text:
# Temperature dependences of resistivity and magnetoresistivity for half-metallic ferromagnets

## I Introduction

Half-metallic ferromagnets (HMF)  attract now a growing attention of researchers, first of all, because of their importance for “spintronics”, or spin-dependent electronics . HMF have metallic electronic structure for one spin projection (majority- or minority-spin states), but for the opposite spin direction the Fermi level lies in the energy gap . Therefore the corresponding contributions to electronic transport properties have different orders of magnitude, which can result in a huge magnetoresistance for heterostructures containing HMF . A discovery of the half-metallic ferromagnetism in colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) materials like La1-xSrxMnO3  has increased considerably the interest in this topic. Transport properties of HMF are the subject of numerous experimental investigations (see, e.g., recent works for CrO2  and NiMnSb , and the reviews ). At the same time, the theoretical interpretation of these results is still a problem.

As for electronic scattering mechanisms, the most important difference between HMF and “standard” itinerant electron ferromagnets like iron or nickel is the absence of one-magnon scattering processes in the former case . Two-magnon scattering processes have been considered many years ago for both the broad-band case (weak $`sd`$ exchange interaction)  and narrow-band case (“double exchange model”) . The obtained temperature dependence of the resistivity have the form $`T^{7/2}`$ and $`T^{9/2}`$, respectively. At low enough temperatures the first result fails and should be replaced by $`T^{9/2}`$ as well ; the reason is the compensation of the transverse and longitudinal contributions in the long-wavelength limit which is a consequence of the rotational symmetry of the $`sd`$ exchange Hamiltonian .

Up to now there are no results which describe in the whole temperature region the resistivity of HFM and especially its magnetic-field dependence which is most interesting from the experimental point of view. Such expressions are obtained in Sect.2. Apart from three-dimensional case studied before  we consider also two-dimensional HMF keeping in mind, e.g., layered CMR compounds like LaSr2Mn2O7 (for a review see Ref.) which are almost half-metallic according to the recent band-structure calculations .

Owing to peculiar band structure of HFM, an important role belongs to incoherent (non-quasiparticle) states which occur near the Fermi level because of correlation effects . In Sect.3 we treat the corresponding contributions to resistivity and discuss tunneling phenomena in HMF.

## II Resistivity and magnetoresistivity

To investigate effects of interaction of current carriers with local moments we use the Hamiltonian of the $`sd(f)`$ exchange model

$$=\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}t_𝐤c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }\underset{\mathrm{𝐪𝐤}}{}I_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}𝐒_𝐪c_{𝐤\alpha }^{}𝝈_{\alpha \beta }c_{𝐤𝐪\beta }\underset{𝐪}{}J_𝐪𝐒_𝐪𝐒_𝐪$$
(1)
where $`c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}`$, $`c_{𝐤\sigma }`$ and $`𝐒_𝐪`$ are operators for conduction electrons and localized spins in the quasimomentum representation, the electron spectrum $`t_𝐤`$ is referred to the Fermi level $`E_F`$, $`I_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}`$ is the $`sd(f)`$ exchange parameter which will be put for simplicity $`𝐤`$-independent, $`\sigma `$ are the Pauli matrices. In the spin-wave region we have

$$=_0I(2S)^{1/2}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}{}(c_𝐤^{}c_{𝐤+𝐪}b_𝐪^{}+h.c.)+I\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪𝐩}\sigma }{}\sigma c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤+𝐪𝐩\sigma }b_𝐪^{}b_𝐩$$
(2)
The zero-order Hamiltonian includes non-interacting electrons and magnons,

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}E_{𝐤\sigma }c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\omega _𝐪b_𝐪^{}b_𝐪,`$ (3)
$`E_{𝐤\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`t_𝐤\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }/2,\omega _𝐪=2S(J_0J_𝐪),`$ (4)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2IS`$ being the spin splitting which is included in $`_0`$, $`b_𝐪^{},b_𝐪`$ are the Holstein-Primakoff boson operators. In the half-metallic case the spin-flip processes do not work in the second order in $`I`$ since the states with one spin projection only are present at the Fermi level. At the same time, we have to consider the renormalization of the longitudinal processes in higher orders in $`I`$ (formally, we have to include the terms up to the second order in the quasiclassical small parameter $`1/S`$). To this end we eliminate from the Hamiltonian the terms which are linear in the magnon operators by using the canonical transformation , $`\stackrel{~}{}=e^Ue^U`$ with

$$U=I(2S)^{1/2}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}{}\frac{c_𝐤^{}c_{𝐤+𝐪}b_𝐪^{}}{t_{𝐤+𝐪}t_𝐤+\mathrm{\Delta }}h.c.$$
(5)
Then we obtain the effective Hamiltonian

$$\stackrel{~}{}=_0+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪𝐩}\sigma }{}(𝒜_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}^\sigma +𝒜_{𝐤+𝐪𝐩,𝐪}^\sigma )c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤+𝐪𝐩\sigma }b_𝐪^{}b_𝐩$$
(6)
Here

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}^\sigma =\sigma I\frac{t_{𝐤+𝐪}t_𝐤}{t_{𝐤+𝐪}t_𝐤+\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(7)
is the $`sd`$ scattering amplitude which vanishes at $`q0`$ and thereby takes properly into account the rotational symmetry of electron-magnon interaction. More general interpolation expression for the effective amplitude which does not assume the smallness of $`|I|`$ or $`1/S`$ was obtained in Ref. by a variational approach; it does not differ qualitatively from simple expression (7). In the case of a considerably $`𝐤`$-dependent exchange parameter, which may be relevant for real itinerant magnets including HFM, one has in (6)

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}^\sigma 𝒜_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪𝐩}}^\sigma =\sigma I_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪𝐩}\frac{2I_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}^2S}{t_{𝐤+𝐪}t_𝐤+\sigma S(I_{𝐤+𝐪,𝐤+𝐪}+I_{𝐤,𝐤})}$$
(8)
The most general and rigorous method for calculating the transport relaxation time is the use of the Kubo formula for the conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$

$$\sigma _{xx}=\beta _0^\beta 𝑑\lambda _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon t)j_x(t+i\lambda )j_x$$
(9)
where $`\beta =1/T,`$ $`\epsilon 0,`$

$`𝐣=e{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}𝐯_{𝐤\sigma }c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }`$

is the current operator, $`𝐯_{𝐤\sigma }=E_{𝐤\sigma }/𝐤`$ is the electron velocity. Representing the total Hamiltonian in the form $`=_0+^{}`$, the correlator in (9) may be expanded in the perturbation $`^{}`$ . In the second order we obtain for the electrical resistivity

$$\rho _{xx}=\sigma _{xx}^1=\frac{T}{j_x^2^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t[j_x,^{^{}}(t)][^{^{}},j_x]$$
(10)
where $`^{}(t)`$ is calculated with the Hamiltonian $`_0`$. Provided that the perturbation Hamiltonian has the form

$$^{}=\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤^{}\sigma ^{}}$$
(11)
we obtain

$$\rho _{xx}=\frac{T}{2j_x^2^2}e^2\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}(v_{𝐤\sigma }^xv_{𝐤^{}\sigma ^{}}^x)^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(t)\widehat{W}_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{\sigma ^{}\sigma }\mathrm{exp}[i(E_{𝐤\sigma }E_{𝐤^{}\sigma ^{}})t]$$
(12)
with

$`j_x^2=e^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}(v_𝐤^x)^2n_{𝐤\sigma }(1n_{𝐤\sigma })`$

This approach is equivalent to the solution of the Boltzmann transport equation by the variational method .

In the HFM situation the band states with one spin projection only, $`\sigma =\mathrm{sign}I,`$ are present at the Fermi level . Below we consider the case $`I>0,`$ $`\sigma =+`$ and omit the spin indices in the electron spectrum. We find from Eq.(12) the following expression for the transport relaxation time $`\tau `$ defined by $`\sigma _{xx}=e^2(v^x)^2\tau `$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4T}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}𝐪}{}}(v_𝐤^xv_𝐤^{}^x)^2(𝒜_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}^{}+𝒜_{𝐤^{},𝐪𝐤^{}+𝐤}^{})^2N_𝐪(1+N_{𝐪𝐤^{}+𝐤})`$ (14)
$`\times n_𝐤(1n_𝐤^{})\delta (t_𝐤^{}t_𝐤\omega _𝐪+\omega _{𝐪𝐤^{}+𝐤})/{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(v_𝐤^x)^2\delta (t_𝐤)`$
where $`N_𝐪`$ and $`n_𝐤`$ are the Bose and Fermi functions. A similar expression has been derived first in Ref., but with the replacement of the effective amplitude just by $`I`$. After some transformations we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\tau }=\pi I^2\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩𝐪}}{}(v_𝐤^xv_{𝐤+𝐪𝐩}^x)^2\delta (t_𝐤)\delta (t_{𝐤+𝐪𝐩})(1+N_𝐪)(1+N_𝐩)\left(\frac{t_{𝐤+𝐪}}{t_{𝐤+𝐪}+\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2\frac{\beta (\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪)}{\mathrm{exp}\beta \omega _𝐩\mathrm{exp}\beta \omega _𝐪}/\underset{𝐤}{}(v_𝐤^x)^2\delta (t_𝐤)$$
(15)
Averaging over the angles of the vector $`𝐤`$ leads to the result $`1/\tau I^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}{}f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}\frac{\beta (\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪)|𝐩𝐪|}{\mathrm{exp}\beta \omega _𝐩\mathrm{exp}\beta \omega _𝐪}(1+N_𝐪)(1+N_𝐩)$$
(16)
where $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}=1`$ for $`p,qq_0`$ and

$$f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}=\frac{[𝐩\times 𝐪]^2}{(𝐩𝐪)^2q_0^2}(p,qq_0).$$
(17)
The wavevector $`q_0`$ determines the boundary of the region where $`𝐪`$-dependence of the amplitude become important, so that $`t(𝐤+𝐪)t(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at $`qq_0`$. In the case $`q<q_0`$ the simple perturbation theory fails and we have to take into account the spin splitting by careful collecting the terms of higher orders in $`I`$. In the simple one-band model of HMF where $`E_F<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ one has $`q_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }/W}`$ ($`W`$ is the conduction bandwidth, lattice constant is put to unity) . Generally speaking, $`q_0`$ may be sufficiently small provided that the energy gap is much smaller than $`W`$, which is the case for real HMF systems. A “crossover” wavector may exist in principle even for the narrow-band case (where, instead of spin splitting, the spin subbands have different widths) provided that the Fermi level is close to the gap edge for the spin projection $`\sigma `$.

The quantity $`q_0`$ determines a characteristic temperature and energy scale

$$T^{}=Dq_0^2D(\mathrm{\Delta }/W)$$
(18)
where $`DT_C/S`$ is the spin-wave stiffness defined by $`\omega _{𝐪0}=Dq^2`$, $`T_C`$ is the Curie temperature. Note that in the case of an usual ferromagnetic metal the scale for existence of one-magnon processes is smaller, $`T_1^{}D(\mathrm{\Delta }/W)^2`$.

When estimating temperature dependences of resistivity one has to bear in mind that each power of $`p`$ or $`q`$ yields $`T^{1/2}.`$ At very low temperatures $`T<T^{}`$ small quasimomenta $`p,q<q_0`$ yield main contribution to the integrals. Averaging the quantity (16) over the angle between the vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ we derive

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{8}{15q_0^2}\underset{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}{}(5p_+^2p_{}^2)\frac{p_{}^2}{p_+}\frac{\beta (\omega _𝐩\omega _𝐪)}{\mathrm{exp}\beta \omega _𝐩\mathrm{exp}\beta \omega _𝐪}(1+N_𝐪)(1+N_𝐩)$$
(19)
with $`p_+=\mathrm{max}(p,q),p_{}=\mathrm{min}(p,q)`$. Then we obtain for the resistivity

$$\rho (T)(T/T_C)^{9/2}$$
(20)
Such a dependence was obtained in the narrow-band case (double-exchange model with large $`|I|`$), where the scale $`T^{}`$ is absent , and by the diagram approach in the broad-band case . At the same time, at $`T>T^{}`$ the function $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐪}}`$ in Eq. (16) can be replaced by unity to obtain

$$\rho (T)(T/T_C)^{7/2}$$
(21)
This result is in agreement with the old works .

Now we treat the two-dimensional ($`2D`$) situation which may be appropriate for layered manganites like La2-xCa1+xMn2O7 . At low temperatures we obtain

$$\rho (T<T^{})(T/T_C)^{7/2}$$
(22)
At the same time, for $`T>T^{}`$ we obtain after replacing the scattering amplitude by unity a logarithmically divergent integral which should be cut at $`T^{}`$. Thus we get

$$\rho (T>T^{})(T/T_C)^{5/2}\mathrm{ln}(T/T^{})$$
(23)
To calculate the magnetoresistivity we introduce the gap in the magnon spectrum, $`\omega _{𝐪0}=Dq^2+\omega _0.`$ Provided that the external magnetic field $`H`$ is large in comparison with the anisotropy gap, $`\omega _0`$ is proportional to $`H`$ . In the $`3D`$ case the resistivity at $`T<T^{}`$ is linear in magnetic field,

$$\rho (T,H)\rho (T,0)\omega _0T^{7/2}/T_C^{9/2}$$
(24)
The situation at $`T>T^{}`$ is more interesting since the quantity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\omega _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}q\omega _𝐪N_𝐪(1+N_𝐪){\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _𝐩^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_C}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _𝐩^2}}`$

contains a divergence which is cut at $`\omega _0`$ or $`T^{}`$. We have at $`T>\omega _0,T^{}`$

$$\delta \rho (T,H)\frac{T^3\omega _0}{[\mathrm{max}(\omega _0,T^{})]^{1/2}}$$
(25)
(of course, at $`T<\omega _0`$ the resistivity is exponentially small). A negative $`H`$-linear magnetoresistance was observed recently in CrO2 .

In the $`2D`$ case we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\omega _0}T^{5/2}\underset{𝐩}{}\frac{\varphi (𝐩)}{\omega _𝐩^2}$$
(26)
where $`\varphi (pq_0)=p^2/q_0^2,\varphi (pq_0)=1.`$ This integral diverges logarithmically at $`\omega _0T^{}`$ and as $`\omega _0^1`$ at $`\omega _0T^{}.`$ Taking into account the lower limit cutoff we derive

$`\delta \rho (T,\omega _0`$ $``$ $`T^{})({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_C}})^{5/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{T^{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{\omega _0}},`$ (27)
$`\delta \rho (T,\omega _0`$ $``$ $`T^{})({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_C}})^{5/2}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\mathrm{max}(T,T^{})}}`$ (28)
We see that simple replacement of the electron-magnon scattering amplitude by $`I`$ does not enable one to describe correctly magnetoresistance even at $`H>T^{}.`$

## III Non-quasiparticle contributions to transport properties

Now we treat the impurity contributions to transport properties in the presence of potential scattering (they were considered first in , see also ). To second order in the impurity potential $`V`$ we derive for the electron Green’s function

$$G_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}\sigma }(E)=\delta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}G_{𝐤\sigma }^{(0)}(E)+VG_{𝐤\sigma }^{(0)}(E)G_{𝐤^{}\sigma }^{(0)}(E)[1+V\underset{𝐩}{}G_{𝐩\sigma }^{(0)}(E)]$$
(29)
where

$$G_{𝐤\sigma }^{(0)}(E)=[EE_{𝐤\sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤\sigma }(E)]^1$$
(30)
is the exact Green’s function for the ideal crystal. In the second order in $`I`$ the electron self-energy has the form

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤\sigma }(E)=2I^2S\underset{𝐪}{}\frac{f(\sigma E_{𝐤+𝐪,\sigma })+N_𝐪}{EE_{𝐤+𝐪,\sigma }+\sigma \omega _𝐪}$$
(31)
with $`f(E)`$ the Fermi function.

Neglecting vertex corrections and averaging over impurities we obtain for the transport relaxation time

$$\delta \tau _{imp}^1(E)=2V^2\mathrm{Im}\underset{𝐩}{}G_{𝐩\sigma }^{(0)}(E)$$
(32)
Thus the contributions under consideration are determined by the energy dependence of the density of states $`N(E)`$ for the interacting system near the Fermi level. The most nontrivial dependence comes from the non-quasiparticle (incoherent) states with the spin projection $`\sigma =\mathrm{sign}I,`$ which are present near $`E_F`$ (Fig.1). They originate from the imaginary part of the electron self-energy . We obtain at $`T=0`$

$$\delta N_{incoh}(E)=2I^2S\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}{}f(\sigma E_{𝐤+𝐪,\sigma })\delta (EE_{𝐤+𝐪,\sigma }\sigma \omega _𝐪)/(E_{𝐤+𝐪,\sigma }E_{𝐤,\sigma })^2$$
(33)
The contribution (33) is asymmetric and vanishes at $`E_F`$ (Figs.1,2). Near the Fermi level it is determined by the magnon density of states $`g(\omega )`$ and follows a power law,

$$\delta N_{incoh}(E)_0^{\sigma E}𝑑\omega g(\omega )|E|^\alpha \theta (\sigma E)(|E|\overline{\omega }).$$
(34)
Here $`\overline{\omega }`$ is the maximum magnon frequency, $`\theta (x)`$ is the step function, $`E`$ is referred to $`E_F`$; we have $`\alpha =3/2`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ for $`3D`$ and $`2D`$ cases, respectively. The corresponding correction to resistivity reads

$$\frac{\delta \rho _{imp}(T)}{\rho ^2}=\delta \sigma _{imp}(T)V^2𝑑E\left(\frac{f(E)}{E}\right)\delta N_{incoh}(E)T^\alpha $$
(35)
The contribution of the order of $`T^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 1.65`$ (which is not too far from 3/2) has been observed recently in the temperature dependence of the resistivity for NiMnSb . The incoherent contribution to magnetoresistivity is given by

$$\delta \rho _{imp}(T,H)\omega _0\delta N_{incoh}(\sigma T)/T\omega _0T^{\alpha 1},$$
(36)
so that we obtain a temperature-independent term in the $`2D`$ case.

The non-quasiparticle states in HMF can be probed also by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) since they lead to the unusual temperature dependence for the longitudinal nuclear magnetic relaxation rate, $`1/T_1T^{5/2},`$ instead of the $`T`$-linear Korringa contribution which is absent in HMF . Another useful tool is provided by tunneling phenomena , especially by Andreev reflection spectroscopy for a HMF-superconductor tunnel junction . The most direct way is probably the measurement of a tunnel current between two pieces of HMF with the opposite magnetization directions. To this end we consider a standard tunneling Hamiltonian (see, e.g., Ref. )

$$=_L+_R+\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}{}(T_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}c_𝐤^{}c_𝐩+h.c.)$$
(37)
where $`_{L,R}`$ are the Hamiltonians of the left (right) half-spaces, respectively, $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐩`$ are the corresponding quasimomenta, and spin projections are defined with respect to the magnetization direction of a given half-space (spin is supposed to be conserving in the “global” coordinate system). Carrying out standard calculations of the tunneling current $``$ in the second order in $`T_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}`$ one has (cf. )

$$\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪𝐩}}{}|T_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩}}|^2[1+N_𝐪f(t_{𝐩𝐪})][f(t_𝐤)f(t_𝐤+eV)]\delta (eV+t_𝐤t_{𝐩𝐪}+\omega _𝐪)$$
(38)
where $`V`$ is the bias voltage. For $`T=0`$ one obtains

$$d/dV\delta N_{incoh}(eV).$$
(39)
To conclude, we have considered peculiarities of transport properties of half-metallic ferromagnets which are connected with the unusual electronic structure of these systems. Further experimental investigations would be of great importance, especially keeping in mind possible role of HMF for applications .

The research described was supported in part by Grant No.00-15-96544 from the Russian Basic Research Foundation, by Russian Science Support Foundation, and by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (grant NWO 047-008-16).

figure captions

Fig.1. Density of states in a half-metallic ferromagnet with $`I>0`$. Non-quasiparticle states with $`\sigma =`$ are absent below the Fermi level

Fig.2. Density of states in a half-metallic ferromagnet with $`I<0`$. Non-quasiparticle states with $`\sigma =+`$ occur below the Fermi level


format: text

text:
# Friction in inflaton equations of motion

## Abstract

The possibility of a friction term in the equation of motion for a scalar field is investigated in non-equilibrium field theory. The results obtained differ greatly from existing estimates based on linear response theory, and suggest that dissipation is not well represented by a term of the form $`\eta \dot{\varphi }`$.

Most realizations of inflationary cosmology suppose that at some point in the universe’s early history, its energy content became dominated by a classical scalar field (the inflaton $`\varphi (t)`$), whose equation of motion has the form

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3(\dot{a}/a)\dot{\varphi }+\eta (\varphi )\dot{\varphi }+V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}(\varphi )=0,$$
(1)
where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmic scale factor. The friction term $`\eta (\varphi )\dot{\varphi }`$ is important, because it provides a mechanism whereby the energy of the inflaton may be converted into the matter with which the present universe is filled. It has also been speculated Berera (1995, 2000) that sufficiently large frictional effects might exercise a controlling influence on the inflationary process itself. To derive this term from fundamental physics is, however, not straightforward. In fact, we argue in this letter that existing estimates of the coefficient $`\eta (\varphi )`$ are incorrect, and that dissipation probably cannot be represented by a term $`\eta \dot{\varphi }`$ at all.

The most systematic derivations to be found in the literature rely on linear response theory Morikawa and Sasaki (1985) (see also Morikawa and Sasaki (1984); Hosoya and Sakagami (1984); Gleiser and Ramos (1994); Berera and Ramos (2001)). To be concrete, suppose that $`\varphi (t)`$ is the expectation value of a quantum field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,𝒙)`$ with the self-interaction $`(\lambda /4!)\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ and write $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,𝒙)=\varphi (t)+\chi (t,𝒙)`$. It is sufficient (see below) to deal with the Minkowski-space version of this theory, for which the exact equation of motion is

$$\ddot{\varphi }(t)+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \chi ^2(t,𝒙)\varphi (t)+\mathrm{}=0.$$
(2)
We hope to extract from the expectation value $`\chi ^2(t,𝒙)`$ a contribution proportional to $`\dot{\varphi }`$, and the ellipsis indicates terms that are irrelevant for this purpose. The particles associated with the quantum field $`\chi (t,𝒙)`$ have a time-dependent effective mass $`m^2(t)=m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \varphi ^2(t)`$ and, correspondingly, a time-dependent energy $`\omega _k(t)=\sqrt{k^2+m^2(t)}`$, with $`\dot{\omega }_k=\lambda \varphi \dot{\varphi }/2\omega _k`$. To use linear response theory, we assume that $`\varphi (t)`$ varies slowly on a time scale set by the relaxation times $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^1`$ that characterize the evolution of the state of the $`\chi `$ particles. If we wish to evaluate the equation of motion at time $`t`$, when $`\varphi `$ has the value $`\varphi _0`$, say, then at times $`t^{}`$ not too different from $`t`$ we write $`\varphi (t^{})=\varphi _0+\delta \varphi (t^{})`$ and treat $`\delta \varphi (t^{})\dot{\varphi }(t)(t^{}t)`$ as a small correction. The Hamiltonian for $`\chi `$ is $`H(t^{})H_0+\delta H(t^{})`$, where $`H_0`$ is the constant Hamiltonian obtained by setting $`\varphi (t)=\varphi _0`$ and $`\delta H(t^{})=(\lambda /2)\delta \varphi (t^{})d^3x\left[\chi ^2+\frac{1}{3}\chi ^3\right]`$. We obtain an approximation to $`\chi ^2(t,𝒙)`$ of the Kubo type, namely

$$\chi ^2(t,𝒙)\chi ^2(t,𝒙)^{\mathrm{eq}}+i_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t^{}[\delta H(t^{}),\chi ^2(t,𝒙)]^{\mathrm{eq}},$$
(3)
where the expectation values are taken in the equilibrium state associated with the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, at a fixed temperature $`\beta ^1`$. The second term, proportional to $`\dot{\varphi }`$, can be calculated by the methods of equilibrium perturbation theory le Bellac (2000). To obtain a finite result, one must approximately resum self-energy insertions, which have an imaginary part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$. Assuming that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\omega _k`$, the friction coefficient is

$$\eta (\varphi _0)=\frac{\lambda ^2\varphi _0^2}{8}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{\beta n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(1+n_k^{\mathrm{eq}})}{\omega _k^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(1+2n_k^{\mathrm{eq}})}{\omega _k^5}\right]$$
(4)
where $`n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)=\left[\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega _k(t))1\right]^1`$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function.

Two heuristic arguments Morikawa and Sasaki (1984); Hosoya and Sakagami (1984) indicate the origins of the terms in (4). Morikawa and Sasaki Morikawa and Sasaki (1984) treat $`\chi (t,𝒙)`$ in the first instance as a free field. It can be expanded in terms of annihilation and creation operators $`a_k(t)`$ and $`a_k^{}(t)`$, chosen to diagonalize the free-field Hamiltonian at time $`t`$, whose time dependence arises, in the usual Bogoliubov formalism, from the time-dependent mass $`m(t)`$ – an effect conventionally described as ‘particle creation’. We define two functions $`n_k(t)`$ and $`\nu _k(t)`$ through

$`a_k^{}(t)a_k^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3\delta (𝒌𝒌^{})n_k(t)`$ (5)
$`a_k(t)a_k^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3\delta (𝒌+𝒌^{})\nu _k(t).`$ (6)
Of these, $`n_k(t)`$ (equal to $`n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$ in a state of local equilibrium) counts the number of particles per unit volume with momentum $`k`$, these ‘particles’ being defined as the quanta annihilated by $`a_k(t)`$, while $`\nu _k(t)`$ measures the extent to which the density matrix at time $`t`$ is off-diagonal in the Fock basis associated with this definition of a particle. The expectation value of interest is given by

$$\chi ^2(t,𝒙))=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^32\omega _k}[1+2n_k+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\nu _k],$$
(7)
while $`n_k(t)`$ and $`\nu _k(t)`$ obey the exact evolution equations

$`_tn_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }_k(t)}{\omega _k(t)}}\mathrm{Re}\nu _k(t)`$ (8)
$`_t\nu _k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2i\omega _k(t)\nu _k(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }_k(t)}{2\omega _k(t)}}\left[1+2n_k(t)\right].`$ (9)
It is argued in Ref. Morikawa and Sasaki (1984) that interactions introduce an imaginary part to the self-energy, in effect replacing $`\omega _k`$ with $`\omega _ki\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$. Then, with the further assumption that all the functions in (9) are approximately constant over a time interval of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^1`$, this equation can be integrated, yielding a contribution to $`\nu _k(t)`$ that reproduces the second term of (4), except that $`n_k(t)`$ need not have its equilibrium value.

Hosoya and Sakagami Hosoya and Sakagami (1984) identify the first term of (4) as arising from $`n_k(t)`$ in (7) by assuming that the evolution of this function is described by the kinetic equation

$$_tn_k(t)=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\left[n_k(t)n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)\right],$$
(10)
sometimes called the relaxation-time approximation to the Boltzmann equation. On writing $`n_k(t)=n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)+\delta n_k(t)`$, with $`_tn_k^{\mathrm{eq}}=\beta \dot{\omega }_kn_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(1+n_k^{\mathrm{eq}})`$, and assuming again that everything changes sufficiently slowly on a time scale of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^1`$, we obtain a solution for $`\delta n_k`$ which, when inserted into (7), reproduces the first term of (4).

The ad hoc features of these heuristic arguments (specifically, the fact that equations (8) and (9) apply only to a free field theory, while the kinetic equation (10) is essentially a guess) are largely avoided by the linear response calculations based on (3), developed by the same authors. However, the evaluation of the expectation values in (3) relies in an essential way on analytic properties of thermal Green functions (arising from the so-called KMS condition) which apply only to a state of exact thermal equilibrium, and have no analogue for a system that departs, even to a small extent, from equilibrium. Since the equation of motion (1) implies a non-equilibrium state in which $`\varphi `$ changes with time, it is important to know whether the result (4) applies to the slow-evolution limit of a non-equilibrium state. If it does, it might also serve as a useful approximation when the evolution is not especially slow. (Even in equilibrium, the expression (4) may be unreliable owing to large corrections from higher orders of perturbation theory Jeon (1993, 1995); Jeon and Yaffe (1996), but we do not address that issue here.)

To investigate this question, we have derived improved versions of equations (8) - (10) which, though approximate, take systematic account both of interactions and of non-equilibrium time evolution. They can be expressed as

$`ϵ_tn_k`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(1+2n_k)+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }_k}{\omega _k}}\mathrm{Re}\nu _k`$ (11)
$`ϵ_t\nu _k`$ $`=`$ $`2i(\omega _ki\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)\nu _k\alpha _k+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }_k}{2\omega _k}}(1+2n_k),`$ (12)
where $`\alpha _k`$ is a function whose meaning will be explained shortly, while $`ϵ`$, which has the value 1, has been introduced as a formal parameter to generate a time-derivative expansion.

Details of the somewhat lengthy derivation of these equations will be reported elsewhere, but the essential strategy is the following. We deal with Green functions $`\rho (t,𝒙;t^{},𝒙^{})=i[\chi (t,𝒙),\chi (t^{},𝒙^{})]`$ and $`C(t,𝒙;t^{},𝒙^{})=\frac{1}{2}\{\chi (t,𝒙),\chi (t^{},𝒙^{})\}`$, where $`[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes the commutator and $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ the anticommutator. In particular, the expectation value that we wish to evaluate is given by

$$\chi ^2(t,𝒙)=C(t,𝒙;t,𝒙).$$
(13)
These Green functions obey exact Dyson-Schwinger equations, which are conveniently expressed (see, e.g., Ref. Aarts and Berges (2001)) in terms of self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_C`$ as

$`[_t^2+\omega _k^2(t)]\rho (t,t^{};𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho (t,t^{\prime \prime };𝒌)\rho (t^{\prime \prime },t^{};𝒌)`$
$`[_t^2+\omega _k^2(t)]C(t,t^{};𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho (t,t^{\prime \prime };𝒌)C(t^{\prime \prime },t^{};𝒌)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Sigma }_C(t,t^{\prime \prime };𝒌)\rho (t^{\prime \prime },t^{};𝒌)`$
after a spatial Fourier transform. Our basic approximation is to introduce local ansätze for the self-energies. First, the commutator function $`\rho (t,t^{};𝒌)`$ reduces in thermal equilibrium to the spectral density, whose temporal Fourier transform can reasonably (though not exactly) be represented by a Breit-Wigner function, characterized by a thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$. The corresponding non-equilibrium approximation is equivalent to the assumption

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho (t,t^{};𝒌)2\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t^{})\right]^{1/2}_t\delta (tt^{}).$$
(16)
Then, given that correlations decay roughly exponentially with time, on the time scale set by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)`$, it is reasonable to approximate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_C`$, which is symmetric in its time arguments, as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_C(t,t^{};𝒌)2\omega _k(t)\alpha _k(t)\delta (tt^{}).$$
(17)
The functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)`$ and $`\alpha _k(t)`$ remain to be determined. On substituting these ansätze into the Dyson-Schwinger equations, we obtain a pair of local differential equations for approximate Green functions, say $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{C}`$. These equations can be solved in terms of auxiliary functions $`n_k(t)`$ and $`\nu _k(t)`$ that satisfy the evolution equations (11) and (12). In particular, $`\widehat{C}(t,𝒙;t,𝒙)`$ is then given precisely by the expression (7). In the interacting theory, though, one cannot identify $`n_k(t)`$ and $`\nu _k(t)`$ unambiguously in terms of the expectation values (5) and (6).

The approximate Green functions obtained in this way can be taken to serve as the lowest-order propagators in a partially-resummed perturbation theory, similar to that described in Ref. Lawrie (1989). The result of substituting the solutions of (11) and (12) into the expression (7) is the expectation value $`\chi ^2(t,𝒙)`$ evaluated at the lowest order of this perturbation theory. Here, we shall be satisfied with this lowest-order estimate, though the approximation can in principle be pursued to arbitrarily high orders. Equally, this perturbation theory can be used to evaluate the self-energies in (16) and (17). With a suitable prescription for extracting local approximations to these self-energies, we obtain concrete expressions for the functions $`\alpha _k(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)`$. At 2-loop order, we find

$`\alpha _k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3k_1d^3k_2d^3k_3\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega _k\omega _{k_1}\omega _{k_2}\omega _{k_3}}}`$
$`\times \left[(1+n_{k_1})(1+n_{k_2})n_{k_3}+n_{k_1}n_{k_2}(1+n_{k_3})\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3k_1d^3k_2d^3k_3\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega _k\omega _{k_1}\omega _{k_2}\omega _{k_3}}}`$
$`\times \left[(1+n_{k_1})(1+n_{k_2})n_{k_3}n_{k_1}n_{k_2}(1+n_{k_3})\right]`$
where $`c=\lambda ^2\pi ^2/64(2\pi )^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the product of delta functions that conserve energy and momentum in the 2-body collisions $`(𝒌_1,𝒌_2)(𝒌_3,𝒌)`$.

With these expressions for $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$, the evolution equation (11) for $`n_k(t)`$ is just what we might expect: a genuine Boltzmann equation in place of the approximate version hypothesized in (10). The quantity $`S_k=\alpha _k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(1+2n_k)`$ is the scattering integral that accounts for the net rate of change of the number of particles with momentum $`k`$ due to collisions, while the remaining term is the source term from (8) associated with particle creation. An heuristic expectation for the evolution of $`\nu _k(t)`$ is not easy to formulate. We can observe in (12), though, that $`\omega _k`$ has indeed been replaced with $`\omega _ki\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ in the first term of (9), though not elsewhere.

We investigate the solution of (11) and (12) in the limit of slow time evolution by expanding in powers of the formal parameter $`ϵ`$, so as to generate a time-derivative expansion. For $`n_k(t)`$, the leading term is just the Bose-Einstein distribution $`n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$, which makes $`S_k`$ vanish. The inverse temperature $`\beta `$ is, of course, a free parameter specifying a particular state. For $`\nu _k(t)`$, the leading term is

$$\nu _k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)=\frac{i\alpha _k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)}{2[\omega _k(t)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)]}=\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)[1+2n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)]}{2[\omega _k(t)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)]}$$
(20)
where $`\alpha _k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$ are the above expressions with $`n_k=n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(t)`$. The next-to-leading terms $`\delta n_k(t)`$ and $`\delta \nu _k(t)`$ are proportional to $`\dot{\varphi }`$, and it is from these that we can obtain $`\eta (\varphi )`$ by substitution in (7). Here, we use the auxiliary approximation that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}\omega _k`$. This slightly simplifies the numerical calculations to which we must shortly resort, but we have adopted it primarily for consistency with the strategy that leads to the linear-response result (4), with which we plan to compare our own. With this approximation, we find that

$$\mathrm{Re}\delta \nu _k=\frac{1}{2\omega _k^2}\left[\frac{\dot{\omega }_k}{2\omega _k}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}(1+2n_k^{\mathrm{eq}})\omega _k_t\mathrm{Im}\nu _k^{\mathrm{eq}}\right]$$
(21)
while $`\delta n_k`$ is the solution of the integral equation

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k^{}K(k,k^{})\delta n_k^{}=_tn_k^{\mathrm{eq}}\frac{\dot{\omega }_k}{\omega _k}\mathrm{Re}\nu _k^{\mathrm{eq}},$$
(22)
with $`K(k,k^{})=\delta S_k/\delta n_k^{}|_{n_k=n_k^{\mathrm{eq}}}`$.

At this point, we observe that the linear-response result can be recovered by means of two further approximations. The first is to set $`K(k,k^{})=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{\mathrm{eq}}\delta (kk^{})`$, which means replacing $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ in (11) with their equilibrium values. The second is to take the time dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)`$ to be of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)\mathrm{const}./\omega _k(t)`$. This amounts to replacing the ansatz (16) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(t)i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho ^{\mathrm{eq}}(\omega _k,𝒌)/2\omega _k(t)`$, and taking the equilibrium self-energy to be constant.

To avoid these extra approximations, we must, in particular, solve the integral equation (22) using the full kernel $`K(k,k^{})`$. This equation is in fact not self-consistent. The reason is that the scattering integral $`S_k`$ conserves both energy and (at 2-loop order where only elastic collisions are included) particle number. This implies two sum rules

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2K(k,k^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2\omega _kK(k,k^{})=0,$$
(23)
which are not respected by the right-hand side of (22). In principle, the equation has no solution. This means that the time-derivative expansion does not exist, and that dissipation cannot properly be represented by a term proportional to $`\dot{\varphi }`$ in the equation of motion. Nevertheless, we have obtained numerical solutions to (22) that are rather well defined. This is possible because the right-hand side becomes very small as $`k`$ increases beyond quite modest values and the same turns out to be true of the solution $`\delta n_k`$. In effect, the solution involves only a truncated kernel, which is not constrained by the sum rules. The existence of this approximate solution allows us to construct an effective friction coefficient, and thus to quantify the effect of the extra approximations that lead to (4). The effect is rather large, as indicated in figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows the dimensionless quantity $`\sigma =\eta (\varphi )m/(128\pi \varphi ^2)`$, calculated from the linear response formula (4) as a function of the coupling strength $`c`$ defined above, for selected values of the dimensionless parameter $`\beta m`$.

The haphazard appearance of the four curves, which have essentially the same shape when viewed on appropriate scales, is explained by a competition between the two terms in (4). Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ is proportional to $`c`$, weak coupling favours the first term, which is a decreasing function of temperature, while strong coupling favours the second term, which increases with temperature.

Figure 2 shows $`\sigma `$ as calculated numerically from equations (21) and (22). Not only does the magnitude differ by factors of several hundred, but $`\sigma `$ turns out to be negative at weak coupling. (Strictly, it is only at weak coupling that the assumption $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\omega _k`$ holds.) Of course, a negative friction coefficient does not make good physical sense: it clearly reflects the breakdown of the time-derivative expansion noted above.

We estimate the accuracy of the numerical integrals used to obtain $`K(k,k^{})`$ and to evaluate (7) as about 1%, and have verified the sum rules (23) at this level. The solution of (22) for $`\delta n_k`$ is such that the left and right-hand sides of this equation differ by no more than one part in $`10^7`$ (i.e. the solution is valid to full single-precision accuracy) and we have verified that the whole procedure converges to the results shown as the momentum cutoff used in (7) and (22) is increased.

These results strongly indicate that linear response theory gives the wrong answer to this problem, and the reason may be this. The formula (4) arises from the second term in (3) where, for the mode of momentum $`k`$, the time integral amounts to an average over a time interval of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^1`$. During this time interval, the actual state of the system changes by an amount of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^1\dot{\varphi }`$, so the putative equilibrium state represented by $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is uncertain by an amount of this order. Thus, the first term of (3) is ill-defined by an amount proportional to $`\dot{\varphi }`$ that could well be comparable with, or greater than, the quantity we extract from the second.

Two final remarks are in order. First, the field theory in an expanding universe is equivalent, in conformal time, to a Minkowski-space theory with a mass $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that depends on $`a(t)`$. Applied to this theory, the time-derivative expansion generates additional terms, proportional to $`\dot{a}/a`$, which may be important, but do not affect our conclusions about the term proportional to $`\dot{\varphi }`$. Second, the results presented here may be specific to the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ model. The dynamics of fermions to which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ might couple can be represented Lawrie and McKernan (2000) by evolution equations similar to (11) and (12), but $`K(k,k^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ are different, and the solution may be very sensitive to this difference.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge discussions with Arjun Berera and Rudnei Ramos, which prompted the study reported here, and to thank Jim Morgan for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.