arXiv:0804.3360v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 21 Apr 2008

arXiv:0804.3360v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 21 Apr 2008

The spetrum of interating metalli arbon nanotubes:

Exhange eets and universality

LeonhardMayrhoferandMilena Grifoni

TheoretishePhysik,UniversitätRegensburg,93040Regensburg,Germany

Reeived:date/Revisedversion:date

Abstrat. The low energy spetrum of nite size metalli single-walled arbon nanotubes (SWNTs) is

determined.Startingfromatightbindingmodelforthe

p z

^{eletrons,wederivethelowenergy}Hamiltonian ontaining all relevant sattering proesses resulting from the Coulomb interation, inluding the short

rangedontributions beoming relevant for smalldiameter tubes. Inombinationwiththe substruture

of the underlying honeyomblattie the short ranged proesses lead to various exhange eets. Using

bosonization the spetrum is determined.We nd that the ground state is formed by aspin

1

^triplet,

if

4n + 2

^{eletrons oupy the SWNT andthe branhmismathis smallerthan the exhange splitting.}

Additionally, we alulate the exitation spetra for the dierent harge states and nd the lifting of

spin-hargeseparationaswellastheformationofaquasi-ontinuumathigherexitationenergies.

PACS. 73.63.FgNanotubes71.10.Pm Fermionsinredueddimensions71.70.Gm Exhangeinterations

1Introdution

Single walled arbon nanotubes (SWNTs) have remark-

ablemehanialandeletroniproperties.Theyrepresent,

at low enoughenergies,an almost idealrealization ofan

one-dimensional(1D)eletronisystemwithanadditional

orbital degree of freedom. Due to this 1D harater the

properinlusionof theCoulombinteration between the

eletronsin aSWNTismandatory. Formetalli SWNTs

of innitelength thetheoretial works [1,2℄showed that

orrelationsbetweentheeletronsanbedesribedwithin

the Luttinger liquid piture. The aompanying our-

reneofpower-lawsforvarioustransportpropertiesould

indeedbeobservedexperimentally[3,4℄.Theeetsofthe

forward sattering part of the eletron-eletron intera-

tionsin nite-sizeSWNTsweretreatedbyKaneet al.in

[5℄withinthebosonizationframework.Therethedisrete

energyspetrumoftheolletivespinand hargeexita-

tionswasderived.Thebosonizationmethod hasreently

been used also to determine the transport properties of

nitesize metalliSWNTquantum dots[6℄.

Sofartheeetofnon-forwardsatteringpartsofthe

Coulombinterationhasonly beendisussed forSWNTs

ofinnitelengthbyrenormalizationgrouptehniques[1,

2℄. In [1℄ deviations from onventional Luttinger Liquid

behaviourhave been found onlyfor verysmall tempera-

tures

T . 0.1

^{mK provided that the interation is long}

ranged. Theworkof Odintsovet al.[2℄additionallytook

into aount the situation at half lling where the for-

mation of aMott insulating state was predited. In the

workstreatingeletron-eletroninterations innite size

non-forwardsattering parts of the Coulomb interation

hasbeennegleted.Thisapproximation,whihwewillall

standard theoryinthefollowing,isvalidifmoderateto

largediametertubes(

& 1.5

^{nm )areonsideredasin[5,6℄,}

orifnitesize eets anbenegletedsinetherelevant

energies exeedthelevelspaing of theSWNTasin the

experiments[3,4℄.Reentexperiments[79℄howeverhave

foundexhangeeetsinthegroundstatespetraofsmall

diametertubeswhihannotbeexplainedusingthestan-

dardbosonizationtheoryforinteratingSWNTs.Oreget

al. [10℄ havepresenteda mean-eld Hamiltonian forthe

low energy spetrum of SWNTs inluding an exhange

term favouring the spin alignment of eletrons in dier-

entbands.Thevaluesfortheexhangeenergiesobserved

in theexperimentsagree wellwiththemean-eldpredi-

tions. However, the question of a singlet-triplet ground

state is beyond the mean eld approah. Moreover, in

ontrastto thebosonization proedureitannotpredit

thestrongenergyrenormalizationofthehargedolletive

eletronexitations.

Inthisartilewegobeyondthemean-eld approah.

Wederivealow-energyHamiltonianfornite sizemetal-

li SWNTs, whih inludes all relevant short-ranged in-

teration proesses.This allowsus to identify themiro-

sopi mehanismsthat leadto the various exhange ef-

fets.Usingbosonization wedeterminethespetrumand

eigenstatesoftheSWNTHamiltonianessentiallyexatly

awayfromhalf-lling.Aninterestingsituationarisesnear

half-lling sine there additional proesses beome rele-

vant whih an notbe onsidered assmall ompared to

we have not found a reliable way of diagonalizing the

Hamiltonianinthat situationsofar.

Conerningthegroundstateproperties,wendunder

the ondition of degenerateor almost degenerate bands,

aspin

1

^{tripletasgroundstateif}

4n + 2

^eletronsoupy

thenanotube.Thisis insofarremarkableas afundamen-

tal theorem worked out by Lieb and Mattis [11℄ states

for any single-band Hubbard model in 1D with nearest-

neighbour hopping that the ground state anonly have

spin

0

^or

1/2.

^{However at the end of their artile they}

expliitly pose the question whether ground states with

higher spinould berealized in 1D systemswith orbital

degeneray, whih in the ase of SWNTs is present due

to thesubstrutureof theunderlying honeyomblattie.

Ourndingsanswerthisquestionwithyes,heneproong

that thetheorembyLiebandMattisannotbegeneral-

ized to multi-bandsystems. Moreoverit is interestingto

notiethatalloftheproessesfavouringhigherspinstates

in SWNTsinvolvenon-forwardsatteringwithrespetto

the orbital degree of freedom. On the experimental side

an exhange splitting in the lowenergy spetrumof the

4n + 2

^{hargestatehasindeedbeenobserved[79℄.How-}

ever,alltheexperimentsdemonstratingexhangesplitting

werearriedoutforSWNTswithalargebandmismath

suhthatthegroundstatesaresupposedtobespin

0

^sin-

glets.EspeiallyMoriyamaet al.haveproventhatthisis

theaseintheirexperiments[9℄byarryingoutmagneti

eld measurements.Thus thethreefolddegeneratespin

1

ground state hasnot beenobserved yet,sine its our-

rene requires a band mismath that is small ompared

to theexhangeenergy.Additionally tothe groundstate

properties of metalli SWNTs we have also determined

theexitationspetra.Wendthatthehugedegeneraies

as obtainedbyonlyretainingtheforwardsattering pro-

esses are partlylifted and the spetrum beomes more

and moreontinuous when going to higher energies. Fi-

nally this leadsto alifting ofthe spinhargeseparation

preditedbythestandard theory.

Theoutlineofthisartileisthefollowing.Westartin

Setion2.1 bybrieyreviewingthelowenergyphysisof

noninteratingeletronsinnitesizemetalliSWNTs.In-

luding theCoulombinterationwederivetheeetively

one-dimensional Hamiltonian for the low energy regime

in Setion 2.2. Thesubsequent examination of the ee-

tive1DinterationpotentialinSetion2.2.1allowsusto

sortouttheirrelevantinteration proesses.Theremain-

ingproessesareeitherofdensity-densityornon-density-

density form. The former ones we diagonalize together

with the kineti part of the Hamiltonian by bosoniza-

tion in 3.1. Using the obtained eigenstates as basis we

alulate theorrespondingmatrixelementsforthenon-

density-density part of the interation with the help of

the bosonization identity of the eletron operators, Se-

tion 3.2. In Setion 4 we alulate the groundstate and

exitation spetra by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in-

luding the non-density-densityproessesin atrunated

basisanddisusstheresults.

For the hurried reader we propose to skip the more

Fig. 1.Thegraphenelattiewithitssublattiestruture.

retlytoSetions4.1and4.2wheretheresultsofthiswork

are presentedforthelowenergyand lowtointermediate

energyregions,respetively.

2Low energy Hamiltonian of metalli nite

size SWNTs

Asshownin[12℄,orrelationeetsinmetalliSWNTsare

universalatlowenergies,i.e.theydonotdepend onthe

hiralityoftheonsideredtube.Thereforewean,without

lossofgenerality,fous onarmhairnanotubesfromnow

on.

Inthissetionwewillgiveashortsummaryoftheele-

tronistrutureofnoninteratingnitesizearmhairnan-

otubesinthelowenergyregimefollowingourearlierwork

[6℄.Onthisbasiswearegoingtoinlude theCoulombin-

terationbetweentheeletrons,leadingtoaneetive1D

Hamiltonian.Thesubsequentexaminationoftheeetive

1D interation potential will determine all the relevant

sattering proesses, whih are either of density-density

ornon-density-densityform.

2.1The noninteratingSystem

Beforeonsideringtheeetoftheeletron-eletroninter-

ations,letusreallthemostimportantfats aboutnon-

interatingeletronsinnitesizearmhairSWNTs.Sine

SWNTsanbeonsideredasgraphenesheetsrolledupto

ylinders, the bandstrutureof SWNTs is easily derived

from theone of the

p z

^{eletronsin the graphene honey-}

omblattie,seee.g.[13℄.Twoarbonatoms

p = ±

^oupy

the unit ellof graphene, f. Fig. 1,leadingto avalene

and aondution band touhingat thetwoFermipoints

F = ± K 0 ˆ e x

^. Quantizationaroundtheirumferene ofa SWNTrestritsthesetofallowedwavevetors,leadingto

gapless subbands with linear dispersion,touhing at the

Fermipoints,arerelevantatlowenoughenergies.Impos-

ingopenboundaryonditionsalongthetubelength

L

^,the

eigenfuntionsof the noninterating Hamiltonian

H 0

^are

standingwaves

ϕ rκ ( r )

^{wheretheourreneofthebranh}

orpseudospinindex

r = ±

^{isaonsequeneofthedouble}

oupanyofthegrapheneunit ell.Furthermore

κ

^mea-

suresthewavenumberrelativetotheFermiwavenumber

K 0

^{and issubjettothe}quantizationondition

κ = π

L (n κ + ∆), n κ ∈ Z , | ∆ | ≤ 1/2.

⁽¹⁾

Theparameter

∆

^{hastobeintroduedifthereisnointeger}

n

^with

K 0 = πn/L,

^where

L

^{is the tube length, and is}

responsible for a possible energy mismath

ε ∆

^between

the

r = +

^and

r = −

^{eletrons. In general}

∆

^depends

alsoonthetypeoftheonsideredSWNT[14℄.Expliitly,

ϕ rκ ( r )

^{anbedeomposedinto}ontributionsfromthetwo sublatties

p = ± ,

ϕ rκ ( r ) = 1

√ 2 X

p=±

f pr e ^iκx ϕ pK 0 ( r ) − e ^−iκx ϕ p−K 0 ( r ) .

(2)

Theoeients

f pr

^aregivenby

f pr = 1/ √

2, p = +

− r/ √

2, p = − ,

⁽³⁾

andthefuntions

ϕ pF

^{desribefastosillatingBlohwaves}

onsublattie

p

^{attheFermipoint}

F

^,

ϕ pF ( r ) = 1

√ N L

X

R

e ^{iF R x} χ( r − R − τ _p ),

⁽⁴⁾

where

N L

^{is the total numberof lattie sites and}

χ( r − R − τ _p )

^isthe

p z

^{orbitalloalizedonsite}

R

ofsublattie

p

^,seeFig.1.

InFig.2weshowthelineardispersionrelationforthe

standing waves

ϕ rκ

^{. Theslopesof the two branhes are}

givenby

r ~ v F ,

^{withtheFermiveloity}

v F ≈ 8.1 · 10 ⁵ m/s

^.

Inludingthe spindegreeof freedom,theHamiltonianof

thenoninteratingsystem

H 0

^{thereforereads}

H 0 = ~ v F

X

rσ

r X

κ

κc ^† _rσκ c rσκ ,

⁽⁵⁾

where

c rσκ

annihilates an eletron in the state

| ϕ rκ i | σ i

^.

Thus the level spaing of the noninterating system is

givenby

ε 0 = ~ v F

π

L .

⁽⁶⁾

Inthenextsetionwearegoingtoexpresstheintera-

tionpartof theHamiltonian interms ofthe3D eletron

operators,whihexpressedintermsofthewavefuntions

ϕ rκ ( r )

^read

Ψ( r ) = X

σ

X

rκ

ϕ rκ ( r )c rσκ =: X

σ

Ψ σ ( r ).

Fig. 2. The energy spetrum of a noninterating metalli

SWNT with the two branhes

r = ±

^{. The level spaing is}

denoted

ε 0

^and

ε ∆

^{istheenergymismathbetween}

r = +

^and

r = −

^.

Bydeningtheslowlyvarying1Deletronoperators,

ψ rF σ (x) := 1

√ 2L X

κ

e ^isgn(F)κx c rσκ ,

weobtainwith(2),

Ψ σ ( r ) = √ L X

rF

sgn(F )ψ rF σ (x) X

p

f pr ϕ pF ( r ).

⁽⁷⁾

2.2The interationHamiltonian

In this setion we examine the interation part of the

Hamiltonian.Afterintroduinganeetive1Dinteration

potential,wedisusswhihofthesatteringproessesare

of importane. We start with the general expression for

theCoulombinteration,

V = 1 2

X

σσ ^′

Z d ³ r

Z

d ³ r ^′ Ψ _σ ^† ( r )Ψ _σ ^{† ′} ( r ^′ )U ( r − r ^′ )Ψ σ ^′ ( r ^′ )Ψ σ ( r ),

where

U ( r − r ^′ )

^{istheCoulombpotential.Fortheatual}

alulations we model

U ( r − r ^′ )

^{by the so alled Ohno}

potential whih interpolatesbetween

U 0 ,

^{the interation}

energy between two

p z

^{eletronsin the same orbital for}

r = r ^′

and

e ²

4πǫ 0 ǫ| r − r ^′ |

^{for largevaluesof}

| r − r ^′ | .

^Mea-

suringdistanesinunitsofÅandenergyin

eV

^,itisgiven

by[15℄

U( r − r ^′ ) = U 0 / q

1 + (U 0 ǫ | r − r ^′ | /14.397) ² eV.

⁽⁸⁾

A reasonable hoie is

U 0 = 15

^{eV [16℄. The dieletri}

onstant is given by

ǫ ≈ 1.4 − 2.4

^[1℄. Reexpressingthe 3Deletronoperators

Ψ σ ( r )

^{in termsofthe1Doperators}

ψ rF σ (x)

^{, f. equation (7), and} integrating overtheoor- dinatesperpendiularto thetubeaxis,weobtain,

V = 1 2

X

σσ ^′

X

{[r],[F]}

sgn(F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 ) Z

dx Z

dx ^′ U [r][F ] (x, x ^′ )

× ψ _r ^† _{1 F 1 σ} (x)ψ ^† _{r 2 F 2 σ} ′ (x ^′ )ψ r 3 F 3 σ ^′ (x ^′ )ψ r 4 F 4 σ (x),

⁽⁹⁾

where

P

{[r],[F]}

^{denotesthesumoverallquadruples}

[r] = (r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 )

^and

[F ] = (F 1 , F 2 , F 3 , F 4 )

^{. Under the as-}

sumption, justied by the loalized harater of the

p z

orbitals, that the sublattie wave funtions

ϕ pF ( r )

^and

ϕ −pF ( r )

^{donotoverlap,i.e.,}

ϕ pF ( r )ϕ −pF ( r ) ≡ 0

^,theef-

fetive1DCoulombpotential

U [r][F] (x, x ^′ )

^isgivenby,

U [r][F] (x, x ^′ ) = L ²

Z d ² r ⊥

Z

d ² r _⊥ ^′ X

p,p ^′

f pr 1 f p ^′ r 2 f p ^′ r 3 f pr 4

× ϕ ^∗ _{pF 1} ( r )ϕ ^∗ _p ^′ _{F 2} ( r ^′ )ϕ p ^′ F 3 ( r ^′ )ϕ pF 4 ( r )U ( r − r ^′ ).

⁽¹⁰⁾

Using relation(3)for theoeients

f pr

^{and performing}

thesumover

p, p ^′

^{,weanseparate}

U [r][F ]

^intoapartde-

sribing the interation between eletrons living on the

same(intra)andondierent(inter)sublatties,

U [r][F] (x, x ^′ ) = 1 4

h U _[F] ^intra (x, x ^′ )(1 + r 1 r 2 r 3 r 4 ) + U _[F] ^inter (x, x ^′ )(r 2 r 3 + r 1 r 4 ) i

,

⁽¹¹⁾

where

U intra/inter

[F] (x, x ^′ ) = L ² Z Z

d ² r _⊥ d ² r _⊥ ^′

× ϕ ^∗ _{pF 1} ( r )ϕ ^∗ _{±pF 2} ( r ^′ )ϕ ±pF 3 ( r ^′ )ϕ pF 4 ( r )U ( r − r ^′ ).

⁽¹²⁾

Notethatthe3DextentionoftheonsideredSWNTenters

theeetive1Dinterationpotentialviaequation(12).In

AppendixAweshowhowweatuallydeterminethevalues

forthepotentials

U intra/inter [F ] (x, x ^′ )

^.

2.2.1Therelevant satteringproesses

Not all of the terms in (9) ontribute to the interation

beausetheorrespondingpotential

U [r][F]

^{vanishesorhas}

averysmall amplitude.Inorderto pikouttherelevant

terms,itisonvenienttointroduethenotionofforward

(

f

^{)-,bak (}

b

^{)-andUmklapp (}

u

^{)-sattering withrespet}

toanarbitraryindexquadruple

[I]

^{assoiatedtotheele-}

tron operators in (9). Denoting the sattering type by

S I

^{we write}

[I] S I =f ^±

^for

[I, ± I, ± I, I]

^{. Furthermore we}

use

[I] S I =b

^for

[I, − I, I, − I]

^and

[I] S I =u

^{is equivalent to}

[I, I, − I, − I]

^{,f.Fig.3.Keepingonlytherelevantterms,}

theinterationpartoftheHamiltonianaquirestheform,

V = X

S r =f,b,u

X

S F =r,b

X

S σ =f

V S r S F S σ ,

⁽¹³⁾

where

V S r S F S σ := 1 2

X { ^{[r] Sr ,[F] SF ,[σ] Sσ} }

Z Z

dx dx ^′ U [r][F] (x, x ^′ )

× ψ ^† _{r 1 F 1 σ} (x)ψ _r ^† _{2 F 2 σ} ′ (x ^′ )ψ r 3 F 3 σ ^′ (x ^′ )ψ r 4 F 4 σ (x),

⁽¹⁴⁾

Fig. 3. The relevant sattering proesses. For-

ward/bak/Umklapp sattering are denoted by

f ^± /b/u

^.

The index I represents one of the three degrees of freedom

r, F, σ

^{(branh,Fermipointandspin,}respetively).

Sattering of

r

^{We start with the possible sattering}

events related to the pseudo spin

r

^{. From (11) we an}

immediatelyreadothattheinterationpotential

U [r][F]

does not vanish only if

r 2 r 3 = r 1 r 4 .

^{Thus we nd the}

followingasesfortherelevantsatteringtypes,

i) r 1 = r 4 , r 2 = r 3

^and

ii) r 1 = − r 4 , r 2 = − r 3 .

Relation

i)

^{summarizes all the forward sattering pro-}

esses with respet to

r

^{and the assoiated interation}

potentialis,

U [r] f [F] (x, x ^′ ) = 1 2

h U _[F] ^intra (x, x ^′ ) + U _[F] ^inter (x, x ^′ ) i

=: U _[F] ⁺ (x, x ^′ ).

⁽¹⁵⁾

Case

ii)

^inludesall

S r = b

^and

S r = u

^{proessesandhere}

theinteration potentialisproportionalto thedierene

between

U ^intra

^and

U ^inter

^,

U [r] b/u [F] (x, x ^′ ) = 1

2

h U _[F] ^intra (x, x ^′ ) − U _[F] ^inter (x, x ^′ ) i

=: U _[F] ^∆ (x, x ^′ ).

⁽¹⁶⁾

Sattering of

F

^Thedetermination oftheessentialsat- teringproesseswithrespetto

F

^{anbeahievedbyex-}

ploiting the approximate onservation of quasi momen-

tum. Looking at expression (4) for the wave funtions

ϕ pF ( r )

^{, wend that the interationpotential}

U [r][F]

^{, f.}

(10), ontains phase fators of the form

e ^{−i(F 1 −F 4 )R x} × e ^{−i(F 2 −F 3 )R ′ x}

^{. Although we are onsidering a nite sys-}

tem,thereforenothavingperfettranslationalsymmetry,

aftertheintegrationalongthetubeaxisin(9),onlyterms

withoutfastosillationssurvive 1

.Theorrespondingon-

ditionisgivenby

F 1 − F 4 + F 2 − F 3 = 0,

⁽¹⁷⁾

1

that means only the

S F = f

^and

S F = b

^{terms survive.}

We have expliitly heked that due to the disrete na-

tureoftheSWNTlattiealsothe

S F = u

^proesseshave

very small amplitudes and an be negleted. Note that

ondition(17)leadsto

sgn(F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 ) = 1

^in(9).

Sattering of

σ

^{It is lear that only}

S σ = f

^proesses

are allowed, sine the Coulomb interation is spin inde-

pendent.

Altogether thisproofsequation(13).

Proesses onserving or not onserving the fermioni

onguration Fromthedisussionin Setion 2.1weal-

readyknowthatwehavetodistinguishbetweeneletrons

with dierent spin

σ

^{and pseudo spin}

r

^{. In the follow-}

ing we will denote the number of eletrons of a ertain

speies by

N rσ

^{and we will refer to the quantity}

N = (N _+↑ , N _+↓ , N _−↑ , N _−↓ )

^asfermioni onguration.Notall ofthesatteringproessesin(13)onserve

N .

^Inmorede-

tail,fortermswith

(S r , S σ ) = (u, f ⁺ )

^,

(S r , S σ ) = (b, f ⁻ )

and

(S r , S σ ) = (u, f ⁻ ) N

is not agood quantum num- ber as an be easily veried by using equation (14). In

general, only proesses desribed by the

N

onserving termsaresensitivetothetotalnumberofeletronsin the

dot. As examplewe mentionthe harging energyontri-

bution proportionalto

N _c ²

^,

N c := P

rσ N rσ

^arisingfrom

the

(S r , S F , S σ ) = (f, f, f )

^{proessesappearinglater on.}

Ontheotherhand forthe

N

nononservingterms,only theviinityoftheFermisurfaeisofrelevane.

Proessesonlyrelevantnearhalf-lling Awayfromhalf-

llingwendthattermswith

r 1 F 1 + r 2 F 2 − r 3 F 3 − r 4 F 4 6 = 0,

⁽¹⁸⁾

i.e., the Umklapp sattering terms with respet to the

produt

rF

^{2anbenegletedin(9).Forthe}

N

nonon- servingtermsfullling(18)thisisaonsequeneoftheap-

proximateonservationofquasimomentum,arisingfrom

theslowosillationsof the1D eletronoperators in (14)

whihneartheFermisurfaearegivenbytheexponential

e ⁻ⁱ [( ^{r 1 F 1 N r} 1 σ 1 −r 4 F 4 N r 4 σ 4 ) ^x+ ( ^{r 2 F 2 N r} 2 σ 2 −r 3 F 3 N r 3 σ 3 ) ^{x ′} ]

. After

Z L

0

dx ^′ Z L

0

dx U(x − x ^′ )e ^ikx e ^{ik ′ x ′} =

Z L

0

dx ^′ Z L−x ^′

−x ^′

dy U (y)e ^iky e ^{i(k+k ′ )x ′} = ˜ U k

Z L

0

dx ^′ e ^{i(k+k ′ )x ′} ,

where

U ˜ k = R L−x ^′

−x ^′ dyU(y)e ^iky

^{doesnotdependon}

x ^′

^beause

we have assumed translational invariane. Soit is lear that

thedoubleintegralvanishesunless

k + k ^′ ≈ 0.

2

There aresimplerulesfordeterminingthesatteringtype

S rF

^if

S r

^and

S F

^{are known. Dening a produt by}

S rF = S r S F = S F S r

^itholds,

Sf ⁺ = S; S ² = f ⁺ ; f ⁻ u = b; f ⁻ b = u

and

ub = f ⁻ .

u ⁺ d ε 0

u ^∆ _f d ε 0

u ^∆ _b d ε 0

ǫ = 1.4 0.22

^Å

0.14

^Å

0.22

^Å

ǫ = 2.4 0.28

^Å

0.22

^Å

0.28

^Å

Table 1. The dependeneof the ouplingonstants

u ⁺ , u ^∆ f

and

u ^∆ b

^{onthetubediameter}

d

^{andonthedieletrionstant}

ǫ

^.

performing the integrations in (14) this leads approxi-

mately to (18). The

N

onserving terms obeying (18),

V f ⁻ bf

^and

V bf ⁻ f ⁺

^{,whihdesribenotonlyproessesnear}

theFermilevel,addatermproportionaltothenumberof

eletrons abovehalf-lling to theHamiltonian, therefore

just givingrisetoashiftofthehemialpotential.

2.2.2Longrangedvs.shortrangedinterations

Exept of

U [r] f [F ] f = U _[F] ⁺ _f

^{, all relevant interation po-}

tentials

U [r][F]

^{an eetively be treated as loal inter-}

ations: In the ase of

U _[F] ⁺ _b

^{this is due to the appear-}

ane of phase fators

e ^{i2F(R x −R ′ x )}

^{in (12), arising from}

theBlohwaves

ϕ pF ( r )

^{,f.equation(4),osillatingmuh}

fasterthantheeletronoperators

ψ rσF (x).

^{Thepotentials}

U _[F] ^∆

^,beingproportionaltothediereneoftheinter-and intra-lattie interation potentials, are in general short

ranged,sine

U _[F] ^intra (x, x ^′ )

^and

U _[F] ^inter (x, x ^′ )

^onlyhaveon-

siderably dieringvalues for

| x − x ^′ | . a 0

^{with the next}

neighbourdistane

a 0 = 0.142

^{nm of the arbon atoms}

in theSWNTlattie[1℄.Summarizing,onlythe proesses

with

(S r , S F ) = (f, f )

^{are long ranged. All other terms}

an eetively be written as loal interations. I.e. for

(S r , S F ) 6 = (f, f )

^weanusetheapproximation

1

2 U [r] _Sr [F] _SF (x, x ^′ ) ≈ Lu S r S F δ(x − x ^′ ),

⁽¹⁹⁾

where wehaveintroduedtheouplingparameters

u ^{S r S F} := 1/(2L ² ) Z Z

dx dx ^′ U [r] _Sr [F] _SF (x, x ^′ ).

⁽²⁰⁾

Usingtheapproximation(19)weobtainfrom(14)inthe

ase

(S r , S F ) 6 = (f, f )

^{thefollowingexpressionforthenon}

forwardsatteringinterationterms,

V S r S F S σ ≈ Lu S r S F

X { ^{[r] Sr ,[F]} SF ,[σ] f }

× Z L

0

dxψ _r ^† _{1 F 1 σ} (x)ψ ^† _{r 2 F 2 σ} ^′ (x)ψ r 3 F 3 σ ^′ (x)ψ r 4 F 4 σ (x).

⁽²¹⁾

Inthefollowingwe usetheabbreviations

u ⁺ := u f b

^and

u ^∆ _{S F} := u b S F = u u S F .

^{For details about the alulation,}

seeAppendixA.Wendthatingeneraltheouplingon-

stants

u ⁺

^and

u ^∆ _{S F}

^{saleinverselywiththetotalnumberof}

lattiesites,i.e.,like

1/Ld

^,where

d

^{is thetubediameter.}

From aphysial point of view this is due to an inreas-

ingattenuationofthewavefuntionsforagrowingsystem

size.Thereforetheprobabilityofproessesmediatedbylo-

alinterationsisproportionalto

1/Ld

^{.Beausethelevel}

spaing of the noninterating system

ε 0

^{sales like}

1/L

^,

f. (6), the produts

u ⁺ d/ε 0

^and

u ^∆ _{S F} d/ε 0

^{are onstants.}

Theorrespondingnumerialvaluesfordierentdieletri

onstants

ǫ

^{, f.equation(8),aregivenin table1.}

2.2.3Density-densityvs.non-density-densityproesses

The interation proesses an be divided into density-

densityterms, easilydiagonalizablebybosonization [17℄,

andnon-density-densitytermsrespetively.Itislearthat

theforwardsatteringinteration

V f f f

^isofdensity-density form,

V f f f = 1 2

X

rr ^′

X

F F ^′

X

σσ ^′

Z Z

dx dx ^′ U _[F] ⁺ _f (x, x ^′ )

× ρ rF σ (x)ρ r ^′ F ^′ σ ^′ (x ^′ ),

⁽²²⁾

wherethedensities

ρ rF σ (x)

^aregivenby

ρ rF σ (x) = ψ _{rF σ} ^† (x)ψ rF σ (x).

Butsinewetreattheshort rangedinterationsasloal,

also

V f ⁺ b f ⁺

^,

V f ⁺ b f ⁺ = Lu ⁺ X

rσF

Z L 0

dxψ ^† _{rF σ} (x)ψ ^† _{r−F σ} (x)ψ rF σ (x)ψ r−F σ (x)

= − Lu ⁺ X

rσF

Z L 0

dxρ rF σ (x)ρ r−F σ (x),

⁽²³⁾

andsimilarly

V b f ⁺ /b f ⁺ , V b f ⁺ /b f ⁺ =

− Lu ^∆ _f ⁺ _/b X

rσF

Z L 0

dxρ rF σ (x)ρ −r±F σ (x),

⁽²⁴⁾

aredensity-densityinterations.Intotalthedensity-density

partoftheinterationisgivenby

V ρρ = V f f f + V f ⁺ b f ⁺ + V b f ⁺ f ⁺ + V b b f ⁺ .

⁽²⁵⁾

Theremainingtermsarenotof density-densityformand

areolletedintheoperator

V nρρ .

^{Inludingonlytheon-}

tributionsrelevantawayfromhalf-lling,weobtain,

V nρρ = V f ⁺ b f ⁻ + V b f ⁺ f ⁻ + V b b f ⁻ + V u f ⁻ f + V u b f .

⁽²⁶⁾

Nearhalf-llingadditionallytheproesses

V f ⁻ b f , V b f ⁻ f

^and

V u f ⁺ f ⁻ ,

⁽²⁷⁾

satisfyingondition(18),ontributeto

V nρρ

^.Overall,the

SWNTHamiltonianaquirestheform,

H = H 0 + V ρρ + V nρρ .

3Expressing the SWNT Hamiltonian in the

eigenbasis of

H ₀ + V _ρρ

Away from half-lling, the interation is dominated by

V f f f

^{.Togetherwith}

H 0

^{ityieldsthestandardtheoryfor}

interating eletrons in SWNTs [1,2,5℄. Using bosoniza-

tion we will in the nextstep diagonalize

H 0 + V ρρ

^{. Sub-}

sequentlywewill examinethe eet of

V nρρ

^{by alulat-}

ing the matrix elements of

V nρρ

^{between the} eigenstates of

H 0 + V ρρ

^{. The} diagonalization of

V nρρ

^{in atrunated}

eigenbasisof

H 0 + V ρρ

^{,disussed inSetion 4thenyields}

to a good approximationthe orreteigenstates andthe

spetrumof thetotalHamiltonian

H

^.

3.1Diagonalizing

H 0 + V ρρ

Byintroduingoperatorsreating/annihilatingbosoniex-

itations we aneasily diagonalize

H 0 + V ρρ

^asweshow

in this setion. It turns out that the Fourier oeients

ofthedensityoperators

ρ rσF (x)

^areessentiallyofbosoni nature.Indetail,wegetbyFourierexpansion,

ρ rF σ (x) = 1 2L

X

q

e ^isgn(F)qx ρ rσq ,

⁽²⁸⁾

where

q = _L ^π n q , n q ∈ Z .

^{Then theoperators}

b σq r

^dened

by,

b σq r := 1

√ n q

ρ rσq r , q r := r · q, q > 0

⁽²⁹⁾

fulll the anonial ommutation relations

[b σq , b ^† _σ ′ q ^′ ] = δ σ ^′ σ δ qq ^′

^{as shown e.g. in [17℄. For} ompleteness we give theexpliitexpressionfor

b σq r , r = ±

^,

b σq r = 1

√ n q

X

κ

c ^† _rσκ c rσκ+q r , q > 0.

Thebosonizedexpressionfor

H 0

^{iswellknown[6℄,}

H 0 = X

rσ

"

ε 0

X

q>0

| n q | b ^† _{σq r} b σq r + ε 0

2 N rσ ² + r ε ∆

2 N ^rσ

# ,

(30)

Here thersttermdesribesolletivepartile-holeexi-

tations, whereas the seond term is due to Pauli's prin-

iple and represents the energy ost for the shell lling.

The third term aounts for apossibleenergy mismath

betweenthebands

r = ±

^,givenby

ε ∆ = sgn(∆)ε 0 min(2 | ∆ | , | 2 | ∆ | − 1 | ).

The operators

N ^rσ

^{ount the number of eletrons}

N rσ

in branh

(rσ).

Bosonization of

V ρρ

^{an be ahieved by}

insertingtheFourierexpansion(28)intoexpressions(22),

obtain,

V ρρ = V f f f + V f ⁺ b f ⁺ + V b f ⁺ /b f ⁺ = 1

2 X

q>0

n q





 W q

"

X

rσ

b σr·q + b ^† _σr·q

# 2

− u ⁺ X

rσ

(b σr·q b σr·q + h.c.)

− u ^∆ _f X

rσ

(b σr·q b σ−r·q + h.c.)

− u ^∆ _b X

rσ

b σr·q b ^† _σ−r·q + h.c.

)

+ 1 2

"

E c N c ² − J 2

X

rσ

N ^rσ N ^−rσ − u ⁺ X

rσ

N rσ ²

# ,

⁽³¹⁾

wheretheoeients

W q

^{determinetheinterationstrength}

of

V f f f

^{andaregivenby}

W q = 1 L ²

Z dx

Z

dx ^′ U _[F] ⁺ _f (x, x ^′ ) cos(qx) cos(qx ^′ ).

The lastline of (31)desribestheontribution of

V ρρ

^to

thesystem energydepending onthenumberof eletrons

in thesinglebranhes

(rσ)

^{. Here}

E c = W 0

^istheSWNT

harging energy,

N ^c = P

rσ N ^rσ

^{ounts the total num-}

berofeletrons.Spinalignmentofeletronswithdierent

branh index

r

^{is favoured by the term} proportional to

J/2 := u ^∆ _f + u ^∆ _b

^{.Finallythetermouplingwith}

u ⁺

^oun-

teratstheenergyostfortheshellllinginequation(30).

Sine the bosoni operators appear quadratially in

(30)and(31)weandiagonalize

H 0 + V ρρ

^byintroduing

new bosoni operators

a jδq

^and

a ^† _jδq

^{via the Bogoliubov}

transformation[18℄givenbelowbyequation(33).Weob-

tain

H 0 + V ρρ = X

jδ

X

q>0

ε jδq a ^† _jδq a jδq + 1 2 E c N c ²

+ 1 2

X

rσ

N ^rσ

− J

2 N −rσ + ε 0 − u ⁺

N ^rσ + rε ∆

.

⁽³²⁾

Thersttermdesribesthebosoniexitationsofthesys-

tem,reated/annihilatedbytheoperators

a ^† _jδq

^/

a jδq

^.The

four hannels

jδ = c+, c − , s+, s −

^{areassoiated tototal}

(+)

^{and relative}

( − )

^{(with respet to the index}

r

^{) spin}

(s)

^andharge

(c)

exitations.Thedeouplingofthefour modes

jδ

^{, the so alled spin-harge} separation, will be partly broken by

V nρρ

^{. The exitation energies}

ε jδq

^and

therelation betweenthe newbosoni operators

a jδq

^and

theold operators

b σq r

^{aredetermined bytheBogoliubov}

transformation.Indetail,wendwith

ε 0q := ε 0 n q , ε c+q = ε 0q

q

1 + 8W q /ε 0 , ε s/c−q = ε 0q (1 − u ^∆ _b /ε 0 )

and

ε s+q = ε 0q (1 + u ^∆ _b /ε 0 ).

Theenergiesofthe

c+

^{hannelarelargelyenhanedom-}

paredto theotherexitations beauseofthedominating

V f f f

ontribution. For small

q

^{the ratio}

g q := ε 0q /ε c+q

isapproximately

0.2

^{,whereasforlarge}

q

^ittendsto

1

^[6℄.

Small orretions due to the oupling onstants

u ^∆ _f

^and

u ⁺

^{havebeennegleted.Forthe}transformationfromthe oldbosonioperators

b σq r

^tothenewones

a jδq

^wend

b σq r = X

jδ

Λ ^jδ _rσ

B jδq a jδq + D jδq a ^† _jδq

, q > 0

⁽³³⁾

where

Λ ^jδ _rσ = 1 2







1 1 1 1 1 1 − 1 − 1 1 − 1 1 − 1 1 − 1 − 1 1





 , jδ = c+, c − , s+, s − rσ = + ↑ , + ↓ , − ↑ , − ↓ .

(34)

Thetransformationoeients

B jδq

^and

D jδq

^inthease

ofthethreemodes

jδ = c − , s+, s −

^aregivenby

B jδq = 1

^and

D jδq = 0

⁽³⁵⁾

andfor

jδ = c+

^weobtain

B jδq = 1

2

√ g q + 1

√ g q

, D jδq = 1 2

√ g q − 1

√ g q

,

(36)

with

g q = _ε ^ε _c+q ^0q

^{. Small orretions to (35) and (36) re-}

sulting from theterms

V f ⁺ b f ⁺

^and

V b f ⁺ /b f ⁺

^havebeen

negleted.

Thephysialmeaningofthefermioniontributionsin

(32), depending on thenumberountingoperators,have

alreadybeendisussedsubsequentlytoequations(30)and

(31)respetively.

Aneigenbasisof

H 0 + V ρρ

^{isformedbythestates}

| N , m i := Y

jδq

a ^† _jδq m jδq

p m jδq ! | N , 0 i ,

⁽³⁷⁾

where

| N , 0 i

^{has no bosoni exitation. Remember that}

the fermioni onguration

N = (N −↑ , N −↓ , N +↑ , N +↓ )

denes the number of eletrons in eah of the branhes

(rσ)

^{. Inthefollowingwewill usethestatesfrom (37)as}

basis to examinethe eet of

V nρρ .

^{For this purpose we}

evaluateinthenextsetiontheorrespondingmatrixele-

mentsusingthebosonizationidentityforthe1Deletron

operators.

3.2The matrixelements

h N m | V nρρ | N ^′ m ^′ i

Generally, due to

V nρρ

^{, the quantities}

N

and

m

are not onserved. Espeially, the terms with

S r = b, u

^{in (26)}

mix stateswithdierent

N

.However,denoting

N s := X

rσ

sgn(σ)N rσ ,

N _c ⁻ := X

rσ

sgn(r)N rσ

and

N _s ⁻ := X

rσ

sgn(rσ)N rσ

wendthat(

N c , N s , N _c ⁻

^mod

4 , N _s ⁻

^mod

4

^)isonserved,

i.e., statesdiering in those quantities do not mix, suh

that theorrespondingmatrixelements of

V nρρ

^arezero.

Note that in ontrast to the real spin

S z = ¹ ₂ N s

^{, the}

pseudospin

S ˜ z = ¹ ₂ N _c ⁻

^{isnotonservedingeneral.}

Wealreadyknowthat allthe proesses

V S r S F S σ

^on-

tainedin

V nρρ

^{areeetivelyloal}interations,i.e.,ofthe form (21).Hene,in ordertoalulatetheorresponding

matrixelements

h N m | V S r S F S σ | N ^′ m ^′ i

^{werstderivean}

expressionfor

M [r][F][σ] ( N , m , N ^′ , m ^′ , x) :=

D N m

ψ _r ^† _{1 σF 1} (x)ψ ^† _{r 2 σ} ′ F 2 (x)ψ r 3 σ ^′ F 3 (x)ψ r 4 σF 4 (x)

N ^′ m ^′ E .

(38)

Forthispurposeweexpresstheoperators

ψ rσF (x)

^interms

of thebosonioperators

b _σr·q

^and

b ^† σr·q , q > 0

^{, using the}

bosonizationidentity[17℄,

ψ rσF (x) = η rσ K rσF (x)e ^{iφ † rσF (x)} e ^{iφ rσF (x)} .

⁽³⁹⁾

Theoperator

η rσ

^{isthe soalledKlein fator,whih an-}

nihilatesaneletroninthe(

rσ

^{)branhandtherebytakes}

areoftherightsignasrequiredfromthefermionianti-

ommutationrelations,indetail,

η rσ | N , m i = ( − 1) ^{P (rσ)−1 l=1 N l} | N − e ˆ rσ , m i ,

⁽⁴⁰⁾

where we use the onvention

l = + ↑ , + ↓ , − ↑ , − ↓ = 1, 2, 3, 4

^.

K rσF (x)

^{yieldsaphasefatordependingon the}

numberofeletronsin

(rσ), K rσF (x) = 1

√ 2L e ^{i L π sgn(F)(r·N rσ +∆)x} .

⁽⁴¹⁾

Finally,wehavethebosonelds

iφ rσF (x)

^,

iφ rσF (x) = X

q>0

√ 1 n q

e ^isgn(rF)qx b _σr·q .

⁽⁴²⁾

InAppendixBwearegoingtodemonstratewiththehelp

ofthebosonizationidentity(39),thatthematrixelements

fromequation(38)fatorizeintoafermioniandabosoni

part,

M [r][F][σ] ( N , m , N ^′ , m ^′ , x) =

M [r][F][σ] ( N , N ^′ , x)M [r][F ][σ] ( m , m ^′ , x),

wherethefermionipartisgivenby

M [l] ( N , N ^′ , x) =

h N | K _l ^† ₁ (x)η ^† _{l 1} K _l ^† ₂ (x)η ^† _{l 2} K l 3 (x)η l 3 K l 4 (x)η l 4 | N ^′ i

⁽⁴³⁾

andthebosonipartreads

M [l] ( m , m ^′ , x) = h m | e ^{−iφ † l 1 (x)} e ^{−iφ l 1 (x)} e ^{−iφ † l 2 (x)} e ^{−iφ l 2 (x)} e ^{iφ † l 3 (x)} e ^{iφ l 3 (x)} e ^{iφ † l 4 (x)} e ^{iφ l 4 (x)} | m ^′ i .

⁽⁴⁴⁾

In order to improve readabilitywehavereplaed the in-

dies

rF σ

^{by asingleindex}

l.

^{As we}demonstratein Ap- pendixB,theexpliitevaluationyields

M [r][F][σ] ( N , N ^′ , x) = 1

(2L) ² δ N , N ^′ + E _[r][σ] T N N ^′ [r][σ] Q N N ^′ [r][F ] (x),

⁽⁴⁵⁾

where

E _[r][σ] := e _{r 1 σ} + e _{r 2 σ} ′ − e _{r 3 σ} ′ − e _{r 4 σ} .

^{The Klein}

fatorsin (39)leadto thesign fator

T N N ^′ [r][σ]

^whihis

either

+1

^or

− 1

^and

Q N N ^′ [r][F] (x)

^{yieldsaphasedepend-}

ingon

N

.ExpliitexpressionsanbefoundinAppendix B,equations(65)to (68).

Forthebosonipartof

M _[r][F][σ] ( N , m , N ^′ , m ^′ , x)

^the

alulationinAppendix Bleadsto

M [r][F][σ] ( m , m ^′ , x) = C [r][F][σ] (x)

× A S rF (x) Y

jδq

F(˜ λ ^jδq _[r][F][σ] (x), m jδq , m ^′ _jδq ).

⁽⁴⁶⁾

Here thefuntion

F(λ, m, m ^′ )

^{stemsfrom theevaluation}

ofmatrixelementsoftheform

D m

e ^{−λ ∗ a †} e ^λa m ^′ E

,where

the bosoni exitations

| m i

^{are reatedby theoperators}

a ^†

^{, i.e.,}

| m i = a ^† m

/ √

m! | 0 i .

^{For the expliit form of}

F (λ, m, m ^′ ),

^{andtheoeients}

˜ λ ^jδq _[r][F][σ] (x)

^,seeAppendix

B.Thefuntion

C [r][F][σ] (x)

^isonvenientlyonsideredin ombinationwith

Q N N ^′ [r][F] (x),

^{namelytheprodut}

K ˜ N [r][F][σ] (x) := Q N N ^′ [r][F] (x)C [r][F][σ] (x)

anbereexpressedas

K ˜ N [r][F][σ] (x) = ˜ Q N [r][F] (x) ˜ C S r S F S σ (x),

⁽⁴⁷⁾

where

Q ˜ N [r][F ] (x) = exp



 − i π L





˜ X ⁴

j=1 sgn(r j F j )N r j σ j +

4

X

j=3

sgn(r j F j )



 x





Here

˜ P ⁴

l=1 a l

^{denotes the sum}

a 1 + a 2 − a 3 − a 4

^{. For}

C ˜ S r S F S σ (x)

^weobtain

C ˜ _f ⁺ _bf ⁻ (x) = − C ˜ _f ⁻ _bf (x) = − C ˜ _bf ⁻ _f ⁺ (x) = 1/4 sin ² π

L x ,

⁽⁴⁸⁾

C ˜ ubf ⁺ (x) = − C ˜ uf ⁻ f ⁺ (x) = 4 sin ² π

L x

(49)

and

C ˜ S r S F S σ (x) ≡ 1

^{fortheremainingproessesof}

V

ⁿ

ρρ

^.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0

100 200 300

x/L A u (x)

Fig.4.

A S _rF =u (x)

^asafuntionof

x

^fora(6,6)-SWNT.Note thelargemagnitudeof

A S _rF =u (x)

^omparedto

A S _rF 6=u (x) ≡ 1

fortheproessesonlyrelevantawayfromhalf-lling!

Thefuntion

A S rF (x)

^{isdieringfrom}

1

^onlyforterms

with

S rF = u

^{, i.e., forthe termsfullling ondition (18)}

and whih hene are relevant only near half-lling. The

reasonforthisisthat onlyforthe

S rF = u

^termstheo-

eients

λ ˜ ^c+q _[r][F][σ] (x)

^{related to the harged}

c+

^{mode are}

not vanishing. Hene

A u (x)

^{depends strongly on theen-}

ergydispersionof the

c+

^{mode andthereforeonthefor-}

wardsatteringpartoftheinteration, indetail

A u (x) = exp

"

2 X

q>0

1 n q

1 − ε 0q

ε c+q

sin ² (qx)

# .

Sinefor therepulsiveCoulombinteration

ε 0q /ε c+q < 1

holds,wend

A S rF =u (x) ≥ 1

^{.InFig.4weshow}

A S rF =u (x)

for a (6,6) SWNT. It is the large magnitude of

A u (x)

^,

thatposesproblemsforproperlytreatingthesituationat

half-lling. Moreover we an expet that even for large

diameter tubes, interation proesses with

S rF = u

^an

notbenegletednearhalf-lling.Altogether,wegetwith

equations(21),(45) and(46)forthesingleontributions

to

V nρρ

^,

h N m | V S r S F S σ | N ^′ m ^′ i =

× 1

4L u ^{S r S F} X { ^{[r] Sr ,[F] SF ,[σ] Sσ} }

δ N , N ^′ + E _{[r]σσ ′} T N S r S σ

× Z

dx K ˜ N [r][F] (x)A S rF (x) Y

jδq

F(˜ λ ^jδq _[r][F][σ] (x), m jδq , m ^′ _jδq ).

(50)

Theevaluationof(50)ausesnoproblemsexeptfor the

N

onserving proesses with

(S r , S F , S σ ) = (f ⁺ , b, f ⁻ ), (f ⁻ , b, f ), (b, f ⁻ , f ⁺ )

^{, sine then we nd}

K ˜ N [r][F][σ] ∼ 1/4 sin ² ( ^π _L x)

^{, f.equations (47)and (48),ausing thein-}

tegralin(50)todivergefor

P

jδq

m jδq − m ^′ _jδq

≤ 1

^,suh

that theevaluationoftheorrespondingmatrixelements

needsspeialareinthisase.Theoriginofthisdivergene

liesinthefat,thatifnobosoniexitationsarepresent,

the

N

onservingproessesdependonthetotalnumberof eletronsinthesinglebranhes(omparetothefermioni

ontributions to

H 0 + V ρρ

^{in (32)). Sine the bosoniza-}

tionapproahrequirestheassumptionofaninnitelydeep

Fermi sea [17℄ this leads,without the orretregulariza-

tion,neessarilyto divergenies.InAppendix Cweshow

Fig. 5. The lowest lying eigenstates of

H 0 + V ρρ

^without

bosoniexitationsforthehargestates

N c = 4n

^,

N c = 4n + 1

and

N c = 4n +3

^{.Ontherightsidethefermioni}ongurations aregiven.Weusetheonvention

N = (N +↑ , N +↓ , N −↑ , N −↓ )

^.

exemplarilytheproperalulationfor

N m

V _f ⁺ _{b f} ⁻ N m ^′

.

We heregivetheregularized resultfor

m = m ^′

, sineit is of speialimportane for thedisussion of the ground

statespetraawayfromhalf-lling,

N m V f ⁺ b f ⁻

N m

= u ⁺ X

r

min(N r↑ , N r↓ ) + 1

4L u ⁺ X

{[r] _f + ,[F] b ,[σ] _f − }

Z

dx K ˜ N [r][F] (x)

×



 Y

jδq

F (λ ^jδq _[r][F][σ] (x), m jδq , m jδq ) − 1



 .

⁽⁵¹⁾

4The SWNT spetrum

InSetion3.1wewavediagonalized

H 0 + V ρρ

^{andin Se-}

tion3.2 wehavedetermined thematrixelementsof

V nρρ

in theeigenbasis of

H 0 + V ρρ

^{. Awayfrom half-llingthe}

magnitude of

V nρρ

^{is only small ompared to}

H 0 + V ρρ

andthereforeweaneasilyanalyzetheeetofthenon-

density-densityinteration

V nρρ

^{on the SWNTspetrum}

byrepresentingthetotalHamiltonian

H 0 + V ρρ + V nρρ

ⁱⁿ

atrunatedeigenbasisof

H 0 + V ρρ

^.

4.1The low energyspetrumawayfromhalf-lling

Westartwiththeexaminationofthegroundandlowen-

ergystates.Asbasisweusethelowestlyingeigenstatesof

H 0 +V ρρ

^{withoutbosoniexitationswithagivennumber}

ofeletrons

N c

^.

4.1.1

N c = 4n, N c = 4n + 1, N c = 4n + 3

Firstweonsiderthehargestates

N c = 4n, N c = 4n + 1

and

N c = 4n + 3

^{. In that ase the lowest lying eigen-}

statesof

H 0 + V ρρ

^{,showninFig.5,whihareoftheform}

| N , 0 i

^{andthereforeuniquely}haraterizedby

N

,donot mix via

V nρρ .

^{That means that the onlyorretion from}

V nρρ

^to

H 0 + V ρρ

^{stems from the}

N

onserving proess

V _f ⁺ _{b f} ⁻

^{. Forstateswithoutbosoni}exitations,equation (51)yields,beauseof

F (λ, 0, 0) = 1

^,

h N , 0 | V nρρ | N , 0 i = N , 0

V f ⁺ b f ⁻

N , 0

= u ⁺ X

r

min(N _r↑ , N _r↓ ).

⁽⁵²⁾

Hene here

V nρρ

^{yields an energy penalty for oupying}

thesamebranh

r

^{.This eethasalreadybeenfoundin}

the meaneld theory of Oreg et al. [10℄. The parameter

δU

^{there orresponds to our onstant}

u ⁺

^{. The energies}

of thelowest lying statesfor

N c = 4n, N c = 4n + 1

^and

N c = 4n + 3

^{only depend on}

N .

^{In detail we nd with}

(32)and(52),

E ^N = 1

2 E c N c ² + u ⁺ X

r

min(N r↑ , N r↓ ) + 1

2 X

rσ

N ^rσ

− J

2 N −rσ + ε 0 − u ⁺

N ^rσ + rε ∆

.

⁽⁵³⁾

From (53) it follows that for the states depited in Fig.

5 the interation dependent part of

E ^N

^{is the samefor}

all fermioni ongurations

N

orresponding to a given harge state

N c

^{. Hene theinterationleadsmerely to a}

ommon shift of the lowest lying energy levels for xed

N c

^.

4.1.2

N c = 4n + 2

Of speial interest is the ground state struture of the

N c = 4n + 2

^{hargestate,sineherethelowest lyingsix}

eigenstates of

H 0 + V ρρ

^{without bosoni} exitations,de- noted

| N , 0 i

^with

N = (n + 1, n + 1, n, n) +

permutations, mixvia

V nρρ

^,leadingtoa

S = 1

^{tripletstateandtothree}

nondegeneratestateswithspin

0

^{. For}

ε ∆ ≈ 0

^(themean-

ing of

≈ 0

^{will beome learin the following)the triplet}

isthegroundstate.Inthefollowingwearegoingtodenote

| (n + 1, n + 1, n, n), 0 i

^by

|↑↓ , −i

^,

| (n + 1, n, n, n + 1), 0 i

^by

|↑ , ↓i

^andanalogouslyfortheremainingfourstates.Ignor- ing interations, thesix onsidered statesaredegenerate

for

ε ∆ = 0

^{.Asweanonludefrom(32)thedegeneray}

of the six onsidered states is already lifted if inluding

only the density-density interation

V ρρ

^{, sine then the}

energyofthespin

1

^states

|↑ , ↑i

^and

|↓ , ↓i

^isloweredby

J/2 := u ^∆ _f + u ^∆ _b

⁽⁵⁴⁾

relatively to the other ground states. Let us now on-

sider the eets of

V nρρ

^{. The diagonal matrix elements}

h N , 0 | V nρρ | N , 0 i

^{areagaindeterminedbyequation(52),}

leadingto arelativeenergypenaltyforthestates

|↑↓ , −i

and

|− , ↑↓i

^{. Mixing ours between the states}

|↑ , ↓i

^and

|↓ , ↑i

^via

V b f ⁺ f ⁻

^and

V b b f ⁻

^andbetween

|↑↓ , −i

^and

|− , ↑↓i

via

V u f ⁻ f ⁻

^and

V u b f ⁻

^{.Withequation(50)wend}

h↑ , ↓ | V nρρ | ↓ , ↑i = − J

2 = − h↑↓ , − | V nρρ | − , ↑↓i .

In total, the SWNT Hamiltonian

H = H 0 + V ρρ + V nρρ

restrited to the basis spanned by the six states

|↑ , ↑i

^,

|↓ , ↓i

^,

|↑ , ↓i

^,

|↓ , ↑i

^,

|↑↓ , −i

^and

|− , ↑↓i

^is represented by thematrix,

H = E 0,4n+2 +

















− ^J 2 0

− ^J 2

0 − ^J 2

− ^J 2 0

u ⁺ − ε ∆ J

0 ^J ₂ u ⁺ + 2 ε ∆















 ,

⁽⁵⁵⁾

where

E 0,4n+2 = ¹ ₂ E c N _c ² +(2n ² +2n+1) (ε 0 − u ⁺ ) − J (n ² + n) + 2u ⁺ n

^.Diagonalizingthematrixin(55),wendthat itseigenstatesaregivenbythespin

1

^triplet

|↑ , ↑i , |↑ , ↑i , 1/ √

2 ( |↑ , ↓i + |↓ , ↑i ) ,

thespin

0

^singlet

1/ √

2 ( |↑ , ↓i − |↓ , ↑i )

andthetwostates

1

q c ² _1/2 + 1 c 1/2 |↑↓ , −i ± |− , ↑↓i ,

where theoeients

c _1/2

^aregivenby

c 1/2 =

p ε ² _∆ + (J/2) ² ∓ ε ∆

J/2 .

Relativelyto

E 0,4n+2

^,theorrespondingeigenenergiesare

− J/2

^{for thetriplet states,}

J/2

^{forthe singlet stateand}

u ⁺ ± p

ε ² _∆ + (J/2) ²

^{for the remaining two states. Thus}

under theondition

J/2 > q

ε ² _∆ + (J/2) ² − u ⁺ ,

i.e.,forasmallbandmismath

ε ∆ . J/2

^{thegroundstate}

is degenerateandformed bythespin

1

^{triplet,otherwise}

by

√ 1

c ² ₂ +1 (c 2 |↑↓ , −i + |− , ↑↓i )

^{. Thegroundstatespetra}

for the two ases

ε ∆ = 0

^and

ε ∆ ≫ J/2

^{are shown in}

Fig. 6 for a (6,6) armhair SWNT (orresponding to a

diameter of

0.8

^{nm). Assuming a dieletri onstant of}

ε = 1.4

^{[1℄, the alulation of the oupling parameters}

aording to Appendix A yields values of

J = 2(u ^∆ _f + u ^∆ _b ) = 0.09ε 0

^and

u ⁺ ≈ 0.03ε 0

^{whihagree wellwiththe}

experiments[7,9℄, wherenanotubeswith

ε ∆ ≫ J/2

^were

onsidered.Toourknowledge, experimentsin theregime

ε ∆ . J/2

demonstratingexhange eets have notbeen arriedoutsofar,suhthatavalidationofourpreditions

forthisase,namelytheexisteneofthegroundstatespin

1

^{tripletandthemixingofthestates}

|↑↓ , −i

^and

|− , ↑↓i

^is

stillmissing.Thelattereetouldbeofrelevaneforthe

understandingofthesoalledsinglet-tripletKondoeet

[19℄in SWNTs.