text:
# Low temperature decoherence by electron-electron interactions: Role of quantum fluctuations

## I Introduction

The electron decoherence time in disordered conductors saturates to a finite value at low temperatures MW . In Ref. GZ1  we offered an explanation of this effect attributing it to electron-electron interactions. This explanation was supported by a detailed nonperturbative calculation GZ2  and the results GZ1 ; GZ2  are in a good agreement with experimental findings MW . Subsequently Aleiner et al. (AAG) developed an alternative – perturbative in the interaction – calculation AAG  and claimed that the results of the latter ($`i`$) contradict to our results GZ1 ; GZ2  and ($`ii`$) yield zero electron dephasing rate at $`T0`$. AAG also claimed (Sec. 6.1 and 6.2 of AAG ) that they have found a “mistake” in our calculation GZ2 .

All these claims AAG  have been carefully analyzed and demonstrated to be in error GZ3 . We have argued that (a) the perturbative calculation AAG  yields ambiguous results and, hence, is useless for the problem of electron dephasing at low temperatures, (b) even if one adopts the perturbative strategy AAG  one recovers a finite electron dephasing time at $`T0`$, (c) on a perturbative level our results GZ2  do agree with those of Ref. AAG  and (d) the claim AAG  about “missing diagrams” in our calculation is wrong. This discussion and further arguments on low temperature dephasing due to electron-electron interactions were reviewed in Ref. GZS .

Recently Aleiner et al. (AAV) AAV  have made another attempt to challenge our results and conclusions. One of the goals of the present paper is to analyze and refute these new criticisms. In particular, we will point out that the replacement of “the density matrix by its Wigner transform”, eq. (5) of AAV , claimed by AAV as “the main source of the mistake” was not performed at all in our derivation of the effective action, cf. eq. (43) of Ref. GZ2 . We will also analyze and prove irrelevant another suggestion of AAV, that the term $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ in the effective action GZ2  should contain an imaginary part which – according to AAV – would be responsible for the well-known cancellation of “coth” and “tanh” in the first order perturbation theory at $`T0`$.

Since AAV’s critique of our calculation is essentially restricted to these two claims FN0 ; sec , the above observations are already sufficient to conclude this discussion. However, taking into account fundamental importance of the issue, we have performed an additional analysis aimed to construct a complete solution of the problem. Our main goal is to evaluate the weak localization (WL) correction to the conductivity in the presence of interactions making no approximations beyond the accuracy of the definition of this quantity. This solution is worked out below and our main result is presented in eqs. (40)-(42).

Our paper is organized as follows. After brief remarks on physics and experiment (Section 2) we demonstrate (in Section 3) that AAV’s perturbative calculation AAV  is unsuitable for the problem of quantum decoherence of electrons at low $`T`$. In Section 4 we briefly recollect our earlier results and, making use of general arguments, explain why our path integral analysis GZ2 ; GZ3 ; GZS  is sufficient for the problem in question. The main results of this paper are presented in Section 5. We first derive a formally exact expression for the conductivity of an arbitrary disordered conductor in the presence of electron-electron interactions (Sec. 5A) and then use it to explicitly evaluate the WL correction to all orders in the interaction (Sec. 5B and 5C). This analysis confirms our previous results GZ2 ; GZ3  and extends them by fully accounting for quantum fluctuations around the classical paths for interacting electrons. We compare our results with those of other authors and present further discussion in Sec. 5D and 5E. In Section 6 we specifically address and refute AAV’s critique AAV  of our earlier calculation. A brief summary is presented in Section 7. Some technical details are relegated to Appendix.

## II Physics and experiment

In Ref. AAV  AAV pointed out that our results and conclusions GZ1 ; GZ2 ; GZ3 ; GZS  are “physically inconsistent” with the qualitative arguments AAG  against quantum dephasing in the zero temperature limit. According to these authors quantum decoherence would be impossible in a subsystem of any interacting quantum system provided the latter is close to equilibrium at $`T0`$. At this point we note that the arguments AAG  contradict not only to our conclusions but also to numerous results for various other models – including exactly solvable ones – where quantum decoherence of one degree of freedom is obtained as a result of its interaction with others even at $`T0`$, see, e.g., Weiss . Hence, no general proof can be constructed which would rule out interaction-induced quantum decoherence at $`T0`$. The conclusion about the presence or absence of zero temperature dephasing in any given model can only be obtained from a detailed calculation, not on the basis of “general arguments”.

AAV also claimed AAV  that there exists an “overwhelming experimental evidence” against our statements. By means of a detailed comparison with the experimental data we have demonstrated that our predictions are in a good quantitative agreement with numerous experiments (see, e.g., Refs. GZ1 ; GZ2 ; GZS ; GZ98 ) including those (see Section 5 of Ref. GZS ) where for some samples no saturation of $`\tau _\phi `$ was claimed down to $`T50`$ mK. Therefore, a bulk piece of existing experimental results – including very recent ones Ba ; Mo  – clearly supports the conclusion about the presence of interaction-induced dephasing at low $`T`$ rather than argues against it.

## III Insufficiency of AAV’s perturbative approach

In Refs. GZ3 ; GZS  we have already explained in details why perturbative in the interaction techniques – especially if combined with the Golden rule approximation – are insufficient for the problem in question. However, since AAV still keep using such techniques, we will briefly repeat our arguments adopting them to the calculation AAV .

In Ref. AAV  AAV have related the dephasing time $`\tau _\phi `$ for an electron in a disordered conductor to the self-energy for the Cooperon. Expressing the Cooperon in the form

$$𝒞(\omega ,Q,ϵ)=\frac{1}{i\omega +DQ^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,Q,ϵ)},$$
(1)
they have defined the dephasing time at $`T=0`$ as follows

$$\tau _\phi ^1=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega =0,Q=0,ϵ),$$
(2)
see the unnumbered equation after eq. (2) of AAV . This definition is ambiguous since the self-energy is a function of $`ϵ`$ whereas $`\tau _\phi `$ in our problem is a function of temperature $`T`$ but not of $`ϵ`$. The ambiguity disappears only at $`T0`$, since according to Eq. (1) of Ref. AAV  in this limit one should set $`ϵ0`$. Another drawback of the definition (2) is that the self-energy is evaluated only in the limit $`Q=0`$. However, the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on the momentum $`Q`$ in eq. (1) cannot be a priori neglected.

In addition to the above approximations, AAV suggested to replace the exact self-energy in Eq. (2) by the result of the first order perturbation theory in the interaction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(\omega ,Q,ϵ):`$

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\phi ^{\mathrm{AAV}}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(\omega =0,Q=0,ϵ=0).$$
(3)
This suggestion constitutes their major mistake. Quite obviously, it is not possible to recover the unknown function (in our case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) if one only evaluates the first order term ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$) of its Taylor expansion.

In order to illustrate this point it suffices to consider the following simple example. Assume, for instance, that the “Cooperon” $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(t)`$ depends weakly on the coordinates and neglect this dependence. We also assume that in the presence of interactions this “Cooperon” decays in time as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(t)=\theta (t)(1+\alpha t)\mathrm{e}^{(\alpha +\beta T)t},$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are proportional to the interaction strength, i.e (4) reduces to $`\theta (t)`$ in the absence of interactions. After the Fourier transformation of (4) one readily finds

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\omega )}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha +\beta T)^2i\omega \beta T}{2\alpha +\beta Ti\omega }}.`$ (5)
Combining (5) with the definition (2) we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }=\frac{\alpha +\beta T}{1+\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +\beta T}},$$
(6)
i.e. at $`T0`$ one arrives at a non-zero dephasing rate

$$\tau _\phi ^1=\alpha /2.$$
(7)
Let us now evaluate $`\tau _\phi `$ for the same example following the approach of AAV. For this purpose we expand the exact expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\omega )`$ (5) in powers of interaction and get

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\omega )=\beta T+\frac{\alpha ^2}{i\omega }+\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
Keeping only the first order contribution to the self-energy, from AAV’s eq. (3) we find

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\phi ^{\mathrm{AAV}}}=\beta T.$$
(9)
This result differs drastically from the exact one (6) at sufficiently low temperatures. In particular, at $`T0`$ the dephasing rate (9) vanishes, while the exact expression approaches a non-zero (linear in the interaction) value (7). Furthermore, all higher order terms in the expansion (8) do not vanish at $`T0`$ and, moreover, diverge at small $`\omega `$.

The reason for the failure of AAV’s perturbative approach is, of course, obvious from eq. (5): An expansion of this expression in powers of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is only justified for $`\omega \alpha +\beta T`$, i.e. in the limit of high frequencies or short times. We, in contrast, are interested in the opposite limit of small frequencies or long times. Thus, AAV simply missed the low temperature contribution to the dephasing rate by inadequately extending their perturbative expansion of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,Q,ϵ)`$ to low frequencies, whereas it can be applied at high frequencies only.

Our simple example, eq. (5), also illustrates irrelevance of the claim AAV  that our approach “is equivalent to calculating only a single contribution $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(\mathrm{b})}`$ to the self-energy and using the conventional Dyson equation”. AAV arrived at this conclusion simply by observing the combination $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(\mathrm{b})}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(\mathrm{c}\mathrm{f})}\beta T`$ in their first order perturbative result (cf. eqs. (3,4) in AAV ) and comparing it with our result, which contains not only $`\beta T`$ but also the $`T`$-independent contribution. The only – superficial – reason for Aleiner et al. to perform this comparison and to qualify our results as “purely perturbative” is that our expression for the dephasing rate “is proportional to the first power of the fluctuation propagator” AAG . We hope it should be sufficiently clear from eq. (5) that linear in the interaction expression (7) is non-perturbative and, hence, it cannot be obtained by a simple expansion (8) of the self-energy $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\omega )`$ in the interaction.

In order to avoid misunderstandings FNAAV  let us emphasize that the above example (4) is not meant to be an explicit solution for the problem with electron-electron interactions. This solution will be worked out below in Sec. 5. Eq. (4) is just an illustration of one of the drawbacks of the perturbative approach AAV  to the problem of quantum dephasing. In the problem with disorder and electron-electron interactions the situation turns out to be by far more complicated. For instance, already the first order result diverges both with time and at large frequencies in 1d and 2d systems, see, e.g., eq. (70) of Ref. GZ3 .

## IV Path integral analysis: exponent

An important advantage of our path integral approach is the possibility to describe the long-time behavior of the Cooperon with exponential accuracy, which is sufficient for the problem in question. This approach is free from ambiguities inherent to the perturbation theory AAG ; AAV .

We define the kernel of the evolution on the Keldysh contour in terms of the path integral GZ2 ; GZ3 ; GZS

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟p_1𝒟x_1𝒟p_2𝒟x_2}`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(iS_0[p_1,x_1]iS_0[p_2,x_2]iS_\mathrm{R}[p_1,x_1,p_2,x_2]S_\mathrm{I}[x_1,x_2])}`$
Here $`S_0[p,x]=_0^t𝑑t^{}[p\dot{x}p^2/2mU_{\mathrm{imp}}(x)]`$ is the action of a noninteracting electron in a disordered potential of impurities and the terms $`iS_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ describe the effect of the bath (formed by all the electrons) on the motion of a single electron. This form of the effective action for an interacting particle is standard in the Feynman-Vernon theory of influence functionals FH . The path integral (10) is evaluated within a semiclassical approximation controlled by the parameter $`k_Fl1`$. For a $`d`$-dimensional conductor we find

$$𝒞(t,x=0)=\theta (t)\frac{A_d(t)}{(4\pi Dt)^{d/2}}\mathrm{e}^{f_d(t)},$$
(11)
where $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient, $`A_d(t)`$ is pre-exponent ($`A_d(t)1`$ without interactions), and the function $`f_d(t)`$ is obtained by evaluating the influence functional on pairs of classical time-reversed paths. The result can be written in the form GZ3

$$f_d(t)=\alpha t+\delta f_d(T,t),$$
(12)
where the function $`\delta f_d(T,t)`$ is $`Tt^{3/2}`$ for $`d=1`$ and $`Tt\mathrm{ln}Tt`$ for $`d=2`$ in the limit $`Tt1`$, while it is $`\sqrt{t}\mathrm{ln}t`$ for $`d=1`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ in the opposite limit $`Tt1`$. The linear dependence $`\delta f_d(T,t)Tt`$ strictly applies for $`d=3`$.

It is also instructive to explicitly indicate the dependence of our results on the Plank’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$. At $`T0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{ln}[𝒞_d(t)/𝒞_d^{(0)}(t)]=\frac{S^{(\mathrm{cl})}(t)}{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{ln}[A_d(\mathrm{},t)],$$
(13)
where $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}at`$ is the classical ($`\mathrm{}`$-independent) action on time-reversed saddle point paths ($`a`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$-independent and $`\alpha a/\mathrm{}`$) and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}A_d`$ represents the quantum correction to the classical action. This quantum correction can only be important if $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$ is small as compared to $`\mathrm{}`$, i.e. at times $`t\mathrm{}/a`$. The perturbative approach AAG ; AAV  applies only in this limit. On the other hand, for nonzero $`t`$ the quantum correction $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}A_d`$ should vanish at $`\mathrm{}0`$. Already because of this reason it cannot cancel the classical part of the action $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}\mathrm{}`$. It is therefore sufficient to evaluate the $`\mathrm{}`$-independent part of $`iS_\mathrm{R}S_\mathrm{I}`$ on pairs of classical time-reversed paths and obtain the dephasing time from the condition $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}(\tau _\phi )\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore, it turns out that $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ vanishes for such paths GZ2  implying that $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ can only contribute to the pre-exponent but not to $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$. Hence, $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ is irrelevant for $`\tau _\phi `$ and the idea that quantum fluctuations around the time-reversed classical paths generate the $`S_\mathrm{R}`$-dependent contribution to the classical action can be rejected on general grounds without any calculation Fl .

This is the logics behind our saddle point analysis GZ2 ; GZ3  which AAV AAV  attempted to challenge. The only way to support the AAV’s arguments is to prove that at $`T0`$ the term $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ provides a contribution to $`A_d`$ proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(at/\mathrm{})`$ which grows exponentially with time and diverges in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ \[in Ref. AAV  such a contribution was claimed to be provided by the terms $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(\mathrm{c}\mathrm{f})}`$\]. Below we will explicitly evaluate not only $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$ but also the quantum correction to the effective action in all orders in the interaction. We will demonstrate that – in contrast to the AAV’s claims – the $`S_\mathrm{R}`$-dependent pre-exponent cannot grow at sufficiently long times and, hence, in no way can compensate an exponentially decaying contribution from the $`S_\mathrm{I}`$-terms.

## V Decoherence by interactions

### V.1 Exact results

In the beginning we will closely follow the analysis of Ref. GZ2  where the interested reader can find further details. We start from the general quantum mechanical expression for the linear conductivity $`\sigma `$ which can be written in the form

$$\sigma =\frac{e}{3i\mathrm{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}\mathrm{tr}\left(\widehat{j}(x)\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{})[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})]\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)\right)_V$$
(14)
Here the current density operator is defined via

$$x_1|\widehat{j}(x)|x_2=\frac{\mathrm{}e}{im}\left[_{x_1}\delta _{x_1,x}\delta _{x_2,x}\delta _{x_1,x}_{x_2}\delta _{x_2,x}\right]$$
(15)
and $`\mathrm{}_V`$ implies averaging over the fluctuating quantum fields $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ which mediate Coulomb interaction between electrons. In eq. (14) and below we implicitly assume averaging over the coordinate $`x`$ where the current density is evaluated.

The evolution operators $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ in (14) are

$$\widehat{U}_{1,2}(t,t^{})=𝑻\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_t^{}^t𝑑\tau \widehat{H}_{1,2}(\tau )\right],$$
(16)
where

$`\widehat{H}_1(t)=\widehat{H}_0\mu e\widehat{V}^+(t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[12\widehat{\rho }_V(t)]e\widehat{V}^{}(t),`$
$`\widehat{H}_2(t)=\widehat{H}_0\mu e\widehat{V}^+(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e\widehat{V}^{}(t)[12\widehat{\rho }_V(t)],`$ (17)
and $`\widehat{H}_0=\widehat{p}^2/2m+U_{\mathrm{imp}}(\widehat{x})`$ is the Hamiltonian of a non-interacting electron. The density matrix $`\rho _V(t^{})`$ obeys the non-linear equation

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }_V}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{H}_0e\widehat{V}^+,\widehat{\rho }_V]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\widehat{\rho }_V)e\widehat{V}^{}\widehat{\rho }_V`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_Ve\widehat{V}^{}(1\widehat{\rho }_V).`$
Averaging of $`\rho _V(t)`$ over $`V^\pm `$ yields the exact single electron density matrix in the presence of disorder and Coulomb interactions. The next steps in Refs. GZ2 ; GZS  were to express the kernels of the operators $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ in terms of the path integrals and average their product over the fluctuating fields $`V^\pm `$. After that one arrives at the path integral (10).

At this point we depart from the analysis of Refs. GZ2 ; GZS . We will postpone using the path integrals and continue exact manipulations with the operators. We first note that the solution of eq. (18) with the initial condition $`\widehat{\rho }_V(0)=\widehat{\rho }_0[1+\mathrm{e}^{(\widehat{H}_0\mu )/T}]^1`$ can be expressed in the following exact form

$$\widehat{\rho }_V(t)=\left[1+\widehat{u}_2(t,0)\mathrm{e}^{(\widehat{H}_0\mu )/T}\widehat{u}_1(0,t)\right]^1,$$
(19)
where we have defined

$$\widehat{u}_{1,2}(t,t^{})=𝑻\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_t^{}^t𝑑\tau \widehat{\stackrel{~}{H}}_{1,2}(\tau )\right]$$
(20)
and

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{H}}_{1,2}=\widehat{H}_0(t^{})\mu e\widehat{V}^+(t^{})e\widehat{V}^{}(t^{})/2.$$
(21)
We then observe that the operators $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ satisfy the Schrödinger equation

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{})=\widehat{H}_1(t)\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{}),\widehat{U}_1(t^{},t^{})=\widehat{1},`$
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)=\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)\widehat{H}_2(t),\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t^{})=\widehat{1}.`$ (22)
The solutions of (22) can be found exactly. They are

$`\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{})=[1\widehat{\rho }_V(t)]u_1(t,t^{})[1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})]^1,`$
$`\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)=[1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})]^1u_2(t^{},t)[1\widehat{\rho }_V(t)].`$ (23)
Combining these expressions with eq. (19) one can rewrite the operators (23) in the following identical form

$`\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{})=[(1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{}))\widehat{u}_1(t^{},t)+\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})\widehat{u}_2(t^{},t)]^1,`$
$`\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)=[\widehat{u}_2(t,t^{})(1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{}))+\widehat{u}_1(t,t^{})\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})]^1.`$ (24)
Eqs. (24) is our key technical result. Together with eqs. (14,15) this result provides a formally exact expression for the linear conductivity of an arbitrary disordered conductor in the presence of electron-electron interactions. All the diagrams of the perturbation theory in all orders in the interaction are fully contained in the above expressions and can be recovered by expanding (24) in $`V^\pm `$ with subsequent averaging over these fields. For instance, expanding (24) to the second order in $`V^\pm `$, after averaging one arrives at contributions of the type $`V^+V^+`$ and $`V^+(12\widehat{\rho })V^{}`$ which yield respectively “coth” and “tanh” terms in the perturbation theory AAG ; GZ3 .

Thus, making no approximations we have demonstrated that the time evolution of the single electron density matrix in the presence of interactions is determined by the operators $`\widehat{u}_{1,2}(t,t^{})`$ (20) which do not contain the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_V`$ at all. We also note that the operators $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ (24) depend on the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_V`$ taken at the initial time $`t^{}`$ only but not at later time moments. Below we will make use of these features and evaluate the WL correction to conductivity to all orders in the interaction.

### V.2 Quasiclassics

Let us first prepare the main building blocks of our calculation of the WL correction. This calculation will then be completed in Sec. 5C.

To begin with, we notice that in eqs. (24) relative contributions of the evolution operators $`\widehat{u}_{1,2}(t,t^{})`$ are “weighted” by the factors $`1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$. In the low temperature limit almost at any electron energy one of these factors dominates over the other FN1 . Hence, one of the two operators $`\widehat{u}_1`$ or $`\widehat{u}_2`$ in (24) can be neglected except if the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$ are close to 1/2. Consider, e.g., small eigenvalues of this operator. This situation describes electrons with energies above the Fermi level. In this case terms containing $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$ in (24) can be neglected and we arrive at the following contribution to $`x_1|\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{})[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})]\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)|x_2`$:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2x_1|\widehat{u}_1(t,t^{})|z_1z_2|\widehat{u}_2(t^{},t)|x_2}`$
$`\times z_1|[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})]|z_2.`$ (25)
Let us express the matrix elements of the operators $`\widehat{u}_{1,2}`$ via the path integrals

$$y_{1,2}|\widehat{u}_{1,2}(t,t^{})|z_{1,2}=\underset{y_{1,2}}{\overset{z_{1,2}}{}}𝒟x(\tau )e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{1,2}[x(\tau )]},$$
(26)
where $`S_{1,2}`$ are the exact actions pertaining to the Hamiltonians (21)

$`S_{1,2}=S_0+e{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau [V^+(\tau ,x(\tau ))\pm V^{}(\tau ,x(\tau ))/2],`$ (27)
$`S_0={\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{m\dot{x}^2(\tau )}{2}}U_{\mathrm{imp}}(x(\tau ))\right).`$ (28)
We emphasize again that eqs. (26-28) are exact and they do not contain the electron density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_V`$ at all. We should now (a) evaluate the path integrals (26) and then (b) average the combination (25) over the fluctuating fields $`V^\pm `$.

Evaluation of the matrix elements. Let us make use of the fact that the WL correction to conductivity is defined within the accuracy $`k_Fl1`$. This inequality is usually well satisfied in disordered metallic conductors. Hence, we can evaluate the matrix elements (26) quasiclassically. Since the actions (27) do not depend on $`\rho _V`$ one can conveniently employ a regular expansion of $`S_{1,2}`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. The path integrals are then easily evaluated and we arrive at the well-known van Vleck formula

$`x_{1,2}|\widehat{u}_{1,2}(t,t^{})|z_{1,2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\right)^3\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_{1,2}^{(n)}}{x_{1,2}z_{1,2}}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{1,2}^{(n)}},`$ (29)
where $`S_{1(2)}^{(n)}S_{1(2)}^{(n)}(t,t^{},x_{1(2)},z_{1(2)})=S_{1(2)}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2n)}]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1,2}`$ are the exact least action paths obeying the equations

$$\delta S_{1(2)}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2n)},V^\pm ]/\delta \stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2n)}=0$$
(30)
with the boundary conditions $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2n)}(t^{})=x_{1(2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2n)}(t)=z_{1(2)}`$. In general there exist several or even many different classical paths satisfying the above conditions. Here and below the index $`n`$ labels all such paths.

Clearly, eq. (29) accounts not only for the saddle point trajectories (exponent) but also for quantum fluctuations around $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n,2n}(\tau )`$ (pre-exponent) for arbitrary $`V^\pm `$. It is also completely obvious that there is no way how the pre-exponent can cancel the exponent for any configuration of the fields $`V^\pm `$. Hence, such cancellation is impossible also after averaging over these fields no matter what the details of this averaging procedure are.

Averaging over the fluctuating fields. In general averaging of the combination (25) over $`V^\pm `$ involves path integrals (51) over these fields at all times from zero to $`t`$. This is because $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$ is nonlocal in time: According to eq. (19) it depends on times between zero and $`t^{}`$. However, with the accuracy $`k_Fl1`$ one can perform averaging in (25) at times smaller and larger than $`t^{}`$ separately. This splitting is achieved by expressing $`\rho _V(t^{})`$ (19) via the path integrals, making use of eqs. (26-28) and averaging the whole combination (25) over $`V^\pm `$ at all times between 0 and $`t`$. One arrives at the effective actions containing nonlocal in time contributions $`S_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{I}}(t_1,t_2)`$ which vanish for all the trajectories relevant in the quasiclassical limit $`k_Fl1`$ provided $`t_1>t^{}`$, $`t_2<t^{}`$ and vice versa. As a result we obtain

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2J_{12}(t,t^{};x_{1,2},z_{1,2})(z_1z_2)\rho (z_1,z_2)},`$ (31)
$`J_{12}=x_1|\widehat{u}_1(t,t^{})|z_1z_2|\widehat{u}_2(t^{},t)|x_2_V.`$ (32)
Here we used $`z_1|[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }]|z_2(z_1z_2)\rho (z_1,z_2)`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})_V`$ is the exact equilibrium electron density matrix in the presence of interactions. We can also add that, as it was explained in Sec. 4 of Ref. GZS , with the same accuracy $`k_Fl1`$ one can replace

$$\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})\widehat{\rho }_0=[1+\mathrm{e}^{(\widehat{H}_0\mu )/T}]^1$$
(33)
already before averaging over $`V^\pm `$. After that the factorization (31) (with $`\rho \rho _0`$) is, of course, an exact procedure.

What remains is to average the product of the two matrix elements in (32). This averaging is carried out in a standard manner. If the fields $`V^\pm `$ vary at scales exceeding the elastic mean free path, one can neglect the dependence of both the classical paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1,2}`$ and the pre-exponent in eq. (29) on the fields $`V^\pm `$. This approximation is sufficient for evaluation of the WL correction to the conductivity.

Then averaging with the action (52) can be performed exactly. We first integrate over $`V^+`$. As both actions (52) and (27) are linear in $`V^+`$, this integration yields the $`\delta `$function

$$\delta (V^{}(\tau ,x)V_0(\tau ,x,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(s),\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(s)),$$

where

$`V_0(\tau ,x,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(s),\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(s))=e{\displaystyle \underset{t^{}}{\overset{t}{}}}ds[R(s\tau ,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(s)x)`$
$`R(s\tau ,\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(s)x)]`$ (34)
and the function $`R(t,x)`$ is defined in (54). Due to this $`\delta `$function the subsequent integration over $`V^{}`$ also becomes trivial and we obtain $`J_{12}=_{n,m}J_{12}^{nm}`$, where

$`J_{12}^{nm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(n)}}{x_1z_1}}\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(m)}}{x_2z_2}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(iS_0[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}]iS_0[\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}]i\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{R}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}]S_\mathrm{I}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}])}.`$ (35)
In eq. (35) the term $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ is identical to one derived in Ref. GZ2  (see eq. (55) of that paper) while the action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{R}`$ is obtained from eq. (54) of GZ2  by formally setting the function $`n(𝒑,𝒓)`$ equal to zero in that formula. The action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{R}`$ is purely real for any pair of paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}`$. Thus, together with the terms $`iS_0`$ it can only provide oscillations of the kernel $`J`$ and in no way can compensate its decay $`J_{12}^{nm}\mathrm{exp}(S_\mathrm{I}/\mathrm{})`$. As it was already discussed in Ref. GZ2  and elsewhere, the action $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ is real and positive for any pair of trajectories (except for identical ones in which case $`S_\mathrm{I}=0`$). The length of electron trajectories in a metal always grows with time since electrons move with a constant velocity $`v_F`$. Hence, for any pair of time-reversed paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(s)=\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(t+t^{}s)`$ the action $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ grows with time as well. This in turn implies that for such paths the kernel $`J_{12}^{nm}`$ decays with time and vanish in the long time limit $`tt^{}\mathrm{}`$ at any temperature including, of course, $`T=0`$.

In the above analysis we neglected the evolution operator $`\widehat{u}_2`$ ($`\widehat{u}_1`$) in the exact expression for $`\widehat{U}_1`$ ($`\widehat{U}_2`$) (24). This is correct at low $`T`$ and for the electron energies above the Fermi level. Below the Fermi energy, on the contrary, one can drop terms containing $`1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$ because in this case the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})`$ are close to one. Then the whole analysis is repeated, one should only interchange the operators $`\widehat{u}_1`$ and $`\widehat{u}_2`$. In this way one again arrives at eq. (35) (with $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{R}\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{R}`$) which again decays as $`\mathrm{exp}(S_\mathrm{I}/\mathrm{})`$. The remaining options are to neglect either $`\widehat{u}_1`$ or $`\widehat{u}_2`$ in both expressions for $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ (24). One again finds the contributions $`\mathrm{exp}(S_\mathrm{I}/\mathrm{})`$. Since in all these cases $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ remains the same, one concludes that if the operators $`\widehat{u}_1`$ and $`\widehat{u}_2`$ yield comparable contributions (in which case the exact form of (24) should be used) they will also decay as $`\mathrm{exp}(S_\mathrm{I}/\mathrm{})`$ on any pair of time-reversed paths. Below we present an explicit calculation of the WL correction which fully confirms this conclusion.

### V.3 Pre-exponent and weak localization correction

We are now prepared to evaluate the conductivity. As before, we assume that $`k_Fl1`$ and that the fields $`V^\pm `$ vary in space at scales exceeding the elastic mean free path $`l`$. In this case quasiclassical electron trajectories are not disturbed by interactions, and the contributions of the fluctuating fields $`V^\pm `$ add up independently. Therefore, we can approximately split the operators

$$\widehat{u}_{1,2}(t,t^{})\widehat{u}_0(t,t^{})\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V^+)\widehat{s}(t,t^{},\pm V^{}/2),$$
(36)
where $`\widehat{u}_0(t,t^{})`$ is the evolution operator pertaining to the non-interacting Hamiltonian and

$`\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V)=\widehat{u}_0(t^{},t)𝑻\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau (\widehat{H}_0e\widehat{V}(\tau ))\right].`$ (37)
Within the same accuracy we can replace

$`\widehat{u}_0(t,t^{})\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V^+)\widehat{u}(t,t^{},V^+)`$
$`=𝑻\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau [\widehat{H}_0e\widehat{V}^+(\tau )]\right).`$ (38)
Combining (36)-(38) with (24) we obtain

$`\widehat{U}_1(t,t^{})`$ $``$ $`\widehat{u}(t,t^{},V^+)\{(1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{}))\widehat{s}^1(t,t^{},V^{}/2)`$
$`+\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})\widehat{s}^1(t,t^{},V^{}/2)\}^1,`$
$`\widehat{U}_2(t^{},t)`$ $``$ $`\{\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V^{}/2)(1\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{}))`$ (39)
$`+\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V^{}/2)\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})\}^1\widehat{u}(t^{},t,V^+).`$
Substituting (39) into eq. (14), evaluating the matrix elements of the operator $`u(t,t^{},V^+)`$ by means of the van Vleck formula (29) and integrating over the fluctuating fields $`V^\pm `$ exactly as in Sec. 5B FN2 , we find

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{3m}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2𝑑z_1𝑑z_2}`$ (40)
$`\times (_{x_1}_{x_2})|_{x_1=x_2}J^{nm}(t,t^{};x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)`$
$`\times A_1^{nm}(t,t^{},y_1,z_1,x_1,x_2)(z_1z_2)\rho _0(z_1,z_2)`$
$`\times A_2^{nm}(t,t^{},z_2,y_2,x_1,x_2),`$
where

$`J^{nm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(n)}}{x_1y_1}}\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(m)}}{x_2y_2}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_0[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_0[\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}S_I[\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}]\right\}`$ (41)
and

$`A_1^{nm}=y_1|\{(1\widehat{\rho }_0)\widehat{s}^1(t,t^{},V^{}/2)`$
$`+\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{s}^1(t,t^{},V^{}/2)\}^1|z_1|_{V^{}=V_0(\tau ,x,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m})},`$
$`A_2^{nm}=z_2|\{\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V^{}/2)(1\widehat{\rho }_0)`$
$`+\widehat{s}(t,t^{},V^{}/2)\widehat{\rho }_0\}^1|y_2|_{V^{}=V_0(\tau ,x,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m})}`$ (42)
As before, the paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}`$ satisfy the Newton equation (30) (with $`V^\pm =0`$) and the boundary conditions $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2m)}(t^{})=y_{1(2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n(2m)}(t)=x_{1(2)}`$.

Eqs. (40)-(42) represent the central result of this paper. They determine the linear conductivity of an arbitrary disordered conductor to all orders in the electron-electron interaction. The above equations are based on the exact results (24) and are valid in the quasiclassical limit $`k_Fl1`$. We would like to emphasize that no quasiclassical approximation for the electron density matrix was employed during our derivation and no averaging over impurities was performed at all.

Let us briefly analyze eqs. (40)-(42). According to the standard arguments two types of classical paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}`$, identical and time-reversed ones, play an important role in the quasiclassical limit $`k_Fl1`$. For a pair of identical paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(s)=\stackrel{~}{x}_{2n}(s)`$ the two actions $`S_0`$ in the exponent (41) cancel each other, the term $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ vanishes identically and the matrix elements $`A_{1,2}`$ reduce to $`\delta `$-functions $`A_{1,2}^{nm}=\delta (y_{1,2}z_{1,2})`$ because $`V_00`$ in this case. In this way we recover the well known property that the diffuson does not decay in time even in the presence of interactions.

Here we are interested in the quantum correction to conductivity arising from the time-reversed paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(s)=\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(t+t^{}s)`$. For any pair of such paths the actions $`S_0`$ cancel again but the interaction term $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ is now positive, it grows with time and yields (exponential) decay of the quantity $`J^{nm}`$ (41) in the long time limit. The matrix elements $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ also depend on the interaction and on time in this case. It is obvious, however, that $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ cannot grow at long times because the function $`V_0`$ (34) is purely real and, hence, $`\widehat{s}(t,t^{},\pm V_0/2)`$ are the unitary operators. The matrix elements of such operators can only oscillate provided the function $`V_0`$ changes in time. Hence, no compensation of decaying $`J^{nm}\mathrm{exp}(S_\mathrm{I}(tt^{})/\mathrm{})`$ can be expected for sufficiently large $`tt^{}`$, and the whole expression under the integral over $`t^{}`$ in eq. (40) decays exponentially together with $`J^{nm}`$ for any pair of time-reversed paths. Obviously, the matrix elements (42) also cannot grow if one formally takes the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, while $`J^{nm}`$ vanishes in this limit. All that implies that – in full agreement with our general arguments (Sec. 4) – one can indeed obtain the dephasing time from the condition $`S_I(\tau _\phi )\mathrm{}`$ which does not depend on the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_V`$ and identically reproduces our earlier results GZ1 ; GZ2 ; GZ3 ; GZS .

Although in principle one can proceed further and under certain approximations evaluate the matrix elements (42) for pairs of time-reversed paths, we will not do it here. The reason for that is obvious from the above discussion: Particular values of $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ are irrelevant for dephasing. It suffices to observe that these matrix elements do not grow at long times.

### V.4 Relation to other results

It is useful to compare eqs. (40)-(42) with the results of some earlier calculations of the WL correction. Altshuler, Aronov and Khmelnitskii (AAK) AAK  considered the electron dephasing by a fluctuating external field. Their results are easily recovered from our calculation if one sets $`V^{}0`$. Then one again arrives at eqs. (40)-(42) with $`A_{1,2}^{nm}\delta (y_{1,2}z_{1,2})`$. AAK furthermore applied their results to the problem of interacting electrons identifying an external field with one produced by fluctuating electrons (the field $`V^+`$ in our analysis). In order to account for Pauli blocking AAK suggested a phenomenological procedure which amounts to keeping only the classical part of this field and to cutting out its quantum modes with frequencies $`\omega >T`$ (i.e. all modes at $`T0`$). This last step has no analogy in our calculation.

An attempt to justify the procedure AAK  was recently undertaken by AAG AAG  within the framework of the first order perturbation theory in the interaction. Our general expressions, if expanded to the first order, yield eq. (56) which can be written in the form

$$\sigma =\sigma ^{(0)}+\delta \sigma _\mathrm{I}^{(1)}+\delta \sigma _\mathrm{R}^{(1)}$$
(43)
Here $`\sigma ^{(0)}`$ is the non-interacting contribution defined by the first term in (56), $`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{I}^{(1)}`$ corresponds to the terms in (56) which contain the product $`\widehat{V}^+\widehat{V}^+`$ ($`S_\mathrm{I}`$-terms), while $`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ is given by the terms containing $`\widehat{V}^+(12\widehat{\rho }_0)\widehat{V}^{}`$ and $`(12\widehat{\rho }_0)\widehat{V}^{}\widehat{V}^+`$ ($`S_\mathrm{R}`$-terms). As we have already shown in Ref. GZ3 , eq. (56) is exactly equivalent to one derived by AAG AAG . In particular, it contains the combination $`\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}+\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}`$ leading to partial cancellation of the terms $`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{I}^{(1)}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$.

The perturbative result (56) is reproduced at every stage of our analysis.

* In order to obtain (56) one can just evaluate the operators $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ perturbatively starting directly from their definition (16). Substituting the result in eq. (14) and replacing $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})\widehat{\rho }_0`$ in (14) one arrives at (56).
* Alternatively, one can also expand the exact expressions for $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ (24) in $`V^\pm `$. One recovers the same result (56).
* One can also expand approximate expressions for $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}`$ (39) with the same result.
* Finally, one can perform a perturbative expansion of the quasiclassical result (40). One should expand $`J^{nm}`$ to the first order in $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ to the first order in $`V_0`$. One obtains terms proportional to the functions $`V^+V^+I`$ (53) and $`V^+V^{}R`$ (54). The structure of this first order quasiclassical result is identical to that of eq. (56), in the latter one should just use the quasiclassical form (29) for the matrix elements of the operators $`\widehat{u}_{1,2}`$ and replace the coordinates in the arguments of the fields $`V^+`$ by the classical paths, $`V^+(\tau _j,x_j)V^+(\tau _j,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n,2m}(\tau _j))`$. Note that this substitution should be performed neither for the field $`V^{}`$ nor for the electron density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ because no quasiclassical approximation was employed with this matrix. Further details are presented in Appendix.

### V.5 Pauli principle and dephasing in the ground state

It is sometimes argued that electron decoherence at $`T=0`$ is impossible because of the Pauli principle: Electron at the Fermi surface can neither lose nor gain energy, hence, it cannot decohere. Cancellation of “coth” and “tanh” terms in the first order perturbation theory is considered by some authors as a formal consequence of this energy constraint and, on the contrary, independence of $`\tau _\phi `$ on “tanh” terms is interpreted as a sign of physical inconsistency of the calculation (“Pauli principle is lost by approximations”).

Our analysis – which fully accounts for the Pauli principle – does not support the above point of view. Our final result, eqs. (40)-(42), does depend on the Fermi function, however, this dependence enters only into the pre-exponent via the matrix elements $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ (42) which in turn depend on the electron density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$. Thus, the Pauli principle does not have any significant impact on the dephasing process. As we have already explained in Ref. GZ2  and elsewhere, electron dephasing at low $`T`$ is only caused by fluctuations of the field $`V^+`$. Such fluctuations are described by the $`S_\mathrm{I}`$-term in the effective action which is not sensitive to $`\rho _V`$ at all. In the presence of interactions the electron energy fluctuates and it remains conserved only on average. At the same time electrons cannot, of course, infinitely decrease their energies. Within our formalism such process is prevented by the dissipative terms which explicitly depend on $`\rho _V`$. For instance, eq. (99) of Ref. GZ2  demonstrates that electrons above the Fermi level decrease energies, however, for energies below $`\mu `$ effective “damping” produced by the electron bath becomes negative, and the holes are pushed up to the Fermi surface. Such processes give rise to the time dependence of the pre-exponent contained in the matrix elements $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ (42).

In the arguments against quantum dephasing at $`T=0`$ the Pauli principle is used merely as an energy constraint. Therefore such arguments are not specific to Fermi systems FN5  and can be tested for any quantum particle interacting with a dissipative quantum environment. It is only important to ensure that the whole interacting system “particle+environment” is in its true ground state at $`T=0`$. One possible way to conduct such a test is to study the equilibrium effect of persistent currents (PC) for a particle on a ring in the presence of interactions. Since nonvanishing PC can only exist in the presence of quantum coherence, (partial) suppression of its amplitude by interactions may signal quantum dephasing.

Such a problem has recently been investigated by various authors and suppression of PC by (long range) interactions was demonstrated even at $`T=0`$ Buttiker ; Paco ; GHZ  (see also GZ98 ). In particular, for the model of a diffusive electron gas Paco ; GHZ  one finds that PC gets suppressed by interactions exactly in the ground state provided the ring perimeter exceeds a finite dephasing length $`L_\phi `$ . This length turns out to be fully consistent with one found from our WL analysis.

Without going into further details let us briefly address only one point directly related to our discussion. A non-perturbative instanton analysis of the problem GHZ  demonstrates that suppression of PC by interactions is controlled by the parameter

$$\lambda \underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}ka_k\lambda r.$$
(44)
Here $`\lambda =3/(8k_F^2l^2)1`$ is the dimensionless interaction strength, $`a_k`$ are the Fourier coefficients of the interaction kernel ($`a_k(2/\pi r)\mathrm{ln}(r/k)`$ for $`1kr`$ and $`a_k0`$ otherwise) and $`r=R/l1`$ with $`R`$ being the ring radius. Provided the parameter (44) is large, PC is strongly suppressed even at $`T=0`$. The dephasing length $`L_\phi `$ is derived from the condition $`\lambda r1`$ which yields GHZ  $`L_\phi l/\lambda `$.

Up to a numerical prefactor the parameter (44) is just the instanton action describing tunneling between two different topological sectors of the problem. The result (44) cannot be correctly reproduced within the perturbation theory. Indeed, let us expand the flux-depending part of the free energy and PC to the first order in $`\lambda `$. Then at $`T=0`$ PC is found to be proportional to the following combination GHZ

$$\varphi _x\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}ka_k\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k+2\varphi _x}{k2\varphi _x}\right),$$
(45)
where $`0.5<\varphi _x0.5`$ is the external flux (normalized to the flux quantum) piercing the ring. For small $`\varphi _x1`$ one can expand the logarithm and reduce (45) to

$$\varphi _x\left[12\lambda \underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{ka_k}{k}\right].$$
(46)
The factors $`k`$ in the numerator and denominator cancel and one is left only with a small correction $`2\lambda _{k=1}^ra_k\lambda 1`$. The above cancellation in eq. (46) obtained within the Matsubara technique is to much extent analogous to “coth-tanh” cancellation in the real time approach. In both cases this cancellation is not complete, but the remaining term is small and does not give the correct answer which can only be obtained by non-perturbative means.

The above example provides yet one more illustration of insufficiency of AAV’s perturbative approach. For instance, following AAV’s logics one could qualify (44) as “an incorrect perturbative rather than a nonperturbative” result only because this parameter is proportional to the first power of $`\lambda `$ but does not agree with one derived from the perturbation theory (45). Proceeding further along these lines, one could also “highlight” a “mistake” in our non-perturbative analysis GHZ . In order to do so, one could observe that the same combination $`\lambda _{k=1}^rka_k`$ enters into both non-perturbative (44) and perturbative (45) expressions, however the latter also contains the logarithm which is missing in the former. Following the logics of Ref. AAV  one would then be led to conclude that the logarithm “is omitted in all orders of perturbation theory” and the result (44) “is equivalent to calculating only a single contribution” $`\lambda _{k=1}^rka_k`$. In this way AAV arrived at their conclusion about missing diagrams $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(\mathrm{c}\mathrm{f})}`$ in our calculation.

Fortunately, a detailed Monte Carlo simulation provides a complete numerical solution for the problem GHZ . It unambiguously rules out the perturbative result (45) and demonstrates that PC is indeed strongly suppressed for $`\lambda r1`$ even exactly at $`T=0`$, see figs. 1 and 2 of Ref. GHZ . Similarly, our present results, eqs. (40)-(42), allow to discard perturbative calculations of the WL correction to conductivity at low temperatures.

## VI Remarks on AAV’s critique

The analysis of the previous section not only rules out the AAV’s claim about vanishing dephasing rate at $`T0`$ but also demonstrates that their critique of our calculation GZ2 ; GZ3  is irrelevant. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness we will reply to both critical points ($`i`$) and $`(ii)`$ of Ref. AAV .

### VI.1 Density matrix

In Ref. AAV  AAV stated that in eqs. (43) of our paper GZ2  we “replace the density matrix by its “Wigner transform””, eq. (5) of Ref. AAV . This AAV’s statement is not correct. The only replacement performed in eqs. (43) of GZ2  as compared to the exact eqs. (40) of that paper (or eqs. (17) of this paper) is defined by our present eq. (33), where

$$\widehat{\rho }_0(\widehat{𝒑},\widehat{𝒓})=n(\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{𝒑},\widehat{𝒓}))$$
(47)
and $`n(\xi )=1/[\mathrm{exp}(\xi /T)+1]`$ is the Fermi function. In other words, in Ref. GZ2  we used the following expressions

$$12\widehat{\rho }_0(\widehat{𝒑},\widehat{𝒓})=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\widehat{𝒑}^2/2m\mu +U_{\mathrm{imp}}(\widehat{𝒓})}{2T}\right)$$
(48)
and

$$𝒓_1|12\widehat{\rho }_0|𝒓_2=\underset{\nu }{}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\xi _\nu }{2T}\psi _\nu (𝒓_1)\psi _\nu ^{}(𝒓_2),$$
(49)
where $`\xi _\nu `$ and $`\psi _\nu (𝒓)`$ are the eigenvalues and the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$. Eq. (48) was used in eq. (43) of GZ2  and further while constructing the effective action. Eq. (49) was used in Section 4 and Appendix A of Ref. GZ3  (cf. eq. (54) of that paper) while performing the first order perturbative calculation of the conductance. With the aid of the form (49) in Ref. GZ3  we have proven (partial) cancellation of “coth” and “tanh” terms in the first order at $`T0`$ and reproduced the results AAG . Also the combination $`12n(𝒑,𝒓)`$ in eqs. (52), (54) and (68) of GZ2  has nothing to do with the “Wigner transform” of the density matrix, but is simply equal to $`\mathrm{tanh}(H_0(𝒑,𝒓)/2T)`$. This form yields purely real $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ for all paths and $`S_\mathrm{R}=0`$ for any pair of time-reversed classical paths.

Let us compare our eqs. (47)-(49) with eq. (5) of Ref. AAV . The latter equation AAV  defines an object, $`\rho _{1^{}4}`$, which is neither an operator (cf. our eqs. (47,48)) nor the electron density matrix $`\rho _0(𝒓,𝒓^{}))=𝒓_1|\widehat{\rho }_0|𝒓_2`$ (cf. our eq. (49)). We conclude that eq. (5) of Ref. AAV  has nothing to do with our analysis. Since AAV’s claim of our “major mistake” and their subsequent critique are based on their eq. (5), both this claim and critique can be proven irrelevant already by a direct comparison with what was actually done in our paper GZ2 .

### VI.2 Effective action and commutation relations

In Ref. AAV  AAV pointed out that while constructing our effective action we disregarded the Poisson brackets or, which is the same, the commutation relations between the operators $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ and $`\widehat{V}^{}`$ entering the Hamiltonians (17). AAV furthermore argued that if one takes care about ordering of these operators, one arrives at the effective action different from ours. Although the form of this action was not specified, it was claimed in Ref. AAV  that the term $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ is not anymore real, but contains an imaginary part. According to AAV this imaginary part provides nonzero contribution to $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ evaluated on pairs of time reversed paths and “in perturbation theory ensures that the ultraviolet divergence in $`iS_R`$ cancels that of $`S_I`$”.

The latter statement of AAV is false. The correct one is just the opposite: It is the real part of $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ that gives rise to “tanh”-terms which compensate “coth”-contributions in the first order perturbation theory at $`T=0`$. AAV seem not to appreciate the fact that the term $`iS_\mathrm{R}`$ in the exponent of the influence functional and the matrix elements generated by this term in the perturbation theory are different mathematical objects. The perturbative contribution from a purely imaginary term $`iS_\mathrm{R}`$ can and does cancel the contribution from a purely real term $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ in the first order at $`T0`$ within the Golden rule approximation. This is a general property not specific to any particular calculation. For more information we refer to the textbook FH  where the derivation of the perturbation theory from the influence functional was analyzed in details, see eqs. (12-104) to (12-108) of that book.

As to the commutation relations, everything is, of course, correct with them in our path integral analysis. In order to demonstrate that one should only keep track of correct ordering for the operators in the perturbation expansion. One way could be to proceed directly with the Hamiltonians (17) where ordering is defined uniquely and no ambiguity can occur. Alternatively, the full perturbation theory can be recovered by expanding the influence functional in powers of $`iS_\mathrm{R}+S_\mathrm{I}`$. In this case one should (a) replace the momentum and coordinate variables by the operators $`p\widehat{p}`$, $`r\widehat{r}`$ and (b) specify the proper way of ordering (fixed by eqs. (17)) in addition to the expression for the effective action GZc .

Furthermore, as it was demonstrated above, in order to find $`\tau _\phi `$ at $`T0`$ it is sufficient to correctly derive the classical ($`\mathrm{}`$-independent) part of the action only. Obviously, while deriving $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$ there is no need to take care of the commutation relations at all. This action is always real and is obtained from the quantum Hamiltonian by replacing the operators by the corresponding $`c`$-number functions. For instance, from (17) (after the replacement $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t)\widehat{\rho }_0`$) we obtain

$`S_{1,2}^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau [p\dot{x}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}U_{\mathrm{imp}}(x)+eV^+(\tau ,x)`$ (50)
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[12n(H_0(p,x))]eV^{}(\tau ,x)].`$
These actions are real and insensitive to the ordering of $`e\widehat{V}^{}`$ and $`12\widehat{\rho }_0`$. Hence, the action $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ GZ2  obtained from $`S_{1,2}^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$ by averaging over $`V^\pm ,`$ is real as well. On top of that, $`S_\mathrm{R}`$ vanishes on pairs of time-reversed paths. Hence, it can only contribute to the pre-exponent. The latter represents the quantum correction which is sensitive to the ordering of the operators. However, this correction is formally smaller in the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$, and, as we have already discussed in Sec. 4, it can never cancel $`S^{(\mathrm{cl})}`$ as long as the latter exceeds $`\mathrm{}`$.

In our problem it is not convenient to apply the van Vleck formula (29) directly to the Hamiltonians $`H_{1,2}`$ (17). This is because the latter contain the sharp function of the electron momentum $`12n(H_0(p,x))`$ which effectively turns fluctuations around the classical paths non-Gaussian. This – purely technical – complication is circumvented by eqs. (24) and the subsequent analysis of Sec. 5. This analysis demonstrates that non-Gaussian fluctuations give rise to the pre-exponential factors $`A_{1,2}`$ in the expression for the conductivity (40). We have proven in Sec. 5 that these factors are irrelevant for dephasing because they do not grow at long times and, hence, cannot cancel the term $`S_\mathrm{I}`$.

## VII Summary

In summary, we have derived a complete expression for the weak localization correction to the conductivity of a disordered conductor in the presence electron-electron interactions. Our analysis has been carried out within the standard model for an interacting electron gas in disordered conductors with no approximations beyond the accuracy of the definition of the WL correction. In particular, interactions have been treated non-perturbatively, no quasiclassical approximation for the electron density matrix has been employed and no disorder averaging has been performed at all. We have fully confirmed our earlier results GZ1 ; GZ2 ; GZ3 ; GZS  and extended them by explicitly taking into account quantum fluctuations around the classical paths for interacting electrons. We have proven that such fluctuations, while practically irrelevant for the calculation of $`\tau _\phi `$, do contribute to the Cooperon dynamics at short times causing, for instance, partial cancellation of the well known “coth” and “tanh” terms in the first order perturbation theory. We have also demonstrated the failure of a perturbative calculation AAV  in the problem of quantum dephasing of electrons at low temperatures. Finally we have refuted AAV’s critique of our previous calculation GZ2 ; GZ3  observing that ($`i`$) Poisson brackets are irrelevant for the problem of electron dephasing by interactions and ($`ii`$) no “Wigner transform” of the electron density matrix was performed in our derivation.

## VIII Acknowledgment

We are grateful to G. Schön for numerous instructive discussions. This work is part of the Kompetenznetz “Funktionelle Nanostructuren” supported by the Landestiftung Baden-Württemberg gGmbH.

Note added. After this paper had already been submitted there appeared an independent work vD  addressing the same issue. In this work von Delft (vD) has successfully re-derived our influence functional for interacting electrons GZ2  and argued that (a) our approach “properly incorporates the Pauli principle” and (b) “the standard Keldysh diagrammatic expressions for the self energy of the Cooperon can be obtained from $`iS_\mathrm{R}+S_\mathrm{I}`$”, i.e. from our influence functional. Thus, it is now verified not only in our work but also independently by other authors vD ; Er  that our path integral result (10) GZ2  contains all RPA diagrams to all orders in the electron-electron interaction.

The observations (a) and (b) are important because they allow to restrict the whole discussion to just one – purely mathematical – issue, i.e. how to correctly evaluate the path integral (10). We believe that the analysis presented in Sec. 5 of this paper should eliminate all doubts vD  concerning the role of $`S_\mathrm{R}`$-terms for quantum dephasing of electrons at low temperatures. This analysis, for instance, involves none of the approximations denoted in vD  as (i), (ii) and (iii). In particular, it rules out vD’s conjecture that within our approach we “neglect all the diagrams of Fig. 2b” of vD . Quite on the contrary, our final result, eqs. (40)-(42), explicitly accounts for all these diagrams (giving rise to the “tanh”-contribution (59) in the first order) as well as for infinitely many diagrams of all higher orders not presented in Ref. vD .

Several additional comments are in order: ($`i`$) The statement vD  that the first order perturbative result contains no ultraviolet (UV) divergences is explicitly incorrect for 1d and 2d systems, see, e.g., eq. (70) of Ref. GZ3 . ($`ii`$) We disagree with vD’s conjecture (see the footnote 16 in Ref. vD ) that diagrams with crossed and overlapping interaction lines can be neglected FN6 . ($`iii`$) Further evidence that the above conjecture is problematic is provided by the results GHZ  which we also address in Sec. 5E FNvD . In that problem the first order diagrams yield negligible contribution (46) and, hence, the correct result (44) is dominated by all the remaining diagrams with crossed and overlapping interaction lines. ($`iv`$) The argument presented by eqs. (10-11) of vD  is inconclusive, since it is based on an improper application of quasiclassical methods to Fermi systems FN9 . If one expands the electron density matrix $`\rho _0`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ one indeed gets a series of terms diverging at $`T0`$. However, this observation can only imply that the Taylor expansion of the step function (i.e. the Fermi function at $`T0`$ and energies close to $`\mu `$) is essentially useless. A much more useful strategy is to retain $`\rho _0`$ (which is, of course, always finite and not large) in its full quantum mechanical form and to apply quasiclassics only to those matrix elements which do not contain $`\rho _0`$. This strategy was implemented in Sec. 5. ($`v`$) In contrast to vD’s conjecture in the footnote 23 of vD  our result (40)-(42) does not diverge at $`T0`$.

## Appendix A

Here we will summarize several expressions used in our calculation and present some perturbative in the interaction results for the conductivity.

Averaging over the fluctuating fields $`V^\pm `$ implies calculating the double path integral

$$\mathrm{}_V=𝒟V^+𝒟V^{}(\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{EM}[V^\pm ]\right\}.$$
(51)
Here $`S_{EM}`$ can be understood as a formally exact effective action for the Hubbard-Stratonovich fields $`V^\pm `$, see, e.g., eq. (10) of Ref. GZ2 . For the situation discussed here it is sufficient to expand $`S_{EM}`$ to the second order in $`V`$. Then one finds

$`S_{EM}[V^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{d^4K}{(2\pi )^4}V^{}(K)\frac{k^2ϵ(K)}{4\pi }V^+(K)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4K}{(2\pi )^4}V^{}(K)\frac{k^2\mathrm{Im}ϵ(K)}{4\pi }\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}V^{}(K)},`$ (52)
where $`K=(\omega ,k).`$ This action allows to determine the correlation functions

$`V^+(t,r)V^+(0,0)=\mathrm{}I(t,r)`$
$`=\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4K}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{4\pi }{k^2ϵ(K)}\right)\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}e^{iKX}},`$ (53)
$`V^+(t,r)V^{}(0,0)=i\mathrm{}R(t,r)`$
$`=i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4K}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{4\pi }{k^2ϵ(K)}e^{iKX}},`$ (54)
$`V^{}(t,r)V^{}(0,0)=0.`$ (55)
Here we have defined $`X=(t,r),`$ and $`KX=\omega tkr.`$ Employing the action (52) is equivalent to describing the electron-electron interaction within the random phase approximation.

Let us expand the results (14,24) to the first non-vanishing order in the interaction (second order in $`V^\pm `$) and replace $`\widehat{\rho }_V(t^{})=\widehat{\rho }_0`$. Then we obtain

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{ie}{3\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t^{}\mathrm{tr}\left(\widehat{j}(x)\widehat{u}_0(t,t^{})[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }_0]\widehat{u}_0(t^{},t)\right)_V`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^3}{3\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}}dt^{}{\displaystyle \underset{t^{}}{\overset{t}{}}}d\tau _1{\displaystyle \underset{t^{}}{\overset{\tau _1}{}}}d\tau _2\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{j}(x)\widehat{u}_0(t,\tau _1)`$
$`\times \widehat{V}^+(\tau _1)\widehat{u}_0(\tau _1,\tau _2)\left\{\widehat{V}^+(\tau _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(12\widehat{\rho }_0)\widehat{V}^{}(\tau _2)\right\}`$
$`\times \widehat{u}_0(\tau _2,t^{})[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }_0]\widehat{u}_0(t^{},t))`$
$`+\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{j}(x)\widehat{u}_0(t,\tau _2)\{\widehat{V}^+(\tau _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(12\widehat{\rho }_0)\widehat{V}^{}(\tau _2)\}`$
$`\widehat{u}_0(\tau _2,t^{})[\widehat{x},\widehat{\rho }_0]\widehat{u}_0(t^{},\tau _1)\widehat{V}^+(\tau _1)\widehat{u}_0(\tau _1,t))_V].`$ (56)
After averaging over $`V^\pm `$ the latter expression coincides with the result derived in Ref. AAG . The term proportional to $`\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}`$ emerges from the average $`\widehat{V}^+(\tau _1)\widehat{V}^+(\tau _2)`$, while $`\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\xi \mathrm{}\omega }{2T}`$ appears from the combination $`12\widehat{\rho }_0`$. Further details can be found in Ref. GZ3 .

Note, that eq. (56) represents the exact first order result obtained without any evaluation of the path integrals. Eq. (40) is valid to all orders in the interaction, but it was derived by evaluating the path integrals in the quasiclassical limit $`k_Fl1`$. Let us expand $`J^{nm}`$ (41) to the first order in $`S_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`A_{1,2}^{nm}`$ (42) to the first order in $`V_0`$. Then with the aid of eq. (40) we reproduce eq. (56) with trivial modifications as described towards the end of Sec. 5D.

Let us now identically transform our first order quasiclassical results for $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{R}}^{(1)}`$ to a somewhat different form. For that purpose let us express the electron density matrix $`\rho _0`$ as follows:

$`z_1|\widehat{\rho }_0|z_2=\rho _0(z_1,z_2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑s_2\left[\delta (s_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{iT}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{sinh}[\frac{\pi Ts_2}{\mathrm{}}]}}\right]u_0(s_2,z_1,z_2),`$ (57)
where $`u_0(s,z_1,z_2)=z_1|\widehat{u}_0(0,s)|z_2`$ is the matrix element of the evolution operator for non-interacting electrons. In addition we note that the functions $`I(t,r)`$ (53) and $`R(t,r)`$ (54) are related to each other by means of the identity

$$I(X)=𝑑s_1\frac{T\mathrm{coth}\frac{\pi Ts_1}{\mathrm{}}}{2\mathrm{}}[R(ts_1,r)+R(ts_1,r)].$$

Making use of the above identities we arrive at the following expressions for $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{R}}^{(1)}`$:

$`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{I}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{12m\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑s_1𝑑s_2{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2\frac{iT^2\mathrm{coth}[\pi Ts_1/\mathrm{}]}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Ts_2/\mathrm{}]}(_{x_1}_{x_2})}|_{x_1=x_2}`$ (58)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(n)}(t,t^{},x_1,y_1)}{x_1y_1}}\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(m)}(t,t^{},x_2,y_2)}{x_2y_2}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_0^{(n)}(t,t^{},x_1,y_1){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_0^{(m)}(t,t^{},x_2,y_2)\right\}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau _1{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau _2[R(\tau _1\tau _2s_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(\tau _1)\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(\tau _2))+R(\tau _1\tau _2s_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(\tau _1)\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(\tau _2))`$
$`R(\tau _1\tau _2s_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(\tau _1)\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(\tau _2))R(\tau _1\tau _2s_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(\tau _1)\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(\tau _2))]\}`$
$`\times (y_1y_2)u_0(s_2,y_1,y_2)`$
and

$`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{12m\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_1𝑑s_2{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2𝑑z𝑑r\frac{T}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Ts_1/\mathrm{}]}\frac{iT}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Ts_2/\mathrm{}]}}`$ (59)
$`\times (_{x_1}_{x_2})|_{x_1=x_2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(n)}(t,t^{},x_1,y_1)}{x_1y_1}}\mathrm{det}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_0^{(m)}(t,t^{},x_2,y_2)}{x_2y_2}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_0^{(n)}(t,t^{},x_1,y_1){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_0^{(m)}(t,t^{},x_2,y_2)\right\}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau _1{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau _2[u_0(t^{}\tau _2s_1,y_1,r)[R(\tau _1\tau _2,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(\tau _1)r)`$
$`R(\tau _1\tau _2,\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(\tau _1)r)]u_0(\tau _2t^{},r,z)(zy_2)u_0(s_2,z,y_2)`$
$`(y_1z)u_0(s_2,y_1,z)u_0(t^{}\tau _2,z,r)[R(\tau _1\tau _2,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1n}(\tau _1)r)`$
$`R(\tau _1\tau _2,\stackrel{~}{x}_{2m}(\tau _1)r)]u_0(\tau _2t^{}s_1,r,y_2)]\}.`$
Eqs. (58) and (59) have a very similar structure. These two expressions are, however, not fully identical even at $`T0`$ and, hence, they do not cancel exactly in the first order result (43), see also Sec. 4 of Ref. GZ3 .

Further evaluation of eqs. (58) and (59) makes little sense because the first order perturbation theory cannot provide any useful information about the electron dephasing time at low temperatures. Nevertheless, the above expressions are of a certain interest, since they help to illustrate the relation between perturbative and non-perturbative results at the stage when the quasiclassical approximation has already been performed. We observe, for instance, that all the first order terms, both “coth” and “tanh” contributions, are fully reproduced from our path integral analysis. Another observation concerns the relation between the quasiclassical paths emerging from the path integrals and those entering the first order results for $`\delta \sigma _\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$. The WL correction to the conductivity is defined on pairs of time-reversed path, and only such paths (plus fluctuations around them) are relevant for the path integral analysis of this quantity. Of course, the same paths enter if the general result is expanded to the first order in the interaction before the transformation (57). However, after this transformation there appear additional matrix elements $`u_0`$ of the electron evolution operator. Proceeding quasiclassically, one can evaluate these matrix elements by means of the van Vleck formula (29), i.e. to write

$`u_0(t^{}\tau _2s_1,y_1,r)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_0^{(k)}(t^{}\tau _2s_1,0,y_1,r)}`$ (60)
and similarly for other matrix elements. Substituting $`u_0`$ in the form (60) into eq. (59) one can interpret the result in terms of the electron motion along additional classical paths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_k(s)`$, say, first from $`y_1`$ to $`r`$ and then from $`r`$ to $`z`$ (some of these paths violate the requirement of causality, see Fig. 3 of Ref. GZ3  and related discussion). This could in turn create an illusion that these additional paths are missing in the path integral formulation. The above analysis clearly indicates the origin of such an illusion. It also demonstrates that – in contrast to Ref. AAG  – the whole issue has nothing to do with disorder averaging which is not performed here at all.


format: text

text:
# Multipair contributions to the spin response of nuclear matter

## I Introduction

The spin and spin-isospin responses of nuclear matter with various ratios of protons to neutrons are important ingredients in many calculations of importance for astrophysical applications. Among these we may mention neutral-current processes such as scattering of neutrinos, and emission of neutrino-antineutrino pairs, and charged current ones such as the emission of neutrinos and antineutrinos by variants of the Urca process. For a general review of neutrino processes in dense matter, we refer to Ref. .

In calculating rates of neutrino emission, absorption and scattering processes in dense matter, one of the quantities of interest is the effective interaction between nucleons, because this is one of the quantities which determines how matrix elements of the weak current are modified by the medium (see, e.g., Refs. ). One approach to determining these is to calculate effective interactions directly as, for example, in Ref.. Another approach, which has been very successful for liquid 3He is to make use of results for the long-wavelength thermodynamic properties of the system. To be specific, in a system with central interactions, some information about the effective interaction may be obtained rather directly from the spin susceptibility. For the purpose of illustration, let us consider such a system with a single species, having spin $`1/2`$. The static, long-wavelength spin susceptibility is given by

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0^2N(0)}{1+G_0}},`$ (1)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic moment of a particle in free space, $`G_0`$ is the isotropic part of the Landau quasiparticle interaction in the spin-triplet channel, and $`N(0)=m^{}p_\mathrm{F}/\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3`$ is the density of states per unit volume at the Fermi surface, $`p_\mathrm{F}`$ being the Fermi momentum and $`m^{}`$ the effective mass of a quasiparticle. Thus, knowing the magnetic susceptibility and the quasiparticle effective mass, one can deduce the Landau parameter $`G_0`$.

Landau’s theory of normal Fermi liquids provides a framework for describing the long-wavelength response of the system . In the usual account of the theory, a key role is played by conservation laws. For example, for interactions which conserve the number of particles, addition of a single quasiparticle to the system involves the addition of a single particle. The total number of particles in the system is therefore given by the total number of quasiparticles. For interactions which conserve the total spin, the total spin may likewise be calculated in terms of the quasiparticle distribution, since the spin carried by a quasiparticle is the same as that carried by a particle.

The consequences of conservation laws for matrix elements of the density operator have been described by Pines and Nozières , and Leggett has exploited conservation laws to provide a general description of the long-wavelength response in terms of contributions due to excitation of single quasiparticle-quasihole pairs, and those due to multipair excitations . A derivation of the results from Landau theory is given in Ref. .

The assumption that interparticle interactions conserve the total spin is an excellent approximation for atomic interactions, since the spin-orbit and magnetic dipole–dipole interactions between electronic spins, which do not conserve total spin, are generally small. The situation is quite different for nuclear forces, because of the importance of the tensor interaction due to exchange of pions and, to a lesser extent, of rho mesons, and the significant spin-orbit contributions to inter-nucleon interactions. For recent analyses of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, see Refs..

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the consequences of the lack of conservation of total spin for the spin response of nuclear matter at long wavelengths. One of them is that the spin carried by a quasiparticle is different from that carried by a bare nucleon. Consequently the coupling of the quasiparticle spin to an external field is altered. Such effects are well known for nuclear magnetic moments and for matrix elements of the axial current, and they are reviewed in, e. g. , Ref. . They are also discussed in the framework of Landau Fermi-liquid theory in Ref. . A related effect is that the quasiparticle magnetic moment is a tensor, not a scalar. A second well-known effect is that the interaction between quasiparticles has non-central contributions, and the most familiar of these is that due to the tensor force. This has been considered in Ref. and more recent works. A third consequence of non-central forces is that at long wavelengths there are contributions to the response from states with more than one quasiparticle-quasihole pair. This latter effect appears not to have been widely appreciated in work on bulk nuclear matter. In this paper we examine the general structure of the spin-density response function and deduce the qualitative behavior of matrix elements at long wavelengths. We also indicate how the standard Landau-theory expression (1) must be modified when non-central forces are present. Finally, we derive an upper bound on the magnitude of the multipair contribution to the long-wavelength susceptibility from sum-rule arguments.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we give a brief introduction to response functions and describe quantities relevant for our later considerations. Section III gives a discussion of the long-wavelength behavior of matrix elements, and how this depends on whether or not the corresponding operator obeys a local conservation law. The consequences of non-central forces for Landau’s theory of a normal Fermi liquid is examined in Section IV. In Section V, we derive bounds on the contribution from multipair states to the static, long-wavelength spin susceptibility and use microscopic calculations to estimate how large these are. Concluding remarks are given in Section VI.

## II Response functions and sum rules

If a system initially in its ground state is subjected to a perturbation

$`H^{}=𝒪_𝐪^{}C_𝐪e^{i\omega t}+\mathrm{Hermitean}\mathrm{conjugate},`$ (2)
the Fourier transform of the linear response of the expectation value of the operator $`𝒪_𝐪`$ at frequency $`\omega `$ is given by

$`<𝒪_𝐪>_\omega =\chi (q,\omega )C_𝐪,`$ (3)
where the linear response function is defined by

$`\chi (q,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝒪_𝐪^{}|_{j0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _{j0}}{\omega _{j0}^2(\omega +i\eta )^2}}.`$ (4)
Here $`j`$ denotes an excited state and 0 the ground state, and $`\omega _{j0}=E_jE_0`$, where $`E_j`$ is the energy of the excited state, and $`E_0`$ that of the ground state. The wave vector of the perturbation is denoted by $`𝐪/\mathrm{}`$. From Eq. (4) it follows that the static response function is given by

$`\chi (q,0)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2|𝒪_𝐪^{}|_{j0}^2}{\omega _{j0}}}.`$ (5)
Another important quantity is the static structure factor

$`S(𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝒪_𝐪^{}|_{j0}^2.`$ (6)
Here $`N`$ is the total number of particles. A third quantity we shall find useful, because it can be calculated directly from knowledge of the ground-state wave function, is the frequency-weighted sum

$`W(𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝒪_𝐪^{}|_{j0}^2\omega _{j0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}0|𝒪_𝐪[H,𝒪_𝐪^{}]|0,`$ (7)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian in the absence of the perturbation given in Eq.(2). As we shall demonstrate later, the static structure factor and frequency-weighted sum at long-wavelengths are useful diagnostics for contributions from multipair states.

## III Conservation laws and non-central forces

We now investigate the effect of non-central components of the nuclear force on the linear response of the system. One of the reasons for the spectacular success of Landau Fermi-liquid theory in providing a framework for the quantitative description of long-wavelength low-frequency properties of liquid 3He at low temperatures is that the physical observables of greatest interest experimentally correspond to quantities such as the particle density, the spin density, and the particle current density, which satisfy local conservation laws. To make this point explicit, let us imagine that the operator $`𝒪(𝐫)`$ satisfies the conservation law

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪(𝐫)}{t}}+\mathbf{}𝐣(𝐫)=0,`$ (8)
where $`𝐣(𝐫)`$ is the associated current density. On taking the matrix element of the Hermitian conjugate of this equation between an excited state $`j`$ and the ground state and Fourier transforming in space, one finds

$`\omega _{j0}(𝒪_𝐪^{})_{j0}=𝐪(𝐣_𝐪^{})_{j0}.`$ (9)
This shows that the matrix element of the operator satisfies the condition

$`(𝒪_𝐪^{})_{j0}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐪(𝐣_𝐪^{})_{j0}}{\omega _{j0}}}.`$ (10)
Thus for a state for which $`\omega _{j0}`$ tends to a nonzero value as $`q`$ tends to zero, the matrix element of the operator tends to zero in this limit, provided only that the matrix element of the current remains finite.

The expression (10) provides the basis for an investigation of contributions to physical quantities coming from single-pair states and multipair ones. As an example, let us consider the case of density fluctuations, that is $`𝒪_𝐪`$ is equal to the Fourier transform of the particle density operator $`\rho _𝐪`$. For a single-pair state, with a quasihole in the state with momentum $`𝐩+𝐪`$ and a quasiparticle of momentum $`𝐩`$, the matrix element of the current operator at long wavelengths is proportional to $`𝐩/m`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle. Since the excitation energy of a single pair is $`\omega _{j0}ϵ_{𝐩+𝐪}ϵ_𝐩=𝐯_𝐩.𝐪`$, where $`𝐯_𝐩=\mathbf{}_𝐩ϵ_𝐩`$, the matrix element of the density operator tends to a constant.

Let us now examine the contributions of single-pair states to the static density-density response function, the static structure factor, and the frequency-weighted sum. In a degenerate Fermi system at zero temperature, the number of states with a single quasiparticle-quasihole pair having total momentum $`𝐪`$ is of order $`nq/p_\mathrm{F}`$ per unit volume for $`qp_\mathrm{F}`$. The typical energy of a single pair excitation is of order $`v_\mathrm{F}q`$, where $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi velocity, and consequently the contribution to the static structure factor varies as $`q`$, that to the static response function as $`q^0`$, and the contribution to the frequency-weighted sum as $`q^2`$. These behaviors are the same as for a free Fermi gas. Similar results apply for the corresponding response function for the spin density, irrespective of the nature of the interaction. We shall not discuss possible collective modes here, but the matrix elements of the density operator to such states, which have energies $`sq`$, where $`s`$ is the velocity of the collective mode, may be shown to vary as $`q^{1/2}`$. Thus the contributions to $`\chi (q,0)`$, $`S(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ have the same dependence on $`q`$ as those from the single-pair states.

Now let us turn to the multipair contributions. As Pines and Nozières demonstrated , from Eq. (10) it follows that the matrix element of the density operator vanishes at least as rapidly as $`q`$ for $`q0`$. If the system is translationally invariant, the ground state of the system is an eigenstate of the total current, and from this it follows that matrix elements of the current between states which are orthogonal in the limit $`q0`$ must vanish in that limit. If $`(𝐣_𝐪)_{j0}`$ can be expanded in a Taylor series, this implies that $`(\rho _𝐪)_{j0}`$ varies as $`q^2`$ for small $`q`$. The density of multipair states does not depend crucially on $`q`$ for small $`q`$, and therefore it follows that the contributions of multipair excitations to $`\chi (q,0)`$, $`S(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ vary as $`q^4`$ for translationally invariant systems, and as $`q^2`$ for systems without translational invariance.

Now let us turn to the spin response. If the interaction conserves total spin, the contributions to the moments of the spin-spin response function have the same behavior as for the density. The multipair contributions vary as $`q^2`$, since the spin current is not generally conserved, except for very special forms of the interaction. For nucleons, the interaction has non-central components and therefore spin is not conserved. Consequently, matrix elements of the spin density operator do not vanish in the limit $`q0`$, and one arrives at the striking conclusion that the contributions to $`\chi (q,0)`$, $`S(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ are all nonzero for $`q0`$. In the following section we shall examine the physical content of this result in terms of Landau’s theory of normal Fermi liquids.

## IV Landau theory

In this section we discuss the long-wavelength low-frequency response of the system within the framework of Landau Fermi-liquid theory. The basic ideas have been presented in the paper by Leggett , and we shall extend his treatment to the case of tensor forces. While Leggett’s work was couched in terms of field-theoretical methods, we shall follow more closely the phenomenological approach of Landau.

Haensel and Da̧browski have shown that for a magnetically polarized Fermi liquid, the tensor force causes the Fermi surface to become aspherical . In this paper we shall confine our attention to small polarizations, so the distortions of the Fermi surface may be treated as small.

In a magnetically polarized Fermi system the quasiparticle distribution function is a matrix $`(n_𝐩)_{\alpha \beta }`$ in spin space. The quasiparticle energy, which is likewise a matrix in spin space, is defined as the functional derivative of the total energy with respect to the quasiparticle distribution:

$`\delta E[n_𝐩]={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}(ϵ_𝐩)_{\alpha \beta }(\delta n_𝐩)_{\beta \alpha }.`$ (11)
The quasiparticle interaction is a matrix in two pairs of spin indices, and it is given as the second functional derivative of the energy with respect to the distribution function

$`\delta ^2E[n_𝐩]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}}(f_{𝐩,𝐩^{}})_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}(\delta n_𝐩)_{\beta \alpha }(\delta n_𝐩^{})_{\beta ^{}\alpha ^{}}.`$ (12)
The magnetic moment of a quasiparticle is related to the dependence of the quasiparticle energy on the magnetic field $`𝓗`$. It is convenient to write the quasiparticle energy in the form

$`(ϵ_𝐩)_{\alpha \beta }=ϵ_𝐩\delta _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}ϵ_𝐩^i\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^i,`$ (13)
where the $`\sigma ^i`$ are the Pauli matrices. When non-central forces are present, application of a magnetic field will tend to produce a polarization of the quasiparticle distribution for a particular momentum in a direction different from that of the applied field. Thus the magnetic moment of a quasiparticle is a tensor, and it is given by

$`\mu _{ij}(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_𝐩^i}{_j}}.`$ (14)
If only central forces act, and one neglects excitation of degrees of freedom other than the nucleons, the total spin is conserved, and the magnetic moment is proportional to the component of the spin in the direction $`i`$. It then follows from conservation of the component of the total spin in the direction of the magnetic field, that the magnetic moment of a quasiparticle in a single-component Fermi system is equal to the moment of a bare particle.

The form of the magnetic moment tensor when non-central forces are present may be written down immediately from the requirement that it be invariant under simultaneous rotations of the directions of the magnetic field and of the momentum of the quasiparticle. This dictates that the expression for the magnetic moment is

$`\mu _{ij}(𝐩)=\mu \delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mu _T}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_ip_j}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{3}}\right).`$ (15)
Here $`\mu `$, which is not generally equal to the bare moment $`\mu _0`$, is the magnetic moment averaged over directions of the quasiparticle momentum and $`\mu _T`$ is a coefficient characterizing the strength of the off-diagonal part of the magnetic moment tensor. For the specific case of a one-pion-exchange potential this form was derived long ago by Miyazawa . The general form of the quasiparticle interaction may be determined by symmetry considerations. For purely central interactions, and for an unpolarized system the interaction must be invariant under rotation of the spins of the two quasiparticles, and therefore the interaction must be of the standard exchange form

$`f_{𝐩𝝈,𝐩^{}𝝈^{\mathbf{}}}=f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}+g_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}𝝈𝝈^{\mathbf{}},`$ (16)
where we have used a compact matrix notation as usual. With the matrix indices included, this equation is

$`(f_{𝐩𝝈,𝐩^{}𝝈^{\mathbf{}}})_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}+g_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}(𝝈)_{\alpha \beta }(𝝈^{})_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}.`$ (17)
For calculating low-temperature properties, the quasiparticle interaction is needed only for $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ equal to the Fermi momentum $`p_\mathrm{F}`$, and in this case $`f`$ and $`g`$ are functions only of the angle between $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$, which we denote by $`\theta `$.

When non-central forces are present, the interaction is not invariant under rotations of the spins and the momenta separately, but only under simultaneous rotations of spins and momenta. Then there can be additional terms of the form $`𝝈𝐩𝝈^{}𝐩`$, and other terms with one or both of the momenta $`𝐩`$ in this expression replaced by $`𝐩^{}`$. For nuclear matter, the most important contribution to the non-central part of the interaction comes from pion exchange, so it is generally assumed that the interaction may be taken to be of the form suggested by the result one finds for one-pion exchange

$`f_{𝐩𝝈,𝐩^{}𝝈^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}+g_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}𝝈𝝈^{}+k_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}(3𝝈\widehat{𝐮}𝝈^{}\widehat{𝐮}𝝈𝝈^{}),`$ (19)
where $`𝐮=𝐩𝐩^{}`$. As for $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}`$ the function $`k_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}`$ is also a function only of $`\theta `$ at low temperatures. In earlier work, e.g. Refs. , the non-central contribution to the quasiparticle interaction has usually been expressed in terms of a function $`h`$ which is related to $`k`$ by the equation $`k=hu^2/p_\mathrm{F}^2`$. As we shall explain elsewhere, the advantage of the parametrization we use is that the expansion of $`k`$ in terms of Legendre polynomials converges much more rapidly than that for $`h`$ . Therefore, all of these functions can be expanded in terms of Legendre polynomials of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. For example, for $`k`$ we write

$`k_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k_lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).`$ (21)
Now we quote results for the static magnetic susceptibility. Previously, Haensel and Jerzak  performed a similar calculation including the tensor contribution to the quasiparticle interaction but neglecting multipair contributions and the renormalization of the magnetic moment. The magnetization of the matter is

$`M_i={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mu _{ij}\sigma _j\delta n_𝐩+M_\mathrm{M},`$ (22)
where $`M_\mathrm{M}`$ is the contribution to the magnetization coming from multipair excitations. And the spin susceptibility is defined as

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{M_i}{_i}}|_{=0}.`$ (23)
For simplicity, we here give the result obtained if one includes only Landau parameters with $`l<2`$ for the central part of the interaction, and takes only the $`l=0`$ term in the tensor part of the interaction $`k`$. Using Eq. (15) for the magnetic moment and including the tensor interaction up to second order, we arrive at the following expression for the static spin susceptibility:

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2N(0)}{1+G_0K_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \mu _TN(0)K_0}{1+G_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(0)\mu _{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\chi _\mathrm{M},`$ (24)
The corresponding result if renormalization of the magnetic moment and multipair contributions are neglected is $`\chi =\mu _0^2N(0)/(1+G_0K_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/8)`$. More details about the above calculation and the choice of parametrization will be given in a later paper, . Next we shall obtain a lower bound on the magnitude of the last term in Eq. (LABEL:eq:chi), the contribution from multipair excitations.

## V A bound on multipair contributions to the spin susceptibility

In this section we shall consider the part of the static susceptibility that cannot be calculated within Landau theory, the contributions from multipair excitations. Our approach will be to employ sum-rule arguments to place a lower bound on the quantity. Since the excitation energies of the system are positive, it follows for any choice of the energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|<j|𝒪_𝐪|0>|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{j0})^2}{\omega _{j0}}}0.`$ (26)
If one takes $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be the mean excitation energy $`\overline{\omega }=W(q)/S(q)`$, this yields the inequality

$`\chi (q,0){\displaystyle \frac{2nS(q)}{\overline{\omega }}},`$ (27)
which is valid for all $`q`$. Let us now apply this result in the limit $`q0`$. As we argued in Sec. III, single-pair excitations and collective modes do not contribute to $`\chi `$ in this limit, and therefore it follows that

$`\chi _\mathrm{M}(q,0){\displaystyle \frac{2nS(q)}{\overline{\omega }}}(q0),`$ (28)
where $`\chi _\mathrm{M}(q,0)`$ is the multipair part of the static response defined in Eq. (5).

We now apply this result to pure neutrons, using values of the static structure factor and the mean excitation energy in the limit $`q0`$ taken from Ref.. In that reference the authors calculated the spin-spin response function, while in this paper we have worked in terms of the response of the magnetization density. The response functions we need are therefore $`\mu _0^2`$ times those of Ref. .

At the saturation density of nuclear matter, $`n=0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$, these are $`S_\mathrm{M}(q=0)0.19\mu _0^2`$ and $`\overline{\omega }(q=0)63\mathrm{MeV}`$. For the total susceptibility we take the value $`\chi 0.38\chi _\mathrm{F}`$ from the recent calculations of Fantoni et al.  using the auxiliary field diffusion Monte Carlo method. Here $`\chi _\mathrm{F}=3n\mu _0^2/2ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is the susceptibility of a free Fermi gas. The quantity $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi energy of the non-interacting gas, and at a density $`n=0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$ this is approximately $`59\mathrm{MeV}`$ for neutrons. The value for the susceptibility obtained in Ref.  is close to the results of earlier calculations which included fewer correlations, (See e.g. Ref. ). Thus from Eq. (28) we find $`\chi _\mathrm{M}(q,0)/\chi 0.63`$. If this result were to be taken at face value, it would indicate that multipair states contribute more than $``$ 60% of the total static response function. This would appear to be unrealistically high. The calculations of Ref. were designed primarily to investigate the spin response at finite wavelengths, at which phenomena such as pion condensation would be expected to occur. Estimating long-wavelength response is a difficult problem because it requires a careful investigation of long-range correlations. The difficulty may be illustrated by considering experience with calculations of the static structure factor for density response for liquid 4He. On the basis of general arguments of the sort given above, the static structure factor should vanish in the limit $`q0`$. However, early calculations gave structure factors which were nonzero in this limit. Our conclusion is that sum rule arguments of the sort given above can in principle provide valuable information about multipair states, but that more detailed calculations of structure factors are needed before they can provide useful quantitative estimates.

## VI Conclusions

One of the main conclusions of this paper is that, when non-central forces are present, there are contributions to the static magnetic susceptibility at long wavelengths that cannot be calculated within the framework of Landau Fermi-liquid theory. In addition, non-central forces renormalize the magnetic moment of a quasiparticle, and introduce additional terms in the expression for the effective interaction between quasiparticles. Consequently, it is much less straightforward to obtain information about Landau parameters from the magnetic susceptibility than it is when there are only central forces. This may be seen by comparing Eqs. (1) and (LABEL:eq:chi).

Among quantities which need to be understood better in order to relate quasiparticle interactions to the magnetic susceptibility are the strength of transitions to multipair states and the renormalization of the magnetic moment of a quasiparticle. In order to place more reliable bounds on the strength of transitions to multipair excitations it would be valuable to have improved estimates of the static spin structure factor at long wavelengths. The renormalization of the magnetic moment has been studied recently by Cowell and Pandharipande using the correlated basis approach developed from the variational methods used for quantum liquids . They find that the magnitudes of magnetic moments are reduced by approximately 10% for nuclear matter with proton fractions ranging from 0.2 - 0.5 and for densities between 0.08 fm-3 and 0.24 fm-3.

In this paper we have focussed mainly on a single-component system of fermions with spin-$`1/2`$. Our arguments may be extended straightforwardly to multi-component systems, such as nuclear matter with an arbitrary ratio of neutrons to protons. In addition, similar arguments may be applied for the spin-isospin response.

## VII Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Arya Akmal for giving us the data for the static structure factor and the energy-weighted response. We also thank Bengt Friman, Wick Haxton, Ben Mottelson, Vijay Pandharipande and the participants in the program on “Neutron stars” at the Institute for Nuclear Theory for valuable discussions. One of us (EO) acknowledges financial support in part from a European Commission Marie Curie Training Site Fellowship under Contract No. HPMT-2000-00100. This work has been conducted within the framework of the school on Advanced Instrumentation and Measurements (AIM) at Uppsala University supported financially by the Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF).