text:
# Selected design issues of a dedicated facility for generic QCD studies

## 1 Introduction

QCD is the theory of strong interactions. At distances, which are sizeably smaller than the size of hadrons, interactions of quarks and gluons, the basic degrees of freedom of the theory, are precisely controlled by perturbative calculations. At distances comparable to the size of hadrons, the basic degrees of freedom and the symmetries of the theory are hidden and perturbative methods are no longer valid. Understanding the relationship between the quark-gluon and the hadronic (nuclear) degrees of freedom is the most challenging issue in the domain of strong interactions.

The consequences of non-abelian properties of QCD can be only partially accessed by the lattice calculations. This is both due to the limitation of the power of the available computers and, more importantly, due to the very nature of numerical methods. Further progress in understanding the relationship between quarks and gluons and their effective collective modes (hadrons and nuclei) is thus bound to be driven by a generic experimental program, which needs to develop its novel femto-technology tools, allowing not only for observing, but also for manipulating quarks and gluons in various QCD media.

Leptons and nuclei are indispensable for development of such tools. Deciphering high energy collisions of nucleons and nuclei in terms of basic quark-gluon processes is difficult. Collisions of nucleons and nuclei with leptons could play a role of the Enigma machine capable of decoding the p-A and A-A collision data. Lepton beams resolve interactions of charged constituents of hadronic matter with precisely controlled resolution power not only at small but also at large (confinement scale) distances. They can thus be considered as surgery tools for effective filtering of various distance scales involved in the interactions and for controlling the initial configuration of quark degrees of freedom. In large coherence-length processes, nuclei provide effective means to tune the projected densities of quark-gluon systems and/or to tune the effective strength of colour forces. Conversely, in small coherence-length processes, they play a role of variable-length-absorbers of quarks and gluons. Last but not least, nuclei can be used as femto-detectors to observe the space-time structure of interactions of quarks and gluons. Polarization of leptons, protons and light ions is vital for studies of the spin structure of various QCD media.

Following the discovery of quarks and gluons, a large number of experiments have been performed to understand their interactions. A future, generic QCD research program at a dedicated facility, providing collisions of large-intensity and atomic-number-tunable ion beams with large-intensity polarized beams of protons and electrons, could extend the frontier of understanding in a significant way. It requires a research and development effort on beam cooling techniques and on high intensity polarized electron sources. The progress in collider capacity has to be matched by a novel detector design providing a full reconstruction of all particles produced in collisions of electrons, protons and nuclei.

Such a QCD-dedicated program represented, in my view, the best long term research option for the HERA collider , underlying both the specificity and the complementarity of HERA with respect to Tevatron and LEP and RHIC. This option was considered, however, less attractive than the presently realized high-lumi option and it was abandoned. The eRHIC project  aiming at adding an electron linac to the existing BNL facilities revived and extended the scope of such a program. Building the electron linac at the BNL site have numerous advantages. For example, a use can be made of the available 12 o’clock collision zone of the RHIC collider as a site for the future multipurpose detector. Such a detector could be optimized not only for measuring collisions of protons and nuclei with electron but also for measuring collisions of polarized protons as well as collisions of protons with nuclei.

The eRHIC design have been discussed at several workshops and conferences. In this short note I sketch the basic criteria specifying the ep (eA) collider parameters and present the first design trial of a dedicated full event detector for the eRHIC project. More details can be found e.g. in talks and lectures on this subject (the most recent ones can be found in ).

## 2 Optimizing the ep (eA) collider parameters

### 2.1 Collision Energy range and tunability

At high energy frontier, proton-proton and proton-nucleus collisions provide already an adequate environment to study short-distance interactions of quarks and gluons. The low-x, large coherence-length spin- and momentum-structure of nucleons can be resolved using intermediate energy electrons. For example, a 10 GeV electron beam colliding with a 100 GeV protons (nuclei) resolves the deep inelastic structure of the target down to $`x_{Bj}=10^3`$. At this $`x_{Bj}`$ value the coherence-length exceeds already by one order of magnitude the size of heaviest nuclei allowing for a sufficient lever arm for extrapolations to even smaller $`x_{Bj}`$ values.

The ep (eA) centre-of-mass collision energy range optimal for covering both the perturbative QCD region and the distance scales relevant for hadronic matter such as the proton radius - $`R_p`$, nucleus radius - $`R_A`$, $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, $`1/m_\rho `$ is $`\sqrt{s}=10100`$ GeV. The above energy span provides an optimal resolution range of the electron probe both in the transverse and in the collision (light-cone) direction. The low energy limit can be approached in parasitic fixed target collisions of the electron beam and thus can be moved above 10 GeV. Tunability of the beam collision energy is indispensable to filter out processes mediated by the transverse and the longitudinal virtual photons and is vital in understanding quark and gluon energy loss in various QCD media.

### 2.2 Ratio of lepton and nucleon/ion beam energies

Choosing the ratio of the proton (ion) to electron beam energies in the range 10-20 facilitates, in particular at the highest centre-of-mass energy, various aspects of the full event detector design. It assures both a good reconstruction quality and an efficient triggering of deep inelastic scattering events over the full $`x_{Bj}`$ range. In addition, such a value of the beam energy ratio allows for an early decoupling the electron and of the proton (ion) beam optics, thus simplifying the design of the electron beam insertion. Last but not least, it permits operating high electron currents with controllable level of synchrotron radiation at the interaction point.

### 2.3 Charge and polarization of the electron beam

While highest and precisely controllable polarization of the electron and of the proton (light ion) beam is indispensable, a possibility of switching from electron to positron beam is of secondary importance. A majority of QCD processes leading to the charge asymmetries can be investigated by looking at spin asymmetries.

### 2.4 Choice of ion species

It is mandatory to collide electrons with heavy ions in order to maximize the nuclear medium effects and with lightest ions (e.g. deuteron) in order to study proton/neutron flavour asymmetries. In addition, it is highly desirable to cover uniformly the A-range on the $`A^{1/3}`$ scale. Isoscalar ions should be preferably chosen, especially if the collider compaction factor will permit simultaneous storing of two, isoscalar ion bunch-trains.

### 2.5 Luminosity

While highest achievable luminosity $`LA10^{33}[cm^2s^1]`$ is necessary for high precision measurements of spin asymmetries, for studies of exclusive and semi-exclusive processes, for rare fluctuations of nuclear densities and for the $`x>1`$ physics, there exist a vast inclusive physics program, which can be executed already at the luminosity, which is three orders of magnitude smaller than that quoted above. This creates an opportunity to consider the collider/detector project as evolutive, containing several open scenarios. Such a flexibility allows, for instance, for running at lower luminosities at comfortable $`\beta ^{}`$ to study the electron, proton and ion fragmentation processes.

### 2.6 Beam parameters at fixed luminosity

It is desirable to minimize beam emittance rather than $`\beta ^{}`$ at the Laslet and at the beam-beam tune shift luminosity limits. As a thumb rule the beam divergences at the interaction point should be kept largely below the level of $`P_{Fermi}/P_{Beam}=510^4`$ for unambiguous identification of interacting nucleons with respect to spectator ones. In order to assure efficient triggering over the full $`x_{Bj}`$-range an emphasis has be put on cleanness of the beams, i.e. on the smallest possible halo of “out-of-bunch” particles.

### 2.7 Interaction Point geometry

Merits of the proposed range of collision energies, of the beam energy ratio and of using electron linac rather than circular machine are clearly visible while designing the interaction point geometry. In the configuration discussed above a clash between the magnetic lattice of the electron beam insertion and that of the proton (ion) beam can be largely avoided. In the limit of small ratio of electron to proton (ion) beam energies the electron insertion magnet causes only residual distortion of the proton (ion) beam trajectories. At small electron beam energy, it can be placed in the vicinity of the beam crossing zone and used as a momentum analyzer of particles produced at small angles while avoiding severe constraints related to effective masking of synchrotron radiation. The layout of the interaction point geometry is greatly simplified if pre-polarized electrons are accelerated in a linac with no need for a spin rotation.

### 2.8 Three beams collider

The RHIC collider provides beams of ions and polarized protons, which cover fully the optimal energy range for the future ep (eA) collider (lower energy ion and proton beams can be stored at RHIC if cooled by a low energy electron beam). Thus, the Brookhaven National Laboratory turns out to be a cost effective site to conduct the future ep (eA) research program in close synergy with the present RHIC pp, AA and pA programs. An ambitious but extremely interesting scenario is to design the IP12 collision point as a collision point of 3 beams. In such a scenario one of the ion (proton) beam or the electron beam is guided in and out of the beam-beam collision zone, within a common beam tube, allowing for measuring ep, eA, pp, and pA collisions in the same region in a common full event detector. The ep (eA) collisions could thus be observed with no interference with the ongoing RHIC program. More importantly, a precise relative studies of medium-dependence of basic QCD processes can be made by using the same detector for ep, eA, pp and pA collisions. The collider parameters discussed above, in particular the particular the choice of the range of electron energies with respect to the energies of RHIC beams facilitate such a design.

## 3 Full event detector - selected design issues

The full event detector has to provide measurements of all particles produced in the collisions. Compared to the HERA or to the Tevatron detectors, it extends the measurement region covering the soft remnants of electrons, nucleons and nuclei. It redefines the conventional detector-machine interface.

The first attempt to design such a detector has been presented at the Yale workshop . The following criteria were imposed for this initial trial:

* The detector should be common for ep, eA, pp and pA collisions to study both the hard scattering of partons and the beam particle dependent medium effects.
* It should allow for the reconstruction of complete ep and eA events (covering the proton fragmentation region in the pp and the pA collisions, a provision for adding a muon detection system and a charged kaon identification system, remains open at this design stage).
* The beam crossing optics should minimize the clash with the existing RHIC interaction region optics.
* The existing RHIC magnets should be used, as much as they can be useful, in the spectrometer design.
* The electron insertion should provide a functionality of the spin rotator.
* The design should remain invariant of the choice of Ring-Ring versus Linac-Ring collisions.
* The detector should provide precise luminosity monitoring and good experimental control of radiative corrections for electron induced reactions.

The general layout of the detector geometry is shown in Fig. 1. It is symmetric around the collision axis with a central detector and two symmetric arms along the z direction. For the ep and eA collisions the instrumentation of the left arm, called hereafter the hadron side, and the right arm, called hereafter the electron side is initially asymmetric. It would be possible to upgrade such a detector for pp and pA collisions by adding the detector elements of the hadron side to the electron side.

The function of the central detector, shown in Fig. 2, is to determine the kinematics of hard processes by measuring the momenta and angles of outgoing leptons quark and gluon jets. The barrel is a TPC backed by a gas EM calorimeter inside a super-conducting coil. Both end-cups are SPACAL calorimeters. This is a minimal set up for the parton detector.

The proton (nucleus) fragmentation region is covered by the high rigidity and medium rigidity spectrometers shown in Fig. 3. The function of these spectrometers is to measure wounded and evaporated nucleons, nuclear fragments as well as other low-angle particles. The spectrometers involve the tracking modules and calorimeter stations and use, in measuring the momentum of charged particles, the magnetic field of the D0 and DE magnets.

The detection system in the electron fragmentation region, shown in Fig. 4, defines the minimal setup for the electron-nucleon (electron-nucleus) collisions. It provides a precise tagging of DIS and photo-production processes and measures the low angle photons for luminosity measurement and provides experimental means to control the electro-magnetic radiative corrections.

The spectrometer optics combines several functions. The 2.3 Tm bending power of the DE magnet distributed over 3 meters is 3 times higher than the inflection field at DESY. It produces a deflection angle of 70 mrad for 10 GeV beam and is designed to rotate the spin vector by 90 degrees (this constraint is only of importance for a circular electron machine). With this geometry the electron beam bypasses the DX magnet entirely, thus uncoupling the electron beam optics from the ion beam optics. The geometry of the present design have, unquestionable advantages with respect to that of the HERA collider. Owing to smaller electron beam energy the eRHIC interaction region can tolerate 10 times higher electron beam current than HERA i.e. 600 mA. Using low emittance electron-linac beam a 100 fold increase of luminosity can be achieved while keeping the synchrotron radiation at tolerable level.


format: text

text:
# On the concepts of radial and angular kinetic energies

## I Introduction

Phase-space representations of quantum mechanics play an increasingly important role in several branches of physics, including quantum optics and atomic physics. The principal reason for this is the conceptual possibility these representations give for viewing the position and momentum characteristics of a quantum state in the same picture. Phase space is often useful for the description of stationary states, and it has become a natural background for describing the quantum-mechanical time evolution of wavepackets, for both matter waves and electromagnetic waves. Several phase-space representations have been discussed in the literature, but one of them—the so-called Weyl-Wigner representation—has come to play the role of a canonical phase-space representation, because of its simplicity . In accordance with this, we shall exclusively consider the Weyl-Wigner representation in the following.

We consider this phase-space representation to be a representation in its own right. In previous work  we have justified this statement by analyzing and solving the phase-space differential equations that the Wigner functions must satisfy. In particular, we have stressed that the Wigner functions may be determined directly from these equations, without reference to wavefunctions—although it is in general easier to determine them from the wavefunctions.

The fact that the phase-space description is a representation in its own right makes it relevant to apply physical intuition to the form and behavior of the Wigner functions, just as physical intuition may be applied to the form and behavior of wavefunctions. When we do this, we discover that our understanding of quantum states becomes enlarged, because the two types of intuition may work differently and therefore supplement each other.

In the present investigation which, for the sake of generality, is carried out in $`D`$ dimensions, we consider quantum states referred to a center $`O`$. We focus, in particular, on the evaluation of the angular momentum and the kinetic energy of such states. In the familiar picture based on wavefunctions, these quantities are calculated as the expectation values of operators. In the phase-space picture they are calculated by taking averages of dynamical phase-space functions with Wigner distribution functions. Performing the two calculations with care will, of course, lead to the same result. Yet, a comparison between the detailed features of the two descriptions leads to some interesting and physically important observations.

This was already noted in our previous work on the Wigner function for the ground state of the hydrogen atom , in which we touched on a pedagogical dilemma which, for instance, has bothered writers of elementary textbooks : How does one bring the fact that the angular momentum in the Bohr orbit is non-zero into accordance with the fact that the angular momentum in the Schrödinger picture is zero? We referred to this dilemma as the angular-momentum dilemma and showed that it could be resolved by noting that the mapping of the operator $`\widehat{L}^2`$ to phase space produces the phase-space function $`|𝒓\times 𝒑|^23\mathrm{}^2/2`$ rather than just $`|𝒓\times 𝒑|^2`$.

In the following, we generalize this result to $`D`$ dimensions. In addition, we derive parallel but more faceted relations for kinetic-energy quantities, likewise in $`D`$ dimensions. We discuss these results and show that the separation of kinetic energy into a radial and an angular part may be done in two physically meaningful ways. One is suggested by the form of the operators in the wave-function picture, the other by classical-like dynamical functions in the phase-space picture. The relation between the two variants of radial and angular kinetic energies is tied to the Weyl correspondence rule and is, therefore, well defined.

We illustrate the conceptual difference between the two types of kinetic-energy separation by two important examples in three dimensions. One is the simplest possible time-dependent state of a free particle, the other is the stationary ground state of the hydrogen atom. For the first example, we find that the phase-space induced separation of the kinetic energy into a radial and an angular part depends on time in an intuitively simple way, whereas the operator-based separation is independent of time. For the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the operator-based separation leads to an angular kinetic energy of zero, whereas the phase-space induced separation classifies the whole kinetic energy as angular kinetic energy. This striking difference between the results of the two types of separation is well reflected in the form of the wavefunction versus the form of the Wigner function. It illustrates in a perfect way how the physical richness that is hidden in the simplest state of the simplest atom can only be seen by looking at the state from different angles. It also illustrates the intricate way in which the roots of classical mechanics are buried in the quantum-mechanical soil.

The paper, which is intended to be reasonably self contained, is organized in the following way: In Sec. II we give a brief overview of hyperspherical coordinates and the central-field form of wavefunctions in $`D`$ dimensions. In Sec. III we define the angular momentum and perform the operator-based separation of the kinetic energy into a radial and an angular part. We express the result both in terms of general operators and in terms of differential operators. As a background for the rest of the paper we recall the salient aspects of the Weyl-Wigner transformation in Sec. IV . In Sec. V we discuss the concept of angular momentum in the phase-space picture. We introduce the concepts of $`q`$ (quantum) angular momentum and $`c`$ (classical-like) angular momentum and discuss the relation between them. In Sec. VI we give a similar discussion of the kinetic energy in phase space and of its separation into a radial part and an angular part. Secs. VII and VIII are devoted to two illustrative examples in three dimensions. Sec. IX generalizes the examples to $`D`$ dimensions. Sec. X is our conclusion.

## II Hyperspherical Coordinates

Let $`𝒓=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_D)`$ be the position vector of a ‘particle’ moving in $`D`$-dimensional position space , and let $`𝒑=(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_D)`$ be its conjugate momentum. We take $`x_i`$, and hence also $`p_i`$, to be Cartesian coordinates. In accordance with this, we introduce the hyperradius $`r`$ by the relation $`r^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+\mathrm{}+x_D^2`$, and likewise $`p`$, the magnitude of the momentum, by the relation $`p^2=p_1^2+p_2^2+\mathrm{}+p_D^2`$. Quantum mechanically, we adopt the position-space representation and write

$$\widehat{𝒑}=(\widehat{p}_1,\widehat{p}_2,\mathrm{},\widehat{p}_D)=i\mathrm{}(\frac{}{x_1},\frac{}{x_2},\mathrm{},\frac{}{x_D}),$$
(1)
and

$$\widehat{p}^2=\mathrm{}^2\left(\frac{^2}{x_1^2}+\frac{^2}{x_2^2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{^2}{x_D^2}\right)=\mathrm{}^2^2,$$
(2)
where $`^2`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional Laplacian. The kinetic energy of a quantum-mechanical particle with mass $`M`$ is represented by the operator

$$\widehat{T}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2M}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}^2.$$
(3)
The central-field Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2M}+V(r)$$
(4)
determines the motion of the particle in a central field $`V(r)`$.

To introduce hyperspherical coordinates in position space, one writes $`x_i=r\eta _i`$, where the $`\eta _i`$’s are $`D`$ functions of $`D1`$ angular coordinates. Both the angles and the $`\eta _i`$’s may be chosen in different ways, but a choice similar to the following one is generally used, albeit with varying notation for the angles:

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D1}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$ (5)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D1}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$ (6)
$`x_3`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D1}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (8)
$`x_{D1}`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D1}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{D2}`$ (9)
$`x_D`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta _{D1}`$ (10)
with ($`0r\mathrm{}`$), ($`0\theta _1<2\pi `$), ($`0\theta _2<\pi `$), …, ($`0\theta _{D1}<\pi `$). A similar representation may, of course, be set up for the vector $`𝒑`$ in momentum space.

For the volume element in position space we have the expression

$$d𝒓=dx_1dx_2\mathrm{}dx_D=r^{D1}drd\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(11)
where the solid-angle element $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D1})^{D2}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{D2})^{D3}\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2`$ (13)
$`\times d\theta _{D1}\mathrm{}d\theta _2d\theta _1.`$
Integrating over all angles gives the total solid angle:

$$S_D=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2\pi ^{D/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}.$$
(14)
Wavefunctions of the central-field problem are conveniently referred to basis functions of the form

$$\psi (𝒓)=R(r)Y(\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a collective notation for the angular coordinates $`(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _{D1})`$, and $`Y(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a hyperspherical harmonic. The hyperspherical harmonics were introduced and extensively studied by Green  and Hill . They have also been much studied by later authors. (See, in particular, the comprehensive presentations by Sommerfeld , Louck  and Avery .) The hyperspherical harmonics are eigenfunctions of the operator $`\widehat{L}^2`$ which represents the square of the total angular momentum and is defined below.

## III Angular Momentum and Kinetic Energy

The angular-momentum tensor in $`D`$ dimensions is defined by the operators

$$\widehat{L}_{ij}=x_i\widehat{p}_jx_j\widehat{p}_i,ij.$$
(16)
The square of the total angular momentum is

$$\widehat{L}^2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{L}_{ij}^{2},$$
(17)
where the prime indicates that the double sum excludes terms for which $`i=j`$. The angular-momentum operators are independent of $`r`$. They merely depend upon the angular coordinates.

We shall now separate the kinetic-energy operator $`\widehat{T}`$ into two distinctive parts. To accomplish this in a manner that eases the subsequent transition to the phase-space representation, we begin by decomposing the $`D`$-dimensional unit matrix $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{𝑺}{r^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{𝑻^{ij}}{r^2}.$$
(18)
The matrices $`𝑺`$ and $`𝑻^{ij}`$ are defined by the relations

$$S_{kl}=x_kx_l$$
(19)
and

$`(𝑻^{ij})_{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`x_i^2\delta _{kj}\delta _{lj}+x_j^2\delta _{ki}\delta _{li}x_ix_j(\delta _{ki}\delta _{lj}+\delta _{kj}\delta _{li}),`$ (21)
$`ij,`$
or,

$$𝑺=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x_1^2& x_1x_2& \mathrm{}& x_1x_D\\ x_2x_1& x_2^2& \mathrm{}& x_2x_D\\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ x_Dx_1& x_Dx_2& \mathrm{}& x_D^2\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
and, for instance,

$$𝑻^{12}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}x_2^2& x_1x_2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ x_2x_1& x_1^2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
Adopting a dyadic notation, we may then write

$$\widehat{T}=\frac{1}{2M}\widehat{𝒑}\left(\frac{𝑺}{r^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{𝑻^{ij}}{r^2}\right)\widehat{𝒑}.$$
(24)
Next, we note that

$$\widehat{𝒑}\frac{𝑺}{r^2}\widehat{𝒑}=\left(\widehat{𝒑}\frac{𝒓}{r}\right)\left(\frac{𝒓}{r}\widehat{𝒑}\right)$$
(25)
and

$$\widehat{𝒑}\frac{𝑻^{ij}}{r^2}\widehat{𝒑}=\frac{\widehat{L}_{ij}^2}{r^2}.$$
(26)
Hence, the kinetic-energy operator may be written

$`\widehat{T}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{T}_{rad}+\widehat{T}_{ang}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left(\widehat{𝒑}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒓}{r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒓}{r}}\widehat{𝒑}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}^2}{2Mr^2}},`$ (28)
where $`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ has the form

$$\widehat{T}_{rad}=\frac{1}{2M}\left(\widehat{𝒑}\frac{𝒓}{r}\right)\left(\frac{𝒓}{r}\widehat{𝒑}\right).$$
(29)
It represents the radial kinetic energy. $`\widehat{T}_{ang}`$, which represents the angular kinetic energy, is given by the operator

$$\widehat{T}_{ang}=\frac{\widehat{L}^2}{2Mr^2}.$$
(30)
A modified expression for $`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ may be obtained by introducing the radial momentum $`\widehat{p}_r`$ by the definition

$$\widehat{p}_r=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{𝒓}{r}\widehat{𝒑}+\widehat{𝒑}\frac{𝒓}{r}\right)$$
(31)
and realizing that

$$\left(\widehat{𝒑}\frac{𝒓}{r}\right)\left(\frac{𝒓}{r}\widehat{𝒑}\right)=\widehat{p}_r^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4r^2}(D1)(D3).$$
(32)
This gives

$$\widehat{T}_{rad}=\frac{\widehat{p}_r^2}{2M}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(D1)(D3)}{8Mr^2}.$$
(33)
To express $`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ as a differential operator, we note from Eq. (10) that the definition of hyperspherical coordinates implies that

$$\frac{}{r}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\frac{x_i}{r}\frac{}{x_i}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\frac{x_i}{r}\frac{}{x_i}=\frac{𝒓}{r}.$$
(34)
Using this, and the commutation relations between the components of $`𝒓`$ and $`\widehat{𝒑}`$, turns the expression (29) into the following forms

$`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{D1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}r^{D1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right).`$ (36)
These are familiar expressions.

## IV The Weyl-Wigner Transformation

Let $`\psi (𝒓)`$ be a normalized position-space wavefunction,

$$\psi ^{}(𝒓)\psi (𝒓)𝑑𝒓=1.$$
(37)
Further, let $`\widehat{A}`$ be some operator acting on $`\psi `$. The expectation value of $`\widehat{A}`$ in the state $`\psi `$ is then

$$\widehat{A}=\psi ^{}(𝒓)\widehat{A}\psi (𝒓)𝑑𝒓.$$
(38)
When $`\widehat{A}`$ is Hermitian, $`\widehat{A}`$ is real.

Another way to evaluate the expectation value (38) is by introducing the $`2D`$-dimensional $`(𝒓,𝒑)`$ phase space, and then use the expression

$$\widehat{A}=a(𝒓,𝒑)W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒑.$$
(39)
Here, $`W(𝒓,𝒑)`$ is the Wigner function corresponding to the wavefunction $`\psi (𝒓)`$, and $`a(𝒓,𝒑)`$ is the dynamical phase-space function corresponding to the operator $`\widehat{A}`$. For a Hermitian operator $`a(𝒓,𝒑)`$ is real. The Wigner function $`W(𝒓,𝒑)`$ is always real, but may take negative values. Its integral over phase space is, however, always equal to 1,

$$W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒑=1.$$
(40)
It has the particle density $`\rho (𝒓)`$ and the momentum density $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒑)`$ as marginal densities:

$`\rho (𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒑},`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓}.`$ (43)
The Wigner function is defined as follows

$`W(𝒓,𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\right)^D{\displaystyle \psi ^{}\left(𝒓𝒓^{}/2\right)\psi (𝒓+𝒓^{}/2)}`$ (45)
$`\times e^{i𝒑𝒓^{}/\mathrm{}}d𝒓^{}.`$
If the operator $`\widehat{A}`$ is of the form $`F(\widehat{𝒓})+G(\widehat{𝒑})`$, then $`a(𝒓,𝒑)`$ will be simply $`F(𝒓)+G(𝒑)`$. Otherwise, the noncommutativity between $`\widehat{𝒓}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒑}`$ will come into play. The transformation involved is the Weyl transformation . It may, for instance, be represented in the following form

$$a(𝒓,𝒑)=𝒓+𝒓^{}/2|\widehat{A}|𝒓𝒓^{}/2e^{i𝒑𝒓^{}/\mathrm{}}𝑑𝒓^{},$$
(46)
in which the matrix element of $`\widehat{A}`$ is defined with respect to two eigenstates of the position-vector operator, corresponding to the eigenvalues $`𝒓+𝒓^{}/2`$ and $`𝒓𝒓^{}/2`$, respectively.

Let $`\widehat{C}=\widehat{A}\widehat{B}`$. The dynamical phase-space function corresponding to the operator $`\widehat{C}`$ is then given by the star product

$$c(𝒓,𝒑)=a(𝒓,𝒑)b(𝒓,𝒑),$$
(47)
where

$`c(𝒓,𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{𝒓_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝒑_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝒑_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝒓_2}}\right)\right]`$ (49)
$`a(𝒓,𝒑)b(𝒓,𝒑).`$
Here, the subscript 1 on a differential operator indicates that this operator acts only on the first function in the product $`a(𝒓,𝒑)b(𝒓,𝒑)`$. Similarly, the subscript 2 is used with operators that only act on the second function in the product.

## V Angular momentum in the Phase-Space Picture

We denote the Weyl transform of the operator $`\widehat{L}_{ij}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$. It is simply given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}=x_ip_jx_jp_i.$$
(50)
In analogy with Eq. (17) we introduce the dynamical phase-space function

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^{2}.$$
(51)
This function is, however, not the Weyl transform of $`\widehat{L}^2`$.

To determine the actual Weyl transform of $`\widehat{L}^2`$, we first determine the Weyl transform of the operator $`\widehat{L}_{ij}^2`$. We do this by invoking the relation (49), with $`a`$ and $`b`$ both equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$. It is found that only the three first terms in the expansion of the exponential operator contribute to the result. The Weyl transform of $`\widehat{L}_{ij}^2`$ is thus found to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}^2`$. We express the result as the mapping

$$\widehat{L}_{ij}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}^2.$$
(52)
From this, we get for the square of the total angular momentum:

$$\widehat{L}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{D(D1)}{4}\mathrm{}^2.$$
(53)
This is the generalisation of the result for $`D=3`$ that we gave in the Introduction.

Hence we have, for a state described by the wavefunction $`\psi (𝒓)`$ and the Wigner function $`W(𝒓,𝒑)`$, that

$`\widehat{L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \psi ^{}(𝒓)\widehat{L}^2\psi (𝒓)𝑑𝒓}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Lambda }^2W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒑}{\displaystyle \frac{D(D1)}{4}}\mathrm{}^2.`$ (55)
To put this and the other relations above into perspective, let us distinguish between two equally well defined angular momenta. One of these goes naturally with the wavefunction description. The other goes naturally with the phase-space description. The first angular momentum, which we shall call the $`q`$ (quantum) angular momentum, is defined by the operators $`\widehat{L}_{ij}`$ and $`\widehat{L}^2`$. The other angular momentum we shall call the $`c`$ (classical-like) angular momentum. It is defined by the dynamical phase-space functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The two angular momenta are connected by relations like that of Eq. (53), but the kinds of intuition one may attach to them are quite different.

Thus, the $`q`$ angular momentum is primarily an algebraic, or group-theoretical concept. The $`\widehat{L}_{ij}`$ operators are generators of infinitesimal rotations, and their eigenvalues describe the possible behavior of a given state under rotations. An $`s`$-state in a three-dimensional world, with its zero-eigenvalue of $`\widehat{L}^2`$, is for instance invariant under a rotation about any axis through the origin. This is what the eigenvalue of $`\widehat{L}^2`$ tells us. The position-space wavefunction $`\psi (𝒓)`$ is independent of angles, and hence it predicts all directions of $`𝒓`$ to be equally probable. If we prefer to describe the state by its momentum-space wavefunction

$$\varphi (𝒑)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\psi (𝒓)e^{i𝒑𝒓/\mathrm{}}𝑑𝒓,$$
(56)
then this wavefunction is independent of angles about the origin of momentum space. Hence, all directions of $`𝒑`$ are also equally probable. But one cannot talk about a coupling between the directions of $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ in this description.

The expression for the $`c`$ angular momentum is, on the other hand, just the classical angular-momentum expression for particle motion relative to the center $`O`$. Thus, it provides a measure of the relative direction of $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ with respect to $`O`$. This directional correlation, which is not directly apparent from the wavefunction, is manifestly present in the Wigner function. It leads to a non-zero $`c`$ angular momentum even if the $`q`$ angular momentum vanishes. This is in complete accordance with the general relation (55).

## VI Kinetic energy in the phase-space picture

The Weyl transform of the kinetic-energy operator $`\widehat{T}`$ given by the expression (3), is simply

$$T^c=\frac{p^2}{2M}.$$
(57)
To separate it into a classical-like radial part, $`T_{rad}^c`$, and a classical-like angular part, $`T_{ang}^c`$, we note that the resolution of the identity matrix given by Eq. (18) also holds in phase space. Hence, we may also write

$$T^c=\frac{1}{2M}𝒑\left(\frac{𝑺}{r^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{𝑻^{ij}}{r^2}\right)𝒑.$$
(58)
But now the components of $`𝒑`$ commute with the components of $`𝒓`$, and the analogue of Eq. (28) becomes

$`T^c`$ $`=`$ $`T_{rad}^c+T_{ang}^c`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒑𝒓}{r}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2Mr^2}}`$ (60)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ given by Eq. (51). The phase-space version of the radial kinetic energy is consequently

$`T_{rad}^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒑𝒓}{r}}\right)^2`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p\mathrm{cos}u)^2}{2M}}.`$ (62)
The last expression is obtained by putting $`𝒓𝒑=rp\mathrm{cos}u`$, where $`u`$ is the angle between $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$. The angular kinetic energy is

$`T_{ang}^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2Mr^2}}`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p\mathrm{sin}u)^2}{2M}}.`$ (64)
The validity of the last expression is simplest verified by noting that $`p^2(p\mathrm{cos}u)^2=(p\mathrm{sin}u)^2`$.

It is important to note that $`T_{rad}^c`$ is not the Weyl transform of $`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$, nor is $`T_{ang}^c`$ the Weyl transform of $`\widehat{T}_{ang}`$. To determine the actual Weyl transforms of $`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ and $`\widehat{T}_{ang}`$ requires repeated applications of the relation (49) to the expressions (29) and (30). We find, after some tedious algebra:

$$\widehat{T}_{rad}T_{rad}^c+\frac{(D1)(D2)\mathrm{}^2}{8Mr^2}$$
(65)
and

$$\widehat{T}_{ang}T_{ang}^c\frac{(D1)(D2)\mathrm{}^2}{8Mr^2}.$$
(66)
The relation (65) between the radial kinetic energies might also have been obtained from the relation (33) by exploiting the following interesting relations:

$$\widehat{p}_r\frac{𝒓𝒑}{r}$$
(67)
and

$$\widehat{p}_r^2\left(\frac{𝒓𝒑}{r}\right)^2+\frac{(D1)\mathrm{}^2}{4r^2},$$
(68)
where $`\widehat{p}_r`$ is the operator defined by Eq. (31). These relations may again be derived by repeated application of the expression (49) for the star product.

We shall now apply the results of this and the previous section to two important examples.

## VII A free-particle state

In this section we consider a minimum-uncertainty state in three dimensions. The wavefunction for such a state is

$$\psi (𝒓,0)=\left(\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2r^2},$$
(69)
at a chosen initial time $`t=0`$. The corresponding Wigner function has the form

$$W(𝒓,𝒑,0)=\frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^3}e^{\alpha ^2r^2p^2/\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(70)
Let us write down the Wigner function at a later time $`t`$ under the assumption that we are dealing with a free particle. We then know that the Wigner function will evolve in time in exactly the same way as a classical phase-space distribution, that is, it will develop according to the classical Liouville equation . Thus, the expression for $`W(𝒓,𝒑,t)`$ may be obtained from that for $`W(𝒓,𝒑,0)`$ by simply replacing $`𝒓`$ by $`𝒓t𝒑/M`$. In this way we get

$$W(𝒓,𝒑,t)=\frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^3}e^{\alpha ^2r^2((t/\tau )^2+1)p^2/\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2+2(t/\tau )𝒓𝒑/\mathrm{}},$$
(71)
where

$$\tau =\frac{M}{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}}.$$
(72)
Since $`𝒓𝒑=rp\mathrm{cos}u`$, where $`u`$ is the angle between the vectors $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$, the Wigner function (71) only depends on the three coordinates $`r`$, $`p`$ and $`u`$. It is independent of the three Euler angles that determine the orientation of the $`(𝒓,𝒑)`$ cross in phase space. This independence of the Euler angles expresses the overall rotational invariance of the state, that is, it signifies that the $`q`$ angular momentum is zero at all times. However, evaluating the average of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ with the Wigner functions (70) and (71) gives $`\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}^2`$, as it should according to the relation (55).

We note that all angles between $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ are equally probable at $`t=0`$, whereas small values of $`u`$ are favored for large values of $`t`$. Thus, the correlation between $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ depends on $`t`$. Such a statement would be impossible to defend in the wavefunction picture. However, in the phase-space picture it is very meaningful. For at $`t=0`$, the Wigner function (71) is concentrated about the origin of phase space. But in the course of time, phase space points with non-zero values of $`p`$ will move to points with larger values of $`r`$, with $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ becoming more and more parallel. But this just amounts to small values of $`u`$ being favored for large values of $`t`$, as in the expression (71).

This behavior is also reflected in the expectation values of the radial and angular parts of the kinetic energy as a function of time, but only in the phase-space picture. It is readily verified that the total kinetic energy associated with the wavefunction (69) has the value

$$\widehat{T}=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{M}.$$
(73)
It is, of course, independent of $`t`$. And since $`\psi (𝒓,t)`$ represents an $`s`$ state, the expectation value of the $`\widehat{T}_{ang}`$ of Eq. (30) is zero at all times. Thus we have:

$`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{M}},`$ (74)
$`\widehat{T}_{ang}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (75)
for all $`t`$.

In the phase-space picture, we must average the dynamical phase-space functions $`T^c`$, $`T_{rad}^c`$ and $`T_{ang}^c`$ with the phase-space function(71). We denote the resulting energies by $`𝒯`$, $`𝒯_{rad}`$ and $`𝒯_{ang}`$, respectively:

$$𝒯=\frac{1}{2M}p^2W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒑,$$
(76)
$$𝒯_{rad}=\frac{1}{2M}(p\mathrm{cos}u)^2W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒑,$$
(77)
and

$$𝒯_{ang}=\frac{1}{2M}(p\mathrm{sin}u)^2W(𝒓,𝒑)𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒑,$$
(78)
We have, of course, that

$$𝒯=\widehat{T}.$$
(79)
Rather than evaluating the expressions (77) and (78) by direct integration, we may proceed in the following analytical way: According to Eqs. (65) and (66), with $`D=3`$, $`T_{rad}^c`$ and $`T_{ang}^c`$ are the Weyl transforms of the operators

$$\widehat{T}_{rad}^{}=\widehat{T}_{rad}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4Mr^2}$$
(80)
and

$$\widehat{T}_{rad}^{}=\widehat{T}_{ang}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4Mr^2},$$
(81)
respectively. Hence, we merely have to modify the values in (75) with the expectation value of $`\mathrm{}^2/4Mr^2`$ to get the values of $`𝒯_{rad}`$ and $`𝒯_{ang}`$. Evaluating this value by averaging $`\mathrm{}^2/4Mr^2`$ with the Wigner function (71) gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4Mr^2}=\frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2M}\frac{1}{(t/\tau )^2+1}.$$
(82)
Hence, we get

$`𝒯_{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2((t/\tau )^2+1)}}\right),`$ (83)
$`𝒯_{ang}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2((t/\tau )^2+1)}}.`$ (84)
Thus, the classical-like kinetic energy is purely radial for very large values of $`t`$. However, at $`t=0`$ only one third of the kinetic energy is radial, corresponding to the value $`(1/4)(\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2/M)`$. The angular kinetic energy is twice as large. This reflects the fact that $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ are entirely uncorrelated at $`t=0`$, so that $`𝒑`$ is twice as likely to be perpendicular to $`𝒓`$ as being parallel to $`𝒓`$.

The energies $`𝒯`$, $`𝒯_{rad}`$ and $`𝒯_{ang}`$ are shown graphically in Fig. 1, as functions of $`t`$.

## VIII The Hydrogen Atom

Having studied a free-particle case, we shall next consider a bound-state case, namely, the ground state of the three-dimensional hydrogen atom. The wavefunction is now

$$\psi (𝒓)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi a_0^3}}e^{r/a_0},$$
(85)
where $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius,

$$a_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}\frac{4\pi ϵ_0}{e^2}.$$
(86)
$`M`$ is the electron mass (we treat the nucleus as being infinitely heavy), and $`e`$ is the magnitude of the elementary charge. The state considered is a stationary state, and the Wigner function is accordingly independent of time. As in the previous example, we are dealing with an $`s`$ state, so the Wigner function is again independent of the Euler angles that determine the orientation of the $`(𝒓,𝒑)`$ cross, but it does depend on the angle $`u`$ between $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$, and in fact in a more complicated manner than in the expression (71). In addition, the Wigner function for the hydrogen atom takes both positive and negative values, whereas the Wigner function (71) is non-negative at all times.

We have made a detailed study of the Wigner function for the hydrogen atom in . Our results were, inter alia, presented as a series of contour maps for different $`u`$ values. These maps showed that the Wigner function is everywhere positive in what we called the dominant subspace, that is, the part of phase space in which $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ are perpendicular ($`u=\pi /2`$). It is, in particular, large in the part of this subspace obtained by putting $`r=a_0`$ and $`p=\mathrm{}/a_0`$. This is the region of phase space to which the ground-state motion was restricted in early quantum mechanics , since a Bohr orbit (in position space) is just a circle with radius $`a_0`$, in which the electron is supposed to move with the constant momentum $`\mathrm{}/a_0`$. For other angles than $`u=\pi /2`$, the Wigner function develops negative regions. It is, in particular, strongly oscillating around the value zero for small angles and angles approaching $`\pi `$.

We shall now see that this pronounced correlation between the directions of $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$ is strongly reflected in the partitioning of the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy associated with the wavefunction (85) has the value

$$\widehat{T}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Ma_0^2},$$
(87)
and since $`\psi (𝒓)`$ represents an $`s`$ state we have, in analogy with the expressions (75):

$`\widehat{T}_{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Ma_0^2}},`$ (88)
$`\widehat{T}_{ang}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (89)
The relations (80) and (81) still hold, and it is readily found that

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4Mr^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Ma_0^2}.$$
(90)
The analogue of (84) becomes therefore

$`𝒯_{rad}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (91)
$`𝒯_{ang}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Ma_0^2}}.`$ (92)
This is a remarkable result. For it shows that, in the phase-space representation, the radial kinetic energy vanishes. The kinetic energy is purely angular. This is of course in complete harmony with a picture in which the electron primarily revolves around the nucleus rather than moving in the radial direction.

The cases studied in this section and the previous one have both been for $`s`$ states. The expressions we have derived in the first six sections are, however, valid for any state independent of its angular momentum, but the interesting effects are most pronounced for the $`s`$ states. With a minor exception, the derived expressions are also valid for any dimension $`D`$. A few comments concerning dimensions different from three are, therefore, in order.

## IX Arbitrary dimensions

The minor exception mentioned above has to do with zero-angular-momentum states for $`D=2`$. The relations (65) and (66) suggest that the separation of the kinetic energy into a radial part and an angular part is invariant under the Weyl transformation for $`D=2`$. This is, however, not quite true. One must be aware that taking expectation values with the expressions (65) and (66) involves taking expectation values of $`1/r^2`$, and such expectation values are undefined for wavefunctions that stay finite at $`r=0`$ in a two-dimensional world. This is because the volume element (11) only contains $`r`$ to the first power for $`D=2`$. Hence, one cannot exploit operator relations like those of Eqs. (80) and (81) for zero-angular-momentum states. This, however, does not reduce the significance of the dynamical phase-space functions $`T_{rad}^c`$ and $`T_{ang}^c`$. It just implies that the radial and angular kinetic energies $`𝒯_{rad}`$ and $`𝒯_{ang}`$ associated with them must be evaluated directly by averaging with the Wigner function, using the two-dimensional version of the expressions (77) and (78). For the two-dimensional equivalent of the Wigner function (71) this produces a $`t`$ dependence of the kinetic energies similar to that in Fig. 1, with the difference that the kinetic energy is equally distributed on its radial and angular components at $`t=0`$. This difference was to be expected since there is only one perpendicular direction to $`𝒓`$ in two dimensions.

Concerning the hydrogen atom, it is interesting to note that the above conclusions for the ground state of the hydrogen atom in three dimensions remain valid for other values of $`D`$. Thus, the kinetic energy is purely radial in the wavefunction picture, but purely angular in the phase-space picture. The ground-state wavefunction for the $`D`$ dimensional hydrogen atom has the general form

$$\psi (𝒓)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{S_D}\frac{1}{a_0^D(n_0/2)^{2n_0+1}(2n_0)!}}e^{r/n_0a_0}$$
(93)
where $`S_D`$ is the total solid angle (14) and

$$n_0=\frac{D1}{2}.$$
(94)
The ground-state kinetic energy is

$$\widehat{T}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Ma_0^2n_0^2},$$
(95)
and for $`D>3`$ exactly the same value is found for the expectation value of the $`D`$ dependent term in (65) and (66). This confirms that the classical-like kinetic energy is, in fact, purely angular for $`D>3`$.

For $`D=2`$, we can again not draw on expressions like those of Eqs. (80) and (81). We must perform the phase-space integrations directly. Doing so shows that also for $`D=2`$, the classical-like kinetic energy is purely angular.

The said integrations over phase space are far from simple to perform, because the Wigner function for the hydrogen atom cannot be evaluated analytically . A practical procedure is to expand the $`1s`$ wavefunction on a set of Gaussians. For a linear combination of $`N`$ Gaussians, the Wigner function may be determined analytically. The values of $`𝒯_{rad}`$ and $`𝒯_{ang}`$ may then be calculated by combining analytical and numerical integrations. For $`N=1`$, we have a Wigner function similar to that of Eq. (70) for a free particle, but in two dimensions only, leading to $`𝒯_{rad}=𝒯_{ang}`$. As $`N`$ increases, the contribution from $`𝒯_{rad}`$ is found to decrease, converging to zero for large values of $`N`$. This is shown graphically in Fig. 2.

The information in Fig. 2 is not merely numerical. It serves as yet another demonstration of the physical uniqueness of the Coulomb potential. For instead of considering the used wavefunctions to be approximate solutions for the Coulomb potential, we may consider them to be exact solutions for a different potential. As $`N`$ increases, this potential becomes more and more Coulomb like. This suggests that only for the Coulomb potential is the classical-like kinetic energy purely angular.

The linear combinations of Gaussians used to prepare Fig. 2 were determined by the variational principle, following the prescription given in reference . In that work, we made explicit studies of the Wigner function for the $`D`$ dimensional hydrogen atom and presented contour curves for selected values of $`D`$. These contour maps show, inter alia, that the oscillations between negative and positive values of the Wigner function become weaker and weaker for higher $`D`$ values. We may therefore say that the phase-space distributions become more classical as the dimensionality $`D`$ increase.

## X Discussion

The problem of separating the kinetic energy of a particle moving in a central field into a radial part and an angular part has not attracted much attention in the past. It has been tacitly assumed that the separation offered by the wavefunction picture was the only sensible one. In the present paper we have challenged this view by putting focus upon the separation offered by the phase-space picture. This separation is equally well defined. In contrast to the former, it throws much light on the correlation between the directions of the position vector $`𝒓`$ and the momentum vector $`𝒑`$. There is no way of discussing this correlation in the wavefunction picture.

The most amazing result of our analysis is probably our finding that the kinetic energy in the ground state of the hydrogen atom is purely radial in the wavefunction picture, and purely angular in the phase-space picture. This finding, which relates to arbitrary dimensions, reflects the great difference in the kind of intuition one may apply within the two pictures. This difference is also well illustrated by focusing upon the angular momentum. In the wavefunction picture, the angular momentum primarily refers to the behavior of the state under rotations. In the phase-space picture it also refers to the correlation between the directions of $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒑`$.

To properly understand a quantum system one must look at it from different angles. The present paper shows once again that the phase-space picture is a fruitful supplement to the wavefunction picture.

## Acknowledgments

J. P. Dahl gratefully acknowledges the support of the Danish Natural Science Research Council, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the great hospitality enjoyed at the Abteilung für Quantenphysik. The work of W. P. Schleich is partially supported by DFG. J. J. Włodarz is thanked for his comments on the manuscript.


text:
# Transport signatures of correlated disorder in a two-dimensional electron gas

## Abstract

We report electronic transport measurements on two-dimensional electron gases in a Ga\[Al\]As heterostructure with an embedded layer of InAs self-assembled quantum dots. At high InAs dot densities, pronounced Altshuler-Aronov-Spivak magnetoresistance oscillations are observed, which indicate short-range ordering of the potential landscape formed by the charged dots and the strain fields. The presence of these oscillations coincides with the observation of a metal-insulator transition, and a maximum in the electron mobility as a function of the electron density. Within a model based on correlated disorder, we establish a relation between these effects.

The optical and electronic properties of self-assembled quantum dots (SAQDs) have been widely studied in the past few years. These experiments have been performed on individual SAQDs or on two-dimensional dot arrays. Recently, however, substantial progress in fabrication technology has led to self-ordered growth of such quantum dots in two  and even three  dimensions. The ordering has been detected by scanning force microscopy as well as by X-ray diffraction. These studies suggest that designing electronic minibands by self-ordered growth of SAQDs may be feasible.

Here, we report experimental evidence in *electronic transport*, that InAs SAQDs embedded at the heterointerface of a Ga\[Al\]As heterostructure,  are capable of creating a potential landscape with substantial spatial and amplitude correlations. In our samples, the SAQDs have been grown on an atomically flat GaAs  surface. The charged SAQDs, combined with the induced strain fields, act as repulsive scatterers in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG). At sufficiently high dot densities, several effects are observed to occur in concert: (1) Magnetoresistivity measurements show pronounced, periodic oscillations, which are interpreted as Altshuler-Aronov-Spivak oscillations. In addition, under certain parametric conditions, a resistivity minimum around zero magnetic field is observed, superimposed with the weak localization peak. (2) We observe a maximum in the electron mobility as a function of the electron density. (3) The temperature dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ as a function of electron density shows a transition from metallic behavior to insulating behavior, an effect that has been interpreted as a signature of a metal-insulator transition in two dimensions. We emphasize that in the samples under study, these transport features always occur together. As we describe below, this complex experimental behavior is a signature of the potential correlations  in the 2DEG provided by the SAQD potential landscape.
The samples have been grown by molecular beam epitaxy. A layer of InAs SAQDs has been embedded in the GaAs buffer layer 3 nm below a $`GaAsAl_{0.3}Ga_{0.7}As`$ \- heterointerface, at which the 2DEG resides. The density $`n_{QD}`$ of the InAs SAQDs varies across the wafer. $`n_{QD}`$ has been determined, within a factor of two, by transmission electron microscope (TEM) studies, as well as by low-temperature transport experiments. For details of the sample growth and characterization, see Ref. . The wafer was cleaved into pieces, and conventional Hall bar geometries were patterned by optical lithography. Voltages applied to a homogeneous top gate electrode were used to tune the electron density $`n_e`$ of the 2DEG. Transport experiments were carried out in a 3He/4He dilution refrigerator and in a standard 4He cryostat at temperatures between 60 mK and 20 K. The resistivity was measured in a standard 4-terminal setup, probing sample areas of $`40\mu m\times 100\mu m`$. For $`n_{QD}2\times 10^{14}m^2`$, the electron gases behave like ordinary low-mobility samples, in which the mobility is dominated by the SAQDs.
At higher dot densities of $`n_{QD}2.5\times 10^{14}m^2`$ (i.e. the samples labelled by 14a, 14b and 24b, see inset in Fig. 1a), we find pronounced oscillations as a function of a magnetic field $`B`$ applied perpendicular to the plane of the 2DEG. The oscillations are periodic in $`B`$, with a period of $`\delta B=400\pm 20`$ mT in sample 14a, which increases to $`560\pm 20`$ mT in sample 24b. The period is independent of $`n_e`$ (Fig. 1a). The relative oscillation amplitude $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ increases as $`n_e`$ is increased, with a maximum of $`\delta \rho /\rho 0.12`$. Measurements in tilted magnetic fields show that the oscillations are determined solely by the magnetic field component perpendicular to the plane of the 2DEG, and have therefore a purely dynamical (no spin) origin. These oscillations are superimposed on a broad resistivity background, which vanishes around $`B=3T`$. We do not observe Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations for filling factors larger than 4.

In addition to a weak localization peak, we observe for large electron densities a well-pronounced minimum in the magnetoresistivity around $`B=0`$, which extends up to a few hundred mT. In contrast to the magneto-oscillations, this minimum shows no significant temperature dependence up to about 2.5 K (Fig. 1b). Figure 2, shows additional observations that coincide with the presence of the features discussed above: (i) a fixed point is observed in the temperature dependence of $`\rho _{xx}(n_e)`$ at $`B=0`$, separating a region of high electron density $`(n_e>1.2\times 10^{15}m^2)`$ with a metallic temperature dependence, from a low density region showing an insulating temperature dependence. (ii) the electron mobility $`\mu `$ shows a maximum as a function of $`n_e`$ (upper inset in Fig. 2).

The presence of these effects depends on the cooldown cycle. Hence, the arrangement of charges in the potential landscape during cooldown is a crucial factor. However, we have been unable to establish a systematic dependence on the cooldown speed or on the biasing conditions during cooldown. The simultaneous occurrence of the transport features described here indicates a possible unifying explanation which is developed below.
In the following, we focus on sample 14a and interpret its behavior, starting with the periodic magneto-oscillations. The experiments clearly suggest a magnetic flux effect as its origin. It is well-known that Aharonov-Bohm oscillations with period $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=h/eA`$ ($`A`$ denotes the enclosed area) ensemble-average to zero, since the phase of each interference loop at $`B=0`$ is loop-specific. In contrast, Altshuler-Aronov-Spivak (AAS) oscillations  always show zero phase shift at $`B=0`$, and consequently survive ensemble-averaging. We thus conclude that the observed oscillations are AAS oscillations with a characteristic enclosed area of $`5.2\times 10^{15}m^2`$.
Similar oscillations have been recently detected in hexagonal antidot lattices, while no signature of such oscillations has been found in rectangular lattices with otherwise comparable parameters. In Ref. , the authors explain this observation in terms of semiclassical trajectories of the electrons around the antidots: in the hexagonal array, the probability for the electrons to be scattered in loops around the antidots is greatly enhanced, leading to a significant AAS oscillation amplitude, in contrast to the more open geometry of rectangular lattices.

Let us, based on this knowledge and our observations, assume that the potential landscape generated by the charged SAQDs and the strain fields reveals at least short range hexagonal ordering to a significant degree. The measured AAS period would then suggest an interdot separation of $`a78nm`$, corresponding to a density of SAQD points of $`1.9\times 10^{14}m^2`$. This is in reasonable agreement with $`2\times 10^{14}m^2n_{QD}3\times 10^{14}m^2`$, as determined in TEM studies, although $`n_{QD}`$ as determined from resistivity studies is somewhat higher. Further estimates are consistent with this picture. We have determined the phase coherence length $`\mathrm{}_\varphi `$ from fits of the weak localization peak for $`\rho _{xx}<h/e^2`$ and find $`\mathrm{}_\varphi 500nm`$ at $`n_e=1.8\times 10^{15}m^2`$, and increasing slightly as $`n_e`$ increases. The electrons are thus clearly able to eclipse the area of the locally hexagonal ordered cells in a phase coherent fashion. As a further consequence, quantum point contacts are formed in between the lattice points, with a maximum of two occupied 1D spin-degenerate subbands at the electron densities under investigation. This explains the quenching of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations above filling factor 4. Using these numbers and assuming that the hexagonal arrangement contains approximately circular scatterers of electrostatic radius $`r_{QD}`$ at the Fermi energy, we can estimate $`r_{QD}20nm`$. Hence, $`2r_{QD}\frac{a}{2}`$, which has been shown to be a particularly effective geometry for observing AAS oscillations in hexagonal antidot lattices.  We must emphasize that this analysis does not rely on truly long-range order, but rather only on the local hexagonal relative arrangement of the charged SAQDs. Nor do we know unambiguously that the ordering is really hexagonal: other types of correlations in the disorder potential, e.g. possibly a random trimer superlattice, may give rise to $`B`$-periodic coherent backscattering as well. Note, however, that the relative amplitude of the oscillations is comparable to that one observed in Ref., which suggests a similar degree of ordering.

We proceed by constructing the relation between the AAS oscillations, the “metal-insulator transition” (MIT), and the maximum in $`\mu (n_e)`$. If the density of SAQDs is low, there is no positional short-ranged order, and even homogeneous charging of the dots results in a potential landscape dominated by the disordered dot distribution of charged scattering centers. As the interdot separation is still large, the backscattering processes inherent to the AAS effect are unlikely, and no magneto-resistance oscillations occur. Similarly, the mobility of the system is dominated by random scattering events from the dots, yielding an insulating behavior for all values of electronic density. As the density of dots increases, there is an effective repulsive interdot interaction which facilitates the appearance of short-ranged order so as to relax the local elastic stress in the system. Upon formation of the 2DEG, the dots so formed acquire charge with a distribution which is likely correlated to the loading state of nearby dots (notice that dot-dot interaction is quite large, as $`(2e)^2/\kappa a6`$meV, for doubly-charged dots embedded in GaAs, $`\kappa 12`$). The short-range order yields enhancement of backscattering and AAS oscillations, as well as the appearance of relatively extended states due to the effectively weaker, more correlated, potential disorder. As the electron density increases, the AAS oscillations become more prominent, indicating increasing population of the corresponding states. The resulting electronic states are then capable of exhibiting a drastically different transport behavior as a function of electron density: insulating for low densities, and metallic for higher concentrations. This change is the result of the Fermi level sweeping through the density of states, sampling ever more extended states.
It is worth mentioning that our experiments show a sharp transition to such a correlated state as a function of $`n_{QD}`$, given the fact that $`n_{QD}`$ varies by 15 $`\%`$ between sample 24a and 24b (or sample 13 and 14a) at most. Sample 15 shows conventional behavior, which, however, may be due to its proximity to the wafer edge.

The observed transport behavior is qualitatively consistent with the appearance of ‘extended’ states in the 2DEG (with localization lengths much longer than a few SAQD spacings), and reminiscent of the situation recently analyzed in disordered but correlated 1D systems. Izrailev and coworkers have demonstrated that even in a 1D system, potential correlations in a disordered structure can give rise to true mobility edges, where the localization length would diverge over a certain energy window.  Although the situation for 2D is not as firmly established, one expects that the higher connectivity of electronic paths in 2D would give rise to mobility edges even with weaker potential correlations than in a corresponding 1D case, as numerical evidence in a variety of systems suggests.

In this context, it is instructive to estimate the potential correlations produced by the scattering centers (the charged dots) on the 2DEG carriers. The entire SAQD charged array generates a disordered Coulomb potential given by $`V(𝐫)=_j\frac{q_j}{|𝐫𝐑_j|}e^{\gamma |𝐫𝐑_j|}`$, where each dot has effectively trapped a charge $`q_i`$ and the bare dot potential is assumed screened by the 2DEG (the full potential surely includes also local strain components). Correspondingly, the potential correlations are given by $`V(x)V(x+y)`$, where the angular brackets denote an average over the dot population. For a random charge distribution, $`q_iq_j=\delta _{ij}q^2`$, and a random distribution of dots, the potential correlator has an asymptotic behavior given by $`v_0^2e^{y/y_0}(a/y)`$, where the correlation length $`y_0`$ is a monotonic function of the screening length $`\gamma ^1`$, which in turn is a function of electron density in the system, and $`a`$ is the mean dot separation. One expects that as the electron density increases and provides better screening, the characteristic $`y_0`$ also increases, resulting in stronger (longer range) correlations in the system. As this expression neglects the built-in effective interaction between dots introduced by the strain fields, as well as the correlations in potential strength of the charged-dot landscape, this result provides a pessimistic estimate of the true correlator in our system. Nevertheless, even such a ‘weak’ exponential correlator in a 1D system can be shown to result in increasing localization lengths for larger $`y_0`$ values, as shown in the lower inset of Fig. 2.  The rather strong potential correlations that exist in our 2D system are then anticipated to yield long localization lengths which clearly exceed the phase coherence length of the system, and explain the complex behavior we observe.
Within this interpretation, the character of the MIT observed in our system is quite different from those reported in other systems. One striking feature of the MIT observed in, e.g., Si-MOSFETs is its suppression in magnetic fields applied parallel to the plane of the electron gas. This suppression has been attributed to complete spin alignment. This is in sharp contrast to our system, where the MIT is present up to the strongest magnetic field accessible to us, i.e. 12 T.
A positive magnetoresistivity around $`B=0`$ is also present in the metallic regime. This resistivity minimum is robust as the temperature is increased (Fig. 1b), indicating a classical origin. Furthermore, the minimum vanishes as $`n_e`$ is reduced into the insulating regime (Fig. 1a). Similar effects are well-known from electron gases with double subband occupancy: due to the different densities and mobilities of the electrons in the two subbands, a positive magnetoresistance evolves. Since we cannot determine the individual electron densities in the two types of states, we cannot fit $`\rho _{xx}(B)`$. Qualitatively, however, it is known that this effect is strong if the difference in the mobilities is significant, and consistent here with the presence of a ‘band’ of high mobility (extended states) next to another ‘band’ with low mobility.

In conclusion, the following qualitative picture emerges: the presence of AAS oscillations indicates some degree of short-range ordering, possibly in a hexagonal geometry, of the potential landscape induced by the InAs SAQDs. This leads to the formation of a different class of states, which may be seen as an extended-state “miniband” arising from the local ordering in the dot potential. These states become populated as $`n_e`$ is increased above a threshold density, which corresponds approximately to the fixed point of the MIT. For higher electron densities, scattering between two bands with quite different mobilities can occur, which reduces the overall mobility. The positive magnetoresistivity around $`B=0`$ indicates such a scenario. Our data thus represent the first transport signature that two-dimensional, correlated potential landscapes can be formed by self-ordering of charge between self-assembled quantum dots, and raises several questions about mobility edges and miniband design by self-ordering in two dimensions, which will hopefully be addressed in future experiments and theoretical studies.

It is a pleasure to thank A.K. Geim, A. Krokhin, and W. Zhang for stimulating discussions. Financial support from ETH Zürich is gratefully acknowledged. SEU acknowledges support from US DOE. ER acknowledges support from FAPESP.