text:
# Solar neutrino experiments and Borexino perspectives

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Fifty years after neutrino discovery, many of its properties (like its mass) are not completly understood . Many experiments tried to answer these questions using different techniques. Here we focus our attention on solar neutrinos. The SNO experiment  measured the 8 Solar neutrinos through the two reactions: (1) charged current (CC): $`\nu _e+d2p+e^{}`$ and (2) elastic scattering (ES): $`\nu _x+e^{}\nu _x+e^{}`$. The results  confirmed the previous evidences  that the flux of $`\nu _e`$ reaching the Earth is less than the Solar Standard Model (SSM) prediction . Comparing the two channels, SNO also gave a strong confirmation of the validity of $`\nu `$ oscillation hypothesis and it can be considered the first demonstration of the appearance of muon and tau neutrinos detected at the Earth. In this work we restrict the analysis to the bidimensional case for simplicity,but the extensions to more than two flavours will be treated elsewhere . The interest in neutrino physics is justfied not only by the data available, but also by the well founded hope that the forthcoming experiments (like Borexino  and the long baseline experiments) will be able to discriminate more clearly between the possible solutions of the solar neutrino problem . The first aim of our work is to produce a phenomenological analysis of all the available solar neutrino data. We determine the values of the mixing parameters compatible with the data and compare the allowed regions with the ones selected from Borexino, depending on the signal it will find. The analysis can be divided in the following steps. We first compute exactly, using an evolution operator formalism , the survival probability that a neutrino produced with a well determined flavour is still of the same kind or has changed flavour when it arrives at the detector. To take into account the interaction with the Earth, we assume a spherical model  in which the Earth is divided in eleven radial density zones. The other building block of the analysis is the study of the different aspects of each experiment, as the cross section for the interaction of the neutrino in the detector , the detector resolution and its efficiency. More information about this and other points of analysis are reported in . We obtain a response function for every experiment. From the convolution of survival probability, response function and $`\nu `$ flux we obtain the expected signal for every experiment and the ratio between this value and the one predicted by the SSM in absence of oscillations.

## 2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

For an exhaustive description of the statistical analysis and of our results we refer the interested reader to . Here we just report the salient points. In the most simple case, one includes in the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis only the values of the global rates for all the experiments. The global $`\chi ^2`$ function is simply defined as:

$`\chi _{\mathrm{gl}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(𝑹^{\mathrm{th}}𝑹^{\mathrm{exp}})^T\left(\sigma ^2\right)^1(𝑹^{\mathrm{th}}𝑹^{\mathrm{exp}})`$ (1)
where the covariance matrix $`\sigma `$ is made up by a diagonal part (theoretical, statistical and uncorrelated errors) and another part (correlated systematic uncertainties). The $`𝑹^{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{exp}}`$ vectors contain the data normalized to the SSM expectations: $`R_i^{th,exp}=S_i^{th,exp}/S_i^{SSM},`$ where the index $`i`$ denotes the different Solar experiments: Chlorine (Cl), Gallium (Ga), SuperKamiokande (SK) and charged current SNO (CC-SNO). The correlation matrices, both including and excluding SNO, are computed using standard techniques . We perform a minimization of the $`\chi _{gl}^2`$ as a function of the oscillation parameters. A point in parameter space $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$ is allowed if the globally subtracted $`\chi _{gl}^2`$ fulfills the condition: $`\chi _{gl}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )\chi _{min}^2<\chi _n^2(CL)`$. Where $`\chi _{n=2}^2`$ are the $`n=2`$ degrees of freedom quantiles.

The results of this analysis are represented in Fig. 1. One can distinguish 4 different regions: Small Mixing Angle (SMA), Large Mixing Angle (LMA), Low mass (LOW) and Vacuum region (VAC). After the introduction of SNO data the different regions become well separated. The best-fit point is no longer the SMA solution, but the one in the LMA region and the statistical significance of the SMA region is drastically reduced. When introducing also the data of the SK energy spectrum rates the statistical analysis becomes more complex. In this case we have 41 experimental data inputs: the 2x19 values of the bins in which the day and night spectrums are divided, plus the total rates for Cl, Ga and CC-SNO. The procedure we adopt to define the $`\chi ^2`$ parameter and perform the minimization (see ) follows the one used by the SK collaboration. In Table 1 we report the results that one gets in the case in which the 8 flux is constrained to vary around the BPB2001  central value with the standard deviation given by SSM. The corresponding contour plots are drawn in Fig. 2 together with the Borexino contour lines. The other possibility (free 8 flux) is discussed in .

## 3 BOREXINO PERSPECTIVES

We analize the results from all other experiments together with the expectations for Borexino day-night averaged signal normalized with respects to SSM ($`S^{Bor}/S_0=S^{DN}/S_{SSM}`$) and day-night asymmetry ($`A^{DN}=2(DN)/(D+N)`$). In Fig. 2 the contour lines corresponding to different possible values of $`S^{Bor}/S_0`$ are superimposed on the allowed regions obtained from the global analysis of the full set of data for the other experiments. The signal discrimination power of the experiment  should be sufficient to distinguish between the different allowed regions in the $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$ plane or at least to strongly favour one of them. Borexino potentiality becomes even more evident when we look at the day night asymmetry. From the second graph of Fig. 2 we see that the LMA and the LOW regions correspond to quite different values of $`A^{DN}`$.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We analyzed all the Solar neutrino data available and for the best solutions which fit the present data, we studied Borexino expectations. In the most comprehensive case, global rates plus spectrum, the best fit was obtained in the LMA region. Solutions in the LOW and VAC regions are still possible although much less favoured. The best possible solution in the SMA region gets a low statistical significance. From the study of the expected Borexino normalized signal and day night asymmetry we conclude the following. In the near future, after 2-3 years of data taking, the combined Borexino measurements of the total event rate with an error below $`\pm 510\%`$ and day-night total rate asymmetry with a precision comparable to that of SK should allow us to discriminate between the Solar neutrino solutions suggested by present data.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are really glad to thank R. Ferrari for his continuous scientific and organizative support, that has been essential for this work. We thank the Milano Borexino group, M. Pallavicini and the organizers of TAUP meeting. We acknowledge the financial support of MIUR and CYCIT.


format: text

text:
# The theory of transvers Nernst–Ettingshausen effect and thermopower of heated (hot) charge carriers in nondegenerate semiconductors in the case of high anisotropy of phonons distribution function

## 1 Introduction

The theoretical and experimental interest in thermoelectric power in bulk and recent low dimensional systems has been intensified.

A relatively long survey of literature and some common misunderstandings in the field of thermoelectric power and NE effect under different transport conditions, is given in our recent paper.

X. L. Lei showed that the diffusion component of thermoelectric power may be negative within a low enough lattice temperature range at high electric field while the phonon drag component is still positive. It should be noted that such a result is obtained by Babaev and Gassymov. In that paper, the thermoelectric power and transverse Nernst–Ettingshausen (NE) effect in semiconductors at high electric and nonquantizing magnetic fields are theoretically investigated by solving the coupled system of kinetic equations for electrons and phonons by taking into account the heating of electrons and phonons, and the phonon drag. It is shown that when the temperature gradient of hot electrons is produced only by the lattice temperature gradient, $`E=0,T_e={\displaystyle \frac{T_e}{T}}T`$, the electronic parts of the thermoelectric and NE fields reverse their sign. In the case of heated phonons, when $`T_p=T_eT`$ both the electronic and phonon parts of the thermoelectric and thermomagnetic fields reverse their sign for all cases considered. Here $`T_e`$, $`T_p`$ and $`T`$ are the temperature of electrons, phonons and lattice in energy units, respectively.

The interest in the study of thermoelectric power and NE effect in II–VI semiconductors has been increased. The earlier investigations of the magnetic field dependence of the longitudinal NE effect in HgSe and lead chalcogenides in the region of comparatively high temperatures $`(T77K)`$ demonstrated that the thermo emf exhibits saturation in the classical region of strong magnetic fields $`(H)`$ irrespective of the dominant mechanism of charge carrier scattering in the conduction band. However, the measurements of the longitudinal NE effect in iron–doped HgSe samples at low temperatures $`(20T60K)`$ revealed the presence of a maxima in the plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (H)=\alpha (H)\alpha (0)`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (H)`$ first increases quadratically with increasing $`H`$ for $`\omega _H\tau <1`$ (here $`\omega _H={\displaystyle \frac{eH}{mc}}`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`\tau `$ is the electron relaxation time), then passes through a maximum for some $`H=H_m`$, and finally decreases as the field increases further. Another unusual fact is the sign reversal of the transverse NE coefficient $`Q_{}(H)`$ with increasing magnetic field in the range $`\omega _H\tau >1`$. The experiments in Ga–doped HgSe showed that at low temperatures the NE coefficients change sign with increasing Ga concentration or the applied magnetic field strength. The unusual features of the NE effect observed in HgSe crystals may be attributed to the effect of mutual drag which can experimentally be detected in semiconductors with high concentration of conduction electrons.

In the absence of external magnetic field, the thermopower of hot electrons taking into account the heating of phonons and the thermal drag is considered in . The consideration is made for the deformation potential of interaction between electrons and phonons. The thermopower and transverse NE effect of hot electrons in nondegenerate semiconductors are studied in  without taking into account the effect of phonon drag and their heating; and in  by taking into account the thermal drag only in transverse magnetic field. Neither in these studies the mutual drag of charge carriers and phonons are considered.

A consistent microscopic theory of transport phenomena in semiconductors and semimetals in high external electric and magnetic fields with due regard for the heating of charge carriers and phonons, their thermal and mutual drags, and the possible phonon generation by the drift charge carriers must be based on the solution of coupled system of kinetic equations for charge carriers and phonons. Such a problem is formulated and solved for the first time by Gassymov, see also reference . In the statement of the problem, it should be noted that the traditional approximation of small anisotropy of phonon distribution function (so–called “diffusion approximation”) is applicable to phonons whose drift velocities ($`u`$) is much smaller than the sound velocity ($`s_0`$) in crystal. In the presence of external electric and magnetic fields, this condition obviously is not fulfilled. This violation shows up particularly in several ways under the acoustical instability conditions $`(us_0)`$. Actually, both spherically symmetric, $`N_s(q)`$, and antisymmetric, $`N_a(q)`$, parts of the phonon distribution function as well as $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_a(q)}{N_s(q)}}`$ grow as $`u`$ increases. Indeed, $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_a(q)}{N_s(q)}}1`$ as $`us_0`$, and $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_a(q)}{N_s(q)}}1`$ when $`us_0`$. The general solution of the Boltzmann equation for phonons shows that $`N(q)`$ is stationary for $`u<s_0`$, and nonstationary for $`us_0`$. These results are obtained by solving the nonstationary kinetic equation for phonons interacting with charge carriers at high electric and arbitrary magnetic fields in the nondiffusion approximation.

The theoretical investigation of any thermo and galvanomagnetic effects is usually based on solving the kinetic equations of electrons and phonons in so–called “diffusion approximation (DA)”. It is the approximation of small anisotropy of distribution function (DF) of charge carriers and phonons and it is applicable when the drift velocities of the carriers $`v(\epsilon )`$ and phonons $`u`$ are much less than their thermal (chaotic) velocities $`v_T`$ and $`s_0`$ respectively. Here $`v_T=(2T/m_n)^{1/2}`$ is the thermal velocity of charge carriers, $`m_n`$ is the effective mass of electrons at the bottom of the conduction band. It was shown in  at high external electric field under the conditions of strong mutual drag at low temperatures and near the point of acoustic instability threshold (AIT) for arbitrary temperatures DA is not applicable for the phonons. Because, the drift velocity of phonons under these conditions can be equal or more than the velocity of sound $`s_0`$ and the condition $`us_0`$ for DA is violated. On the other hand, under the same conditions the DA can be applicable for electrons because in this case $`v_T/s_010^2,10^3`$.

For the conservation of usual scheme of consideration, we separate the distribution function of phonons, $`N(𝐪)`$, into its symmetric, $`N_s(𝐪)`$, and antisymmetric, $`N_a(𝐪)`$, parts

$$N(𝐪)=N_s(𝐪)+N_a(𝐪).$$
(1)
Note that in this case the relative values of $`N_s(𝐪)`$ and $`N_a(𝐪)`$ are arbitrary in contrast to DA when we assume that $`N_a(𝐪)N_s(𝐪)`$, which is equivalent to the assumption $`us_0`$. Therefore, in the case considered DA is applicable for electrons (charge carriers) and it is not applicable for phonons. In the light of foregoing discussion we will search the DF of electrons in the form:

$$f(\epsilon ,r)=f_0(\epsilon ,r)+f_1(\epsilon ,r),f_1(\epsilon ,r)f_0(\epsilon ,r),$$
(2)
where $`f_0(\epsilon ,r)`$ and $`f_1(\epsilon ,r)`$ are the spherically symmetric and antisymmetric parts of the distribution function of electrons, respectively.

The present work is dealing with theoretical investigation of the transverse Nernst–Ettingshausen (NE) effect and thermopower of hot charge carriers in nondegenerate impure semiconductors placed at high electric $`𝐄`$ and nonquantized magnetic fields $`𝐇`$ in nondiffusion approximation. The arbitrary heating and mutual drag of electrons and long wavelength (LW) phonons interacting with electrons are considered. The phonon part of the NE voltage differs from zero only for the nonparabolic spectrum of electrons in that the spectrum of electrons is assumed to be strong nonparabolic in Kane two–band approximation:

$$p(\epsilon )=\mu \epsilon ^s,$$
(3)
where $`\mu =\sqrt{2m_n}`$, $`s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ for parabolic, and $`\mu =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m_n}{\epsilon _g}}}`$, $`s=1`$ for strong nonparabolic spectrum of electrons with band gap $`\epsilon _g`$. Consider the case of high concentration of electrons when the frequent interelectronic collisions lead to the equilibrium symmetric part of electrons distribution function with effective temperature $`T_eT`$

$`f_0(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3n_0}{(2m_nT_e)^{\frac{3}{2}}F_0(T_e)}}exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{T_e}}\right),`$ (4)
$`F_0(T_e)={\displaystyle \frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s)}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{3(s\frac{1}{2})}.`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2T^{2s1}}{m_n}}`$$`\mathrm{\Theta }_e={\displaystyle \frac{T_e}{T}}`$ is the dimensionless temperature of electrons, $`n_0`$ is electron concentration and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the Euler’s gamma function.

## 2 The Main Equations and Their Solutions

From the stationary kinetic equation of phonons in the presence of space nonhomogenity by taking into account Eqs. (1) and (2), we have the following system of equations for $`N_a(𝐪)`$ and $`N_s(𝐪)`$:

$`N_a(𝐪)+{\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{\beta (q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪N_s(q)}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}N_s(q)\mathrm{cos}\gamma ,`$ (5)
$`N_s(𝐪)+{\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{\beta (q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪N_a(q)}{q}}=\stackrel{~}{N}(q,\stackrel{~}{T})+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}N_a(q)\mathrm{cos}\gamma ,`$
where $`\gamma `$ is the angle between $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐮`$, $`\beta (q)=\beta _e(q)+\beta _{pb}(q)`$ is the total collision frequency of phonons with scattering centers, and $`\beta _{pb}(q)=\beta _p(q)+\beta _b(q)`$. The subindices of $`\beta `$ stand for the scattering of phonons by electrons ($`e`$), SW phonons ($`p`$), and crystal boundaries ($`b`$). $`\stackrel{~}{N}(q,\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{N}(q,\stackrel{~}{T})={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e(q)}{\beta (q)}}N(q,T_e)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p(q)}{\beta (q)}}N(q,T_p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _b(q)}{\beta (q)}}N(q,T),`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e(q)}{\beta (q)}}T_e+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p(q)}{\beta (q)}}T_p+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _b(q)}{\beta (q)}}T.`$
Here $`N(q,T_e)`$, $`N(q,T_p)`$ and $`N(q,T)`$ are the Planck distribution functions with $`T_e`$, $`T_p`$ and $`T`$, respectively.

In the absence of space nonhomogenity, from Eq. (5) we have

$$N_s(𝐪)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{N}(q,\stackrel{~}{T})}{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma },N_a(𝐪)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{N}(q,\stackrel{~}{T})}{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma }\frac{u}{s_0}\mathrm{cos}\gamma .$$
(7)
From Eq. (7), for the total distribution function of phonons we obtain

$$N(𝐪)=N_s(𝐪)+N_a(𝐪)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{N}(q,\stackrel{~}{T})}{1{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}\mathrm{cos}\gamma }.$$
(8)
The Eqs. (6)–(8) were obtained for the first time in .

In the presence of space nonhomogenity, the symmetric part of the distribution function $`N_s(𝐪)`$ is defined by Eq. (7), but the anisotropic (antisymmetric) part has the form

$$N_a(𝐪)=\frac{u}{s_0}N_s(𝐪)\mathrm{cos}\gamma \frac{s_0}{\beta (q)}\frac{𝐪N_s(q)}{q}.$$
(9)
Choosing $`𝐟_\mathrm{𝟏}(\epsilon )=p𝐯(\epsilon )\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_0(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }}\right)`$, and substituting Eqs. (1), (2), (7) and (9) into stationary kinetic equation of electrons, the drift velocity of electrons is found to be

$`𝐯(\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}\left[\mathrm{𝐡𝐯}(\epsilon )\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m(\epsilon )\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}`$ (10)
$`\left\{e𝐄^{}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \zeta (T_e)}{T_e}}\right)T_e+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi m^2(\epsilon )}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3p^3(\epsilon )}}{\displaystyle _0^{2p}}𝑑qW_qq^2\delta (u){\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{\beta (q)}}\mathrm{}\omega _qN(q,T_p)q𝐮(q)N(q,T_p)\right\},`$
where, $`𝐡={\displaystyle \frac{𝐇}{H}}`$, $`𝐄^{}=𝐄+𝐄_𝐓+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\zeta (T_e)`$, $`𝐄_𝐓`$ is the thermomagnetic field, $`\zeta (T_e)`$ is the chemical potential of hot electrons, and $`\nu (\epsilon ,u)=\nu _p(\epsilon ,u)+\nu _i(\epsilon ,u)`$ is the total collision frequency of electrons by scatterers. Note that the subscript $`p`$ stands for phonons and $`i`$ for impurity ions. As it is shown in

$$\nu _p(\epsilon ,u)=\nu _p(\epsilon )\delta (u),\delta (u)=\frac{3s_0^2}{u^2}\left(\frac{s_0}{2u}\phi (u)1\right),\phi (u)=\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}\right)}{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{s_0}}\right)}\right|.$$
(11)
Since the isotropic part of the distribution function of electrons $`f_0(\epsilon )`$ is assumed to be the equilibrium one with effective electron temperature $`T_e`$, the kinetic equation for the $`f_0(\epsilon )`$ will be used as a balance equation for the definition of $`T_e`$ as a function of $`E`$ and $`H`$ later. In other words, the kinetic equation for the $`f_0(\epsilon )`$ is a single equation which connects $`T_e`$ with the amplitude of external electric and magnetic fields. For further calculations let represent $`\nu (\epsilon )`$ and $`\beta (q)`$ in the form:

$`\nu (\epsilon )=\nu (T)\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _g}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _g}}\right)^r\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{T}}\right)^r,\nu (T_p)=\nu _0(T)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_p}{T}}\right)^{\mathrm{}},`$ (12)
$`\beta (q)=\beta (\epsilon _g,T)\left({\displaystyle \frac{qs}{T}}\right)^\kappa \mathrm{\Theta }^n,\beta (\epsilon _g,T)=\beta (T)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{\epsilon _g}}\right)^{n(s1/2)}`$
here $`\kappa =0,1,t`$, in the case of scattering of phonons by the boundaries of the specimen for the energy and momentum transfer, by SW phonons and electrons, respectively. $`n=2s`$ for the scattering of LW phonons by electrons and $`n=0`$ for other cases; $`r`$ is the parameter for the scattering of electrons for the momentum transfer and $`W_q=W_0q^t`$ is a constant of interaction with $`t=1`$ for deformation, and $`t=1`$ for piezoelectric interaction of electrons with acoustical phonons.

By using the solution of Eq. (10) for $`𝐕(\epsilon )`$, we can calculate the current as follows:

$`𝐉=\sigma _{11}𝐄^{}+\sigma _{12}\left[\mathrm{𝐡𝐄}^{}\right]+\sigma _{13}𝐡\left[\mathrm{𝐡𝐄}^{}\right]+\beta _{11}^eT_e+\beta _{12}^e\left[𝐡T_e\right]+\beta _{13}^e𝐡\left[𝐡T_e\right]`$ (13)
$`+\beta _{11}^pT_p+\beta _{12}^p\left[𝐡T_ph\right]+\beta _{12}^p𝐡\left[𝐡T_p\right];`$
where,

$`\sigma _{1i}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{\Psi }(\epsilon )a_i(\epsilon ),\beta _{1i}^e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\epsilon a_i(\epsilon )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \zeta (T_e)}{T_e}}\right),`$ (14)
$`\beta _{1i}^p={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi s_0\delta (u)}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon \mathrm{\Psi }(\epsilon )a_i(\epsilon )m^2(\epsilon )}{p^3(\epsilon )}}{\displaystyle _0^{2p}}𝑑q{\displaystyle \frac{W_q\mathrm{}\omega _q}{\beta _q}}q^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{N(q,T_p)}{T_p}}\right|,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{\nu (\epsilon ,u)p^3(\epsilon )\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_0(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }}\right)}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3(1\gamma )(1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2)m(\epsilon )\left[\omega _H^2(\epsilon )+\nu ^2(\epsilon ,u)\right]}},a_1(\epsilon )=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}\right),`$ (15)
$`a_2(\epsilon )=\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}},a_3(\epsilon )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H^2(\epsilon )}{\nu ^2(\epsilon ,u)}}\right)+\left(\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}1\right),`$
$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_4}}{\displaystyle _{\epsilon (q/2)}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\epsilon \lambda (\epsilon ),a_4={\displaystyle _{\epsilon (q/2)}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\epsilon m^2(\epsilon )\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_0(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }}\right),`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_4(1\gamma )}}{\displaystyle _{\epsilon (q/2)}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\epsilon \lambda (\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_4(1\gamma )}}{\displaystyle _{\epsilon (q/2)}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\epsilon \lambda (\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H^2(\epsilon )}{\nu ^2(\epsilon ,u)}},`$ (17)
$`\lambda (\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{B_0(\epsilon )m^2(\epsilon )\nu ^2(\epsilon ,u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_0(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }}\right)}{\omega _H^2(\epsilon )+\nu ^2(\epsilon ,u)}},`$
$$B_0(\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}\frac{m(\epsilon )\delta (u)}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)p^3(\epsilon )s_0}_0^{2p}𝑑q\frac{\beta _e(q)\mathrm{}\omega _qW_q\stackrel{~}{N}(q,T_p)}{\beta (q)}q^2.$$
(18)
We will calculate the thermomagnetic and thermoelectric quantities for the following cases:

i. Electrons transfer their momentum to impurity ions, and phonons are scattered preferably by electrons $`k=t`$. In this case the thermal drag of electrons with phonons is prevails.

ii. Electrons and phonons are scattered preferably by each other. In this case, the mutual drag of electrons and phonons is important ($`k=t,{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{pb}}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i(\epsilon )}{\nu _0(\epsilon ,u)}}`$). In the case of heating of electrons and phonons simultaneously under the mutual drag conditions, the energy gained from the external field by the electron–phonon system transferred to environment through the crystal boundaries. It is connected with two facts. First, the channel of energy and momentum transfer to reservoir stands very narrow. Second, it is necessary to fulfill the stationarity condition of the solution. If the thermal drag dominates, this energy is transferred to LW phonons. Each of the cases mentioned consists of two subcases:

a. Electrons are heated by the external field, but phonons are nonheated and have the temperature of lattice, $`T_p=T`$.

b. Both electrons and phonons are heated, $`T_e=T_p(E,H)`$.

We consider the NE effect by taking into account the parts of the NE voltage which are related to the interaction of LW phonons with electrons and LW phonons with SW phonons separately. We also consider some special cases which include the part of the thermopower connected to the interaction of heated LW phonons with SW phonons.

The thermopower of cool and heated charge carriers in degenerate and nondegenerate impure semiconductors near AIT is investigated in detail earlier.

## 3 Thermopower and Thermomagnetic Coefficients

If $`𝐄𝐇\widehat{y}T_e\widehat{z}`$, then under the condition of $`_xT_e=0`$ (the isothermal condition along $`x`$ axis) taking into account $`J_{Tx}=J_{Tz}=0`$, from Eq. (12) for $`E_{Tx}`$ and $`E_{Tz}`$ we have

$$E_{Tx}=H(Q_e_zT_e+Q_p_zT_p),Q_{e,p}=\frac{1}{H}\frac{\sigma _{11}\beta _{12}^{(e,p)}\sigma _{12}\beta _{11}^{(e,p)}}{\sigma _{11}^2+\sigma _{12}^2},$$
(19)
where $`Q_e`$ and $`Q_p`$ are the electron and phonon parts of the NE coefficient (in this work, $`E_{Tz}`$ is studied only when the magnetic field is parallel to $`T_z`$), respectively.

At weak magnetic fields, when $`\omega _H(\overline{\epsilon })\nu (\overline{\epsilon },u)`$ from Eqs. (13) and (19) we get

$`Q_e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{eH}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H}{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{r2}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2+s(2r4)}b_1(s,r),`$ (20)
$`Q_p=Q_{p1}(T_e)+Q_{p2}(T,T_e),`$
where,

$`Q_{p1}(T_e)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_2(s,r)}{eH}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _H}{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e^0(T)\beta _e(\epsilon _g,T)}{\beta ^2(\epsilon _g,T)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^r\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2+s(2r1)}\delta (u),`$ (21)
$`Q_{p2}(T,T_e)={\displaystyle \frac{32^{ht}}{(3+ht)}}Q_{p1}(T_e){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{pb}(T)}{\beta _e(\epsilon _g,T)}}B^{ht}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2+s(ht1)}{\displaystyle \frac{_zT}{_zT_e}}.`$
For the scattering of LW phonons by SW phonons $`h=1`$, for all other cases $`h=0`$; $`\omega _H,\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)`$ and $`\beta _e^0(T)`$ have the meaning of usual definitions in the case of parabolic spectrum, $`B(T)=\mu s_0T^{s1}`$.

$`b_1(s,r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^rs^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^{5+s(4r5)}e^x[3+s(2r1)]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^{4+s(4r5)}e^x\right\},`$ (22)
$`b_2(s,r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+s(4r1)){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^{4+s(4r5)}e^x\right\}.`$
When $`T_p=T`$, the term proportional to $`{\displaystyle \frac{_zT}{_zT_e}}`$ falls out. However, in $`Q_{p1}(T_e)`$, the term $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e^0(T)\beta _e^0(\epsilon _g,T)}{\beta ^2(\epsilon _g,T)}}`$ must be replaced by $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e^0(T)}{\beta (T)}}`$. Besides, for $`s=1`$, $`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`t=1`$, the integrals in Eqs. (20) and (21) diverge, and it is necessary to give either $`s<1`$ or lower limit of the corresponding integrals for some variables. For example, from $`x_1={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (q/2)}{T_e}}`$. In other words, in this case it is necessary to take into account the inelasticity of the scattering of electrons by LW phonons.

At high magnetic field, when $`\omega _H^2(\epsilon )\nu ^2(\epsilon ,u)`$ we have

$`Q_e={\displaystyle \frac{2^r\zeta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{eH\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}{\omega _H}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2r}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2s(tr)2}`$ (23)
$`\left\{2(r2s+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _p(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^{3s+1}D(x_1)e^x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^{3s}D(x_1)e^x\right]\right\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_p}{Q_{p0}(T_e)}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (T)}{\beta _0(T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s(7+ht)1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s[112r+ht]3)`$ (24)
$`+C_1(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)+C_2(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u).`$
In Eq. (24),

$$Q_{p0}(T_e)=\frac{2^{3+r}b_3(s,t)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4r}}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_3eH}\frac{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}{\omega _H}\frac{\beta _e^0(T)\beta _e(\epsilon _g,T)}{\beta ^2(\epsilon _g,T)}\delta (u)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{3(72r)2},$$
(25)
$$C_1(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)=\frac{\nu _p(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}{b_3(s,r)\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}x^{7s2}D(x_1)e^x𝑑x\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}_0^{\mathrm{}}x^{3s}D(x_1)e^x𝑑x\right),$$
(26)
$`C_2(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)={\displaystyle \frac{32^{ht}}{(3+ht)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p(T)}{\beta _e(T)}}B^{ht}(T)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2+s(ht1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _p(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{_zT}{_zT_e}}`$ (27)
$`\left({\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x^{7+ht}D(x_1)e^x𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s(7+ht)1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x^{3s}D(x_1)e^x𝑑x\right),`$
$$b_3(s,r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s(112r)3),D_{x1}=\frac{1}{\alpha _4}_{\epsilon (q/2)}^{\mathrm{}}x^{s(8+t)4}e^x𝑑x,$$
(28)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+s(2r1)),\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }(s(72r)1),\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s+1),\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+s(3+2r)).$$
(29)
It is necessary to note that at weak and strong magnetic fields $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$, but at strong magnetic field $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}`$ is of the order of 1. Therefore, the terms proportional to $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _H(\epsilon )}{\nu (\epsilon ,u)}}`$ or $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _p(\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}{\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_e,u)}}`$ are essential under the of mutual drag conditions of electrons and phonons, and in these expressions $`r=t/2`$. As it follows from Eqs. (20)–(22) and (23)–(29), at weak and high magnetic fields $`Q_p=0`$ for the case $`s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`r=t`$ is in accordance with the results of .

When $`𝐄𝐇T_z\widehat{z}`$, by taking into account $`J_z=0`$, $`E_{Tz}`$ has the form

$$E_{Tz}+\frac{1}{e}_z\zeta (T_e)=\alpha _e_zT_e+\alpha _p_zT_p,\alpha _{e,p}=\frac{\beta _{11}^{(e,p)}+\beta _{13}^{(e,p)}}{\sigma _{11}+\sigma _{13}},$$
(30)
where $`\alpha _e`$ and $`\alpha _p`$ are the electron and phonon parts of the differential thermopower, respectively.

In order to investigate the thermomagnetic effects by taking into account the heating of electrons and phonons, and their arbitrary degree of mutual drag in the region of drift velocities $`0<u<s_0`$ or near the acoustical instability threshold $`(us_0)`$, we must first determine the dependences of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ and $`u`$ on the electric and magnetic fields.

## 4 The Nernst–Ettingshausen Voltage and Integral Thermopower

The NE voltage $`U`$ and the integral thermopower $`V`$, which are interesting from the experimental point of view, have the form:

$`U={\displaystyle _0^{L_x}}E_{Tx}𝑑x=U_e+U_p^{LW}+U_p^{SW},`$ (31)
$`V={\displaystyle _0^{L_z}}E_{Tz}𝑑z=V_e+V_p^{LW}+V_p^{SW}.`$
Here $`L_x`$ and $`L_z`$ are the length of the specimen in $`x`$ and $`z`$ directions. For arbitrary $`r`$ and $`s`$, in the case of heating of LW phonons we have:

$`V_e={\displaystyle \frac{T}{e}}\left\{(2rss+3){\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (T_e)}{T_e}}\right\}\mathrm{\Theta }_e=V_{e0}\mathrm{\Theta }_e,`$ (32)
$`V_p^{LW}(T_e)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e^0(T)\beta _e(\epsilon _g,T)}{(3s+1)\beta ^2(\epsilon _g,T)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\delta (u)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{3s+1}=V_{p0}^{LW}\delta (u)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{3s+1},`$
$`V_p^{SW}(T_e)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{3+ht}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+(3+2r+ht))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p(T)}{\beta (T)}}B^{ht}(T)V_p^{LW}(T_e)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2+(ht+1)}.`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T(0)T(L_z)`$. In the absence of heating of LW phonons in the expression of $`V_p`$, the term $`V_p^{SW}`$ is absent and in Eq. (32) the term $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\beta ^2(T)}}\beta _e^0\beta _e(\epsilon _g)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{3s+1}`$ in $`V_p^{LW}`$ must be replaced by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=\frac{\beta _e^0(T)}{\beta _e(\epsilon _g,T)}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{3s}.$$
(33)
### 4.1 The Weak Magnetic Field Case

1. In the case $`i`$ and subcase $`a`$, from Eqs. (20), (21) and (32), near AIT we have:

$`U_e=U_{e0}(T)\mathrm{\Theta }_{e1}^{(3s)/a},U_p=U_{p0}(\mathrm{\Delta }T)\mathrm{\Theta }_{e1}^{2(1+s)/a}\delta (u),`$ (34)
$`V_e=V_{e0}\mathrm{\Theta }_{e1}^{1/a},V_p=V_{p0}(T)\mathrm{\Theta }_{e1}^{3s/a}\delta (u),\mathrm{\Theta }_{e1}={\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}B^h(T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i(T)}{\nu _p(s,T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e(T)}{\beta _p(T)\phi (u)}}.`$
here $`A`$, the digital coefficient, is of the order of 1, and $`a=2+s(2+h+t)`$. As it follows from Eq. (34), near AIT under the thermal drag condition and in the absence of heating of LW phonons, $`U_{e,p}`$ and $`V_{e,p}`$ are defined with $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i(T)}{\nu _p(s,T)}}`$ and drag parameter $`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\beta _{pb}}}1`$. At AIT and at its nearest neighborhood, both $`U_{e,p}`$ and $`V_{e,p}`$ do not depend on$`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$ or $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$. Since in the considered case $`u=s_0{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_1}}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2s}`$, the condition $`u=s_0=const.`$ is realized only when $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e=\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{E}}\right)^{1/2s}`$. In other words, as $`us_0`$, $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_1}}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2s}`$ must tends to 1. Here $`E_1`$ reads

$$E_1=\frac{2^{3/2}s^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,4s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,3s+1)}\frac{\beta (T)}{\beta _e(T)}\frac{m_ns_0\nu _i(T)}{e}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}.$$
(35)
It is clear from the physical point of view that as $`us_0`$, the drift velocity of electrons does not depend on the energy of charge carriers, and $`vuconst`$. Thus

$`U_e\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _e}{\nu _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\phi (u)}}\right)^{3s/a},U_p\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i}{\nu _p}}\eta \right)^{2(1+s)}\phi ^{s(n+t)}(u)\right]^{1/a},`$ (36)
$`V_e\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i}{\nu _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\phi (u)}}\right)^{1/a},V_p\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i}{\nu _p}}\eta \right)^{3s}\phi ^{2+s(h+t+1)}(u)\right]^{1/a}.`$
Since at AIT point $`u=s_0`$, $`\phi (u)`$ and $`\eta 1`$, the quantities $`U_e`$, $`U_p`$, $`V_e`$ and $`V_p`$ saturate, and do not depend on $`𝐄`$.

2. In the case $`ii`$ and subcase $`a`$, as $`us_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ has the form:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_e=\left(\frac{A_2}{B^h}\eta \right)^{\frac{1}{2+s(h1)}},A_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(x_1,1st)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(x_1,4s1)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}1.$$
(37)
In the case $`𝐄𝐇`$, $`u`$ has the form

$$\frac{u}{s_0}(1\gamma _0)\delta (u)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(x_1,1st)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(x_1,4s1)}\frac{\beta _e}{\beta }\frac{eE}{m_ns_0\nu (s,T)}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2s(4+t)}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(38)
where $`\gamma _0=\gamma (H=0)`$. As it follows from Eq. (37), if the coupled system of electrons and phonons is scattered by the crystal boundaries, $`(\beta _p\beta _e)`$ for arbitrary dispersion law of electrons, they interact with deformation acoustical or piezo acoustical phonons, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e1`$. In the case, when the coupled system of electrons and phonons is scattered by SW phonons $`(h=1)`$, the piezo acoustical scattering mechanism is not limited. Since, for $`s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, $`t=1`$, $`\beta _{pb}\beta _p`$, the coefficient $`A_2<0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e<0`$, and we have the “cooling” effect. It is connected with so–called the effect of “electrons runaway” near AIT for the case of scattering of electrons by the nonheated piezo acoustical phonons.

From Eqs. (19), (20), (32), (36) and (38), as $`us_0`$ we have:

$`U_e\eta ^{\frac{3+s(h1)}{2+s(h1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{E}},U_p=U_{p0}(\mathrm{\Delta }T)\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2s(1+t)}\eta ^{\frac{2s(1+t)}{2+s(h1)}},`$ (39)
$`V_e=V_{e0}(T)\mathrm{\Theta }_e\eta ^{\frac{1}{2+s(h1)}},V_p\eta ^{\frac{3s}{2+s(h1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_2}}.`$
Here

$$E_2=\frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,4s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,1st)}\frac{\beta (T)}{\beta _e(T)}\frac{m_ns_0\nu _p(s,T)}{e}\mathrm{\Lambda }B(T).$$
(40)
As it is follows from Eq. (39), at weak magnetic fields $`U_p`$ and $`V_e`$ do not depend on $`E`$ at AIT point and its neighbourhood; and tends to their constant values as $`us_0`$ while $`V_p`$ and $`U_e`$ depends on $`E`$ linearly and nonlinearly, respectively. Therefore, in the absence of phonon heating the mutual drag leads to the dependence of thermomagnetic voltages on $`E`$ and $`\eta `$ near AIT when $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e=const.`$ in contrast to thermal drag case. In other words, the mutual drag of electrons and phonons but not their heating plays the role of mechanism of regulation of unlimited grow or fall down of galvano and thermomagnetic effects near AIT.

3. The investigation of the thermomagnetic voltage $`U`$ and thermopower $`V`$ in the thermal drag case when $`T_p=T_e`$ denoted that for the drift velocities $`0<u<s_0`$, the electronic part of the quantities $`U_e`$ and $`V_e`$ dominates over the phonon parts $`U_p`$ and $`V_p`$. The results obtained for $`0<u<s_0`$ show that in some cases $`V_p`$ and $`U_p`$ for SW phonons dominate over that for LW phonons. In fact, for the scattering of phonons by phonons $`(h=1)`$, and scattering of electrons by piezo acoustical phonons $`(t=1)`$ when $`s=1`$, $`V_p^{SW}`$ and $`U_p^{SW}`$ grow proportionally to $`E`$, $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _e(T)}{\beta _p(T)}}1`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_nv_0^2}{T}}1`$ while $`V_p^{LW}`$ and $`U_p^{LW}`$ decrease. Here $`v_0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _g}{2m_n}}\right)^{1/2}`$. At the nearest neighbourhood of AIT point, the thermomagnetic voltages are preferably obtained by the ratio $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i(T)}{\beta _p(T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\phi (u)}}`$. In this case $`V_e`$ and $`U_e`$ decrease as $`us_0`$, and reach their saturation values at $`u=s_0`$. In other words, the electronic part of the thermopower and thermomagnetic voltages as well as the current saturate when $`u=s_0`$. When $`u=s_0`$, the stimulated emission and the absorption of phonons become equal to each other and the dissipation vanishes. At this point, electrons emit all the power gained from the external field spontaneously like phonons, and the stationarity of state is conserved.

4. In the case of $`ii`$ and subcase $`b`$ from Eqs. (20), (23) and (24) with taking into account Eq. (39), it is easy to obtain that $`U_p=const.`$, $`V_p\eta {\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_2}}`$, and $`U_e{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{\eta E}}`$. In other words, in contrast to the case of thermal drag in the case of the mutual drag, the increase of $`U`$ and $`V`$ with $`\phi (u)`$ near AIT have a upper limit (in the case of $`T_e=T_p`$ in Eq. (39), it is necessary to change the degree of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ by $`[1s(4+t)]`$). Besides, at $`T_e=T_p`$ the scattering mechanism of electrons by piezo acoustical phonons becomes limited. It means that for the case considered, the heating of phonons removes the effect of “electrons runaway”.

## 5 High Longitudinal $`(𝐄𝐇)`$ Magnetic Field Case

1. In the case $`i`$ and subcase $`a`$, from Eqs. (24) and (25) with taking into account $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$, from Eq. (34) as $`us_0`$ we have:

$$U_p\left(\frac{\nu _i(T)}{\nu _p(s,T)}\eta \right)^{\frac{2(2s1)}{a}}\phi (u)^{\frac{4+s(h+t2)}{a}},U_e\left(\frac{\nu _i(T)}{\nu _p(s,T)}\frac{\eta }{\phi (u)}\right)^{\frac{s1}{a}},$$
(41)
$`V_e`$ and $`V_p`$ are determined by Eq. (34) as in the weak longitudinal magnetic field case. As it follows from Eq. (41) in the case of $`s=1`$ the $`U_e`$ coincides with the expression in the linear theory. In this case for $`s>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, $`U_p`$ increases proportionally to $`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i}{\nu _p}}\eta `$ irrespective of the values $`h`$ and $`t`$, and it increases with $`\phi `$ as $`us_0`$.

2. As $`us_0`$ in the case $`ii`$ and subcase $`a`$, from Eqs. (23) and (24) it follows:

$$U_e\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{s(4+t)1}\delta (u),U_p\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{s(7+t)2}\delta ^2(u).$$
(42)
By determining $`\phi (u)`$ for the case $`us_0`$ from Eq. (32), and inserting it in Eq. (42), we obtain:

$$U_e\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{s(4+t)1}\delta (u)\eta ^{\frac{1}{2+s(h1)}}\frac{E}{E_2},U_p\eta ^{\frac{2s(1+t)}{2+s(h1)}}\left(\frac{E}{E_2}\right)^2.$$
(43)
From the comparison of Eq.(43) with Eq. (39), in contrast to the weak magnetic field case, at $`T_e=T`$ and in the presence of mutual drag at high magnetic field both electron and phonon parts of the NE voltage increase with $`E`$ and $`\eta `$ near AIT. In the weak magnetic field case, on the other hand, under the same conditions $`U_e`$ decreases with $`E`$, but $`U_p`$ tends to saturation, see Eq. (39).

3. At the nearest neighborhood of AIT in the case $`i`$ and subcase $`b`$, we find:

$$U_e\phi (u)^{\frac{1s}{3(1+s)}},U_p^{LW}\phi (u)^{\frac{5s}{3(1+s)}},U_p^{SW}\phi (u)^{\frac{3+s(th)}{3(1+s)}}.$$
(44)
The thermopower $`V`$ in this case is obtained from Eq. (39). As it follows from Eq. (44) for $`s=1`$, $`U_e=const.`$ and does not depend on $`\phi (u)`$, but $`U_p`$ increases by $`\phi (u)`$. When $`s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, $`U_p=0`$ while $`U_e`$ grows as $`\phi (u)`$ increases. Thus, at high magnetic field for the thermal drag case the thermomagnetic quantities do not have upper limit as $`us_0`$ in contrast to the mutual drag case.

4. Consider the case $`ii`$ and subcase $`b`$. In this case with taking into account $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e1`$, we have:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_e=\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }(33[1+t])\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(x_1,4s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(x_1,13t)}A(T)\frac{3}{4}\frac{m_ns_0^2}{T}\frac{\nu _p(s,T)}{\beta _e(\epsilon _g,T)}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{\frac{1}{st}}.$$
(45)
Namely, in the nearest neighborhood of AIT, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e=const`$. Here, $`A(T)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3n_0}{(2m_nT)^{3/2}F_0}}`$. At AIT, with due regard for Eqs. (37) and (38) from Eqs. (24) and (25) we have:

$$U_e\eta \frac{E}{E_2},U_p^{SW}U_p^{LW}\left(\eta \frac{E}{E_2}\right)^2,V_p^{SW}V_p^{LW}\eta \frac{E}{E_2}.$$
(46)
Thus, at weak as well as high magnetic fields, the mutual drag of electrons and phonons, at AIT point and its nearest neighborhood plays the role of retaining mechanism of regulation for the unlimited grow or fall down of the thermomagnetic coefficients as $`us_0`$. In the absence of mutual drag, the thermal drag of electrons by phonons, the phonon part of the thermomagnetic coefficients in the limit $`us_0`$ sharply increase as $`\phi (u)\mathrm{}`$. In the absence of heating of electrons and LW phonons, their mutual drag leads to the same dependences of thermomagnetic effects on $`𝐄`$ and $`\eta `$ as in Eqs. (39) and (46) for the nondiffusion approximation. Finally, we have the effect of “nonheated nonlinearity” as a result of the mutual drag considered in . The Eqs. (39) and (46) allow us to have some opinion about the behavior of electron–phonon system at AIT. The system of electrons and phonons coupled by the mutual drag (quasiparticle, electron+phonon) heated under high external electric field in the condition $`us_0`$ at AIT point has constant drift velocity $`u`$, temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e>1`$ and the saturation values of kinetic coefficients. In other words, when $`u=s_0`$, electrons emit the power gained from the external electric field like acoustical phonons and as a result have the stationary state. The state $`u=s_0`$ is a dynamical stationary state. This case is characterized by the constant current ($`J=const.`$) instead of $`J=0`$ in the ground state.

## 6 Thermopower At High $`𝐄𝐇`$ Magnetic Field

The dependences of $`V_e`$ and $`V_p`$ on the external electric and magnetic in the diffusion approximation, and $`V_e`$ in the nondiffusion approximation are introduced through $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ and $`u`$. In the case $`𝐄𝐇`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ and $`u`$ do not depend on $`𝐇`$, and, thus, $`V_e`$ and $`V_p`$ do not consists $`𝐇`$. Only the magnetic field $`(𝐄𝐇)`$ influences the thermopower considerably through the dependences on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ in the diffusion, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ and $`u`$ in the nondiffusion approximations. The corresponding coefficients of thermopower when $`(𝐄𝐇)`$ may be greater significantly than in the case $`(𝐄𝐇)`$. $`V_e`$ and $`V_p^{LW}`$ parts of the thermopower were investigated in detailed in . Here, we consider the part of the thermopower related to the interaction of LW phonons with SW phonons, i.e., $`V_p^{SW}`$.

At high magnetic field $`(𝐄𝐇)`$ irrespective of the character of the interaction of electrons by scattering centers, their drift velocity $`v={\displaystyle \frac{cE}{H}}`$, and, therefore, $`u={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{cE}{H}}={\displaystyle \frac{s_0E}{E_3}}`$.

In the case $`i`$ and subcase $`b`$ for $`0<u<s_0`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_e=\left[\frac{2^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }[x_1,(s1)]}{3}\left(\frac{m_ns_0^2}{\phi (u)}\right)^{1/2}\frac{A(T)}{\phi (u)}\frac{\nu _i(T)}{\beta _p(T)}\left(\frac{\beta }{\beta _e}\right)^2\left(\frac{E}{E_3}\right)^3\right]^{\frac{1}{3(1+s)}}.$$
(47)
By using Eq. (47) in Eq. (34), we have

$$V_p^{SW}\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{2+s(l+h+t)}\delta (u)\left(\frac{\nu _i(T)}{\beta _p(T)}\right)^{\frac{2+s(2+ht)}{3(1+s)}}\left[\left(\frac{s_0H}{cE}\right)^3\phi (u)\right]^{\frac{1+s(1+th)}{3(1+s)}}.$$
(48)
For $`u={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{cE}{H}}s_0`$, we have

$$V_p^{SW}\left[\left(\frac{\nu _i(T)}{\beta _p(T)}\right)^{2+s(2+ht)}\phi (u)^{1+s(1+th)}\right]^{\frac{1}{3(1+s)}}.$$
(49)
As it follows from (32), for $`t=1`$ and $`h=1`$, the dependences of $`V_p^{LW}`$ and $`V_p^{SW}`$ on $`\phi (u)`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_0H}{cE}}`$ are identical, but $`V_p^{SW}`$ increases by $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i(T)}{\beta _p(T)}}1`$ faster than $`V_p^{LW}`$. Near AIT, $`V_p^{SW}`$ does not depend on $`\phi (u)`$ and becomes a constant at $`s=1`$, $`t=1`$, and $`h=1`$.

If the electrons and phonons are scattered preferably by each other for $`0<u<s_0`$ in the case $`ii`$ and subcase $`b`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_e=\left\{sB_1(x_1,t,s)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2A(T)\frac{\beta }{\beta _e}\frac{\nu _p(s,T)}{\beta _p(T)}\mu T^{s1}\left(\frac{\beta }{2\beta _e}s_0\frac{1}{\phi (u)}\frac{cE}{H}\right)^{\frac{1}{2st}}\right\}.$$
(50)
Here

$$B_1(x_1,t,s)=1\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\frac{\beta _e}{\beta }_0^{\mathrm{}}x^{3s}D(x_1)e^x𝑑x.$$
(51)
By taking into account Eqs. (50) and (34), we have:

$$V_p^{SW}\left[\frac{\nu _p(s,T)}{\beta _p(T)}\left(\frac{\beta }{2\beta _e}s_0\phi ^1(u)\frac{cE}{H}\right)\right]^{\frac{2+s(r+ht)}{3(1+s)}}\left(\frac{s_0H}{cE}\right)^3\phi (u),$$
(52)
and near AIT

$$V_p^{SW}\left(\frac{\nu _p(s,T)}{\beta _p(T)}\right)^{\frac{2+s(2+ht)}{3(1+s)}}\phi (u).$$
(53)
Therefore, both $`V_p^{SW}`$ and $`V_p^{LW}`$ increase with $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _p(s,T)}{\beta _p(T)}}1`$ and by $`\phi (u)`$ near AIT.

As it follows the foregoing discussion, the thermomagnetic coefficients near AIT, increase or fall down sharply. But these changes have the relative character and have an upper limit (constant value at AIT). These limitations are connected with the following situations: At AIT, or its nearest neighborhood, the equality $`u=s_0`$ may be satisfied only when $`\beta =\beta _e`$, $`\beta =\beta _e+\beta _p`$. Therefore as $`us_0`$, $`\beta _{pb}0`$ while $`\phi (u)\beta _{pb}=const`$.

## 7 Conclusion

We now give a brief resume of the main results obtained in the present work. It is shown that in the absence of heating of phonons near AIT, the scattering mechanism of electrons by piezoelectric potential of acoustic phonons under the condition of mutual drag of electrons and phonons is unlimited, i.e., there is effect of so–called “electrons runaway” for this scattering mechanism. It is shown that this effect is liquidated by taking into account the heating of phonons. At AIT and its nearest neighbourhood, the cases either the longitudinal $`𝐄𝐇`$ or the strong $`𝐄𝐇`$, temperature of electrons is saturated, i.e., it does not depend on $`E`$ and $`H`$, and can be obtained from the drag parameter $`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta (T)}{\beta _p}}`$.

In the case of weak or strong magnetic fields and in the absence or presence of phonon heating, the phonon parts of the thermopower and NE voltage grow infinitely near the point of AIT under the condition of thermal drag. If the mutual drag of electrons and phonons prevails, then both in the absence and in the presence of phonon heating the thermoelectric quantities near AIT have the same dependence on $`E`$ as in the case of absence of heating of electrons and phonons. In other words, at AIT the electrons and phonons have the same temperature $`T_e`$ and drift velocity $`u`$ (and cools by approaching AIT point). Namely, at the AIT point the joint temperature $`T_e`$ and drift velocity (the current $`𝐉`$) of the system of electrons and phonons coupled by the mutual drag are saturated. In contrast to the case of thermal drag, in the case of the mutual drag of electrons and phonons the thermomagnetic quantities are finite, i.e., have upper limit near AIT.

In the absence of phonon heating, the mutual drag leads to the dependence of the thermomagnetic coefficients on $`E`$ and $`\eta `$ near AIT, when $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e=const.`$ in contrast to the thermal drag case. In other words, the mutual drag of electrons and phonons but not their heating plays the role of regulation mechanism for unlimited grow or fall down of galvano and thermomagnetic coefficients near AIT, see .

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). In the course of this work, T. M. Gassym was supported by a TUBITAK–NATO fellowship.


text:
# comment on ”Two Fermi points in the exact solution of the Kondo problem”

In a recent paper  A. Zvyagin reexamined the solution of the Kondo model, and claimed that the model should be considered with two ”Fermi points” in the presence of a magnetic field, and that a new energy scale arises as a result. I show below that these claims are in error.

The Kondo hamiltonian,

$$H=i𝑑x\psi _a^{}(x)\psi _a(x)+J\psi _a^{}(0)\sigma _{ab}^i\psi _b(0)$$

describes a magnetic impurity in a metal, capturing the radial dynamics of a 3d model. The spectrum is linearized around the Fermi point (there is only 1 point since the Fermi surface in 3d is simply connected) and as a result the electrons are chiral - right movers by our convention - with a spectrum $`E=p`$.

The linearization is valid for $`J`$ small and for momenta small compared to a cutoff $`D`$, of the order of the bandwidth. The cutoff is considered large compared to any physical quantity and the only scale remaining in the problem is the Kondo temperature $`T_K=D\mathrm{exp}^{\frac{\pi }{2J}}`$. The results are universal and parameterized by $`T_KD`$ . If the coupling is not small the spectrum cannot be linearized and the universality is lost.

The model is soluble and its solution is given by the set of equations:

$$N^e\theta _1(\lambda _\alpha 1)+\theta _1(\lambda _\alpha )=2\pi J_\alpha +\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{M}{}}\theta _2(\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta )$$
(1)
where $`\theta _n(\lambda )=2\mathrm{tan}^1(2\lambda /cn)`$, $`c=2J/(13/4J^2)`$, $`N^e`$ is the number of electrons interacting with a spin 1/2 impurity. There is a total of $`N=N^e+1`$ spins (including the impurity), $`M`$ of which are ”down” and $`NM`$ are ”up”. The spin of the state is $`S=\frac{1}{2}(N2M)`$. The $`M`$ integers (or half integers) $`J_\alpha `$ are the quantum numbers of the states and each allowed configuration of them determines the state uniquely. From equation (1) we find that the allowed values of $`M`$ quantum numbers $`J_\alpha `$ are between $`J_{max}=(NM1)/2`$ and $`J_{min}=J_{max}`$. Having solved the equations for a distinct set of $`\lambda `$’s the energy of the state is given by

$$E=D\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}[\theta _1(\lambda _\alpha 1)\pi ]+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N^e}{}}\frac{2\pi }{L}n_j$$

where $`L`$ is the size of the system, $`D=N^e/L`$ is the electron density (also serving as a cut off) and $`n_j`$ are integers, the charge quantum numbers of the system.

The ground state of the system is a singlet $`S=0`$ with the $`M=N/2`$ quantum numbers $`J_\alpha `$ occupying consecutively all $`N/2`$ slots between $`J_{max}=(N/21)/2`$ and $`J_{min}=(N/21)/2`$. In the thermodynamic limit $`N,M\mathrm{}`$ and also $`\lambda _\alpha `$ takes values from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. We shall denote the density of solutions by $`\sigma (\lambda )`$. Excited states correspond to other choices of allowed configurations. The simplest is the triplet, with $`M=N/21`$, leaving two ”holes” in the sequence of quantum numbers between $`J_{max}=(N/2)`$ and $`J_{min}=J_{max}`$. Each of these holes describes a spin-1/2 spinon with energy ,

$$E^{spinon}=2D\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\mathrm{exp}\frac{\pi }{c}(\lambda ^h1)\right]$$
(2)
where $`\lambda ^h`$ is the spin-rapidity of the spinon, corresponding to the unfilled slot $`J^h`$. The hole can take any value in the allowed range and correspondingly $`\lambda ^h`$ can take any real value in the thermodynamic limit. Note that for $`\lambda ^h`$ large and negative the energy is arbitrarily small while for $`\lambda ^h`$ large and positive it very large, of the order of the cutoff. This asymmetry of the spinon spectrum is inherited from the asymmetry inherent in the linear spectrum of the right moving electrons. The spectrum of the spinons becomes linear in the momentum when the cutoff is removed . (This asymmetry is in clear contradiction to statements in the last paragraph of the first column on page 060405 of ref. .)

A typical excited state will have holes (namely spinons) and may also have ”strings” (complex $`\lambda `$’s) combining the spinons to lower spin states. For example, in addition to the two spinon triplet, there is a two spinon singlet, degenerate in energy with the triplet in the infinite volume limit, consisting of two holes and a 2-string.

We now turn on a magnetic field $`h`$ at zero temperature, adding to the hamiltonian the term

$$H_{mag}=2Sh,$$
(3)
where S is the total spin component of the system in the direction of $`h`$. Note that $`H_{mag}`$ commutes with the hamiltonian.

As a result of the magnetic term, the system will gain energy by flipping spins to align with the magnetic field. Each flipped spin corresponds to two holes in the $`\lambda `$ sea, two spinons. The excitation energy of each spinon is given by Eq.(2), and can be made arbitrarily close to zero by choosing $`\lambda `$h sufficiently large and negative. Hence the magnetic field will excite spinons with $`\lambda `$ large and negative. As all $`\lambda `$ rapidities must be distinct, we are led to a depletion region where no $`\lambda `$ solutions exist from $`\lambda `$ = $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\lambda `$ = B.

The “magnetic Fermi point” $`B`$ is determined by an equilibrium argument equating the magnetic energy gained by flipping spins to align with the magnetic field and the energy cost of these holes. One finds

$$B=B(h)=\frac{c}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\frac{h}{T_h})$$

With $`T_h`$ a magnetic Kondo scale. The main point we wish to emphasize is that due to the form of the spinon excitation spectrum there is only one depletion region, not two as claimed by Zvyagin.

It is obvious that no complex strings are excited, as these reduce the total spin of the system. For example, consider the fundamental singlet and triplet excitations. While their cost in interaction energy is the same, the singlet does not gain magnetic energy. We thus have to consider the following magnetization equation determining the lowest energy state in the presence of a magnetic field :

$$\sigma _B(\lambda )+_B^{\mathrm{}}K(\lambda \lambda ^{})\sigma _B(\lambda ^{})𝑑\lambda ^{}=f_{kondo}(\lambda ),$$
(4)
where,

$`K(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{c^2+\lambda ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\lambda }}\theta (\lambda )`$ (5)
$`f_{kondo}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^e}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(c/2)}{(c/2)^2+(\lambda 1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(c/2)}{(c/2)^2+\lambda ^2}}.`$ (6)
The energy and total spin of the system are given by

$`E(h)=E_{B(h)}`$ $`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle _B^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma _B(\lambda )[\theta _1(\lambda 1)\pi ]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}n_j2hS`$ (8)
and

$$S=\frac{1}{2}NM=\frac{1}{2}N_B^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _B(\lambda )𝑑\lambda .$$
(9)
The quantum numbers $`n_j`$ have no spin content and are not excited by the magnetic field.

Equation (4) is a Wiener-Hopf integral equation and has been discussed using this technique by Yang and Yang in connection with a similar problem in the Heisenberg model . It is amusing to point out that while Eq. (4) is exact in the case of the Kondo model, it is only approximate in the Heisenberg case. The reason is simple. The excitation spectrum for the Heisenberg model,

$$E^{spinon}=\frac{2J}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}\lambda ^h)}$$

so that holes will be excited in the low energy regions $`(\mathrm{},B]`$ and $`[B,+\mathrm{})`$, and solutions $`\lambda _\alpha `$ will fall into the segment $`[B,B]`$. Hence the magnetization equation takes the form ,

$$\sigma _B(\lambda )+_B^BK(\lambda \lambda ^{})\sigma _B(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})𝑑\lambda ^{}=f_{heis}(\lambda ),$$

where

$$f_{heis}(\lambda )=\frac{N}{\pi }\frac{(c/2)}{(c/2)^2+(\lambda )^2}$$

As this equation is not of the Wiener Hopf form Yang and Yang develop a method to take into account both depletion regions for small magnetic fields (large $`B`$).

As another example consider the closely related Gross-Neveu model. The spinon spectrum is,

$$E^{spinon}=m\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{c}\lambda ^h)$$

and holes will be excited in the low energy region $`[B,B]`$. Solutions $`\lambda _\alpha `$ exist therefore only in the regions $`(\mathrm{},B]`$ and $`[B,\mathrm{})`$ and we are led to the magnetization equation,

$$\sigma _B(\lambda )+\left(_{\mathrm{}}^B+_B^{\mathrm{}}\right)K(\lambda \lambda ^{})\sigma _B(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})d\lambda ^{}=f_{GN}(\lambda ),$$

with

$$f_{GN}(\lambda )=\frac{N^+}{\pi }\frac{(c/2)}{(c/2)^2+(\lambda 1)^2}+\frac{N^{}}{\pi }\frac{(c/2)}{(c/2)^2+(\lambda +1)^2}.$$

To summarize, the form of the magnetization equation depends on the spectrum of excitations. While for the Kondo model we have only one depletion region, $`(\mathrm{},B]`$ and only one magnetic Fermi point in the Kondo model, there are two points in the other models due to the symmetric form of their excitation spectrum.

In his paper A. Zvyagin has introduced a second depletion region and second Fermi point to the Kondo magnetization equation. The state thus constructed has excitations in the range $`[B,\mathrm{})`$ with each hole having energy of the order of the cutoff. The state is therefore infinitely excited and has no meaning.