text:
# Transport theory of carbon nanotube Y junctions

## 1 Introduction

Landauer-Büttiker (LB) scattering theory  marks a powerful approach to multi-terminal transport in conventional (Fermi liquid) mesoscopic devices, but is well-known to be inapplicable to strongly correlated electron systems. Progress along this direction has recently been reported for interacting metallic 1D systems, where a good description in terms of a Luttinger liquid (LL)  is often available. Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) represent a prime example for such a system . For a two-terminal setup, the generalization of the Landauer formalism to a LL (containing an impurity) coupled to noninteracting leads has been formulated and solved previously . For related work, see Refs. .

Recently, these ideas were generalized to also treat $`N`$-terminal starlike LL/nanotube networks ($`N>2`$) . Such a transport theory is then able to make concrete predictions for experiments, e.g. on carbon nanotube Y junctions. First steps to the production and experimental analysis of SWNT networks are under way. Template-based chemical vapor deposition  and electron beam welding methods  allow to fabricate and contact multi-terminal nanotube junctions. Recently, an intrinsically nonlinear current-voltage characteristics of multi-walled nanotube Y junctions has been reported . Furthermore, four-terminal devices have been realized by several groups using two crossed NTs . Such nanotube-based (or related) setups are of growing interest to many theorists working in the field of interacting mesoscopic systems. To mention some recent work, in Ref.  a detailed renormalization group analysis of a similar model as ours was performed. Other authors used perturbation theory in the hopping  or in the interaction strength . Furthermore, the conductance of a junction of three Luttinger liquids enclosing a magnetic flux was investigated . The cited activity underlines the need for a generalization of the LB approach to correlated systems. With this work we hope to contribute a significant step towards this aim. Some of our results have been published before , but most of the material is new.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we describe our model for the interacting multi-terminal nanotube device, and outline its general solution in the symmetric case. As the step from $`N=3`$ to $`N>3`$ is straightforward , we concentrate on nanotube Y junctions ($`N=3`$) in the following sections. In Sec. 3 the nonlinear conductance matrix of a symmetric Y junction is discussed. The case of asymmetric junctions is then studied in Sec. 4. Finally, we conclude and point out some open questions in Sec. 5.

## 2 General model

We shall first discuss the simplest case of a spinless single-channel Luttinger liquid. In fact, in the first part (Sec. 2.1), we even ignore the interactions and briefly review some aspects of LB theory relevant to our purposes. The case of a symmetric junction is then treated by various boundary conditions for the interacting system in Sec. 2.2, and the extensions necessary to treat nanotubes are discussed in Sec. 2.3. These include the electronic spin and an additional flavor degree of freedom due to the presence of two K points in the first Brillouin zone . The basic setup studied here is shown schematically in Fig. 1.

### 2.1 Fermi liquid case

When one ignores the Coulomb interaction among electrons, transport in a starlike setup of $`N`$ nanotubes can be described by the scattering matrix approach, employing a unitary $`S`$ matrix with entries $`s_{ij}`$ determining the transmission coefficients $`T_{ij}=|s_{ij}|^2`$ of the system. The current through nanotube $`i`$ may we written as

$$I_i=\frac{e^2}{h}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\left\{[1T_{ii}(E)]f(E\mu _i)\underset{ji}{}T_{ij}(E)f(E\mu _j)\right\},$$

where $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi function (we consider only a single mode here, while a true SWNT has four). Unitarity of the $`S`$ matrix implies (1) the Kirchhoff rule (charge conservation), $`_iT_{ij}=1`$, and (2) gauge invariance under a uniform potential shift in all the reservoirs, $`_jT_{ij}=1`$. When all transmission coefficients are energy-independent, the nonlinear conductance matrix normalized to $`e^2/h`$ reads

$$G_{ij}=\frac{h}{e}\frac{I_i}{\mu _j}=\delta _{ij}T_{ij}.$$
(1)
Without applied magnetic field, time-reversal symmetry implies $`T_{ij}=T_{ji}`$. For concrete calculations of the $`S`$ matrix for nanotube Y junctions, we refer to Refs. . The $`N\times N`$ matrix $`S`$ relates the outgoing and incoming scattering states at the node,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L(0)=S\mathrm{\Psi }_R(0).$$
(2)
To describe the $`N`$ (for now semi-infinite) tubes, we use $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _N)=\mathrm{\Psi }_L+\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ with $`x0`$, which contains the outgoing (left-moving, L) components as well as the incoming (right-moving, R) states, with the junction at $`x=0`$. Unfortunately, the boundary condition (2) is exceedingly difficult to handle for correlated electrons.

To make progress, we shall first consider only symmetric junctions. A wide class of such junctions can be parameterized by a symmetric $`S`$ matrix of the form

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{2}{N+i\lambda }1& \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }& \mathrm{}& \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }\\ \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }& \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }1& \mathrm{}& \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }& \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }& \mathrm{}& \frac{2}{N+i\lambda }1\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\lambda 0`$ serves as arbitrary parameter. This is the most general $`S`$ matrix that implies wavefunction matching at the node ,

$$\psi _1(0)=\mathrm{}=\psi _N(0),$$
(4)
for the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_L+\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$. The $`S`$ matrix (3) leads to

$$T_{ii}=\frac{(N2)^2+\lambda ^2}{N^2+\lambda ^2},T_{ij}=\frac{4}{N^2+\lambda ^2},$$
(5)
which, for $`\lambda =0`$, describes a maximally transmitting symmetric junction, $`T_{ii}=(N2)^2/N^2`$ and $`T_{ij}=4/N^2`$. On the other hand, for $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, a very bad junction forms, $`T_{ii}=1`$ and $`T_{ij}=0`$. For arbitrary $`\lambda `$, the conductance matrix then follows from Eq. (1). It is worth noting that no symmetric starlike junction can act as an ideal beam splitter, since backscattering at the node is unavoidable. The only possibility to have an ideal beam splitter, $`T_{ii}=0`$, arises in asymmetric junctions .

Since phases in $`\psi _i(0)`$ can be gauged away, a density matching condition arises for any symmetric junction described by Eq. (3),

$$\rho _1(0)=\mathrm{}=\rho _N(0),$$
(6)
where $`\rho _i(0)`$ denotes the total electronic density in tube $`i`$ at the node. The condition (6) is crucial in our approach for interacting systems, as it avoids the explicit wavefunction matching. The density in Eq. (6) refers to the sum of the slow (long wavelength) part, $`\rho _i^0(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,i}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,i}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,i}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,i}`$, and the Friedel oscillation, $`\delta \rho _i(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,i}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,i}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,i}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,i}`$. Since the parameter $`\lambda `$ will affect the Friedel oscillation, there is a hidden dependence on $`\lambda `$ not directly visible in Eq. (6).

### 2.2 Luttinger liquid case

Next we include the bulk interaction in the tubes, but still restrict ourselves to a symmetric junction. We assume that all nanotubes can be characterized by the same interaction strength, and for now still consider just the spinless single-channel version. Following Ref. , we may neglect backscattering and therefore obtain a Luttinger liquid, where interactions are encoded in the standard Luttinger parameter $`g1`$, with $`g=1`$ referring to the noninteracting limit. Under bosonization , the Hamiltonian is (we put $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$H=\frac{v_F}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_L^0𝑑x\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_i^2+\frac{1}{g^2}\left(_x\theta _i\right)^2\right],$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i(x)`$ is the canonical momentum to the standard boson field $`\theta _i(x)`$ for tube $`i`$, and $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. Similar to the two-terminal case, adiabatically coupled external voltage reservoirs (at $`xL`$) lead to radiative boundary conditions for the long-wavelength part of the chiral electron densities ,

$$(g^2+1)\rho _{i,R}^0(L)+(g^21)\rho _{i,L}^0(L)=\mu _i/\pi v_F.$$
(8)
These conditions only depend on the injected currents, which are independent of any backscattering happening at the node or within the nanotube. To fulfill Eq. (8), the chiral densities must combine to give

$`I_i`$ $`=`$ $`ev_F(\rho _{i,R}^0\rho _{i,L}^0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi }}\left(U_i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}U_j\right),`$ (9)
$`\rho _i^0`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{i,R}^0+\rho _{i,L}^0={\displaystyle \frac{eg^2}{2\pi v_F}}\left(U_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}U_j\right),`$ (10)
which defines effective transmission matrix elements $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}(g,\{\mu _k\},k_BT)`$. The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ should not be confused with the LB transmission matrix $`T`$ of the noninteracting system. Albeit $`\stackrel{~}{T}=T`$ for $`g=1`$, the effective transmission matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ cannot be interpreted as single-electron transmission matrix for $`g<1`$. The applied voltages in Eqs. (9) and (10) are defined as

$$eU_i=\mu _i\overline{\mu },\overline{\mu }=\underset{i}{}\mu _i/N.$$
(11)
Under this definition, gauge invariance is automatically fulfilled if the transport properties of the system only depend on the $`U_i`$ and not explicitly on the $`\{\mu _k\}`$. Charge conservation (Kirchhoff’s rule) can be incorporated by imposing

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}=1.$$
(12)
Finally, the density matching conditions (6) have to be obeyed.

Due to the pinning amplitude $`\delta \rho _i(0)`$, i.e. the value of the Friedel oscillation at the node, $`\rho _i(0)`$ will deviate from $`\rho _i^0`$ in Eq. (10). To compute the pinning amplitude, we first note that the Friedel oscillation $`\delta \rho _i(x)`$ in tube $`i`$ arises due to interference of the incoming right-movers and the left-movers that are backscattered at the node. Left-movers transmitted from the other $`N1`$ tubes into tube $`i`$ cannot interfere with the incoming right-movers and will therefore not contribute to $`\delta \rho _i(x)`$. To verify this argument explicitly, it suffices to analyze the corresponding two-terminal case with one impurity at $`x=0`$. Without loss of generality, let us take $`k`$-independent bare transmission amplitude $`t`$ for the impurity. Taking $`k>0`$, there is a right-scatterer eigenstate $`\varphi _k(x)`$,

$$\varphi _k(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ikx}+re^{ikx}& (x<0)\\ te^{ikx}& (x>0)\end{array},$$

where $`|t|^2+|r|^2=1`$. Similarly, the left-scatterer is $`\varphi _k(x)=\varphi _k(x)`$. We now show that there is no contribution to $`\delta \rho (x)`$ from interfering right- and left-scatterers. While this statement is immediately seen for noninteracting electrons, it can also be confirmed for $`g<1`$. To that purpose, let us expand the electron operator in terms of the right- and left-scatterers instead of the standard R/L movers,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\underset{k>0}{}a_k\varphi _k(x)+b_k\varphi _k(x).$$
(13)
Of course, the kinetic part of the Hamiltonian decouples in the Fermi operators $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$. Moreover, when inserting Eq. (13) into the interaction Hamiltonian, no terms containing only one $`a_k`$ or $`b_k`$ can appear because the right- and left-scattering states $`\varphi _k(x)`$ and $`\varphi _k(x)`$ are orthonormal. As a consequence, in the expectation value of the density operator, there can be no terms involving $`a_k^{}b_k`$ or $`b_k^{}a_k`$. Hence there is no interference between scattering states originating in different reservoirs, a finding that directly translates to the $`N`$-terminal setup under study here.

As a consequence of the above discussion, $`\delta \rho _i(0)`$ must be identical to the pinning amplitude in a related two-terminal setup defined by an impurity whose bare reflection probability is determined by $`T_{ii}`$. Using this mapping, we can thus compute the pinning amplitude from

$$\delta \rho _i(0)=g^2eV_i/\pi v_F,$$
(14)
where the four-terminal voltage $`V_i=V_i(U_i)`$ has to be determined through a self-consistency relation, see below. The validity of Eq. (14) can be seen as follows. The long-wavelength density fluctuation in the equivalent two-terminal setup, due to an applied voltage $`U_i`$ as given by Eq. (11), is

$$\rho ^0(x)=g^2eV_i\mathrm{sgn}(x)/2\pi v_F.$$

With respect to a density corresponding to the chemical potential $`\overline{\mu }`$, taking $`x<0`$, we thus have $`\rho _i^0=g^2eV_i(U_i)/\pi v_F`$. For the two-terminal problem, antisymmetry of $`\rho (x)`$ under $`UU`$ implies that the net change in density due to $`U`$ is zero at $`x=0^{}`$. Therefore $`\rho _i^0`$ must be cancelled by the pinning amplitude, see Eq. (14). Note that this reasoning does not assume the validity of the density matching conditions (6).

For $`g=1/2`$, the self-consistency relation determining $`V(U)`$ can be obtained using refermionization, and takes a rather simple form. Results for this special interaction strength have been discussed in Ref. . Using integrability concepts, however, the respective self-consistency relation can also be derived and solved for arbitrary $`g`$ . Let us write down the necessary equations for $`g=1/p`$ (with integer $`p`$), keeping in mind that arbitrary values of $`g`$ can also be treated. The bare reflection probability of the impurity determines the energy scale $`k_BT_B\mathrm{exp}\theta _B`$, see below, and the elementary excitations scattered one-by-one at the impurity are kinks, antikinks, and $`p2`$ neutral breathers. The two-terminal current $`I`$ then follows as an integral over rapidities $`\theta `$,

$$I=|T_{++}|^2(\sigma _+\sigma _{})𝑑\theta ,$$
(15)
where $`|T_{++}|^2=1/\{1+\mathrm{exp}[2(p1)(\theta \theta _B)]\}`$. The occupation probabilities are $`\sigma _\pm =nf_\pm `$ for the kinks/antikinks, where $`2\pi n=dϵ/d\theta `$ with the eigenenergy $`ϵ`$ of the kink/antikink. Explicit expressions for the eigenenergies can be found in Ref. . Furthermore, the filling fractions read $`f_\pm (\theta )=1/(1+\mathrm{exp}[(ϵ(\theta )W/2)/T])`$, where $`\pm W/2`$ is an effective chemical potential for the kink/antikink. The parameter $`W`$ has to be determined self-consistently through

$$\left(|T_{++}|^2+p|T_+|^2\right)(\sigma _+\sigma _{})𝑑\theta =geU/2\pi v_F,$$
(16)
where $`U`$ is the applied voltage and $`|T_+|^2=1|T_{++}|^2`$. Since $`(e^2/2\pi )(UW)=(1p)I`$, see Ref. , the solution of Eqs. (15) and (16) then yields $`W=W(g,k_BT,U)`$, and finally the four-terminal voltage follows from $`V=W2\pi I/ge^2`$.

In these equations, $`T_B`$ appears as effective impurity strength of the related two-terminal problem. With $`T_{ii}`$ given in Eq. (5), an effective dimensionless impurity strength $`v_0`$ can be determined by examining the noninteracting limit, see below. Given $`v_0`$, the scale $`T_B`$ then follows as

$$k_BT_B/D=c_gv_0^{1/(1g)},$$
(17)
where $`D`$ is the electronic bandwidth and $`c_g`$ a numerical prefactor of order unity whose precise value is given in Ref. . Using this correspondence, the complete transport problem for a symmetric junction described by the bare $`S`$ matrix (3) can be solved explicitely. Using Eq. (14), the density matching conditions (6) read $`(1+\stackrel{~}{T}_{jj})U_j2V_j=\stackrel{~}{T}_{kj}U_j`$ for all pairs $`kj`$. Exploiting Kirchhoff’s rule (12), this set of equations admits only the solution

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ii}=\frac{2N}{N}+\frac{2(N1)V_i}{NU_i},\stackrel{~}{T}_{ki}=\frac{2}{N}\frac{2V_i}{NU_i}.$$
(18)
Evidently, the $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}`$ depend only on the applied voltages $`U_i`$ but not separately on the chemical potentials $`\mu _i`$. Thus gauge invariance is automatically fulfilled. The conductance matrix then follows immediately from Eq. (9). In Sec. 3, we will discuss this solution in some detail for the case $`N=3`$ (nanotube Y junction). It then only remains to fix the impurity scale $`v_0`$ employed in determining $`V_i(U_i)`$.

As the impurity strength parameter $`v_0`$ can be obtained in the noninteracting limit, a convenient way to fix $`v_0`$ is as follows. For $`g=1`$, as pointed out above, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ii}`$ should simply reproduce the LB transmission coefficient $`T_{ii}`$ specified in Eq. (5). In addition, in the noninteracting limit, the ratio $`V_i/U_i`$ is just the bare reflection coefficient $`R`$ of the impurity in the two-terminal problem . The latter can be expressed in terms of $`v_0`$ according to

$$R=\frac{v_0^2}{(1+v_0^2/4)^2},$$

where $`v_0=2`$ corresponds to the unitary limit; larger values for $`v_0`$ lead to unphysical results. Combining above equations then leads to

$$v_0(\lambda ,N)=2(\sqrt{N^2+\lambda ^2}\sqrt{2N})/\sqrt{N(N2)+\lambda ^2}.$$
(19)
For a very bad junction, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, we are indeed in the unitary limit, $`v_0=2`$. For a perfect junction with $`\lambda =0`$, however, $`v_0=2(\sqrt{N}\sqrt{2})/\sqrt{N2}`$. In particular, for $`N=3`$, this value is $`v_00.63567`$.

### 2.3 Extensions

Real SWNTs are characterized by four channels, resulting from the electron spin and the additional flavor degree of freedom. Including these degrees of freedoms as additional indices $`(\sigma ,\alpha )`$, Eq. (2) now involves a $`4N\times 4N`$ dimensional $`S`$ matrix, and the electron state $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ has $`4N`$ entries $`\psi _{i\sigma \alpha }(x)`$. Assuming that at the node neither flavor mixing nor spin-flip processes are present, the previous analysis can largely be carried over. Since the $`S`$ matrix factorizes, the Kirchhoff rule as well as the density matching conditions hold separately for each component $`(\sigma \alpha )`$. The Hamiltonian (7) then corresponds to a four-channel boson model  in terms of symmetric/antisymmetric charge/spin fields. The interaction parameter in the symmetric charge mode is then $`g_{c+}<1`$, while the neutral modes are essentially at the noninteracting value. The radiative boundary conditions (8) are only imposed in the symmetric charge sector, and our above discussion then directly leads to a very similar expression as in Eq. (9). However, when computing the effective transmission matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$, the four-terminal voltage parameter $`V_i`$ is now nontrivially affected by the additional degrees of freedom. This is due to the fact that backscattering at the node couples the four boson modes diagonalizing the Hamiltonian. At the moment, we are not aware of an exact solution to this problem. Nevertheless, two remarks can be made even in this situation. First, the prefactor in the current (9) is changed from $`e^2/h`$ to $`4e^2/h`$, reflecting the presence of four channels. Second, we expect that the typical power law exponents to lowest order are modified according to $`g(g_{c+}+3)/4`$. Therefore, the qualitative physics seems to be captured already by the one-channel version discussed further on. However, we wish to stress that the finite value for $`v_0`$ obtained under the mapping does not seem to allow for simple perturbative access to the full four-channel problem.

## 3 Conductance of a symmetric Y junction

In this section we discuss the conductance defined by $`G_{ij}=(h/e)I_i/\mu _j`$ for the case of a symmetric Y junction ($`N=3`$), based on the solution of the general problem in Sec. 2.2. Using Eq. (18) gives the nonlinear conductance matrix in the form

$`G_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{U_i}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V_j}{U_j}}\right),`$ (20)
$`G_{ji}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{U_i}}1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_j}{U_j}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_k}{U_k}}1\right),`$
where $`kij`$ in the second equation. Eq. (20) holds for any interaction strength $`g`$. To obtain explicit results, one only needs to compute $`V(U)`$ for the corresponding two-terminal problem. We shall show explicit results now for several values of $`\lambda `$, the special interaction parameter $`g=1/3`$, and applied voltages $`\mu _1=E_F+eU`$, $`\mu _2=\mu _3=E_F`$. In Fig. 2, the linear conductance is shown, and in Fig. 3 the nonlinear conductance is plotted for $`k_BT/D=0.01`$.

As illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 for $`G_{12}`$ at $`g=1/3`$, at low energies the system always flows to a fixed point corresponding to disconnected nanotubes,

$$G_{ij}=0.$$
(21)
To the best of our knowledge, all theoretical work on this problem  agrees that for symmetric junctions, Eq. (21) represents the only stable fixed point in the case of repulsive electron-electron interaction. This fixed point represents an isolated node weakly coupled to $`N`$ broken-up quantum wires. It is then of interest to study the energy dependence of the $`G_{ij}`$ at low energies, where a typical LL $`g`$-dependent power law behavior arises, see also Ref. . The leading corrections to Eq. (21) can therefore be formulated in terms of the well-known end tunneling density of states, with associated power law exponents given in textbooks .

## 4 Conductance of an asymmetric Y junction

Next, we construct more general $`S`$ matrices starting from the solution for the symmetric situation discussed in the two previous sections, focussing for clarity on the case $`N=3`$. The basic idea to make the system asymmetric is to add impurities of dimensionless strength $`v_i`$ to tube $`i`$. To avoid the appearance of spurious resonances, these are taken sufficiently close to the node, at, say, $`x1/k_F`$. This modelling of an asymmetric junction still allows for $`g<1`$, e.g. by using perturbation theory in the $`v_i`$ around the above solution for a symmetric junction ($`v_i=0`$). The prototypical situation for exactly one impurity, $`v_1>0`$ but $`v_2=v_3=0`$, is illustrated in Fig. 1. Since the impurities are displaced away from $`x=0`$, the junction itself is characterized by the symmetric $`S`$ matrix (3), and therefore the density matching conditions (6) can still be used. Nevertheless, effectively this procedure allows to generate asymmetric $`S`$ matrices.

The free real-time action then reads in the framework of bosonization

$$S_0[\theta _i]=\frac{v_F}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_L^0𝑑x𝑑t\left[\frac{1}{v_F^2}\left(_t\theta _i\right)^2\frac{1}{g^2}\left(_x\theta _i\right)^2\right],$$
(22)
where the bosonic phase field $`\theta _i(x,t)`$ is decomposed according to $`\theta _i=\theta _i^h+\theta _i^p`$. Here, $`\theta _i^h`$ obeys homogeneous ($`U_i=0`$) boundary conditions (8), and $`\theta _i^p`$ is a particular solution to the equations of motion obeying Eq. (8). Written in terms of the boson fields, one has $`I_i^0(x,t)=(e/\sqrt{\pi })_t\theta _i(x,t)`$ and $`\rho _i^0(x,t)=(1/\sqrt{\pi })_x\theta _i(x,t)`$, and one checks easily that the equations of motion as well as Eq. (8) are satisfied by

$$\theta _i^p(x,t)=\sqrt{\pi }I_i^0t/e+\sqrt{\pi }\rho _i^0x,$$
(23)
where $`I_i^0`$ and $`\rho _i^0`$ are given by Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively. Here we assume that applied voltages are chosen such that $`\overline{\mu }=0`$.

Adding an impurity of strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=Dv_1/\pi `$ (with bandwidth $`D`$) into tube 1 then yields the action contribution

$$S_I=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1𝑑t\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _1^h(0,t)+2\pi I_1^0t/e].$$
(24)
¿From now on, $`L\mathrm{}`$ to allow for analytical progress. Inserting Eq. (23) into Eq. (22), we obtain

$$S_0[\theta _i]=S_0[\theta _i^h]\sqrt{\pi }v_F\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\rho _i(0)/g^2)𝑑t\theta _i^h(0,t).$$

The second term can be dropped because of Eq. (6) and Kirchhoff’s rule, which implies that $`_i\theta _i^h(0,t)`$ equals an arbitrary constant (which can be put to zero). The current $`I_i`$ is then given by

$$I_i=\frac{e^2}{2\pi }\left(U_i\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}U_j\right)+\frac{e}{\sqrt{\pi }}_t\theta _i^h(0,t).$$
(25)
### 4.1 Weak asymmetry: Perturbation theory

The impurity strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ measures the degree of asymmetry of the junction. First, we treat the case of weak asymmetry under a perturbative calculation in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, using the Keldysh technique. In this subsection, we write $`\theta ^h\theta `$ and restrict ourselves to $`T=0`$. Then the current (25) follows from

$$_t\theta _i(0,t)=\frac{1}{Z}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒟\theta _ie^{iS[\theta _i]}\delta \left(\underset{i}{}\theta _i(0,t)\right)_t\theta _i(0,t),$$
(26)
where $`S[\theta _i]=S_0[\theta _i]+S_I`$. The $`\delta `$-function reflecting Kirchhoff’s rule is enforced using a Lagrange multiplier field $`\gamma (t)`$, yielding the additional action contribution $`S_\gamma =𝑑t\gamma (t)_i\theta _i(0,t)`$. Switching to Fourier space, the action $`S[\theta _i,\gamma ]=S_0[\theta _i]+S_\gamma `$ reads

$$S[\theta _i,\gamma ]=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left\{\frac{v_F}{4}\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{v_F^2}\frac{k^2}{g^2}\right)|\theta _i(k,\omega )|^2+\gamma (\omega )\theta _i(k,\omega )\right\}.$$

When switching to $`k`$-space, a principal value contribution has been dropped, which is justified in the low-energy regime of interest here . We then introduce rotated phase fields, $`\theta _\pm =\theta _2\pm \theta _3`$, with conjugate momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm =(\mathrm{\Pi }_2\pm \mathrm{\Pi }_3)/2`$, and subsequently integrate out the fields $`\theta _1`$ and $`\gamma `$ by standard Gaussian integration. This procedure leads to the (impurity-free) effective action $`S_0[\theta _+]+S_0[\theta _{}]`$, where

$$S_0[\theta _\pm ]=\frac{v_\pm }{2}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{dk}{2\pi }\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{v_\pm ^2}\frac{k^2}{g_\pm ^2}\right)\left|\theta _\pm (k,\omega )\right|^2,$$
(27)
with $`v_+=4v_F/3,g_+=4g/3,v_{}=4v_F,`$ and $`g_{}=4g`$. Fourier transformation back to real space gives

$$S_0[\theta _\pm ]=\frac{v_\pm }{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x𝑑t\left[\frac{1}{v_\pm ^2}(_t\theta _\pm )^2\frac{1}{g_\pm ^2}(_x\theta _\pm )^2\right],$$
(28)
where the rotated boson fields $`\theta _\pm (x)`$ live on the full line. As we shall see below, only a certain linear combination of the right- and left-moving components of $`\theta _+`$ couples to the impurity, and hence the extension to the positive half-line ($`x>0`$) does not introduce spurious effects while simplifying the subsequent analysis considerably.

Expectation values of the form (26) are then calculated by first evaluating

$$_t\theta _\pm (t)=\frac{1}{Z}𝒟\theta _+𝒟\theta _{}e^{i(S[\theta _+]+S_0[\theta _{}])}_t\theta _\pm (t),$$
(29)
where the impurity in tube 1 acts only in the $`+`$ sector,

$$S[\theta _+]=S_0[\theta _+]+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1𝑑t\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _+(0,t)+2\pi I_1^0t/e].$$
(30)
Since $`_t\theta _{}(t)=0`$, we are left with the relations $`_t\theta _1=_t\theta _+`$ and $`_t\theta _{2,3}=_t\theta _+/2.`$ Equation (29) can now be evaluated perturbatively in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, and Eq. (25) then gives

$$I_1=I_1^0\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1},I_{2,3}=I_{2,3}^0+\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}/2,$$
(31)
where $`I_i^0`$ denotes the currents computed in Sec. 2.2 in the absence of the impurity, and the lowest-order perturbative correction due to the impurity is

$$\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}=eg_+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2/D)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi g_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12g_+)\text{sgn}(I_1^0)(2\pi |I_1^0|/eD)^{2g_+1}.$$
(32)
To treat more general $`S`$ matrices, one can add a second (weak) impurity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, say, into tube 2. Then, within order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2`$, again correction (32) arises, the correction of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ vanishes, and corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2`$ may be calculated in the same way as above. This gives

$`\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{\pi }}}_t\theta _\pm (0,t)`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`eg_\pm (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2/2D)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi g_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12g_+)\text{sgn}(I_2^0)(2\pi |I_2^0|/eD)^{2g_+1},`$
where we replaced most of the $`g_{}`$ that actually appear in Eq. (33) by $`g_+`$, utilizing $`g_++g_{}=4g_+`$, and the currents $`I_i`$ are

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`I_1^0\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}^+,`$
$`I_{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`I_{2,3}^0+(\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}+\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}^+\pm \delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}^{})/2.`$
Evidently, a wide class of asymmetric Y junctions is accessible by this construction method even for interacting SWNTs.

### 4.2 Arbitrary asymmetry: Refermionization

In the case of just one impurity ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$), it is possible to solve the full transport problem in a nonperturbative manner at the special interaction strength $`g=3/8`$. This point corresponds to the Toulouse limit $`g_+=1/2`$ in the rotated picture used in Sec. 4.1, and allows to use refermionization . In fact, one can solve this transport problem for arbitrary $`g`$ using integrability methods, see Ref. , but for clarity, in this section we only discuss the simplest non-trivial case, $`g=3/8`$, which admits the use of standard techniques. We only have to study the $`\theta _+`$ sector, as the $`\theta _{}`$ field decouples from the impurity and can be ignored.

To sketch the $`g=3/8`$ solution, let us first define new chiral boson fields ($`\varphi _+(x)`$ is the conjugate field, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+=_x\varphi _+`$)

$$\phi _{R/L}(x)=\sqrt{\pi }(\sqrt{g_+}\varphi _+(x)\pm \theta _+(x)/\sqrt{g_+}),$$

which obey the algebra $`[\phi _p(x),\phi _p^{}(x^{})]=i\pi \delta _{pp^{}}\text{sgn}(xx^{})`$. Next we switch to linear combinations of these chiral fields, $`\phi _\pm =(\phi _R\phi _L)/\sqrt{2}`$, with associated densities $`\rho _\pm =_x\phi _\pm /2\pi `$. Then the effective Hamiltonian reads

$$H=\frac{v_+}{4\pi g_+}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x[(_x\phi _+)^2+(_x\phi _{})^2]+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2g_+}\phi _+(0)),$$
(34)
where the radiative boundary conditions are $`3\rho _+(L)\rho _+(L)=2g_+I_1^0/ev_+`$, and $`3\rho _{}(L)+\rho _{}(L)=0`$. Therefore, only the $`\phi _+`$ boson contributes to transport. Next we introduce effective fermion fields, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(x)=\sqrt{k_F/2\pi }\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _+(x))`$. It is convenient to introduce yet another fermion $`\psi (x)`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(x)=(c+c^{})\psi (x)`$, where $`c`$ is an auxiliary fermion. This standard procedure is explained in detail in the textbook . In the fermionized framework, Eq. (34) becomes

$$H=\frac{iv_+}{g_+}𝑑x\psi ^{}_x\psi +\sqrt{\frac{v_+\mathrm{\Lambda }_B}{2g_+}}(c+c^{})\left(\psi (0)\psi ^{}(0)\right),$$
(35)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B=\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2/D`$ determining the degree of asymmetry of the junction. In this form, the Hamiltonian can be diagonalized immediately, and following Refs. , a self-consistency relation determining $`\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ follows

$$\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}=(e\mathrm{\Lambda }_B/\pi )\mathrm{Im}\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+2\pi i(I_1^0\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}/2)/e}{2\pi k_BT}\right),$$
(36)
where $`\psi `$ is the digamma function. The currents $`I_i`$ are then given by Eq. (31), with $`\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ obtained as the self-consistent solution of Eq. (36). One checks easily that the $`T=0`$ corrections for small $`e\mathrm{\Lambda }_B/I_1^0`$ predicted by this solution coincide with our previous perturbative results, see Eq. (32) for $`g_+=1/2`$. In the opposite limit of strong asymmetry, we find the expansion

$$\delta I_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}/I_1^0=1(\pi ^2/6)(I_1^0/e\mathrm{\Lambda }_B)^2+\mathrm{}$$
(37)
This corresponds to the highly asymmetric case with almost no current through tube 1 and the currents through tubes 2 and 3 given by $`I_{2/3}=I_{2/3}^0+I_1^0/2`$.

Remarkably, this procedure allows to nonperturbatively treat the full crossover between a symmetric Y junction and a single SWNT that is approached by the tip of another SWNT at some point in its bulk. The corresponding asymptotic power law exponents therefore correspond to the sum of end and bulk exponents in the tunneling density of states . Finally, we note that the situation of a perfect beam splitter cannot be described by our model. This is due to the initial symmetry of our setup without impurities, while a beam splitter can only be realized if transport between two of the three tubes is totally suppressed .

## 5 Conclusions

In summary, we have proposed a generalization of Landauer-type transport theory to $`N`$-terminal starlike interacting nanotubes. Due to the formulation of three different boundary conditions, reflecting the coupling to external leads, charge conservation, and density matching conditions at the node, it has been possible to find an analytical solution for the nonlinear conductance matrix of the symmetric system for arbitrary electron-electron interaction. Based on the symmetric solution, we have constructed a wide class of asymmetric transmission matrices by adding impurities close to the node in the individual nanotubes. The asymmetric problem can be also be solved in a nonperturbative fashion if just one impurity is put into a nanotube arm. For simplicity, we have discussed this solution for the special interaction strength $`g=3/8`$, corresponding to the Toulouse limit in a folded picture.

A largely open issue is the question of noise and particle statistics in such a nonchiral multi-terminal Luttinger liquid network. For low energies, the disconnected-node fixed point seems to hinder the observation of fractional quasiparticle cross-correlations, because tunneling of electrons from one tube to the other is the first allowed process once the applied voltage is raised. However, for intermediate energies, which could be temperature and/or applied voltage in experiments, the disconnected fixed point opens up and quasiparticle tunneling between different tubes might give distinct features to the current cross correlations and therefore allow to study quasiparticle statistics. These questions will be studied in future work.

We wish to thank H. Grabert, A. Komnik, I. Safi, and C. Texier for useful discussions. Support by the DFG under the Gerhard-Hess program and under Grant No. GR 638/19 is acknowledged.

## References


format: text

text:
# Quantum destruction of stiffness in diluted antiferromagnets and superconductors

## Abstract

The reduction of 2D superconducting or antiferromagnetic order by random dilution is studied as a model for the 2D diluted Heisenberg antiferromagnet (DHAF) La2Cu1-p(Zn,Mg)pO4 and randomly inhomogeneous 2D suerconductors. We show in simplified models that long-range order can persist at the percolation threshold despite the presence of disordered one-dimensional segments, contrary to the classical case. When long-range order persists to the percolation threshold, charging effects (in the superconductor) or frustrating interactions (in the antiferromagnet) can dramatically modify the stiffness of the order. This quantum destruction of stiffness is used to model neutron scattering data on La2Cu1-p(Zn,Mg)pO4. In a certain simplified model, there is a sharp stiffness transition between “stiff” and “floppy” ordered phases.

Randomly diluted superconductors and antiferromagnets involve a combination of classical percolation physics with the quantum physics underlying superconductivity and antiferromagnetism. Percolation is perhaps the simplest transition that can occur in a disordered system: random dilution of sites (or bonds) on a lattice induces a transition between a phase with one infinite nearest-neighbor connected cluster of occupied sites (bonds), and a phase with only disconnected finite clusters. Recent experiments on diluted 2D antiferromagnets and inhomogeneous superconductors require a theory of how quantum-mechanical effects modify the percolation transition in these systems. This question is also of practical importance for field-effect devices in which a thin film is tuned through the superconducting transition ahn .

At the percolation threshold, $`p_c`$, the infinite connected cluster is on the verge of being cut into disconnected finite clusters (Fig.1). For the connected cluster to have long-range order (LRO), the quasi-2D “blobs” must correlate across quasi-1D “links.” This occurs easily in some other diluted magnets senthil ; coniglio  and inhomogeneous superconductors deutscher , since their degrees of freedom have LRO even in a 1D chain. The two cases considered here, the $`s=1/2`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet and the $`O(N)`$ quantum rotor, both have quantum degrees of freedom that order in 2D but not in 1D. Then the question of whether LRO survives to $`p_c`$, when the infinite cluster is a fractal object of dimension $`\frac{91}{48}1.896`$ bunde , is unanswered.

The effect of quantum fluctuations is strongest on the quasi-1D chains. For classical models on the percolation cluster at $`T>0`$, the fact that these chains are disordered (have a finite correlation length $`\zeta `$) implies that the cluster has no LRO. Similar arguments have been made for the quantum cases discussed here senthil . The first part of this paper shows that the existence of arbitrarily long 1D segments at $`p_c`$, and the fact that a spin or rotor in the middle of such a segment has strong quantum fluctuations, does not prevent LRO for the cluster: the 2D blobs can order through disordered 1D links, in a manner that is impossible for classical models. These one-dimensional segments cause difficulty for spin-wave calculations because, as seen below, the spins in the middle of such a segment fluctuate strongly. An additional motivation for studying the effect of these 1D segments is that their effects are essentially unobservable in current QMC studies, as a typical realization of e.g. 105 spins will contain no 1D segments of length longer than 8. A different way of connecting 1D physics to diluted antiferromagnets is discussed in eggert .

Randomly diluted quantum degrees of freedom appear in two well-known nanoscale inhomogeneous materials. La2Cu1-p(Zn,Mg)pO4 is obtained by adding “static holes” (i.e., removing spins) at random in a quasi-2D antiferromagnet. For small hole densities $`pp_c`$, neutron scattering measurements vajk  agree well with quantum Monte Carlo vajk ; sandvik ; todo  and spin-wave castroneto  calculations using the $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ site-diluted Heisenberg antiferromagnet (DHAF) model

$$H=J\underset{ij}{}p_ip_j𝐬_i𝐬_j,$$
(1)
where the sites form a square lattice, and $`p_i,p_j`$ equal 0 with probability $`p`$ and 1 with probability $`1p`$. (Vajk et.al. bilayer  argue that other interactions besides those in (1) may not be neglected close to threshold. We consider some such interactions below.)

The second type of material, inhomogeneous high-temperature superconductors like Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (BSCCO), comes from doping mobile holes into a quasi-2D antiferromagnet. Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of BSCCO surfaces show grains of size $`3`$ nm that are either superconducting or insulating lang . The grains are larger than the coherence length $`1`$ nm, so it is reasonable to assume that they contain Cooper pairs, and that collectively they resemble a bond-diluted Josephson-junction (JJ) model

$$H_{JJ}=\underset{i}{}E_C(n_in_0)^2E_J\underset{ij}{}p_{ij}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i\theta _j).$$
(2)
Here the bond variables $`p_{ij}`$ have the same distribution as $`p_i`$ in (1). The above is not expected to be as accurate a model of the microscopics as the diluted Heisenberg model (1) is for La2Cu1-p(Zn,Mg)pO4, since the microscopic origin of the disorder in BSCCO is unknown.

The model (2) is in the universality class of the $`O(2)`$ rotor model, and for $`E_C0`$, charging effects in the grains prevent LRO in a 1D chain sachdev . The local charge $`n_i`$ does not commute with the superconducting phase $`\varphi _i`$: charging tends to fix the local number, which is conjugate to the local phase. In the zero-charging-energy limit deutscher , $`H_{JJ}`$ orders in 1D at $`T=0`$. In the Heisenberg spin-half case, and for small nonzero $`E_C/E_J`$ in the Josephson-junction case, the 1D model is critical (has power-law correlations); for large $`E_C/E_J`$ or Heisenberg spin-one, the 1D model is short-ranged.

One of our main conclusions for both the Heisenberg antiferromagnet and $`O(N)`$ rotor is that order at $`p_c`$ is allowed despite the existence of 1D links: in a simplified limit we find a “renormalized classical” phase that provides an adequate description of some previous numerical results. We find that possible ordered states at $`p_c`$ must have extremely low stiffness relative to the undiluted 2D case. At $`T=0`$, order and stiffness are independent quantities, but mix as $`T`$ increases: low stiffness leads to a reduced $`T>0`$ correlation length $`\lambda `$. Such order with low stiffness can be proven to occur if there are classical magnetic moments or superconducting phases (see (6)) coupled by quantum 1D links. Superconducting phases with small superfluid density have previously been proposed, e.g., the “gossamer superconductor” of laughlin . Our picture differs in that the low superfluid density results from randomness on scales larger than the coherence length lang ; trivedi , rather than from a uniform theory.

We first calculate correlations in a toy model (3) to show explicitly how quantum disordered or critical $`T=0`$ 1D systems like the spin-half chain are fundamentally different from classical disordered $`T>0`$ 1D systems. Even though both may be disordered in 1D, the quantum systems can order through disordered 1D regions (Fig.2) while similar classical systems cannot. This simple statement underlies the possible existence of order at $`p_c`$:. We next solve a rather simplified limit of (2) that shows a stiffness transition between two ordered phases: a “stiff” renormalized classical phase, and a “floppy” phase dominated by fluctuations on the 1D links. In a less simplified but still approximate model, the “stiff phase” becomes just a renormalized classical phase like in the 2D Heisenberg antiferromagnet (AF) chakravarty , except that the renormalized problem is not the 2D classical AF but the classical AF at $`p_c`$. Finally, we compare experiment and simulations of (1) to this renormalized classical theory.

First consider a chain of spins with uniform coupling $`J`$, plus one spin at each end attached by a coupling $`J^{}`$:

$$H_1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}J𝐬_i𝐬_{i+1}+J^{}(𝐬_0𝐬_1+𝐬_N𝐬_{N+1}).$$
(3)
Here, $`𝐬_i`$ are $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg spins coupled antiferromagnetically, $`JJ^{}>0`$. For very small $`J^{}`$, the state of the internal $`N`$ spins is nearly undisturbed, and in particular $`𝐬_1`$ and $`𝐬_N`$ are only weakly correlated with each other eggert . However, the two spins at the ends $`𝐬_0`$ and $`𝐬_{N+1}`$ can be made to form a perfect singlet with each other, for $`N`$ even: $`lim_{J^{}/J0^+}𝐬_0𝐬_{N+1}=3/4.`$

To understand this result, note that at $`J^{}=0`$, the four states of the end spins, which can be classified into a singlet and triplet, are degenerate. Perturbation theory in $`J^{}`$ preserves rotational symmetry and, for $`J^{}J`$, just splits the singlet and triplet. The two spins at the ends correlate perfectly with each other, even though the internal spins are weakly correlated. Diagonalization, using thick-restarted Lanczos lanczos , up to $`N=20`$ confirms the second-order perturbation theory argument. At small enough $`J^{}/J`$ there is an arbitrarily strong singlet correlation

$$s_As_B\frac{3}{4}+f_1(N)\left(\frac{J^{}}{J}\right)^2$$
(4)
but with a vanishing energy splitting between singlet and triplet:

$$E_{\mathrm{triplet}}E_{\mathrm{singlet}}f_2(N)J\left(\frac{J^{}}{J}\right)^2.$$
(5)
Here $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are dimensionless functions of the chain length that incorporate the matrix elements and energy denominators of the unperturbed chain.

At $`p_c`$, the Josephson junction array (2), in a certain approximation, also exhibits long-range order. Consider (for now) neglecting all fluctuations within 2D blobs. The scaling properties of this model can be found exactly; later, fluctuations within the blobs will be partially restored. In this approximation, the phases of the blobs, $`\{\varphi _i\}`$, commute with $`H`$, so choose a basis of simultaneous eigenstates of (2) and $`\varphi _i`$. In this basis, the energy

$$E\underset{i}{}J_i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _{i+1}),$$
(6)
depends on exchange constants $`J_i>0`$ chosen from a distribution $`P(J)`$ which we calculate below using properties of the 1D links (see (9)). Regardless of the distribution, we have long-range order, since $`J_i>0`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are classical. We calculate the stiffness of this order below using the $`J0`$ behavior of $`P(J)`$.

Consider a single 1D link of $`L`$ sites bounded by two superconducting blobs of phase $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. After the quantum-classical mapping, we obtain a 2D XY model with fixed boundary conditions sachdev . The lowest energy is obtained if $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2`$, but the energy cost to create a phase difference depends on the coupling $`K=E_C/E_J`$ in the 2D XY model. This problem is discussed in cardy : the stiffness per site goes to a finite limit in the algebraic (ALRO) phase of the 2D XY model but falls off exponentially with $`L`$ in the short-ranged phase (SRO). For small phase difference between boundaries $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$,

$$E(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )\{\begin{array}{cc}k_1(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2L^1\hfill & \text{in ALRO phase}\hfill \\ k_2(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2e^{L/\zeta }\hfill & \text{in SRO phase}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(7)
The exchange strength is $`J(L)=2E(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )/(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2`$.

The distribution of exchange strengths between blobs, $`P(J)`$, is chosen to reflect the geometry of the percolation cluster coniglio ; herrmann . The total number of 1D links between $`A`$ and $`B`$ goes as $`NR^{3/4}`$ and the fraction of links $`P(L)`$ of length $`L`$ falls off exponentially with $`L`$: $`P(L)e^{aL}`$.

The probability distribution $`P(J)`$ of exchange strengths is a sum of $`\delta `$-functions:

$$P(J)=\underset{L=1}{\overset{NR^{3/4}}{}}P(L)\delta (JJ(L))$$
(8)
The peaks become closely spaced as $`J0`$. Using (7) to change variables, these properties imply that as $`J0`$, the fraction of links with exchange $`J`$ is

$$P(J0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}k_1/J^2e^{k_1a/J}\hfill & \text{in ALRO phase}\hfill \\ (J/k_2)^{a\zeta 1}\hfill & \text{in SRO phase}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(9)
Any given link must be shorter than the total number of links $`NR^{3/4}`$, so the distribution (9) is cut off at

$$J_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}k_1/N\hfill & \text{in ALRO phase}\hfill \\ k_2e^{N/\zeta }\hfill & \text{in SRO phase}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(10)
Now consider the total energy cost $`E(R,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )=J_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2/2`$ to create a small phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ between two faraway points $`A`$ and $`B`$ separated by distance $`R`$, where $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the disorder-averaged stiffness. For the classical $`XY`$ chain with a random distribution of couplings $`P(J)`$, it is known straley  that there is a transition depending on the exponent $`P(J)J^\alpha `$ as $`J0`$. For $`\alpha 0`$, there is effectively a nonzero mean stiffness, and $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}(R)R^{3/4}`$. For $`\alpha <0`$, there is a qualitatively weaker stiffness with exponent depending on $`\alpha `$.

Hence our model has a transition when $`a=\zeta ^1`$, or when the typical length of a 1D link on the percolation backbone is equal to the correlation length of the 1D JJ. There are estimates of the number $`a`$ for some standard lattices herrmann . The stiffness transition is not at the same value of $`E_J/E_C`$ as the KT transition where the 1D correlation length becomes finite. The transition is caused by competition between the 1D correlation length $`\zeta `$ and the percolation physics that controls $`a`$.

To improve the model, the 2D blobs can be modeled as 2D classical percolation clusters rather than single moments. (This is still an approximate model, since it neglects quantum effects in the blobs, of course.) With this modification, the asymptotic behavior of the sum is dominated by the blobs in the stiff phase: now $`E_\pi (R)R^{t/\nu }`$ in the stiff phase, where $`t1.31`$ is the classical percolation resistivity exponent and $`\nu =4/3`$. The location of the transition to the floppy phase is also modified. The conclusion is that, at least in this approximate model, there is a stiff phase described by $`E_\pi (R)R^{t/\nu }`$ but with only ALRO, or even SRO with sufficiently large $`\zeta `$, on the 1D links. Quantum fluctuations on the links do reduce the stiffness numerically in this stable “stiff” phase, and in the toy model can induce an exotic “floppy” phase.

In the physical system where the blobs also are quantum-mechanical, the sharp transition between stiff and floppy phases will be smeared out since there is no obvious order parameter to protect it; and there will appear a disordered phase for large $`E_C`$. This model may explain the numerical observation of sandvik  on the spin-half Heisenberg model that the stiffness has the percolation exponent but is numerically less than the classical value.

The above description of the percolation cluster depended only on the assumption of either algebraic order or a correlation length in the one-dimensional links, so the same physical picture describes also the $`O(N)`$ rotor models for $`N>2`$ and the Heisenberg quantum antiferromagnet. For the antiferromagnet, the 1D links are algebraically ordered for half-integer spin with short-ranged interactions, but develop a correlation length for either integer spin or strong frustrating interactions.

The remainder of this paper discusses observable consequences of the picture suggested by the above model: that there is a stiff or “renormalized classical” phase where quantum effects modify the system quantitatively (by reducing the stiffness) but not qualitatively. Such a model has been previously used to fit $`T=0`$ numerics at $`p_c`$ sandvik , and similar renormalized classical physics applies to the undiluted 2D AF chakravarty . Here we extend the renormalized classical picture to $`T>0`$ and $`p<p_c`$ (Fig. 3).

At $`p_c`$, the correlation length $`\lambda `$ diverges as a power-law as $`T0`$ rather than as an exponential, and the power-law is given by the classical resistivity exponent: $`\lambda (\stackrel{~}{J}/kT)^{\nu /t}`$. The classical Heisenberg model (i.e., $`𝐬`$ a classical unit vector in (1)) has a crossover from threshold behavior to quasi-2D behavior for $`p<p_c`$.

We can estimate this crossover using a one-step real-space RG. The length scale that characterizes the crossover from threshold to 2D physics is the percolation length $`\xi |pp_c|^\nu `$. Estimating the coupling strength at this length from the threshold stiffness, and using this coupling strength and length scale in the standard expression for $`\lambda `$ in the renormalized classical 2D AF, gives for the correlation length

$$\lambda \{\begin{array}{cc}a(\stackrel{~}{J}/kT)^{\nu /t}\hfill & \text{if }(\stackrel{~}{J}/kT)^{\nu /t}\xi /a\hfill \\ \xi e^{2\pi \rho _s/kT}\hfill & \text{if }(\stackrel{~}{J}/kT)^{\nu /t}\xi /a\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
which is shown in Fig. 3. Here, $`\nu =4/3`$ and $`\rho _s(p)\stackrel{~}{J}|pp_c|^x`$, with $`x=t1.31`$. This estimated value for $`x`$, which in our one-step RG controls the effective coupling in the 2D AF as $`pp_c`$, has previously been conjectured for the bulk modulus as $`pp_c`$ degennes .

There are several sets of experimental and numerical data to which the above forms can be compared. The $`T=0`$, $`p=p_c`$ numerics of Sandvik do show classical percolation scaling, which is partly explained by our construction of a model stable to quantum fluctuations in the links. Correlation length measurements on the DHAF from neutron scattering vajk  seem to exhibit a crossover with dilution. The crossover was fit to castroneto

$$\frac{\lambda }{a}=\frac{e}{8}\frac{c/a}{2\pi \rho _s}\frac{e^{2\pi \rho _s/T}}{1+(4\pi \rho _s/T)^{\nu _T}}.$$
(12)
At high-$`T`$, (12) like the classical model, follows a power-law rather than an exponential. An intermediate scaling regime controlled by a bilayer multicritical point bilayer  has been proposed vajk  to explain deviation of observed scaling ($`\nu _T0.7`$) from the classical value ($`\nu _T1.02`$).

In conclusion, superconducting or antiferromagnetic order can exist to $`p_c`$ in 2D but has low stiffness because of both cluster geometry and quantum fluctuations. This reduced $`\rho _s`$ results in a correlation length much shorter for $`T>0`$ than without dilution. For diluted La2CuO4, our analytic results explain and compare reasonably well with existing experiment and numerics.

The authors acknowledge helpful conversations with M. Greven, D.-H. Lee, T. Senthil, O. Starykh, O. Vajk, and J. Wu and support from DOE LDRD-366464, NSF DMR-0238760, and NERSC.