Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Electrons in Solids: Fermi Gas vs. Fermi Liquid

Horaƫiu Năstase

Published Sep 21, 2017• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1017/9781316847978.005

Related papers

Non-Fermi-liquid behavior of two-dimensional electron gas with disorder

Alexei L. Efros, F. G. Pikus

Solid State Communications•Oct 1, 1995•24 citations

Systems of Interacting Electrons — Fermi Liquids

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jul 1, 2015•0 citations

Experimental visualization of a Fermi gas

Inna Vishik

Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) can measure electrons' energy vs momentum relations in solids via the photoelectric effect. Here, we use experimental results from this technique as a tool for visualizing the Fermi gas model in quantum statistical mechanics. This model is an important starting point for understanding more complex electronic behaviors in real metals.

arXiv:2608.10313•American Journal of Physics•Oct 22, 2026•0 citations

Fermi liquid and non-Fermi liquid in strongly correlated electron systems

篤史 鶴田

•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations

Fermi surface geometry and optical conductivity of a two-dimensional electron gas near an Ising-nematic quantum critical point

Yasha Gindikin, Andrey V. Chubukov

We analyze optical conductivity of a clean two-dimensional electron system in a Fermi liquid regime near a $T=0$ Ising-nematic quantum critical point (QCP) and extrapolate the results to a QCP. We employ direct perturbation theory up to the two-loop order to elucidate how the Fermi surface's geometry (convex vs concave) and fermionic dispersion (parabolic vs nonparabolic) affect the scaling of the optical conductivity $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})$ with frequency $\ensuremath{\omega}$ and correlation length $\ensuremath{\xi}$. We find that for a convex Fermi surface the leading terms in the optical conductivity cancel out, leaving a subleading contribution $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}{\ensuremath{\omega}}^{2}{\ensuremath{\xi}}^{4}\mathcal{L}$, where $\mathcal{L}=\mathrm{const}$ for a parabolic dispersion and $\mathcal{L}\ensuremath{\propto}ln\ensuremath{\omega}{\ensuremath{\xi}}^{3}$ in a generic case. For a concave Fermi surface, the leading terms do not cancel, and $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}{\ensuremath{\xi}}^{2}$. We extrapolate these results to a QCP and obtain $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}{\ensuremath{\omega}}^{2/3}$ for a convex Fermi surface and $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}1/{\ensuremath{\omega}}^{2/3}$ for a concave Fermi surface.

arXiv:2401.17392•Physical review. B./Physical review. B•Mar 27, 2024•12 citations

Free Electron Fermi Gas

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Aug 1, 2003•2 citations
We analyze optical conductivity of a clean two-dimensional electron system in a Fermi liquid regime near a T=0T=0T=0 Ising-nematic quantum critical point (QCP) and extrapolate the results to a QCP. We employ direct perturbation theory up to the two-loop order to elucidate how the Fermi surface's geometry (convex vs concave) and fermionic dispersion (parabolic vs nonparabolic) affect the scaling of the optical conductivity $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})$ with frequency $\ensuremath{\omega}$ and correlation length $\ensuremath{\xi}$. We find that for a convex Fermi surface the leading terms in the optical conductivity cancel out, leaving a subleading contribution $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}{\ensuremath{\omega}}^{2}{\ensuremath{\xi}}^{4}\mathcal{L}$, where L=const\mathcal{L}=\mathrm{const}L=const for a parabolic dispersion and $\mathcal{L}\ensuremath{\propto}ln\ensuremath{\omega}{\ensuremath{\xi}}^{3}$ in a generic case. For a concave Fermi surface, the leading terms do not cancel, and $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}{\ensuremath{\xi}}^{2}$. We extrapolate these results to a QCP and obtain $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}{\ensuremath{\omega}}^{2/3}$ for a convex Fermi surface and $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\ensuremath{\omega})\ensuremath{\propto}1/{\ensuremath{\omega}}^{2/3}$ for a concave Fermi surface.