Electron Self-Energy and Generalized Drude Formula for Infrared Conductivity of Metals
Extracted source text ยท arXiv cond-mat/0407777
% cond.tex derive ac conductivity from current correlation
% function including self-energy but not vertices
% P. B. Allen, Stony Brook, July 2004
\documentclass[aps,prb,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
\usepackage{graphics,epsfig}
\begin{document}
\title{Electron Self-Energy and Generalized Drude Formula \\
for Infrared Conductivity of Metals}
\author{Philip B. Allen }
\affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800}
\date{\today}
\begin{abstract}
G\"otze and W\"olfle (GW) wrote the
conductivity in terms of a memory function
$M(\omega)$ as $\sigma(\omega)=(ine^2/m)(\omega+M(\omega))^{-1}$,
where $M(\omega)=i/\tau$ in the Drude limit.
The analytic properties of $-M(\omega)$ are the same as those of the
self-energy of a retarded Green's function. In
the approximate treatment of GW, $-M$ closely resembles a self-energy,
with differences, {\it e.g.}, the imaginary part is twice too large.
The correct relation between $-M$ and $\Sigma$ is
known for the electron-phonon case and is conjectured
to be similar for other perturbations. When vertex
corrections are ignored there is a known relation.
A derivation using Matsubara temperature Green's functions is given.
\end{abstract}
%\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}
\maketitle
\section{\label{sec:l}Preliminaries}
Holstein \cite{Holstein1} used elementary arguments
to show that in the infrared properties of metals
there can be quantum effects (outside of the semiclassical
Boltzmann approach) when the temperature is low enough and
the probing frequency $\omega$
is degenerate with non-electronic excitations like phonons.
Such effects have been seen experimentally \cite{Joyce,Farnworth}.
G\"otze and W\"olfle (GW) \cite{Gotze} gave a nice simplified
way to compute such effects in the optical response of metals using
truncated equations of motion to compute the ``memory function''
$M(\omega)$ defined as
%
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{ine^2/m}{\omega+M(\omega)}
\end{equation}
%
In the dc limit, their formulas
correctly reproduce lowest-order variational solutions of
the corresponding Boltzmann transport theories.
Unfortunately, a systematic perturbation theory for $M(\omega)$
is not known. The GW results are slightly less accurate than the
corresponding lowest order results of Green's function
theories.
The function $-M(\omega)$ has causal
analytic properties and, not surprisingly, bears a close resemblance to
an electron self-energy $\Sigma(\vec{k},\omega)$ for $\vec{k}$-points
averaged over the Fermi surface. However, the imaginary part of
$\Sigma$ is $-1/2\tau$ while the imaginary part of $-M$ must
be $-1/\tau$. This is not the only difference between $-M$ and $\Sigma$.
Since the analogy between $-M$ and $\Sigma$ is sometimes used
for analysis of infrared spectra \cite{Timusk}, it is important to
understand just how good it actually is. A full formula seems not to have
been derived, and is beyond the ambition
of this paper. A reasonable conjecture is that when
anisotropy with $k$ around the Fermi surface is not too important, then
%
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{ine^2}{m\omega} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime}
\frac{f(\omega^{\prime})-f(\omega^{\prime}+\omega)}
{\omega-\Sigma_{\rm ir}(\omega^{\prime}+\omega+i\eta)
+\Sigma_{\rm ir}^{\ast}(\omega^{\prime}+i\eta)}.
\label{eq:result}
\end{equation}
%
where $f(\omega^{\prime})=(\exp(\beta \omega^{\prime})+1)^{-1}$
is the Fermi-Dirac function.
Here $\Sigma_{\rm ir}$ is a modified version of $\Sigma$, averaged over the
Fermi surface, with a complex weighting factor, similar to the
familiar transport factor $1-\cos(\theta)$.
The actual weighting factor (in the solved electron-phonon
case \cite{Holstein,Allen}) is found from a complex,
frequency-dependent non-linear
integral equation. Replacement of the weight factor by 1, turning
$\Sigma_{\rm ir}$ into an ordinary, but $\vec{k}$-averaged, self-energy,
should work fairly well in most cases.
Sher \cite{Sher} did a numerical study which tends to confirm that
the difference between $\Sigma_{\rm ir}$ and $\Sigma$ is small.
Eq. (\ref{eq:result}) implies a relation between
$-M(\omega)$ and the self-energy which becomes more direct at low frequencies.
Keeping the lowest order (in $\omega$) terms,
one gets a derivative of the Fermi-Dirac
function $-\partial f(\omega^{\prime})/\partial \omega^{\prime}$
which can be approximated by the
Dirac $\delta(\omega^{\prime})$.
%
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(\omega)&\approx& \frac{ine^2}{m} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime}
\left(-\frac{\partial f(\omega^{\prime})}{\partial \omega^{\prime}} \right)
\nonumber \\
&\times&
\frac{1}{\omega(1-d\Sigma_{{\rm ir},1}(\omega^{\prime})/d\omega^{\prime})
+2i\Sigma_{{\rm ir},2}(\omega^{\prime})} \nonumber \\
& \approx &
\frac{ine^2/m}{\omega-\omega d\Sigma_{{\rm ir},1}(\omega)/d\omega
+2i\Sigma_{{\rm ir},2}(\omega)}
\label{eq:lowomega}
\end{eqnarray}
%
Therefore the real part of $-M$ at low frequencies is $\omega
d{\rm Re}\Sigma_{\rm ir}(\omega)/d\omega$, and the imaginary part is
$-2{\rm Im}\Sigma_{\rm ir}(\omega)$. If the interesting part of
${\rm Re}\Sigma$ is odd in $\omega$, and approximately linear, then
$M$ at very low $\omega$ is a lot like $\Sigma$ except for the
factor of 2 in the imaginary part.
In the dc limit, the result $\sigma=ne^2 \tau/m$ is
retrieved, with $1/\tau=-2{\rm Im}\Sigma_{\rm ir}(\omega\rightarrow 0)$.
There are minor differences between this and the more exact
result found from a
solution of the Boltzmann transport equation.
These differences arise from $\vec{k}$-averaging
and disappear for a spherical Fermi surface.
\section{\label{sec:2} Kubo formula}
The starting point is the Kubo \cite{Kubo} formula for the conductivity.
For external electric field $\vec{E}(t)=\vec{E}\cos(\omega t)$
the current operator $j = -e\sum_k v_{kx} c^{\dagger}_k c^{}_k$
acquires a non-zero expectation value
$j(t)={\rm Re}[\sigma(\omega)\exp(-i\omega t)]E$,
where the linear response coefficient $\sigma(\omega)$ is
%
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{i}{\omega}\left[r(\omega)+\frac{ne^2}{m}\right]
\label{eq:rtosigma}
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
r(\omega)=i\int_0^{\infty} dt e^{i\omega t}\langle [j(t),j(0)]\rangle
\end{equation}
%
The Hamiltonian ${\cal H}={\cal H}_0 + {\cal H}_1$ has the
non-interacting part ${\cal H}_0= \sum_k \epsilon_k c^{\dagger}_k c^{}_k$.
The label $k$ is short
for the Bloch wavevector and other quantum numbers $(\vec{k}n\sigma)$.
The state $k$ has energy $\epsilon_k$ and group velocity $\vec{v}_k$.
To obtain a Wick-ordered perturbation theory
we use an imaginary time ($0\le\sigma\le\beta=1/k_B T$) version
of $r(\omega)$,
%
\begin{equation}
r(i\omega_{\mu})=-\int_0^{\beta} d\sigma e^{i\omega_{\mu}\sigma}
\overline{\langle \hat{T} j(\sigma) j(0) \rangle}
\end{equation}
%
where $j(\sigma)=\exp(\sigma{\cal H})j\exp(-\sigma{\cal H})$.
Angular brackets denote both a canonical ensemble temperature
average and if necessary, an average over an ensemble of
randomly distributed impurities.
The Matsubara frequency
$\omega_{\mu}$ is $2\pi\mu/\beta$ and $\mu$ is an integer.
When analytically continued from
$i\omega_{\mu}$ to $\omega + i\eta$ just above the real
$\omega$ axis ($\eta$ is a positive infinitesimal)
$r(i\omega_{\mu})$ becomes $r(\omega)$,
the retarded correlation function needed for the Kubo
formula.
All Feynman graphs for $r(i\omega_{\mu})$ are formally summed
in terms of the exact electron Green's function
%
\begin{equation}
G(k,i\omega_{\nu})=\frac{1}{i\omega_{\nu}-\epsilon_k-\Sigma(k,i\omega_{\nu})},
\end{equation}
%
and the exact vertex function
$\Gamma(k,k^{\prime},i\omega_{\mu},i\omega_{\nu})$,
where $\omega_{\nu}=2\pi(\nu+1/2)/\beta$.
The exact answer is
%
\begin{eqnarray}
r(i\omega_{\mu})&=&-\frac{e^2}{\beta}\sum_{k^{}k^{\prime}\nu} v_{k^{\prime}x}
\Gamma(k^{}k^{\prime},i\omega_{\mu},i\omega_{\nu})
\nonumber \\
&\times&G(k, i\omega_{\nu}+i\omega_{\mu})G(k, i\omega_{\nu})
\label{eq:exact}
\end{eqnarray}
%
Neither $\Sigma$ nor $\Gamma$ can be calculated exactly.
A linearized Boltzmann equation is obtained when lowest order
results for $\Sigma$ and $\Gamma$ are treated consistently.
An explicit formula relating $\sigma$ to $\Sigma$
occurs when $\Gamma$ is replaced by its lowest order term,
%
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(k^{}k^{\prime},i\omega_{\mu},i\omega_{\nu})\rightarrow\Gamma_0=
v_{kx}\delta(k^{},k^{\prime}).
\label{eq:vertex}
\end{equation}
%
The corresponding answer for $\sigma(\omega)$, denoted by $\sigma_0(\omega)$,
after continuing to the real frequency axis, is
%
\begin{equation}
\sigma_0(\omega)=\frac{ine^2}{m\omega} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime}
\frac{f(\omega^{\prime})-f(\omega^{\prime}+\omega)}
{\omega-\Sigma(\omega^{\prime}+\omega+i\eta)
+\Sigma^{\ast}(\omega^{\prime}+i\eta)}.
\label{eq:result0}
\end{equation}
%
This is not an original result, but since
derivations are obscure, an elementary one is given
in the next section.
Unlike the conjectured version Eq. (\ref{eq:result}), the
approximation of Eq. (\ref{eq:vertex}) does not
correctly reproduce the Boltzmann dc conductivity because of the
omission of vertex corrections.
The quasiparticle scattering rate
$1/\tau=-2{\rm Im}\Sigma$
differs from the transport scattering rate
$1/\tau_{\rm tr}=-2{\rm Im}\Sigma_{\rm ir}$
by the factor ``$1-\cos\theta$.''
This comes from scattering-in terms of the Boltzmann
scattering operator, approximately the same as the
contribution from the missing ``rungs'' of the vertex function
omitted in $\Gamma_0$.
The omitted correction takes into account that small angle $\theta$
scattering events do not degrade the current efficiently and make
smaller contributions to $1/\tau_{\rm tr}$ than to $1/\tau$.
The difference,
except at low temperatures, is likely to be numerically small,
since small angle scattering does not usually play a dominant role.
\section{\label{sec:6} Derivation of Eq. (\ref{eq:result0})}
Starting by inserting Eq. (\ref{eq:vertex}) into Eq. (\ref{eq:exact}),
%
\begin{equation}
r_0(i\omega_{\mu})=-\frac{e^2}{\beta}\sum_k v_{kx}^2
G(k, i\omega_{\nu}+i\omega_{\mu})G(k, i\omega_{\nu})
\label{eq:inexact}
\end{equation}
%
This approximation, labeled $r_0$, keeps in principle arbitrarily
complicated self-energy graphs in $G$.
The spectral function is defined as
%
\begin{equation}
G(k, i\omega_{\nu})=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
d\omega \frac{A(k,\omega)}{i\omega_{\nu} -\omega}
\label{eq:spectrep}
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
A(k,\omega)=-\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}G(k,i\omega_{\nu}\rightarrow
\omega+i\eta)
\label{eq:aeqimg}
\end{equation}
%
where $G(k,\omega+i\eta)$ is the
``retarded'' Green's function,
%
\begin{equation}
G(k,\omega+i\eta)=\frac{1}{\omega-\epsilon_k -\Sigma(k,\omega)}
\label{eq:gret}
\end{equation}
%
and $\Sigma(k,\omega)=\Delta(k,\omega)-i/2\tau(k,\omega)$
has imaginary part $1/2\tau$ non-negative.
The approximate correlation function $r_0$ becomes
%
\begin{eqnarray}
r_0(i\omega_{\mu})&=&-\frac{e^2}{\beta}\sum_k v_{kx}^2
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega_1
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega_2
A(k,\omega_1)A(k,\omega_2)
\nonumber \\
&\times&\sum_{\nu}\left[\frac{1}{i\omega_{\nu}+i\omega_{\mu} - \omega_1} \
\frac{1}{i\omega_{\nu} - \omega_2}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
%
The Matsubara sum can be performed exactly,
%
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{\nu}\left[
\frac{1}{i\omega_{\nu}+i\omega_{\mu} - \omega_1} \
\frac{1}{i\omega_{\nu} - \omega_2}\right]=\frac{f(\omega_2)-f(\omega_1)}
{\omega_2-\omega_1 +i\omega_{\mu}}.
\end{equation}
%
The correlation function now is
%
\begin{eqnarray}
&&r_0(i\omega_{\mu})=-e^2 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\epsilon
\sum_k v_{kx}^2 \delta(\epsilon-\epsilon_k)
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega_1
\nonumber \\ &\times&
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega_2
A(k,\omega_1)A(k,\omega_2)
\frac{f(\omega_2)-f(\omega_1)}
{\omega_2-\omega_1 +i\omega_{\mu}},
\end{eqnarray}
%
where a gratuitous factor $1=\int d\epsilon \delta(\epsilon-\epsilon_k)$
was inserted. Because of the $\delta$ function in the $k$-sum
%
\begin{equation}
\sum_k v_{kx}^2 \delta(\epsilon-\epsilon_k)A(k,\omega_1)A(k,\omega_2)
\end{equation}
%
it is allowed to replace $\epsilon_k$
in the denominators of the spectral functions by $\epsilon$. There
is a rapid dependence on $\epsilon$ in $A(k,\omega)$ which must
be treated carefully, and a remaining slow $k$ dependence of $\Sigma(k,\omega)$
in the denominator of $A(k,\omega)$ which can be treated less
carefully. The self-energies in the spectral functions
$-(1/\pi){\rm Im}(\omega-\epsilon_k -\Sigma)^{-1}$
are replaced by their $k$-average over the Fermi surface,
%
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(\omega)=\sum_k \Sigma(k,\omega)\delta(\epsilon_k)
/\sum_k \delta(\epsilon_k).
\label{eq:fsavg}
\end{equation}
%
This is usually not a bad approximation, because
the anisotropy of $\Sigma(k,\omega)$, as $\vec{k}$ varies around the
Fermi surface, is usually small.
The errors introduced by doing this are of the same nature as
the errors introduced by neglecting all vertex corrections.
The $k$-sum is now
%
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_k v_{kx}^2 \delta(\epsilon-\epsilon_k)&=&\frac{1}{\hbar^2}
\sum_k \frac{\partial \epsilon_k}{\partial k_x} \left(-\frac{\partial f}
{\partial k_x}\right)
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{1}{\hbar^2} \sum_k \frac{\partial^2 \epsilon_k}{\partial k_x^2}f
=[n/m]_{\rm eff}(\epsilon).
\label{eq:effmass1}
\end{eqnarray}
%
Here the $\delta$ function was replaced by $-\partial f/\partial \epsilon_k$.
Integrating by parts gives the inverse effective mass
$(\partial^2 \epsilon_k /\partial k_x^2)/\hbar^2$ summed over all
states lower in energy than $\epsilon$.
The range of the remaining $\epsilon$-integration
is nominally $(-\infty,\infty)$.
However, the factors $A(k,\omega)$ are peaked at
$\epsilon=\omega_1$ and $\epsilon=\omega_2$;
$\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$
thus have similar values. Because
of the factor $(f(\omega_2)-f(\omega_1))$, they must both lie near
the Fermi energy (one below and one above.) Therefore the $\epsilon$
integral is dominated by $\epsilon$ near the
Fermi energy. The value of
$[n/m]_{\rm eff}(\epsilon)$ at the Fermi energy
is $[n/m]_{\rm eff}$, the number of electrons divided
by the effective mass averaged over all states below the
Fermi energy. An equivalent formula is
%
\begin{equation}
[n/m]_{\rm eff}=\sum_k v_{kx}^2 \delta(\epsilon_k)=N(0)<v_x^2>
\label{eq:effmass}
\end{equation}
%
The current correlation function now is
%
\begin{eqnarray}
r_0(i\omega_{\mu})&=& \left[\frac{n}{m}\right]_{\rm eff} e^2
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_1
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_2
\nonumber \\ &\times&
A(\epsilon,\omega_1)A(\epsilon,\omega_2)
\frac{f(\omega_2)-f(\omega_1)} {\omega_2-\omega_1 +i\omega_{\mu}}.
\end{eqnarray}
%
It is necessary to integrate $\epsilon$ carefully over the Lorentzian peaks
of $A(\epsilon,\omega_1)A(\epsilon,\omega_2)$. Cauchy's theorem
can be used after closing the $\epsilon$-contour by an arc going to
infinity in either the upper or lower half-plane. The result is
expressed by another identity,
%
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\epsilon
&\left(\frac{1}{\pi}\right)&{\rm Im}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_1-\epsilon-\Sigma_1}
\right)
\left(\frac{1}{\pi}\right){\rm Im}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_2-\epsilon-\Sigma_2}
\right)
\nonumber \\
&=&-\left(\frac{1}{\pi}\right){\rm Im}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_1-\omega_2
-\Sigma_1+\Sigma_2^{\ast}}\right).
\label{eq:identity2}
\end{eqnarray}
%
The proof is elementary but tedious. The current correlation function is now
%
\begin{eqnarray}
r_0(i\omega_{\mu})&=& \left[\frac{n}{m}\right]_{\rm eff} \frac{e^2}{\pi}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_1 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_2
\frac{f(\omega_2)-f(\omega_1)} {\omega_2-\omega_1 +i\omega_{\mu}}
\nonumber \\ &\times&
{\rm Im}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_1-\omega_2 -\Sigma_1+\Sigma_2^{\ast}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
%
The function
$r_0(\omega)$ is now just $r_0(i\omega_{\mu})$ with
$i\omega_{\mu}$ replaced by $\omega+i\eta$.
The only complex
quantity in the formula for $r_0(\omega)$ is the factor
$(\omega_2-\omega_1 + \omega +i\eta)^{-1}$,
so the real part ${\rm Re}\sigma_0(\omega)=
{\rm Im}r_0(\omega)/\omega$ is
%
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Re}\sigma_0(\omega)&=&\left[\frac{n}{m}\right]_{\rm eff} \frac{e^2}{\omega}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_1 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_2
[f(\omega_2)-f(\omega_1)]
\nonumber \\ &\times&
\delta(\omega_2-\omega_1 + \omega)
{\rm Re}\left(\frac{i}{\omega_1-\omega_2 -\Sigma_1+\Sigma_2^{\ast}}\right)
\nonumber \\
&=&\left[\frac{n}{m}\right]_{\rm eff}e^2
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime}
\left[\frac{f(\omega^{\prime})-f(\omega^{\prime}+\omega)}{\omega}\right]
\nonumber \\ &\times&
{\rm Re}\left(\frac{i}{\omega -\Sigma(\omega^{\prime}+\omega)
+\Sigma^{\ast}(\omega^{\prime})}\right).
\label{eq:sigma1}
\end{eqnarray}
%
The function $\sigma_0(\omega)$ is specified
by the requirements of being analytic for ${\rm Im}\omega>0$, vanishing
sufficiently rapidly as $\omega\rightarrow\infty$, and agreeing
with Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma1}). It is necessary and sufficient to
remove the ``real part'' designator from both sides. This is the
derivation of Eq. (\ref{eq:result0}).
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{Holstein1} T. Holstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf 96}, 535 (1954).
\bibitem{Joyce} R. R. Joyce and P. L. Richards, Phys. Rev. Lett.
{\bf 24}, 535 (1970).
\bibitem{Farnworth} B. Farnworth and T. Timusk,
%{\it Phonon density of states of superconducting lead},
Phys. Rev. B {\bf 14}, 5119 (1976).
\bibitem{Gotze} W. G\"otze and P. W\"olfle,
%{\it Homogeneous Dynamical Conductivity of Metals},
Phys. Rev. B {\bf 6}, 1226 (1972).
\bibitem{Timusk} J. Huang, T. Timusk, and G. D. Gu,
%{\it High transition temperature superconductivity in the absence of the
%magnetic resonance mode,}
Nature {\bf 427}, 714 (2004).
\bibitem{Holstein} T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 29}, 410 (1964).
\bibitem{Allen} P. B. Allen,
%{\it Electron-Phonon Effects in the Infrared Properties of Metals},
Phys. Rev. B {\bf 3}, 305 (1971).
\bibitem{Sher} H. Sher, Phys. Rev. Letters {\bf 25}, 759 (1970).
\bibitem{Kubo} R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 12}, 570 (1957).
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}