Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Luttinger liquids from a microscopic perspective

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2017 Phys. Scr. 92 095801

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/92/9/095801)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 124.152.207.116
This content was downloaded on 23/08/2017 at 04:03

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

You may also be interested in:

Advanced Solid State Theory: Superconductivity

T Pruschke

Quantum collision theory in flat bands

Manuel Valiente and Nikolaj Thomas Zinner

One-dimensional Fermi liquids

J Voit

Quantum impurities: from mobile Josephson junctions to depletons

Michael Schecter, Dimitri M Gangardt and Alex Kamenev

Bosonizing one-dimensional cold atomic gases

M A Cazalilla

The Luttinger liquid concept for interacting electrons in one dimension

K Schnhammer

Physics in one dimension: theoretical concepts for quantum many-body systems

K Schnhammer

Quantum quenches in the Luttinger model and its close relatives

M A Cazalilla and Ming-Chiang Chung

Dynamical structure factor at small q for the XXZ spin-1/2 chain

R G Pereira, J Sirker, J-S Caux et al.
 | Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Physica Scripta

Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801 (10pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/aa7e16

Luttinger liquids from a microscopic

perspective
Manuel Valiente1, Lawrence G Phillips1, Nikolaj T Zinner2 and
Patrik hberg1
1
SUPA, Institute of Photonics and Quantum Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS,
United Kingdom
2
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 120, DK-8000 Aarhus C,
Denmark

E-mail: M.Valiente_Cifuentes@hw.ac.uk

Received 6 March 2017, revised 25 May 2017

Accepted for publication 6 July 2017
Published 3 August 2017

Abstract
Luttinger liquid theory is a powerful and widely applicable framework for modelling one-
dimensional many-body quantum systems. Within this framework, one supposes that the
macroscopic behaviour of such systems is entirely determined by two phenomenological
parameters, g2 and g4. While there exists an intuitive and seemingly sensible physical
interpretation of these parameters in terms of the scattering of the systems constituent particles,
g2 and g4 are traditionally either xed by experiment or calculated using heavy-duty numerical
techniques, rather than inferred using scattering theory, and for this reason the interpretation
remains untested. By applying Luttinger liquid theory in a simple setting, we show that a widely-
held and repeatedly-stated belief, namely that the intrabranch terms appearing in Luttingers
model originate from microscopic intrabranch interactions, is a misconception. We begin with
the microscopic model of an interacting one-dimensional, spin-polarized Fermi gas, which we
systematically transform into a Luttinger model by introducing an effective interaction,
linearizing the dispersion, and renormalizing. By this method, we are able to show that the usual
interpretation of g4 as a measure of intrabranch scattering implies that it must vanish in the dilute
limit. Since this runs contrary to conservation of particle number, we conclude that g4 cannot be
related to intrabranch scattering. Rather, we show that g4 interactions must be included in the
effective model in order to compensate for the deleterious effect that introducing an effective
interaction has upon the models energetics. We explicitly calculate an approximation to this
correction for our simple system, and nd that it agrees with the value of g4 found in the
literature. We therefore propose a new fermionic Hamiltonian which agrees with the traditional
model after bosonisation, but which better reects the underlying microscopic physics.

Keywords: low-dimensional system, Luttinger liquid, cold atoms

(Some gures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction [810] and nanotubes [11]. From the theoretical point of

Interacting many-body systems in one spatial dimension,
once considered theoretical playgrounds for the more
involved physical three-dimensional systems, have held the
status of physically relevant theories for quite some time now.
Indeed, effective reduced-dimensional systems are routinely
prepared and studied experimentally. Prominent examples
include ultracold atomic gases [17], organic conductors
view, one-dimensional systems are very appealing, for several
reasons. Firstly, there are a number of exactly solvable
models in one spatial dimension. Examples include those
models solved via the Bethe ansatz technique [12], such as the
spinless Bose gas with Dirac delta interactions (LiebLiniger
model) [13] and its spin-1/2 fermionic counterpart [14],
and models that admit Jastrow-product ground state wave
functions, such as Sutherlands model with inversesquare

0031-8949/17/095801+10$33.00 1 2017 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Printed in the UK

Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801
interactions and variations thereof [15]. More recently,
strongly coupled mesoscopic multicomponent systems in
arbitrary external potentials have been the subject of intense
investigation [1619], and have been recently investigated
experimentally [20]. Moreover, some numerical methods
work especially well for one-dimensional systems. For
instance, the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG)
[21] is extremely powerful and exible to use in most one-
dimensional many-body problems on a lattice.
The low-energy properties of many of the above systems
can be described by the universality class of Luttinger liquids
[22, 23]. Luttinger liquid theory is in a sense the one-
dimensional counterpart to Fermi liquid theory, which cap-
tures the universal behaviour of many-body Fermi systems in
dimensions higher than one. Fermi liquid theory fails in one
dimension, since the Fermi surfacewhich consists of two
pointsdoes not allow for the formation of quasi-particles.
Instead of these, the relevant low-energy excitations in one
dimension are density waves, in terms of which one may
construct an exactly solvable low-energy model, known as
TomonagaLuttingers model. This model takes a very sim-
ple form, and contains only two non-universal parameters. It
owes its exact solvability to a linear dispersion relation, which
is a good approximation for low-lying excitations above the
Fermi sea, and renders the density waves kinetic eigenstates.
The properties of the aforementioned systems, such as the
collective excitation spectrum, correlation functions, or den-
sity of states, at energies close to the Fermi energy may all
be derived from the solution of TomonagaLuttingers model
[24, 25] via bosonization [2630], and hence exhibit uni-
versality. For instance, the density of states around the
Fermi points behaves as a power law, where the exponent and
the proportionality constant are the only microscopic, non-
universal details [3133].
Historically, there are two fundamentally different yet
complementary approaches for the introduction of Luttinger
Liquid phenomenological models for one-dimensional
quantum gases. The rst one, called constructive bosonisation
[34], naturally arises for fermionic systems upon linearisation
of the kinetic energy dispersion, as introduced by Tomonaga
[24]. The second, more phenomenological, and also more
general approach, is eld-theoretical bosonisation, introduced
by Haldane [35].
In this article, we consider one-dimensional spinless
Fermi gases in the fermionic Luttinger liquid regime, that is,
when their low-energy behaviour is well-described by Lut-
tingers model. We will follow the constructive, rather than
the eld-theoretical route, which is most convenient for
weakly interacting fermions, which can be used to extract
non-perturbative [36] and weak-coupling [37] parameters of
the effective theory (in [38], a few selected results are
compiled).
There are two coupling constants in the effective Lut-
tingers model, g2 (interbranch coupling) and g4 (intrabranch
coupling). When we pass from the realistic (original) to the
effective model, we must choose two pieces of physical data
2
M Valiente et al
to tor renormalizethese constants to. In the literature it
is assumed that g2 must be t to interbranch collisional data,
and g4 to intrabranch collisional data. This assumption is
often stated explicitly, even in reviews and textbooks
[22, 39, 40]. In other works it is not stated outright but is
inherent in the treatment, where the microscopic potential is
split into inter- and intrabranch parts, which become the inter-
and intrabranch interactions in Luttingers model [41, 42]. In
practice, however, g2 and g4 are never t to scattering data
directly, since in general it is not clear how to do this. Rather,
the Luttinger parametera constant which depends on g2 and
g4, and which determines the macroscopic behaviouris
measured experimentally, or calculated via DMRG or Monte
Carlo [43, 44]. As a result, the assumption that g2 is related to
interbranch scattering and g4 to intrabranch scattering has
never been tested.
Here, we show explicitly that the assumption mentioned
above is incorrect for a simple system whose low-energy
behaviour is well-described by Luttinger liquid theory. We
consider a system of spin-polarized fermions, and prove that
its intrabranch scattering is negligible at energies where
Luttingers model is applicable. If g4 is a measure of intrab-
ranch scattering, then, it should vanish for this system. Since a
vanishing g4 violates conservation of charge, as shown in
detail in [40], we conclude that it is unrelated to intrabranch
scattering. Further, we show that intrabranch scattering is
suppressed in the limit of a linear dispersion, not only for our
simple system but quite generally. Finally, we prove that the
choice of effective interaction implicit in Luttigners model
requires that the Fermi velocity vF be renormalized, in order
for density waves to retain the correct dispersion relation.
This is primarily due to the fact that microscopic interbranch
interactions exert an energy shift on density waves, and this
shift does not survive when the effective interaction is
introduced. We renormalize vF for our simple system, and a
g4 term taking the value necessary for charge conservation
appears as a natural consequence. Taking all of this together,
it is clear that one can no longer assume that g4 is related to
intrabranch scattering: The fact that the interpretation fails for
a simple case casts doubt on its validity in general. Since
intrabranch scattering does not occur at all in Luttingers
model, it makes it an unlikely candidate for a key microscopic
process contributing to the macroscopic physics. The fact that
the renormalization of vF is necessary because of interbranch
interactions, which leads naturally to a g4 term, seems to
explain the origin of g4 without any reference to intrabranch
processes.
On the other hand, we show that the interpretation of g2
as a measure of interbranch scattering is perfectly reasonable.
We nd that it can be regarded as a constant appearing in an
effective zerorange interaction which is tuned to yield the
correct scattering behaviour at the relevant momenta. Line-
arizing the dispersion relation does not renormalize this
constant, so that the value of g2 is directly related to micro-
scopic interbranch scattering.
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801
Figure 1. Left: depiction of interbranch scattering processes around the Fermi points. The red solid line corresponds to the Galilean
(parabolic) dispersion, and the blue dashed line corresponds to the linearised approximation around the Fermi points. Right: interbranch
interaction diagram for spinless fermions.
2. Overview
We begin by demonstrating the simple relationship between
g2 and microscopic interbranch scattering for a system of
spin-polarized fermions. This sets the stage for our discussion
of intrabranch scattering, where we show what goes wrong
when one tries to do something similar with g4. We then
argue that it is necessary to account for the energy shift
exerted on bosonic excitations by the full interaction, and that
the role of the intrabranch terms in Luttingers model is to
provide such a shift. Finally, we propose a new fermionic
Hamiltonian for Luttigners model, which reects the new
understanding of g4.
3. Interbranch scattering
In this section we show how to pass from a microscopic
model of one-dimensional interacting fermions to Luttingers
model, in such a way that the microscopic interbranch two-
body scattering properties between the Fermi points remain
unchanged. In doing so, we obtain an approximation for g2 in
terms of the underlying scattering data, which becomes exact
in the limit where many-body collisions are negligible (the
dilute limit). The microscopic Hamiltonian of interest is the
following:
2 k Vpk
H=
2m
k 2ck ck + V , (1 )
k
where
1 sea, which we will write as F. From equation (4), one can
V =
2L
V (q) ck+ q ck- q ck ck , (2 )
kk q
with ck, ck fermionic creation and anihilation operators
obeying the usual anticommutation relations, {ck , ck} = dk, k .
M Valiente et al
Here V(q) is the Fourier transform of some realistic position-
space potential W(x):
V (q ) = - dx eiqxW (x). (3 )
This interaction is depicted in gure 1 as a rst step towards
Luttingers model, in the spirit of pseudopotential theory, let
us replace the realistic potential V with a simpler effective
potential, Veff . We require Veff to reproduce the exact inter-
branch scattering properties between the Fermi points, so that
we end up with the correct interactions in Luttingers model.
We now show how to choose the potential Veff so that it
satises these requirements.
3.1. Interbranch coupling from the phase shift
In 1D, the map between incoming and outgoing asymptotic
states depends on only one non-universal parameter, the so-
called phase shift qk . In other words, qk contains all the
information about any 1D two-body scattering process. Thus,
Veff reproduces the required scattering properties if it gives the
correct phase shift for interbranch scattering between particles
at kF . In order to choose Veff correctly, then, we must
determine what phase shift it produces, and we will do so
using scattering theory. To this end, we dene a two-body
potential Vp as follows:
0cl + k cl Veff cm cm + k 0 , (4 )
where l, m satisfy 2 m + k = 2l + k , ensuring conservation
of momentum. Note that 0 is the vacuum, not the Fermi
verify that
k Vpk = -- k Vpk , (5 )
hence the subscript p for p-wave.
3
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801 M Valiente et al

The simplest possible effective potential, given the con- The principal value integral vanishes, and so we have
dition (5), is
(k , k , E ) = g2 sgn (k ) sgn (k ). (15)
kVpk = g2 sgn (k ) sgn (k ). (6) Plugging the -matrix (15) into the principal value version of
equation (8), taking the position space representation, and
This almost-constant interaction (often referred to as a con- performing some straightforward integration yields the scat-
stant in the literature [22]) will ultimately lead to an exactly tering state
solvable model.
2mg2
In order to calculate the phase shift, we take a two- xk + = 1 - Ci (kx) sin (kx )
fermion system interacting via the potential (6), separate out p k
2
centre of mass and relative coordinates, and consider only the 2mg2
relative part of the Hamiltonian. Let k be an eigenstate of the - Si (kx ) cos (kx ) , (16)
p 2k
kinetic term, xk sin (kx ), and let k+ be the scattering
state whose incoming asymptote is k. The general asymp- where Si (Ci) is the sine (cosine) integral. The asymptotic
totic form of k+ in position space is behaviour of this state is
mg
xk +x sin (kx + qk ). (7 ) xk + x = sin (kx ) - 2 2 sgn (x ) cos (kx ). (17)
k
Hence, we can recover qk from an asymptotic analysis of
Comparing with (7), we obtain the relation
k+, which we carry out now. The well known relation
between k and k+ is mg
tan (qk ) = - 2 2 . (18)
k
k + = k + G 0 (Ek + i0+) T (Ek + i0+)k , (8 )
Now, suppose one has calculated q kF for the realistic potential
where 0+denotes zero approached as a limit from above. T(z) (doing so numerically is not difcult in most cases). Then, in
is the T-matrix, which satises solving the above relation for g2, one completely determines
T (z) = V + VG 0 (z) T (z) (9 ) the effective potential that correctly reproduces the physical
phase shift between particles at kF . In other words, by using
and Ek = 2k 2 2m , with m = m 2 the reduced mass. G 0 (z ) a g2 satisfying (18) at k = kF and with qk the real phase shift,
is the non-interacting Greens function, whose above limit has one obtains an effective model which reproduces the neces-
the following momentum space representation sary realistic scattering data.
qG 0 (Ek + i0)q = 2pd (q - q)
1 3.2. Example: CheonShigehara model
ipd (Ek - Eq) , (10)
Ek - Eq As we now demonstrate, the choice of g2 given above agrees
exactly with the unrenormalised expression, g2 = 12 [V (0) -
where denotes principal value integration. By parity V (2kF )], for the CheonShigehara (CS) model [45]. This
arguments, one can show that the imaginary term on the right conrms that the interpretation of g2 interactions as inter-
hand side of (10) does not contribute to fermionic scattering branch scattering processes is correct, and that our prescrip-
states. Hence we can simplify our calculations by introducing tion for calculating g2 is reasonable, at least in the model we
the principal value T-matrix (also known as the reaction are considering here.
matrix, or R-matrix, in the literature). and principal value The momentum representation of the CS potential, which
non-interacting Greens function 0 as is much simpler than its formidable position representation
1 and does not appear to be widely known, is
0(Ek ) = [G 0 (Ek + i0+) + G 0 (Ek + i0-)] , (11)
2 g
VCS (q) = - q 2 , (19)
1 2
(Ek ) = [T (Ek + i0+) + T (Ek + i0-)]. (12)
2 where g is a coupling strength. The phase shift at q = kF due
Equation (8) holds with the Greens function and T-matrix to this potential is
replaced by their principal value counterparts. Also, it is easy mg
tan (qCS) = - 2 k F. (20)
to see that the principal value T-matrix for real positive 2
energies E satises the LippmannSchwinger equation Comparing with (18), we obtain
(E ) = Vp + Vp 0(E ) (E ). (13)
1
g2 = gk F2 = [V (0) - V (2k F)] , (21)
Upon plugging (6) into (12), taking the momentum space 2
representation, and inspecting the k , k dependence of , one
nds that (k , k , E ) = sgn (k ) sgn (k ) t (E ). Equation (12) as claimed.
thus reduces to The CS model is the fermionic dual to the exactly sol-
vable bosonic LiebLiniger model, whose interaction poten-
g2 t (E ) 1
t (E ) = g2 +
2p
dp E - Ep . (14) tial is a delta function. In other words, the microscopic theory
here is actually an effective model that has already been

4
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801
renormalised to produce the correct phase shift. This explains
the exact agreement between our choice of g2 and the unre-
normalised one.
4. Linearizing the dispersion relation
Having introduced an effective potential that preserves scat-
tering behaviour between the Fermi points, we now linearize
the dispersion relation, again preserving the scattering prop-
erties between kF . It is not possible to do this directly: as we
will see, the inverse T-matrix for a model with linear dis-
persion is ultraviolet (UV) divergent, prohibiting a repeat of
the phase shift matching that we carried out in the last section.
Using a theory with a cutoff, as in Tomonagas model, is not
an option, since exact solvability via bosonization requires
that momentum be unbounded. One way out of this con-
undrum is to renormalize the T-matrix by taking the Fermi
points to innity along with the cutoff. Another solution
involves continuously deforming the dispersion relation so
that it approaches linearity, while demanding that the ener-
getics and interbranch scattering from the original model at
kF are preserved. We describe both methods here, beginning
with the latter.
4.1. Deforming the dispersion
We introduce a dispersion relation which depends para-
metrically on the momentum scale (note that does not
represent a cutoff here, it is just some parameter with
dimensions of momentum), and tends to a two-branch linear
dispersion as L :
2k 2
EL(k ) = + EF, (22)
2mL
where EF is the Fermi energy and mL = aLm , with some
constant. To make the connection with Luttingers model, we
must distinguish between left- and right-movers, so we write
k = X (k )(L + kR) + X ( - k )( -L + kL ) , (23)
where kR (-L, ), kL (- , L), and X(k ) is the step
function. Then, in the limit of innite ,
2L 2 fermion system with the linearised dispersion (28) corre-
EL (k ) = + (X (k ) kR - X ( - k ) kL ) + EF. (24)
2 am am
In this limit, kL and kR are unbounded, as required for boso-
nization. Since equation (24) is supposed to reect the
behaviour around kF , the second term on the right hand side
must have the correct coefcient. By comparison with the
original dispersion for small momenta close to the right Fermi
point,
2k 2
F (k - k F )
2k
E (k ) +
F
+ ((k - k F )2 ) , (25)
2m m so we introduce a cutoff L and obtain
we x a = 1 kF , and thus mL = Lm kF .
Now that our model gives the desired kinetic energy, we
should ensure that the interbranch scattering properties are
preserved. Thus, we must calculate the phase shift in our new
M Valiente et al
model. The calculation goes through precisely as in the pre-
vious section, except with m mL , so the phase shift is
Lmg2
tan (q (kL)) = - . (26)
kF 2k
Setting k = L in the above reproduces the original phase shift
(18) between the Fermi points: q (LL) = q kF . This, along with
equations (24) and (25), tells us that represents an effective
Fermi momentum. Energetics and interbranch scattering
about L for the dispersion EL(k ) match the real scattering
and energetics about the original Fermi points for any value of
, allowing us to take L , obtaining a fully linear
dispersion.
For future reference we write down the many-body kin-
etic term of our transformed model. Let cR, k be the creation
operator for a particle of momentum L + k , and cL, k the same
for a particle of momentum -L + k . Then,
Hkin = vF k [cR, k cR, k - cL, k cL, k ] + NEF , (27)
k =-
where N = NL + NR is the total number of particles. Above,
we have ignored an innite constant term, which can be
thought of as an innite contribution to the chemical
potential.
4.2. Renormalization approach
As an alternative to the method outlined above, it is possible
to work with a fully linear dispersion from the beginning. One
regularises the -matrix by introducing a cutoff, and renor-
malizes the theory by tting to the desired scattering data,
treating the Fermi points as bare parameters. Treating the
Fermi points in such a way might sound unusal, but since it is
the dispersion that has been expanded (and truncated) as a
power series here, it is not surprising that renormalization
requires a slightly different approach from the usual one.
At momenta close to the Fermi points, the dispersion is
well approximated by
E (k ) E F(0) + v F (k - kF(0)). (28)
In (28) we have dened the bare Fermi energy E F(0) =
2 [kF(0)]2 2m , with kF(0) the bare Fermi momenta. The many-
sponds to Tomonagas model [46], where k (- , ). In
order to connect with the phenomenological model later, we
will call particles with k > 0 (k < 0) right (left) movers, as in
the previous section. For interbranch collisions we need the
relative energy rel for a right and a left mover with relative
momentum k. This is given by
rel (k ) = - 2EF(0) + 2v Fk. (29)
The principal value T-matrix for this dispersion is divergent,
sgn (k ) sgn (k )
(E ; k , k ) = . (30)
1 1 L-
k
g2
- 2pvF
log k
5
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801
If the -matrix (30) matches the original -matrix (15), the
asymptotic form of the wavefunction in the linearized model
is guaranteed to match the quadratic case. Therefore, in order
to preserve the interbranch scattering properties, we require
k
L-
that k
= 1. This can be achieved by renormalizing the
Fermi points: we write kF = kF(0) - L 2, where kF is the
physical Fermi momentum, and consider momenta k around
the bare Fermi points, k = L 2 + (kF ). Then, taking
L in (30), we obtain
(E ; k , k ) = g2 sgn (k ) sgn (k ) , (31)
just as in the model with quadratic dispersion. Thus, we again
see that by taking the Fermi points to innity, it is possible to
preserve interbranch scattering properties while imposing a
fully linear dispersion. To obtain the kinetic term (27) from
here, simply shift the momentum of right (left) movers as
k k + L 2 (k - L 2), and rescale the cutoff as
L 2L , so that the momenta of right and left movers both
belong to the interval (-L , L
). We see, then, that renorma-
lizing the Fermi points allows one to pass from Tomonagas
to Luttingers model, while preserving the necessary scatter-
ing properties.
5. Intrabranch processes
We have just proved that it is possible to renormalize g2 in
favour of microscopic interbranch scattering data, so that g2
may be interpreted as a measure of interbranch scattering.
Now, we show that attempting to apply an equivalent pro-
cedure to g4 and intrabranch scattering fails. There are two
reasons for this failure. Firstly, low-energy intrabranch scat-
tering is a negligible process for our particular choice of
model. Such scattering takes place between pairs of particles
with relative momentum p 0 , and the antisymmetry of the
relative-coordinate wavefunction for spin-polarized fermions
implies that the phase shift vanishes in this limit. Thus, if it
were possible to renormalize g4 in favour of microscopic
intrabranch scattering data, one would obtain a vanishing g4,
which is forbidden by charge conservation. Secondly, while
linearizing the dispersion relation preserves interbranch scat-
tering properties, it introduces a severe pathology in the
intrabranch scattering behaviour. Both of the linearization
procedures outlined above lead to strange intrabranch scat-
tering behaviour. Considering the rst, whereby the disper-
sion relation is deformed, one nds the following principal
value Greens function for intrabranch scattering:
ma
x 0(Ep)x = sin ( pa (x - x )) , (32)
p yields aqt (0)aq = -2p .
which diverges in the limit of a linear dispersion, a . If
one uses the second procedure instead, one is faced with the
problem of scattering in a at band, the solutions of which are
not appropriate for modelling microscopic intrabranch scat-
tering, as we now show.
M Valiente et al
5.1. Flat-band scattering
Consider the LippmannSchwinger equation off the energy
shell (E 0 ) in the relative coordinate,
1 V (k , q )
k (E )k = V (k , k ) +
2p
0 dq
E
q (E )k ,
(33)
where k is regarded here as a fermionic (antisymmetric)
state, that is 2-1 2 (k - - k ) k . As we go on-shell,
E 0 , we see that the principal value T-matrix must vanish
linearly with E. Therefore, we dene (E ) Et (0) for
E 0 , where t(0) is some constant to be calculated. As we
take the limit E 0, we obtain the following integral
equation
1
V (k , k ) = -
2p 0
dqV (k , q) qt (0)k . (34)
The above equation can be written as an operator identity,
which reads
- V = Vt (0). (35)
The simplest way to solve equation (35) is by diagonalizing
V. We dene a unitary operator U that diagonalises V (since V
can be quite degenerate, the operator U is not necessarily
unique), together with its associated orthogonal set of
eigenfunctions ak and their corresponding eigenvalues
V (ak ), such that
ak = Uk . (36)
Upon transformation of V and t(0) with U, equation (35)
reduces to
- 2pV (a q) d (q - q) = V (a q ) a q t (0)a q. (37)
For a strict nite-range potential V (which we can always
consider as a good approximation), most of its eigenvalues
will be degenerate and equal to zero. We must therefore deal
with equation (37) with care. Let us dene the set of values of
q for which V (aq ) = 0 , that we dene as I0, that is
I0 = {q 0 : V (a q) = 0}, (38)
while we denote its complementary set by IV 1 - I0 . If
qI0, then for each q we must have either q I0 or
aq t (0)aq = 0 . If q I0 as well, then from equation (37)
we see that aq t (0)aq is arbitrary, which is a natural con-
sequence of degeneracy. In this case, we shall x its value to a
constant , i.e.
a q t (0)a q = w , q , q I0. (39)
For q IV , we are obviously forced to set aq t (0)aq = 0 .
We now consider the case q IV . From equation (37) we
have that if q q, then aq t (0)aq is arbitrary and we set it
to the constant as above if q I0 . The case q = q
In the discussion above we have completely solved the
LippmannSchwinger equation. We still need to calculate the
scattering states. These have the form
y = k + lim (0) (E ) (E )k . (40)
E0
6
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801 M Valiente et al

Inserting a resolution of the identity, we nd the total scat- for small q, where H is the realistic Hamiltonian. This is
tering state as automatically satised if
dk dq dq k + Q , kH eff k + Q , k = k + Q , kH k + Q , k + const
y = k + 0 2p
k w
I0 2p
k a q 0 2p
a qk (46)
dq where k + Q = c c kF , for k kF and 0 < Q kF .

- I
V 2p
k a qa qk .

k +Q
Throughout the following calculation we work to rst
(41) order in Q and drop constant terms, which are irrelevant from
an energetic point of view. For the full model, we have
It is very illustrative to choose w = 0 above. Using the
resolution of the identity 1 in equation (41), and identifying Hkin = vF(0) Q, (47)

dq 1
1 - P I0 = IV 2p
a qa q , (42) V = -
2L
V (k - q) cq cq ck ck ,
q, k
(48)

where PI0 is the projector onto I0, we nd that where vF(0) denotes the microscopic Fermi velocity. The sums
in equation (48) reduce to
y = P I0k . (43) kF
1
The above result has a clear interpretation: the scattering state
V =
L
[V (k - k ) - V (k - k + Q)]. (49)
k =-k F
associated with the incident wave k is nothing but the pro-
jection of the incident wave onto the zero potential eigen- Taking L and performing the resulting integration, we
states. An immediate consequence of equation (43) is that our obtain
system (or any other at-banded system) only supports scat- Q
V =
[V (0) - V (2k F)]. (50)
tering states if the potential has at least one vanishing 2p
eigenvalue. The above analysis therefore proves our claim On the other hand, for the effective model we have
that it is impossible to renormalize g4 in favour of intrabranch
scattering data. Hkin = v F Q, (51)
Veff = 0. (52)
5.2. Intrabranch terms as an energy shift
For the energies to match, then, we must set vF = + vF(0)
Introducing the effective potential, equation (4), has another g4 2p , where g4 = V (0) - V (2kF ), as required by charge
important consequence aside from altering scattering prop- conservation [40]. This alteration of the Fermi velocity is a
erties: it alters the energy expectation value of particle-hole consequence of the full interaction, and not of strictly
pairs, and hence the energy of the bosonic excitations, which intrabranch processes, as we will conrm in the next section.
are sums of particle-hole pairs. Importantly, the difference in Moreover, the energy shift (50) is equal to the rst Born
energy between the two models depends on the relative (Hartree) approximation for the shift due to interbranch
momentum of the pairs. If left as-is, then, our effective model interactions. Thus, we may conclude that the shift is due
will have an incorrect dispersion relation for the bosonic primarily to interbranch interactions, and that intrabranch
excitations, and as such will not reproduce the correct physics plays only a marginal role.
microscopic physics. We must compensate for this, and can
do so by altering the Fermi velocity in the effective model, so 5.2.2. Intrabranch energy shift. To dispel once and for all
that the microscopic energetics of the bosonic excitations is any notion that g4 is related particularly to intrabranch
preserved. As we will see now, making this compensation processes, depicted in gure 2 we show that the above result
leads to a Hamiltonian which, upon bosonisation, gives pre- does not hold if one restricts to a single branch. In this case
cisely the usual bosonic Luttinger model. one obtains a g4 that is incorrect, which does not conserve
charge [40]. Compared to the previous section, this
5.2.1. Energy shift from the full interaction.
The excitations calculation is complicated by the requirement that all
whose microscopic energy we seek to preserve are created by momenta be positive (we choose the chiral right-moving
aq, where problem), and so we give a detailed treatment.
We begin with a single-branch Hamiltonian HR given by
2p
aq = ck+ q ck . (44) HR = (k ) ck ck + VRR, (53)
Lq k k> 0

Since we are interested in small excitations above the Fermi where

sea, our requirement is that 1
VRR =
2L
V (q) ck+ q ck- q ck ck X (k + q) X (k - q).
k , k > 0, q
Faq H eff aqF = Faq Ha
qF + const., (45) (54)

7
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801 M Valiente et al

Figure 2. Left: depiction and interaction diagram for intrabranch collisions. The red solid line corresponds to the Galilean (parabolic)
dispersion, and the blue dashed line corresponds to the linearised approximation around the Fermi points. Right: depiction of the effect of the
effective intrabranch interaction (g4), to raise the excitation energies of quasi-particles (see text).

Hamiltonian (53) conserves total momentum. Since the Fermi can obtain these analytically by expanding V (k + Q - k ) as
sea NR for NR right-moving fermions, given by dV
V (k + Q - k ) = V (k - k ) + Q + (Q 2 ). (60)
NR = ck0 , (55) dk k= k - k
0 < k kF
We obtain
is the unique state with lowest total momentum, it is an
k + Q ; k
eigenstate of the interacting Hamiltonian HR . For quite
k + Q
general repulsive interactions we can also assume it is the
ground state of the chiral system. In order to obtain particle-
= { 1
2p
[V (Q) - V (k )] Q -
1
2p k dkV (k - k )

hole excitation energies, it is convenient to rewrite the
k + Q ; k + (Q 2).
interaction (54) as (throwing away constant energy shifts)
(61)
1 1
VRR =
L
V (q) r+
q rq -
L
V (q) ck+ q ck+ q. (56)
In order to obtain the leading order in Q above, we set
q>0 kq > 0
V (Q) = V (0) + (Q 2 ) and nally arrive at
1
Above, we have dened the displacement operators rqR k + Q ; k = - V (k ) Q + (Q 2) k + Q ; k. (62)
2p
and r+
qR
as
Above, we see that the excitation energy to linear order in Q
rqR = ck- q ck , (57) due to the part of the intrabranch interaction is given
k> q by -V (k ) Q 2p .
r+ = ck+ q ck = r-q. (58) We now consider the rst term on the rhs of
qR
k> 0 equation (54), which we will denote by B , i.e. the part of
Since the rst term on the rhs of equation (56) is bosonizable, the interaction that is straightforwardly bosonizable. For
we shall rst deal with the second term, which we denote by sufciently small q (q kF ), the usual commutation relations
. In particular, we are interested in the difference in energy for the displacement operators are valid,
Lq
between particle-hole excitations and the Fermi sea due to this [rqR, r+
q R] = dq, q . (63)
interaction term. The action of on a particle-hole state, 2p
throwing away a trivial constant term so that it gives the In terms of the bosonic operators dened in the previous
excitation energies, is given by section, we have
1 k
k + Q 1
qV (q) aqR aqR.

B = (64)
k + Q ; k = V (k - k ) - V (k + Q - k ) 2p q > 0
L k= 0 k= 0
The eigenstates of B including only single particle-hole pairs
k + Q ; k ,
are given by
(59)
2p 1 2
which means particle-hole states are eigenvectors of . Since

aqR NR = k + q ; k ,
Lq kF - q < k kF
(65)
we are interested in Luttinger liquid phenomenology, we will
consider only excitation energies of (Q). To this order, we and their respective eigenvalues are given by qV (0) + (q 2 ).

8
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801 M Valiente et al

In order to establish the excitation energies solely in 7. Summary

terms of a quadratic bosonic Hamiltonian, we need to make
two approximations at this point. One of them is the
linearisation of the single-particle dispersion, so that the
excitation kinetic energy of a particle-hole state k + Q; k,
which is given by 2kQ m + (Q 2 ), is approximated by
vF Q m for all k . The second one corresponds to
approximating the energy shift due to as
1 1
- V (k ) Q - V (k F) Q ,
2p 2p
for all k , a reasonable approximation for small Q. In that
approximation, aqR
NR are also eigenstates of , and we can
nally write down the intrabranch interaction, approximately, as
1 Proved that scattering in a single branch of a linear
VRR =
2p
q [V (0) - V (k F)] aqR aqR.
q>0
The above intrabranch interaction would give a (weak-
coupling) value of g4 = V (0) - V (kF ), which is incorrect.
6. Full effective model
As we have just shown, g4 really has nothing to do with
intrabranch interactions in particular, and so to write it as an
intrabranch coupling is misleading. Therefore, as an alter-
native to the usual pre-bosonisation Luttinger Hamiltonian
(which includes these misleading terms), we propose a new
Hamiltonian which better reects the microscopic physics at
play:
We conclude our rather long discussion, in which we have
resolved a misconception regarding intrabranch terms and
provided a careful derivation of Luttingers model, by sum-
marising our main results. We have:
Shown that it is correct to regard the g2 processes in
Luttingers model as microscopic interbranch scattering
processes.
(66)
Given a renormalisation prescription for the interbranch
term in Luttingers model, to compensate for the effect of
introducing the constant potential.
Shown how to linearise the kinetic energy in a rigorous
fashion, and proved that our renormalised g2 does not
change under such a transformation.
(67)
dispersion is suppressed, and hence that g4 cannot be
renormalised in favour of intrabranch data.
Argued that g4 must be introduced so as to compensate
for the effect upon the bosonic excitation energies of
introducing a constant potential.
Calculated the value of g4 when interpreted this way, and
found that it agrees with the usual value known from
charge conservation.
Calculated the value of g4 when interpreted this way but in a
single-branch system, and found that it does not agree with
the correct value, emphasising the fact that g4 processes are
in no way microscopic intrabranch processes.
Shown that taking all of the above considerations into
account gives an effective model whose parameters and
bosonic form agree with Luttingers model.

Heff = v F k [cR, k cR, k - cL, k cL, k ] + Vinter , (68)
k =- 8. Conclusions

with Although we have focused on standard 1D spin-polarised

fermi systems here, our theoretical framework can be gen-
g2 eralised to Luttinger liquids with spin, chiral Luttinger liquids
Vinter =
2L
cR, k cR, k+ qck , L ck - q, L + (R L ) , (69) where our discussion of the single-branch energy shift is
k,k ,q
directly applicableand helical Luttinger liquids [47]. Many
of the concepts elucidated here are relevant for the study of
and v F = vF(0) + g4 2p . Interbranch processes are included non-linear Luttinger liquids [38], i.e. when the nonlinearity in
here as a potential which can induce scattering, but intrabranch the kinetic energy dispersion becomes important. We note
processes are absent and the energy shift for bosonic excita- that our analysis of scattering in a linear dispersion is also an
tions is absorbed into the Fermi velocity, reecting the fact that analysis of at-band scattering in general, and so has impli-
it is an energetic consideration, rather than an intrabranch cations for a much broader class of systems than those under
scattering process. Upon bosonisation, equation (68) yields the study here. Systems with spin, say spin-1/2, would never-
usual bosonic Luttinger model, which for completeness we theless be more difcult to deal with in constructive bosoni-
write here: sation. This is especially true in the singlet (two-particle)
sector, since a weak interaction in this channel, which has a
H = vF q [aR,q aR,q + aL,q aL,q] two-body symmetric spatial wave function, is similar to
q>0
strong coupling in a spinless (or triplet) two-body channel.
g
+ 2
2p
q [aR,q aL,q + aL,qaR,q]. (70) This regime is not accessible via constructive bosonisation:
q>0 this is where Haldanes construction is much more suitable.

9
Phys. Scr. 92 (2017) 095801 M Valiente et al

In this paper we have given a systematic derivation of [13] Lieb E H and Liniger W 1963 Phys. Rev. 130 1605
Luttingers model, treating it as an effective theory with [14] Yang C N 1967 Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 1312
parameters that must be t to realistic physical data corresp- [15] Sutherland B 2004 Beautiful Models (Singapore: World
Scientic)
onding to scattering amplitudes and phase shifts in one spatial [16] Volosniev A G et al 2014 Nat. Commun. 5 5300
dimension. From this point of view, we have shown that: g4 [17] Deuretzbacher F et al 2014 Phys. Rev. A 90 013611
must be set so that bosonic excitations in the effective model [18] Harshman N 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 033633
has the same dispersion relation as in the microscopic model. [19] Levinsen J et al 2015 Science Advances 1 e1500197
We have shown that g4 cannot be interpreted as a measure of [20] Murmann S et al 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 215301
[21] White S R 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 2863
microscopic intrabranch scattering strength, since intrabranch for a review, see Hallberg K 2006 Adv. Phys. 55 477
scattering is suppressed in the effective model. We have [22] Giamarchi T 2004 Quantum Physics in one dimension (Oxford:
carefully illustrated the other approximations and transfor- Oxford University Press)
mations that take the microscopic model into Luttingers [23] Tsvelik A M 2003 Quantum Field Theory in Condensed
model, namely the introduction of an effective potential and Matter Physics 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
the linerisation of the kinetic energy, making this work a self- [24] Tomonaga S 1950 Prog. Theor. Phys. 5 544
contained treatment of Luttingers model as an effective [25] Luttinger J M 1963 J. Math. Phys. 4 1154
theory. [26] Mattis D C and Lieb E H 1965 J. Math. Phys. 6 304
[27] Luther A and Peschel I 1975 Phys. Rev. B 12 3908
[28] Mattis D C 1974 J. Math. Phys. 15 609
[29] Coleman S 1975 Phys. Rev. D 11 2088
Acknowledgments [30] Mandelstam S 1975 Phys. Rev. D 11 3026
[31] den Nijs M P M 1981 Phys. Rev. B 23 6111
MV and P acknowledge support from EPSRC Grant No. [32] Dzyaloshinskii I E and Larkin A I 1974 Sov. Phys. JETP
EP/M024636/1; LGC acknowledges support from the 38 202
[33] Efetov K B and Larkin A I 1975 Sov. Phys. JETP 42 390
EPSRC CM-CDT Grant No. EP/G03673X/1. [34] von Delft J and Schoeller H 1998 Ann. Phys. 7 225
[35] Haldane F D M 1981 J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 14 2585
Haldane F D M 1980 Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 1358
References [36] Afeck I 2005 Phys. Rev. B 72 132414
[37] Husler W, Kecke L and MacDonald A H 2002 Phys. Rev. B
65 085104
[1] Paredes B et al 2004 Nature 429 277 [38] Imambekov A, Schmidt T L and Glazman L I 2012 Rev. Mod.
[2] Kinoshita T, Wenger T and Weiss D S 2004 Science 305 1125 Phys. 84 1253
[3] Haller E et al 2009 Science 325 1224 [39] Voit J 1995 Rep. Prog. Phys. 58 9
[4] Serwane F et al 2011 Science 332 336 [40] Bruus H and Flensberg K 2004 Many-Body Quantum Theory
[5] Zrn G et al 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 075303 in Condensed Matter Physics (Oxford: Oxford University
[6] Greif D, Uehlinger T, Jotzu G, Tarruell L and Esslinger T 2013 Press)
Science 340 1307 [41] Eggert S 2007 Theoretical Survey of One Dimensional Wire
[7] Wenz A N et al 2013 Science 342 457 Systems (Lecture Notes from the A3 Foresight Summer
[8] Jrome D 2004 Chem. Rev. 104 5565 School, Korea) ed Y Kuk et al (Seoul: Sowha)
[9] Henderson W, Vescoli V, Tran P, Degiorgi L and Grner G [42] Von Delft J and Schoeller H 1998 Ann. Phys. 7 225
1999 Eur. Phys. J. B 11 365 [43] Ejuma S and Fehske H 2009 EPL 87 27001
[10] Pashkin D, Dressel M, Hanand M and Kuntscher C A 2010 [44] Hattori K and Rosch A 2014 Phys. Rev. B 90 115103
Phys. Rev. B 81 125109 [45] Cheon T and Shigehara T 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 2536
[11] Bockrath M et al 1999 Nature 397 598 [46] Tomonaga S 1950 Prog. Theor. Phys. 5 544
[12] Bethe H A 1931 Z. Phys. 71 205 [47] Qi X-L and Zhang S-C 2011 Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 1057

10