Conductivity of Weakly Disordered Metals Close to a “Ferromagnetic” Quantum Critical Point

George Kastrinakis

doi:10.1007/s10909-017-1847-2

Journal of Low Temperature Physics

May 2018, Volume 191, Issue 3–4, pp 123–135 | Cite as

Conductivity of Weakly Disordered Metals Close to a “Ferromagnetic” Quantum Critical Point

Authors
Authors and affiliations

George KastrinakisEmail author

Article

First Online: 04 January 2018

Received: 17 May 2017

Accepted: 14 December 2017

2 Shares
71 Downloads

Abstract

We calculate analytically the conductivity of weakly disordered metals close to a “ferromagnetic” quantum critical point in the low-temperature regime. Ferromagnetic in the sense that the effective carrier potential $V(q,\omega )$, due to critical fluctuations, is peaked at zero momentum $q=0$. Vertex corrections, due to both critical fluctuations and impurity scattering, are explicitly considered. We find that only the vertex corrections due to impurity scattering, combined with the self-energy, generate appreciable effects as a function of the temperature T and the control parameter a, which measures the proximity to the critical point. Our results are consistent with resistivity experiments in several materials displaying typical Fermi liquid behaviour, but with a diverging prefactor of the $T^2$ term for small a.

Keywords

Conductivity calculation Vertex corrections Quantum critical point Fermi liquid Weak disorder

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Appendix A: On the Calculation of the Scattering Rate

The derivation below follows that of [12], i.e. (I), and equation numbers refer to (I) as well. In the limit $T \rightarrow 0$ the thermal function $X= \coth (\omega /2T) \; + \; \tanh ((\epsilon -\omega )/2T)$ in Eq. (I-4) becomes $X=2$ for $2T< \omega <\epsilon $, and $X=0$ for $\omega <-2T$ and $\omega >\epsilon $. Then the integration over $\omega $—compare with Eq. (I-7)—amounts to

$$\begin{aligned} 2 \int _{2T}^{\epsilon } {\text {d}}\omega \; \text {Im} \; V(q,\omega ) \; R(q,\omega ) \simeq g \ R_0 \; \ln \left( \frac{(h_q \; a_q)^2+\epsilon ^2}{(h_q \; a_q)^2+ 4T^2} \right) \simeq g \; R_0 \; \frac{\epsilon ^2}{(h_q \; a_q)^2},\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$

(48)

for $ h_q \; a_q > \epsilon $. The rest of the algebra proceeds as in Eq. (I-8) and onwards. Thus, the scattering rate scales like $\epsilon ^2$ as well, as expected for the FL regime.

Appendix B: The Terms $R_V,R_1,R_2,L$ in Eq. (15)

The terms $R_1,R_2$ each contain a single propagator G. Hence, upon the final integration over momentum k they both yield a small contribution. This is the case because this integration is similar to an integration over $\epsilon _k$ from $-\infty $ to $+\infty $, which can be taken as part of a contour integral closing at infinity. That contour can be taken such that the pole of the G in the integrand lies outside of it and hence yields a zero contribution. C.f. also Ref. [18].

The term $R_V$ is due to the residue from the pole $z=z_0=-i \; a_q \; h_q$ of V(q, z). Here both G’s enter the formula for the residue. However, their poles are on the same semi-plane (i.e. in a combination $G^A G^A$), and the argument for $R_1,R_2$ applies as well.

The term L is the residue from the 2 poles $z=z_k,z_k^*$ of $\Lambda (k,z)$—c.f. Eqs. (36), (37)—with

$$\begin{aligned} z_k = \xi _k + i \; W_k, \;\; W_k^2=S^2-R_k. \end{aligned}$$

(49)

Considering the function

$$\begin{aligned} H(z)=n(z) \; V(q,z) \; G(k+q,i \epsilon _n+ z +i \omega _l)\; G(k+q,i \epsilon _n+z ) \; R_{k+q} \;\; \end{aligned}$$

(50)

we have

$$\begin{aligned} L = \frac{H(z_{k+q})}{z_{k+q}-z_{k+q}^*} + \frac{H(z_{k+q}^*)}{z_{k+q}^*-z_{k+q}}. \end{aligned}$$

(51)

This term is much smaller than $I_V$ because $|\text {Im} \; H(z)| \ll |\text {Re} \; H(z)| $.

References

1.
J. Paglione, M.A. Tanatar, D.G. Hawthorn, F. Ronning, R.W. Hill, M. Sutherland, L. Taillefer, C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 106606 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
A. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, I. Vekhter, P.G. Pagliuso, J.L. Sarrao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 257001 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.
S.A. Grigera, R.S. Perry, A.J. Schofield, M. Chiao, S.R. Julian, G.G. Lonzarich, S.I. Ikeda, Y. Maeno, A.J. Millis, A.P. Mackenzie, Science 294, 329 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.
P. Gegenwart, J. Custers, C. Geibel, K. Neumaier, T. Tayama, K. Tenya, O. Trovarelli, F. Steglich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 056402 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
P. Gegenwart, J. Custers, Y. Tokiwa, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 076402 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.
N.P. Butch, K. Jin, K. Kirshenbaum, R.L. Greene, J. Paglione, PNAS 109, 8440 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
T. Shibauchi, L. Krusin-Elbaum, M. Hasegawa, Y. Kasahara, R. Okazaki, Y. Matsuda, PNAS 105, 7120 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.
L. Balicas, S. Nakatsuji, H. Lee, P. Schlottmann, T.P. Murphy, Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. B 72, 064422 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.
S. Nakatsuji, K. Kuga, Y. Machida, T. Tayama, T. Sakakibara, Y. Karaki, H. Ishimoto, S. Yonezawa, Y. Maeno, E. Pearson, G.G. Lonzarich, L. Balicas, H. Lee, Z. Fisk, Nat. Phys. 4, 603 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
J.G. Analytis, H.-H. Kuo, R.D. McDonald, M. Wartenbe, P.M.C. Rourke, N.E. Hussey, I.R. Fisher, Nat. Phys. 10, 194 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.
H.V. Löhneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, P. Wölfle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1015 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.
G. Kastrinakis, Europhys. Lett. 112, 67001 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.
A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov, I.E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Prentice-Hall, Cliffwoods, NY, 1964)MATHGoogle Scholar
14.
P.A. Lee, T.V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 287 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.
J. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B 14, 1165 (1976)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
A.J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 48, 7183 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.
G. Kastrinakis, Phys. Rev. B 72, 075137 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
G.D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, 2nd edn. (Plenum Press, New York, 1990). (the relevant material is mostly in section 3 of chapter 7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
L. Dell’ Anna, W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 136402 (2007). (erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 159904 (2009))ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
A.V. Chubukov, D.L. Maslov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 216401 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.
S.S. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 80, 165102 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

George Kastrinakis
- 1
Email author

1.Institute of Electronic Structure and Laser (IESL)Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)IraklioGreece

Conductivity of Weakly Disordered Metals Close to a “Ferromagnetic” Quantum Critical Point

Abstract

Keywords

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article