text:
# Non-locality: what are the odds?

## 1 State of Play

Richard D. Gill, a statistician, on the basis that probability and statistics have much to do with quantum mechanics (QM), and by his own declaration fascinated by the exotica of foundations disputes, has called for increased attention to these matters by his profession. To this purpose, he himself has published studies that translate some of the current notions oft seen in the foundations of QM into the jargon and style of his discipline. So far Gill’s results have tended to support the conventional wisdom, the majority viewpoint held by, for example, several who have done experiments that they credit even with extending the mystical facets of QM right into the realm of practical applications; e.g., quantum computing, teleportation and the like.

In addition, Gill has criticized the views of those who are distressed by the implications of modern foundations’ orthodoxy of QM, specifically and particularly that the non-locality promised by John Bell violates the order of cause and effect. 222A renowned proponent of Bell’s view told this writer, on the grounds that humankind probably is simply incapable of grasping all truth, that he was not distressed by this inversion. If, however, *Science* is that human enterprise, the point of which is to use the tools of logic (Mathematics) and observation as available to understand the world, then such an orientation is in a distinctly different category. Some of their efforts are based on a point first seen, to this writer’s best information, by Jaynes: Bell misapplied Bayes’s formula.

An independent study in this vein initiated by Accardi, as an “anti-Bellist,” led to a local computer simulation of EPR-B experiments that he claimed exhibit the so-called non-local statistics of QM. Accardi’s simulation fascinated Gill, who found the tactic meritorious but the results so far unconvincing, and so challenged Accardi to find a protocol that is beyond dispute. Convinced that it can’t be done, and to enliven the matter, Gill offered a 3000 Euro reward, essentially a bet, to Accardi should he succeed.

The present writer is also one long sceptical of arguments that non-locality is logically well founded. He holds the view that some essential feature is being overlooked, much as von Neumann overlooked crucial contrary physics details in formulating his “theorem” to the same final effect as Bell’s. This writer’s work led to a series of arguments indicating that Bell’s argumentation must contain a flaw. Eventually this culminated in a study in which all the results from generic experiments credited with verifying Bell’s results were calculated using only principles of classical Physics, without reference to anything intimating that non-locality was in play. In spite of a vigorous e-mail defense, these calculations failed to impress Gill, in part, apparently, for lack of clarity on how non-locality was precluded. Gill continued to insist that no protocol satisfying certain constraints that he formulated to enforce locality, could be envisioned.

It is the purpose of this note to present an extention of these calculations in the form of a simulation algorithm or protocol conforming with Gill’s criteria. In the following section the conditions set out by Gill will be presented; thereafter, the simulation we propose will be described. Finally, we delineate the technical details that make our simulation possible.

## 2 Gill’s desiderata

The purpose of Gill’s protocol is to preclude absolutely any structure that could covertly exploit non-locality. This is achieved by parceling out subroutines simulating the source and the two detector stations to three separate computers connected by wires conceptually equipped with diodes that allow only one way signaling. In this way, one can be sure that there is no feedback in the logic that mimics non-local interaction. This writer holds these specifications as a useful contribution to the discussion of this matter because, for lack of a unique definition of “non-locality,” alternates that are, e.g., actually only indirect statistical congruences, have clouded the matter.

Gill’s specifications are as follows, we quote:

> 1. Computer O, which we call the *source,* sends information to computers X and Y, the *measurement stations.* It can be anything. It can be random (previously stored outcomes of actual random experiments) or pseudo-random or deterministic. It can depend in an arbitrary way on the results of past trials (see item 5). Without loss of generality it can be considered to be the same—send to each computer, both its own message and the message for the other.
>
> 2. Computers A and B, which we call randomizers, send each a *measurement-setting-label,* namely a $`1`$ or a $`2`$, to computers X and Y. Actually, I will generate the labels to simulate independent fair coin tosses (I might even use the outcomes of real fair coin tosses, done secretly in advance and saved on my computers’ hard disks.
>
> 3. Computers X and Y each output $`\pm 1`$, computed in whatever way \[an opponent\] likes from the available information at each measurement station. He has all the possibilities mentioned under item 1. What each of these two computers do not have, is the measurement-setting-label which was delivered to the other. Denote the outcomes $`x^{(n)}`$ and $`y^{(n)}`$.
>
> 4. Computers A and B each output the measurement-setting-label which they they had previously sent to X and Y. Denote these labels $`a^{(n)}`$ and $`b^{(n)}`$. An independent referee will confirm that these are identical to the labels given to \[an opponent\] in item 2.
>
> 5. Computers X, O and Y may communicate with one another in any way they like. In particular, all past setting labels are available to all locations. As far as I am concerned, \[an opponent\] may even alter the computer programs or memories of his machines.

At this point Gill proceeds to delineate how the data is to be analyzed. What he calls for is the total of the number of times the outputs are equal, i.e., $`N_{ab}^=:=\mathrm{\#}[x^{(n)}=y^{(n)}]`$, as well as the number of times they are unequal, $`N_{ab}^{}`$ , and the total number of trials, $`N_{ab}`$. With these numbers, the correlation, $`\kappa `$, for each setting pair, $`ab`$, is then:

$$\kappa _{ab}=\frac{N_{ab}^=N_{ab}^{}}{N_{ab}}.$$
(1)
These correlations, in turn, are used to compute the CHSH contrast:

$$S=k_{12}+k_{11}+k_{21}k_{22},$$
(2)
which is to be tested for violation of Bell’s limit, $`|S|2`$, as is well known.

## 3 A counter-protocol

Computer O is implemented as an equal, flat, random selection of one of two possible signal pairs, one comprised of a vertically polarized pulse to the left, say, and a horizontally polarized pulse to the right; the second signal exchanges the polarizations.

After the source pulse pair is selected, the measurements to be simulated at computers X and Y are selected by independent computers A and B. This they do for each run or each pulse pair individually by randomly specifying which of the two orientation angles for each side and iteration is to be used; i.e., they select $`\theta _l`$ and $`\theta _r`$.

The measurement stations X and Y are simulated by models of polarizers for which the axis of the left (right) one is the angle $`\theta _{l(r)}`$; each polarizer feeds a photodetector. These photodetectors are taken to adhere to Malus’ Law, that is, they produce photoelectron streams for which the intensity is proportional to the incoming field intensity, and the arrival time of the photoelectrons is a random variable described by a Poisson process. In so far as these photodetectors are independent, each Poisson process is uncorrelated with respect to the other. In conformity with Bell’s assumptions and the experiments, we take it that the source power and pulse duration are so low that, within a time-window, one and only one photoelectron will be generated if the polarization of the signal and the axis of the polarizer preceeding the detector are parallel. Thus, when they are not parallel, the count rate is reduced in proportion to the usual Malus’ factor. This assumption is structurally parallel to assuming single photon states in QM. It is unrealistic to the extent that, even for the parallel regime, a true Poisson distribution would lead to some trials with no hits, which don’t contribute to the photoelectron count statistics, and some trials with two or more hits, which are so seldom they effectively don’t contribute.

As a matter of detail, the photoelectron generation process is modeled by comparing a random number with the intensity of the field entering the polarizer filter. If it is less, it is taken that a photoelectron was generated; if greater, none was generated. In other words, $`N_{lv}`$ say, (where for $`N_{sm}`$, $`s`$ indicates the setting of $`\theta _s`$ as chosen by A or B; and $`m`$ indicates pulse mode from the source: vertical or horizontal) is increased by $`1`$, when the random number $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _a\varphi _l)`$. Also, $`N_{rh}`$ is increased by $`1`$ when another, independent random number $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _b\varphi _r)`$. In each case $`\varphi _{j=r,l}=0(\text{vertical),}\pi \text{/2}\text{(horizontal) }`$is the polarization axis of the pulse sent from the source. The random input at the detector simulates background signals and detector noise.

The final step of the simulation is simply to register the simulated ‘creation’ of photoelectrons and to compute the correlations.

This algorithm fully satisfies Gill’s stipulations as presented in Section 2 above to preclude non-locality. All process steps can be implemented on separate computers such that the information flow is from A, B and O to X and Y. There is no connection between X and Y. At this point we note, however, that Gill’s analysis of EPR experiments is not faithful to the relevant physics. It fails to take the quadratic relationship between the source intensity and the subsequent measured current density, i.e., Malus’ Law, into account.

Thus, in our simulation, data acquisition and analysis proceed a bit differently. We take it, that *currents* are measured, that the total relative intensity between channels is given purely by geometrical considerations according to Malus’ Law; i.e., according to $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _r\theta _l)`$ for like events, and $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _r\theta _l)`$ for unlike events. This is essentially equivalent to requiring internal self consistency with respect to detection physics. That is, if the axis of one polarizer is parallel to the axis of the source, $`\theta _r=0`$, say, then it is quite obvious that the relative intensity as measured by photodetectors on the output of the other polarizer must follow Malus’ Law by virtue of the photocurrent generation mechanism. Further, since this geometric fact must be independent of the choice of coordinate system, it follows that a transformation of angular coordinates can be effected using

$`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _r\theta _l)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _r)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l)+\mathrm{sin}(\theta _r)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _l),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}(\theta _r\theta _l)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta _r)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _r)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _l);`$ (3)
just trigonometric identities. Note that although equations (3) are not in general factorable (sometimes said to be a criteria for ‘non-locality’), all the information required is available on-the-spot at both sides independently, i.e., locally. Thus, in modeling the “coincidence circuitry” we use the fact that the individual terms on the right side of (3) are, by virtue of photodetector physics, proportional to the square root of the number of counts in the channel, for example:

$`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l\varphi _h)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l0)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{N_{hl}/N},`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l\varphi _v)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l\pi /2)=\mathrm{sin}(\theta _l)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{N_{vl}/N};`$ (4)
where $`N`$ is the total number of signals intercepted by the considered photodetector per regime. (Since there are four detector- and two source-regimes, for even distributions $`NT/8`$ where $`T`$ is the total number of pairs used in the simulation. Unlike experiments, this number is trivially available in simulations.) In other words, the relative frequency of coincidences is determined after-the-fact as a function of the intensity of the photocurrents. No communication between right and left sides is involved in determining these currents; what correlation there is, is there on account of the equality of the amplitudes (and therefore *intensities*) at the source of the signals making up the singlet state. Of course, in doing a simulation, provision must be made to resolve sign ambiguities; doing so, however, also does not violate locality as the required information is all available on-the-spot. In sum, instead of Eq. (1), we use:

$$\kappa ^{}(\theta _r,\theta _l)=\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _r\theta _l)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _r\theta _l),$$
(5)
as required by Malus’ Law, but in which the terms are expressed using (3) and (4) to get the result for each individual ‘photoelectron’ locally and independently.

To see intuitively how this algorithm works, it is perhaps advantageous to consider the individual steps in reverse order. The final step is the calculation of the CHSH contrast. This requires calculating $`\kappa ^{}(\theta _r,\theta _l)`$ for the four combinations of polarizer settings according to Eq. (5). Now, each factor $`\kappa ^{}`$, a coincidence correlation, according to Eq. (5) is expressed as the intensity of coincidences in like channels minus the intensity in unlike channels, all according to conventional formulas. The individual terms in $`\kappa ^{}`$, however, involve information from each side, so it would appear that each requires in effect instantaneous communication between the sides for evaluation. However, each term can be expanded using Eqs. (3) in which the individual factors, e.g., $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l)`$, can be computed at the detection event without regard to information from other events. These individual factors, in turn, are provided by Eq. (4), which again is just Malus’ Law. As the simulation is repeated, and more and more pairs of pulses are generated, the running ratios $`N_{ms}/N`$ converge to provide ever improving estimates of the individual factors needed for Eq. (3). As described above, the individual $`N_{ms}`$ are completely determined by the *delayed* input from the source, the local polarizer setting, and a random input at the detector. *Only the after-the-fact calculation of $`\kappa ^{}`$ mixes information from both sides.* Thus, there is no non-locality involved — contrary to Bell’s claim that a model without it does not exist.

An example of the results from the simulation are presented on Fig.1.

The top curve is the CHSH contrast; the lower four curves are the individual correlations for the four combinations of polarizer settings. The statistics stabilize after circa 700 trials and exhibit clear violation of the Bell limit of $`2`$ by virtually exactly the amount calculated for the singlet state and observing angles $`\theta _l=0,\pi /4`$ and $`\theta _r=\pm \pi /8`$ using Bell inequalities: $`2\sqrt{2}`$. Experimental verification can be found in . That these statistics can be found in a sequence of individual events, each of which is calculated without recourse to non-locality, constitutes a direct, unambiguous counterexample to Bell-type “theorems.”

As an aside, we note that what is described here is a *simulation,* not an experiment. As the algorithm runs on a digital computer, in fact it is a realization of an EPR-B setup using *information,* which accords with some variations of current analysis of the issue.

## 4 Reconciliation

How does this protocol work? How is it possible that now, after generations have examined and reexamined seemingly everything surrounding EPR-B correlations and von Neumann’s and Bell’s theorems, a simple protocol can be found that delivers the offending statistics without non-locality?

The answer to these questions is in part, that so far the implied challenge has been so defined, that the option we used in constructing the simulation was precluded. The basic assumption constraining the orthodox approach is that the source emits “ready-made” pairs of photons. At an abstract statistical level, this is tantamount to assuming that there is just a single Poisson process at the source, for which the time of conception of each pair is a random variable with a Poisson distribution, followed by deterministic detection. That is, in the terminology of QM, the probability of the random creation of a photon pair is proportional to the modulus of a solution to Schrödinger’s equation, followed by detection with a “quantum” efficiency of $`100`$% of converting photons to photoelectrons *without further stochastic input* (except at the polarizer, see below).

For our protocol we reject these notions. Instead, we take it that the source is emitting pulses of classical, continuous radiation in both directions, which are finally registered in photodetectors that are the scene of independent Poisson detection processes proportional to the square of the source intensity. Although uncorrelated in terms of arrival times of elicited photoelectrons, the two processes, by virtue of the symmetry of the source (i.e., the source pulses have equal power and duration), nevertheless have correlated *intensities*. For the simulation, consistent with classical physics, polarizers are taken to be variable, linear attenuators, which are, therefore, deterministic. In ‘quantum’ imagery, polarizers are considered biased stochastic absorbers, i.e., not deterministic. The latter notion is not relevant to the issue of Bell inequalities, however, because they are meant to be limits imposed by local realism and are non-quantum from the start. In the end, the patterns seen in the correlations are due simply to the various Malus’ factors attenuating the equal energy source pulses.

Independently, underneath all the confused aspects of the dispute initiated by EPR, there is an inviolable mathematical truth, which has many forms. It is that both correlated and uncorrelated equal length dichotomic sequences with values $`\pm 1`$, tautologically satisfy Bell Inequalities. Being an ineluctable mathematical truth, it is also often mistaken for a physical indispensability.

There is, however, an intervening complication. Consider four dichotomic sequences comprised of $`\pm 1`$’s and length $`N`$: $`a,`$ $`a^{},`$ $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$. Now compose the following two quantities $`a_ib_i+a_ib_i^{}=a_i(b_i+b_i^{})`$ and $`a_i^{}b_ia_i^{}b_i^{}=a_i^{}(b_ib_i^{})`$, sum them over $`i`$, divide by $`N`$, and take absolute values before adding together to get:

$`|<ab>+<ab^{}>|+|<a^{}b><a^{}b^{}>|<|a||b+b^{}|>+<|a||bb^{}|>`$ (6)
The right side equals $`2`$, so this equation is in fact a Bell inequality. This derivation demonstrates that this Bell inequality is simply an arithmetic tautology. Thus, certain dichotomic sequences comprised of $`\pm 1`$’s, identically satisfy Bell inequalities.

The fact is, however, that real data can not comply with this inequality; it just does not fit the conditions of the derivation of Eq. (6). This is a result of the fact that two of the sequences on the left side are *counterfactual* statements, i.e., what *would have been measured* if the setting *had been* otherwise. In real experiments, such data can never be obtained. Moreover, real data can not be rearranged to fit Eq. (6) either. Suppose to start, that the second term is rearranged so that the factor sequence $`a(2)`$ where the argument $`2`$ indicates that it is from the second term, is rearranged to match as closely as possible $`a(1)`$. (For ever longer samples, this becomes ever more precise.) Let the rearranged version be denoted $`\stackrel{~}{a}(2)`$. Then the second term becomes: $`a(2)b^{}(2)\stackrel{~}{a}(2)\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(2)a(1)\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(2)`$. A similar rearrangement on the third and fourth terms converts the right side of Eq. (6) to:

$`<|a(1)||b(1)+\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(2)|>+<|\stackrel{~}{a}(4)||\stackrel{~}{b}(3)\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(2)|>,`$ (7)
from which it is obvious that unless $`b(1)\stackrel{~}{b}(3)`$ by virtue of the structure of the setup, that Eq. (6) is not germane; in other words, data from real experiments can not conform to the conditions of derivation of Bell inequalities. Variations of this argument hold for all derivations of Bell inequalities.

## 5 Secondary arguments

Note also that the results of our simulation are in full accord with Jaynes’ criticism of Bell’s arguments, to wit: Bell, by ascribing the correlations to the hidden variables, effectively misused Bayes’ formula for conditional probabilities with respect to the overt variables. The result is that he encoded statistical independence instead of non-locality, so that the resulting inequalities are valid only for uncorrelated sequences. In ref , Gill endeavors to respond to this observation with the argument that Jaynes “refuses to admit” that:

$$P(a|b,\lambda )=P(a|\lambda ),$$
(8)
where $`P(c|d)`$ is the *conditional* probability for $`c`$ occurring if $`d`$ has occurred, $`a`$ and $`b`$ represent filar marks on a measurement device and $`\lambda `$, represents a “hidden variable” specifying the quality whose magnitude influences the magnitude registered as $`a`$ and $`b`$. Of course, if one is measuring an assortment of objects (nails, say), each engraved with its length ($`\lambda `$), then we can dispense with the comparison to the filar marks on a ruler ($`a`$) in favor of using the $`\lambda `$. But when the $`\lambda `$ are not knowable, not to mention uncontrollable, the measured objects must be characterized by the result of comparison with the ruler, i.e., the $`a`$’s. As this is exactly the situation with respect to EPR and Bell’s arguments, all statistical characteristics, including correlations, of an ensemble must be specified also in terms of results from measurements in the form of comparisons with the filar marks, the only variables actually available. EPR’s purpose was to discern the possible existence of such hidden variables exclusively in terms of their effects on quantities expressed in terms of overt variables; all evidence must appear, therefore, in the overt variables. That is, when Jaynes rejects (8), he is just faithful to reality if $`\lambda `$ remains unaccessible.

The conventional understanding also overlooks the fact that the space of polarization is fundamentally not quantum mechanical in nature. This is so in the first instance, because its variables, the two states of polarization, are not Hamiltonian conjugates, and therefore do not suffer Heisenberg uncertainty (HU), and do not involve Planck’s constant. Gill rejected this argument on the basis of the opinion that “quantum mechanics is as much about incompatible observables as Planck’s constant.” In essence this view implies that *all* commutivity somehow involves QM, which is manifestly false. Non commutivity can arise for different reasons, for example, non parallel Lorentz boosts do not commute, and this obviously has nothing to do with QM. In the case at hand, non commutivity of polarization vectors, or Stokes’ operators, arises only when the $`k`$-vector common to both polarization states rotates in space, which brings in the geometric fact that the generators of rotations on the sphere do not commute. This has nothing specifically to do with QM, EPR or Bell inequalities, just geometry.

## 6 Conclusions

A consequence of the existence of a local-realistic simulation of EPR-B correlations is that it shows that such correlations do not arise because of the structure of QM. This could have significant practical consequences. In particular, to the extent that algorithms, usually considered to depend on exploiting quantum entanglement, for example, can be seen not to be dependant on intrinsically quantum phenomena. Thus, these algorithms should also not be restricted to realization at the atomic level, where QM reigns. In so far as it is much more practical to fabricate and operate devices at a larger scale, this may be a very promising development for the exploitation of what is (from this viewpoint, inaccurately) denoted as quantum computing.

In the end, does this simulation put Gill in debt? Whatever the call, it is clear that his considerations, like that of many others, was based on some mathematical facts regarding dichotomic sequences, comprised of both hits and non-hits, and not on the actual details of done experiments. These mathematical facts concerning dichotomic sequences can also be simulated by doing the data analysis as envisioned by Gill, and indeed this seems not to lead to a violation of Bell inequalities no matter how the parameters are adjusted. In short, what is shown here is, that EPR-B correlations are a direct manifestation of Malus’ Law, not mystical gibberish or QM.


format: text

text:
# On the Ordering Instability of Weakly-Interacting Electrons in a Dirty Metal

## I Introduction.

The presence in a solid of randomly-distributed imperfections causes its electrons to propagate diffusively rather than ballistically. As a result, when two electrons interact, they tarry in each other’s vicinity, and become more strongly correlated Altshuler79 . As shown by Finkelstein Finkelstein83  and Castellani, et al. Castellani84a ; Castellani84b , this effect leads to an instability of the diffusive Fermi liquid fixed point (see also refs. Belitz94, ; Pruisken97, ; Chamon99, ) which manifests itself through divergent corrections to a variety of physical quantities. The instability exists for arbitrarily weak coupling and for arbitrarily weak disorder. Its simplest incarnation is in an electron system in a weak magnetic field $`𝐁`$ which suppresses quantum interference effects and relegates them to subleading order in the dimensionless resistanceresistance-note  $`t`$ (measured in units of $`h/e^2`$) while interactions make a contribution at leading order. Since the relevant interaction is in the spin-triplet particle-hole channel, the $`g`$ factor must be tuned to zero if $`𝐁0`$ so that there is no Zeeman splitting, which would cut off the divergences. Though this instability was identitified nearly 20 years ago, there is, at present, no consensus on its outcome.

The recent discovery of evidence for a metal-insulator transition in two-dimensional electron gases (2DEGs) in Si-MOSFETs Kravchenko ; Popovic , GaAs GaAs  heterostructures, and Si-Ge SiGe  has led to a re-examination of the problem of interacting electrons in a random potential. The interesting phenomena seen in these experiments occur in a regime in which interactions are strong (large $`r_s`$) and quantum interference effects are likely to be important because the conductivity is on the order of the quantum limit $`e^2/h`$ and $`B=0`$. Though a number of interesting theories Phillips98 ; Si98 ; Chakravarty99 ; Altshuler99 ; DasSarma99 ; Chamon01  have been proposed, none have provided a complete explanation of the experimental data, which isn’t surprising, given that the presumably simpler problem of weakly-interacting electrons in a weak random potential with $`𝐁0`$, $`g=0`$ remains unsolved. It is this simpler problem which is the subject of this paper

Though it is unresolved, the instability caused by the triplet interaction is, in fact, a crime with only one plausible suspect: ferromagnetism. Since the diffusive Fermi liquid is unstable, the system must settle into some other phase at low temperature; since the instability is in the spin-triplet channel, it is presumably one in which the spins are ordered. The basic interaction in this problem is exchange, which is ferromagnetic. There is no available mechanism which generates antiferromagnetic interactions. To see this, note that the instability occurs when the conductance is large, while superexchange occurs in or near an insulating state (since it arises when the kinetic energy is treated as a perturbation). There would be RKKY interactions between localized spins, such as magnetic impurities, if we had any, but we don’t. In the absence of any antiferromagnetic interactions, we rule out spin density-waves (SDWs)sdw-note , spin glass order, and random singlet phasesBhatt82 . The latter two furthermore require large effective disorder while the instability of interest here is manifest for small effective disorderspin-glass-caveat .

It has been suggested that the instability of the triplet interaction signals the formation of ‘local moments’Castellani84b . In the weak-interaction, weak-disorder limit, however, the instability of the diffusive Fermi liquid only develops at large length scales, so the resulting magnetic moments are anything but ‘local’. Local moments might be expected when the energy cost for flipping a spin at short length scales is very small. This might occur near the Stoner transition of the clean system Narozhny00 , where the critical susceptibility, $`\chi 1/T^\gamma `$, is of Curie form for a mean-field exponent $`\gamma =1`$. There is also a substantial local moment regime with Curie susceptibility in the large-$`U`$ Hubbard model (because of the weakness of superexchange for large $`U`$ ) and doped semiconductors (because of competing ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions). However, these scenarios are not relevant to the presumably simpler, though still non-trivial, problem of the weakly-interacting, weakly-disordered limit.

This leaves us with one remaining possibility and, indeed, a number of authors have proposed that the singularity of the triplet interaction channel leads to ferromagnetism. The basic underlying physics is simply that diffusing electrons interact more strongly because they move more slowly and, as a result, the interaction energy gained by (at least partially) polarizing the system always outweighs the single-particle energy cost, in contrast to a clean system, where the interaction energy gain is a constant $`U`$ which must exceed the single-particle energy cost $`1/N_F`$, i.e. the Stoner criterion ($`N_F`$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy). Andreev and Kamenev Andreev98  proposed such a mechanism for finite-size systems by computing the disorder enhancement of the interaction matrix element for a state with two electrons in single-particle states separated by small energies. Heuristically, one can say that the two wavefunctions are concentrated in the same minima of the potential. Chamon and Mucciolo Chamon00  found a ferromagnetic saddle-point solution of the one-loop effective action of Finkelstein’s theory. Their calculation generalizes Stoner’s by including quantum corrections resulting from interactions between diffusion modes. Belitz and Kirkpatrick Belitz96  advanced the same hypothesis when they noted that the phase transition which they expected to be driven by the growth of the triplet interaction is of the same form as a transition to ferromagnetism in a disordered system.

In this paper, we calculate the effective action for the magetization in a weakly-interacting electron system in a slightly dirty metal. The effective action is calculated to lowest order in the dimensionless resistance $`t`$. It exhibits the physics described above and is clearly unstable to the formation of a ferromagnetic moment. In principle, the emergence of some other type of order could intervene (this effect would have to be non-perturbative in $`t`$) before ferromagnetism develops, but the arguments given above rule out this possibility. Thus, we conclude that in the limit of small $`t`$, the singularity of the spin-triplet interaction channel leads to ferromagnetism. Our results substantiate the conclusions of previous authors Andreev98 ; Chamon00 ; Belitz96 .

The basic philosophy is simple: since the RG equations tell us that the interaction in the triplet channel grows in importance as the energy scale is lowered, we try to satisfy this term in the action first by allowing the magnetization, $`X`$, to develop a non-zero expectation value. In order to do this, we compute an effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ for the magnetization $`X`$ taking Finkelstein’s ‘non-linear $`\sigma `$-model’ for interacting electrons in a disordered system as the point of departure. Since our goal is to calculate an effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ to lowest order in the resistance $`t`$, Finkelstein’s $`\sigma `$-model is merely a convenient way of organizing the pertinent diagrams. We believe that it is intuitively appealing to follow Finkelstein and work directly with a theory which retains only diffusion modes and drops the superfluous high-energy electronic degrees of freedom, but this is a matter of convenience, and it is a option which we can take regardless of whether new terms are generated at the two-loop or higher level (i.e. regardless of whether the non-linear terms in the theory are really related by symmetry, as they would be in a $`\sigma `$-model). Our derivation emphasizes the similarity between, on the one hand, the RG equation for the triplet-channel interaction in a dirty metal and the consequent development of ferromagnetism with, on the other hand, the RG equation for the Cooper-channel interaction in a clean Fermi liquid and the consequent development of superconductivity. We believe that this illuminates the inevitability of our conclusion.

Once ferromagnetic order has developed, the system becomes essentially one of spinless electrons whose diffusion is decoupled from the spin waves of the system. In this regime, the suppression of the resistivity which accompanies the growth of the triplet interaction parameter is gone. Thus, our results indicate that a metallic state, if it exists in two dimensions, does not owe its existence to the growth of the triplet interaction parameter.

In two dimensions, our results should be interpreted as follows. As we lower the temperature, the system develops local ferromagnetic order as we cross the mean-field transition temperature $`T_c^{MF}`$. The spin density is controlled by classical thermal fluctuations which prevent order and lead to a correlation length $`\xi e^{(\mathrm{const}.)/T}`$ at low-temperatures. In the regime $`0<T<T_c^{MF}`$, we have a system in which charge diffuses while the spins are gapped. The localization physics of this system is essentially the same as that of spinless electrons, so the system leaves the diffusive regime and eventually becomes localized. Thus, our small $`t`$ analysis cannot be used all the way to zero temperature. The trend is towards a ferromagnetic insulator, but the onset of insulating behavior can thwart the development of ferromagnetism. Recent experiments Prus02  performed near the metal-insulator transition indicate an enhancement of the spin susceptibility which is cut off by the onset of insulating behavior. The metal-insulator transition is outside of the regime of validity of our calculation, but this is, nevertheless, qualitatively consistent with our picture.

In $`2+ϵ`$ dimensions, when the interaction strength is larger than a threshhold value of $`O(ϵ)`$, there is a ferromagnetic transition at a finite temperature $`T_c`$. If the resistance is smaller than a critical value $`t_c=O(ϵ)`$, then the resistance will remain finite down to zero temperature, where the system is in a metallic ferromagnetic state.

## II The Model

We begin with a system of interacting electrons moving in a quenched random potential $`V(x)`$ in $`2D`$. The imaginary-time action is

$$S=S_0+S_{\mathrm{disorder}}+S_{\mathrm{int}}$$
(1)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}S_0+S_{\mathrm{disorder}}=\hfill \\ \hfill T\underset{n}{}d^2x\psi _{n,\alpha }^{}(x)\left(iϵ_n+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu +V(x)\right)\psi _{n,\alpha }(x)\end{array}$$
(2)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{int}}=\hfill \\ \hfill T\underset{n,m,l}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\psi _{n,\alpha }^{}(𝐤+𝐪)\psi _{m,\alpha }(𝐤)\psi _{l,\beta }^{}(𝐩𝐪)\psi _{l+mn,\beta }(𝐩)\\ \hfill +\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\psi _{n,\alpha }^{}(𝐤+𝐪)\psi _{m,\alpha }(𝐩)\psi _{l,\beta }^{}(𝐩𝐪)\psi _{l+mn,\beta }(𝐤)]\end{array}$$
(3)
For later convenience, we have written the second term in momentum space and have split the interaction into nearly forward scattering, in which electrons with momenta and spins $`(𝐤,\alpha )`$, $`(𝐩,\beta )`$ are scattered to $`(𝐤^{},\alpha )`$, $`(𝐩^{},\beta )`$, where $`𝐤^{}𝐤`$, $`𝐩^{}𝐩`$ and exchange scattering, in which $`𝐤^{}𝐩`$, $`𝐩^{}𝐤`$. If the microscopic electron-electron interaction is $`V(𝐪)`$, then the associated bare couping constants are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=V(0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=(d\theta /2\pi )V(2k_F\mathrm{cos}\theta /2)`$. As Finkelstein noted, these are subject to finite Fermi liquid renormalization in the ballistic regime, even before they begin to flow in the diffusive regime. We assume that the system is in a weak magnetic field, so that we can ignore Cooper scattering, for which $`𝐤_1𝐤_2`$, $`𝐤_3𝐤_4`$.

In order to perform the average over the quenched random potential, we replicate the theory and then average the replicated functional integral over the probability distribution $`\overline{V(𝐱)V(𝐱^{})}=\frac{1}{2\pi N_F\tau }\delta ^{(d)}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$. Now, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}S^{\mathrm{rep}}=T\underset{n;a}{}d^2x[\psi _{n,\alpha }^{}(x)(iϵ_n+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu )\psi _{n,\alpha }(x)+\frac{1}{4\pi N_F\tau }(\psi _{n,\alpha }^a\psi _{n,\alpha }^a\left)^2\right]\hfill \\ \hfill T\underset{n,m,l;a}{}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\psi _{n,\alpha }^a(𝐤+𝐪)\psi _{m,\alpha }^a(𝐤)\psi _{l,\beta }^a(𝐩𝐪)\psi _{l+mn,\beta }^a(𝐩)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\psi _{n,\alpha }^a(𝐤+𝐪)\psi _{m,\alpha }^a(𝐩)\psi _{l,\beta }^a(𝐩𝐪)\psi _{l+mn,\beta }^a(𝐤)\right]\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ is a replica index; eventually, we must take the replica limit, $`N0`$. $`N_F`$ is the single-particle density-of-states at the Fermi energy. The resulting effective action now contains four quartic terms: one disorder term and two interaction terms. Note that the disorder term is non-local in time since it only depends on two Matsubara frequencies, and it couples different replicas. The interaction terms depend on three Matsubara frequencies, so they are local in time, and they do not couple different replicas.

## III Finkelstein’s Effective Field Theory

We decouple these quartic terms with three Hubbard-Stratonovich fields, $`Q_{nm,\alpha \beta }^{ab}`$, $`Y_{nm}^a=Y^a(nm)`$, $`X_{nm,\alpha \beta }^a=X_{\alpha \beta }^a(nm)`$. It will be useful to think of $`X,Y`$ both as matrices with indices $`n,m`$ and also as functions of a single frequency $`\omega _{nm}`$; they have only a single replica index, however, because interactions do not mix different replicas. Note that $`X_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\beta \alpha }`$ and $`Y`$ are essentially the spin and charge density. Integrating out the fermions, we can write the partition function as

$$Z=𝒟Q𝒟X𝒟Ye^{S_{\mathrm{eff}}[Q,X,Y]}$$
(5)
where $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[Q,X,Y]`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[Q,X,Y]=[\text{tr}\mathrm{ln}(iϵ_n+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu +\frac{i}{2\tau }Q+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1Y+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X)+\frac{\pi N_F}{4\tau }\text{tr}\left(Q^2\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\text{tr}\left(Y^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\text{tr}\left(X^2\right)]\end{array}$$
(6)
In this expression, we use ‘tr’ to mean the trace over all of the indices which are not explicitly written. Matsubara indices are treated as ordinary matrix indices except that their summations come with factors of $`T`$.

The saddle-point equations are

$$\pi N_F\widehat{Q}=i\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{i\widehat{ϵ_n}+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu +\frac{i}{2\tau }\widehat{Q}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1Y+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}$$
(7)
$$X(m)=T\underset{n}{}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{iϵ_n\delta _{n+m,n}+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu +\frac{i}{2\tau }\widehat{Q}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\widehat{Y}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\widehat{X}}$$
(8)
$$Y(m)=iT\underset{n}{}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{iϵ_n\delta _{n+m,n}+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu +\frac{i}{2\tau }\widehat{Q}_{n+m,m}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\widehat{Y}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\widehat{X}}$$
(9)
The momentum integrals on the right-hand-sides of (8) and (9) are simply $`i\pi N_FQ_{n+m,n}`$, according to (7). Hence, they have the solution

$`Q_{mn,\alpha \beta }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{sgn}\left(ϵ_n\right)\delta _{mn}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{ab}`$ (10)
$`X_{\alpha \beta }^a(m)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
$`Y^a(m)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
Note that the right-hand sides of the second and third equations of (8) and (9) vanish for $`m0`$ because the saddle-point $`Q`$ is diagonal in Matusubara frequency while they vanish for $`m=0`$ because of cancellation between positive and negative frequencies. As we will see later, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ sufficiently large, $`X=0`$ becomes unstable and there is an $`X0`$ solution of (8). This is the Stoner instability. Upon including low-energy fluctuations of $`Q`$ – diffusion modes – an $`X0`$ solution arises even for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ small, as we will see shortly.

The low-energy fluctuations about this saddle-point are transverse fluctuations of $`Q`$, which can be parametrized by $`V_{nm,\alpha \beta }^{ab}`$:

$`Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\left(1VV^{}\right)^{1/2}\hfill & V& & \\ V^{}\hfill & \left(1V^{}V\right)^{1/2}& & \end{array}\right)`$ (15)
The diagonal blocks of $`Q_{nm}`$ correspond to Matsubara indices $`n>0,m>0`$ and $`n<0,m<0`$ while the upper right block corresponds to $`n<0,m>0`$; the lower left block, to $`n>0,m<0`$. These fluctuations correspond to diffusion of charge and spin. The longitudinal fluctuations of $`Q`$ as well as fluctuations of $`X`$, $`Y`$ are gapped at the classical level (i.e. tree-level).

In order to derive an effective field theory for these diffusion modes, we shift $`QQ2\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }_1Y+2\tau i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X`$ in (6)

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[Q,X,Y]=[\text{tr}\mathrm{ln}(iϵ_n+\frac{1}{2m}^2+\mu +\frac{i}{2\tau }Q)+\frac{\pi N_F}{4\tau }\text{tr}\left(Q^2\right)\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\text{tr}\left(QY\right)+i\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\text{tr}\left(QX\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}(1+2\pi \left(\tau T\underset{m}{}\right)N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\text{tr}\left(Y^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}(12\pi \left(\tau T\underset{m}{}\right)N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\text{tr}\left(X^2\right)]\end{array}$$
(16)
Formally, the factors of $`\tau \left(T_m\right)`$ in the final two terms are infinite as a result of the unrestricted Matsubara sum. However, upon integrating out the massive longitudinal modes of $`Q`$, we see that they are the first terms in the series $`\tau T_m2\pi \left(\tau T_m\right)^2+\mathrm{}=\tau T_m/\left(1+2\pi \tau T_m\right)`$, which is simply $`1/2\pi `$. Thus, we replace the factors of $`\tau \left(T_m\right)`$ by $`1/2\pi `$ in (16). Alternatively, we could expand the $`\text{tr}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})`$ about the diffusive saddle-point and keep only terms up to second order in $`X`$ and $`Y`$. We would then obtain the same expressions, namely (16) with the factors of $`\tau \left(T_m\right)`$ replaced by $`1/2\pi `$. The coefficient of $`X^2`$ is now $`1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, which becomes negative for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>1/N_F`$: the Stoner instability. Finkelstein actually expanded the $`\text{tr}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})`$ only to linear order in $`X`$ and $`Y`$. For small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, there is no difference, but the Stoner instabilty is missed.

We now expand the $`\text{tr}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})`$ about the diffusive saddle-point. Thus, we require that $`Q`$ is a constrained field of the form given in (15).

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[Q]=\pi N_Fd^dx\{D\text{tr}(Q)^24iZ\text{tr}\left(\widehat{ϵ}Q\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_1\text{tr}\left(QY\right)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\text{tr}\left(QX\right)\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}\left(1+N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\pi N_F}\text{tr}\left(Y^2\right)\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\pi N_F}\text{tr}\left(X^2\right)\}\end{array}$$
(17)
The diffusion constant $`D`$ is given by $`D=v_F^2\tau /2`$.

Following Finkelstein, we integrate out $`X,Y`$ and obtain an effective action for the diffusion modes.

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[Q]=\pi N_Fd^dx\{D\text{tr}(Q)^24i\text{tr}\left(\widehat{ϵ}Q\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \pi N_F\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1Q_{n_1n_2,\alpha \alpha }^{aa}Q_{n_3n_4,\beta \beta }^{aa}\delta _{n_1n_2+n_3n_4}\\ \hfill +\pi N_F\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2Q_{n_1n_2\alpha \beta }^{aa}Q_{n_3n_4\beta \alpha }^{aa}\delta _{n_1+n_2n_3n_4}\}\end{array}$$
(18)
Note that ordinary matrix multiplication rules reflect the non-locality in time of the first term (the ‘disorder term’) in this action. The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}`$ interaction terms do not involve matrix multiplication and are, consequently, local in time. In this expression, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}/(1\pm N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2})`$. These corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ follow from our retention of the $`X^2`$ and $`Y^2`$ terms which Finkelstein drops. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ small, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$, and Finkelstein’s effective action is recovered.

Initially, the coefficient of the $`\text{tr}\left(\widehat{ϵ}Q\right)`$ term is $`1`$, as in (17), but quantum corrections cause it to flow, so we have followed Finkelstein in introducing the coupling $`Z`$.

## IV Renormalization Group Flows

The one-loop RG equations associated with this action are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t^2\left(43{\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{Z}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{Z}}\right)\right)`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2}{Z}}\right)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2}{Z}}\right)`$ (22)
where $`t`$ is the dimensionless resistance, $`t=1/(2\pi D)`$; $`Z_1=Z2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$; $`Z_2=Z+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$; and we have set $`\pi N_F=1`$ in order to avoid clutter.

For sufficiently large interaction strength, the correct starting point is presumably a Wigner crystal, which corresponds to a radically different saddle-point of the effective action (6). Thus, even though these RG equations were computed to all orders in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ for $`t`$ small, they should be understood as holding only for the vicinity of the diffusive saddle-point.

The RG equations for $`Z`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ can be combined to give:

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{}}\left(Z2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)=0$$
(23)
Hence, $`Z2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is a constant. For long-ranged Coulomb interactions, the Ward identity implies that this constant is zero: $`Z2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$. More generally, we can introduce $`\gamma _1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/Z`$, $`\gamma _2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/Z`$, so that $`\gamma _1=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _2)\mathrm{const}./Z`$. Since $`Z`$ grows under the RG flow (19), the final term can be dropped and we have $`\gamma _1=(1+\gamma _2)/2`$. In the case of spinless electrons, $`Z`$ does not grow under the corresponding RG flow, so we cannot make this simplification; we will later discuss the similar case of spin-polarized electrons.

Making the above substitution, we find that the RG equations for $`\gamma _2`$ and $`Z`$ are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma _2}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(1+\gamma _2\right)^2`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`Zt\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma _2\right)`$ (25)
Thus, $`\gamma _2`$ and $`Z`$ grow as the scale is increased. Eventually, this growth causes these equations to break down. If we ignore the flow of $`t`$, then the breakdown scale is $`E(1/\tau )e^{\frac{1}{t(1+\gamma _2)}}`$; in fact, the scale is somewhat lower because $`t`$ flows.

As noted in ref. Chamon99, , the breakdown of these equations is reminiscent of the situation in a clean Fermi liquid, where the Cooper channel interaction flows according to $`dV/d\mathrm{}=V^2`$. The breakdown of the latter at a scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{1/V}`$ signals the onset of superconductivity or, at least, pairing. Unlike in the case of a clean Fermi liquid with a four-fermion Cooper channel interaction, $`Z`$ diverges as well in our problem. However, the divergence of $`Z`$ is a by-product of the divergence of $`\gamma _2`$; In the Cooper pairing problem, if the interaction which drives pairing could also contribute to mass renormalization, we would have the same situation as in the Finkelstein problem. Indeed, this is what happens when pairing is driven by a gauge field. The development of pairing not only cuts off the flow of the interaction, but also the flow of the effective mass Bonesteel96 . Similarly, we expect that the physics which resolves the divergence of $`\gamma _2`$ will also resolve the divergence of $`Z`$.

## V Effective Action for Magnetic Degrees of Freedom: One-Loop

To see how the breakdown of (19) leads to ferromagnetism, let us go back to the action (17). Instead of integrating out $`X`$ and $`Y`$ at the paramagnetic diffusive saddle point, let’s integrate out $`V`$ and $`Y`$ in order to obtain an effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ for the magnetization $`X`$.

The spin polarization $`X`$ acts as a Zeeman field. A constant field aligned along the $`z`$ direction, $`X_{\alpha \beta }^a=X\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^z`$ (taken to be replica-diagonal), gives a gap to $`V_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ but leaves $`V_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ unaffected. To see this, note that a constant field couples only to the diagonal Matusbara indices $`Q_{nn}`$. Expanding $`(1VV^{})^{1/2}`$ and $`(1V^{}V)^{1/2}`$ and retaining only the leading terms, which are quadratic, we find that

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{tr}(XQ)=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X\mathrm{tr}\left[\left(V_{}V_{}^{}V_{}V_{}^{}\right)\right]$$
(26)
An imaginary gap $`\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X`$ in Matsubara formalism corresponds to a real gap in real-time. $`V_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ have propagators:

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{nm;,}(𝐪)V_{nm;,}^{}(𝐪)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{Z|\omega _{nm}|+Dq^2\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}\end{array}$$
(27)
When we integrate out $`V_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$, infrared divergences will be cutoff by $`X`$, as the single-particle gap cuts off divergences in BCS theory. Since $`V_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ are unaffected by $`X`$ to this order, they simply contribute an unimportant constant to $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$.

We will integrate out $`V`$ to one loop to obtain $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$. This is not quite the same as a calculation to lowest order in $`t`$, but the basic physics is illustrated most simply in a one-loop calculation, so we will present it first. To maintain further simplicity, let us consider the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$; the general case is a straightforward but more complicated extension, to which we return later. In the next subsection, we will present a more careful calculation which includes the effects of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and includes all of the terms which contribute to lowest order in $`t`$.

At one loop, we only need to retain terms in (17) up to quadratic order in $`V`$

$$\begin{array}{c}S[V,X]=\pi N_F\{D\mathrm{tr}(V_+^{}V_+)+Z|\omega _{nm}|V_{nm,+}^{}V_{mn,+}+\frac{1}{2}(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\pi N_F}\mathrm{tr}\left(X^2\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[\mathrm{tr}\left(V_{nm,+}X(nm)\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[\mathrm{tr}\left(V_{ml,+}V_{ln,+}^{}X(nm)\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]+(V_+V_{},XX)\}\end{array}$$
(28)
Here, we have written $`V_+V_{}`$, $`V_+^{}V_{}^{}`$, $`V_{}V_{}`$, and $`V_{}^{}V_{}^{}`$.

We now shift $`X`$ in order to remove the bi-linear coupling between $`X`$ and $`V`$. This is the simplest way to proceed with a one-loop computation of $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$. To go beyond one-loop, it is more convenient to shift $`V`$, as we will see later. Performing the shift $`X(l)X(l)iT_{m,A}V_{m+l,m;A}`$ for $`l>0`$ and $`X(l)X(l)iT_{n,A}V_{n+l,n;A}^{}`$ for $`l<0`$, where $`A=\pm `$, we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}S[V,X]=\pi N_F\{D\mathrm{tr}(V^{}V)+Z|\omega _{nm}|V_{nm;A}^{}V_{mn;A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2V_{nm;A}^{}V_{m^{}n^{};A}\delta _{nm,n^{}m^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[\mathrm{tr}\left(V_{ml;A}V_{ln;B}^{}\sigma _{AB}^zX(nm)\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]+\frac{1}{2}(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\pi N_F}\mathrm{tr}\left(X^2\right)\}\end{array}$$
(29)
A $`V^3`$ term is also generated as a result of this shift, but it doesn’t contribute to $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ at one loop, so we drop it. The $`V`$ propagator which follows from (29) is now

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{nm;\pm ;ab}(𝐪)V_{nm;\pm ;ba}^{}(𝐪)=D_0^{X\pm }(\omega _{nm},q)+\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_2D_0^{X\pm }(\omega _{nm},q)D_2^{X\pm }(\omega _{nm},q)\delta _{ab}\end{array}$$
(30)
where

$`D_0^{X\pm }(\omega _{nm},q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z|\omega _{nm}|+Dq^2\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}}`$ (31)
$`D_2^{X\pm }(\omega _{nm},q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_2|\omega _{nm}|+Dq^2\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}}`$ (32)
and $`Z_2`$ is as defined after (19).

Integrating out $`V`$, we obtain all one-loop diagrams of (29), with $`X`$ treated as a classical background field or, simply, a $`\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})`$ expression containing the $`V`$ propagators in the $`X`$ background field. Later, we will return to the possibility of other saddle-points, but for now, let us assume, in the name of simplicity, that $`X`$ is static, translationally-invariant, and replica-symmetric. For such $`X`$, the effective action takes the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]=\frac{1}{2}\left(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{tr}\left(X^2\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}([Z|\omega _{nm}|+Dq^2\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X]\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{aa^{}}\delta _{bb^{}}\\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_2\delta _{nmn^{}+m^{}}\delta _{aa^{}}\delta _{bb^{}}\delta _{ab})\end{array}$$
(33)
This may be rewritten in terms of the propagators $`D_{0,2}^{X\pm }`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]=\frac{1}{2}\left(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{tr}\left(X^2\right)+\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(D_0^{X+}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2D_0^{X+}D_2^{X+}\delta _{ab}\right)\left(D_0^X\mathrm{\Gamma }_2D_0^XD_2^X\delta _{ab}\right)\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
When we take the product of the two factors on the right-hand side of (34), the $`D_0^{X+}D_0^X`$ term has a free summation over the replica index $`b`$ which vanishes in the replica limit $`N0`$ for replica-symmetric solutions $`X_a=X`$. Dropping this term and using the relation $`D_0^{X\pm }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2|\omega _{nm}|D_0^{X\pm }D_2^{X\pm }=D_2^{X\pm }`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]=\{\frac{1}{2}(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{tr}\left(X^2\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}(D_2^{X+}D_2^XD_0^{X+}D_0^X)\}\end{array}$$
(35)
Evaluating the integral, we find

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]=\beta L^2[\frac{1}{2}(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X^2\hfill \\ \hfill t\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2(\frac{1}{Z}\frac{1}{Z_2})X^2(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}\right)1)]\end{array}$$
(36)
where $`L^2`$ is the area of the system.

As a result of the logarithm on the second line, the minimum of this effective action is at non-zero $`X`$ for arbitrarily small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. We will discuss this non-trivial solution and the saddle-point equation (or gap equation) which it satisfies in more detail in the next section. At this stage, the important lesson is that, at the one-loop level, the weakly-interacting diffusive electron gas is always unstable to the development of non-zero $`X`$, i.e. ferromagnetism.

## VI Ferromagnetic Saddle-Point at One-Loop

Let us examine more closely the saddle-point equation for $`X`$ in the simplest setting, that of section V. If we vary equation (34) with respect to $`X`$ (before performing the momentum integral and Matsubara sum), then we obtain the saddle-point equation:

$`1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2{\displaystyle \left[D_2^{X+}D_2^XD_0^{X+}D_0^X\right]}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2{\displaystyle \left[\frac{1}{\left[Z_2|\omega _{nm}|+Dq^2\right]^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2X^2}\frac{1}{\left[Z|\omega _{nm}|+Dq^2\right]^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2X^2}\right]}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`t\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}}\right)`$ (39)
The integrals on the right-hand-side of the second line are, for $`X=0`$, precisely the integrals which determine the contributions of diagrams (d) and (e) to the RG equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. We will further discuss this point below.

The right-hand-side of the saddle-point equation is logarithmically divergent in the $`X0`$ limit. Hence, there is always a solution

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X=\frac{1}{\tau }e^{\left(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)(1+\gamma _2)/(t\gamma _2^2)}$$
(40)
We have taken $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/\tau `$ as the ultraviolet cutoff and $`\gamma _2=\pi N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/Z`$. This is the non-trivial minimum of the action to which we referred at the end of section V. The structure of this saddle-point equation is clearly reminiscent of the BCS gap equation. The integrals on the right-hand-side are logarithmically divergent – as expected for a marginally relevant interaction. A symmetry-breaking order parameter must develop in order to cut them off.

We can submit our saddle-point solution to an important check by verifying its consistency with the RG equations. The gap to spin-flip excitations, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X`$ is an observable quantity, and should be independent of the ultraviolet cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Even though the cutoff is taken to be a physical scale $`1/\tau `$, we are free to integrate out short-wavelength fluctuations in order to lower the cutoff while simultaneously renormalizing the couplings $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`t`$, and $`Z`$. This must occur in such a way that the saddle-point solution, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X`$, remains unchanged. For this reason, we regard the one-loop calculation of section V as incomplete. It is consistent with an RG equation which only includes diagrams (d) and (e) of figure 2 for the flow of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Diagrams (a), (b), and (c) are not incorporated, and neither is the flow of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`t`$, $`Z`$.

## VII Beyond One-Loop

Though the preceeding one-loop calculation captures the basic physics of the problem, it does not capture all of the order $`t`$ physics. As we have just noted, the effective action (33) only includes terms corresponding to two of the five diagrams in figure 2 – namely, (d) and (e) – which contribute to (19).

The apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the physics of a one-loop RG equation might only appear at higher-loops in a saddle-point calculation. This is surprising at first glance, but can be understood at a technical level by noting that a contribution to the effective action of the form $`t^2\mathrm{ln}^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }/X)`$ is equally important at the saddle-point as a contribution of the form $`t\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/X)`$ since the extra logarithm compensates for the extra factor of $`t`$. A simple example of a model in which this occurs is given in the appendix.

The effects of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ on the flow of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`t`$, $`Z`$ enter in a two-loop calculation of the effective action. Consider the diagrams of figure 3. These are two-loop diagrams which, when combined with the one-loop diagram of the previous section, have the effect of shifting in the effective action of the previous section the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`t`$, and $`Z`$ from their bare values. These diagrams can receive contributions from non-spin-flip diffusion propagators which are not cut off by the magnetization, $`X`$. They are charge and $`S_z`$ diffusion modes. Since we expect them to be a part of the low-energy theory, we can choose not to integrate them out or to integrate out modes above a cutoff of our choosing. The natural choice is to integrate out these modes above $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X`$ so that the resulting effective field theory for $`X`$, $`V_{}`$, $`V_{}`$ contains only excitations with energies less than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X`$. (We could alternatively imagine performing the calculation at finite-temperature so that $`T`$ is effectively the cutoff for both spin-flip and non-spin-flip propagators. Such a calculation could be used to obtain the transition temperature $`T_c`$ for the putative transition.) This effects the following replacements:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+t\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}}\right)`$ (41)
$`t`$ $``$ $`t+t^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1f_2(z,z_1,z_2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}}\right)`$ (42)
$`Z`$ $``$ $`Zt\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X}}\right)`$ (43)
where

$`f_2(z,z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2z_1}{z_1z_2}}f_1(z,z_1){\displaystyle \frac{2z_2}{z_1z_2}}f_1(z,z_2)`$ (44)
$`f_1(z,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_2z}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{z}}\right)`$ (45)
Diagrams (a)-(c) of figure 2 cannot contribute directly to $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ for static $`X`$ because the external $`V`$ lines cannot carry zero frequency. The Matsubara indices $`m`$, $`n`$ of $`V_{mn}`$ necessarily satisfy $`n>0`$, $`m<0`$, so their difference cannot vanish. For the same reason, these diagrams cannot be linked with (d) and (e), in the way demonstrated in the toy model in the appendix. It is possible that contributions related to diagrams (a)-(c) enter $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ through even higher-loop contributions or, perhaps, when fluctuations in $`X`$ are included. However, this touches upon the unresolved issue of the renormalizability of the theory at higher-loops. In the absence of a clearer understanding of such higher-loop contributions to $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$, we conclude that the one-loop effective action (36) with the replacement (41) is the most systematic result which we can obtain at present. We expect that going beyond one-loop in $`V`$ or including the effects of fluctuations of $`X`$ will quantitatively but not qualitatively modify our result.

In section V, we removed the bi-linear coupling between $`X`$ and $`V`$ by shifting $`X`$. It may seem more natural to remove the bi-linear coupling between $`X`$ and $`V`$ by performing the shift $`V_{nm}V_{nm}D_0^1(q,\omega _{nm})X(nm)`$. If we then integrate out $`V`$, we will not find a non-trivial replica-symmetric saddle-point (though there may be replica-symmetry-breaking saddle-points), and the resulting action will not contain any of the physics of the one-loop RG equations. In order to recover this physics, we must now go to one-loop in $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$. Going to one-loop in $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$, we recover the saddle-point of our initial action of section V. The relevant diagrams are diagrams (d) and (e) of figure 2, but the solid lines are shrunk to a point when these diagrams are viewed as $`1`$-loop diagrams in $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$. Diagrams corresponding to (a), (b), and (c) have dotted lines attached to the solid external legs (via the bi-linear coupling between $`X`$ and $`V`$); however, these vanish in the static limit for the same reason as above. Thus, at this level, there is no advantage in proceeding this way, and there is a definite disadvantage in that one extra step is necessary. However, it is possible that a higher-loop calculation is simpler in this approach.

The one-loop effective action which we computed in section V is actually exact in a generalization of the model. The most naive large-$`N`$ version of the model is not particularly simple. If we simply introduce $`N`$ flavors of electrons $`\psi _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$, then the $`Q`$-matrix has two flavor indices, $`Q_{AB}`$, and the large-$`N`$ limit allows us to drop all non-planar diagrams. However, we do not know how to sum all of the planar diagrams. Instead, we consider the following generalization: we suppose that there are $`N`$ flavors of diffuson fields $`V_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$. This generalization does not have a simple interpretation in terms of the original electron variables, but it is technically simple. The action (29) is generalized to:

$$\begin{array}{c}S[V,X]=\pi N_F\{D\mathrm{tr}(V^{}V)+Z|\omega _{nm}|V_{nm;A\alpha }^{}V_{mn;A\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2V_{nm;A\alpha }^{}V_{m^{}n^{};A\alpha }\delta _{nm,n^{}m^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[\mathrm{tr}\left(V_{ml;A\alpha }V_{ln;B\alpha }^{}\sigma _{AB}^zX(nm)\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]+\frac{N}{2}(1N_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\pi N_F}\mathrm{tr}\left(X^2\right)\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\underset{\beta }{}[\mathrm{tr}\left(V_\alpha V_\alpha ^{}V_\beta \right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]\}\end{array}$$
(46)
Note that there is still only a single $`X`$ field. The explicit factor of $`N`$ in front of the penultimate term and the factor of $`1/N`$ in front of the final term ensures that every term in the action is $`O(N)`$. For this action, the diagram which we calculated in section V is the sole $`O(N)`$ diagram. All others are $`O(1)`$ or smaller. Furthermore, our effective action is multiplied by a coefficient $`N`$. Thus, in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, our one-loop saddle-point calculation is exact.

At first glance, it may seem almost contradictory to take an $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit while simultaneously taking a replica limit $`n0`$. However, the flavor index structure in the action (46) is very different from the replica index structure. The latter is chosen to ensure that closed fermion loops vanish while the latter selects a preferred set of the remaining diagrams. Hence, the two limits are consistent.

## VIII Physics of the Ferromagnetic Diffusive Fermi Liquid

Having concluded that the divergence of the triplet interaction amplitude leads to ferromagnetism, the obvious next question is “so then what?” To answer this, we must examine the diffusion of electrons in a ferromagnetic metal, and the interaction between diffusion modes and spin waves.

In the ferromagnetic state, we can expand $`X`$ about its perfectly-ordered ground state, which we take to be along the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$-direction

$$𝐗=(m_x,m_y,\sqrt{1m_x^2m_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}})$$
(47)
We can also perform a gradient expansion of $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝐗]`$. The result is essentially dictated by symmetry:

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝐗]=\left(ϵ_{ij}m_i_\tau m_j+K\left(m_i\right)^2+O\left(\left(m\right)^4\right)\right)$$
(48)
where $`i=1,2`$ are the $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐲}`$ components of $`𝐗`$. The constant $`K`$ is the spin stiffness of the ferromagnet.

We now reinstate the coupling of the order parameter to the diffusion modes of the system, as in (17) or (28).

$$\begin{array}{c}S[V,m]=\pi N_F\{D\mathrm{tr}(V^{}V)+Z|\omega _{nm}|V_{nm}^{}V_{mn}\hfill \\ \hfill +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2X_0[\mathrm{tr}\left(\sigma _zV_{nm}V_{mn}^{}\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]\\ \hfill +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[m_i(\omega _{nm})\mathrm{tr}\left(\sigma _iV_{nm}\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]\}\\ \hfill +\underset{n}{}\left(ϵ_{ij}i\omega _nm_im_j+K\left(m_i\right)^2\right)\end{array}$$
(49)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are Pauli matrices and we have dropped higher-order terms in $`m_i`$. A purist may object that the $`V`$’s should not appear in the action for $`m_i`$ since the dynamics for the order parameter was obtained by integrating out the $`V`$’s. If we now calculate with this action, we run the risk of double-counting the degrees of freedom of the system. In order to avoid this, we must either calculate only to tree-level in $`V`$ (but allow loops in $`m_i`$) or introduce counter-terms which cancel the final line of (49). In the second approach, by computing loops in $`V`$, we will cancel the $`m_i`$ counterterms.

The physics of this model is not completely manifest in the above form (49) because a uniform rotation of the ferromagnetic order parameter appears to be an excitation – since there are non-derivative terms in $`m_i`$ – when, in fact, it isn’t. This can be made manifest by rotating the quantization axis of the diffusing electrons so that it is aligned along the local direction of the order parameter. This is done by enacting the variable change

$$Ve^{iϵ_{kl}m_k\sigma _l}Ve^{iϵ_{ij}m_i\sigma _j}$$
(50)
The action is now

$$\begin{array}{c}S[V,m]=N_F\{D\mathrm{tr}(V^{}V)+Z|\omega _{nm}|V_{nm}^{}V_{mn}\hfill \\ \hfill +iX_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_2[\mathrm{tr}\left(\sigma _zVV^{}\right)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]\\ \hfill D\mathrm{tr}(V_{nm}^{}\left(ϵ_{ij}m_i(\omega _{nl})[\sigma _j,V_{ml}]\right))+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.\}\\ \hfill +\underset{n}{}\left(ϵ_{ij}i\omega _nm_im_j+K\left(m_i\right)^2\right)\end{array}$$
(51)
As noted earlier, there is a gap for spin-flip diffusion modes, as given by the second line of (51). Thus, we can ignore these modes at low energies and focus on charge diffusion and $`S_z`$ diffusion; $`S_{x,y}`$ are carried by spin waves $`m_{x,y}`$. From the structure of the interaction term on the third line of (51), we see that $`m_{x,y}`$ cannot couple directly to charge or $`S_z`$ diffusion alone, as dictated by rotational invariance. A charge or $`S_z`$ diffusion mode, upon emitting or absorbing a spin wave, must then become a spin-flip diffusion mode. Thus, this coupling can be ignored at energies below the gap for spin-flip diffusion modes. Even in the absence of such a gap, the coupling would have dimension $`d/2`$ in $`d`$-dimensional space and be strongly irrelevant, as expected for interactions with Goldstone modes – which must occur through derivative couplings such as that on the third line of (51).

Thus, the low-energy physics of the ferromagnetic diffusive metal state is that of ferromagnetic spin waves decoupled from diffusion in a Zeeman field. The latter has been well-studied Castellani84a ; Belitz94 , and is similar to the spinless electron problem. Interactions suppress the conductivity, as may be seen from the RG equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t^2(2{\displaystyle \frac{Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}\right)`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_H+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{Z}}\right))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }_H,{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{d\mathrm{}}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}{d\mathrm{}}}=t\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is the part of the interaction between $`S_z=0`$ diffusion modes which includes a contribution from both the direct and exchange channels, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\left(Q_{}Q_{}+Q_{}Q_{}\right)`$; its bare value is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

In two dimensions, these RG equations describe a flow towards insulating behavior. However, there is a metal-insulator transition in $`2+ϵ`$ dimensions through which the system can be tuned by varying the bare resistivity through a critical value of $`O(ϵ)`$. We examine the situation in some more detail in the next section.

The preceeding discussion is strictly true at zero temperature. At finite temperatures, thermal fluctuations will destroy two-dimensional long-range ferromagnetic order, but some signature of the zero-temperature ferromagnetic phase persists. If a finite external magnetic field is applied, the magnetization is a scaling function of temperature and magnetic field. A large-N calculation for an $`SU(N)`$ magnet theory gives the following expression for the scaling function for the susceptibilityRead95 :

$$\chi (r,h)=\frac{M_0}{8\pi r}\mathrm{ln}\left[(qe^{h/2})/(qe^{h/2})\right]$$
(55)
where $`r=K/T`$ and $`h=H/T`$ are the rescaled spin stiffness and magnetic field respectively, $`q`$ is a root of the equation $`(qe^{h/2})(qe^{h/2})=q^2e^{8\pi r}`$, and $`M_0`$ is the zero temperature magnetization. The susceptibility is given by $`M_0(e^{4\pi r}1)/(8\pi Tr)`$, which diverges exponentially as $`T0`$.

In the limit of weak interactions and weak disorder, there is a substantial temperature regime in which there is ferromagnetic order with a long – but finite – correlation length and the resistivity is small. If the dimensionless resistivity, $`t`$, is taken to be $`0.3`$ at temperature $`5`$ K, and $`r_s`$, the average interspace between electrons measured in the unit of effective Bohr radius, is taken to be 0.1, then the susceptibility is large below $`15`$ mK. However, the resistivity becomes $`O(1)`$ at temperatures $`10^{20}K`$. While ferromagnetism sets in at very low temperatures, insulating behavior is completely academic. In the temperature interval between these two scales, we expect the susceptibility to be of the above form (55). When $`r_s`$ is larger, the separation between these scales decreases, but we should also be more circumspect about using this weak-coupling theory. Of course, if the magnetic field is removed, we pass from the unitary ensemble to the orthogonal one, and weak-localization effects should drive the system insulating much more rapidly.

## IX Phase Diagram in $`2+ϵ`$ Dimensions

In $`2+ϵ`$ dimensions, the renormalization group equations are modified by the appearance of tree-level dimensions associated with the spatial dimensionality:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵt+t^2\left(43{\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{Z}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{Z}}\right)\right)`$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2}{Z}}\right)`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2}{Z}}\right)`$ (59)
By varying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, we can tune the system through a paramagnet-ferromagnet transition.

For $`t`$, $`\gamma _2`$ small, the flows are into the fixed line $`t=0`$. This fixed line terminates at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{\mathrm{Stoner}}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$, there is a metal-insulator transition at $`t=ϵ`$. In the vicinity of this transition, $`\gamma _2`$ is relevant. If it flows to sufficiently large values, then ferromagnetism will develop. However, if $`t`$ flows to zero before this happens, then the system will remain paramagnetic. Both possibilities can occur as soon as $`\gamma _2`$ becomes nonzero, so the ferromagnet-paramagnet boundary which begins on the $`t=0`$ axis at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{\mathrm{Stoner}}`$ terminates at $`t=ϵ,\gamma _2=0`$. Ferromagnetism, if it occurs, will have a finite onset temperature. At lower temperatures, the conductivity may be metallic or insulating, depending on $`t`$. In the former case, we have a ferromagnetic metal. In the latter case, the system becomes insulating at lower temperatures. It is possible that the ferromagnetic order is destroyed by the onset of insulating behavior. This cannot be resolved by the methods in this paper; thus, we have left the phase boundary of the paramagnetic insulating state intentionally vague. (In fact, it may not be paramagnetic, but might instead be a spin glass or some other non-ferromagnetic phase.)

## X Discussion

In this paper, we have used a straightforward and absolutely standard technique – albeit in a somewhat complicated and technically-involved context – to argue that the instability of the weakly-interacting electron system in a weak random potential signals the development of ferromagnetism. Since there is a single instability occurring in the weak-interaction limit and it occurs while the resistivity is small, we are afforded a great deal of control over this problem. The instability bespeaks of the relative importance of one term in the action compared to the others. We need only satisfy this term – which we do by allowing for the development of a ferromagnetic moment – without worrying about other terms, since none of them are relevant. The demonstrable absence of a competing instability is the main justification for a simple mean-field theory. This may be formalized in a large-$`N`$ generalization of the problem. Further credence is given by the physical arguments of the introductory section which rule out any other resolution of the divergence associated with the triplet amplitude. This is, in fact, a remarkable state of affairs, given that there is no comparable controlled theory for itinerant electron ferromagnetism in clean metals. In a clean metal, the Stoner instability occurs at strong coupling, where there are other competing instabilities and no unambiguous way of deciding between them.

It is striking how little is known about the phase diagram of the 2DEG. Even at zero magnetic field, the phase diagram as a function of $`r_s`$ and disorder strength is only known in the small and large $`r_s`$ limits for vanishing disorder. Intermediate $`r_s`$ is poorly understood, as is finite disorder. We believe that we have, in this paper, extended terra cognita to include the small $`r_s`$, weak disorder region.

We emphasize that our result does not shed too much light on the metal-insulator transition which is observed in strongly-interacting 2DEGs. The development of ferromagnetism does not lead to a metallic state in two dimensions. Once ferromagnetism has developed, weak localization (which we have neglected in this paper) and interaction corrections both drive the system insulating. There is no contradiction with experiments, however, since the transition seen there is in the strong-interaction, high-resistivity ($`t1`$) regime where our result is not expected to be valid. On the other hand, our result does rule out theories which conjecture that the divergence of the triplet interaction leads to a metallic state at zero-temperature in 2D.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank C. Chamon, A. Kamenev, E. Mucciolo, L. Radzihovsky, R. Shankar, and T. Senthil for discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9983544 and by the A.P. Sloan Foundation.

## Appendix A Correspondence Between RG Equations and an Effective Action

When we transform an action by introducing Hubbard-Stratonovich fields and integrating out the original variables of the action, the result can be an action which looks very different from the original one. However, the coupling constants of the two actions are related, and the corresponding RG equations should be as well. In the simplest cases, this is completely transparent. Consider, for instance, a system of $`N`$ flavors of spinless fermions in one-dimension. Suppose that their density is commensurate with the underlying crystal lattice and that their interaction respects the $`U(N)`$ symmetry which mixes the fermions:

$$\begin{array}{c}=\psi _{aR}^{}i\left(_t+_x\right)\psi _{aR}+\psi _{aL}^{}i\left(_t_x\right)\psi _{aL}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{g}{N}\left(\psi _{aR}^{}\psi _{aL}+\psi _{aL}^{}\psi _{aR}\right)^2\end{array}$$
(60)
Here, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. $`\psi _{aR},\psi _{aL}`$ annihilate fermions of flavor $`a`$ at, respectively, the right and left Fermi points. This is the $`U(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model. Let us consider its large-$`N`$ limit.

First, consider the RG equation for $`g`$. There is a single one-loop diagram, depicted on the left of fig. 5. All other diagrams are smaller by powers of $`1/N`$. The resulting RG equation is:

$$\frac{dg}{d\mathrm{}}=\frac{g^2}{2\pi }$$
(61)
If we introduce a Hubbard-Stratonovich field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which decouples the interaction

$$\begin{array}{c}=\psi _{aR}^{}i\left(_t+_x\right)\psi _{aR}+\psi _{aL}^{}i\left(_t_x\right)\psi _{aL}\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\psi _{aR}^{}\psi _{aL}+\psi _{aL}^{}\psi _{aR}\right)+\frac{N}{2g}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\end{array}$$
(62)
then we can integrate out $`\psi `$:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{N}{2g}\mathrm{\Delta }^2N\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(\left(i_ti_x\sigma _3+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _1\right)\delta _{ab}\right)$$
(63)
where we have combined $`\psi _{aR},\psi _{aL}`$ into a two-component spinor on which $`\sigma _{1,3}`$ act. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cuts off the infrared logarithmic divergence of the $`\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}`$ term.

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2g}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}N\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)1\right)`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ (65)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff. The second line suggests that $`\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ renormalizes $`1/g`$. Thus, the effective action manifestly embodies the physics contained in the RG equation (61). This is also clear from the close kinship between the one-loop diagram which gives the $`\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})`$ in (63) and the one-loop diagram which yields the RG equation (61).

However, strictly speaking, the formal relationship between the RG equation and the effective action (64) follows from the cutoff-independence of physically-measurable quantities, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being the simplest. From (64), we see that the saddle-point value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\pi /g}$$
(66)
Differentiating both sides with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and requiring that $`d\mathrm{\Delta }/d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vanish, we find:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{dg}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{g^2}{2\pi }$$
(67)
which is equivalent to the RG equation (61).

Now, consider a slightly more complicated situation:

$$\begin{array}{c}=_0(\psi ,\psi ^{})+_0(\chi ,\chi ^{})+_{\mathrm{int}}(\chi ,\chi ^{})\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{g}{N}\left(\psi _{aR}^{}\psi _{aL}+\psi _{aL}^{}\psi _{aR}\right)^2\\ \hfill +\frac{v}{\sqrt{N}}\left(\psi _{aR}^{}\psi _{aL}+\psi _{aL}^{}\psi _{aR}\right)\left(\chi _{aR}^{}\chi _{aL}+\chi _{aL}^{}\chi _{aR}\right)\end{array}$$
(68)
where $`_0(\psi ,\psi ^{})`$ is the same as the first line of (60).

The RG equation for $`g`$ now reads:

$$\frac{dg}{d\mathrm{}}=\frac{g^2}{2\pi }+\frac{v^2}{2\pi }$$
(69)
The second term arises from the diagram on the right-hand-side of fig. 5.

Now, consider $`_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta },\chi ,\chi ^{})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is introduced to decouple the $`g`$ interaction, as before. We can no longer calculate it exactly. However, if we assume that $`vg`$, we can calculate it to lowest non-trivial order in $`v`$. The lowest order diagram by which it contributes is the second one of fig. 6. We integrate out $`\psi `$ completely and integrate out all $`\chi `$ fluctuations above some cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. We are free to choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ as we like, of course, but the natural choice is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so that our effective action is for excitations with energies of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The resulting effective action is

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{N}{2g}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{1}{4\pi }N\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{4\pi }v^2N\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\right)^3\\ \hfill +_0(\chi ,\chi ^{})+_{\mathrm{int}}(\chi ,\chi ^{})\end{array}$$
(70)
The last term looks strange. It looks like an $`O\left(v^2\right)`$ renormalization of $`1/g`$, which would imply a contribution of order $`g^2v^2`$ to $`dg/d\mathrm{}`$. Also, this term is proportional to $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\right)^3`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ as we might have expected from the second diagram of fig. 5 and the RG equation (69).

The problem is that we are looking at $`_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, which is not observable, rather than the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is. When we compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the two difficulties noted above resolve each other. Minimizing the effective action, we find that, to lowest non-trivial order in v:

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\right)=\frac{2\pi }{g}\frac{2\pi v^2}{g^3}$$
(71)
or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\pi /(g+v^2/g)}$$
(72)
Requiring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we recover the RG equation for $`g`$ – and also the RG equation for $`v`$ which we didn’t compute.

The lesson is that a one-loop contribution to the RG equation for a coupling constant might manifest itself in an effective action only through a higher-loop (in the above example, three-loop) diagram. In the interacting electron problem in a random potential, diagrams (a), (b), and (c) could enter $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[X]`$ through three-loop diagrams.