text:
# Superradiance on the Landau levels and the problem of power of decameter radiation of Jupiter

## 1 Introduction.

The phenomenon of superradiance (SR) was considered for the first time in the known paper by Dicke  in the example of a two-level model. At present, a significant number of publications are devoted to its study (see for example, reviews ), but, as noted by many authors, the theme is far from being exhausted, and many interesting and physically important questions and situations still remain to be investigated. One of them is the question of the possibility of realization of SR in systems with equidistant levels in the presence of inversion. The system of fast electrons in a homogeneous magnetic field, for which the transversal movement (rotation) energy spectrum is described by the known Landau levels

$$E_{}=n\mathrm{}\omega ,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(1)
$$\omega =\frac{eH}{mc},$$
(2)
is the most easily realizable and important of such systems . The question on the possibility and conditions of SR formation in such systems, besides general physical interest, is also of big astrophysical interest because the inversion on the Landau levels is easily achieved in rarefied magnetized plasma of active space objects in the presence of bunches of accelerated electrons if their initial velocities are directed at some angle to the magnetic field, and so, besides the longitudinal energy $`E_{}`$, they also possess significant transversal energy $`E_{}`$. For example, in the Jupiter magnetosphere , the observed superpower sporadic nonthermal decameter radiation of the Jupiter-Io system with brightness temperature up to $`10^{15}`$$`10^{17}`$ K can serve as an evidence of the possible realization of such situation and generation of SR.

In the present work, we investigate the question about the possibility and conditions of SR formation in the inverted system of electrons on high Landau levels (1) with $`n1`$ and the possibility of realization of these conditions in the lower Jupiter magnetosphere. As it is known, for the generation of the induced coherent radiation in systems like masers, the equidistancy of energy levels is an obstacle because of the specific competition of radiation and absorption processes in this case. In the case of SR, we deal not with induced but with spontaneous radiation, and here, as we shall see, equidistancy of energy levels appears to be of advantage. This is, first of all, because the SR regime is usually realized in open finite systems without mirrors, where radiation leaves the active volume of generation quickly enough, having practically no time to get in the absorption regime . Second, in this case, all the inverted electrons occupy, as a rule, not one level, but some significant interval of high levels $`\mathrm{}n`$ $`(n\mathrm{}n1)`$, and because of equidistancy, all of them radiate the same mode on frequency (2), and also, as we shall see, at the same rate independent of the initial energy.

The phenomenon of SR arises when in “coherence domains”, with sizes $`R_0`$ smaller then the wavelength $`\lambda `$, all $`N_0`$ radiating dipoles gradually during radiation become aligned in one direction due to the dipole-dipole interaction between them in the “near zone” $`(R_0\lambda )`$, so that, as a result, the total dipole of the domain $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ turns out to be $`N_0`$ times larger then the elementary dipole $`\stackrel{}{d}`$. Therefore, the intensity of the collective dipole radiation becomes proportional to $`N_0^2`$, and not $`N_0`$ as in the case of radiation of uncorrelated dipoles. This is described in Sec. 2.

The transition to such a correlated polarized state is similar to the phase transition in magnetics or ferroelectrics, and for its description it is convenient to use the Weiss method of mean self-consistent field . This theory is developed in Sec. 3. We note that the phase transition under consideration is a nonequilibrium one, and it has all the features of the self-organization phenomena in dissipative systems. In Sec. 4, we discuss the key role of the SR effect for the interpretation of the observable power of the decameter radiation of the Jupiter-Io system.

## 2  Cyclotron superradiance on Landau levels.

For large $`n`$, levels (1) correspond to quantum states with wave functions localized near classical Larmor orbits with radii $`r_L=V_{}/\omega `$ :

$$r_n=\sqrt{\frac{c\mathrm{}}{eH}(2n+1)}=\sqrt{\frac{2n\mathrm{}\omega }{m\omega ^2}\left(1+\frac{1}{2n}\right)}\sqrt{\frac{2E_{}}{m\omega ^2}}=\frac{V_{}}{\omega }=r_L.$$
(3)
In this connection, we can proceed to (quasi)classical description of such states and transitions between them. In a classical limit, in a coordinate system in which the longitudinal movement is absent, these orbits are given by

$$\stackrel{}{r}_{}(t)=r_L\{\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha ),\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha ),0\},$$
(4)
where the cartesian components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{r}_{}`$ are written in braces.

Being initially inverted on high levels, electrons start to fall down step by step on the ladder of states (1), radiating quanta with frequency (2). The differential (angular) and integral intensities of the dipole radiation of one electron in the classical limit are described by the known formulas

$$\frac{dI}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{[\ddot{\stackrel{}{d}}\times \stackrel{}{n}_k]}{4\pi c^3},\stackrel{}{n}_k\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{k};$$
(5)
$$I=\frac{2e^2\omega ^2V_{}^2}{3c^3}=\frac{4e^2\omega ^2}{3mc^3}E_{}.$$
(6)
Equation (6) implies the following evolution law of the electron energy:

$$\frac{dE_{}(t)}{dt}=I=\frac{E_{}}{\tau },\tau =\frac{3mc^3}{4e^2\omega ^2};$$
(7)
$$E_{}(t)=E_{}(0)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau ).$$
(8)
We see that the radiation time $`\tau `$ does not depend on $`E_{}`$, i.e., electrons with different initial energies \[within the limits of dispersion $`\mathrm{}E_{}(0)E_{}(0)`$\] will fall down at the same rate. It is easy to see that the dispersion of energy will also decrease at the same rate,

$$\mathrm{}E_{}(t)=\mathrm{}E_{}(0)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau ),$$
(9)
so that the following relation is satisfied:

$$\mathrm{}E_{}(t)/E_{}(t)=\mathrm{const}1.$$
(10)
This allows one to judge about the evolution of the whole collective of electrons by the evolution of their average energy and other quantities. Therefore, for simplicity, in what follows, by the symbols $`E_{}`$, $`V_{}`$, and $`d_0=er_L=eV_{}/\omega `$ we denote the corresponding values averaged over the ensemble of inverted electrons.

One can partition the total volume $`V`$, occupied by $`N`$ inverted electrons, into subvolumes $`V_{coh}`$, or “coherence areas” describing the elementary dipoles the sizes $`R_0`$ of which are smaller than the radiated wavelength $`\lambda `$ but are bigger than the radii of the Larmor orbits (3):

$$r_LR_0\lambda .$$
(11)
Thus, a large enough number of $`N_0`$ radiating dipoles will be in one volume $`V_{coh}`$:

$$n_eV=NN_0=n_eV_{coh}1.$$
(12)
Let us consider the total dipole moment of such a subsystem

$$\stackrel{}{D}(t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_0}{}}\stackrel{}{d_j}(t)=e\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_0}{}}\stackrel{}{r_j}_{}(t).$$
(13)
Similarly to (5) for one electron, the collective dipole radiation of our subsystem will be described by the formula

$$dI=\frac{[\ddot{\stackrel{}{D}}\times \stackrel{}{n_k}]^2}{c^3}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }=\frac{\omega ^4}{c^3}\left[\stackrel{}{D}^2(\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{n_k})^2\right]\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }.$$
(14)
By substituting (13) and (4) into this formula and averaging over the period $`T=2\pi /\omega `$, we have

$$\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha _i)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha _j)=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)/2,$$

$$\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha _i)\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha _j)=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)/2,$$

$$\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha _i)\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha _j)+\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha _i)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha _j)=0.$$
(15)
Furthermore,

$`\stackrel{}{D}^2(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\stackrel{}{d}_i(t)\stackrel{}{d}_j(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_0}{}}}\stackrel{}{d}_i(t)\stackrel{}{d}_i(t)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{N_0(N_01)}{}}}\stackrel{}{d}_i(t)\stackrel{}{d}_j(t)=e^2r_L^2\left[N_0+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{N_0(N_01)}{}}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)\right]`$ (16)
and

$$(\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{n})^2=e^2r_L^2\left[N_0+\underset{ij}{\overset{N_0(N_01)}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)\right](n_x^2+n_y^2)/2.$$
(17)
Using the relations

$$n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2=1,1\frac{n_x^2+n_y^2}{2}=\frac{1+n_z^2}{2},$$

we get

$$dI=\frac{e^2\omega ^2V_{}^2}{c^3}\left[N_0+\underset{ij}{\overset{N_0(N_01)}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)\right]\frac{1+n_z^2}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }.$$
(18)
The factor $`(1+n_z^2)/2`$ reflects the anisotropy properties of the dipole radiation of nonrelativistic electrons. The second term in the square brackets describes the correlation effects connected with the mutual aligning of dipoles. If correlations are absent, i.e., if the contributions from all $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)`$ are mutually compensated and give zero in the sum, then only the first term in (18) works, which corresponds to the total radiation of $`N_0`$ independent elementary dipoles. It is easy to describe situations where the second term in (18) completely compensates the first one so that dipole radiation does not arise. These are, of course, the situations where the total dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ becomes equal to zero. Consider, for example, the case where $`N_0/2`$ dipoles are oriented precisely in one direction, and the rest $`N_0/2`$ dipoles are oriented in the opposite direction. Then the correlations of pairs in each of these groups are constructive and give $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}\alpha )=1`$; there are $`N_0(N_0/21)/2`$ such pairs in one group and as many in the other, i.e., their common positive contribution is equal to $`N_0(N_0/21)`$. Correlations between pairs formed by dypoles of different groups are destructive and give $`\mathrm{cos}\pi =1`$ so that the contribution of such pairs is, obviously, equal to $`2(N_0/2)^2`$. Adding these contributions together with the first term in (18), we obtain: $`N_0+N_0(N_0/21)2(N_0/2)^2=0`$, as it should be from the physical viewpoint because we consider the case with $`\stackrel{}{D}=0`$.

In the case of total correlation, where all $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)=1`$, formula (18) gives

$$dI_{corr}=N_0^2\frac{e^2\omega ^2V_{}^2}{c^3}\frac{1+n_z^2}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi },$$
(19)
i.e., the intensity grows in $`N_0`$ times as compared with the radiation of $`N_0`$ uncorrelated dipoles. This is precisely the SR effect .

The radiation time of such correlated dipoles radiating coherently will decrease $`N_0`$ times as compared with time (7):

$$\tau _{coh}=\tau /N_0.$$
(20)
In reality, it is possible to expect only partial positive correlation of phases, i.e., partial aligning of all dipoles, for wich the average over ensemble value of cosine is positive

$$\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha >0.$$
(21)
Having replaced all $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)`$ in (18) by their average values, we obtain

$$dI=\frac{e^2\omega ^2V_{}^2}{c^3}\left[N_0+N_0(N_01)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha \right]\frac{1+n_z^2}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }.$$
(22)
In this case, the intensity of coherent radiation is proportional to $`N_0^2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha `$.

Now we proceed to the consideration of the mechanism of spontaneous aligning of the dipoles giving rise to the SR regime.

## 3 Polarization phase transition in “coherence domains”.

To solve the problem of the phase transition, we apply here the Weiss method of self-consistent mean field  confirmed in the theory of spontaneous magnetization. Consider the potential energy of a trial dipole $`\stackrel{}{d}_0(\stackrel{}{r}_0,t)`$ with the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r}_0,t)`$ induced at a point $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$ by the rest $`(N_01)`$ dipoles:

$$U(d_0)=\stackrel{}{d}_0(\stackrel{}{r}_0,t)\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r}_0,t),$$
(23)
where

$$\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r}_0,t)=\underset{j}{\overset{N_01}{}}\frac{3\stackrel{}{n}_j(\stackrel{}{n}_j\stackrel{}{d}_j(t))\stackrel{}{d}_j(t)}{|\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j|^3},$$
(24)
$$\stackrel{}{n}_j=(\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j)/|\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j|.$$

All dipoles are rotating according to law (4) and radiate, and their electric field is not static but also is rotating with frequency $`\omega `$. Therefore, the use of expression (24) for the field $`\stackrel{}{E}(t)`$ requires explanation. The point is that conditions (11) that determine the “coherence volume” imply that different dipoles of a domain are in the so-called near zone $`(R_0\lambda )`$ with respect to each other, where the main term in the decomposition of the retarded potentials and fields in powers of the small parameters $`(r_L/R_0)`$ and $`(r_L/\lambda )`$ turns out to be precisely expression (24) (in this respect, see, e.g., ).

Averaging Eq. (23) over the rotation period, we notice that the points $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$ characterize not the instantaneous positions of the rotating electrons but the positions of the static centers of rotation and, consequently, do not depend on time. Substiting (24) into (23) and averaging over the period, we obtain

$$U(r_0)=\frac{d_0^2}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_01}{}}\frac{13(n_{jz})^2}{|\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j|^3}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _0\alpha _j),$$
(25)
where $`d_0=er_L`$, $`n_{jz}=(z_0z_j)/|\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j|`$, and the relation $`3[n_{jx}^2+n_{jy}^2]2=13n_{jz}^2`$ is used. One can approximate the sum in (25) by the integral with respect to the coordinates $`r_j`$ over the “coherence volume” $`V_{coh}`$ with the obvious measure $`n_edV_j`$ representing the mean number of dipoles in the volume element $`dV_j(d\stackrel{}{r}_j)`$ in the neighborhood of the point $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$. But, prior to writing this integral, we notice that, because the position of our trial dipole $`\stackrel{}{d}_0(\stackrel{}{r_0},t)`$ can be arbitrary, it is necessary to average (25) over this parameter, i.e., to introduce the additional integration $`(d\stackrel{}{r_0})/V_{coh}`$. Moreover, in the spirit of the mean-field method, we replace $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _0\alpha _j)`$ in (25) by its value $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha `$ averaged over the ensemble. After all this averaging, we get the expression

$$U=\frac{d_0^2}{2}n_e\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha (d\stackrel{}{r_0})/V_{coh}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_j\frac{13(n_{jz})^2}{|\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j|^3}.$$
(26)
By making the change of variables $`\{\stackrel{}{r}_0,\stackrel{}{r}_j\}\{\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{r}_j`$, $`\stackrel{}{R}=(\stackrel{}{r}_0+\stackrel{}{r}_j)/2\}`$ and integrating over $`d\stackrel{}{R}`$, we get

$$U=\frac{d_0^2}{2}n_e\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha \underset{V_{coh}}{}\frac{r^23z^2}{r^5}(d\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(27)
Aligning of the dipoles in the same direction is energetically favourable because of reduction of the negative contribution to potential energy $`U`$. Therefore, the energetically preferable correlations will occur only in that part of the “coherence volume” in which the region of integration over the relative coordinates satisfies the condition

$$r^23z^2>0,$$
(28)
i.e., in the region similar to a flattened circular cylinder. We call this part of the coherence region by “coherence domain”, or by “domain of self-polarization”. In a similar neighboring domain, the direction of the average vector of polarization should be close to the opposite one to minimize the positive energy of the electric field of polarization in the system as a whole. It is known that, by similar reasoning, the macroscopic volumes of magnetics and ferroelectrics are also divided into domains. Adjacent domains are separeted by transition regions (“domain walls”) within the limits of which the turning of the polarization vector takes place.

We return now to the estimation of the integral in (27) with constraint (28). It is convenient to calculate it in the cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,z,\phi )`$, in which

$$r^2=\rho ^2+z^2,r^23z^2=\rho ^22z^2>0.$$
(29)
We consider this integral separately:

$$I(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \underset{\rho _1}{\overset{\rho _2}{}}\rho 𝑑\rho \underset{0}{\overset{\rho /\sqrt{2}}{}}2𝑑z\frac{\rho ^22z^2}{(\rho ^2+z^2)^{5/2}}.$$
(30)
Integration over $`z`$ in the specified limits gives $`2/3\sqrt{3}\rho ^2`$ and, as a result,

$$I(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\frac{4\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\underset{\rho _1}{\overset{\rho _2}{}}\frac{d\rho ^2}{\rho ^2}=\frac{4\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _2}{\rho _1}\right)^2,$$
(31)
$$U=\frac{2\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _2}{\rho _1}\right)^2d_0^2n_e\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha .$$
(32)
Now we consider the question about the minimal and maximal limits $`(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ of the relative coordinate $`\rho =\sqrt{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}`$ in the plane between two dipoles in the coherence domain. We remind, that the characteristic sizes of the initial “coherence volume” were determined by conditions (11): $`r_LR_0\lambda `$. Inequality (29) means that, in relative coordinates, “the coherence domain” has the form of a flattened circular cylinder with radius $`2R_0`$. Hence, the maximal value of $`\rho `$ is $`\rho _2=2R_0`$, and the minimal value of $`\rho _1`$ should be taken to be about twice the Larmor radius: $`\rho _12r_L`$, because, at smaller distances between dipoles centers, the interaction between a pair of electrons is not of dipole character any more, and it is impossible to use the dipole formulas. It must be noted that, under the conditions considered here, the radius of the Debay screening is a little bit smaller than $`r_L`$. Thus, we can write $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho _2/\rho _1)\mathrm{ln}(R_0/r_L)`$. Because the ratio $`R_0/r_L`$ enters under a sign of logarithm, the result is weakly sensitive to the exact value of this ratio. Thus, taking into account also the condition $`R_0\lambda `$, we can replace $`R_0`$ here by the quantity of the order of $`\lambda /10`$. As a result, we can write

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _2}{\rho _1}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda \omega }{10V_{}}\right)^2=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\pi c}{10V_{}}\right)^2=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4\pi ^2mc^2}{10^2mV_{}^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{mc^2}{5E_{}}\right).$$
(33)
Hence, at this stage, inequalities (11) turn into the condition

$$E_{}mc^2/5100\text{keV}.$$
(34)
With the account of (33), expression (32) takes the following form

$$U\frac{2\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{mc^2}{5E_{}}\right)d_0^2n_e\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha .$$
(35)
To find $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha `$, we turn to the Weiss method . For this purpose, in the beginning it is necessary to consider the response of our system of rotating dipoles in the $`(x,y)`$ plane

$$\stackrel{}{d_j}=d_0\{\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha _j),\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha _j),0\}$$
(36)
to the external homogeneous electric field

$$\stackrel{}{E_e}=E_e\{\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\alpha _0),\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\alpha _0),0\}$$
(37)
rotating synchronously with dipoles. The potential energy of a dipole $`\stackrel{}{d_j}`$ in this field, averaged over the period of rotation, is

$$\overline{U}=\overline{\stackrel{}{d_j}(t)\stackrel{}{E_e}(t)}=d_0E_e\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _j\alpha _0).$$
(38)
Thus, one can see that the aligning of dipoles along the field with the radiation of released energy is energetically favourable. Thermal fluctuations suppress this tendency. They occur in rarefied magnetized plasma mainly in the form of plasma fluctuations and Alfven waves. The distribution over the phase differences $`\mathrm{}\alpha =\alpha _j\alpha _0`$ is thus given by the Boltzmann formula

$$\rho (\mathrm{}\alpha )=C\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{U(\mathrm{}\alpha )}{kT}\right)=C\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{d_0E_e\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha }{kT}\right)$$
(39)
with the normalization factor

$$C^1=\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}d(\mathrm{}\alpha )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{d_0E_e}{kT}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha \right)=2I_0\left(\frac{d_0E_e}{kT}\right),$$
(40)
where $`I_0(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of zero order . The mean value of $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha `$ is determined by the integral

$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha \rho (\mathrm{}\alpha )d(\mathrm{}\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}d(\mathrm{}\alpha )\mathrm{exp}\{x(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha )\}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\mathrm{ln}I_0(x)={\displaystyle \frac{I_0^{}(x)}{I_0(x)}}={\displaystyle \frac{I_1(x)}{I_0(x)}},`$
where

$$x=d_0E_e/kT.$$
(42)
So, the external field $`E_e`$ induces the nonzero correlator (41), i.e., in other terms, polarizes the system. The measure of polarization is the mean dipole moment of unit volume

$$P=n_ed_0\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha .$$
(43)
Polarization generates the additional internal electric field

$$E_p=\nu P,$$
(44)
where $`\nu `$ is some dimensionless parameter which will be defined below. The field $`E_p`$, in turn, strengthens the polarization. This feedback effect will be taken into account if in (42) we replace $`E_e`$ by the sum $`E_e+E_p=E_e+\nu P`$ in correspondence with the ideology of the self-consistent mean field developed by Weiss. As a result, we obtain the following nonlinear equation for the determination of the polarization $`P`$:

$$P=n_ed_0\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha =n_ed_0F\left(\frac{d_0(E_e+\nu P)}{kT}\right),$$
(45)
where

$$F(x)=I_1(x)/I_0(x).$$
(46)
By excluding the external field ($`E_e0`$), we obtain “the self-consistency equation” for $`P`$:

$$P=n_ed_0F\left(\frac{d_0\nu }{kT}P\right).$$
(47)
We consider now the conditions of existence of its nontrivial solutions. Introducing the variable $`z=(Pd_0\nu /kT)`$, we rewrite equation (47) in the following form:

$$z=\frac{d_0^2\nu n_e}{kT}F(z).$$
(48)
The function $`F(z)`$ has the asymptotics

$$F(z)=1\frac{1}{2z}\frac{1}{8z^2}\mathrm{},z1,$$
(49)
$$F(z)=\frac{z}{2}\left[1\frac{z}{8}+\mathrm{}\right],z1.$$
(50)
From (48) and (49) it is follows that, at large $`z`$, the solution exists and corresponds to the polarization of saturation

$$z=\frac{\nu n_ed_0^2}{kT}1,$$
(51)
$$P_{max}=n_ed_0=\frac{kT}{\nu d_0}z\frac{kT}{\nu d_0}.$$
(52)
To determine the threshold value of the electron density above which there arises a nontrivial solution of equations (47), (48), it is necessary to consider asymptotic (50). Restricting ourselves to the first term, we obtain from (48)

$$z=\frac{\nu n_ed_0^2}{2kT}z,z1.$$
(53)
It follows from this equation that the critical (threshold) value of the density $`n_e`$ is determined by the condition

$$\left(\frac{\nu }{2}\frac{n_ed_0^2}{kT}\right)_c=1.$$
(54)
For $`n_en_{ec}`$, nontrivial domain self-polarization appears.

To determine the factor $`\nu `$, it is necessary to compare the expression for potential energy following from (43), (44), and (38),

$$U=\nu n_ed_0^2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\alpha ,$$
(55)
with the previously obtained expression (35). Requiring the equality between them, we obtain

$$\nu =\frac{2\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{mc^2}{5E_{}}\right),\left(E_{}\frac{mc^2}{5}\right).$$
(56)
As an estimate, for example, taking $`E_{}=1\text{keV}`$, we obtain $`\nu 5.56`$.

It is useful to express $`d_0^2`$ through the energy $`E_{}`$ and magnetic field $`H`$:

$$d_0^2=(er_L)^2=\left(\frac{eV_{}}{\omega }\right)^2=\left(\frac{mcV_{}}{H}\right)^2=\frac{2mc^2E_{}}{H^2}.$$
(57)
As a result, the criterion of the occurrence of domain self-polarization of the inverted electron system on high Landau levels leading to SR takes the form

$$\frac{2\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{mc^2}{5E_{}}\right)\frac{mc^2}{H^2}\frac{n_eE_{}}{kT}1.$$
(58)
## 4 Problem of the power of the decameter radiation of Jupiter.

As an illustration of the application of criterion (58), we consider the values of parameters in (58) characteristic for the lower magnetosphere of the active system Jupiter-Io at the base of the so-called “Io flux tube”, where, according to the observations, one of the sources of powerful decameter radiation is located . The characteristic values of the parameters in this case are: $`H10`$ Gs, $`T10^3`$ K, and $`E_{}1`$ keV. Substituting these values into (58), we find the critical density of inverted electrons $`(n_e)_c`$, above which the criterion (58) will be satisfied: $`n_e(n_e)_c=210^3\text{cm}^3`$. This is quite a modest requirement to the density of inverted fast electrons at the base of the Io flux tube which can easily be satisfied, so there are all grounds to believe that the sporadic super-power decameter radiation of the Jupiter-Io system can be connected with the generation of SR.

Let us consider this question in more detail. We notice at once that, as in the SR regime, the energy $`E_{}(t)`$ entering (58) quickly decreases, and the density $`n_e`$ satisfying criterion (58) at $`E_{}=E_{}(0)`$ can cease to satisfy it with the decrease in $`E_{}(t)`$. Therefore, for an effective and sufficiently long operating SR regime, one obviously requires a large enough excess of $`n_e`$ over $`n_{ec}210^3`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>. Thus, we conclude that, at the transition to SR regime, electrons at the base of the Io flux tube near Jupiter’s magnetic pole must have density $`n_e10^4`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>.

According to the basic assumption  now accepted, the streams of energetic electrons appear near Jupiter magnetic poles due to their acceleration up to several keV in the Io ionosphere and further movement to the Jupiter along the lines of the magnetic dipole fields. Acceleration of electrons is accounted by the induction of electromotive force $`400`$ kV in the Io body and ionosphere due to the Io motion through the Jupiter’s magnetic field. The lines of the magnetic field of the Io flux tube converge to Jupiter’s magnetic poles. So, the initial area of acceleration of electrons in the Io ionosphere $`S_010^{16}`$$`10^{17}`$ cm<sup>2</sup> will be “projected” by the magnetic lines to an area smaller approximately by two orders of magnitude, $`S_110^2S_010^{14}`$$`10^{15}`$ cm <sup>2</sup> near Jupiter’s poles. Therefore, the supercritical density of inverted fast electrons $`n_e10^4`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, necessary for the occurrence of SR, will be provided by the initial density $`n_010^2`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> near Io. It is quite an acceptable value in view of the known data about Io and its ionosphere .

Electrons moving along the Io flux tube initially have density below the critical value and, therefore, radiate rather weakly. But, near the Jupiter magnetic poles, the density of electrons reachs the supercritical value, and they pass to the SR regime. Thus, in this region, the intensity of collective cyclotron radiation grows approximately by ten orders of magnitude ($`N_0=n_eV_{coh}10^{10}`$), what accounts for the observable huge power of decametric radiation from a rather small volume of the circumpolar area occupied by the source . A separate work will be devoted to more detailed calculation of this power and also to the interpretation of the rather unusual dynamical spectra of the decameter radiation of the Jupiter-Io system within the framework of the present model.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the National scientific fund of Switzerland in the frameworks of SCOPES.


format: text

text:
# Landau–Gutzwiller quasi-particles

## I Introduction

The calculation of the band structure of metals and insulators is a central task in solid-state theory. A commonly accepted method for this purpose is the density-functional theory (DFT) which provides surprisingly accurate results for the band structure of many materials Moruzzi . Furthermore, the DFT is an ‘ab-initio’ theory, i.e., it starts from the full Hamiltonian of a real system and does not require the introduction of any simplified models. The only competing ‘ab-initio’ theory was Hartree-Fock theory, which has shown very many shortcomings as compared to DFT, such as gross overestimation of band widths and band gaps.

However, from a theoretical point of view, the success of the DFT for band structures is rather astonishing because this theory is a generic approach to ground-state properties only. All results on energy bands are extracted from auxiliary one-particle dispersions which have no physical meaning at the outset. Indeed, some shortcomings of the DFT energy bands have become evident very early, in particular the underestimation of the fundamental gap in semiconductors. In semiconductors and insulators, the so-called GW approximation to the one-particle Green function has been put forward Louie . There, the single-particle self energy is calculated using a Green function based on the DFT wave functions and the screened Coulomb interaction. It turns out that the GW quasi-particle bands are more or less rigidly shifted against the DFT bands so that the band gap results of GW calculations for semiconductors and insulators agree much better with experiment.

For materials with strong electron-electron interactions, the DFT results have not been too convincing, in particular for magnetic insulators and other strongly correlated electron systems. For the iron group metals the discrepancies of DFT results to experimental data, e.g., angle-resolved photo-emission spectroscopy (ARPES), increase towards the end of the series, i.e., towards nickel; for a detailed discussion on the discrepancies between DFT results and experimental data on nickel, see Refs. gutzjubel, ; wandlitz, . For the iron group metals, GW calculations did not yield significant improvements over the DFT results; for nickel, see Ref. Ferdi, .

A proper description of solids with strong Coulomb interactions requires true many-particle approaches. In the past, the notorious difficulties of many-particle systems have restricted such theories to the study of rather simplified model systems, e.g., the one-band Hubbard model. Therefore, a comparison with experiments on real materials could hardly be performed. Only recently, new non-perturbative many-particle methods have become available which have made possible the investigation of more realistic many-particle models; see, for example, Refs. gutzjubel, ; wandlitz, ; Pruschke, ; Vollhardt, ; PRB98, . In Ref. PRB98,  we introduced a class of Gutzwiller variational wave functions which allow us to study general multi-band Hubbard models. Expectation values with these correlated electron states are evaluated exactly in the limit of large spatial dimensions, $`D\mathrm{}`$. When applied to nickel, the remaining minimization problem is numerically non-trivial because of the large number of variational parameters; first results are reported in Refs. gutzjubel, ; wandlitz, .

The Gutzwiller variational theory provides an approximate picture of the ground state but, in principle, it lacks any information about excited states. This drawback can be overcome in two ways. First, if we take for granted that the variational ground state is at least qualitatively close to the true ground state, we may use the variational state as a starting point for the variational calculation of excited states. In Ref. spinpaper,  we have used this idea to determine the spin-wave dispersion in ferromagnetic multi-band Hubbard models. We have successfully reproduced the experimental observation that the low-energy spin excitations in itinerant ferromagnets are very similar to those of a system with localized spins. Second, the calculation of the variational ground-state energy in the limit of infinite dimensions PRB98  naturally leads to the definition of an effective single-particle Hamiltonian which, in some limits, can also be derived in Slave-Boson mean-field theory KR . Very much in the spirit of the DFT we used the band structure of this effective Hamiltonian for a successful comparison with ARPES data for nickel. We have been able to resolve basically all of the LDA shortcomings.

Despite its success, the second approach still lacks a sound theoretical basis. In this work we derive the (variational) quasi-particle dispersion referring back to Landau’s original ideas on Fermi liquids. The Gutzwiller variational state is an illustrative example for a Fermi-liquid ground state: the Gutzwiller many-body correlator acts on the Fermi-gas ground state whereby energetically unfavorable configurations are gradually reduced. In the spirit of Fermi-liquid theory, a quasi-particle excitation is readily viewed as a Gutzwiller-correlated single-particle excitation of the Fermi-gas ground state. The energy of this excitation is identical to the quasi-particle dispersion in our original work PRB98 . Therefore, no revision of our previous numerical results on nickel gutzjubel ; wandlitz  is necessary.

The evaluation of the variational energy in our method is exact only in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions. Our application to realistic three-dimensional systems requires that $`1/D`$ corrections are well controlled. As is known from the one-band model, these corrections are small for ground-state properties such as the (variational) energy or the effective mass of the quasi-particles at the Fermi surface. In this work we will present additional results on $`1/D`$ corrections of the quasi-particle dispersion for the one-band Hubbard model.

Our work is organized as follows. In Sec. II we summarize the basic ideas of Landau-Gutzwiller theory. In Sect. III we discuss the variational ground state for multi-band Hubbard models. In Sec. IV we define Landau-Gutzwiller quasi-particles and derive their energy dispersion. In Sect. V we calculate $`1/D`$ corrections for the quasi-particle dispersion of the one-band model. Our presentation closes with short conclusions. Some technical details are deferred to the appendix.

## II Landau-Gutzwiller Theory

In second quantization the Hamilton operator for non-interacting electrons reads

$$\widehat{H}_1=\underset{ij;\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}t_{i,j}^{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{j;\sigma ^{}}^{}+\underset{i;\sigma }{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\sigma \widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^{}.$$
(1)
Here, $`\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^+`$ creates an electron with combined spin-orbit index $`\sigma =1,\mathrm{},2N`$ ($`N=5`$ for 3$`d`$ electrons) at the lattice site $`i`$ of a solid with $`L`$ lattice sites. The electron density, $`n=N_\mathrm{e}/L`$, is finite in the thermodynamic limit $`N_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{}`$, $`L\mathrm{}`$.

For a translationally invariant system, as considered throughout this work, this single-particle Hamiltonian is readily diagonalized in momentum space. Its eigenstates are one-particle product states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In particular, the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the filled Fermi sea where all single-particle states below the Fermi energy are occupied. All other eigenstates can be understood as particle-hole excitations of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$.

One essential idea behind Landau’s Fermi liquid theory is the assumption that the Fermi-gas picture remains valid qualitatively when electron-electron interactions are switched on; for an introduction, see, e.g., Ref. nozieres, . The Fermi-gas eigenstates transform adiabatically into those of the Fermi liquid while keeping their physical properties. For example, the momentum distribution displays a discontinuity at the Fermi energy both in the Fermi gas and in the Fermi liquid. Naturally, the properties of the ground state and of the particle-hole excitations change quantitatively. Therefore, the excitations are called quasi-particles and quasi-holes in the Fermi liquid.

Gutzwiller’s variational theory closely follows the idea of an adiabatic continuity from the Fermi gas to the Fermi liquid. Let us introduce a general class of Gutzwiller-correlated wave functions via

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}=\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(2)
Here, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is any normalized one-particle product state. The Gutzwiller correlator

$$\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}=\underset{i}{}\widehat{P}_{i;\mathrm{G}}$$
(3)
is a many-body operator which suppresses those configurations which are energetically unfavorable with respect to the electron-electron interaction. Therefore, the (approximate) Fermi-liquid ground state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^0=\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(4)
evolves smoothly from a Fermi-gas ground state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ when the electron-electron interaction is switched on. In fact, this concept has been used by Vollhardt RMPVollhardt  to develop a microscopic theory for the ground-state properties of liquid 3He on the basis of Gutzwiller’s approach.

In this work, we use Landau’s idea to extend Gutzwiller’s variational approach to quasi-particle excitations. In principle, this does not pose a big problem. Instead of a Fermi-liquid ground state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, we use single-particle excitations $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the Fermi gas in (2) to define quasi-particle states. In Sect. IV we will give a proper mathematical definition of a quasi-particle excitation. Here we point out that all restrictions of Fermi-liquid theory apply. For example, only the low-energy properties of metals, close to the Fermi energy, ought to be described in this way. Nevertheless, experiments on metals show that well-defined but life-time broadened quasi-particle excitations can be found even for energies of about $`10\mathrm{eV}`$ below the Fermi energy. Therefore, the concept of quasi-particles and quasi-holes remains meaningful for those parts of the valence and conduction bands which are relevant in solid-state physics.

## III Variational energy

### III.1 Multi-band Hubbard Hamiltonian and Gutzwiller variational states

In the following we study multi-band Hubbard models where the electron-electron interaction is purely local,

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_1+\underset{i}{}\widehat{H}_{i;\mathrm{at}}.$$
(5)
Here, the atomic Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{i;\mathrm{at}}`$ contains all possible Coulomb-interaction terms between electrons on site $`i`$,

$$\widehat{H}_{i;\mathrm{at}}=\underset{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3,\sigma _4}{}𝒰^{\sigma _1,\sigma _2;\sigma _3,\sigma _4}\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _1}^+\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _2}^+\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _3}^{}\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _4}^{}.$$
(6)
We assume that the eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ of the atomic Hamiltonian have been determined

$$\widehat{H}_{i;\mathrm{at}}=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}E_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}\widehat{m}_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }},\widehat{m}_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}=|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i_i\mathrm{\Gamma }|.$$
(7)
This is possible in all cases of interest, at least numerically. In the following, the site index will often be suppressed as we are primarily interested in translationally invariant systems.

The Gutzwiller theory allows us to study the Hamiltonian (5) with an arbitrary number of orbitals PRB98 . In this work, however, we will restrict ourselves to the special case where non-degenerate orbitals belong to different representations of the respective point-symmetry group. For example, in cubic symmetry we allow for only one set of $`s`$, $`p`$, $`d(e_g)`$ and $`d(t_{2g})`$ orbitals.

The Gutzwiller correlator

$$\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}=\underset{i}{}\widehat{P}_{i;\mathrm{G}}=\underset{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\lambda _{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\widehat{m}_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}}$$
(8)
is parameterized by $`2^{2N}`$ real numbers $`\lambda _{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. For an energetically unfavorable atomic configuration $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ the minimization will result in $`\lambda _{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}<1`$ whereby its weight in $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is reduced.

### III.2 Extrema of the variational energy

In the limit of large spatial dimensions, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian (5) in the wave function (2) can be expressed in terms of the one-particle product wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the expectation values

$$m_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\widehat{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}|\widehat{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}};$$
(9)
for all details, see Ref. PRB98, . After a lengthy calculation one obtains the following variational energy

$`E^{\mathrm{var}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}}={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (10a)
$`+L{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }m_\mathrm{\Gamma },`$
$`S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{q_\sigma }\sqrt{q_\sigma ^{}}ϵ_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\sigma ,`$ (10b)
where

$$ϵ_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)=\frac{1}{L}\underset{lm}{}t_{l,m}^{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}𝐤(𝐑_l𝐑_m)\right).$$
(11)
The calculation only requires $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be a one-particle product wave state; $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ need not be a filled Fermi sea.

For a given set of Coulomb parameters in (6) the renormalization factors

$$q_\sigma =q_\sigma (n_\sigma ^0,m_\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(12)
only depend on the local spin-orbital densities

$$n_\sigma ^0=\widehat{n}_\sigma _\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(13)
and the variational parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for states $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with more than one electron. An explicit expression for (12) has been given in Ref. PRB98, , but it is not needed for our further considerations. Note that for our symmetry-restricted orbital basis

$$n_\sigma ^0=n_\sigma =\widehat{n}_\sigma _{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}}$$
(14)
holds.

$`E^{\mathrm{var}}`$ in (10) depends on the variational parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the local densities $`n_\sigma `$, and the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. However, the constraints

$$n_\sigma =\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{n}_\sigma |\mathrm{\Phi };n=\underset{\sigma }{}n_\sigma $$
(15)
have to be respected during the minimization as we work for fixed $`n`$ in the sub-space of normalized one-particle product states, $`\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. We introduce Lagrange parameters $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$, $`\lambda _\sigma `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for these constraints which leads to the energy functional

$`E_\mathrm{c}[\mathrm{\Phi },m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`=`$ $`E^{\mathrm{var}}[|\mathrm{\Phi },m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ]`$
$`L{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\lambda _\sigma \left[n_\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }\left|\widehat{n}_\sigma \right|\mathrm{\Phi }\right]`$
$`L\mathrm{\Lambda }(n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_\sigma )`$
$`+E_{\mathrm{SP}}(1\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi }).`$
$`E_\mathrm{c}`$ has now to be minimized with respect to all quantities $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$, $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`n_\sigma `$, $`\lambda _\sigma `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ independently.

First, we use the condition that (III.2) is extremal with respect to $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$. This gives us the following effective Schrödinger equation which has to be solved in the sub-space of normalized states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}|\mathrm{\Phi }=E_{\mathrm{SP}}|\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(17)
with

$$\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{𝐤}{}(S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}\lambda _\sigma )\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}.$$
(18)
The effective one-particle Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be diagonalized,

$$\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^+\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^{}$$
(19)
by introducing proper creation and annihilation operators

$$\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^+:=\underset{\sigma }{}F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^+;\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^{}:=\underset{\sigma }{}F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}.$$
(20)
Note that the amplitudes $`F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$, the energies $`E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})`$, and the operators $`\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^+`$, $`\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$ still depend on the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`n_\sigma `$, and $`\lambda _\sigma `$.

Solving the eigenvalue equation (17) is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to minimize the original energy expression (10). In Sect. III we will use this ambiguity to define quasi-particles excitations of the variational Fermi-liquid ground state.

### III.3 Variational Fermi-liquid ground state

In order to obtain our variational Fermi-liquid ground state, it appears to be the most natural choice to proceed with the filled Fermi sea for the effective Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r};E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})<E_\mathrm{F}}{}\widehat{h}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^+|\text{vacuum}.$$
(21)
Here, the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is determined by the condition

$$\frac{1}{L}\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(E_\mathrm{F}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r}))=n.$$
(22)
The corresponding eigenvalue $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$ becomes

$$E_{\mathrm{SP}}=\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Theta }(E_\mathrm{F}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})).$$
(23)
It is difficult to prove rigorously that the state (21) leads to the global minimum of (10). However, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is at least stable with respect to single-particle excitations and it is difficult to conceive any other state which is consistent with our underlying Fermi-liquid picture.

When we insert $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ into (III.2) we are led to the energy function

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}[m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}+L{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }m_\mathrm{\Gamma }L{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\lambda _\sigma n_\sigma `$ (24)
$`L\mathrm{\Lambda }(n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_\sigma ).`$
In the variational ground state this expression is extremal with respect to $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`n_\sigma `$, $`\lambda _\sigma `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\frac{}{x_i}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}|_{\{x_j\}=\{\overline{x}_j\}}=0\text{with}x_i\{m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}.$$
(25)
The optimum values $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\overline{n}_\sigma `$, $`\overline{\lambda }_\sigma `$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ define the optimum values for the energies $`\overline{E}(𝐤,\mathrm{r})`$, the amplitudes $`\overline{F}_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$, and the operators $`\widehat{\overline{h}}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^+`$, $`\widehat{\overline{h}}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$. Furthermore, we can write the variational ground-state energy as

$$E_0^{\mathrm{var}}=\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}[\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma },\overline{n}_\sigma ,\overline{\lambda }_\sigma ,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}].$$
(26)
The energy (26) depends on the particle density $`n`$ both implicitly, mediated by the optimum values $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$, $`\overline{n}_\sigma (n)`$, $`\overline{\lambda }_\sigma (n)`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(n)`$, and explicitly, due to the term $`L\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(n)n`$ and the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}E_\mathrm{F}(n)`$ in $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$ of (24). Therefore, the (variational) chemical potential

$$\mu =\frac{1}{L}\frac{dE_0^{\mathrm{var}}}{dn}$$
(27)
can be written as

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{SP}}}{n}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_i\{m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}|_{\{x_j\}=\{\overline{x}_j\}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_i}{n}}.`$
The sum in (III.3) vanishes due to (25) whereas the derivative of $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$ just gives the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$,

$$\frac{1}{L}\frac{E_{\mathrm{SP}}}{n}=E_\mathrm{F}.$$
(29)
Therefore, the variational chemical potential reads

$$\mu =E_\mathrm{F}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(30)
The strategy for the numerical minimization is not important for our analysis of Landau-Gutzwiller quasi-particles in the rest of our work. For further reference we give a short summary of our most efficient procedure.

First, we note that the conditions $`(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c})/(\lambda _\sigma )=0`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c})/(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$ take us back to the original constraints (15),

$`n_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _\sigma }}E_{\mathrm{SP}}=\widehat{n}_\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$ (31a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}}|F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}|^2\mathrm{\Theta }(E_\mathrm{F}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})),`$
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_\sigma .`$ (31b)
Therefore, we are left with two different sets of variational parameters, the ‘internal’ parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the ‘external’ parameters $`\lambda _\sigma `$. Optimizing the energy with respect to both of these sets is time-costly, for different reasons. The problem with the internal parameters is their large number which is of the order $`2^{2N}`$ ($`500`$ for $`d`$ orbitals). Compared to this there are only a few, $`2N`$, external parameters $`\lambda _\sigma `$. However, each modification of one of these external parameters demands for momentum-space integrations according to the sums in (31a) and (23). We found these integrations to be the most time-consuming part of our numerical minimization. In principle, such integrals must also be calculated whenever we change the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, because they determine the amplitudes $`F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$ and the energies $`E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})`$. In order to avoid this large number of integrations we write $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$ in (24) as

$`E_{\mathrm{SP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}\sqrt{q_\sigma }\sqrt{q_\sigma ^{}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}}ϵ_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}F_{𝐤,\sigma ^{},\mathrm{r}}^{}`$ (32)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\sigma +\lambda _\sigma ){\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}}|F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}|^2,`$
where the prime on the sums implies $`E(𝐤,\mathrm{r}))<E_\mathrm{F}`$. Eqs. (24) and (32) show that the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ enter the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}`$ in two different ways: (i), indirectly, via the amplitudes $`F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$ or the energies $`E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})`$ and, (ii), directly, via $`q_\sigma `$ in (32) and the second term in (24). This separation suggests the following numerical iteration scheme:

1. Start with an initial guess for the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, e.g., their statistical values in the uncorrelated limit.
2. Minimize the energy with respect to the parameters $`\lambda _\sigma `$ while all $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are fixed. During this minimization the constraint (31b) must be respected.
3. Minimize the energy with respect to the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, while the parameters $`\lambda _\sigma `$, the amplitudes $`F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$, the energies $`E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})`$ and the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ remain fixed during step 3.
4. Go back to step 2 unless the reduction of $`E^{\mathrm{var}}`$ becomes sufficiently small.

The above procedure represents only a rough picture of our numerical minimization. For example, in practice one finds that some of the parameters $`\lambda _\sigma `$ play only a minor role and, therefore, are fixed during the whole minimization. However, we are not going to discuss these numerical details in this work because they depend on the specific material under investigation.

## IV Landau-Gutzwiller quasi-particles

### IV.1 Definition

The Gutzwiller theory provides $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^0`$, an approximate description of the true many-body ground state. In order to extend the variational description to quasi-particle excitations, we closely follow Landau’s ideas. We seek creation and annihilation operators $`\widehat{e}_{𝐩,t}^+`$ and $`\widehat{v}_{𝐩,t}^{}`$ which must obey the same Fermi-Dirac distribution around the Fermi surface as uncorrelated electrons, i.e., we postulate

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^0\left|\widehat{e}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^+\widehat{v}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^{}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^0}{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^0|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^0}=\mathrm{\Theta }(E_\mathrm{F}\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})),$$
(33)
at zero temperature. We will see below that it is actually possible to define operators $`\widehat{e}_{𝐩,t}^+`$ and $`\widehat{v}_{𝐩,t}^{}`$ which obey (33) in the whole Brillouin zone and not only around the Fermi surface. This implies that our variational approach does not capture the damping of quasi-particles.

#### IV.1.1 Quasi-particles for a rigid Fermi-sea background

First, we adopt the viewpoint of a fixed Fermi-sea background, i.e., we assume that a quasi-particle is added to the $`N`$-particle system whose variational parameters have been fixed by the minimization of the energy expression (10), or equivalently, by the conditions (25). This leads to the optimum one-particle product state for the $`N`$-particle system

$$|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r};\overline{E}(𝐤,\mathrm{r})<E_\mathrm{F}}{}\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐩,\mathrm{r}}{}^{+}|\text{vacuum},$$
(34)
which, in infinite dimensions, actually is the ground state of the effective one-particle Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{\overline{H}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}\overline{E}(𝐤,\mathrm{r})\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}^{+}\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}^{}.$$
(35)
The conditions (25) furthermore lead to optimum parameters $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and by these means define an optimum correlation operator $`\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}`$. Using the one-particle operators $`\widehat{\overline{h}}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^+`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{h}}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^{}`$ we can now identify

$`\widehat{e}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^+`$ $`:=`$ $`\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}{}^{+}(\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G})_{}^{1},`$ (36a)
$`\widehat{v}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}{}^{}(\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G})_{}^{1}`$ (36b)
as those operators which obey the quasi-particle condition (33). Note that the inverse operator $`(\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G})^1`$ in (36) is well defined since we expect all parameters $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be finite in Fermi-liquid systems.

Adding/removing a quasi-particle to/from the ground state generates the excited states

$`|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}_{\mathrm{qp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{e}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^+|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^0=\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}{}^{+}|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0,`$ (37a)
$`|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}_{\mathrm{qh}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{v}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^{}|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^0=\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}{}^{}|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ (37b)
with fixed Fermi-liquid background. As described in Sect. II, these equations constitute an explicit example for Landau’s ideas. The Gutzwiller correlator $`\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}`$ in (2) adiabatically transforms Fermi-gas eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into (approximate) eigenstates of the Fermi liquid.

The energy of quasi-particles or quasi-holes is defined as

$$\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=\pm (\overline{E}_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})E_0^{\mathrm{var}})\mu $$
(38)
where

$`E_0^{\mathrm{var}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^0}=(\text{26}),`$ (39a)
$`\overline{E}_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}}.`$ (39b)
The $`\pm `$-sign refers to quasi-particle or quasi-hole states, respectively. We define the quasi-particle energy (38) in reference to the (variational) chemical potential of the system, see (27). Note that the energy in (38) is of order unity whereas those in (39) are of $`𝒪(L)`$.

The definition of the quasi-particle states (37) applies to systems of arbitrary spatial dimensions. However, in finite dimensions, the one-particle operators $`\widehat{\overline{h}}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}`$ in (34) and (37) cannot be derived from the diagonalization of the effective Hamiltonian (18); in this case, the operators $`\widehat{\overline{h}}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}`$ must be determined by a minimization of the variational ground-state energy with respect to the amplitudes $`F_{𝐤,\sigma ,\mathrm{r}}^{}`$ in (20).

#### IV.1.2 Quasi-particles with background relaxation

When we add a particle to the $`N`$-particle system we may expect that the variational parameters will adjust to the presence of the additional particle. Therefore, we may want to work with

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}_{\mathrm{qp}}=\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}\widehat{h}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^+|\mathrm{\Phi }_0,|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}_{\mathrm{qh}}=\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}\widehat{h}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0,$$
(40)
where the $`N`$-particle Fermi sea $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is defined according to (21). Note that the operators $`\widehat{h}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^+`$, $`\widehat{h}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}^{}`$ still depend on the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`n_\sigma `$, and $`\lambda _\sigma `$ for a system with $`N\pm 1`$ particles. Then,

$$E_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=\pm (E_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})E_0^{\mathrm{var}})\mu $$
(41)
with

$$E_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=\underset{m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{Min}\left[\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}}L\mathrm{\Lambda }(n\pm \frac{1}{L}\underset{\sigma }{}n_\sigma )\right]$$
(42)
is the definition of the quasi-particle and quasi-hole energy with background relaxation.

One may wonder whether the two definitions (38) and (41) will lead to different results for the energies of quasi-particles and quasi-holes. Fortunately, this is not the case in the thermodynamic limit, i.e.,

$$\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=E_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})+𝒪(1/L),$$
(43)
as we will show explicitly in appendix A. The addition/subtraction of one particle leads to a change in the optimized variational parameters to order $`(1/L)`$, and, in principle, this could result in a change of the variational energy $`E_0^{\mathrm{var}}`$ to order unity. However, this quantity is extremal with respect to the variational parameters, so that it changes only to order $`(1/L)`$ for parameter variations around their optimal values. Therefore, the change of the quasi-particle energies due to the background relaxation vanishes in the thermodynamic limit.

### IV.2 Quasi-particle dispersion

In the following we focus on $`E_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ because the evaluation of (38) is more involved. The energy (42) is given by

$$E_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=\underset{m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{Min}\left[\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}[m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\right]$$
(44)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}[m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{SP}}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }m_\mathrm{\Gamma }L{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\lambda _\sigma n_\sigma `$ (45)
$`L\mathrm{\Lambda }(n\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_\sigma )`$
and

$$E_{\mathrm{SP}}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}=\pm E(𝐩,\mathrm{t})+\underset{𝐤,\mathrm{r}}{}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Theta }(E_\mathrm{F}E(𝐤,\mathrm{r})).$$
(46)
The ($`\pm `$) sign in (45) and (46) correspond to a quasi-particle and quasi-hole state, respectively.

Adding or removing a particle changes the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`n_\sigma `$, $`\lambda _\sigma `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the energies $`E(𝐤,\mathrm{t})`$ only by terms of the order $`(1/L)`$ compared to their values in the $`N`$-particle ground state,

$`x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x}_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta x_i}{L}}\text{with}x_i\{m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\},`$
$`E(𝐤,\mathrm{t})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{E}(𝐤,\mathrm{t})+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta E(𝐤,\mathrm{t})}{L}}.`$ (47b)
Thus we may expand (45) in terms of $`(1/L)`$ up to order unity,

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}[m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}[\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma },\overline{n}_\sigma ,\overline{\lambda }_\sigma ,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]`$ (48)
$`\pm (\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})+\delta \stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_i\{m_\mathrm{\Gamma },n_\sigma ,\lambda _\sigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{c}|_{x_i=\overline{x}_i}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta x_i}{L}}.`$
The sum in (LABEL:301) vanishes according to (25). Using (29) the quasi-particle dispersion (41) becomes

$$E_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})E_\mathrm{F}.$$
(50)
This result does not come as a surprise since the Fermi surfaces, as defined by the conditions $`\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=E_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=0`$, must coincide. In addition, eq. (50) shows that the quasi-particle dispersion is given by the eigenvalues $`\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ of the effective Hamiltonian (35) not only around the Fermi surface but in the whole Brillouin zone. Note that the variational kinetic energy,

$$\widehat{H}_1_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^0}=\widehat{\overline{H}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}L\underset{\sigma }{}\overline{\lambda }_\sigma \widehat{n}_\sigma _{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0},$$
(51)
is given by the expectation value of the effective Hamiltonian (35) only in the case of degenerate orbitals where $`\overline{\lambda }_\sigma =0`$.

There are two important differences between the effective Hamiltonian (35), or, equivalently, (18), and the bare one-particle Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_1`$ in (5). First, the bands are narrowed in $`\widehat{\overline{H}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ because the Coulomb interaction reduces the mobility of the electrons. Second, the fields $`\lambda _\sigma `$ which were originally introduced as auxiliary Lagrange parameters act as observable shifts of the energy bands, e.g., in terms of a magnetic exchange splitting. Our detailed numerical investigations on Nickel gutzjubel ; wandlitz  showed that both effects, i.e., band-narrowing and band-shifts, are relevant for a proper description of quasi-particles in real materials.

## V 1/D corrections for the one-band Hubbard model

The energy expression (10) for the wave function (2) is exact in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions $`D`$. Therefore, its evaluation for real, finite-dimensional systems constitutes an additional approximation. For the one-band model it has been shown florian  that $`1/D`$ corrections of ground-state properties are actually small in most cases of interest. An exception is the half-filled Hubbard model where, in infinite dimensions, the Gutzwiller theory predicts the so-called Brinkman-Rice transition where all electrons become localized at some finite critical interaction strength $`U_{\mathrm{BR}}`$. This metal-insulator is known to be an artifact of the limit $`D\mathrm{}`$ because it is absent in all finite dimensions PvD . Consequently, $`1/D`$ corrections must become important in this special case.

### V.1 First order corrections: analytical results

In the case of only one orbital per lattice site, the general Hamiltonian (5) reduces to

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{𝐤}{}\underset{\sigma =,}{}\epsilon (𝐤)\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}+U\underset{i}{}\widehat{n}_i\widehat{n}_i.$$
(52)
We consider a hyper-cubic lattice with only nearest-neighbor hopping-terms where the bare dispersion in (52) is given by

$$\epsilon (𝐤)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{D}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{D}{}}\mathrm{cos}(k_l).$$
(53)
The Gutzwiller wave function will be evaluated in its original form florian , i.e., the variational parameter $`\lambda _{()}`$ for the doubly occupied state $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }=|`$ is replaced by the parameter $`g`$. For the one-band model both definitions are equivalent.

The variational ground-state energy of the Hamiltonian (52) in infinite dimension reads

$$E^{\mathrm{}}(g,n)=L\left[q(g,n)\overline{\epsilon }_0+U\overline{d}(g,n)\right],$$
(54)
where

$$\overline{\epsilon }_0:=\frac{1}{L}\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0\epsilon (𝐤)$$
(55)
is the mean kinetic energy of the non-interacting system. Here, the renormalization factors $`q(g,n)`$ and the average double occupancy per lattice site $`\overline{d}(g,n)`$ are given by

$`q(g,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n(2n)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\overline{d}(g,n)\right)`$ (56a)
$`\times \left(\sqrt{1n+\overline{d}(g,n)}+\sqrt{\overline{d}(g,n)}\right)^2,`$
$`\overline{d}(g,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{G+n1}{G+1}}`$ (56b)
with

$$G=\sqrt{1+n(2n)(g^21)}.$$
(57)
The momentum distribution of the non-interacting system,

$$n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0=\mathrm{\Theta }(E_\mathrm{F}\epsilon (𝐤)),$$
(58)
and the electron density,

$$\frac{1}{L}\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0=n,$$
(59)
determine the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$.

We set up the $`1/D`$ expansion of a function $`A(g,n)`$ in the form

$$A(g,n)=A^{\mathrm{}}(g,n)+\frac{1}{D}A^{(1)}(g,n)+\mathrm{}.$$
(60)
Then, the first-order correction of the ground-state energy reads

$$E^{(1)}(g,n)=L\left[t^{(1)}(g,n)+U\overline{d}^{(1)}(g,n)\right],$$
(61)
where the corrections to the average kinetic energy and the double occupancy can be written as

$`t^{(1)}(g,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}n_{𝐤,\sigma }^{(1)}\epsilon _\sigma (𝐤),`$ (62)
$`n_{𝐤,\sigma }^{(1)}(g,n)`$ $`=`$ $`f(g,n)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(G1)}{n(2n)G}}\overline{\epsilon }_0+\epsilon _\sigma (𝐤)\right](\overline{\epsilon }_0)^3`$
$`\times [n(G+1n)+2(1n)(G1)n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0],`$
and

$$\overline{d}^{(1)}(g,n)=h(g,n)(\overline{\epsilon }_0)^4.$$
(64)
Here, we introduced the factors

$`f(g,n)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+g}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{G1}{G+1}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(2n)}}\right)^3,`$
$`h(g,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(G+1n)(G+n1)(G1)}{2G(G+1)^3n^2(2n)^2}}.`$ (65b)
The total ground-state energy to first order in $`1/D`$,

$$E(g,n)=E^{\mathrm{}}(g,n)+\frac{1}{D}E^{(1)}(g,n),$$
(66)
has to be minimized with respect to $`g`$. However, the optimum value $`\overline{g}`$ of this minimization differs from the respective value $`\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in infinite dimensions only by terms of the order $`1/D`$,

$$\overline{g}=\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{D}\overline{g}^{(1)}.$$
(67)
Therefore, we can expand the optimum ground-state energy in terms of $`1/D`$ as

$`E(\overline{g},n)`$ $`=`$ $`E^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\overline{g}^{(1)},n)`$ (68b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}E^{(1)}(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\overline{g}^{(1)},n)`$
$``$ $`E^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^{(1)}}{D}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^{\mathrm{}}(g,n)}{g}}|_{g=\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}E^{(1)}(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n),`$
which leads to

$$E(\overline{g},n)E^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)+\frac{1}{D}E^{(1)}(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)=E(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)$$
(69)
because the derivative in (68b) vanishes. From (69) we see that the optimum ground-state energy is determined by the optimum parameter $`\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in infinite dimensions and no minimization of the total energy (66) is required.

In order to determine the quasi-particle dispersion as defined in (38), we evaluate (39a) and (39b) to order $`1/D`$. The energy (39a) is given by (69). The expression (69) also yields the energy (39b) when we perform the replacements

$`n`$ $``$ $`n\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}`$ (70a)
$`n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0`$ $``$ $`n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0\pm \delta _{𝐤,𝐩}\delta _{\sigma ,\tau }`$ (70b)
for a quasi-particle state ($`+`$ sign) or quasi-hole state ($``$ sign) with momentum $`𝐩`$ and spin $`\tau `$. A straightforward expansion of (39b) in terms of $`1/L`$ leads to the quasi-particle energy

$$\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\tau )=\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}^{\mathrm{}}(𝐩,\tau )+\frac{1}{D}\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}^{(1)}(𝐩,\tau ).$$
(71)
Here, we recover the quasi-particle dispersion in infinite dimensions,

$$\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}^{\mathrm{}}(𝐩,\tau )=\pm q(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)(\epsilon (𝐩)E_\mathrm{F}),$$
(72)
as already derived in Sec. IV. The first-order correction reads

$$\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}^{(1)}(𝐩,\tau )=\pm \left[\epsilon (𝐩)E_\mathrm{F}\right]\stackrel{~}{E}\left[\epsilon (𝐩)\right]$$
(73)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{E}\left[\epsilon (𝐩)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`f(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)(\overline{\epsilon }_0)^2\{10{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)^2(\overline{G}^{\mathrm{}}1)^2}{n(2n)\overline{G}^{\mathrm{}}}}(\overline{\epsilon }_0)^2`$
$`+6n(\overline{G}^{\mathrm{}}+1n)+6(1n)(\overline{G}^{\mathrm{}}1)\overline{\epsilon _0^2}`$
$`+(\epsilon (𝐩)+E_\mathrm{F})2(1n)(\overline{G}^{\mathrm{}}1)\overline{\epsilon }_0\}`$
$`+4Uh(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}},n)(\overline{\epsilon }_0)^3.`$
The quantity $`\overline{G}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by (57), evaluated at $`g=\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`\overline{\epsilon _0^2}`$ is defined by

$$\overline{\epsilon _0^2}=\frac{1}{L}\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}n_{𝐤,\sigma }^0\epsilon (𝐤)^2.$$
(75)
Note that in deriving (V.1) we have used the relations

$$\underset{𝐤}{}\epsilon (𝐤)=0,\frac{1}{L}\underset{𝐤}{}[\epsilon (𝐤)]^2=1,$$
(76)
which hold for the dispersion relation (53).

### V.2 First-order corrections: numerical results

We are interested in the relative size of the $`1/D`$ corrections compared to the result in $`D=\mathrm{}`$ dimensions. For this purpose we introduce

$$m(𝐩)=\frac{\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\tau )}{\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}^{\mathrm{}}(𝐩,\tau )}1$$
(77)
as a measure for the deviations from the result in infinite dimensions.

In the half-filled case, $`n=1`$, the ratio $`m(𝐩)`$ is independent of the wave vector $`𝐩`$,

$$m=m(𝐩)=\frac{1}{2D}\frac{\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}1}{\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}+1}\overline{\epsilon }_0^2\left[\overline{\epsilon }_0U\frac{3(\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}1)}{\overline{g}^{\mathrm{}}+1}\right].$$
(78)
The inset of Fig. 1 shows $`m=m(𝐩)`$ as a function of $`s=4\overline{d}/n^2`$ for spatial dimensions $`D=1,2,3`$. Here, $`0s1`$ provides a measure for the correlation strength in the system. The value $`s=1`$ corresponds to $`U=0`$ and $`s=0`$ is realized at the Brinkman-Rice transition, $`U=U_{\mathrm{BR}}=8|\overline{\epsilon }_0|`$. As seen from the inset of Fig. 1, $`1/D`$ corrections are not negligible over a wide range of interactions, especially in one dimension. In three dimensions, these corrections are much smaller but still about $`25\%`$ close to the Brinkman-Rice transition.

Since this transition is spurious in finite dimensions, $`1/D`$ corrections have to be large in the half-filled Hubbard model. For an application of our method to real Fermi-liquid systems it is more reasonable to study cases of non-integer band filling. Fig. 1 shows the ratio $`m(𝐩_\mathrm{F})`$ at the Fermi surface for different band fillings $`n=1,0.99,0.95,0.9,0.8,0.5,0.2`$ in three dimensions. The respective results for band-fillings $`n^{}=2n`$ follow identically due to particle-hole symmetry. As expected, the corrections in Fig. 1 become much smaller away from integer filling.

The data in Fig. 1 show $`m(𝐩_\mathrm{F})`$ at the Fermi energy. However, for $`n1`$, there also is a momentum dependence of $`m(𝐩)`$ which can become significant close to half band filling. In Fig. 2 we show the width of first order contributions,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\underset{𝐩}{Max}|m(𝐩)m(𝐩_\mathrm{F})|,$$
(79)
on a logarithmic scale for the same band fillings as in Fig. 1. Although $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ strictly vanishes for $`n=1`$ we see from Fig. 2 that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ can become relatively large for $`n1`$. This means that around the half-filled case we find $`1/D`$ corrections which strongly depend on the wave vector.

As long as $`\mathrm{\Delta }mm(𝐩_\mathrm{F})`$, a finite value of $`m(𝐩)`$ amounts to a rescaling of the overall band width. When we apply our theory to real materials gutzjubel ; wandlitz  the band width is basically controlled by the Racah-parameter $`A`$ which we adjust to fit the experimental band width. Therefore, $`1/D`$ corrections without a significant momentum dependence will not modify the band structure in our variational approach.

As shown in Figs. 12 the results for $`D\mathrm{}`$ become questionable only close to integer filling and for very strong correlations. Therefore, we have reasons to believe that the quasi-particle dispersions as calculated in $`D=\mathrm{}`$ in Sect. IV provide a good starting point for a sensible comparison with experimental data. The good agreement between experiments and our theoretical results on nickel gutzjubel ; wandlitz  supports such an optimistic point of view.

## VI Conclusions

In this work we used Landau’s Fermi-liquid picture to define quasi-particle excitations in terms of Gutzwiller-correlated wave functions. Starting from the optimum variational ground state of a general multi-band Hubbard-model we identified operators which describe the creation and annihilation of quasi-particles in this state. We calculated the quasi-particle dispersion analytically in the limit of infinite dimensions. Our variational states provide an illustrative example for Landau quasi-particles. They are also suitable for numerical investigations, e.g., with variational Monte-Carlo techniques.

We gave two definitions of quasi-particle operators, with and without a relaxation of the Fermi-sea background. It turns out that it is more convenient to allow a (small) change of the variational parameters of the Fermi-sea background in the presence of the quasi-particles. We showed that both cases lead to the same result for the quasi-particle dispersion. This absence of a orthogonality catastrophe is characteristic for Fermi liquids.

Our results confirm our earlier calculations in which the quasi-particle dispersion had been extracted phenomenologically from an effective one-particle Hamiltonian PRB98 ; gutzjubel ; wandlitz . In contrast to density-functional theory, our quasi-particle dispersions correspond to mathematically well-defined (variational) states in realistic multi-band Hubbard models. In general, our quasi-particle bands are narrower than the DFT bands because of the hopping-reduction factors $`q_\sigma `$ in (10). Moreover, as seen in (18), the Gutzwiller theory has the flexibility for the adjustment of the orbital energies through the parameters $`\lambda _\sigma `$ so that the DFT bands are shifted and mixed into the Landau-Gutzwiller quasi-particle bands.

Our derivation of the Gutzwiller theory uses approximations which become exact in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions, $`D\mathrm{}`$. For this reason, we calculated first-order corrections in $`1/D`$ for the quasi-particle dispersion of the one-band Hubbard model. Apart from the special case close to half band-filling, these corrections were found to be relatively small. Consequently, the quasi-particle bands as derived in $`D=\mathrm{}`$ for multi-band Hubbard models contain the essential information of the Gutzwiller states in three dimensions, and are thus suitable for a meaningful comparison with real, three-dimensional Fermi liquids.

###### Acknowledgements.

J.B. gratefully acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We thank W. Weber for helpful discussions and his critical reading of the manuscript.

## Appendix A Quasi-particle dispersion for a rigid Fermi-sea background

In this appendix we evaluate the quasi-particle dispersion (38) and thereby prove that it is identical to the energy (50).

The variational ground state $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^0`$ in (39a) is given as

$$|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^0=\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0,$$
(80)
where $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ is the state (21) evaluated for the optimum values $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\overline{n}_\sigma `$, $`\overline{\lambda }_\sigma `$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The variational ground-state energy (39a) therefore reads

$`E_0^{\mathrm{var}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤;\overline{n}_\sigma ,\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma })\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ (81)
$`+L{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$
Here, we made it explicit that the numbers $`S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)`$ in (10) depend on $`n_\sigma `$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The state (37), which determines the expectation value (39b) can be written as

$$|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{G}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}=\widehat{\overline{P}}_\mathrm{G}|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})},$$
(82)
where

$$|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}=\widehat{\overline{h}}{}_{𝐩,\mathrm{t}}{}^{(+)}|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0.$$
(83)
The densities $`n_\sigma `$ and the parameters $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the state $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}`$ differ from those of the $`N`$-particle ground state only by terms of the order $`1/L`$,

$`n_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{n}_\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\delta n_\sigma ,`$ (84a)
$`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\delta m_\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (84b)
where, for example,
$$\delta n_\sigma =\pm |\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ,\mathrm{t}}^{}|^2.$$
(84c)
Here, the signs $`\pm `$ refer to a quasi-particle or quasi-hole state, respectively. Using (83)–(84) we can write the energy (39b) as

$`\overline{E}_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤;\overline{n}_\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\delta n_\sigma ,\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\delta m_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$
$`\times \widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}}`$
$`+L{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\delta m_\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$
For the expectation value in (A) we find

$`\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(𝐩,\mathrm{t})}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}\pm \delta _{𝐤,𝐩}\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ,\mathrm{t}}^{}\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ^{},\mathrm{t}}^{}.`$
An expansion of (A) in terms of $`1/L`$ up to and including terms of order unity leads to

$`\overline{E}_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ $`=`$ $`E_0^{\mathrm{var}}\pm {\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐩;\overline{n}_\sigma ,\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma })\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ,\mathrm{t}}^{}\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ^{},\mathrm{t}}^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\delta n_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{}{n_\gamma }}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤;n_\sigma ,\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma })|_{n_\sigma =\overline{n}_\sigma }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}}\delta m_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}[E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{}{m_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤;\overline{n}_\sigma ,m_\mathrm{\Gamma })|_{m_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }}].`$
With the help of equations (17) and (18) we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{n_\gamma }}E^{\mathrm{SP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{n_\gamma }}\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ (88b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{}{n_\gamma }}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤;n_\sigma ,\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma })|_{n_\sigma =\overline{n}_\sigma }`$
$`=`$ $`L(\overline{\lambda }_\gamma \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ (88c)
where the third line (88c) follows from (24) and (25). In the same way we can show that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤;\sigma ^{}}^{}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}}S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤;\overline{n}_\sigma ,m_\mathrm{\Gamma })|_{m_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma }}=`$ (89)
$`LE_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}.`$
Therefore, the energy difference in (38) becomes

$`\overline{E}_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})E_0^{\mathrm{var}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}(S_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐩;\overline{n}_\sigma ,\overline{m}_\mathrm{\Gamma })\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ,\mathrm{t}}^{}\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ^{},\mathrm{t}}^{}`$ (90)
$`+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(\overline{\lambda }_\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})|\overline{F}_{𝐩,\sigma ,\mathrm{t}}^{}|^2).`$
The first two terms in this expression just give the eigenvalues $`\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ of the effective Hamiltonian (35), which leads to

$$\overline{E}_0^{\mathrm{var}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})E_0^{\mathrm{var}}=\pm (\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}).$$
(91)
Thus, by use of (30), the quasi-particle dispersion (39b) finally becomes

$$\overline{E}_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})=\overline{E}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})E_\mathrm{F},$$
(92)
in agreement with our result for $`E_{\mathrm{qp}}(𝐩,\mathrm{t})`$ as derived in Sec. IV.2.