular case of three-body local correlations in the strong-coupling limit. Two-body correlations have been discussed in Ref. Karen  and are expounded here for completeness.

At temperatures $`TT_d`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n1`$, and the local correlation functions $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are close to their zero temperature values. Thus, the system remains in the Tonks-Girardeau regime. For calculating $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ we use Eqs. (22) and (26), with normalization coefficients $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ following from Eq. (30). The quantities $`<x^2>`$ and $`<x^4>`$ at finite $`T`$ are obtained on the basis of the Sommerfeld expansion:

$$<x^{2j}>_T<x^{2j}>_0\frac{2}{3}\frac{2j}{2^{2j}}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }n)^4}=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\frac{2j}{2^{2j}}\left(\frac{T}{T_d}\right)^2.$$
(33)
This gives the following expressions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{n^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\right)^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }n)^4}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\right)^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_d}}\right)^2\right]`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{n^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{15}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\right)^6\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{28}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }n)^4}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{16}{15}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\right)^6\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_d}}\right)^2\right]`$ (35)
The results of Eqs. (34) and (35) have a clear physical explanation. For $`TT_d`$ the characteristic momentum of particles is of the order of $`k_F=\pi n`$. Fermionic correlations are present at interparticle distances $`x1/c`$, since for smaller distances the correlations do not change. Therefore, $`g_2`$ is nothing else than the pair correlation function for free fermions at a distance $`x1/c`$ Karen . This function is of the order of $`(k_F/c)^2(\pi /\gamma )^2`$, which agrees with Eq. (34). With the same arguments, one finds that the 3-body correlation function is $`g_3(k_F/c)^2(\pi /\gamma )^6`$, which coincides with the result of Eq. (35).

For temperatures in the interval $`T_dT\gamma ^2T_d`$, where $`1/c\mathrm{\Lambda }1/n`$, we use Eq. (32) directly and obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{n^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{(\mathrm{\Lambda }c)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_d}}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{n^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{576\pi ^3}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }c)^6}}={\displaystyle \frac{9}{\gamma ^6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_d}}\right)^3.`$ (37)
This regime can be called the regime of “high-temperature fermionization” Karen . The gas is no longer degenerate, but due to strong interaction between particles the correlations still have a fermionic character. With regard to local correlations, the main difference from the low temperature case is related to the value of the characteristic momentum of particles. It is now of the order of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, instead of $`k_F`$ at $`TT_d`$. Accordingly, the two-body and three-body local correlation functions are $`g_2(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }c)^2`$ and $`g_3(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }c)^6`$, as described by Eqs. (36) and (37).

## V Weak-coupling limit

In the weak-coupling limit, where $`\gamma 1`$, one can rely on the mean-field approach. The mean-field interaction energy per particle is proportional to $`ng`$ and it is reasonable to introduce the correlation length $`l_c=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{mng}`$. At temperatures $`TT_d`$, over a wide range of parameters the correlation length $`l_cl_\varphi `$, where $`l_\varphi `$ is the phase coherence length. Then the equilibrium state is a quasicondensate, that is the state in which density fluctuations are suppressed but the phase still fluctuates Mermin1966 . A review of earlier studies of 1D Bose gases in the weak-coupling limit may be found in Ref. Popov . The zero temperature phase coherence length is always larger than $`l_c`$, and at finite $`T`$ one has $`l_\varphi =\mathrm{}^2n/mT`$. Therefore, the condition $`l_cl_\varphi `$ can be rewritten as

$$\frac{T}{T_d}\sqrt{\gamma }.$$
(38)
One then sees that the quasicondensate regime requires sufficiently low temperatures or relatively large interaction between particles.

Due to the presence of phase coherence on a long distance scale, local correlation functions in the quasicondensate regime are close to $`n^2`$. Deviations from this value can be calculated straightforwardly by using the Bogoliubov approximation Mora . For $`g_2`$ the results are known (see Castin ; Karen  and references therein), and $`g_3`$ at $`T=0`$ is given in Ref. Gangardt . Here we complete the picture and present general results for $`g_m`$. They are obtained in the same way as $`g_2`$ in Ref. Karen .

We represent the bosonic field operator as a sum of a macroscopic component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and a small component $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ describing finite-momentum excitations. To be more precise, the component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ contains the contribution of excitations with momenta $`kk_0l_c^1`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ includes the contribution of larger $`k`$. At the same time, the momentum $`k_0`$ is chosen such that most of the particles are contained in the part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. This picture is along the lines of Ref. Popov , and the momentum $`k_0`$ drops out of the answer as the main contribution of the excitation part $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ to local correlation functions is provided by excitations with $`kl_c^1`$. Confining ourselves to the terms quadratic in $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and taking then into account that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^{2m}=n^mmn^{m1}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, the $`m`$-particle local correlation function is given by

$$g_m=\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\right)^m\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\right)^m=n^m\left[1\frac{m(m1)}{n}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\right)\right].$$
(39)
The normal and anomalous averages, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, can be calculated by using the same Bogoliubov transformation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ as in the 3D case:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\underset{k}{}\left(u_ka_ke^{ikx}v_ka_k^{}e^{ikx}\right),$$
(40)
where $`a_k`$ and $`a_k^{}`$ are annihilation and creation operators of elementary excitations, $`u_k,v_k=(\epsilon _k\pm E_k)/2\sqrt{\epsilon _kE_k}`$, $`\epsilon _k=\sqrt{E_k^2+2ngE_k}`$ is the Bogoliubov excitation energy, and $`E_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$. This immediately gives

$$\frac{g_m}{n^m}=1+m(m1)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi n}\left[\frac{E_k}{\epsilon _k}(1+\stackrel{~}{N}_k)1\right],$$
(41)
with $`\stackrel{~}{N}_k=[\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _k/T)1]^1`$ being the equilibrium occupation numbers for the Bogoliubov excitations.

The integral term in Eq. (41) contains the contribution of both vacuum and thermal fluctuations. The former is determined by excitations with $`kl_c^1`$, and at $`T=0`$ we find

$$\frac{g_m}{n^m}=1\frac{m(m1)}{\pi }\sqrt{\gamma }.$$
(42)
At temperatures $`Tng\gamma T_d`$, thermal fluctuations provide only a small correction $`(\pi \sqrt{\gamma }/24)(T/\gamma T_d)^2`$ to the result of Eq. (42).

For temperatures $`Tng\gamma T_d`$ (but still $`T\sqrt{\gamma }T_d`$), the contribution of thermal fluctuations to the integral term in Eq. (41) is the most important. It comes from excitation energies $`\epsilon _kng`$ and, hence, one may put $`\stackrel{~}{N}(k)=T/\epsilon _k`$ in the integrand. This yields

$$\frac{g_m}{n^m}=1+\frac{m(m1)}{4}\frac{T}{\sqrt{\gamma }T_d}.$$
(43)
One clearly sees from Eq. (43) that $`g_m`$ increases with decreasing interaction strength or increasing temperature. The ratio $`T/T_d\sqrt{\gamma }`$ is simply $`l_c/l_\varphi `$. For $`l_cl_\varphi `$ or $`TT_d\sqrt{\gamma }`$, the gas leaves the quasicondensate regime and Eq. (43) is no longer valid. At a temperature and interaction strength satisfying the condition $`TT_d\sqrt{\gamma }`$ the gas is in the decoherent regime where the interaction between particles is much less important. Note that for a very small interaction strength this regime is present even at temperatures far below $`T_d`$. The cross-over from the quasicondensate to the decoherent regime was discussed in Refs. Castin ; Karen  on the basis of calculations for $`g_2`$. In the decoherent regime the local correlation function is close to the result for an ideal Bose gas following from Wick’s theorem: $`g_m/n^m=m!`$. The corrections to this value can be calculated perturbatively Karen . The lower is $`T`$, the smaller is $`\gamma `$ at which the gas enters the decoherent regime. For $`T=0`$ this transition is discontinuous and occurs at zero interaction strength.

## VI  Concluding remarks

From a general point of view, local correlations of the 1D system are less universal than the long-wave behavior. Local correlation functions depend on a particular model used for calculations. Our approach leads to physically transparent analytical results for $`g_m`$ of the 1D Bose gas in the Lieb-Liniger model.

The use of this model for trapped atomic gases in the 1D regime is justified by the short-range character of interatomic interaction: the characteristic radius of interactions is much smaller than any length-scale of the Lieb-Liniger model. For an atomic gas in an infinitely long cylindrical trap, harmonically confined with frequency $`\omega _0`$ in the transverse direction to zero-point oscillations, the coupling constant $`g`$ is expressed through the 3D scattering length $`a`$ and reads Olshanii98  $`g=2\mathrm{}^2a/Ml_0^2`$, where $`l_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/M\omega _0}`$ is the amplitude of zero point oscillations. Then, to describe the system by the 1D Hamiltonian (1), it is sufficient to satisfy the inequalities $`l_0<<1/n,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ Gangardt ; Karen .

The reduction of $`g_3`$ in the strong-coupling limit, which follows from our results, is important in two aspects. First, it indicates a possibility of achieving this limit at a high gas density (large number of particles), since the rate of decay due to 3-body recombination is proportional to $`g_3`$ and will be strongly suppressed. Second, the measurement of 3-body losses of particles can be used for identifying the strong-coupling Tonks-Girardeau regime and the regime of high-temperature fermionization. The identification of these regimes can also be provided by the measurement of photoassociation in pair atomic collisions as the rate of this process is proportional to the two-particle local correlation function $`g_2`$. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that recent Monte Carlo calculations of $`g_2`$ at $`T=0`$ for the number of particles as low as 100 Giorgini  agree with our results obtained in the thermodynamic limit.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Lincoln Carr for useful comments and we acknowledge the hospitality of the European Centre for Theoretical Studies in Nuclear Physics and Related areas (ECT) during the 2002 BEC Summer Program, where part of the present work was done. This work was financially supported by the French Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, by the Dutch Foundations NWO and FOM, by INTAS, and by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research. Laboratoire Kastler Brossel is a research unit of Université Pierre et Marie Curie and Ecole Normale Supérieure, associated with CNRS (UMR 8552).


text:
# A fractal-like structure for the fractional quantum Hall effect

## I Introduction

The Fractal Geometry of Nature is manifest in the context of the fractional quantum Hall effect through a theoretical formulation introduced by us in the literature. Another viewpoint about the fractal approach to the FQHE was discussed in. We have defined universal classes $`h`$ of particles or quasiparticles, termed fractons, which satisfy a fractal distribution function associated with a fractal von Neumann entropy. Such objects are charge-flux systems defined in two-dimensional multiply connected space and they carry rational or irrational values of spin. We have considered the Hausdorff dimension $`h`$, defined within the interval $`1`$$`<`$$`h`$$`<`$$`2`$ and associated with the fractal curves of the quantum mechanics particles. We have found an expression which relates the fractal dimension $`h`$ and the spin $`s`$ of the particles, $`h=22s`$, $`0<s<\frac{1}{2}`$. This result has a mathematical analogous, in the branch of the fractal geometry, to the fractal dimension formula of the graph of the functions and given by: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma })=2H`$, where $`H`$ is known as Hölder exponent, with $`0<H<1`$. The fractal properties of the quantum paths can be extracted from the propagators of the particles in the momentum space***Another viewpoint about this discussion can be obtained via a gamma representation of the statistical weight given bellow. . Our formula, when we consider the spin-statistics relation $`\nu =2s`$, is written as $`h=2\nu `$, $`0<\nu <1`$. In this way, a fractal spectrum was defined taking into account a mirror symmetry:

$`h1`$ $`=`$ $`1\nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<\nu <1;h1=\nu 1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}<\nu <2;`$ (1)
$`h1`$ $`=`$ $`3\nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}<\nu <3;h1=\nu 3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}<\nu <4;etc.`$ (2)
Now, given the statistical weight for these classes of fractons

$$𝒲[h,n]=\frac{\left[G+(nG1)(h1)\right]!}{[nG]!\left[G+(nG1)(h1)nG\right]!}$$
(3)
and from the condition of the entropy be a maximum, we obtain the fractal distribution function

$`n[h]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒴[\xi ]h}}.`$ (4)
The function $`𝒴[\xi ]`$ satisfies the equation

$`\xi =\left\{𝒴[\xi ]1\right\}^{h1}\left\{𝒴[\xi ]2\right\}^{2h},`$ (5)
with $`\xi =\mathrm{exp}\left\{(ϵ\mu )/KT\right\}`$. We understand the fractal distribution function as a quantum-geometrical description of the statistical laws of nature, since the quantum path is a fractal curve and this reflects the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

We can obtain for any class its distribution function considering the Eqs.(4,5). For example, the universal class $`h=\frac{3}{2}`$ with distinct values of spin $`\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{3}{2}}`$, has a specific fractal distribution

$`n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\xi ^2}}}.`$ (6)
This result coincides with another one of the literature of fractional spin particles for the statistical parameter $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$, however our interpretation is completely distinctIn particular, the authors in never considered the possibility of to define universal class of particles for charge-flux systems defined in two-dimensional multiply connected space. We have here, sets of particles ( fractons ) with rational or irrational values of spin, satisfying a specific fractal distribution function. This idea works in the same way that fermions constitute a universal class of particles obeying the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. We emphasize that, in this fractal approach to the fractional spin particles, fractons realize the spin-statistics connection. On the other hand, the Hausdorff dimension associated to the quantum paths of particles with any value of spin can be obtained promptly.. We also have

$`\xi ^1=\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }[𝒴]\right\}^{h2}\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }[𝒴]\right\}^{h1},`$ (7)
where

$`\mathrm{\Theta }[𝒴]={\displaystyle \frac{𝒴[\xi ]2}{𝒴[\xi ]1}}`$ (8)
is the single-particle partition function. We verify that the classes $`h`$ satisfy a duality symmetry defined by $`\stackrel{~}{h}=3h`$. So, fermions and bosons come as dual particles. As a consequence, we extract a fractal supersymmetry which defines pairs of particles $`(s,s+\frac{1}{2})`$. This way, the fractal distribution function appears as a natural generalization of the fermionic and bosonic distributions for particles with braiding properties. Therefore, our approach is a unified formulation in terms of the statistics which each universal class of particles satisfies, from a unique expression we can take out any distribution function. In some sense , we can say that fermions are fractons of the class $`h=1`$ and bosons are fractons of the class $`h=2`$.

The free energy for particles in a given quantum state is expressed as

$`[h]=KT\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }[𝒴].`$ (9)
Hence, we find the average occupation number

$`n[h]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi {\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }[𝒴].`$ (10)
The fractal von Neumann entropy per state in terms of the average occupation number is given as

$`𝒮_G[h,n]`$ $`=`$ $`K\left[\left[1+(h1)n\right]\mathrm{ln}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+(h1)n}{n}}\right\}\left[1+(h2)n\right]\mathrm{ln}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+(h2)n}{n}}\right\}\right]`$ (11)
and it is associated with the fractal distribution function Eq.(4).

Now, as we can check, each universal class $`h`$ of particles, within the interval of definition has its entropy defined by the Eq.(11). Thus, for fractons of the self-dual class $`\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{3}{2}}`$, we obtain

$`𝒮_G\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]=K\left\{(2+n)\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2+n}{2n}}}(2n)\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{2n}}}\right\}.`$ (12)
We have also introduced the topological concept of fractal index, which is associated with each class. As we saw, $`h`$ is a geometrical parameter related to the quantum paths of the particles and so, we define

$$i_f[h]=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}_{\mathrm{}(T=0)}^{1(T=\mathrm{})}\frac{d\xi }{\xi }\mathrm{ln}\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }[𝒴(\xi )]\right\}.$$
(13)
For the interval of the definition $`1`$$``$$`h`$$``$$`2`$, there exists the correspondence $`0.5`$$``$$`i_f[h]`$$``$$`1`$, which signalizes a connection between fractons and quasiparticles of the conformal field theories, in accordance with the unitary $`c`$$`<`$$`1`$ representations of the central charge. For $`\nu `$ even it is defined by

$`c[\nu ]=i_f[h,\nu ]i_f[h,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}]`$ (14)
and for $`\nu `$ odd it is defined by

$`c[\nu ]=2\times i_f[h,\nu ]i_f[h,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}],`$ (15)
where $`i_f[h,\nu ]`$ means the fractal index of the universal class $`h`$ which contains the particles with distinct values of spin. In another way, the central charge $`c[\nu ]`$ can be obtained using the Rogers dilogarithm function, i.e.

$$c[\nu ]=\frac{L[x^\nu ]}{L[1]},$$
(16)
with $`x^\nu =1x`$, $`\nu =0,1,2,3,etc.`$ and

$$L[x]=\frac{1}{2}_0^x\left\{\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1y)}{y}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{1y}\right\}𝑑y,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<x<1.$$
(17)
Thus, we have established a connection between fractal geometry and number theory, given that the dilogarithm function appears in this context, besides another branches of mathematics.

Such ideas can be applied in the context of the FQHE. This phenomenon is characterized by the filling factor parameter $`f`$, and for each value of $`f`$ we have the quantization of Hall resistance and a superconducting state along the longitudinal direction of a planar system of electrons, which are manifested by semiconductor doped materials, i.e., heterojunctions under intense perpendicular magnetic fields and lower temperatures.

The parameter $`f`$ is defined by $`f=N\frac{\varphi _0}{\varphi }`$, where $`N`$ is the electron number, $`\varphi _0`$ is the quantum unit of flux and $`\varphi `$ is the flux of the external magnetic field throughout the sample. The spin-statistics relation is given by $`\nu =2s=2\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the flux associated with the charge-flux system which defines the fracton $`(h,\nu )`$. According to our approach there is a correspondence between $`f`$ and $`\nu `$, numerically $`f=\nu `$. This way, we verify that the filling factors experimentally observed appear into the classes $`h`$ and from the definition of duality between the equivalence classes, we note that the FQHE occurs in pairs of these dual topological quantum numbers.

## II Fractal structure for the FQHE data

In we have considered recent experimental results and checked the validity of our approach. On the one hand, some papers have suggested other values for the filling factors. In this Letter, we show that these possible values and their duals can be obtained by our formulation which is free of any empirical formula, i.e., our approach has a foundational basis connecting a fractal parameter $`h`$ associated with the quantum paths and the spin $`s`$ of fractons. Besides this, these particles obey a fractal distribution function associated with a fractal von Neumann entropy, as we discussed earlier. On the other hand, the suggestion in about the fractal-like structure to a deeper understanding of FQHE echoed just with our ideas advanced in the literature.

Let us consider the filling factors suggested in and the FQHE data together. Taking into account the fractal spectrum and the duality symmetry, we can write the sequence:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{34}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{26}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{23}{7}}`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{29}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\displaystyle \frac{14}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{23}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{28}{11}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{33}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{27}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{43}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{28}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{14}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{7}}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{14}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{26}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{14}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{22}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{21}{26}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{31}}`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{23}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{23}}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{14}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{35}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{31}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{27}}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{29}{49}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{22}}{\displaystyle \frac{23}{39}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{41}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{43}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{31}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{21}{37}}{\displaystyle \frac{38}{67}}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{17}{30}}{\displaystyle \frac{30}{53}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{22}{39}}{\displaystyle \frac{31}{55}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{57}}{\displaystyle \frac{23}{41}}{\displaystyle \frac{14}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{41}}`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{25}{57}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{55}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{39}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{23}{53}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{30}}{\displaystyle \frac{29}{67}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{37}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{31}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{43}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{41}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{39}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{22}}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{49}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{31}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{35}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{13}}`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{13}}`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{29}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{31}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{26}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{11}}`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{23}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{19}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{13}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{17}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}.`$ (36)
Thus, we identify dual pairs of filling factors observed

$`(\nu ,\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}),({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}),({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}),({\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}}),({\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}}),({\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}),({\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}),`$ (39)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}),({\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}),({\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}}),({\displaystyle \frac{6}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{13}}),({\displaystyle \frac{5}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{6}{11}}),({\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{7}}),`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{4}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{11}}),({\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}),({\displaystyle \frac{14}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}}),({\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}),({\displaystyle \frac{19}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{7}})etc.`$
and other ones to be verified as

$`(\nu ,\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{11}}),({\displaystyle \frac{3}{19}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{19}}),({\displaystyle \frac{3}{17}},{\displaystyle \frac{14}{17}}),({\displaystyle \frac{2}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{13}}),({\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{6}{7}}),({\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}},{\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}}),`$ (41)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{5}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{13}}),({\displaystyle \frac{4}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{13}}),({\displaystyle \frac{5}{17}},{\displaystyle \frac{12}{17}}),({\displaystyle \frac{26}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{23}{7}}),({\displaystyle \frac{19}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}}),({\displaystyle \frac{34}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{29}{9}})etc.`$
Here, we observe that our approach, in terms of equivalence classes for the filling factors, embodies the structure of the modular group as discussed in the literature  and the quantum Hall transitions satisfy some properties related with the Farey sequences of rational numbers. The transitions allowed are those generated by the condition $`p_2q_1p_1q_2=1`$, with $`\nu _1=\frac{p_1}{q_1}`$ and $`\nu _2=\frac{p_2}{q_2}`$. Thus, we verify distinct possible transitions for the fractional quantum Hall effect. We define families of universality classes to them, for example, consider the group I and II:

Group I

$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{19}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{9}{5}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{34}{9}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{16}{9}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{7}{4}}`$ (42)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{12}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{26}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{12}{7}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{5}{3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{18}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{8}{5}}`$ (43)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{17}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{25}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{11}{7}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{3}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{18}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{24}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{10}{7}}`$ (44)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{13}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{17}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{7}{5}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{4}{3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{21}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{23}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{9}{7}}`$ (45)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{5}{4}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{29}{9}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{11}{9}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{14}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{6}{5}}.`$ (46)
Group II

$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{14}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{6}{5}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{29}{9}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{11}{9}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{5}{4}}`$ (47)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{19}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{23}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{9}{7}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{4}{3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{13}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{17}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{7}{5}}`$ (48)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{18}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{24}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{10}{7}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{13}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{23}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{31}{9}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{13}{9}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{6}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{28}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{38}{11}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{16}{11}}`$ (49)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{19}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{33}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{45}{13}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{19}{13}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{3}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{6}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{20}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{32}{13}},{\displaystyle \frac{46}{13}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{20}{13}}`$ (50)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{17}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{27}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{39}{11}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{17}{11}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{14}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{14}{9}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{17}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{25}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{11}{7}}`$ (51)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{18}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{8}{5}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{5}{3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{12}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{7}},{\displaystyle \frac{26}{7}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{12}{7}}`$ (52)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{7}{4}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}},{\displaystyle \frac{34}{9}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{16}{9}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}},{\displaystyle \frac{19}{5}},\mathrm{}\}_{h=\frac{9}{5}}.`$ (53)
## III Conclusions

We have verified that our approach to the FQHE reproduces all experimental data and can predicting the occurrence of this phenomenon for other filling factors. According to our formulation, the topological character of these quantum numbers is related with the Hausdorff dimension of the quantum paths of fractons. For that, we have obtained a physical analogous to the mathematical one formula of the Hausdorff dimension associated with fractal curves. The FQHE occurs in pairs of dual topological quantum numbers filling factors. The foundational basis of our theoretical formulation is free of any empirical formula and this characteristic constitutes the great difference between our insight and others of the literature. Besides this, we have obtained other results, such as : a relation between the fractal parameter and the Rogers dilogarithm function, through the concept of fractal index, which is defined in terms of the partition function associated with each universal class of particles; a connection between the fractal parameter $`h`$ and the Farey sequences of rational numbers. Farey series $`F_n`$ of order $`n`$ is the increasing sequence of irreducible fractions in the range $`01`$ whose denominators do not exceed $`n`$. We have the following

Theorem: The elements of the Farey series $`F_n`$ of the order $`n`$, belong to the fractal sets, whose Hausdorff dimensions are the second fractions of the fractal sets. The Hausdorff dimension has values within the interval $`1`$$`<`$$`h`$$`<`$$`2`$ and these ones are associated with fractal curves.

Along this discussion we have established a connection between the FQHE and some concepts of the fractal geometry. We believe that our formulation sheds some light on that phenomenon. In another direction, a quantum computing in terms of fractons can be also defined and in this way, via the concept of entanglement fractal von Neumann entropy, we have observed that different Hall states have equivalent entanglement content . This is so because these Hall states belong to the same universality class of the quantum Hall transitions which are labelled just by the Hausdorff dimension. Also, we noted that some properties of the FQHE are independent of dynamical aspects or others details of the system: certain peculiarities of the FQHE can be extracted considering global properties as the modular group and the fractal dimension, which are implicit in all our theoretical formulation. Finally, the comments in about a possible fractal-like structure to a deeper understanding of the FQHE, maybe can start with our ideas.


text:
# Semiclassical action based on dynamical mean-field theory describing electrons interacting with local lattice fluctuations

## I Introduction

Despite many years of research, techniques to calculate the influence of strong vibronic interactions on electronic properties of metals and metallic molecular crystals are urgently needed. Strong couplings of conduction electrons to local lattice fluctuations have been observed in certain phonon mediated superconductors with high transition temperatures and manifest itselves among other effects in unexpected mid-infrared transitions in the optical conductivity in these materials, like in $`\mathrm{Ba}_{1\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{BiO}_3`$ and in the alkali-doped $`\mathrm{C}_{60}`$ fullerides. Standard Migdal Eliashberg (ME) theory is not sufficient to explain these phenomena although typical phonon frequencies of physical interest may remain small compared to typical electron energies. The reason for the failure is that ME theory assumes that the underlying electronic ground state can be described by Fermi liquid theory. However, if the electron-lattice coupling strength $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }/t`$ exceeds a critical value (of order unity) the conduction electrons are believed to form “small polarons”, so that the electronic groundstate is fundamentally reconstructed.

Signatures of polaronic behavior have been most accurately studied in the case of one or few electrons employing the Lang-Firsov transformation. However, its applicability to the physically relevant case of metallic densities is not established. A suitable method to study the interaction of conduction electrons with local lattice fluctuations may be the dynamical mean-field theory and in recent years an increasing number of studies have been published. In spite of the substantial simplifications which occur when the conduction electrons are described by local fluctuating fields the resulting equations are still very complicated. An exact solution is only possible in the case of a single polaron. Numerically “exact” solutions are avaiable using quantum Monte Carlo methods in the antiadiabatic limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ of unclear physical relevance and using numerical renormalization techniques at zero temperature. Especially the latter is a promising approach at least for simplifying models like the Holstein model and may be extended in future to finite temperatures. Semianalytical techniques have the advantage of being instructive and of being extensible to more realistc model systems of conduction electrons coupling to local lattice distortions including maybe even electron-electron interactions. These approaches rely on a detailed analysis of the effective action based on the dynamical mean-field theory.

Here, we extend a “semiclassical” approach recently introduced by one of the authors to general models of electrons in degenerate orbital states coupling to Jahn-Teller distortions. The classical (static) phonon modes are treated exactly and the quantum (dynamical) modes are expanded to second order. The adiabatic expansion of the classical action allows for treating polaronic effects in the physical relevant limit of small adiabatic parameter, from weak to strong electron-phonon couplings. However, the method is restricted to temperatures which exceed or are comparable to an energy scale set by a renormalized phonon frequency. Numerically, the method is implemented for the simplifying Holstein model of (spinless) electrons at half filling. We resolve previous numerical restrictions connected with the analytic continuation of the local electronic Green function from the imaginary to the real frequency axis which allows for a more complete understanding of dynamical quantities, especially the optical conductivity. A treatment of coupling strengths beyond the classical polaronic instability becomes numerically tractable. Pioneering work in the calculation of the density of states and the optical conductivity at low temperatures has been done by Benedetti and Zeyher and we provide a comparison to their results. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we apply the dynamical mean-field theory to models of metallic molecular crystals or metals with strong Jahn-Teller distortions. The polaronic instability for classical vibrations is discussed in Sec. III and known results in the opposite quantum limit at zero temperature are reviewed in Sec. IV. Section V gives the adiabatic expansion of the effective action and discusses the numerical implementation to treat the Holstein model at half-filling, as well as the limitations of the approach. Numerical results for the density of states and the optical conductivity are presented and discussed extensively. We conclude in Sec. VI.

## II Modelling

We study metallic molecular crystals whose Hamiltonians are described by

$$H=\underset{i}{}H_i^{\mathrm{Molecule}}+\underset{i,j,\alpha ,\beta }{}t_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }c_{i\alpha }^{}c_{j\beta }^{}\mu \underset{i,\alpha }{}c_{i,\alpha }^{}c_{i,\alpha }^{}.$$
(1)
Here, the operator $`c_{i\alpha }^{}`$ creates an electron in the molecular orbital (MO) $`\alpha `$ on the $`i`$-th molecule. For simplicity we suppress the spin index and consider spinless electrons. However, our treatment can be easily extended to a paramagnetic state by including the appropriate spin degeneracy. We will assume that the molecular orbital state are single particle like, e.g. provided by a Hartree-Fock treatment of the molecule. In particular, the hopping of electrons on and off a molecule shall not alter the local electronic level scheme. In this respect the assumption of spinless electrons helps to avoid unphysical large fluctuations in the local occupation number of the partially filled MOs giving rise to the conduction bands.

In general, the high local symmetry of a molecule will lead to an orbital degeneracy of the interesting, partially filled MOs. Therefore $`H_{\mathrm{Molecule}}`$ describes the coupling between a $`f`$-fold degenerate electronic term and $`N`$ Jahn-Teller active modes

$`H_{\mathrm{Molecule}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(KQ_i^2+M\dot{Q}_i^2)`$ (6)
$`+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}W_{11}(Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N)& \mathrm{}& W_{1f}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ W_{f1}& \mathrm{}& W_{ff}\end{array}\right).`$
Here, the $`Q_i`$ denote the normal coordinates of the Jahn-Teller distortions. According to the Jahn-Teller theorem the leading term of the coupling constants $`W_{ij}`$ is linear in $`Q`$ and different matrix elements are symmetry related. Employing group theory we may characterize different cases according to different irreducible representations of all possible point groups. In particular $`Ee`$ denotes the coupling of a double degenerated electronic term with two Jahn-Teller modes.

We do not attempt to solve (1) directly which is a very difficult problem. Instead we are analysing an effective action of the form

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}Q_i(\omega _k)(K+M\omega _k^2)Q_i(\omega _k)\mu n`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{Tr}_n\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{orb}}\mathrm{ln}\left\{c(\nu _n)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}[\stackrel{}{Q}(\nu _n\nu _m)]\right\}.`$
This is the action of a single molecule embedded in an effective environment when the fermionic fields (which occur in quadratic form) are integrated out. The latter give rise to the mean-fields $`c(\nu _n)`$ which describe the conduction electrons and depend on odd Matsubara frequencies $`\nu _n=2\pi T(n+1/2)`$. The $`Q_i(\omega _k)`$ are bosonic fields (describing the Jahn-Teller modes) depending on even Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _k=2\pi Tk`$. Note that the $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}`$-term in the logarithm is nondiagonal in both the Matsubara and the orbital index. The action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ arises in a dynamical mean-field (DMFT)  description of the original lattice model Eq. (1) if we assume a structureless and fast fluctuating environment of a single molecule, i.e. if the local Green function can be averaged over the $`f=n_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ orbital degrees of freedom

$$𝒢=\frac{1}{n_{\mathrm{orb}}}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{orb}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}_{\mathrm{loc}}.$$
(9)
The orbital averaging was first introduced in Ref. . The DMFT treatment provides a self-consistency expression for the dynamic mean-fields $`c`$. The partition function may be written as a functional integral over the bosonic fields

$$Z=𝒟[Q]\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{eff}}).$$
(10)
from which the local Green function $`𝒢`$ follows

$$𝒢(\nu _n)\frac{\delta \mathrm{ln}Z}{\delta c(\nu _n)}.$$
(11)
The molecules are arranged on a three dimensional lattice. However, after averaging over the orbital degrees of freedom in (9) it may be sufficient to work with an effective density of states of simple form, e.g. semicircular $`\rho _0(ϵ)=(1/N)_\stackrel{}{k}\delta (ϵϵ_\stackrel{}{k})=1/(2\pi t^2)\sqrt{4t^2ϵ^2}`$. In this case the self-consistency equation (9) can be written in the form

$$c_n=i\omega _n+\mu \frac{t^2}{n_{\mathrm{orb}}}𝒢_n\left(\{c_n\}\right).$$
(12)
Eqs. (8), (10), (11) and (12) form a complete set of equations which, in principle, can be solved for the orbital averaged local Green function on the imaginary axis of a molecular crystal with Jahn-Teller active local distortions. However, one cannot evaluate the path integrals exactly in Eq. (10) and further approximations are necessary. We adopt the adiabatic expansion of the effective action Eq. (8) which includes the leading term in the non diagonal part of the electron-phonon interaction as discussed in Sec. V.

The present modelling is not restricted to the description of metallic molecular crystals as pioneering works on the “colossal magnetoresistance” manganites demonstrate. However, when applying the present formalism to others than molecular crystals one have to keep in mind that local distortions of the crystal unit cell do influence the neighboring cells. In particular, in transition metal oxides $`E_g`$ symmetry distortions of the oxygen octahedra move oxygen atoms of several unit cells. Therefore, in this case the presented modelling is only applicable to phenomena which involve incoherent features of the electronic Green function, i.e. which involve high temperatures or high frequencies.

## III Classical action: Analytical insights

A good starting point to gain some insight in the physics described by the Eqs. (8) - (12) is to analyse the effective action Eq. (8) in the high temperature limit when only thermal fluctuations are present. $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ reads

$`S_{\mathrm{class}}(\stackrel{}{Q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}Q_i^2\mu n`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{Tr}_n\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{orb}}\mathrm{ln}\left\{c(\nu _n)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}[\stackrel{}{Q}]\right\}`$
where the $`Q_i=Q_i(\omega _k=0)`$ are the classical components of the bosonic fields. The function

$$P(\stackrel{}{Q})=\mathrm{exp}[S_{\mathrm{class}}(\stackrel{}{Q})]$$
(15)
is the (unrenormalized) probability that the classic Jahn-Teller distortion takes the value $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$.

We specialize now to different cases. The case of a non degenerate electronic term coupling to a totally symmetric distortion (Holstein model) is the simpliest situation with the interaction matrix being a scalar $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}=gQ`$. The strength of the electron-phonon coupling is measured by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=g^2/K`$. (In the following we will frequently denote the dimensionless coupling parameter by $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }/t`$). It is easy to show that the effective action $`S_{\mathrm{class}}(Q)`$ changes from a single to a double well behavior with increasing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as shown in Fig.1. In Fig.1 the term $`Q/2`$ has been added to the effective action to symmetrize the distortions in the case of hole and electron occupation on a given site. A double well occurs when the $`Q^2`$-coefficient in the effective action vanishes. This is the case for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=T\underset{n}{}c^2(\nu _n).$$
(16)
Here the fully self-consistent determined dynamical fields have to be used. If we insert the free form, the critical electron-phonon coupling reads:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\frac{3\pi }{4}[1(\mu /2t)^2]^{3/2}.$$
(17)
At couplings exceeding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ the motion of an electron is accompanied by a lattice distortion, i.e. small polarons are formed. It is important to note that the behavior of an isolated molecule is different. With a linear electron-phonon coupling a finite Jahn-Teller distortion occurs for every finite coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as illustrated in the inset of Fig.1. In a crystal the quantum fluctuations of the occupation numbers of the MOs due to the hopping of the electrons smear out this distortion. A finite minimal coupling strength is required for the lattice relaxing to the actual occupation of a given site.

The occurence of finite Jahn-Teller distortions at a finite critical value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a generic feature of the classical action $`S_{\mathrm{class}}`$. However, the critical value depends upon details of the Jahn-Teller coupling, in particular upon the degeneracy of the problem. This can be illustrated by comparing the $`T_1h`$-problem describing the coupling between electrons and vibrations of the charged $`\mathrm{C}_{60}`$ molecules to the $`Ee`$-problem relevant for transition metal oxides with perovskite structure. Electrons added to an isolated fullerene molecule belong to the $`T_{1u}`$ lowest unoccupied MO which can couple linearly to vibrations of symmetry $`h_g`$. The Jahn-Teller interaction matrix reads

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}=\frac{g}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Q_1\sqrt{3}Q_4& \sqrt{3}Q_3& \sqrt{3}Q_2\\ \sqrt{3}Q_3& Q_1+\sqrt{3}Q_4& \sqrt{3}Q_5\\ \sqrt{3}Q_2& \sqrt{3}Q_5& 2Q_1\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
When introducing a new parametrization and expressing $`Q_1,\mathrm{}.Q_5`$ via one amplitude $`Q`$ and four angles the classical effective action can be written in compact form

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{Q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }T}\mathrm{Tr}_n\mathrm{ln}\left[c^3(\nu _n)\frac{3}{4}Q^2c(\nu _n)+\frac{Q^3}{4}\mathrm{cos}3\alpha \right].$$
(19)
Expanding $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for small $`Q`$ reveals that the $`Q^2`$-coefficient of the classical action vanishes for

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}.$$
(20)
For coupling strengths $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ finite Jahn-Teller distortions occur as displayed in Fig. 2. For the $`Ee`$-problem one obtains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=1/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Wee see that for comparable values of the “electron bubbles” $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ the occurence of finite Jahn-Teller distortions require stronger electron-phonon couplings in the higher degenerate case. In this sense the weak-coupling regime for the $`T_1h`$-problem extends to larger coupling strengths.

It is important to note that the occurence of a polaronic instability indicates a break down of Migdal-Eliashberg theory because the ground state is fundamentally reconstructed. Physically speaking a quasiparticle picture does not hold in the transition regime because neither a description as electrons nor as polarons is valid. This give rise to interesting isotope effects on electronic properties as discussed in Ref.  and in Sec. V.

## IV Influence of quantum fluctuations

Quantum fluctuations of the lattice will change the value of the coupling constant $`\lambda _c`$ needed to form small polarons. Even for stronger electron phonon couplings when a classical lattice would adjust to the occupancy of a given site, possible tunneling may hinder the formation of polarons or even prevent it. At sufficiently low temperatures only zero-point quantum vibrations of the lattice are present and the classical picture is not valid. Detailed studies exist for the evolution of the electronic effective mass in the Holstein model as function of the coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the adiabatic regime. All results indicate that the electronic effective mass diverges (or at least increases very rapidly) at a finite value of the electron phonon coupling even in the presence of zero-point fluctuations. In Fig. 3 we replot the results of a numerical renormalization (NRG) study published in Ref. . The inverse ratio of the effective and bare electronic mass as function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`=2g^2/\omega _0`$ in the notations of Ref. ) is shown. For the adiabatic parameter $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Omega }/t=0.2`$ ($`t=0.25`$) a critical value of $`\lambda _c(\gamma )1.57`$ has been reported. The classical approach predicts $`m^{}/m=1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\rho (\mu )`$ with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(1\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c)`$, i.e. a diverging electron mass at the classical value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ which reads for a semicircular density of states at half filling $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=3\pi t/[(2s+1)4]`$. The classical result is also shown in Fig. 3. Note that in the NRG investigations the case of twofold spin degenracy is considered, i.e. the classical polaronic instability occurs at $`\lambda _c1.18`$. We conjecture that with increasing values of the phonon frequency the “polaronic instability” is shifted to larger values of the electron phonon coupling and in the shaded parameter regime of Fig. 3 strong isotope effects on electronic properties have to be expected.

If one includes the leading frequency correction to the finite loop (ME) diagram, the effective mass reads

$$\frac{m^{}}{m}=1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\rho (\mu )\frac{1}{4}\overline{\lambda }\overline{\gamma }$$
(21)
with $`\overline{\gamma }`$ being the renormalized adiabatic parameter $`\overline{\gamma }=\gamma \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$. Therefore, the electronic effective mass is basically unchanged for phonon frequencies in the adiabatic regime. Systematic adiabatic (small-$`\gamma `$) expansions at zero temperature give all contributions of order $`\overline{\gamma }`$ and correct Eq. (21). However, these contributions come with additional factors $`\overline{\lambda }^n`$ ($`n2`$). Thus they are not small close to the polaronic instability and an adiabatic expansion is not possible. This is one reason why the semiclassical approach discussed here is restricted to high to intermediate temperatures which help to re-establish smaller lattice distortions.

The results of Benedetti and Zeyher (although at finite temperatures) for $`\gamma =0.01`$ are close to the classical result and fall as they should in the shaded region of Fig. 3. One of the authors has studied the consequences of the isotope shift of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ when both thermal and quantum fluctuations are competing by means of the semiclassical approach revisited here. As one of the most dramatic manifestations an isotope driven insulator-to-metal transition may be observed.

## V Adiabatic corrections

From the above considerations it becomes obvious that adiabatic corrections to the classical effective action have to be taken into account. For the Holstein model this has been done in Ref. . The idea is to expand the difference $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}S_{\mathrm{class}}`$ to second order in $`(1\delta _{nm})\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}(\nu _n\nu _m)`$, i.e. to leading order in the non diagonal part of the electron-phonon interaction. This yields

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=S_{\mathrm{class}}+S_2$$
(22)
with

$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\stackrel{}{Q}(\omega _k)(K+M\omega _k^2)\stackrel{}{Q}(\omega _k)+`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{orb}}\left[c(\nu _n)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}(\stackrel{}{Q})\right]^1\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}[\stackrel{}{Q}(\omega _k)]`$
$`\times \left[c(\nu _{nk})\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}(\stackrel{}{Q})\right]^1\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}[\stackrel{}{Q}(\omega _k)]`$
In the following we will present numerical results for the Holstein model at half-filling, i.e. $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}=gQ`$ and $`\mu =0`$. We generalize the treatment given in Ref.  by using a different numerical implementation which does not rely on approximatively continuing the local electronic Green function from the imaginary to the real frequency axis. Instead, the continuation is done “numerically” exact. This allows for a more extensive discussion of the optical conductivity. We shortly review results from Ref.  pertinent to the present work. For $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{W}}=gQ`$ all but one integration in Eq. (10) can be performed analytically and the effective action depends only on the classical coordinate $`Q`$

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}(Q)=S_{\mathrm{class}}(Q)+\underset{k>0}{}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\omega _k,Q)}{\omega _k^2}\right].$$
(26)
Here, not the bare phonon frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=K/M`$ enters but a renormalized one which depends on both the classical distortion $`Q`$ and the even Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _k=2\pi Tk`$ and reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\omega _k,Q)=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left[1+\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega _k,Q)\right].$$
(27)
The $`\omega _k`$ dependence arises from the fact that the phonon propagator is renormalized by electron bubbles, i.e. processes where one electron absorbs (or emits) one phonon and gains (or loose) the energy $`\omega _k`$. Therefore in Eq. (27)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega _k,Q)=\mathrm{\Lambda }T\underset{\nu _n}{}\frac{1}{c(\nu _n)Q}\frac{1}{c(\nu _n\omega _k)Q}.$$
(28)
If the renormalized phonon frequency were independent of the even Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _k=2\pi Tk`$, the quantum term $`S_2`$ were the action of a harmonic oscillator. This simplification was explored in Ref.. Here, however, we will investigate the exact form of the second order quantum corrections.

At weak couplings the mean-field functions $`c(\nu _n)`$ may be approximated by the free ones. However, at intermediate to strong electron phonon couplings the electronic properties are influenced and the mean-field functions are renormalized as described by the self-consistency equation (12). The local Green function is obtained by the logarithmic derivative of the partition function $`Z`$ with respect to $`c(\nu _n)`$, Eq. (11). It reads (denoting $`\frac{1}{Z}drP(Q)`$ by $``$)

$$𝒢(\nu _n)=\frac{1}{c(\nu _n)Q}+F(\nu _n,Q)\left(\frac{1}{c(\nu _n)Q}\right)^2.$$
(29)
Comparing to the classical result, the quantum corrections enter in two places. First, they enter in the modified probabilty $`P(Q)=\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ that the classic distortion takes the value $`Q`$. Second, they give rise to an additional scattering term $`F(\nu _n,Q)`$

$`F(\nu _n,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }T{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{w_k^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2(Q)}}`$ (31)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c(\nu _{nk})Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c(\nu _{n+k})Q}}\right)`$
which can be interpreted as generalized Migdal self energy where the classical $`k=0`$ term is subtracted. The two modifications have opposing influences. First, as shown in Fig.4, the adiabatic corrections lead to an increased propability for distortions around $`Q=0`$ compared to the classical one. In consequence, quantum fluctuations of the lattice (not present in the classical approach) may lead to an increased mobility of the conduction electrons. Second, when an analytic continuation to the real frequency axis of $`F`$ is performed \[yielding $`F(\omega ,Q)`$\], a finite imaginary part implies additional electron phonon scattering. Note, that for small frequencies $`\omega `$ below the renormalized one the imaginary part of $`F(\omega ,Q)`$ may be reduced or vanishing.

### A Numerical implementation

Iteration of Eq. (12) and Eq. (29) will yield the local electronic Green function $`𝒢(\nu _n)`$ on the imaginary axis. The occuring fermionic and bosonic Matsubara sums are calculated introducing high frequency cut offs $`\overline{\omega }`$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$, respectively. The high frequency contributions to the sums are approximated by integrals. For reference we summarize here the results where functions $`f(\overline{\omega })`$ \[$`f(\overline{\nu })`$\] are finite bosonic (fermionic) Matsubara sums up to $`\omega _k<\overline{\omega }`$ (up to $`\nu _n<\overline{\nu }`$):

$`S_2(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`S_2(Q,\overline{\omega })+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2T}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi T}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\omega }}{2\pi T}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\overline{\omega }^2}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega _k,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega _k,Q,\overline{\nu })`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \omega _k}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\nu }\omega _k+\omega _k^2}{Q^2+\overline{\nu }^2}}\right)`$
$`F(\nu _n,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\nu _n,Q,\overline{\omega })+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}`$ (38)
$`\times [Q(\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\omega }}{Q}}\mathrm{sgn}Q{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})].`$
In principle, the truncation at $`\overline{\omega }`$ and the adding of an asymptotic contribution in Eq. (38) is not valid if $`\nu _n\overline{\omega }`$, i.e. for large values of the fermionic Matsubara frequency. However, the quantum scattering term $`F(\nu _n,Q)`$ tends to zero in this case and small errors are not important. In all our calculations we used 128 bosonic (fermionic) Matsubara frequencies. To speed up the integration performed in Eq. (29) the electron electron bubble $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega _k,Q)`$ has been interpolated as function of $`Q`$ for each value of $`\omega _k`$ in each DMFT iteration step.

In the present approach only one dimensional integrals over a real variable have to be calculated. This can be done with high precision yielding $`𝒢(\nu _n)`$ up to 14 digits. Therefore, we can continue the electronic Green function to the real frequency axis employing a “simple” Padé approximation. The quality of the results are even more improved when using the classical solution as a reference state, i.e. doing the continuation for the difference $`𝒢𝒢_{\mathrm{class}}`$. This is a real strength of the present semiclassical approach allowing the calculation of dynamic quantities without further assumptions. As important example we have calculated here the finite temperature optical conductivity of the Holstein model as convolution of two full Green functions:

$`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0{\displaystyle d\omega \left(\frac{f(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })f(\omega )}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)}`$ (40)
$`\times {\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}ϵ\rho _0(ϵ)\rho (ϵ,\omega )\rho (ϵ,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }).`$
The external frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ shall not be confused with the phonon frequency. In Eq. (40) is $`\rho _0(ϵ)`$ of semicircular form and the spectral function defined by

$$\rho (ϵ_\stackrel{}{k},\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{1}{\omega +\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}}\right].$$
(41)
The self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ can be obtained from the local electronic Green function $`𝒢(\omega )`$ on the real frequency axis. We also present results for the density of states

$$\rho (\omega )=dϵ\rho _0(ϵ)\rho (ϵ,\omega ).$$
(42)
To summarize, our implementation of the semicalssical approach for the Holstein model differs in two way from the one discussed in Ref. . First, when calculating the effective action Eq. (25) we do not rely on a static approximation, i.e. we do not replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega _k,Q)\mathrm{\Omega }(0,Q)`$. However, this has little influence on the results. Second and most important, $`𝒢(\nu _n)`$ is continued to the real axis not approximatively but numerically exact. In particular, the investigations of dynamic quantities for electron-phonon couplings above the (classical) polaronic instability is possible which is not achieved in Ref. .

### B Limitations

Before presenting results we shortly summarize the shortcommings of the presented semiclassical approach as discussed extensively in Ref.. Within the framework of dynamical mean-field theory the approach becomes exact at high temperatures $`T\mathrm{}`$, irrespectively which value the electron phonon coupling takes. However, at low temperatures the approach fails for two reasons:

First, at intermediate to strong couplings the weak coupling (Fermi liquid) ground state is fundamentally reconstructed. In the present formalism this is reflected by the occurence of imaginary phonon frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\omega _k,Q)`$. In this case $`S_2(Q)`$ is not well defined anymore at low temperatures. Only larger temperatures re-stabilize the ground state. To explore this in more detail, let us suppose the renormalized phonon frequency $`|\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega _k=0,Q=0)|`$ turns imaginary at a critical coupling $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. For $`T0`$ and for couplings just above the critical value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ one finds $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(0,0)=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. Because $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\omega _k,Q)`$ is a strictly monotonic decreasing function with Matsubara frequency and displacement, the quantum correction $`S_2(Q)`$ is only defined if

$$T>\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi }\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(0,0)\right|=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}.$$
(43)
However, at high temperatures $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(0,0)=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/(4T)`$ and the renormalized phonon frequency is always real.

Second, also at weak couplings the ground state cannot be reached. A purely classical approximation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$) would lead to a $`T`$-linear scattering rate with coefficient of order unity. The semiclassical approximation overcorrects for this behavior, cancelling the leading term leaving a correction of order $`\gamma T`$ but of the wrong sign. Note that for $`T<\mathrm{\Omega }`$ this is $`𝒪(\gamma ^2)`$. Note also that at $`T=0`$ the adiabatic expansion is possbile for weak couplings (see Sec. IV and Ref. ).

In conclusion the semicalssical approach is restricted to a range of high ($`T/\mathrm{\Omega }1/2\pi `$) to intermediate ($`T/\mathrm{\Omega }1/2\pi `$) temperatures and we present only results in this range.

### C Results

In the following we present numerical results for the density of states (DOS) and the optical conductivity at finite temperatures for electron-phonon couplings from weak to strong. The model under consideration is the Holstein model with one (spinless) electron per each two sites (half filling), i.e. we discuss the simpliest case of non-degenerate electrons coupling linearly to non-degenerate lattice distortions.

In Fig. 5 we show typical results at weak couplings, i.e. for values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ well below the (classical) polaronic instability of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c2.36`$. We recover the behavior known from calculations employing Migdal-Eliashberg theory. A tiny quasi-particle peak at zero frequency (and the inset in the upper panel showing the DOS over the complete frequency range shall demonstrate that it is indeed a tiny structure) is observed in the DOS and no upper and lower sub-bands are formed. The quasi-particle peak originates from the fact that conductions electrons can only inelastically scatter from quantum lattice fluctuations with a finite frequency transfer. Therefore, the peak gets slightly broader with increasing adiabatic parameter $`\gamma `$. Note that in all our calculations $`\gamma `$ is a small parameter. Following the behavior of the DOS, the optical conductivity shows a typical metallic behavior with a sharp Drude peak. The optical conductivity drops monotonically with increasing applied frequency $`\omega `$.

Fig. 6 shows the DOS and the optical conductivity at an intermediate electron-phonon coupling, just above the (classical) polaronic instability. In this regime isotope effects (i.e. changing values of $`\gamma `$) may alter the behavior qualitatively. At low phonon frequencies sub-bands in the DOS are weakly developed. With increasing $`\gamma `$ these sub-bands disappear in favor of a quasi-particle peak at $`\omega =0`$. The quasi-particle peak is more pronounced as in the weak coupling case with slightly smaller width. With increasing adiabatic parameter also the behavior of the optical conductivity changes qualitatively from an insulating behavior with increased intra-band absorption to a Drude-like metallic behavior with an incoherent contribution visible as “shoulder”. Although a Drude peak develops the conductivity is one order of magnitude smaller than for small electron-phonon couplings. One may speak of a “bad metal”.

Results for stronger couplings are shown in Fig. 7. Sub-bands are well developed in both the DOS and the optical conductivity. Only for a significant change in the phonon frequency a Drude-like metallic behavior is restored. In this sense isotope effects are less pronounced in the strong coupling case as in the intermediate one as they do not lead to immediate qualitative changes. The qualtitative behavior as given in the classical picture is maintained for all small values of the adiabatic parameter $`\gamma `$. However, at larger phonon frequencies both a quasi-particle peak at $`\omega =0`$ and sub-bands are visible simultanously, a feature which cannot be obtained within Migdal-Eliashberg theory. The intra-band absorption in the optical conductivity occurs around $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and shifts to smaller frequencies with increasing value of the adiabatic parameter. The intra-band absorption is asymmetric about its peak. In particular, the low-frequency side of the absorption peak is elevated above the high-frequency side.

The low temperature behavior of the DOS and the optical conductivity in the adiabatic regime has been carefully studied by Benedetti and Zeyher. Their results confirm nicely that our findings at intermediate temperatures are not spoiled by the low temperature break down of the semiclassical approach but that they reflect the physical behavior of the model. In particular, the optical conductivity shows the behavior presented here: (i) Drude like behavior at weak coupling, (ii) quasi-particle peak together with incoherent features at intermediate couplings and (iii) intra-band absorption at strong coupling. Obviously, the present semiclassical approach is capable of describing the interesting crossover regime from high to low temperatures. Unfortunately, isotope effects on the optical conductivity were not discussed in Ref. which are especially relevant when Migdal-Eliashberg theory breaks down (i.e. at intermediate electron-phonon coupling strengths).

It should be noted that the qualitative features and changes in the optical conductivity when increasing the electron-phonon coupling from weak to strong are similar to the ones predicted by a small-polaron absorption theory. However, in this theory the hopping of the conduction electrons is a small parameter contrary to the approach discussed here which is based on an adiabatic expansion. Therefore a comparison is only meaningfull in the limit of large electron-phonon couplings where small polarons are well defined quasi-particles. Here, the main absorption process is the excitation of a self-trapped electron from its localized state at one site to a localized state at a neighboring one. Due to thermal and quantum fluctuations of the lattice the energies of the localized states are broadened and one obtains for the optical conductivity

$$\sigma \frac{1}{\omega }\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega )^2/(4\mathrm{\Lambda }E_{\mathrm{vib}})]$$
(44)
where $`E_{\mathrm{vib}}=\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ is the zero-point vibrational energy at low temperatures and $`E_{\mathrm{vib}}=T`$ in the case of high enough temperatures when the vibrations can be treated classically. The classical (high temperature) result can be compared to our numerical datas in the strong coupling limit and reasonable agreement is found.

Depending on the values of the phonon frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ qualitative features of various experiments are present. To name two examples: (i) In $`\mathrm{Ba}_{1\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{BiO}_3`$ for high enough doping $`x`$ (so that charge ordering is destroyed) the optical conductivity displays a Drude-like peak with a pronounced incoherent feature in the mid infrared; (ii) Asymmetric intra-band absorption can be observed in the alkali doped fullerides $`\mathrm{K}_3\mathrm{C}_{60}`$ and $`\mathrm{Rb}_3\mathrm{C}_{60}`$. As outlined in this paper the semiclassical approach can be extended to more realistic models of electrons in degenerate orbital states coupling to Jahn-Teller distortions allowing for a more detailed analysis of experiments. Along the lines of Refs.  and  effects of local Coulomb repulsion may be included.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we have extended a semiclassical approach based on the dynamical mean-field theory recently introduced by one of the authors to treat the coupling of conduction electrons to local Jahn-Teller distortions in metals and metallic molecular crystals. We have improved previous numerical treatments allowing a detailed discussion of dynamic quantities such as the finite temperature optical conductivity and presented results for the simplifying Holstein model. In particular, the density of states and the optical conductivity could be studied not only for electron-phonon couplings below the (classical) polaronic instability but also above. At intermediate to strong couplings the optical conductivity displays features which are known from experiments on phonon mediated superconductors with high transition temperatures. Depending on paramters, a Drude-like peak with a pronounced incoherent “shoulder” or an asymmetric intra-band absorption is observed. Strong isotope effects occur at couplings close to the polaronic instability changing the qualitative behavior of the system.

The presented results demonstrate that the analysis of simplified effective actions based on the dynamical mean-field theory and adiabatic expansions is a powerful tool to study the influence of local lattice fluctuations on electronic properties of metals. Future work will reveal if the presented approach is capable also of a quantitative analysis of electronic properties of metals and metallic molecular crystals strongly influenced by local Jahn-Teller distortions.

Acknowledgements S.B. thanks A. Millis for many usefull and stimulating discussions. S.B. acknowledges the Niedersachsen-Israel foundation for financial support at early stages of this work.