# Relationship between lesser Green's function and greater Green's function in Keldysh formalism

+ 0 like - 0 dislike
414 views

I wonder if there is any general relationship between lesser Green's function $G^<(t,t')$ and $G^>(t,t')$ in the non equilibrium case, which means they not only depend on the relative time but also the average time. The time evolution kernel becomes a Dyson Series.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-12-12 22:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user qc2014
asked Oct 16, 2015

## 1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

TL;DR In general, no.

A longer but possibly irrelevant discussion follows. Consulting the classic review RevModPhys.58.323 by Rammer and Smith, the quantities you are considering are defined as (Eq. 2.5):

$$G^{<}(\boldsymbol x_1,t_1,\boldsymbol x_{1'},t_{1'})=\mp i\langle \psi^\dagger_{\mathcal H}(\boldsymbol x_1,t_1) \psi_{\mathcal H}(\boldsymbol x_{1'},t_{1'})\rangle,$$

$$G^{>}(\boldsymbol x_1,t_1,\boldsymbol x_{1'},t_{1'})=- i\langle \psi_{\mathcal H}(\boldsymbol x_1,t_1) \psi^\dagger_{\mathcal H}(\boldsymbol x_{1'},t_{1'}) \rangle,$$

where $\mathcal H$ implies the Heisenberg picture, while $(\boldsymbol x_1,t_1)$ and $(\boldsymbol x_{1'},t_{1'})$ are at this point completely general.

In thermal equilibrium these functions depend only on the relative variables, i.e., $t_1 - t_{1'}$ and $\boldsymbol x_1 - \boldsymbol x_{1'}$. A well known consequence of this is the relationship concerning the Fourier transforms of the lesser and greater Green's functions, Eq. 2.65, $$\tilde G^{<}(E) = e^{-\beta E}\tilde G^{>}(E).$$ This relationship holds basically since the Hamiltonian at different times commutes with itself in an equilibrium state (also known as the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger boundary condition).

However, if the Hamiltonian does not commute with itself, which depends on the kind of perturbation considered, this relation is obviously not valid any more.

Depending on the perturbation, it should be possible to find similar relations (which now should depend on the average variables $t_1 + t_{1'}$ etc.), even though I've failed to find a reference to illustrate this point. In any case, such relations would involve a perturbative expansion, and no simple general relation exists as far as I know.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-12-12 22:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user ffc
answered Nov 9, 2015 by (10 points)

## Your answer

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.