Theory of inelastic scattering from magnetic impurities

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 10, 2004, Pages

  Zaránd, Gergely ^a   Borda, László ^b   Von Delft, Jan ^b   Andrei, Natan ^c  

^a BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; CARRIER CONCENTRATION; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; ELECTRON SCATTERING; ENERGY CONVERSION; FERMI LEVEL; GREEN'S FUNCTION; HAMILTONIANS; IMPURITIES; MAGNETIC FIELDS; MAGNETIC MATERIALS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATRIX ALGEBRA;

CROSS SECTIONS; INELASTIC SCATTERING; NUMERICAL RENORMALIZATION GROUP (NRG); QUASIPARTICLES;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 19544377498     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.107204     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. For a review, see, e.g., B.L. Altshuler, in Les Houches Lecture Notes on Mesoscopic Quantum Physics, edited by A. Akkermans et al. (Elsevier, New York, 1995).
2. P. Mohanty and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. B 55, 13452 (1997).
3. F. Pierre et al., Phys. Rev. B 68, 085413 (2003).
4. A. Kaminski and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2400 (2001).
5. G. Göppert et al., Phys. Rev. B 66, 195328 (2002).
6. J. Kroha and A. Zawadowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 176803 (2002).
7. A. Zawadowski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2632 (1999).
8. C. Itzikson and J. B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985).
9. K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975); T. Costi, in Density Matrix Renormalization, edited by I. Peschel et al. (Springer, New York, 1999).
10. K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975); T. Costi, in Density Matrix Renormalization, edited by I. Peschel et al. (Springer, New York, 1999).
11. P. Nozieres, J. Low Temp. Phys. 17, 31 (1974).
12. For a degenerate interacting vacuum states more careful considerations are needed.
13. L. Borda et al. (unpublished).
14. Equation (6) has also been derived in a different way in D. C. Langreth, Phys. Rev. 150, 516 (1966).
15. K. Yamada, Prog. Theor. Phys. 53, 970 (1975).
16. T. A. Costi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1504 (2000).
17. In fact, this is one of the reasons why we studied the KM rather than the AM.
18. L. Borda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 026602 (2003); for details, see W. Hofstetter and G. Zaránd, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235301 (2004).
19. L. Borda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 026602 (2003); for details, see W. Hofstetter and G. Zaránd, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235301 (2004).
20. For a review, see, e.g., G. Grüner and A. Zawadowski, Rep. Prog. Phys. 37, 1497 (1974).
21. J. M. Maldacena and A.W.W. Ludwig, Nucl. Phys. B506, 565 (1997).
22. J. von Delft et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 196 (1998); J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1385 (1997).
23. J. von Delft et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 196 (1998); J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1385 (1997).
24. F. Schopfer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 056801 (2003); for earlier measurements, see C. Van Haesendonck et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1968 (1987).
25. F. Schopfer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 056801 (2003); for earlier measurements, see C. Van Haesendonck et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1968 (1987).