text:
# Boundaries, Cusps and Caustics in the Multimagnon Continua of 1D Quantum Spin Systems.

## 1 Two-magnon states

### 1.1 Introduction and definitions

Recently the subject of two-magnon excitations of quasi-1D quantum spin systems has attracted considerable interest. Theorists have long predicted that some of these systems will possess bound states , and there are now experimental indications of such bound states in the alternating chain material copper nitrate  and in the spin ladder (Ca,La)14Cu24O41 .

In addition to the bound modes there is a continuum of two-magnon states, which has been reported in inelastic neutron scattering from polycrystalline Sr0.73CuO2  (assuming an alternating chain model) and copper nitrate single crystals . Although this continuum has been considered a rather uninteresting feature in comparison with the bound states, it actually possesses an interesting and rather complicated internal structure . With high resolution inelastic neutron scattering experiments it should be possible to study these features of the two-magnon continuum in parallel with studies of the bound modes. To facilitate these experiments, here we discuss the nature of these interesting features of the continuum and show how they can be understood simply in terms of aspects of the one-magnon modes.

The two-magnon continuum states in a gapped 1D antiferromagnet are simply composed of two one-magnon excitations, since the interaction region is a zero matrix element for these unlocalized states. The energy of a two-magnon state composed of magnons with $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ is therefore given by

$$\omega _2(k=k_1+k_2)=\omega (k_1)+\omega (k_2)$$
(1)
with the usual crystal momentum constraints on $`k_1,k_2`$ and $`k`$,

$$k=k_1+k_2mod(2\pi ).$$
(2)
Thus the allowed states in the two-magnon continuum are given by the simple vector addition of Fig.1.

For a fixed two-magnon $`k`$ we can independently vary $`k_1`$, keeping $`k_2=kk_1`$. This gives a range of allowed two-magnon energies for given $`k`$. Carrying out this “scan” in $`k_1`$ at each $`k`$ gives the full set of states in the two-magnon continuum. Interesting physics questions regarding this continuum include the determination of the upper- and lower- limit boundary curves of this allowed region, and the composition of the two-magnon states along and within these boundaries.

All this information is implicit in the one-magnon dispersion relation $`\omega (k)`$. In the following discussion unless otherwise specified we will assume that $`\omega (k)`$ is an even, periodic function of $`k`$ with period $`2\pi `$, monotonically increasing inside the range $`k=[0,\pi ]`$, with a single inflection point at $`k_0`$. We also assume that $`\omega (k)`$ departs from its $`k=0`$ minimum and $`k=\pm \pi `$ maximum values quadratically in $`k`$, and that the inflection point lies within $`|k|=[0,\pi /2]`$). (This $`\omega (k)`$ is abstracted from the simple alternating chain result, shown in Fig.1. Our discussion can easily be extended to more general cases.)

### 1.2 Lower continuum boundary

First we consider the lower boundary of the two-magnon continuum, which we call $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$. The $`k=0`$ two-magnon mode clearly has a lower boundary at $`\omega _2(0)=2\omega (0)`$, since this satisfies the momentum constraint $`k=k_1+k_2mod(2\pi )`$ and is the global minimum of free two-magnon energies. For other $`k`$ values we wish to solve

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)=min_{k_1,k_2=kk_1}\left(\omega (k_1)+\omega (k_2)\right).$$
(3)
Starting from the symmetric state $`(k_1,k_2)=(k/2,k/2)`$, with energy $`\omega _2(k)=2\omega (k/2)`$, we can establish this lower boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ by shifting these momenta to $`(k_1,k_2)=(k/2\mathrm{\Delta },k/2+\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and determining whether any nonzero, physically distinct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`0<\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$) gives a lower-energy two-magnon state. (See Fig.2 for this construction.) The condition that the initial, symmetric state itself has the lowest energy is

$$\omega (k/2\mathrm{\Delta })+\omega (k/2+\mathrm{\Delta })2\omega (k/2)>0\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(4)
which can be used as the definition of a “globally concave” function. (A function is locally concave if this is satisfied for infinitesimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.) The lower boundary curve of the two-magnon continuum is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)=2\omega (k/2)$$
(5)
if the one-magnon dispersion is globally concave.

Both upper and lower boundaries will usually be extremal in the energy of two magnon states, so that they satisfy

$$d\omega _2(k_1,kk_1)=0=\left(\omega ^{}(k_1)\omega ^{}(kk_1)\right)dk_1$$
(6)
or equivalently

$$\omega ^{}(k/2\mathrm{\Delta })=\omega ^{}(k/2+\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(7)
The search for boundary curves of this extremal type can be considered a search for the minimum- or maximum-energy solutions $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm (k)`$ of this equation; once (7) is solved for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm (k)`$, the boundary curves are then given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\pm (k)=\omega (k/2\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm (k))+\omega (k/2+\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm (k)).$$
(8)
Clearly one solution of (7) is $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=0`$, giving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(k)=2\omega (k/2)`$. This may however not give the global minimum or maximum two-magnon energy at $`k`$. We shall argue below that the lower boundary is in fact not given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=0`$ if $`\omega (k/2)`$ is convex.

If the one-magnon dispersion relation $`\omega (k)`$ is not locally concave over the full physically independent range $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$, the concave region $`[k_0,k_0]`$ will be bounded by inflection points at $`k=\pm k_0`$. For a two-magnon state with momentum $`|k|>2k_0`$ (which lies in the convex region of the one-magnon dispersion relation) the lower boundary of the two-magnon continuum is not given by $`2\omega (k/2)`$, since an infinitesimal perturbation into an unsymmetric state $`(k_1,k_2)=(k/2\mathrm{\Delta },k/2+\mathrm{\Delta })`$ lowers the energy;

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }0}{lim}\omega (k/2\mathrm{\Delta })+\omega (k/2+\mathrm{\Delta })2\omega (k/2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k/2)+O(\mathrm{\Delta }^4)<0.$$
(9)
The nature of the departure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ from the symmetric state as we enter the convex region depends on the behavior of $`\omega (k)`$ near the inflection point $`k_0`$. If the departure from the symmetric state $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=0`$ is continuous, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ will be small near $`k=2k_0`$, and we can expand (7) to find

$$\underset{k2k_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\left[\frac{6w^{(ii)}(k/2)}{w^{(iv)}(k/2)}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(10)
We can further simplify this by expanding in $`k2k_0`$ and using $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_0)=0`$, which gives

$$\underset{k2k_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\left[\frac{3w^{(iii)}(k_0)}{w^{(iv)}(k_0)}\right]^{1/2}\left(k2k_0\right)^{1/2}.$$
(11)
Thus if the fourth derivative $`\omega ^{(iv)}(k_0)`$ is positive ($`\omega ^{(iii)}(k_0)<0`$ at this inflection point), the minimum energy state $`(k_1,k_2)=(k/2\mathrm{\Delta }(k),k/2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k))`$ departs from the symmetric one $`(k/2,k/2)`$ as a square root of momentum.

The corresponding departure in energy of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ from $`2\omega (k/2)`$ is much less abrupt, and for small $`k2k_0`$ is

$$\underset{k2k_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)2\omega (k/2)=\frac{3}{4}\left[\frac{w^{(iii)}(k_0)^2}{w^{(iv)}(k_0)}\right]\left(k2k_0\right)^2.$$
(12)
This piecewise continuous behavior and square-root departure in composition $`(k_1,k_2)`$ from symmetric states on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ near $`2k_0`$ is illustrated by the alternating chain in Fig.3. In this model to leading order in $`\alpha `$ (see Appendix) one has $`k_0\pi /2=\alpha /2`$, $`w^{(iii)}(k_0)=\alpha /2`$ and $`w^{(iv)}(k_0)=3\alpha ^2/4`$, so

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k2k_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}}{\alpha 0}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\left(\frac{2}{\alpha }\right)^{1/2}\left(k(\pi \alpha )\right)^{1/2}$$
(13)
and

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k2k_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}}{\alpha 0}}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)2\omega (k/2)=\frac{1}{4}\left(k(\pi \alpha )\right)^2.$$
(14)
The location of this composition discontinuity could be used as an independent experimental determination of $`\alpha `$ that does not require following $`\omega (k)`$ over a wide range of $`k`$.

Between $`|k|=2k_0`$ and $`|k|=\pi `$ the two-magnon lower boundary passes through states of increasingly unsymmetrical composition, reaching the limit $`k_1=0,|k_2|=\pi `$ at $`|k|=\pi `$. This is illustrated in Fig.3.

Were $`w^{(iv)}(k_0)`$ negative we would find a discontinuous jump in the value of $`k_1`$ on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ at $`k=2k_0`$. In either case we expect to see rapid variation in scattering intensities from states near this composition discontinuity.

### 1.3 Upper continuum boundary

The upper two-magnon continuum boundary, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(k)=max_{k_1,k_2=kk_1}\left(\omega (k_1)+\omega (k_2)\right),$$
(15)
can be found using a similar construction to Fig.2. First note that the global maximum of energy of two-magnon states is $`2\omega (\pi )`$, at $`k=2\pi `$ (equivalent to $`k=0`$ or any $`k=2\pi m`$) and consists of a symmetric state of two magnons, $`k_1=k_2=\pi `$. As we move away from this highest-energy state at $`k=2\pi `$, we can form analogous symmetric states with total momentum $`2\pi k`$ (equivalent to $`k`$ and degenerate with a $`k`$ state) from two single-magnon states with $`k_1=k_2=\pi k/2`$, as shown in Fig.4. Evidently this state has energy $`2\omega (\pi k/2)`$. We can determine whether this is the maximum energy state at this $`k`$ by considering a symmetrically displaced combination $`(k_1,k_2)=(\pi k/2\mathrm{\Delta },\pi k/2+\mathrm{\Delta })`$, analogous to Fig.2. The energy difference is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\omega (\pi k/2+\mathrm{\Delta })+\omega (\pi k/2\mathrm{\Delta })2\omega (\pi k/2),$$
(16)
which is negative for all $`k`$ in $`[0,\pi ]`$ (meaning that the symmetric state has the highest energy) if $`\omega (k)`$ is convex over the range $`[\pi /2,\pi ]`$. If this is satisfied the upper boundary curve of the two-magnon continuum is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(k)=2\omega (\pi k/2).$$
(17)
This is the case for our alternating chain example, as is shown in Fig.4. It is also satisfied for the uniform $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg chain, for which $`\omega (k)=(\pi /2)J|\mathrm{sin}(k)|`$; since this is a convex function, (17) implies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(k)=2\omega (\pi k/2)=\pi J|\mathrm{sin}(k/2)|,$$
(18)
which is the well-known upper boundary of the two-spinon continuum .

If instead we encounter an inflection point $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_0)=0`$ in the interval $`[\pi /2,\pi ]`$, we will find a departure from $`2\omega (\pi k/2)`$ along the upper boundary. As in Fig.3 this will be accompanied by a change in composition from the symmetric state $`(k_1,k_2)=(\pi k/2,\pi k/2)`$.

Since we have assumed for our example that the inflection point $`k_0`$ lies in the interval $`[0,\pi /2]`$, we do not encounter an inflection point, and the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(k)=2\omega (\pi k/2)`$ describes the entire upper boundary curve for $`k[\pi ,\pi ]`$. This function is monotonically decreasing inside the range $`k=[0,\pi ]`$, and has a negative slope at $`k=\pi `$, given our assumption that $`\omega (k)`$ has a positive slope at $`\pi /2`$. Reflection symmetry of the dispersion relation about $`k=\pi `$ then implies a cusp in the slope of the upper boundary curve at $`k=\pi `$, as shown in Fig.4.

In Fig.5 we show the complete result for the boundary curves $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ of the two-magnon continuum for our alternating chain example. Note that the two-magnon bandwidth minimum at $`k=\pi `$ is not zero; the value

$$W_2^{min}=\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(\pi )\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(\pi )=2\omega (\pi /2)\omega (0)\omega (\pi ),$$
(19)
is $`\alpha ^2/4+\alpha ^3/8+O(\alpha ^4)`$ for the alternating chain. A zero bandwidth at $`k=\pi `$ would follow for example from pure $`\mathrm{cos}(k)`$ modulation in the one-magnon dispersion relation.

### 1.4 More general boundary curves

Motivated by the alternating chain as a prototypical gapped 1D quantum spin system, we have assumed that the one-magnon dispersion relation is even, monotonically increasing inside $`[0,\pi ]`$, and has a single inflection point at $`k_0`$ inside $`[0,\pi /2]`$. This led to an upper two-magnon continuum boundary with a cusp and a symmetric composition $`k_1=k_2`$ everywhere, and a lower two-magnon boundary with a composition break at $`2k_0`$.

Although these results are valid in general for alternating chains, in other quantum spin systems we may encounter a single inflection point in $`[\pi /2,\pi ]`$, or a different number of inflection points. An example of more complicated behavior is provided by the two-leg ladder, which for sufficiently large $`\alpha `$ has a one-magnon dispersion relation $`\omega (k)`$ with a minimum at $`k=\pi `$, a secondary minimum at $`k=0`$, two inflection points in $`k[0,\pi ]`$, and a maximum at an intermediate $`k[0,\pi /2]`$.

We expect to find a symmetric state $`k_1=k_2=k/2`$ at the lower boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ of the continuum when $`\omega (k/2)`$ is globally concave, and an unsymmetric two-magnon state on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ with an energy $`<2\omega (k/2)`$ when $`\omega (k/2)`$ is a locally or globally convex function of $`k`$. With more than one inflection point, boundary curves will typically be composed of pieces with symmetric and asymmetric composition.

### 1.5 Density of states: caustics

Our results for the composition of two-magnon states along the upper and lower continuum boundaries imply the existence of discontinuities in the density of states on the continuum boundary and under certain conditions within the continuum. We refer to any such discontinuity in the density of states as a “caustic”.

Consider the density of states in a system of $`N`$ spins with unit cell $`b`$; the number of one-magnon states $`dn`$ in an interval $`dk`$ is

$$dn=\left(\frac{2\pi }{Nb}\right)dkn_0dk.$$
(20)
and for two-magnon states in $`dk_1dk_2`$ it is

$$d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}n=n_0^2dk_1dk_2.$$
(21)
Since we observe two-magnon continuum states with specified total energy $`E=\omega (k_1)+\omega (k_2)+E_0`$ and total momentum $`k=k_1+k_2`$, the number of states $`d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}n`$ in a region $`dkdE`$ is more relevant to experiment. This density has a Jacobean factor,

$$d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}n=\frac{n_0^2}{|\omega ^{}(k_1)\omega ^{}(k_2)|}dkdE\rho (k,E)dkdE.$$
(22)
Note that the condition for a divergent density of states $`\rho (k,E)`$, which is a singular caustic, is

$$\omega ^{}(k_1)=\omega ^{}(k_2),$$
(23)
which was exactly the condition (7) used to search for boundaries of the two-magnon continuum. Thus we expect to find a divergent density of states $`\rho (k,E)`$ on the two-magnon boundary curves $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+(k)`$.

Unfortunately we cannot invert the $`(E,k)(k_1,k_2)`$ relationship and solve (22) for $`\rho (k,E)`$ for a general one-magnon dispersion relation $`\omega (k)`$. We can however determine this density of two-magnon states in certain limits, including the case of states close to the boundaries.

First we consider the symmetric lower boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)=2\omega (k/2)`$. (Recall that $`2\omega (k/2)`$ gives the lower boundary of the two-magnon continuum for a range of $`k`$, as discussed in previous sections.) Perturbing the momenta away from this symmetric point into the continuum of asymmetric states, we can invert $`(E,k)(k_1,k_2)`$ infinitesimally and use (22) to find the density of states $`\rho (k,E)`$ near $`2\omega (k/2)`$. This gives

$$\underset{E2\omega (k/2)}{lim}\rho (k,E)=\frac{n_0^2}{2|\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k/2)|^{1/2}}\left|E2\omega (k/2)\right|^{1/2}.$$
(24)
which evidently has a $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$ singularity as we approach $`2\omega (k/2)`$. This behavior is reminiscent of the van Hove singularity in the density of states as we approach a band edge, although that single particle density is instead proportional to $`1/|\omega ^{}(k)|`$.

The asymmetric region of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(k)`$ with $`k_1<k_2`$ also has a singular density of states, since $`\omega ^{}(k_1)=\omega ^{}(k_2)`$ there as well. We may again solve for $`\rho (k,E)`$ near the boundary using (22), with the result

$$\underset{E\omega (k_1)+\omega (k_2)}{lim}\rho (k,E)=\frac{n_0^2}{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_1)+\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_2))|^{1/2}}\left|E\omega (k_1)\omega (k_2)\right|^{1/2}$$
(25)
where $`(k_1,k_2)=k/2\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$. The symmetric boundary formula (24) is a special case of this more general result.

A final special case is the density of states in $`E`$ along the line $`k=2k_0`$; since $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_0)=0`$ this is a singular case. Expanding (7) to $`O(\mathrm{\Delta }^3)`$ (the usual leading $`O(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ term vanishes), we find

$$\underset{E2\omega (k_0)}{lim}\rho (k=2k_0,E)=n_0^2\left[\frac{3}{4|\omega ^{(iv)}(k_0)|}\right]^{1/4}\left|E2\omega (k_0)\right|^{3/4}.$$
(26)
Although we have specifically discussed the singular density of states found at the upper and lower boundaries $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\pm (k)`$, we note that there may be caustics specified by (7) within the continuum as well, and that these will also have square-root divergences in $`\rho (k,E)`$ as we approach the singular line.

We again use the alternating chain to illustrate this. In Fig.6 we show points in the two-magnon continuum, generated with a $`\rho (k,E)`$ distribution. The divergences in $`\rho (k,E)`$ on the upper and lower boundaries, “border caustics”, are evident (see also Fig.10). Fig.7 shows an enlargement including the asymmetric region $`k>2k_0`$; a caustic within the continuum due to the solution $`\omega _2(k)=2\omega (k/2)`$ of (7) is apparent.

### 1.6 Spin ladder

As an independent example of a two-magnon continuum, in Fig.8 we show the one-magnon dispersion $`\omega (k)`$ and two-magnon continuum for a two-leg spin ladder, as in Fig.6 for the alternating chain. The coupling strengths are $`\alpha J_{||}/J_{}=0.3`$ and $`J_{}=1`$, and the analytic results used are summarized in the appendix.

Although the ladder one-magnon $`\omega (k)`$ has the locations of maxima and minima translated by $`\pi `$ relative to the alternating chain, the two-magnon continua of the two systems are qualitatively remarkably similar for small $`\alpha `$. This is because a shift in $`k`$ by $`2\pi `$, for two magnons, is equivalent to zero. Close inspection reveals that the $`\alpha `$-dependent effects are typically rather larger on the ladder than the alternating chain, presumably because the ladder dimers are coupled by twice as many links as the alternating-chain dimers.

## 2 Higher multimagnon states

### 2.1 Definitions

Higher multimagnon continua show features similar to the cusps and discontinuities of two-magnon states, although these will presumably be of much less experimental interest due to the weaker coupling of higher-lying states to experimental probes. We shall nonetheless sketch the generalization of some of the simpler results for two-magnon systems to the $`n`$-magnon continua.

The energy of an $`n`$-magnon state is given by

$$\omega _n(k)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega (k_m)$$
(27)
where

$$k=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_mmod(2\pi ).$$
(28)
Again assuming a gapped one-magnon dispersion relation with the general features discussed in the previous section (an even $`\omega (k)`$, monotonically increasing inside $`[0,\pi ]`$, quadratic behavior in $`k`$ near these endpoints, and a single inflection point $`k_0`$), we can infer several features of the $`n`$-magnon continuum.

### 2.2 N-magnon continuum boundaries

Provided that the individual magnon momenta $`k/n`$ are below the inflection point $`k_0`$, ($`k<nk_0k[0,\pi ]`$), the lower boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{}(k)`$ of the n-magnon continuum is given by the energy of the symmetric state $`(k_1,k_2\mathrm{}k_n)=(k/n,k/n\mathrm{}k/n)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{}(k)=n\omega (k/n)$$
(29)
This implies that for sufficiently large $`n`$ ($`n>\pi /k_0`$) all the lower-boundary curves $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{}(k)\}`$ possess cusps at $`k=\pi `$. Since the departure of $`\omega (k)`$ from $`\omega (0)`$ for small $`k`$ is assumed to be of the form $`\omega (k)=\omega (0)+c_2k^2+O(k^4)`$, the lower boundary curve will approach

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{}(k)=n\omega (0)+(c_2/n)k^2+O(n^3).$$
(30)
Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{}(k)`$ asymptotically approaches the line $`n\omega (0)`$, with a residual $`O(n^1)`$ parabolic component $`k^2/n`$.

The upper boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n^+(k)`$ differs for even and odd magnon number. For an even number of magnons the upper boundary maximum energy $`n\omega (\pi )`$ occurs at $`k=n\pi 0`$. Again assuming quadratic behavior near the extremum, $`\omega (k)=\omega (\pi )\stackrel{~}{c}_2(\pi k)^2+O((\pi k)^4)`$, the symmetric solution $`(k_1,k_2\mathrm{}k_n)=(\pi k/n,\pi k/n\mathrm{}\pi k/n)`$ with energy

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n^+(k)=n\omega (\pi k/n)$$
(31)
gives the upper boundary curve provided that we do not encounter an inflection point, $`\pi k/n>k_0`$. Once again this will be satisfied for sufficiently large $`n`$, and all these even-$`n`$ upper boundary curves have a cusp at $`k=\pi `$. The behavior of this upper boundary for large $`n`$ approaches a constant with a negative parabolic component of $`O(n^1)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n^+(k)=n\omega (\pi )(\stackrel{~}{c}_2/n)k^2+O(n^3),$$
(32)
analogous to the result for the lower boundary. The upper boundary for odd magnon number $`n`$ differs in that the maximum energy state has total momentum $`k=\pi `$ rather than $`k=0`$, and a cusp at $`k=0`$ rather than $`k=\pi `$.

### 2.3 Caustics

The higher multimagnon continua also possess discontinuities in their densities of states $`\{\rho (k,E)\}`$, although these are qualitatively different from the results we have shown for the two-magnon case. This is largely due to the fact that the $`(k_1,k_2)(k,E)`$ mapping gives a simple Jacobean (22) which leads to caustics where it is singular, whereas the $`n3`$ multimagnon continua project a flat distribution in $`(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n)`$ onto a smaller number of variables $`(k,E)`$. This involves an integration over $`n2`$ variables, which smoothes the singularities seen in the two-magnon case.

As examples of these higher continua, in Fig.9 we show the three-magnon continuum for our alternating chain example, and Fig.10 shows the density of states encountered in a fixed-$`k`$ slice (at $`k=\pi /2`$) through the two-, three-, and four-magnon continua. (This figure is a histogram of points falling within $`0.495\pi <k<0.505\pi `$, with an energy binning of $`\delta E=0.01`$, normalized as $`f(k,E)=N(k,E)/\delta E\delta kN_{tot.}`$. The binned points were selected from an initial flat distribution, $`\pi <k_1,k_2\mathrm{}k_n<\pi `$, of $`N_{tot.}=2^{28}`$ points.)

The two-magnon continuum in Figs.9,10 clearly shows the $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$ singular border caustics in the density of states, as given by (24). In contrast, the three-magnon continuum density $`\rho (k,E)`$ has border caustics with only finite discontinuities in the density of states, and the four-magnon $`\rho (k,E)`$ is continuous on the boundaries.

## 3 Summary and Conclusions

We have considered the multimagnon continua of 1D quantum spin systems, and have illustrated our results using the Heisenberg alternating chain and two-leg spin ladder as examples.

The boundaries of the two-magnon continua that result from one-magnon dispersion relations similar to the alternating chain case are considered in detail, and general results are derived for these and higher multimagnon boundary curves. It is shown that these curves exhibit cusps and discontinuous changes in composition under certain conditions. The density of states $`\rho (k,E)`$ in the continuum is also considered, and it is noted that $`\rho (k,E)`$ can possess discontinuities and divergences on “caustic” lines, both on the continuum boundaries and within the continuum.

We anticipate that it should be possible to identify these features of two-magnon continua through high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering experiments on candidate alternating chain and ladder materials, and that precise studies of these features may allow determinations of the parameters of spin Hamiltonians through the study of relatively small ranges of $`(k,E)`$ space.

## 4 Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank B. Lake, G.I. Meijer, G. Müller, S.E. Nagler, T. Papenbrock, J. Riera, R.R.P. Singh, D.A. Tennant and G.S. Uhrig for useful discussions and communications. This research was sponsored by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, and by the Department of Physics and Astronomy, the Neutron Sciences Consortium, and the Chemical Physics Program of the University of Tennessee.

## Appendix: results for alternating chains and ladders

In this appendix we collect some results for the alternating Heisenberg chain and two-leg ladder, which we used to illustrate aspects of multimagnon continuum states in the paper.

The alternating chain Hamiltonian is defined by

$$H=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{2i1}\stackrel{}{S}_{2i}+\alpha \stackrel{}{S}_{2i}\stackrel{}{S}_{2i+1},$$
(A1)
where we assume cyclic boundary conditions. The corresponding one-magnon dispersion relation $`\omega (k)`$ can be written as a Fourier series, with $`\alpha `$-dependent coefficients;

$$\omega (k)=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}k),$$
(A2)
where we have implicitly set the strength $`J`$ and unit cell $`b`$ to unity. The Fourier coefficients may be evaluated as a power series in $`\alpha `$ using a strong-coupling expansion. The $`O(\alpha ^5)`$ series of Ref., which we use to generate the numerical results given in this paper, are

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}a_0\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill 1& & \hfill \frac{1}{16}\alpha ^2& \hfill +\frac{3}{64}\alpha ^3& \hfill +\frac{23}{1024}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{3}{256}\alpha ^5\\ & & & & & & & \\ a_1\hfill & =\hfill & & \hfill \frac{1}{2}\alpha & \hfill \frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2& \hfill +\frac{1}{32}\alpha ^3& \hfill +\frac{5}{256}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{35}{2048}\alpha ^5\\ & & & & & & & \\ a_2\hfill & =\hfill & & & \hfill \frac{1}{16}\alpha ^2& \hfill \frac{1}{32}\alpha ^3& \hfill \frac{15}{512}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{283}{18432}\alpha ^5\\ & & & & & & & \\ a_3\hfill & =\hfill & & & & \hfill \frac{1}{64}\alpha ^3& \hfill \frac{1}{48}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{9}{1024}\alpha ^5\\ & & & & & & & \\ a_4\hfill & =\hfill & & & & & \hfill \frac{5}{1024}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{67}{9216}\alpha ^5\\ & & & & & & & \\ a_5\hfill & =\hfill & & & & & & \hfill \frac{7}{4096}\alpha ^5\end{array}.$$
(A3)
We may use these coefficients to develop series for several of the quantities discussed here. In particular, the inflection point $`k_0`$ of $`\omega (k)`$ is given by

$$k_0=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{2}\alpha \frac{29}{96}\alpha ^3\frac{119}{576}\alpha ^4+O(\alpha ^5)$$
(A4)
and the energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(2k_0)`$ at the “break point” $`2k_0`$ (see Fig.3) on the lower boundary of the two-magnon continuum is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(2k_0)=2\omega (k_0)=2\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2\frac{3}{32}\alpha ^3\frac{11}{64}\alpha ^4\frac{311}{1024}\alpha ^5+O(\alpha ^6).$$
(A5)
The derivatives of the one-magnon energy $`\omega (k)`$ at $`k_0`$ determine the nature of the asymmetric two-magnon lower boundary state for $`k>2k_0`$. To $`O(\alpha ^5)`$ these are

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\omega ^{}(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & +\frac{1}{2}\alpha \hfill & +\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\hfill & \frac{1}{64}\alpha ^3\hfill & \frac{13}{256}\alpha ^4\hfill & +\frac{229}{4096}\alpha ^5\hfill \\ & & & & & & \\ \omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ \omega ^{(iii)}(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\alpha \hfill & \frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\hfill & +\frac{1}{64}\alpha ^3\hfill & +\frac{93}{256}\alpha ^4\hfill & \frac{925}{4096}\alpha ^5\hfill \\ & & & & & & \\ \omega ^{(iv)}(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & & +\frac{3}{4}\alpha ^2\hfill & +\frac{3}{8}\alpha ^3\hfill & +\frac{63}{128}\alpha ^4\hfill & +\frac{257}{512}\alpha ^5\hfill \end{array}.$$
(A6)
We also give the corresponding results for the two-leg spin ladder (to one higher order in $`\alpha `$). The $`N`$-rung ladder Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=J_{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,1}\stackrel{}{S}_{i,2}+\alpha (\stackrel{}{S}_{i,1}\stackrel{}{S}_{i+1,1}+\stackrel{}{S}_{i,2}\stackrel{}{S}_{i+1,2}),$$
(A7)
and the $`\omega (k)`$ one-magnon Fourier coefficients to $`O(\alpha ^6)`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a_0\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill 1& & \hfill +\frac{3}{4}\alpha ^2& \hfill +\frac{3}{8}\alpha ^3& \hfill \frac{13}{64}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{5}{8}\alpha ^5& \hfill \frac{1}{2}\alpha ^6\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_1\hfill & =\hfill & & \hfill +\alpha & & \hfill \frac{1}{4}\alpha ^3& \hfill \frac{5}{16}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{13}{64}\alpha ^5& \hfill +\frac{3}{32}\alpha ^6\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_2\hfill & =\hfill & & & \hfill \frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2& \hfill \frac{1}{4}\alpha ^3& \hfill \frac{1}{32}\alpha ^4& \hfill +\frac{13}{64}\alpha ^5& \hfill +\frac{11}{64}\alpha ^6\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_3\hfill & =\hfill & & & & \hfill +\frac{1}{8}\alpha ^3& \hfill +\frac{1}{8}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{3}{32}\alpha ^5& \hfill \frac{81}{256}\alpha ^6\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_4\hfill & =\hfill & & & & & \hfill \frac{5}{64}\alpha ^4& \hfill \frac{3}{32}\alpha ^5& \hfill +\frac{73}{1024}\alpha ^6\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_5\hfill & =\hfill & & & & & & \hfill +\frac{7}{128}\alpha ^5& \hfill +\frac{5}{64}\alpha ^6\\ & & & & & & & & \\ a_6\hfill & =\hfill & & & & & & & \hfill \frac{21}{512}\alpha ^6\end{array}.$$
(A8)
The inflection point $`k_0`$ is:

$$k_0=\frac{\pi }{2}+\alpha +\alpha ^2+\frac{2}{3}\alpha ^3\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^4\frac{1171}{320}\alpha ^5+O(\alpha ^6)$$
(A9)
and the lower boundary energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(2k_0)`$ at the break point $`2k_0`$ is:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(2k_0)=2\omega (k_0)=2\frac{3}{4}\alpha ^3\frac{5}{4}\alpha ^4\frac{7}{32}\alpha ^5+\frac{3307}{512}\alpha ^6+O(\alpha ^7).$$
(A10)
Finally, the derivatives of $`\omega (k)`$ at $`k_0`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}\omega ^{}(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & \alpha \hfill & & +\frac{1}{8}\alpha ^3\hfill & \frac{5}{16}\alpha ^4\hfill & \frac{117}{128}\alpha ^5\hfill & \frac{223}{256}\alpha ^6\hfill \\ & & & & & & & \\ \omega ^{\prime \prime }(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & 0\hfill & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ \omega ^{(iii)}(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & +\alpha \hfill & & \frac{1}{8}\alpha ^3\hfill & +\frac{53}{16}\alpha ^4\hfill & +\frac{1005}{128}\alpha ^5\hfill & +\frac{1927}{256}\alpha ^6\hfill \\ & & & & & & & \\ \omega ^{(iv)}(k_0)\hfill & =\hfill & & +3\alpha ^2\hfill & +3\alpha ^3\hfill & +\frac{21}{8}\alpha ^4\hfill & +\frac{177}{16}\alpha ^5\hfill & +\frac{1557}{128}\alpha ^6\hfill \end{array}.$$
(A11)


format: text

text:
# Finite - temperature quantum phase transition in d - waves superconductors

## I Model and Scaling Equations

In a fermionic system disorder and the attractive interaction on the d - wave channel at $`T=0`$ give rise to the superconductor pairing. The two - dimensional model ($`d=2`$) has been studied in  and the main result of this paper is the maping of the fermionic system in a dissipative bosonic system with a wide crossover regime controlled by the fluctuations of the order parameter. This system is similar to the insulator - superconductor at $`T=0`$ and finite temperature reconsidered by the Urbana group , in study of the transport properties near the critical point of this transition. Following classical results  from the superfluid - insulator transition they showed that the insulator - superconductor transition is characterized by the dynamical critical exponent $`z=2`$ and used the renormalization - group method (RG) to describe the critical behavior of the conductivity near the transition point. The model used in  contain an action with dissipative term which is a relevant perturbation with the particle - hole asymmetry. In fact, the analogy between the d - wave superconductivity and this system was mentioned in connection with the contribution of the different regimes to the conductivity.

This report is complementary to papers  and  considering the crossover effects as well as the case of the finite value of the damping parameter from the dissipative term of action.

We start with the action from Ref.  defined using the field operators $`\varphi _i(k)`$ written as:

$`S[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[\varphi _i^{}(k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega _n|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mu \right)\varphi _i(k)\right]`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k_4}{}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_l\right)\varphi _i(k_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _i(k_4)`$ (2)
In Eq. (2) we have contributions of the n - independent replicas and $`\varphi _i(k)=\varphi (k)`$. The other parameters are related with those from Ref.  as: $`\mu =\mu _bm_b^{1/2}`$, $`m=m+b^{1/2}`$, $`u=4\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an energy parameter which controls the strength of the quantum fluctuations. The effective chemical potential $`\mu _b`$ which is negative for the normal phase ( see Ref. ) is expressed by the relation $`\mu _b=(\mathrm{ln}\tau E_Fg^1)/\tau `$, $`\tau `$ being the scattering time, proportional to the impurities concentration and $`g`$ the superconductor coupling constant. If we introduce the critical scattering time $`\tau _c=2/\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ is the $`T=0`$ order parameter) above which the order parameter vanishes, the chemical potential $`\mu _b`$ depends of the impurities concentration, $`x`$, as $`\mu _b(x)|xx_c|`$. This dependence is obtained using the wellknown result that the scattering on a non - magnetic impurities in d - wave superconductors has a similar effect with the scattering on the magnetic impurities in the s - wave superconductors, and also using $`1/\tau x`$.

In this model the Eq. (2) describe a quantum phase transition controlled by non - magnetic impurities in d - wave superconductors.

The effect of finite temperature on this quantum phase transition can be studied using the RG method and has been applied by different authors  to study the influence of temperature on the quantum phase transition in the interacting bosonic systems. Following this method we consider the case of finite temperatures and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ and using the scaling $`k=k^{}/b`$ and $`\omega _n=\omega _n^{}/b^z`$ ($`b=\mathrm{ln}l`$ and $`z`$ is the critical exponent) we get the scaling equations:

$$\frac{dT(l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}T(l)$$
(3)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(4)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mu (l)f^{(2)}[T(l),\mu (l)]u(l)$$
(5)
$$\frac{du(l)}{dl}=(2z)u(l)f^{(4)}[T(l),\mu (l)]u^2(l)$$
(6)
and for the free energy

$$\frac{dF(l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}F(l)+f^{(0)}[T(l),\mu (l)]$$
(7)
Functions $`f^{(2)}`$, $`f^{(4)}`$ and $`f^{(0)}`$ are given for $`d=2`$ system by:

$$f^{(2)}[T(l),\mu (l)]=_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}k_BT\underset{n}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}+\frac{|\omega _n|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mu \right]^1$$
(8)
$$f^{(4)}[T(l),\mu (l)]=_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}k_BT\underset{n}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}+\frac{|\omega _n|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mu \right]^2$$
(9)
$$f^{(0)}[T(l),\mu (l)]=_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}k_BT\underset{n}{}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{Im\chi (𝐤,i\omega _n)}{Re\chi (𝐤,i\omega _n)}$$
(10)
where

$$\chi ^1(𝐤,i\omega _n)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}+\frac{|\omega _n|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mu $$

and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the momentum cutoff.

We have to mention that these equations have been obtained from Eq. (2) neglecting the quartic term which describes the interaction between fluctuations from different replicas.

## II Fixed points

In order to study the influence of the temperature on the quantum effects, we have to calculate the fixed points of the scaling equations.

As in the case of the bosons, (see Ref. ) we will analyze the two relevant cases: the low temperature and high temperature regimes.

### A Low temperature regime

In the low temperature regime $`z=2`$ and from Eqs. (3-6) we get:

$$\frac{du(l)}{dl}=\frac{m}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}u^2(l)$$
(11)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mu (l)+f^{(2)}[T(l),\mu (l)]u(l)$$
(12)
where we used $`\mu <0`$ for the normal phase.

The function $`f^{(2)}`$ has been calculated taking the $`\omega _n=0`$ and $`\omega _n0`$ frequencies at finite temperatures as:

$$f^{(2)}[T(l),\mu (l)]\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\pi }+\frac{mk_BT}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\mathrm{exp}\left[y+\frac{\mu }{T}\right]1}$$
(13)
From Eq. (11) we obtain:

$$u(l)=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{1}{l+l_0}$$
(14)
where $`l_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2/mu`$.

In order to get the fixed point of Eq. (12) we use the condition $`d\mu (l)/dl=0`$ and we obtain:

$$2\mu _0^{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2u}{4\pi }+\frac{mk_BT}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\mathrm{exp}\left[y+\frac{\mu }{T}\right]1}u(l)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(15)
From this equation we can see that for finite temperature there is no phase transition because the last integral from Eq. (15) is divergent. At $`T=0`$ we get:

$$\mu _0^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2u}{8\pi }$$
(16)
which correspond to the quantum phase transition.

### B High temperatures regime

In this case the scaling equations are obtained from general equations (3-6) by taking $`z=2`$ and using the approximation $`\mathrm{coth}x/2T2T/x`$. The scaling equations (see also Ref. ) becomes:

$$\frac{du(l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}u(l)\frac{5}{2}K_2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k_BT(l)}{[ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mu ]^2}$$
(17)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mu (l)\frac{1}{2}K_2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k_BT(l)}{[ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mu ]^2}$$
(18)
where $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/2m`$ and $`K_2=1/2\pi `$. From these equations we obtain the fixed points $`\mu ^{}=5ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ and $`u^{}=2\pi ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/45\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k_BT`$. This is the $`T=\mathrm{}`$ fixed point.

The crossover between the two regimes is equivalent to the crossover between the quantum and classical critical behavior and we will define a parameter $`l^{}`$ for the two regimes.

## III Crossover between quantum and classical regimes

The quantum behavior is defined by the fixed point $`T=0`$. The effect of the temperature can be considered if we determine the temperature scale $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ defined by:

$$T(\stackrel{~}{l})=T_0$$
(19)
where $`T_0`$ is a characteristic temperature. Using the solution $`T(l)=Te^{2l}`$ we get the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ as:

$$\stackrel{~}{l}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}$$
(20)
Using Eqs. (11-12) we define the parameter $`l_0^{}`$ by:

$$\mu (l_0^{})=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}$$
(21)
being the energy parameter which define the low temperature critical region, and $`\alpha 1`$.

From Eq. (12) we calculate (see also Ref. ) $`\mu (l)`$ as:

$$\mu (l)=\frac{4\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}e^{2l}_0^l\frac{dl^{}}{l^{}+l_0}\frac{e^{2l^{}}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}e^{2l^{}}\right]1}$$
(22)
This expression can be transformed in:

$`\mu (l)`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2l}\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l_0}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{\frac{ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k_BT}})`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l_0}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{l_0}})^1\mathrm{ln}(1e^{\frac{ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k_BT}e^{2l}})]{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}F(l)\}`$ (24)
where

$$F(l)=_0^{2l}\frac{dx}{(x+2l_0)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k_BT}e^{2l}\right)\right]$$
(25)
The energy scale will be fixed using the Eqs. (13) and (22) and following Ref. we calculate

$$e^{2l^{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}16}\frac{T}{T_0}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{T_0}}$$
(26)
where $`T_0=\alpha \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/8mk_B`$. Using this result we obtain

$$l_0^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}\right)$$
(27)
Let us consider the high temperatures regime, describe by the Eqs. (17-18), which will be rewritten using the new interaction $`v(l)=k_BT(l)u(l)`$, as

$$\frac{dv(l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}v(l)\frac{5}{\pi }\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{}^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}v^2(l)$$
(28)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mu (l)\frac{m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}v(l)$$
(29)
The exact solution of Eq. (28),

$$v(l)=\frac{2v(\stackrel{~}{l})}{Bv(\stackrel{~}{l})+[2v(\stackrel{~}{l})]e^{2(l\stackrel{~}{l})}}$$
(30)
where $`B=5m^2/\pi \mathrm{}^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ will be approximated as

$$v(l)v(\stackrel{~}{l})e^{2(l\stackrel{~}{l})}$$
(31)
and from Eq. (29) we get

$$\mu (l)=\frac{4(l\stackrel{~}{l})}{\stackrel{~}{l}+l_0}e^{2(l\stackrel{~}{l})}$$
(32)
The new energy scale will be fixed by $`l_1^{}`$ as

$$\mu (l_1^{})=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}$$
(33)
and from Eqs. (32) and (33) we express

$$l_1^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}\right)$$
(34)
The Eqs. (27) and (34) show that we can perform a matching between the two regimes and:

$$l_0^{}=l_1^{}=l^{}$$
(35)
Physically this result can be regarded as following: In the $`T`$ \- $`l`$ plane we can reach the critical region starting from the quantum regime or from the classical regime. The characteristic temperature in this point is

$$T^{}=T_0\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}$$
(36)
and $`u^{}(l=l^{})`$ calculated from Eq. (14) is

$$u^{}=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{1}{l_0+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}\right)}$$
(37)
This value is very small for $`T<T_0`$ and in this region the perturbation theory is valid.

In the next section we calculate the specific heat in these two regimes.

## IV Free energy and specific heat

The free energy will be calculated from Eqs. (7) and (10) as:

$$\frac{dF}{dl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}F(l)+f^{(0)}[T(l),\mu (l)]$$
(38)
where

$$f^{(0)}[T(l),\mu (l)]=\frac{K_2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega }{2k_BT(l)}\mathrm{tan}^1\frac{\omega }{\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right]}$$
(39)
In order to get the temperature dependence of the free energy and the specific heat we divide the temperature interval in two regimes: $`0x\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}`$ (quantum regime) and $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}xl_M`$, where $`l_M`$ is temperature independent in the classical regime. The general solution of Eq. (38) has the form:

$$F[T(l)]=_0^l𝑑xe^{4x}f^{(0)}[Te^{2x}]$$
(40)
and following  we expand $`f^{(0)}(T)`$ as $`lim_{T0}[f^{(0)}(T)f^{(0)}(0)]T^2`$. In the first regime the contribution of $`f^{(0)}(0)`$ is negligible. In the second regime one may approximate $`f^{(0)}(T)T`$ and from Eq. (30) we get

$$F(T)=F_1T^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}F_2T$$
(41)
where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are constants.

Using now for the specific heat the relation $`C_v=k_BT^2F/T^2`$ we obtain

$$C_v(T)=\gamma _0T+\gamma _1T\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{T_0}$$
(42)
where the first term gives the classic contribution and the last term is the contribution of the non - Fermi excitations.

## V Discussions

The results obtained can be discussed refereing to the experimental result obtained on the $`Zn`$ substitution in cuprate superconductors. The measurements  predicted for zero resistivity a value close to the universal $`2D`$ $`\rho _0h/4e^2`$ and a superconductor - insulator transition. More recent experiments  showed that the suppression of $`d`$ \- wave superconductivity leads to a metallic non - superconductor phase and the metal - insulator transition is suggested at $`k_Fl1`$. At low temperatures $`\rho _{ab}1/T`$ and $`\rho (0)`$ is finite.

The temperature dependence of the specific heat is also different from the behavior of the natural phase , but this was explained by an energy dependent electronic density of states. However, in the very low temperature domain, $`T<1K`$ this dependence can be described by the quantum contribution $`T\mathrm{ln}T/T_0`$ from Eq. (42).

The possibility of a non - Fermi metallic state has been also predicted recently  for a $`2D`$ system with a field - tuned superconductor - insulator transition. Just above the transition, the phase appear to be metallic, but with strong deviation from the Fermi - liquid behavior. Recently , the thermal conductivity measurements in these systems showed a metal - insulator crossover for the normal state and the existence of a low - energy scale in these materials.

The transport properties for such a model, but taking the dissipative term zero, have been performed using RG in . The difference between our results and the results from Ref.  are given by the approximation in the calculation of $`l^{}`$. The normal state has been considered in  as a metal state and the conductivity of this system behaves like in the two \- dimensional metal insulator transition. The dissipation term has in this case the leading role and the singular part of the conductivity calculated in  is not universal just for the case of the particle - hole symmetry. However, the conductivity can be interpolated between this regime and the non - universal case observed by different authors .

An interesting physical picture of the transport was developed by Dalidovich and Philips  using the standard theory  in the critical region. Such a theory is very close to our picture excepting the technical aspects. However, we have to mention that there is an important difference between our RG calculation of $`l^{}`$ and that from Ref. . It is given by the fact that in Ref.  this quantity has been obtained using the results from  where all the calculations have been performed with a singular coupling constant. We showed in  that the calculation of $`l^{}`$ has to be done using $`u(l)=1/(l+l_0)`$, a value which gives a correct critical value for the superfluid temperature. The effect of this difference on the values of the physical observable as conductivity, will be evaluated in a future paper, but preliminary numerical calculation showed that in the low temperature regime the difference is very small.