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

NATO science series. Series II, Mathematics, physics and chemistry

Influence Functional for Decoherence of Interacting Electrons in Disordered Conductors

Jan von Delft

Published Jan 1, 2004• 6 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/1-4020-2193-3_8

Related papers

Influence Functional for Decoherence of Interacting Electrons in Disordered Conductors

Jan Delft

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2004•3 citations

Decoherence of interacting electrons in disordered conductors: on the relation between influence functional and diagrammatic approaches (Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantum Transport and Quantum Coherence(Localisation 2002))

Jan von Delft

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Jan 1, 2003•1 citation

Thermodynamics of interacting electrons in disordered one-dimensional conductors

V. L. Berezinskiǐ, L. P. Gor’kov

Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics•Feb 1, 1980•0 citations

Decoherence of Interacting Electrons in Disordered Conductors: on the Relation between Influence Functional and Diagrammatic Approaches

Jan von Delft

We establish a connection between the influence functional approach of Golubev and Zaikin (GZ) and Keldysh diagrammatic perturbation theory for calculating the decoherence time τ ϕ of interacting electrons in disordered metals; we show how the standard diagrams for the Cooperon self energy can be recovered from GZ's influence functional e -(i SR + SI ) .This allows us to shed light on GZ's claim that SR is irrelevant for decoherence: SR generates as many important self energy diagrams as SI ; GZ's neglect of SR is permissible only at high temeratures (T /τ el ).

arXiv:cond-mat/0210644•Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Jan 3, 2003•10 citations

Interacting disordered electrons and the metal-insulator transition: The field theoretic approach reanalyzed

D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick

Nuclear Physics B•Apr 1, 1989•18 citations

Comment on ``Influence Functional for Decoherence of Interacting Electrons in Disordered Conductors'' (cond-mat/0510563v1) and on related papers (cond-mat/0510556v1 and cond-mat/0510557v1)

Dmitry S. Golubev, Andrei D. Zaikin

Recently von Delft (cond-mat/0510563v1)(JvD) has successfully re-derived our influence functional for interacting electrons and claimed that within our approach he was able to obtain the electron decoherence rate that vanishes at T=0. In this Comment we demonstrate that this JvD's claim is in error, as it is based on ambiguous and uncontrolled manipulations violating basic principles of quantum theory, such as energy-time uncertainty relation, causality, fluctuation-dissipation theorem, detailed balance and the like. We also briefly address insufficient approximations employed by Marquardt {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510556v1) and by von Delft {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510557v1) and demonstrate that the results of all three papers in the limit T=0 are inconsistent with simple rules of algebra.

arXiv:cond-mat/0512411•Dec 16, 2005•1 citation
We establish a connection between the influence functional approach of Golubev and Zaikin (GZ) and Keldysh diagrammatic perturbation theory for calculating the decoherence time τ ϕ of interacting electrons in disordered metals; we show how the standard diagrams for the Cooperon self energy can be recovered from GZ's influence functional e -(i SR + SI ) .This allows us to shed light on GZ's claim that SR is irrelevant for decoherence: SR generates as many important self energy diagrams as SI ; GZ's neglect of SR is permissible only at high temeratures (T /τ el ).
Recently von Delft (cond-mat/0510563v1)(JvD) has successfully re-derived our influence functional for interacting electrons and claimed that within our approach he was able to obtain the electron decoherence rate that vanishes at T=0. In this Comment we demonstrate that this JvD's claim is in error, as it is based on ambiguous and uncontrolled manipulations violating basic principles of quantum theory, such as energy-time uncertainty relation, causality, fluctuation-dissipation theorem, detailed balance and the like. We also briefly address insufficient approximations employed by Marquardt {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510556v1) and by von Delft {\it et al.} (cond-mat/0510557v1) and demonstrate that the results of all three papers in the limit T=0 are inconsistent with simple rules of algebra.