Noncrossing approximation for the anisotropic Kondo model: Charge fluctuations in a quantum box

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 64, Issue 24, 2001, Pages

  Lebanon, Eran ^a   Schiller, Avraham ^a   Zevin, Vilen ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANISOTROPY; ARTICLE; ATOMIC PARTICLE; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; MAGNETIC FIELD; MODEL; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; QUANTUM MECHANICS; RELIABILITY; TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE;

EID: 0035894499     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.64.245338     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. D. Goldhaber-Gordon, H. Shtrikman, D. Mahalu, D. Abusch-Magder, U. Meirav, and M. A. Kastner, Nature (London) 391, 156 (1998);
2. D. Goldhaber-Gordon, J. Göres, M. A. Kastner, H. Shtrikman, D. Mahalu, and U. Meirav, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5225 (1998).
3. S. M. Cronenwett, T. H. Oosterkamp, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science 281, 540 (1998).
4. J. Schmid, J. Weis, K. Eberl, and K. von Klitzing, Physica B 258, 182 (1998).
5. F. Simmel, R. H. Blick, J. P. Kotthaus, W. Wegscheider, and M. Bichler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 804 (1999).
6. W. G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, T. Fujisawa, J. M. Elzerman, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science 289, 2105 (2000).
7. J. Li, W.-D. Schneider, R. Berndt, and B. Delley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2893 (1998).
8. V. Madhavan, W. Chen, T. Jamneala, M. F. Crommie, and N. S. Wingreen, Science 280, 567 (1998).
9. H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, and D. M. Eigler, Nature (London) 403, 512 (2000).
10. W. Chen, T. Jamneala, V. Madhavan, and M. F. Crommie, Phys. Rev. B 60, 8529 (1999).
11. A. Georges and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3508 (1999).
12. P. Noziéres and A. Blandin, J. Phys. (France) 41, 193 (1980).
13. A. Zawadowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 211 (1980).
14. For a comprehensive review, see D. L. Cox and A. Zawadowski, Adv. Phys. 47, 599 (1998).
15. D. C. Ralph and R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2118 (1992).
16. D. C. Ralph, A. W. W. Ludwig, J. von Delft, and R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1064 (1994).
17. For a recent review, see J. von Delft, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, S. K. Upadhyay, R. N. Louie, A. W. W. Ludwig, and V. Ambegaokar, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 263, 1 (1998).
18. M. H. Hettler, J. Kroha, and S. Hershfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1967 (1994);
19. M. H. HettlerJ. KrohaS. HershfieldPhys. Rev. B 58, 5649 (1998).
20. J. Kroha, Adv. Solid State Phys. 40, 267 (2000).
21. Note, however, that it is difficult to discriminate in this case two-channel Kondo scattering off TLS from ordinary single-channel scattering from magnetic impurities, as both mechanisms produce essentially the same scaling behavior of the energy distribution function [see, e.g., J. Kroha, cond-mat/0102185 (unpublished)].
22. H. Pothier, S. Gueron, N. O. Birge, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3490 (1997);
23. F. Pierre, H. Pothier, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, J. Low Temp. Phys. 118, 437 (2000).
24. D. Berman, N. B. Zhitenev, R. C. Ashoori, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 161 (1999).
25. K. A. Matveev, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 99, 1598 (1991) [Sov. Phys. JETP 72, 892 (1991)].
26. K. A. Matveev, Phys. Rev. B 51, 1743 (1995).
27. H.-B. Pang and D. L. Cox, Phys. Rev. B 44, 9454 (1991).
28. I. Affleck, A. W. W. Ludwig, H.-B. Pang, and D. L. Cox, Phys. Rev. B 45, 7918 (1992).
29. J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3224 (1996).
30. Note that, while the intermediate-coupling fixed point of the multichannel Kondo model with more than two conduction-electron channels is also stable against exchange anisotropy, the Wilson ratio is no longer universal as in the one- and two-channel cases (see Ref. 25).
31. For the anisotropic single-channel Kondo model, the Bethe ansatz equations have been recently solved in the range (Formula presented) See T. A. Costi and G. Zaránd, Phys. Rev. B 59, 12 398 (1999).
32. S. Chakravarty and J. Rudnick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 501 (1995).
33. T. A. Costi and C. Kieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1683 (1996);
34. Phys. Rev. Lett.T. A. Costi, 80, 1038 (1998).
35. F. Lesage, H. Saleur, and S. Skorik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3388 (1996).
36. S. P. Strong, Phys. Rev. E 55, 6636 (1997).
37. E. A. Goremychkin, R. Osborn, B. D. Rainford, and A. P. Murani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2211 (2000).
38. R. Pietri, K. Ingersent, and B. Andraka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1090 (2001).
39. N. E. Bickers, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 845 (1987).
40. D. L. Cox and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1613 (1993).
41. N. S. Wingreen and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B 49, 11 040 (1994).
42. B. Coqblin and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 185, 847 (1969).
43. S. Maekawa, S. Takahashi, S. Kashiba, and M. Tachiki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 54, 1955 (1985).
44. P. D. Sacramento and P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. B 43, 13294 (1991).
45. G. Zaránd, G. Zimányi, and F. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. B 62, 8137 (2000).
46. Note that, in the experiment of Ref. 20, (Formula presented) is equal to 0.46 meV while (Formula presented) hence (Formula presented)
47. In the general case where the density of states in the quantum box and in the lead are asymmetric functions of energy with different functional forms, the position of the degeneracy point will typically shift from (Formula presented) This shift can be absorbed, though, into a redefinition of the “magnetic field” (Formula presented)
48. More precisely, (Formula presented) is the (Formula presented) component of the isospin susceptibility tensor.
49. J. R. Schrieffer, P. A. Wolff, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966).
50. A. A. Abrikosov, Physics (N.Y.) 2, 5 (1965).
51. S. E. Barnes, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 6, 1375 (1976);
52. P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. B 29, 3035 (1984).
53. For a spin-(Formula presented) impurity, the pseudo-fermion Green function is diagonal in the spin index, for arbitrary (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) This is no longer the case if (Formula presented) and the impurity spin is larger than one-half.
54. For convenience, we have omitted here a constant term, (Formula presented) from the pseudofermion self-energy. The sole effect of such term is to shift the reference energy for the pseudofermion Green functions. It does not enter any physical observable.
55. E. Müller-Hartmann, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 57, 281 (1984).
56. P. D. Sacramento and P. Schlottmann, Phys. Lett. A 142, 245 (1989).
57. Actually, different threshold exponents apply to (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) both of which differ from the characteristic exponents for the (Formula presented) “antiferromagnetic” case.
58. We note that an identical exponential dependence of the Kondo temperature as in the KNCA was obtained within Yosida’s variational wave function [K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. 147, 223 (1966)]; which likewise predicted an erroneous ferromagnetic Kondo effect. These flaws of the Yosida wave function were corrected in turn by going to more complicated variational wave functions, that included particle-hole excitations. For a detailed discussion, see K. Yosida, Theory of Magnetism (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1996), Chap. 17.
59. H. Grabert, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17 364 (1994).
60. D. S. Golubev and A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. B 50, 8736 (1994).
61. H. Schoeller and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B 50, 18 436 (1994).
62. C. P. Herrero, G. Schön, and A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. B 59, 5728 (1999).
63. The shoulders of the charge steps are smeared over a larger energy scale, governed by (Formula presented)
64. More specifically, for (Formula presented) the physics is that of a Fermi gas interacting with a spin-polarized scattering center. For a detailed discussion, see Ref. 13, Secs. 3.1.2, 4.2e, 5.1.4, 6.1.2, and 7.2.2.
65. V. J. Emery and S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B 46, 10 812 (1992).
66. G. Toulouse, Phys. Rev. B 2, 270 (1970).
67. As pointed out by Sengupta and Georges [A. M. Sengupta and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. B 49, 10 020 (1995)], the leading irrelevant operator responsible for the (Formula presented) behavior of the specific heat is absent along the Emery-Kivelson line. Hence one has to deviate from this line to recover the (Formula presented) behavior of the specific heat. This does not apply to the susceptibility in response to a local applied magnetic field, which diverges logarithmically at the Emery-Kivelson line for vanishing T and H (Ref. 59).
68. See, e.g., Handbook of Mathematical Functions, edited by M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1972), Chap. 6.
69. J. Kroha, P. Wölfle, and T. A. Costi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 261 (1997);
70. J. Kroha and P. Wölfle, Acta Phys. Pol. B 29, 3781 (1998).
71. A. Furusaki and K. A. Matveev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 709 (1995);
72. A. FurusakiK. A. MatveevPhys. Rev. B 52, 16 676 (1995).
73. D. V. Averin and Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2446 (1990).
74. S. H. Pan, E. W. Hudson, K. M. Lang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature (London) 403, 746 (2000).
75. A. Polkovnikov, S. Sachdev, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 296 (2001).
76. J.-X. Zhu and C. S. Ting, Phys. Rev. B 63, 020506 (2001).
77. For numerical convenience, we fixed (Formula presented) at each iteration by requiring that the integrated spectral weights of (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) add up to one.
78. Similar to the NCA formulation for the Anderson model (see, e.g., Ref. 34), the magnetic vertex correction in the Coqblin-Schrieffer limit involves summation over an unpaired spin index that comes from the bare vertex. As a result, the magnetic vertex correction identically vanishes.
79. P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. C 3, 2436 (1970).
80. The weak-coupling fixed point corresponds to a free spin. Therefore, the flow to weak coupling is signaled within the KNCA by the appearance of a zero-temperature delta peak in the pseudofermion Green function at the threshold energy, and the absence of a divergence in (Formula presented)
81. Indeed, (Formula presented) with (Formula presented) evaluated to leading logarithmic order is the solution of Eq. (B9).