Response to Greiter's Comment
Eugene Demler, Shou-Cheng Zhang, Stefan Meixner, Werner Hanke
Abstract
Greiter claimed erroneously that the pi-excitation of the Hubbard model has an energy of the order of U. This mistake originates from a inconsistent treatment of the two particle Hartree energy and the Hartee correction to the chemical potential. In any self-consistent calculations, these two contributions cancel exactly, as shown by Kohn, Luttinger and Ward. We also show that his interpretation of the finite-size studies is inconsistent.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Driven Vortex Motion in Periodic Channel Potential Embedded in Superconducting Films
A. Al Luhaibi, A. Glatz, Michael Vogl et al.
Kink boundary-induced polarity revealed by nonreciprocal charge transport in FeTe0.7Se0.3 superconductor
Shengyao Li, Ya Deng, Han Yan et al.
Chemical-Potential-Dependent Superconducting Spectroscopy on Bi2Te3/NbSe2 Heterostructures
Pengyu Hu, Chun Yu Wan, Qiaoyan Yu et al.
Quantum Geometry and Pair Breaking in Intra- and Intervalley Superconductivity of Rhombohedral Graphene
Louis Primeau, Yang Zhang, Shi-Zeng Lin
Pre-pairing and polarization of doped charge carriers in unconventional superconductors
Lixin Zhang, Mengyan Nie, Yan Cheng et al.
Altermagnetic Control of Charge-4e Superconductivity
Yan-Guang Yue, Jie Lou, Yan Chen