text:
# Observation of large many-body Coulomb interaction effects in a doped quantum wire

## Abstract

We demonstrate strong one dimensional (1-D) many-body interaction effects in photoluminescence (PL) in a GaAs single quantum wire of unprecedented optical quality, where 1-D electron plasma densities are controlled via electrical gating. We observed PL of 1-D charged excitons with large binding energy of 2.3 meV relative to the neutral excitons, and its evolution to a Fermi-edge singularity at high electron density. Furthermore, we find a strong band-gap renormalization in the 1-D wire, or a large red-shift of PL with increased electron plasma density. Such a large PL red-shift is not observed when we create a high density neutral electron-hole plasma in the same wire, due probably to cancellation of the Coulomb interaction energy in the neutral plasma.

Many-body photoluminescence (PL) effects in semiconductor quantum wires (QWRs) with electron gases are expected to become strong or anomalous due to singular nature of the Coulomb interaction in one-dimensional (1-D) systems OgawaPRL ; BennerEL . Shrinkage of the optical band gap with an electron plasma due to the many-body Coulomb interaction is called band-gap renormalization (BGR), which causes well-known red-shifts of PL spectra in 2-D quantum wells (QWs). The possible existence of strong 1-D Coulomb interactions and their implications for BGR effects inherent to 1-D systems has been an issue of current fundamental interest, and indeed intensive theoretical studies have been made HuPRL ; RossiPRB ; TassonePRL ; DassarmaPRL .

Experimentally, however, there are only few reports on PL of doped single-mode QWRs RinaldiPRB ; CallejaSSC ; JKimPE , and of these one claimed reduced BGR effects in doped QWRs RinaldiPRB . In highly-photo-excited undoped QWRs WegscheiderPRL ; AmbigapathyPRL ; SiriguPE ; TGKimPE , lasing and PL experiments have shown no BGR effect. Because of technical limitations in carrier density control, reproducibility, and PL line broadening due to structural inhomogeneities of the QWRs, consistency among the various observations and with theory has not yet been established for 1-D QWRs.

In this Letter, we report on PL experiments in an n-type-modulation-doped single GaAs QWR of superior quality, in which we tune the electron density with application of an external electric field. The interplay between the 1-D excitonic interaction and BGR is studied in a single QWR sample, where in addition to the neutral exciton we observed a clearly resolved 1D charged exciton, large BGR in a 1-D electron plasma, and substantially smaller BGR in a 1-D electron-hole plasma: PL spectra at moderate electron densities are dominated by the 1-D charged excitons, that are significantly shifted from the neutral excitons. At high electron densities above $`2.5\times 10^5`$ cm-1, the PL spectra exhibit striking lineshapes in which the onsets (band edge) of emission continuously shift to the red with increasing electron density and the high-energy cutoff (Fermi edge) of emission is pinned at the position of the charged exciton measured at small electron density. The large red-shifts in the PL reveal the major impact of BGR on optical recombination in the 1-D electron plasma. In contrast, we find much smaller red-shift in PL for neutral two-component electron-hole plasmas, when we gate off the electrons in the same QWR and control the neutral electron-hole plasma by the intensity of optical pumping. These results suggest that Coulomb interaction effects are significant in QWRs and that the intriguing difference between electron and electron-hole plasmas result from the first order cancellation of the Coulomb interactions in an electron-hole plasma with charge neutrality.

The sample was grown by the cleaved-edge overgrowth (CEO) method with molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) PfeifferAPL . First, on a non-doped (001) GaAs substrate we successively grew a 50 nm GaAs buffer layer, a 2.26 $`\mu `$m barrier layer of (GaAs)9(Al0.33Ga0.67As) 71 super-lattice, a 14 nm Al0.07Ga0.93As QW (stem-QW) layer, a 100 nm Al0.33Ga0.67As spacer layer, a 4$`\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 Si delta-doping layer, a 100 nm Al0.33Ga0.67As barrier layer, a 5.66 $`\mu `$m barrier layer of (GaAs)9(Al0.33Ga0.67As) 71 super-lattice, and a 30 nm GaAs cap layer. Then, in a separate MBE growth on an in-situ cleaved (110) edge of this structure, we grew at 490 C by the CEO method, a 6 nm GaAs QW (arm-QW) layer, a 200 nm Al0.45Ga0.55As barrier layer, and a 100nm heavily-Si-doped n+-Al0.1Ga0.9As layer. Right after the growth of the GaAs arm-QW layer, growth was interrupted for 10 minute anneal at 600 C, which is based on our recently-developed growth-interruption annealing technique YoshitaAPL  that dramatically reduces monolayer fluctuation on a (110)-GaAs surface YoshitaPRB .

As shown in the inset of Fig. 1, a single QWR is formed at the T-shaped intersection of the stem-QW and the arm-QW. By applying positive or negative DC gate voltage $`V_g`$ to the n+-Al0.1Ga0.9As layer relative to modulation-doped 2-D electron gas in the stem-QW with density of $`1\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, we accumulated or depleted additional electrons in the QWR. Micro-PL measurements on the single QWR were performed with a cw titanium-sapphire laser via the (110) surface in the geometry of point excitation into a 0.8 $`\mu `$m spot YoshitaJAP . A 0.6m triple spectrometer and a back-illumination-type liquid-nitrogen-cooled CCD camera were used to detect the PL.

Figure 1 shows PL spectra at 5 K for various gate voltages $`V_g`$ in 0.05 V steps between $`0.4`$ and 0.6 V. Spectral resolution was 0.3 meV. The excitation light with intensity of 2 $`\mu `$W and photon energy of 1.653 eV was incident normal to the (110) surface, and initially created carriers mainly in the stem-QWs, some portion of which flowed into the QWR. Well-resolved sharp peaks were observed for the QWR (1.568 eV), the arm-QW (1.584 and 1.586 eV), and the stem-QW (1.625 eV) in each $`V_g`$ gated spectrum. The low energy PL tail of the arm-QW around 1.572-1.582 eV shows localized states in the arm-QW. However, the sharpness of the QWR and arm-QW peaks with full-width-of-half-maximum (FWHM) of about 1 meV is about an order of magnitude smaller than those reported in all previous work AkiyamaJP , and reveals the high flatness of the (110) interfaces.

While PL of the stem-QW was unchanged, PL of the arm-QW and the QWR changed markedly in shape and intensity with changes in gate bias $`V_g`$. Under strong negative bias $`V_g`$-0.4 V, where electrons were depleted from the QWR, the PL of the QWR was quenched. This is because the strong electric field separates the photo-excited electrons and holes around the QWR, and drains some of the electrons down in the stem well. For weak negative bias $`V_g`$-0.1 V, a peak denoted by X appeared. It is assigned as exciton PL because neutral excitons are expected to stay in the QWR. For zero and positive bias $`V_g>0`$ where electrons were accumulated in the QWR, the exciton peak X became weaker while another low-energy peak X- assigned to charged excitons appeared and became stronger. At $`V_g=0.1`$0.2 V, X- completely dominated the PL spectrum of the QWR. At high positive bias, PL of the QWR became asymmetric and red-shifted, which is assigned to a band-to-band optical recombination between an electron plasma and the minority holes. The present observation and the assignment of excitons, charged excitons, and band-to-band recombination are analogous to those reported in 2-D QWs Bar-JosephPRL ; ShieldsPRB , but here for the first time are achieved in a 1-D QWR of high optical quality.

To highlight the 1-D charged excitons and 1-D band-to-band recombination in the QWR, we show, in Fig. 2, PL spectra of the QWR with spectral resolution of 0.15 meV at 5 K for positive gate voltage $`V_g`$ measured in 0.05 V steps between 0 and 0.7 V. Here, we minimized carrier heating by reducing the incident photon energy to 1.576 eV, which directly created carriers only in the QWR with excess energy of 8 meV. The incident power was raised to 2 mW to compensate the reduced absorption cross section. The estimated electron-hole density $`n_{eh}`$ photo-excited in the QWR was $``$104 cm-1. A reduction of excitation intensity by one order of magnitude resulted in almost no change in PL spectral shapes except for signal-to-noise ratios.

At $`V_g`$0 V, the two peaks of excitons X and charged excitons X- are simultaneously observed. A very small sharp peak (L) at a lower energy (1.565 eV) is believed to be related to a localized state in the QWR, as it intermittently disappears as one moves along the wire. The energy separation between X and X- is 2.3 meV. This is the first measurement of the extra binding energy of a 1-D charged exciton in a QWR. This 1-D value is much larger than the reported values of 0.9-1.2 meV for the charged to neutral exciton separation in 2-D GaAs QWs Bar-JosephPRL ; ShieldsPRB .

At high positive bias, where the PL originates from a band-to-band optical recombination between an electron plasma and the minority holes, the PL spectra becomes asymmetric and significant red-shifts occur in the onset. In short, the results of Fig. 2 demonstrate two key issues, a strong BGR in the 1-D QWR and the Fermi-edge singularity pinned at the charged exciton energy.

In preparation for the clarification of these issues, we made a model calculation to interpret whether the observed PL spectrum at $`V_g=0.7`$ V is indeed explained by a band-to-band optical recombination. The top dashed curve in Fig. 2 is a numerical calculation to fits the observed PL. It is calculated as a function proportional to $`\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(ϵ)f^e(ϵ)f^h(ϵ)\delta _\gamma (ϵ+E_{BE}\mathrm{}\omega )𝑑ϵ`$ AronSSC , where $`ϵ`$ is the transition energy relative to the band edge $`E_{BE}`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }^j`$ is the 1-D joint density-of-states with broadening $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`f^e`$ and $`f^h`$ are the Fermi distribution functions of electrons and holes, $`\delta _\gamma `$ is the broadening function with damping $`\gamma `$ and photon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. We assumed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.5 meV with $`\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }^j=\sqrt{(\sqrt{ϵ^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+ϵ)/(ϵ^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)}`$, $`\delta _\gamma `$ to be the delta function ($`\gamma `$=0 meV), Fermi energy $`E_f=2.8`$ meV, $`E_{BE}`$=1.5653 eV, hole temperature $`T_h`$=20 K, and electron temperature $`T_e`$=3 K, where hole temperature higher than 5K is due to optical injection and lower electron temperature represents enhanced kink due to Fermi-edge singularity. The good fit supports our model. Accordingly, the two singular edges (onset and cutoff) at the lowest and highest energy in the asymmetric PL observed in the high $`V_g`$ region are ascribed to the band edge $`E_{BE}`$ and the Fermi edge $`E_{FE}`$, respectively.

It is now clear that the band edge $`E_{BE}`$ is red-shifted from its original position at X-, as more electrons are accumulated when the bias $`V_g`$ is increased. This demonstrates the large BGR effect observed in our wire due to the Coulomb interaction between many electrons and few holes. On the other hand, for all electron densities the Fermi edge $`E_{FE}`$ is unshifted from the energy position of X-. We emphasize that $`E_{BE}`$ and $`E_{FE}`$ in the lowest electron density limit both converge to X-, and not X, and also not the fundamental band edge in single-particle picture, which is higher than X by the exciton binding energy. It is significant that the band-to-band plasma PL for high $`V_g`$ occurs entirely at energies lower than X-.

To be more quantitative, we plot, in Fig. 3 (a), singular energy positions in PL against gate voltage $`V_g`$=0$``$0.8 V. Triangles show the peak positions. For $`V_g`$=0$``$0.3 V, small squares and dots show the left and right half-maximum positions. For $`V_g`$=0.3$``$0.8 V, large and small squares show the 80%- and half-maximum positions in the left side of the peak, while large and small dots show the Fermi-edge shoulder and its right half-value position. We regard the position of the large squares and dots as the band edge $`E_{BE}`$ and the Fermi edge $`E_{FE}`$, respectively, with the experimental error-bars within the triangles, small squares, and dots. The energy separation $`E_{FE}E_{BE}`$ is approximated as $`E_f(1+m_e/m_h)`$ , where $`m_e`$ and $`m_h`$ are effective mass of electrons and holes. We determine $`E_f`$ by assuming $`m_e/m_h=0.067/0.38`$. The 1-D electron density $`n_e`$ and $`E_f`$ ($`E_f=\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n_e^2/8m_e`$) are plotted in Fig. 3 (b), where the extrapolated least-square-fit line to $`E_f`$ intersects the $`V_g`$-axis at 0.125 V. This shows that the accumulation of electrons starts at around $`V_g`$=0.125 V, and proceeds with $`E_f`$ increasing linearly. At $`V_g`$=0.8 V, $`E_f`$ and $`n_e`$ reach 2.7$`\pm `$0.6 meV and 4.4$`\pm `$0.5$`\times 10^5`$cm-1, and $`E_{BE}`$ is red-shifted from X- by 2.9$`\pm `$0.5 meV. The 1-D BGR red-shift is large compared to the reduced Fermi energy. $`E_f\times m_e/m_h`$, the kinetic energy of a hole contributing to PL at the Fermi edge, is 0.48 meV, which is comparable to the lattice temperature (5 K).

Figure 3 (b) also shows the FWHM of the charged-exciton PL (X-) for $`V_g`$ in the range 0-0.3 V. It is as sharp as 0.7 meV for low $`V_g`$. The width starts to increase from $`V_g`$=0.15 V, and changes to two split peaks above $`V_g`$=0.3 V. The range of $`V_g`$=0.15$``$0.3 V corresponds to $`n_e`$=1.0$``$2.5$`\times 10^5`$ cm-1, a value close to recent predictions for the Mott density of excitons in GaAs QWRs DassarmaPRL . In the present experiment, $`n_e`$ is not very high, so that electron Fermi energy is always much smaller than the estimated exciton binding energy of 14 meV. It is interesting that band-to-band plasma PL is observed in such low electron densities because it is expected to prevail only in the high electron density limit, where the kinetic energy dominates the Coulomb energy of the electron gas. Though the plasma PL picture seems to explain PL shapes in high $`V_g`$ region, we should aware that it is still strongly influenced by Coulomb interactions.

We wish to comment here in Fig. 2 that the exciton peak (X) does not disappear completely even at the highest $`V_g`$, and remains unshifted at $``$2 meV above the Fermi edge $`E_{FE}`$, and that small unshifted ripples marked by arrows between $`E_{FE}`$ and $`E_{BE}`$ in PL spectra for $`V_g>0.5`$ V are currently not understood.

To explore differences in many-body effects between many-electron-few-hole systems and many-electron-many-hole systems in a QWR, we investigated the PL with higher photo-excited electron-hole density. For this purpose, the photon energy of excitation was raised to 1.627 eV to bring it in resonance with the exciton absorption of the stem-QW. The PL intensity and spectra obtained for weak (2 $`\mu `$W) photo-excitation were similar to spectra shown in Fig. 2. Figure 4 shows PL spectra of the depleted ($`n_e`$0 cm-1) QWR at $`V_g`$=0.1 V. Weak (2 $`\mu `$W), medium (20 $`\mu `$W), and strong (200 $`\mu `$W) photo-excitation intensities correspond to estimated electron and hole densities $`n_{eh}`$ of 104, 105, and 106 cm-1, respectively.

Note that increased photo-excitation density $`n_{eh}`$ results in only slight red-shifts, 0.2 meV even for $`n_{eh}`$1$`\times `$106 cm-1 (thick curve). This is in stark contrast to the significant BGR by a few meV caused by excess electron density $`n_e`$=2.5$``$4.4$`\times `$105 cm-1 in Fig. 2. Note also the significantly broadened tails at high photoexcitation, while the top part of the PL peak was not broadened. The full widths of 90%-maximum of three curves of different $`n_{eh}`$ were all 0.3 meV. The persistency of this sharp peak against increased screening and state filling by electrons and holes in the neutral plasma shows the significant contribution of the Coulomb interaction. Thus, the minor red-shifts, or BGR, are probably the result of a cancellation of Coulomb interaction energy due to charge neutrality among equal densities of electrons and holes.

These neutral plasma results are consistent with previous results on QWRs showing broadening and no red-shift of PL in undoped QWRs under wide range of photo-excitation intensities WegscheiderPRL ; AmbigapathyPRL . We believe that lasing of QWRs at the fixed and same energy position as the excitonic PL WegscheiderPRL  could be related to the cancellation of Coulomb correlation in neutral photo-excited electron-hole plasmas.

In summary, results from gated 1-D electron systems in a QWR of enhanced structural perfection indicate significant 1-D BGR in optical emission. The observation of 1-D charged exciton with large binding energy and its evolution to Fermi-edge singularity also highlight the crucial importance of Coulomb interaction effects in the quantum wire. The weak BGR observed in PL from photo-excited neutral electron-hole plasmas is likely to result from cancellation of Coulomb interaction effects.

We thank Drs. M. J. Matthews, R. dePicciotto, P. Platzman, and T. D. Harris for technical assistance and helpful discussion. One of the authors (H. A.) acknowledges the financial support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.


format: text

text:
# The ordered 𝑲_𝟎-group of a graph 𝑪^∗-algebra

## 1. Preliminaries

We provide some basic facts about graph algebras and refer the reader to , , and  for more details. A (directed) graph $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ consists of a countable set $`E^0`$ of vertices, a countable set $`E^1`$ of edges, and maps $`r,s:E^1E^0`$ identifying the range and source of each edge. A vertex $`vE^0`$ is called a *sink* if $`|s^1(v)|=0`$, and $`v`$ is called an *infinite emitter* if $`|s^1(v)|=\mathrm{}`$. If $`v`$ is either a sink or an infinite emitter, we call $`v`$ a *singular vertex*. A graph $`E`$ is said to be *row-finite* if it has no infinite emitters. The *vertex matrix* of $`E`$ is the square matrix $`A`$ indexed by the vertices of $`E`$ with $`A(v,w)`$ equal to the number of edges from $`v`$ to $`w`$.

If $`E`$ is a graph we define a *Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family* to be a set of mutually orthogonal projections $`\{p_v:vE^0\}`$ and a set of partial isometries $`\{s_e:eE^1\}`$ with orthogonal ranges which satisfy the *Cuntz-Krieger relations*:

1. $`s_e^{}s_e=p_{r(e)}`$ for every $`eE^1`$;
2. $`s_es_e^{}p_{s(e)}`$ for every $`eE^1`$;
3. $`p_v=_{\{e:s(e)=v\}}s_es_e^{}`$ for every $`vE^0`$ that is not a singular vertex.

The *graph algebra $`C^{}(E)`$* is defined to be the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by a universal Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family.

The graph algebra $`C^{}(E)`$ is unital if and only if $`E`$ has a finite number of vertices, cf. \[8, Proposition 1.4\], and in this case $`1_{C^{}(E)}=_{vE^0}p_v`$. If $`E`$ has an infinite number of vertices, and we list the vertices of $`E`$ as $`E^0=\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ and define $`p_n:=_{i=1}^np_{v_i}`$, then $`\{p_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ will be an approximate unit for $`C^{}(E)`$.

## 2. The ordered $`K_0`$-group

If $`A`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra let $`𝒫(A)`$ denote the set of projections in $`A`$. It is a fact that if $`A`$ is unital (or more generally, if $`A𝒦`$ admits an approximate unit consisting of projections), then $`K_0(A)=\{[p]_0[q]_0:p,q𝒫(A𝒦)\}`$. In addition, the positive cone $`K_0(A)^+=\{[p]_0:p𝒫(A𝒦)\}`$ makes $`K_0(A)`$ a pre-ordered abelian group. If $`A`$ is also stably finite, then $`(K_0(A),K_0(A)^+)`$ will be an ordered abelian group.

Here we compute the positive cone of the $`K_0`$-group of a graph $`C^{}`$-algebra. Throughout this section we let $`^K`$ and $`^K`$ denote $`_K`$ and $`_K`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ be a row-finite graph. Also let $`W`$ denote the set of sinks of $`E`$ and let $`V:=E^0\backslash W`$. Then with respect to the decomposition $`E^0=VW`$ the vertex matrix of $`E`$ will have the form

$$A_E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B& C\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

For $`vE^0`$, let $`\delta _v`$ denote the element of $`^V^W`$ with a 1 in the $`v^{\text{th}}`$ entry and $`0`$’s elsewhere.

If we consider $`\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right):^V^V^W`$, then $`K_0(C^{}(E))\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$ via an isomorphism which takes $`[p_v]_0`$ to $`[\delta _v]`$ for each $`vE^0`$. Furthermore, this isomorphism takes $`(K_0(C^{}(E)))^+`$ to $`\{[x]:x^V^W\}`$, where $`[x]`$ denotes the class of $`x`$ in $`\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`K_0(C^{}(E))\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$ is shown for row-finite graphs in \[9, Theorem 3.1\]. Thus all that remains to be verified in our claim is that this isomorphism identifies $`(K_0(C^{}(E)))^+`$ with $`\{[x]:x^V^W\}`$. To do this, we will simply examine the proof of \[9, Theorem 3.1\] to determine how the isomorphism acts. We will assume that the reader is familiar with this proof, and use the notation established in it without comment.

If $`E\times _1[m,n]`$ is the graph defined in \[9, Theorem 3.1\], then we see that $`E\times _1[m,n]`$ is a row-finite graph with no loops and in which every path has length at most $`nm`$. Therefore we can use the arguments in the proofs of \[8, Proposition 2.1\], \[8, Corollary 2.2\], and \[8, Corollary 2.3\] to conclude that $`C^{}(E\times _1[m,n])`$ is the direct sum of copies of the compact operators (on spaces of varying dimensions), indexed by the sinks of $`E\times _1[m,n]`$ and that each summand contains precisely one projection $`p_{(v,k)}`$ associated to a sink as a minimal projection. Thus

$$K_0(C^{}(E\times _1[m,n]))\underset{vV}{}[p_{(v,n)}]_0\underset{k=0}{\overset{nm}{}}\underset{vW}{}[p_{(v,nk)}]_0$$

and $`K_0(C^{}(E\times _1[m,n]))^+`$ is identified with

$$\underset{vV}{}[p_{(v,n)}]_0\underset{k=0}{\overset{nm}{}}\underset{vW}{}[p_{(v,nk)}]_0.$$

By the continuity of $`K`$-theory, one can let $`m`$ tend to $`\mathrm{}`$ and deduce that

$`K_0(C^{}(E\times _1[\mathrm{},n]))`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{vV}{}}[p_{(v,n)}]_0{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{vW}{}}[p_{(v,nk)}]_0`$
$`^VZ^WZ^W\mathrm{}.`$
Furthermore, it follows from \[10, Theorem 6.3.2(ii)\] that this isomorphism identifies $`K_0(C^{}(E\times _1[\mathrm{},n]))^+`$ with $`^V^W^W\mathrm{}`$.

This computation is used later in the proof of \[9, Theorem 3.1\], where the $`K_0`$ functor is applied to a commutative diagram to obtain Figure (3.5) of , which we reproduce here:

Now it is shown in \[9, Lemma 3.3\] that the homomorphism $`\iota _{}^1`$ induces an isomorphism $`\overline{\iota }_{}^1`$ of $`\mathrm{coker}(1D)`$ onto $`\mathrm{coker}(1\beta _{}^1)=K_0(C^{}(E))`$. We shall show that $`\overline{\iota }_{}^1(^V^W^W\mathrm{})=K_0(C^{}(E))^+`$. To begin, note that it follows from \[10, Theorem 6.3.2(ii)\] that

$$K_0(C^{}(E\times _1))^+=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\iota _{}^n(^V^W^W\mathrm{}).$$

Since $`\mathrm{coker}(1\beta _{}^1)=K_0(C^{}(E))`$, this implies that

$$K_0(C^{}(E))^+=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{[\iota _{}^n(y)]:y^V^W^W\mathrm{}\}$$

where $`[\iota _{}^n(y)]`$ denotes the equivalence class of $`\iota _{}^n(y)`$ in $`\mathrm{coker}(1\beta _{}^1)`$. We shall show that the right hand side of this equation is equal to $`\{[\iota _{}^1(y)]:y^V^W^W\mathrm{}\}`$. Let $`[\iota _{}^n(y)]`$ be a typical element in the right hand side. Then from the commutativity of the above diagram $`\iota _{}^n(y)\iota _{}^n(Dy)=\iota _{}^n((1D)y)=(1\beta _{}^1)(\iota _{}^n(y))`$ which is $`0`$ in $`\mathrm{coker}(1\beta _{}^1)`$. But then $`\iota _{}^1(y)=\iota _{}^n(D^{n1}y)=\iota _{}^n(y)`$ in $`\mathrm{coker}(1\beta _{}^1)`$. Hence

(2.1)
$$K_0(C^{}(E))^+=\{[\iota _{}^1(y)]:y^V^W^W\mathrm{}\}.$$

Next, recall that \[9, Lemma 3.4\] shows that the inclusion $`j:^VZ^W^V^W^W\mathrm{}`$ induces an isomorphism $`\overline{j}`$ of $`\mathrm{coker}K`$ onto $`\mathrm{coker}(1D)`$. We wish to show that

(2.2)
$$\overline{j}(\{[x]:x^V^W\})=\{[y]:y^V^W^W\mathrm{}\}.$$

It suffices to show that any element $`(n,m_1,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{})^V^W^W\mathrm{}`$ is equal to an element of the form $`(a,b,0,0,0,\mathrm{})`$ in $`\mathrm{coker}(1D)`$. But given $`(n,m_1,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{})`$ we see that since this element is in the direct sum, there exists a positive integer $`k`$ for which $`i>k`$ implies $`m_i=0`$. Thus

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ m_1+\mathrm{}+m_k\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ m_1\\ m_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ m_k\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1B^t& 0& 0& 0& .\\ C^t& 1& 0& 0& .\\ 0& 1& 1& 0& .\\ 0& 0& 1& 1& .\\ .& .& .& .& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ m_2+\mathrm{}+m_k\\ m_3+\mathrm{}+m_k\\ m_4+\mathrm{}+m_k\\ \mathrm{}\\ m_k\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$

and so $`(n,m_1,m_2,\mathrm{})`$ equals $`(n,m_1+\mathrm{}+m_k,0,0,\mathrm{})`$ in $`\mathrm{coker}(1D)`$, and (2.2) holds.

Finally, the isomorphism between $`\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$ and $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ is defined to be $`\overline{\iota }_{}^1\overline{j}`$. But (2.2) and (2.1) show that this isomorphism takes $`\{[x]:x^V^W\}`$ onto $`(K_0(C^{}(E)))^+`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ be a graph. Also let $`W`$ denote the set of singular vertices of $`E`$ and let $`V:=E^0\backslash W`$. Then with respect to the decomposition $`E^0=VW`$ the vertex matrix of $`E`$ will have the form

$$A_E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B& C\\ & \end{array}\right)$$

where $`B`$ and $`C`$ have entries in $``$ and the $``$’s have entries in $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Also for $`vE^0`$, let $`\delta _v`$ denote the element of $`^V^W`$ with a 1 in the $`v^{\text{th}}`$ entry and $`0`$’s elsewhere.

If we consider $`\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right):^V^V^W`$, then $`K_0(C^{}(E))\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$ via an isomorphism which takes $`[p_v]_0`$ to $`[\delta _v]`$ for each $`vE^0`$. Furthermore, this isomorphism takes $`(K_0(C^{}(E)))^+`$ onto the semigroup generated by $`\{[\delta _v]:vE^0\}\{[\delta _v]_{eS}[\delta _{r(e)}]:v\text{ is an infinite emitter and }S\text{ is a finite subset of }s^1(v)\}`$.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`K_0(C^{}(E))\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$ was established in \[4, Theorem 3.1\] using the isomorphisms constructed in \[4, Lemma 2.3\]. We shall examine the proof of \[4, Theorem 3.1\] to determine where the positive cone of $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ is sent. Again, we shall assume that the reader is familiar with the proof, and use the notation established in it without comment.

We begin by letting $`F`$ denote a desingularization of $`E`$ (see \[4, §2\]). Then \[3, Theorem 2.11\] shows that there exists a homomorphism $`\varphi :C^{}(E)C^{}(F)`$ which embeds $`C^{}(E)`$ onto a full corner of $`C^{}(F)`$ and takes each $`p_v`$ to the projection in $`C^{}(F)`$ corresponding to $`v`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is an embedding onto a full corner, it induces an isomorphism $`\varphi _{}:K_0(C^{}(E))K_0(C^{}(F))`$ which takes the class of $`p_v`$ in $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ to the class of the corresponding projection in $`K_0(C^{}(F))`$. By Theorem 2.1, if $`A_F`$ denotes the vertex matrix of $`F`$, then $`K_0(C^{}(E))\mathrm{coker}(A_F^tI)`$ and $`K_0(C^{}(E))^+`$ is identified with $`\{[x]:x_V_W_WQ\}`$ where $`Q:=_{}`$. Now it is shown in the proof of \[4, Lemma 2.3\] that the inclusion map $`\rho :_V_W_V_W_WQ`$ induces an isomorphism $`\overline{\rho }:\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)\mathrm{coker}(A_FI)`$. Since this isomorphism identifies the class of $`\delta _v_V_W`$ with the class of $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _v\\ 0\end{array}\right)_V_W_WQ`$, it follows that $`[p_v]_0K_0(C^{}(E))`$ is identified with $`[\delta _v]\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$.

All that remains is to determine where this isomorphism sends the positive cone of $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the semigroup of elements that $`\overline{\rho }`$ sends to $`\{[x]:x_V_W_WQ\}`$. Now certainly $`\{[\delta _v]:vE^0\}`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Furthermore, for any infinite emitter $`v`$ and finite subset $`Ss^1(v)`$ we have that

$$[p_v]_0\underset{eS}{}[p_{r(e)}]_0=[p_v]_0\underset{eS}{}[s_e^{}s_e]_0=[p_v]_0\underset{eS}{}[s_es_e^{}]_0=[p_v\underset{eS}{}s_es_e^{}]_0$$

and this element belongs to $`K_0(C^{}(E))^+`$. Since $`K_0(C^{}(E))^+`$ is identified with $`\{[x]:x_V_W_WQ\}`$ this implies that the class of $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _v\\ 0\end{array}\right)_{eS}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _{r(e)}\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ is in $`\{[x]:x_V_W_WQ\}`$ and thus $`[p_v]_{eS}[p_{r(e)}]`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. On the other hand, we know that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by the elements that $`\overline{\rho }`$ sends to the classes of the generators of $`_V_W_WQ`$. Now certainly the inverse image under $`\overline{\rho }`$ of the class of $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _v\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ for $`vVW`$ will be $`[\delta _v]`$. In addition, if $`v_i`$ is a vertex on the tail added to an infinite emitter $`v`$, then we see that the inverse image under $`\overline{\rho }`$ of the element $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \delta _{v_i}\end{array}\right)`$ will be $`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐮\\ 𝐯\end{array}\right)`$ where $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐯`$ are as defined in the final paragraph of \[4, Lemma 2.3\]. However, one can verify from how $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐯`$ are defined that $`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐮\\ 𝐯\end{array}\right)`$ will have the form $`\delta _v_{eS}\delta _{r(e)}`$ for some finite $`Ss^1(v)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by the elements $`[\delta _v]`$ and $`[\delta _v]_{eS}[\delta _{r(e)}]`$. ∎

## 3. Applications

### 3.1. AF-algebras

The graph algebra $`C^{}(E)`$ is an AF-algebra if and only if $`E`$ has no loops \[8, Theorem 2.4\]. By Elliott’s Theorem AF-algebras are classified by their ordered $`K_0`$-groups. Hence for two graphs containing no loops, Theorem 2.2 can be used to determine if their associated $`C^{}`$-algebras are isomorphic (as well as stably isomorphic).

### 3.2. States on $`𝑲_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝑪^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

If $`A`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra containing a countable approximate unit $`\{p_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ consisting of projections, then a *state* on $`K_0(A)`$ is a homomorphism $`f:K_0(A)`$ such that $`f(K_0(A)^+)^+`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}f([p_n]_0)=1`$. The set of all states on $`K_0(A)`$ is denoted $`S(K_0(A))`$ and we make it into a topological space by giving it the weak-$``$ topology.

###### Definition 3.1.

If $`E`$ is a graph, then a *graph trace* on $`E`$ is a function $`g:E^0^+`$ with the following two properties:

1. For any nonsingular vertex $`vE^0`$ we have $`g(v)=_{\{eE^1:s(e)=v\}}g(r(e)).`$
2. For any infinite emitter $`vE^0`$ and any finite set of edges $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_ns^1(v)`$ we have $`g(v)_{i=1}^ng(r(e_i)).`$

We define the norm of $`g`$ to be the (possibly infinite) value $`g:=_{vE^0}g(v)`$, and we shall use $`T(E)`$ to denote the set of all graph traces on $`E`$ with norm 1.

###### Proposition 3.2.

If $`E`$ is a graph, then the state space $`S(K_0(C^{}(E)))`$ with the weak-$``$ topology is naturally isomorphic to $`T(E)`$ with the topology generated by the subbasis $`\{N_{v,ϵ}(g):vE^0,ϵ>0,\text{ and }gT(E)\}`$, where $`N_{v,ϵ}(g):=\{hT(E):|h(v)g(v)|<ϵ\}`$.

###### Proof.

We define a map $`\iota :S(K_0(C^{}(E)))T(E)`$ by $`\iota (f)(v):=f([p_v]_0)`$. We shall show that $`\iota `$ is an affine homeomorphism. To see that $`\iota `$ is injective note that if $`\iota (f_1)=\iota (f_2)`$, then for each $`vE^0`$ we have that $`f_1([p_v]_0)=\iota (f_1)(v)=\iota (f_2)(v)=f_2([p_v]_0)`$, and since the $`[p_v]_0`$’s generate $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ it follows that $`f_1=f_2`$.

To see that $`\iota `$ is surjective, let $`g:E^0^+`$ be a graph trace. We shall define a homomorphism $`f:\mathrm{coker}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^tI\\ C^t\end{array}\right)`$ by setting $`f([\delta _v]):=g(v)`$. Because $`g`$ satisfies (1) of Definition 3.1 we see that $`f`$ is well defined. Also, since the values of $`g`$ are positive and $`g`$ satisfies (2) of Definition 3.1 we see that $`f(K_0(C^{}(E))^+)^+`$. Finally, since $`g`$ has norm 1 we see that $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(_{i=1}^np_{v_i})=lim_n\mathrm{}_{i=1}^ng(v_i)=g=1`$. So $`f`$ is a state on $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ and $`\iota (f)=g`$.

It is straightforward to verify that $`\iota `$ is an affine homeomorphism. ∎

### 3.3. Tracial states on $`𝑪^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}`$

A *trace* on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ is a linear functional $`\tau :A`$ with the property that $`\tau (ab)=\tau (ba)`$ for all $`a,bA`$. We say that $`\tau `$ is *positive* if $`\tau (a)0`$ for all $`aA^+`$. If $`\tau `$ is positive and $`\tau =1`$ we call $`\tau `$ a *tracial state*. The set of all tracial states is denoted $`T(A)`$ and when $`T(A)`$ is nonempty we equip it with the weak-$``$ topology. Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra with a countable approximate unit consisting of projections. If $`\tau `$ is a trace on $`A`$, then it induces a map $`K_0(\tau ):K_0(A)`$ given by $`K_0(\tau )([p]_0[q]_0)=\tau (p)\tau (q)`$. The map $`K_0(\tau )`$ will be an element of $`S(K_0(A))`$ (see \[10, §5.2\] for more details) and thus there is a continuous affine map $`r_A:T(A)S(K_0(A))`$ defined by $`r_A(\tau ):=K_0(\tau )`$.

It is a fact that any quasitrace on an exact $`C^{}`$-algebra extends to a trace (this was proven by Haagerup for unital $`C^{}`$-algebras  and shown to hold for nonunital $`C^{}`$-algebras by Kirchberg ). Furthermore, Blackadar and Rørdam showed in  that when $`A`$ is unital every element in $`K_0(A)`$ lifts to a quasitrace. It is straightforward to extend the result of Blackadar and Rørdam to $`C^{}`$-algebras with a countable approximate unit consisting of projections. Thus when $`A`$ is a graph algebra we see that the map $`r_A:T(A)S(K_0(A))`$ is surjective.

If $`A`$ has real rank zero, then the span of the projections in $`A`$ is dense in $`A`$ and $`r_A`$ is injective. It was shown in  that a graph algebra $`C^{}(E)`$ has real rank zero if and only if the graph $`E`$ satisfies Condition (K); that is, no vertex in $`E`$ is the base of exactly one simple loop. Therefore, when $`A=C^{}(E)`$ and $`E`$ is a graph satisfying Condition (K), the map $`r_A`$ is a homeomorphism and Proposition 3.2 shows that the tracial states on $`C^{}(E)`$ are identified in a canonical way with $`T(E)`$.


text:
# Linear Response and the Validity of the Semi-Classical Approximation in Gravity

## I Introduction

There are many well known difficulties that arise when attempting to combine quantum field theory and general relativity into a full quantum theory of gravity. Almost certainly, a consistent quantum theory at the Planck scale requires a fundamentally different set of principles from those of classical general relativity, in which even the concept of spacetime itself is likely to be radically altered. Yet over a very wide range of distance scales, from that of the electroweak interactions ($`10^{16}`$ cm) to cosmology ($`10^{27}`$ cm), the basic framework of a spacetime metric theory obeying general coordinate invariance is assumed to be valid, and receives phenomenological support both from the successes of flat space quantum field theory at the lower end of this scale and classical general relativity at its upper end. Hence whatever the full quantum theory of gravity entails, it should reduce to an effective low energy field theory on this very broad range of some $`33`$ orders of magnitude of distance .

To the extent that quantum effects are relevant at all in gravitational phenomena within this range of scales one would expect to be able to apply semi-classical techniques to the low energy effective theory. For the purposes of this paper the quantization of matter fields in curved spacetime backgrounds is what we mean by the semi-classical approximation to gravity. Thus the spacetime metric $`g_{ab}`$ is treated as a classical $`c`$-number field and its quantum fluctuations are neglected. An interesting question then arises: Can a quantitative criterion for the validity of this semi-classical approach be given? One would like to have some test of its validity, preferably within the semi-classical framework itself.

To be clear we should distinguish what we mean in this paper by the semi-classical approximation to gravity from the ordinary loop expansion, which is sometimes also called semi-classical. In the ordinary loop expansion of the effective action $`\mathrm{}`$ is the formal loop expansion parameter. As a result both the matter and gravitational fields are treated on exactly the same footing. However the technical issues involved in even defining a one-loop effective action for gravitons that respects both linearized gauge and background field coordinate invariance are difficult enough to have impeded progress in the standard loop expansion in gravity . An unambiguous definition of the corresponding conserved and gauge invariant energy-momentum tensor for gravitons on an arbitrary curved spacetime has not yet been given. Apart from such technical shortcomings an ordinary loop expansion is physically ill-suited to many applications that have been and are likely to be of interest in semi-classical gravity, such as particle creation in the early universe, or black hole radiance, where quantum effects significantly affect the background geometry after some period of time. This is because when quantum effects significantly affect the classical geometry the loop expansion breaks down.

The semi-classical approximation to gravity we discuss in this paper treats the matter fields as quantum but the spacetime metric as classical. This asymmetric treatment can be justified formally by replicating the number of matter fields $`N`$ times and taking the large $`N`$ limit of the quantum effective action for the matter fields in an arbitrary background metric $`g_{ab}`$ . Since no assumption of the weakness or perturbative nature of the metric is assumed, the large $`N`$ expansion is able to address problems in which gravitational effects on the matter are strong and the matter fields can have a significant effect on the classical geometry in turn. The absence of quantum gravitational effects in the lowerst order large $`N`$ approximation also means that most of the technical obstacles arising from the quantum fluctuations of the geometry are avoided. General coordinate invariance is assured, provided only that the matter effective action is regularized and renormalized in a manner which respects this invariance . In that case the quantum expectation value of the matter energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ab}`$ is necessarily conserved.

Assuming that the classical energy-momentum tensor for the matter field(s) vanishes (an assumption that may easily be relaxed if necessary), the unrenormalized form of the semi-classical backreaction equations take the form

$$G_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}=8\pi G__NT_{ab}.$$
(1)
Here $`G_{ab}`$ is the Einstein tensor, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant (which may be taken to be zero in some applications), $`G__N`$ is Newton’s constant, and $`T_{ab}`$ is the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor operator of the quantized matter field(s). Among the technical issues that must be confronted is the renormalization of the expectation value of $`T_{ab}`$, a quartically divergent composite operator in $`d=4`$ spacetime dimensions. Hence renormalization of its expectation value requires the introduction of fourth order counterterms in the effective (low energy) action, modifying the geometric terms on the left side of eq. (1. This renormalization of very high momenta, ultraviolet divergences must be performed in a way that is consistent with general coordinate invariance and leaves undisturbed the vanishing of the covariant divergence of both sides of eq. (1).

Once a renormalized semi-classical theory has been defined, one possible route to investigating its validity is to compare calculations in a theory of quantum gravity with similar semi-classical calculations. Since a full quantum theory is lacking, this has been done only in some simplified models of quantum gravity. Large quantum gravity effects were found in three-dimensional models by Ashtekar  and Beetle . In four dimensions Ford considered the case of graviton production in a linearized theory of quantum gravity on a flat space background and compared the results with the production of gravitational waves in semi-classical gravity . He found that they were comparable when the renormalized energy-momentum (connected) correlation function,

$$T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)_{\mathrm{con}}T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)$$
(2)
satisfied the condition

$$T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)_{\mathrm{con}}T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y).$$
(3)
The limits of validity of the semi-classical approximation have also been studied without making reference to a specific model of quantum gravity. Kuo and Ford  proposed that a measure of how strongly the semi-classical approximation is violated can be given by how large the quantity,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{abcd}(x,y)\left|\frac{T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)_{\mathrm{con}}}{T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)}\right|$$
(4)
is, where it is assumed that the expectation values in this expression are suitably renormalized. They suggested that the expectation values be normal ordered, which is strictly correct only in a flat spacetime. Later authors used other renormalization schemes. It is important to note that eq. (4) is coordinate dependent, since both the numerator and denominator are tensor quantities. The situation is complicated further by the regularization and renormalization issues that arise in defining the quantities appearing in this expression. Kuo and Ford  computed the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\left|\frac{T_{00}(x)T_{00}(x)_{\mathrm{con}}}{T_{00}(x)T_{00}(x)}\right|$$
(5)
for a free scalar field in flat space for several states including the Casimir vacuum. They found that it vanishes in a coherent state, whereas in many other cases, including the Casimir vacuum, it is of order unity.

Wu and Ford  computed the radial flux component of eq. (4) in the case of an evaporating black hole far from the event horizon. They found that it was of order unity over time scales comparable to the black hole mass, but that it averages to zero over much larger times. In a normal ordering prescription they found state dependent divergent terms, which should not be present if all divergences are local and therefore absorbable into purely geometric UV counterterms.

Phillips and Hu  used zeta function regularization to compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ with the denominator replaced by the quantity $`T_{00}(x)^2`$, for a free scalar field in some curved spacetimes having Euclidean sections. They also computed $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ for a scalar field in flat space in the Minkowski vacuum state using both point splitting and a smearing operator to remove the divergences . For the flat space calculation they found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ depends on the direction the points are split, but that it is of order unity regardless of how the points are split. They used their results to criticize the Kuo-Ford conjecture and to suggest that the criteria for the validity of the semi-classical approximation should depend on the scale at which the system is being probed.

Although it is somewhat unclear what the dimensionless small parameter which controls the inequality (3) is, Ford’s initial work and these subsequent discussions draw attention to the importance of the higher point correlation functions of the energy-momentum tensor. It is quite clear in qualitative terms that if the higher point connected correlation functions of $`T_{ab}`$ are large (in an appropriate sense to be determined), it cannot be correct to neglect them completely, as the semi-classical equations (1) certainly do.

The energy-momentum correlation function $`T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)_{\mathrm{con}}`$ has been computed in some cases. Carlitz and Willey  computed it for a scalar field in a two dimensional spacetime with a moving boundary. Roura and Verdaguer  give its expression for a massless minimally coupled scalar field in de Sitter spacetime in the case that the points are spacelike separated and geodesically connected. Wu and Ford  showed that in the simple case of radiation exerting a force on a mirror, the quantum fluctuations in the radiation pressure are due to a state-dependent cross term in the energy-momentum correlation function.

In the same paper  Wu and Ford also addressed the Kuo-Ford conjecture and the above mentioned criticism of it by Phillips and Hu. They stated that the conjecture is incomplete because it does not address the effect of divergent state-dependent terms. They suggested that any criterion for the validity of the semi-classical approximation should be a non-local one that involves integrals over the world lines of test particles. They also argued that the question of whether the semi-classical approximation is valid depends on the specifics of a given situation including the scales being probed and the choice of initial quantum state. Although technical problems such as renormalization and coordinate invariance complicate matters, this body of previous work suggests that the correlation function $`T_{ab}(x)T_{cd}(y)_{\mathrm{con}}`$ should play an important role in determining the validity of the semi-classical approximation. However, the proper context for incorporating and making use of the information contained in this correlation function remains somewhat in question.

In this paper we propose an unambiguous quantitative criterion for the validity of the semi-classical approximation, namely that solutions to the semi-classical equations should be stable against linearized perturbations. According to standard linear response theory  we show that the linearized equations for the perturbed metric depend on the two-point correlation function of the energy-momentum tensor evaluated in the semi-classical metric $`g_{ab}`$. The correlation function in this case consists of the retarded commutator of two energy-momentum tensor operators, and hence the perturbations are manifestly causal. Moreover the UV divergences in this correlation function are exactly those required to renormalize the semi-classical theory itself. This ensures that no state dependent divergences occur. Finally, gauge dependence of the solutions to the linear response equations is easily studied within the framework of linearized coordinate transformations of the semi-classical background, so that ambiguities related to quantities such as (4) do not arise.

Another advantage of this criterion for the validity of the semiclassical approximation is that it lies strictly within the context of that approximation. In this way one avoids problems such as gauge invariance of the energy-momentum tensor for gravitons, that inevitably appear if one tries to go beyond the semi-classical approximation and include quantum effects due to the gravitational field.

To understand qualitatively the role of the two-point correlation function in the validity of the semi-classical approximation, it is helpful to consider the physical analogy between semi-classical gravity and semi-classical electromagnetism. The connected correlation function (2) measures the gravitational vacuum polarization which contributes to the proper self-energy of the linearized graviton fluctuations around the background metric, just as the current two-point correlation function, $`j^a(x)j^b(y)`$, measures the electromagnetic vacuum polarization which contributes to the proper self-energy of the photon . Hence if these polarization effects are significant, the gravitational fluctuations of the metric must be taken into account in some form and the semi-classical approximation, with or without backreaction, has certainly broken down, at least in the form specified by eq. (1), where all fluctuations of the metric have been ignored. Moreover, in quantum electromagnetism we know exactly how to take these fluctuation effects into account, namely by scattering and interaction Feynman diagrams involving the photon propagator . These processes are important not only in scattering between a few particles at high energies but also in low energy processes in hot or dense plasmas. Analogous statements should be applicable to gravity whenever quantum correlations are important. Thus, if the linear response validity criterion is not satisfied, then there will be no avoiding the technical difficulties of quantizing the gravitational field, even if we seek to understand only the infrared behavior of a semi-classical approximation to the effective theory far below the Planck scale.

In the next section the properties of the large $`N`$ semi-classical approximation in gravity and its renormalization within the covariant effective action framework are reviewed. In Section III the linear response theory for the semi-classical backreaction equations is introduced. The form of the two-point correlation function for the energy-momentum tensor that appears in the linear response equations is given and its properties and renormalization are discussed. Then our proposal for a necessary condition for the validity of the semi-classical approximation is presented. Finally some possible applications of our criterion to the study of quantum effects in cosmological and black hole spacetimes are suggested.

## II Semi-Classical Gravity and Renormalization

The most direct route to the semi-classical equations (1) is via the effective action method in the large $`N`$ limit. We consider the specific example of $`N`$ non-interacting scalar fields. Generalizations to interacting fields and fields of other spin are straightforward, but as they are not required to expose the main elements of the stability criterion, we shall treat only this simplest case in detail.

The classical action for one scalar field is

$$S_\mathrm{m}[\mathrm{\Phi },g]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}[(_a\mathrm{\Phi })g^{ab}(_b\mathrm{\Phi })+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\xi R\mathrm{\Phi }^2],$$
(6)
where $`_a`$ denotes the covariant derivative in the metric $`g_{ab}`$, $`\xi `$ the dimensionless curvature coupling, and $`R`$ the scalar curvature. The path integral over the free scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Gaussian and may be performed formally by inspection, i.e.,

$$[𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_\mathrm{m}[\mathrm{\Phi },g]\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}G^1[g]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]\right),$$
(7)
where

$$G^1[g]\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m^2+\xi R$$
(8)
is the inverse propagator of the scalar field in the background metric $`g_{ab}`$, and the (generally non-local) functional

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}G^1[g]$$
(9)
may be regarded as the effective action in this metric. It contains an explicit factor of $`\mathrm{}`$ and records the quantum effects of the free scalar field in the arbitrary curved background metric $`g_{ab}`$. No assumption about smallness of the metric deviations from flat spacetime or any other preferred spacetime has been made.

The expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor of the quantum matter field in this background can be formally obtained by the variation

$$T_{ab}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ab}}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g].$$
(10)
By Noether’s theorem, this (unrenormalized) expectation value is covariantly conserved, provided that the effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]`$ is invariant under general coordinate transformations. However, $`T_{ab}`$ is divergent and requires a careful UV regularization and renormalization procedure consistent with this invariance .

In physical terms the UV regularization and renormalization mean that the theory may not be trustworthy at infinitely short time and distance scales, but that the lack of information about the physics at those small scales may be absorbed into a finite number of parameters in the effective low energy theory at much larger scales. Since the effective lagrangian and energy-momentum tensor have canonical scale dimension $`d`$ (in $`d`$ spacetime dimensions), the number of parameters is given by the number of local coordinate invariant scalars up to dimension $`d`$ (in $`d`$ dimensions). In $`d=4`$ dimensions these are the parameters of the Einstein-Hilbert action plus the coefficients of the two independent fourth order invariants $`R^2`$ and $`C_{abcd}C^{abcd}`$, where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature and $`C_{abcd}`$ is the Weyl tensor. Thus we shall consider the total low energy effective gravitational action

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}[g]=S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]+\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\alpha R^2+\beta C_{abcd}C^{abcd}\right),$$
(11)
with arbitrary dimensionless constants $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Renormalization means that $`G_N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$ may be chosen to depend on the UV cutoff (introduced to regulate the divergences in the one-loop term $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]`$) in such a way as to cancel those divergences and render the total $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[g]`$ independent of the cutoff. Hence the four parameters of the local geometric terms (up to fourth order derivatives of the metric which are a priori independent of $`\mathrm{}`$) must be considered as parameters of the same order as the corresponding divergent terms in $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]`$, which from (9) is first order in $`\mathrm{}`$. Formally this may be justified by considering $`N`$ identical copies of the matter field, so that $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]`$ is replaced by $`NS_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]`$ and $`G_N^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/G_N`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$ are rescaled by a factor of $`N`$. In this way all the terms in eq. (11) are now of the same order in $`N`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

This formal rescaling by $`N`$ is carried out at the level of the generating functional $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[g]`$ of connected $`n`$-point vertices (which are the inverse of $`n`$-point Green’s functions) rather than the Green’s functions themselves. Therefore, it has the net effect of resumming the quantum effects contained in the one-loop diagrams of the matter field(s) to all orders in the metric $`g_{ab}`$. The large $`N`$ expansion and its relationship to the standard loop expansion have been extensively studied in both $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory and electrodynamics (both scalar and spinor QED) in flat space . The QED case is most analogous to the present discussion with the classical vector potential $`A_\mu `$ replaced by the metric $`g_{ab}`$. The large $`N`$ approximation (11) is also invariant under changes in the ultraviolet renormalization scale (by definition of the UV cutoff dependence of the local counterterms), and is equivalent to the UV renormalization group (RG) improved one-loop approximation.

In the present case of a free field theory in curved spacetime, it is the large $`N`$, RG improved one-loop approximation that is necessary to derive the semi-classical equations (1) with backreaction, for only in such a resummed loop expansion can the one-loop quantum effects of $`T_{ab}`$ influence the nominally classical background metric $`g_{ab}`$. As mentioned in the previous section, in the ordinary (unimproved) loop expansion the quantum fluctuations of the matter can make at most small corrections to the background metric. The large $`N`$ approximation also explicitly preserves the covariance properties of the theory, since it can be derived from an invariant action functional (11). The divergences in $`T_{ab}`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the local counterterms in the action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[g]`$, whose variations with respect to $`g_{ab}`$ produce, in addition to the terms in the classical Einstein equations, the fourth order tensors

$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}H_{ab}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ab}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}R^2}=2g_{ab}\text{ }R2_a_bR+2RR_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{ab}}{2}}R^2,`$ (13)
$`{}_{}{}^{(C)}H_{ab}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ab}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}C_{abcd}C^{abcd}}=4^c^dC_{acbd}+2R^{cd}C_{acbd}.`$ (14)
Hence the variation of the effective action (11) gives the equations of motion for the spacetime metric for zero expectation value of the free scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\alpha ^{(1)}H_{ab}+\beta ^{(C)}H_{ab}+\frac{1}{8\pi G__N}\left(G_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}\right)=T_{ab}__R,$$
(15)
where $`T_{ab}__R`$ is the renormalized expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor of the scalar field. Non-zero values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and self-interactions are easily taken into account in the large $`N`$ approximation as well .

It is worth emphasizing that the UV renormalization of the energy-momentum tensor and the covariant form of the equations of motion (15) are justified by formal appeal to an underlying covariant action principle (11) whose variation they are. Although particular regularization and renormalization procedures, such as non-covariant point-splitting or adiabatic subtraction, may break explicit covariance, the result must be of the form (15) with a covariantly conserved $`T_{ab}__R`$ or the procedure does not correspond to the addition of local counterterms up to dimension $`d=4`$ in the effective action, as required by the general principles of renormalization theory. Thus the renormalization of the effective action (11) suffices in principle to renormalize the equations of motion and its higher variations, a fact we make use of in the next section.

In all cases the large $`N`$ approximation is equivalent to a Gaussian path integration for the quantum matter fields, in which the spacetime metric and gravitational degrees of freedom have been treated as $`c`$-numbers, coupled only to the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor through (1). This energy-momentum tensor expectation value can be expressed as a coincident limit of local derivatives of the one-loop matter Green’s function $`G[g](x,x)`$ in the background metric $`g_{ab}`$. That is, it requires solving the differential equation $`G^1[g]G[g]=1`$ or more explicitly

$$\left(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m^2+\xi R\right)G[g](x,x^{})=\frac{\delta ^4(x,x^{})}{\sqrt{g}},$$
(16)
concurrently with the semi-classical backreaction equation (15). It is the exact solution of this equation without any perturbative re-expansion of $`G[g]`$, and the resulting self-consistent solution of eq. (15) for the metric $`g_{ab}`$ that constitutes the principal non-perturbative RG improved feature of the large $`N`$ limit.

The equations of motion (15) which are the original eqs. (1) modified by the additional terms required by the UV renormalization of $`T_{ab}`$ are fourth order in derivatives of the metric. As is known from the general theory of differential equations, if the order of the equations is changed by adding higher derivative terms, the solutions of the modified equations fall into two classes, viz., those that approach the solutions of the lower order equations as $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$, and those which are singular in that limit. The latter class of solutions are not present in the lower order theory and physically correspond to those solutions which vary on Planck length and time scales (in order for the higher derivative terms to be of the same order as the lower derivative terms). Such solutions are clearly not trustworthy in a low energy effective theory which breaks down at the Planck scale. Furthermore, we are not interested in the stability issue raised by the presence of such rapid variations in time and space. Quite to the contrary, we would like to study the validity of the semi-classical approximation at scales far below the Planck scale, where this approximation is at least not invalid a priori. In this regime the effects of the higher order local terms in eq. (15) can be handled by an approach similar to that proposed by Simon  and Parker and Simon .

## III Linear Response and the Stability Criterion

Just as the first variation of the action functional (including that for the matter field) with respect to $`g_{ab}`$ gives Euler-Lagrange equations for the mean value of the metric, its second variation gives information about the fluctuations of the metric about its mean value. The second variation of the action functional is equivalent to the first variation of the semi-classical Einstein equations, namely

$`\delta \left[\alpha ^{(1)}H_{ab}+\beta ^{(C)}H_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G__N}}\left(G_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}\right)\right]=\delta T_{ab}__R`$ (17)
$`={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x^{}\sqrt{g^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{(\mathrm{ret})c^{}d^{}}(x,x^{})\delta g_{c^{}d^{}}(x^{})},`$ (18)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{(\mathrm{ret})c^{}d^{}}(x,x^{})i\theta (t,t^{})[T_{ab}(x),T^{c^{}d^{}}(x^{})]_{}=\frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]}{\delta g^{ab}(x)\delta g_{c^{}d^{}}(x^{})}$$
(19)
is the retarded gravitational polarization operator of the matter fields in the curved background $`g_{ab}`$. This retarded operator corresponds to the causal boundary conditions of the effective action functional $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}[g]`$, which are explicitly enforced by the Schwinger-Keldysh closed time path (CTP) contour of the time integration . The linearized fluctuation $`\delta g_{ab}(x)`$ obeys an integro-differential equation (18) in which the integral depends only on the past of $`x`$, due to the causal boundary conditions, and which involves the two-point correlation function of the matter energy-momentum tensor. According to the general principles of linear response analysis, this retarded correlation function is evaluated in the background geometry of the leading order solution of the semi-classical equations (15).

Before discussing the stability criterion we make some additional technical remarks. First, the polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{(\mathrm{ret})c^{}d^{}}(x,x^{})`$ has local divergences involving derivatives of $`\delta ^{(4)}(x,x^{})`$ when the spacetime points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ coincide. Each of these divergences is proportional to one of the local tensor variations on the left side of eq. (18). To see this note that if the UV renormalization is performed at the level of the effective action (11) then all variations of the renormalized effective action are necessarily finite. Hence all the local UV divergences may be removed by adjusting the coefficients $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`G__N`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the effective action, and there are no state dependent divergences in either $`T_{ab}__R`$ or $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{(\mathrm{ret})c^{}d^{}}(x,x^{})`$.

Next, since the polarization operator is determined by the second variation of the same effective action that determines the energy-momentum tensor, it also obeys the covariant conservation law

$$^a\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{(\mathrm{ret})c^{}d^{}}(x,x^{})=_c^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{(\mathrm{ret})c^{}d^{}}(x,x^{})=0.$$
(20)
Finally, the equations (18) are covariant in form and therefore are non-unique up to linearized coordinate (gauge) transformations,

$$\delta g_{ab}\delta g_{ab}+_aX_b+_bX_a,$$
(21)
for any vector field $`X_a`$. Singular gauge transformations in the initial data for $`\delta g_{ab}`$ are certainly not allowed, and some care is required to decide whether time dependent linearized gauge transformations which grow in time without bound are allowed or not. Since the action principle is fundamental to the present approach, any transformation of the form (21) for which the action (11) is not invariant (due to boundary or surface terms) is not a true invariance and should be excluded from the set of allowable gauge transformations of the linear response equations (18).

We are now in a position to state our stability criterion for the the semi-classical approximation. A necessary condition for the validity of the large $`N`$ semi-classical equations of motion (15) is that the linear response equations (18) should have no solutions with finite non-singular initial data for which any linearized gauge invariant scalar quantity grows without bound. Such a quantity must be constructed only from the linearized metric perturbation $`\delta g_{ab}`$ and its derivatives, and it must be invariant under allowed gauge transformations of the kind described by eq. (21).

The existence of any solutions to the linear response equations with unbounded growth in time, that cannot be removed by an allowed linearized gauge transformation (21), implies that the influence of the growing gravitational fluctuations on the semi-classical background geometry are large and must be taken into account in the evolution of the background itself. That is to say, if the gravitational fluctuations around the background grow, even if they were initially small, then the leading order semi-classical equations (15), which neglect these fluctuations, must eventually break down.

To this point in time a consistent inclusion of gravitational fluctuations in the dynamical evolution of the background metric has not been attempted, even in the most symmetric and cosmologically relevant of cases, namely the Robertson-Walker background. However, if the linearized solutions show any growing modes then such self-consistent inclusion of the effect of the gravitational fluctuations beyond the leading order semi-classical approximation would be required.

If the linear response equation (18) has physical unstable solutions at space and time scales determined by the semi-classical background metric, which are very far from the Planck scale, then the analysis should be reliable. An instability in the low energy infrared effective theory means that it is the semi-classical solution to eq. (15) that must be modified by taking these infrared gravitational fluctuations into account self-consistently, rather than abandoning the entire framework of a spacetime metric description of gravity.

One important application of this criterion is to de Sitter spacetime. A number of different arguments leads to the conclusion that de Sitter spacetime is not the ground state of a quantum theory of gravity with a cosmological term . In fact, the two-point correlation function of the energy-momentum tensor for a scalar field was estimated in  and argued to contribute to a gauge invariant growing mode on the horizon time scale. This proposition could be tested by detailed calculation of the two-point correlation function of the energy-momentum tensor and the solutions of the linear response equations (18).

A second relevant application of the criterion is to black hole spacetimes. Ever since the discovery of black hole radiance it has been recognized that the quantum behavior of black holes is qualitatively different from the classical analogs at long times, since semi-classical black holes decay at late times while classical black holes are absolutely stable. In the Hartle-Hawking state  one can construct a static solution to the semi-classical equations (15) that is quite close to the classical one near the horizon . However, the stability of this self-consistent solution has not been investigated. The validity criterion proposed in this paper provides a clear test for the stability of the self-consistent solutions in both the black hole and de Sitter cases which we plan to investigate in future publications.

###### Acknowledgements.

P. R. A. would like to thank T-8, Los Alamos National Laboratory for its hospitality, as well as J. Donoghue, L. Ford, B.L. Hu, and N. Phillips for helpful conversations. This work was supported in part by grant numbers PHY-9800971 and PHY-0070981 from the National Science Foundation. It was also supported in part by contract number W-7405-ENG-36 from the Department of Energy.


text:
# Macroscopic anisotropy in superconductors with anisotropic gaps

## Abstract

It is shown within the weak-coupling model that the macroscopic superconducting anisotropy for materials with the gap varying on the Fermi surface cannot be characterized by a single number, unlike the case of clean materials with isotropic gaps. For clean uniaxial materials, the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma (T)`$ defined as the ratio of London penetration depths, $`\lambda _c/\lambda _{ab}`$, is evaluated for all $`T`$’s. Within the two-gap model of MgB2, $`\gamma (T)`$ is an increasing function of $`T`$.

A remarkable confirmation for the observed two-gap structure of superconducting MgB2 came from solving the Eliashberg equations for the gap distribution on the Fermi surface. According to this, the gap on the four Fermi surface sheets of this material has two sharp maxima: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_11.7`$meV at the two $`\pi `$-bands and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_27`$meV at the two $`\sigma `$-bands. Within each of these groups, the spread of the gap values is small, and the gaps can be considered as constants, the ratio of which is nearly $`T`$ independent. In this situation, a weak-coupling model with two gaps on two parts of the Fermi surface may prove useful in relating various macroscopic properties of MgB2. Starting with Ref. , the two-band models were studied by many, see, e.g., Ref.  and references therein. The focus of this work is on the macroscopic superconducting anisotropy $`\gamma `$. To a large extent, motivation for this work was to understand why experiments on different samples of MgB2 done with different techniques yield widely varying values for $`\gamma `$.

The anisotropic Ginzburg-Landau (GL) equations, derived for clean superconductors with an arbitrary gap anisotropy in the seminal work by L.Gor’kov and T.Melik-Barkhudarov, led to the commonly used concept of a single parameter $`\gamma `$ defined as $`\xi _a/\xi _c\lambda _c/\lambda _a`$ ($`\xi `$ is the coherence length, $`\lambda `$ is the penetration depth, and $`a,c`$ are principal crystal directions). Formally, this came out because the same mass tensor enters both the first GL equation which determines the anisotropy of $`\xi `$ (and of the upper critical fields $`H_{c2}`$) and the equation for the current which defines the anisotropy of $`\lambda `$. However, it has been later shown by S.Pokrovsky and V.Pokrovsky in the work on the GL equations for anisotropic gaps in the presence of impurities, that $`\gamma `$ in fact depends on the impurity scattering, i.e., it might be sample dependent.

In the following the near-$`T_c`$ result of Ref.  is reproduced using the Eilenberger formalism. Moreover, the ratio $`\lambda _c/\lambda _a`$ for arbitrary temperatures $`T`$ is derived for the clean case. It is shown that for MgB2, $`\lambda _c/\lambda _a`$ should increase with increasing $`T`$, the result which calls for experimental verification.

We begin with the quasiclassical version of the BCS theory for a general anisotropic Fermi surface:

$`𝐯𝚷f`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }g/\mathrm{}2\omega f+(gffg)/\tau ,`$ (1)
$`𝐯𝚷^{}f^+`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }^{}g/\mathrm{}2\omega f^++(gf^+f^+g)/\tau ,`$ (2)
$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`1ff^+,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐯)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi TN(0){\displaystyle \underset{\omega >0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}}V(𝐯,𝐯^{})f(𝐯^{},𝐫,\omega )_𝐯^{}.`$ (4)
$`𝐣`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi |e|N(0)T\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega >0}{}}𝐯g.`$ (5)
Here $`𝐯`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`𝚷=+2\pi i𝐀/\varphi _0`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap function, $`f(𝐫,𝐯,\omega ),f^+`$, and $`g`$ are Eilenberger Green’s functions, $`N(0)`$ is the total density of states at the Fermi level per one spin; $`\mathrm{}\omega =\pi T(2n+1)`$ with an integer $`n`$. Further, $`\tau `$ is the scattering time on non-magnetic impurities and $`\omega _D`$ is the Debye frequency. The averages over the Fermi surface weighted with the local density of states $`1/|𝐯|`$ are defined as

$$X=\frac{d^2𝐤_F}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{}N(0)|𝐯|}X.$$
(6)
Commonly, the interaction $`V`$ is assumed factorizable, $`V(𝐯,𝐯^{})=V_0\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐯)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐯^{})`$, and one looks for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,T;𝐯)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,T)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐯)`$. Then, the self-consistency Eq. (4) takes the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,T)=2\pi TN(0)V_0\underset{\omega >0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐯)f(𝐯,𝐫,\omega ).$$
(7)
The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐯)`$ can be normalized by requiring that the critical temperature $`T_{c0}`$ for the clean material ($`\tau \mathrm{}`$) is given by the standard isotropic weak-coupling model with the effective interaction $`V_0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=1.$$
(8)
As usual, we incorporate $`T_{c0}`$ in the Eilenberger system using the identity

$$\frac{1}{N(0)V_0}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{T_{c0}}+2\pi T\underset{\omega >0}{\overset{\omega _D}{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega }.$$
(9)
Substitute this in Eq. (7) and replace $`\omega _D`$ with infinity due to the fast convergence:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi T}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_{c0}}{T}=\underset{\omega >0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\omega }\mathrm{\Omega }f\right).$$
(10)
Effect of nonmagnetic impurities on $`T_c`$. It is long known that scattering by nonmagnetic impurities suppress $`T_c`$ provided the gap is weakly anisotropic. The suppression is readily obtained from Eilenberger equations without assuming that the anisotropy is weak. In zero field, all quantities are coordinate independent; besides, as $`TT_c`$, $`g1`$. Then, Eq. (1) gives

$$f=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega ^{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\omega \tau }\right)\frac{D}{\mathrm{}\omega ^{}},$$
(11)
where $`\omega ^{}=\omega +1/2\tau `$. Substitute this in Eq. (10) to obtain:

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_{c0}}{T_c}=\frac{\pi T_c}{\mathrm{}\tau }(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\underset{\omega >0}{}\frac{1}{\omega \omega ^{}}.$$
(12)
Hence $`T_c=T_{c0}`$ for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and any gap anisotropy; the same is true for the isotropic gap ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$) and any $`\tau `$. This equation can be written as

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_{c0}}{T_c}=(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\left[\psi \left(\frac{1+\mu }{2}\right)\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right],$$
(13)
where $`\mu =\mathrm{}/2\pi T_c\tau `$ and $`\psi `$ is the di-gamma function. For a weak anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=1\chi `$ with $`\chi 1`$, this reduces to Hohenberg’s result.  Formally, Eq. (13) is reminiscent of the case of magnetic impurities; the factor $`1\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, however, makes a difference. For $`\mu 1`$, one has

$$T_c=T_{c0}\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{8\tau }(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2).$$
(14)
For large $`\mu `$’s, unlike the case of the magnetic pair-breaking, we obtain

$$T_c=T_{c0}[\mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)\tau /\mathrm{}]^{\mathrm{\Omega }^21},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)=1.76T_{c0}`$. Therefore, $`T_c`$ does not turn zero at a finite $`\tau `$, unless $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ as, e.g, for the d-wave superconductors.

Anisotropy near $`T_c`$. As is seen from Eq. (11), impurities cause isotropization of amplitudes $`f`$, and one expects the macroscopic anisotropy to be suppressed by scattering. To address this question, one has to derive the GL equations in the presence of impurities following basically the work  for clean superconductors. As mentioned above, the same mass tensor enters both the first and the second GL equations. We focus on the current equation because this is an easier task. Within Eilenberger formalism this is done in the clean case by expanding $`f`$ near $`T_c`$ in two small parameters: $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}\omega \sqrt{\delta t}`$ and $`𝐯𝚷\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}\omega ^2\xi _0\mathrm{\Delta }/\xi T_c\delta t`$ (here $`\delta t=(T_cT)/T_c`$ and $`\xi _0`$ is zero-$`T`$ coherence length):

$$f=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}\omega }+a\frac{𝐯𝚷\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}\omega ^2}+𝒪(\delta t^{3/2}).$$
(16)
Substituting this in Eq. (1) one obtains $`a=1/2`$. The second GL equation follows by using Eq. (5) in which we substitute $`g1ff^+/2`$ with $`f`$’s of Eq. (16):

$$j_i=\frac{7\zeta (3)|e|\mathrm{}N(0)}{4\pi ^2T_{c0}^2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2v_iv_k\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(17)
In the London limit $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_0e^{i\theta }`$ with a constant $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, and

$$j_i=\frac{c\varphi _0}{4\pi ^2}(\lambda ^2)_{ik}^1\left(\theta +\frac{2\pi }{\varphi _0}𝐀\right)_k,$$
(18)
with

$$(\lambda ^2)_{ik}^1=\frac{14\zeta (3)e^2N(0)}{\pi c^2T_{c0}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2v_iv_k.$$
(19)
The anisotropy parameter follows:

$$\gamma ^2(T_c)=\frac{\lambda _{cc}^2}{\lambda _{aa}^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2v_a^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2v_c^2}.$$
(20)
In fact, this is the result of Ref. .

In the presence of impurities, the first order term in the expansion (16) should have the form (11). With $`D`$ defined in Eq. (11), we verify readily that

$$f=\frac{D}{\mathrm{}\omega ^{}}\frac{𝐯𝚷D}{2\mathrm{}\omega ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}}}+𝒪(\delta t^{3/2})$$
(21)
satisfies Eq. (1). Writing $`D`$ in the form:

$$D=\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\omega \tau }\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega }^{},$$
(22)
we obtain with the help of Eqs. (5) and (21):

$$j_i=\frac{2\pi |e|N(0)T}{\mathrm{}^2}\underset{\omega }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}v_iv_k}{\omega ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(23)
In the London limit, we have:

$$(\lambda ^2)_{ik}^1=\frac{16\pi ^2e^2N(0)T_c}{c^2\mathrm{}^3}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2\underset{\omega }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}v_iv_k}{\omega ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}},$$
(24)
and

$$\gamma ^2(T_c)=\frac{\lambda _{cc}^2}{\lambda _{aa}^2}=\frac{_\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}v_a^2/\omega ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{_\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}v_c^2/\omega ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}.$$
(25)
This is the result of Ref. . In the clean limit it reduces to Eq. (20), whereas the effect of impurities on $`\gamma `$ depends on the order parameter symmetry.

For the d-wave symmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In other words, the strong $`T_c`$ suppression notwithstanding, non-magnetic impurities do not affect $`\gamma `$. For order parameters with a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the strong scattering erases the effect of gap anisotropy on $`\gamma `$ altogether:

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{dirty}}^2=\frac{v_a^2}{v_c^2}.$$
(26)
Hence, in the dirty limit, all parts of the Fermi surface contribute evenly to the anisotropy parameter as is the case for isotropic gaps.

T dependence of $`\gamma =\lambda _c/\lambda _a`$. To address this question in the full temperature range one has to study weak supercurrents, i.e., turn to Eq. (5). We consider only the clean case for which $`f_0,g_0`$ in the absence of currents are:

$$f_0=f_0^+=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\beta },g_0=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\beta },\beta ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2;$$
(27)
in general, both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\beta `$ depend on $`𝐤_F`$ . A weak supercurrent causes the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the amplitudes $`f`$ to acquire an overall phase $`\theta (𝐫)`$. We look for the perturbed solutions in the form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0e^{i\theta },f=(f_0+f_1)e^{i\theta },`$ (28)
$`f^+=(f_0+f_1^+)e^{i\theta },g=g_0+g_1,`$ (29)
where the subscript 1 denotes corrections. In the London limit, the only coordinate dependence is that of the phase $`\theta `$, i.e., $`f_1,g_1`$ can be taken as $`𝐫`$ independent.  Equations (1-3) then give:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0g_1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\omega f_1=i\mathrm{}f_0\mathrm{𝐯𝐏}/2,`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0g_1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\omega f_1^+=i\mathrm{}f_0\mathrm{𝐯𝐏}/2,`$ (31)
$`2g_0g_1`$ $`=`$ $`f_0(f_1+f_1^+).`$ (32)
Here, $`𝐏=\theta +2\pi 𝐀/\varphi _02\pi 𝐚/\varphi _0`$. To evaluate the current (5), one solves the system (31) for $`g_1`$:

$$g_1=i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{2\beta ^3}\mathrm{𝐯𝐏}.$$
(33)
Then one obtains the London relation between the current and the vector potential, $`4\pi j_i/c=(\lambda ^2)_{ik}^1a_k`$, with

$$(\lambda ^2)_{ik}^1=\frac{16\pi ^2e^2T}{c^2}N(0)\underset{\omega }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2v_iv_k}{\beta ^3}.$$
(34)
The anisotropy parameter now reads:

$$\gamma ^2=\frac{\lambda _{cc}^2}{\lambda _{aa}^2}=\frac{v_a^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2_\omega \beta ^3}{v_c^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2_\omega \beta ^3}.$$
(35)
As $`T0`$, we have $`2\pi T\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2_\omega \beta ^31`$, and

$$\gamma ^2(0)=\frac{v_a^2}{v_c^2}.$$
(36)
Note that the gap and its anisotropy do not enter this result. The physical reason for this is in the Galilean invariance of the superfluid flow in the absence of scattering: all charged particles take part in the supercurrent.

Near $`T_c`$, $`_\omega \beta ^37\zeta (3)/8\pi ^3T_c^3`$, and we obtain the GL result (20) which amplifies contribution of the Fermi surface pieces with large gap to the parameter $`\gamma `$. Thus, the anisotropy parameter depends on $`T`$, the feature absent in superconductors with isotropic gaps.

It is worth noting that in literature the superconducting anisotropy is commonly referred to as the ratio $`H_{c2,a}/H_{c2,c}`$, an important figure for applications, but a difficult quantity to evaluate for anisotropic Fermi surfaces, not to speak about anisotropic gaps. On the other hand, measurements of the $`\lambda `$-anisotropy such as, e.g., the high-field torque technique is more demanding than the resistive determination of $`H_{c2}`$ since one has to work in the reversible domain. One should also note that, theoretically, the ratios of $`H_{c2}`$’s and of $`\lambda `$’s are not necessarily the same, except near $`T_c`$ where their equality is provided by the GL theory.

It is of interest to examine the consequences of our results for MgB2. The reported $`\gamma `$’s vary from 1.7 to 8,  or even higher as in Ref. . In all these reports, different techniques for extracting the anisotropy and samples with different resistivity ratios were used.

Consider a model material with the gap anisotropy given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,2},𝐯F_{1,2},$$
(37)
where $`F_1,F_2`$ are two sheets of the Fermi surface. Denoting the densities of states on the two parts as $`N_{1,2}`$, and assuming the quantity $`X`$ being constant at each sheet, we obtain for the general averaging (8):

$$X=(X_1N_1+X_2N_2)/N(0)=\nu _1X_1+\nu _2X_2,$$
(38)
where we introduce normalized densities of state $`\nu _{1,2}=N_{1,2}/N(0)`$ for brevity. We have then instead of Eq. (8):

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2\nu _1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\nu _2=1,\nu _1+\nu _2=1.$$
(39)
We also assume that the two parts of the Fermi surface have the symmetries of the total, e.g., $`𝐯_1=0`$ where the average is performed only over the first Fermi sheet. Within this model, Eq. (35) reads:

$$\gamma ^2=\frac{_i\nu _i\mathrm{\Omega }_i^2v_a^2_i_\omega \beta _i^3}{_i\nu _i\mathrm{\Omega }_i^2v_c^2_i_\omega \beta _i^3},i=1,2,$$
(40)
where $`\beta _i=\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2+\psi ^2(T)\mathrm{\Omega }_i^2}`$.

Based on the band structure calculations, the relative densities of states $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ of our model are $``$0.56 and 0.44.  The ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2/\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_2/\mathrm{\Omega }_14`$, if one takes the averages of $`6.8`$ and $`1.7`$meV for the two groups of distributed gaps as calculated in Ref. . Then, the normalization (39) yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=0.36`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=1.45`$.

Now, we have all parameters needed to solve the self-consistency equation (10) for $`\psi (T)`$ with $`f=\mathrm{\Delta }/\beta `$ (the clean case). This is done numerically and the result is shown in Fig. 1 along with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(T)`$.

To evaluate $`\gamma (T)`$ of Eq. (40) we use the averages over separate Fermi sheets calculated in Ref. : $`v_a^2_1=33.2`$, $`v_c^2_1=42.2`$, $`v_a^2_2=23`$, and $`v_c^2_2=0.5\times 10^{14}`$cm2/s2 The result of numerical evaluation of $`\gamma (T)`$ is shown in Fig. 2.

The ratio of $`\lambda `$’s can be obtained, e.g., from the angular dependence of the reversible torque on single crystals in intermediate magnetic fields tilted relative to the principal crystal directions. Some torque data for MgB2 were reported by M. Andst et al., but the $`T`$ dependence was not examined in detail. The ratio $`H_{c2,ab}/H_{c2,c}`$ was shown to drop with increasing $`T`$ from about 6 at 15 K to 2.8 at 35 K (see also Refs. ). The authors estimate this ratio as $`2.32.7`$ at $`T_c`$. Near $`T_c`$, the ratios of $`H_{c2}`$’s should coincide with the ratio of $`\lambda `$’s. In this work we estimate the latter as $`2.4`$, see Fig. 2. Given this agreement and the prediction made here that the $`T`$ dependence of $`\gamma =\lambda _c/\lambda _{ab}`$ should be opposite to that of the observed behavior of $`H_{c2,ab}/H_{c2,c}`$, the detailed studies of $`\gamma `$ by torque or other methods are desirable.

The author is grateful to L. Gor’kov and V. Pokrovsky for informative and helpful discussions, to K. Belashchenko and V. Antropov for providing data on Fermi surface averages, to S. Bud’ko and P. Canfield for the interest in this work. This work was supported by the Director of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U. S. Department of Energy.