Greens functions and density of states

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between the Green's function and the density of states in non-interacting systems. A key assertion is that the spectral function, represented as A(ν, ω) = 2π δ(ω - εν), can be proven by considering the eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian. Participants emphasize that the imaginary part of the retarded Green's function corresponds to the density of states and that summing over momentum leads to this result. References to literature, including Mattuck's work, are made to support the derivation and understanding of these concepts. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on how the eigenbasis affects Green's functions, despite their apparent independence from the chosen basis.
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi guys

I found this on Google Books: http://books.google.dk/books?id=v5v...resnum=5&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here they say that whenever we write the Hamiltonian for a non-interacting system in its eigenbasis, then we have that

<br /> A(\nu, \omega) = 2\pi \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\nu).<br />

How can this statement be proven? Do you have any hints for this?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.Niles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, perhaps I should reformulate my question: I keep reading that the imaginary part of the retarded Greens function is the density of states, and I am quite sure it has got something to do with

<br /> <br /> A(\nu, \omega) = 2\pi \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\nu).<br /> <br />

since if we sum over ν we get something proportional to the density of states on the RHS. SO I guess my question is: How do we show that in the eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian for a non-interacting system, the imaginary part of the Green's function is equal to the density of states?
 
I don't know where the eigenbasis should enter as the Greensfunctions do not depend on a basis. But for a free particle, the greens function is basically \sum (\omega - \epsilon_\nu)^{-1}. Now using 1/x=P(1/x)+2\pi i \delta (x) where P stands for taking the principal value, you should be able to derive your formula.
 
Niles said:
Hi guys

I found this on Google Books: http://books.google.dk/books?id=v5v...resnum=5&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here they say that whenever we write the Hamiltonian for a non-interacting system in its eigenbasis, then we have that

<br /> A(\nu, \omega) = 2\pi \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\nu).<br />

How can this statement be proven? Do you have any hints for this?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.


Niles.

You need to consider this as the spectral function of the single-particle propagator. To get the density of states, you sum up over all momentum. So you show that the result of the DOS matches the density of states for a free non-interacting electron gas.

Mattuck actually did this in his book "A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem" for this very case. It is a Dover book, so it's cheap. It is also extremely useful.

Zz.
 
DrDu said:
I don't know where the eigenbasis should enter as the Greensfunctions do not depend on a basis. But for a free particle, the greens function is basically \sum (\omega - \epsilon_\nu)^{-1}. Now using 1/x=P(1/x)+2\pi i \delta (x) where P stands for taking the principal value, you should be able to derive your formula.

In my book the Greens functions in real-space and momentum-space look different; so how it is that they cannot depend on the chosen basis?

ZapperZ said:
You need to consider this as the spectral function of the single-particle propagator. To get the density of states, you sum up over all momentum. So you show that the result of the DOS matches the density of states for a free non-interacting electron gas.

The point is that in the book they only do it in momentum-space, and add as a side-note that "this in fact is true for all non-interacting fermions in any bases you like" - that is the statement I think needs more explanation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K