Course Hero - We put you ahead of the curve!

You have requested the below document.

Coursehero >> California >> Berkeley >> PHYSICS 216

216: Physics Special topics in many-body physics, Spring 2003: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/ jemoore/phys216.html Lecture V First let s nish the ux quantization in vortices from last time. The GL current density is (here n is the total density of electrons) jx ieh = 1 1 n 2m x x 2e2 Ax 1 1 . mc (1) and similarly for jy and jz . Consider a single hole containing magnetic ux in a large superconducting body. Far away from the hole, the supercurrent should be zero and the magnitude | | should be constant. For constant | |, the current can be rewritten j= . Setting this equal to zero gives 2e = A. (3) hc Now, around any closed loop the phase should change by a multiple of 2 for the wavefunction in the GL equation to be single-valued. Then the line integral of A around the loop must be a multiple of 2 hc = 0 . Finally, the line integral of A around the loop is just the integrated magnetic 2e ux through the loop hc hc = BdS = n 0 = n = . (4) e 2e In real units the ux quantum is 2 10 7 G cm2 . The above vortex is a simple example of a topological defect in a eld theory: on a length scale much larger than the vortex, the vortex appears as a point singularity around which the phase wraps by 2 n. Similar topological defects occur in magnets, in liquid crystals (described by a classical eld theory) and in high-energy physics (for example, magnetic monopoles in gauge theories). In the rest of this lecture we introduce the main ideas of the Fermi liquid and motivate manybody perturbation theory. A reference for the Fermi liquid ideas is the rst chapter of Landau and Lifshitz volume 9. The assumption of Fermi liquid theory is that, whatever the interactions may be, we can identify elementary excitations that are like particles (and hence are called quasi-particles ): they have 1 well-de ned momentum, spin- 2 , and charge e. Furthermore, they are spatially local relative to macroscopic sizes like a sample size, and are long-lived if their excitation energy is small. This last point is quite important: quasiparticles of nite excitation energy E > 0 do interact with each other and can decay, but the lifetime becomes larger as E 0. As an intuitive picture of the quasiparticles, think of them as a single electron dressed by a cloud of electron-hole pairs: as a result, the e ective mass may be modi ed by the screening cloud . But, since the electron-hole pairs are neutral and bosonic (actually we ll assume them usually to be spin-zero), the charge and fermionic statistics are unmodi ed. ehns 2m 2e A hc (2) 1 The Fermi momentum is determined through N/V = 2 4 p3 /3(2 h)3 . F (5) We will assume that this continues to hold because of the adiabatic connection between quasiparticles and original fermions. De ne the normalized quasiparticle distribution through n d = tr n d = d3 p N , d = . V (2 h)2 (6) In the following we will use the Einstein summation convention that repeated indices are implicity summed over. The meaning of the indices on the Hermitian density matrix n is that diagonal elements correspond to the density of spin-up or spin-down electrons. In case you haven t seen a density matrix in a while, here is a lightning review. Recall that the o -diagonal term re ects the fact that spin is a quantum variable. For instance, for a single particle in a mixed state with half spin-up and half spin-down, we would have n= 1 2 0 1 2 0 (7) while for a pure state with spin aligned along some axis in the x-y plane, n= 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 . (8) The spin operator along the x-axis is given by x in this two-component space, so sx = tr n x (9) where here this is a quantum statistical expectation value, which for a pure state coincides with the ordinary quantum expectation value. Pure states are essentially projection operators, so n2 = n; any state, pure or mixed, a has trace related to the total number of particles. The change in energy due to a change n in the quasiparticle occupancies should be written, for a small change from the equilibrium distribution obtained below, as E = V (p) nd . (10) Actually, let us make a slightly more general form to account for situations where the distribution of up-spin particles is di erent from that of down-spin particles. E = V (p) n d = tr (p) d . n (11) = , n = n . For the spin-symmetric case, the tensors and are both diagonal: n The assumption of Fermi liquid theory can now be stated: we will allow the e ective energy (p) in equation (11) to depend on the occupancy of other quasiparticle states, in a simple way. Denote by (p) the change in the e ective energy of quasiparticles of momentum p induced by a given nonequilibrium distribution of the other quasiparticles: (p) = f , (p, p ) n(p ) d . 2 (12) Here f is some e ective interaction about which we will have much more to say. The important thing is that we kept only the linear term n on the right-hand side and neglected higher powers in the deviation from equilibrium. So, even though the interaction f in the above may be quite strong, any three-body interactions or other interactions not of the above form are neglected. Now let me explain why the equilibrium distribution of quasiparticles has formally the same form as in the noninteracting case, even though the quasiparticles are interacting and the meaning of this distribution is quite di erent. The simplest derivation of the equilibrium distribution comes from maximizing the entropy S = tr V ( log n + (1 n) log(1 n)) d n (13) subject to the constraints of constant total particle number and energy, N = tr V d = 0, n E = tr V d = 0. n (14) Note that this expression for the entropy depends only on the fermionic statistics of the quasiparticles. Introducing Lagrange multipliers 1 and 2 , the total variation is log n 1 2 = 0. 1 n (15) We leave it to the reader to show that 1 = and 2 = , so a solution of the above is n= since this gives log e ( ) + = 0. For spin-symmetric quasiparticle energies, this becomes a single-component equation n= 1 e ( ) +1 (18) (17) 1 e ( ) +1 (16) This, of course, looks the same as what we had for free particles. However, note that now it is actually a complicated self-consistency equation, since on the right side is e ectively a function of n. There is a simple self-consistent calculation that partly illustrates why the Fermi liquid is so stable to repulsive interactions in three dimensions. Consider two excitations of small energy above the Fermi level, and ask what is the cross-section for their scattering. Suppose the two initial particles have total energy E and total momentum p. The scattering linewidth, from Fermi s golden rule, is 2 = |M |2 (E1 + E2 E) (p1 + p2 p). (19) h In the above the integral is over all nal states, and the matrix element M is something dependent on the details of the interparticle interaction. Suppose that M s variation is unimportant, and just look at the available phase space for scattering as E is small. At zero temperature, the only nal states available are outside the Fermi sea. Noting that there are six integrals and four constraints, 3 and linearizing around the Fermi surface as usual: Ek = vF (k kF ), we guess that (E )2 , which is borne out by a detailed calculation. Hence in 3D E , so the lifetime of quasiparticles increases rapidly as the quasiparticle moves toward the Fermi level. Another way to look at this, which will be used later, is that the linewidth of the quasiparticle becomes very narrow as E . This gives some support for the contention that the Fermi liquid is a stable picture in 3D. 4

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents:

ps11.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> PHYSICS >> 221b Spring, 2008

HW1.nb.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> PHYSICS >> 229c Fall, 2008
nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1986ApJ...304....1P&letter=.&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whol
Path: Berkeley >> PHYSICS >> 229c Fall, 2008
godshall.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> POL SCI >> 196 Fall, 2008
Martin.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> POL SCI >> 196 Fall, 2008
Practice_Final.doc
Path: Berkeley >> PUB POL >> 179 Spring, 2008
Practice_Final.doc
Path: Berkeley >> PUB POL >> 190 Fall, 2008
Practice_Final.doc
Path: Berkeley >> PUB POL >> 200 Spring, 2008
Practice_Final.doc
Path: Berkeley >> PUB POL >> 205 Fall, 2008
Practice_Final.doc
Path: Berkeley >> PUB POL >> 278 Fall, 2008
Pardey & Wright 2006 -- Ag R&D Productivity and Global and Prospects.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> ENVECON >> 143 Fall, 2008
midday.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> ENV SCI >> 10 Fall, 2008
Environ.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> ENV SCI >> 10 Fall, 2008
List_1981.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> EPS >> 101 Spring, 2008
List_1981.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> EPS >> 118 Spring, 2008
rubric2.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> EPS >> 199 Fall, 2008
rubric2.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> EPS >> 207 Spring, 2008
rubric2.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> EPS >> 217 Spring, 2008
rubric2.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> EPS >> C82 Fall, 2008
Scandi.Web.SUM05.REV.3.29.05.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> SCANDIN >> 220 Spring, 2008
Scandi.Web.SUM05.REV.3.29.05.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> SCANDIN >> 240 Fall, 2008
SOCIOTECHNICOLOR.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> SOCIOL >> 280j Fall, 2008
PENALSTATE-PROGRAM2May.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> SOCIOL >> 280j Fall, 2008
stat155hw5.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> STAT >> 155 Fall, 2008
lec9slides4.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> STAT >> 20 Fall, 2008
quiz-3.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> STAT >> 200a Fall, 2008
Hermalin - DecisionAnalysis.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> UGBA >> 101a Fall, 2008
Airflow_Hazard_Vis.ppt
Path: Berkeley >> IND ENG >> 170 Spring, 2008
TechnicalCompatibilityStandards.ppt
Path: Berkeley >> INFO >> 221 Spring, 2008
The Daily Californian.pdf
Path: Berkeley >> INTEGBI >> 166 Spring, 2008
Prob6_SoCstN3 4_data.xls
Path: UC Davis >> ATM >> 111 Winter, 2008
cogley_nason_aer.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECN >> 200e Fall, 2008
type.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 140a Fall, 2008
TestLineGraphs1.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 145 Fall, 2008
GoBackN.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 145 Fall, 2008
IO.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 156 Winter, 2008
WarbrickEss.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 156 Winter, 2008
amorphous.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 201a Winter, 2008
assignm2.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 265 Fall, 2008
CShellII.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 50 Fall, 2008
AdvancedSimPy.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ECS >> 50 Fall, 2008
5-6-98.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 103 Fall, 2008
5-6-98.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 104 Fall, 2008
5-6-98.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 156 Fall, 2008
5-6-98.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 156l Spring, 2008
5-6-98.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 158 Fall, 2008
lost_receipt.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 103 Fall, 2008
lost_receipt.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 104 Fall, 2008
lost_receipt.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 156 Fall, 2008
lost_receipt.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 156l Spring, 2008
lost_receipt.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 158 Fall, 2008
Worldscolliding.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 103 Fall, 2008
Worldscolliding.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 104 Fall, 2008
Worldscolliding.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 156 Fall, 2008
Worldscolliding.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 156l Spring, 2008
Worldscolliding.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ENT >> 158 Fall, 2008
lecture03.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ERS >> 186 Fall, 2008
lecture05.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> ERS >> 186 Fall, 2008
chapter9-01.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> SSC >> 107 Fall, 2008
ctable.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> STA >> 103 Fall, 2008
20.Triclopyr.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> FRE >> 021 Winter, 2008
20.Triclopyr.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> FRE >> 022 Fall, 2008
la-blank.doc
Path: UC Davis >> FRE >> 021 Winter, 2008
la-blank.doc
Path: UC Davis >> FRE >> 022 Fall, 2008
lytsa01.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> FRE >> 021 Winter, 2008
lytsa01.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> FRE >> 022 Fall, 2008
homework5.pdf
Path: UC Davis >> HIS >> 115b Winter, 2008
!XC-BK1.pdf
Path: UC Irvine >> ANTHRO >> 121aw Winter, 2008
Young3draft.pdf
Path: UC Irvine >> ANTHRO >> 121aw Winter, 2008
Polygyny1988.pdf
Path: UC Irvine >> ANTHRO >> 121aw Winter, 2008