format: text

text:
# Imaging planets around nearby white dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

Over 70 extra-solar planets have now been detected since the discovery of a companion to the solar-type star 51 Peg in 1995 (Mayor & Queloz 1995). All of these planets have been discovered via the radial velocity technique, in which the planet’s presence is inferred by the central star’s motion around the system’s barycentre. Instrumental and intrinsic noise limit the sensitivity of these studies to Saturn-mass companions in short-period orbits, with more massive companions detectable in more distant orbits. The duration of current programmes limits this to $``$3.5 AU (Fischer et al. 2002), although some systems do display interesting trends indicative of more distant companions. Therefore, we have little information on systems with massive companions at large radii, such as our own Solar System. The only constraint on Jovian-like systems comes from micro-lensing statistics, which suggest less than $`1/3`$ of M stars have Jupiter-like planets orbiting at $`37`$ AU (Albrow et al. 2001).

The planets discovered by the radial velocity technique are not open to further direct study, due to their close proximity to the much brighter parent star. The only exception to this is the transiting companion to HD209458 ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}3.5`$ days). Transit photometry shows this planet is a gas-giant, and Charbonneau et al. (2002) have recently detected sodium in its atmosphere. Still, the planet itself cannot be directly imaged.

Several groups have conducted imaging surveys of nearby main sequence stars to search for low mass companions, including the use of adaptive optics, coronographs and space-based observations with HST (e.g. Turner et al. 2001, Neuhäuser et al. 2001, Oppenheimer et al. 2001, Kuchner & Brown 2000, Schroeder et al. 2000). However, the extreme contrast ($``$ 20 magnitudes) and small separations (5AU$`=1\mathrm{}`$ at 5pc) between main sequence stars and Jovian planets makes sensitive surveys very difficult. To date, no planetary mass companions to nearby stars have been imaged, although several brown dwarf companions have been detected via direct imaging (e.g. Nakajima et al. 1995).

The end state of main sequence stars with M$``$8$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, white dwarfs, are typically 103–104 times less luminous than their progenitors. Thus, there is potentially a strong gain in the brightness contrast between a planet and a white dwarf when compared to a main sequence star, assuming that planets can survive the late stages of stellar evolution. The gain in contrast is strongest in the mid-infrared, where the planet’s thermal emission peaks well into the white dwarf’s Rayleigh-Jeans tail.

Indeed, Ignace (2001) has suggested that excess infra-red emission could be detectable from a hot Jupiter orbiting a 10,000K white dwarf at a distance of $`10^3`$ white dwarf radii and with an orbital period of $`10`$ days. Chu et al. (2001) have also suggested that, near a hot UV-bright white dwarf, the atmosphere of a Jovian planet would be photoionized and emit variable hydrogen recombination lines, which may be detected by high-dispersion spectroscopic observations. However, both these methods rely on the planet being in a close (0.01–2AU) proximity to the white dwarf, where it would be difficult to resolve.

In this letter, we discuss the potential for imaging planetary companions in wide ($`>`$5AU) orbits around nearby white dwarfs. In section 2 we investigate the probability of a planetary system surviving the late stages of stellar evolution. We discuss the detectability of any surviving planets in section 3, suggest suitable target white dwarfs in section 4, and discuss the expected frequency of wide planetary companions to white dwarfs in section 5.

## 2 Planetary systems in the post-main sequence phase

Any planetary companion to a white dwarf must have survived the red giant branch (RGB) and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phases of stellar evolution. During these stages, the white dwarf progenitor swells up to a few hundred solar radii in size and undergoes significant mass loss. What happens to a planet during this time depends on the initial orbital separation, the stellar mass loss rate, the total mass lost, tidal forces, and interaction with the ejected material.

Any planet in an initial orbit within the final extent of the red giant’s envelope will be engulfed and migrate inwards. Livio & Soker (1984) showed that these planets will either completely evaporate or accrete mass and become a close companion to the eventual white dwarf.

Planets in wider orbits that avoid direct contact with the expanding red giant envelope (such as the Jovian planets of our own solar system) will have a greater chance of survival, migrating outward as mass is lost from the central star. However, stars more massive than the Sun lose more than half of their original mass in evolving to the white dwarf stage (Weidemann 1987, Wood 1992). If over half the mass of the central star is lost instantaneously then any accompanying planets will likely escape, since their orbital velocity will suddenly exceed the escape velocity of the system. Thus, we might naively expect no white dwarfs to retain planetary systems.

Of course, in reality, main sequence stars of M$``$8.0$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ do not evolve into white dwarfs instantaneously. Mass loss on the RGB and AGB, and final ejection of the planetary nebula is a relatively slow process. The Sun, for example, will lose around $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ on the RGB in $``$ 106 years, and up to another $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ on the AGB on a timescale of up to $``$ 105 years. The final thermal pulse, in which the cool red giant develops a super-wind and finally ejects the remainder of its envelope, exposing the core, is poorly understood but probably occurs on a timescale of a few $`\times `$ 104 years (Soker 1994).

The dynamical timescale for a planet to react to the change in the mass of the central star, and thus the gravitational force between the star and planet, is given by;

$$t_{dyn}\frac{a}{v_{orb}}$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the semi-major axis of the orbit and $`v_{orb}`$ is the orbital velocity, and;

$$v_{orb}=\sqrt{\frac{\text{G}(M_1+M_2)}{a}}$$
(2)
where $`M_1`$ is the mass of the central star and $`M_2`$ is the mass of the planet. Assuming $`M_1>>M_2`$;

$$t_{dyn}14\text{yr}\left(\frac{a}{20\text{AU}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{M_1}{\text{M}_{}}\right)^{1/2}$$
(3)
This is much less than the mass loss timescales mentioned above. Even if a $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star lost its entire envelope ($`1.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$) during a short PN phase of $`10^3`$ years (which it doesn’t, only the last few tenths of a solar mass), the orbit would not become unbound. Thus, to a first approximation, the orbits of planets which do not interact directly with the red giant will simply expand adiabatically by a maximum factor MMS/MWD (Jeans 1924, Zuckerman & Becklin 1987). For example, for a main sequence star $``$ 2$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a white dwarf $``$ 0.6$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the orbit would expand by a maximum factor $``$ 3. A planet in a Jupiter-like orbit would be relocated to $``$ 15 AU, and a planet in a Neptune-like orbit to $``$ 90 AU.

For planets in orbits $``$10 AU, tidal forces between the planet and red giant are important in slowing orbital migration by transfering angular momentum from the orbit to stellar rotation. For example, Soker (1994) shows that, neglecting tidal forces, as the Sun evolves to a white dwarf Jupiter’s orbital radius will expand from its present value of $`a=1118R_{}`$ to $`a=1860R_{}`$. However, tidal forces on the RGB will counteract this expansion, reducing this final orbital radius by $`3`$%, and by a further $`14`$% on the upper AGB. For planets within 5 AU, Livio & Soker (1983) showed that tidal interactions will actually cause them to migrate inwards. Soker (1996) suggests that tidal interactions between evolving red giants and low mass companions could be responsible for producing the large fraction of elliptical PN observed, indicating low mass companions may be common amoung PN progenitors.

The orbits of distant planets will also be subjected to drag resulting from their interaction with the material ejected by the central star. Duncan & Lissauer (1998) define the total amount of material impacting a planet during post-main sequence evolution as;

$`M_{\text{hit}}(\text{M}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_p^2}{12a^2}}\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{WD}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)^3\right]`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{v_{sw}^2+v_{orb}^2}{v_{sw}^2}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{esc}^2}{v_{sw}^2+v_{orb}^2}}\right)`$
where $`v_{sw}`$, $`v_{orb}`$ and $`v_{esc}`$ are the velocities of the stellar wind, the planet and the escape velocity of the planet respectively, and $`R_p`$ is the radius of the planet’s magnetosphere. Evaluation of this equation, however, shows that gas giants will collide with significantly less than 1% of their own mass over the entire red giant phase. The orbits will decay inwards only slightly as a result.

Duncan & Lissauer (1998) have made detailed simulations of the effects of post-main sequence mass loss on the stability of the solar system and for planetary systems around more massive stars. They show that the orbits of the giant planets will probably be stable for tens of billions of years subsequent to the Sun’s death. However, planetary systems dynamically similar to our own around somewhat more massive stars may eventually be de-stabilised. Duncan & Lissauer’s calculations show that giant planets around, for instance, an initially $`4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star, will be liberated by large-scale chaos in less than a Hubble time.

Finally, Soker (1999) points out that the newborn planetary nebula central star is hot (T$`{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}>100,000`$K) and a strong source of ionizing soft x-ray and UV radiation. The interaction of this radiation with a planet may lead to ablation of the planetary atmosphere, but this will only be effective for planets having an escape velocity $`v_{esc}<c_s`$, where $`c_s=15`$ km s-1 is the sound speed of the ionised planetary material. For a Jupiter-mass planet $`v_{esc}=61`$ km s-1 and thus there will be negligible ablation.

It seems likely, then, that giant planets in initially distant (a$`>`$5AU) orbits around main sequence stars $`18\mathrm{M}_{}`$ will survive the late stages of stellar evolution, and remain in orbit around the remnant white dwarfs at increased orbital radii for at least several billion years.

## 3 Detecting planets around nearby white dwarfs

Our ability to detect an extra-solar planet around a nearby white dwarf will depend on its intrinsic luminosity, which in turn depends on its age, its distance from us, and its separation from the parent star.

### 3.1 Luminosities of extra-solar planets

Burrows et al. (1997) have made nongray calculations of the expected spectra, colours and evolution of solar-metallicity massive planets. We have used these models to predict the infra-red magnitudes of planets around nearby white dwarfs. The Burrows et al. models describe the evolution of a planet in isolation, and do not include the effects of thermal insolation by, or reflected light from, a parent star. In reality, gas-giant planets will have been kept warm throughout their lives by the white dwarf progenitors. They will also have accreted matter during the RGB/AGB/PN phases. Both effects would act to increase their temperatures and luminosities, although in the white dwarf phase reflected light makes a negligible contribution to the planet’s brightness. Our predicted luminosities are, therefore, lower limits.

### 3.2 The ages of white dwarfs

The white dwarf cooling age and progenitor main sequence lifetime are the dominant timescales determining the brightness of any planetary companions, as they are significantly longer than the RGB or pre-main sequence phases.

White dwarf cooling ages are dependent on a number of parameters including: effective temperature, mass (usually derived from the surface gravity), composition of the core and the thickness of the surface H- (or He-) dominated atmosphere. Temperature, surface gravity and atmospheric composition are usually determined through fitting model atmospheres to optical and UV spectra (e.g. Bergeron, Saffer & Liebert 1992, Marsh et al. 1997, Finley, Koester & Basri 1997). The mass is then inferred from the surface gravity measurement using evolutionary models (e.g. Wood 1992, 1995). These same models also give the cooling age. The cooling ages and masses of many nearby white dwarfs have been calculated in this manner by Bergeron, Leggett & Ruiz (2001, BLR). For nearby white dwarfs not included in the BLR sample (generally, those hotter than $`10,000`$ K), we have estimated cooling ages from published temperature and mass measurements.

The relationship between the mass of a white dwarf and its main sequence progenitor, the initial-final mass relation, has been investigated by a variety of authors. We have adopted model A from Wood (1992):

$$\text{M}_{\text{MS}}=10.4\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\left(\text{M}_{\text{WD}}/\mathrm{M}_{}\right)}{0.49}\right]\mathrm{M}_{}$$
(4)
Wood (1992) also gives a simple formula for estimating main sequence lifetimes:

$$\mathrm{t}_{\text{MS}}=10\left(\frac{\text{M}_{\text{MS}}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{2.5}\text{Gyr}$$
(5)
The white dwarf cooling age and the main sequence lifetime can then be combined to give the system age of local white dwarfs. We use this age, combined with the distance to the white dwarf, to estimate the magnitude of planets.

## 4 Suitable targets among nearby white dwarfs

There are 118 white dwarfs currently catalogued within 20pc of the Sun (Holberg et al. 2001). All of these systems are close enough to allow us to resolve planetary companions in $``$ 5–100 AU orbits from the ground. For example, at 10 pc an orbit of 10 AU is equivalent to a maximum separation of $`1\mathrm{}`$ on the sky. Planets in wider orbits will be even easier to resolve. Adaptive optics, coronographs and techniques such as nulling interferometry will increase the chances of resolving closer companions.

However, only those white dwarfs young enough for Jovian companions to still be detectable will make suitable targets for extra-solar planet searches. We are most likely to be able to detect an extra-solar planet around a relatively warm and young ($`<`$a few $`\times 10^8`$ yrs), massive ($`>`$0.6$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) white dwarf descended from a relatively massive progenitor ($`>`$2$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$), since its main sequence lifetime is short ($`<`$1.8 Gyr). For $`\mathrm{M}_{\text{WD}}`$$`<`$0.6$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the main sequence lifetime is very sensitive to errors in the $`\mathrm{M}_{\text{WD}}`$ estimate (see Figure 1). Therefore, we would be unwise to rule out white dwarfs with mass estimates below 0.6$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, as they may be descended from more massive stars than we expect.

Table 1 lists the top 10 candidates among nearby white dwarfs for a search for planetary companions, considering the main sequence lifetime $`\mathrm{t}_{\text{MS}}`$, the white dwarf cooling age t$`_{\text{COOL}}`$ and the distance. Also included in the table are the estimated J band magnitude of 3, 5, & 10$`\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ planets in each system.

In Figure 2 we plot the magnitude of a 5$`\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ planet around these white dwarfs in several near-IR bands (J,H,K,L & M). Also plotted are the nominal sensitivity limits for current near-infrared imaging instruments (from on-line exposure time estimates); Gemini-North $`+`$ NIRI (solid lines) and VLT $`+`$ ISAAC (dashed lines). We can see that although the planets are brighter in the M band (5$`\mu `$m), the instruments are only sensitive enough in the J and H bands (1.1 & 1.6$`\mu `$m).

## 5 The expected frequency of planets in wide orbits around white dwarfs

Assuming that massive planets born in initially wide ($`>5`$ AU) orbits remain bound to white dwarfs, then the expected frequency of massive planets around nearby white dwarfs is simply a function of the frequency of solar-like and more massive main sequence stars with Jovian-like planetary systems. Unfortunately, we currently have little observational information on these systems, although it is possible to extrapolate from existing data to make some estimate of what we might expect. Lineweaver & Grether (2002, LG) have analysed the statistics of planets detected via radial velocity techniques, and estimated the number of Jovian-like systems we might expect to find. They have produced a fit to the completeness-correct period distribution of planets so far detected, in the mass range $`0.84\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}<M\mathrm{sin}i<`$13$`\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$;

$$\frac{\text{d}N}{\text{d}\mathrm{log}P}=a\mathrm{log}P+b$$
(6)
where $`a=12\pm 3`$ and $`b=9\pm 2`$. The initial orbital periods of interest range from $``$ 10 yr, to avoid direct interaction with the expanding red giant envelope, to $``$ 200 yr, where we might expect Jovian planet formation to end. Integrating equation 6 over this range, we estimate there to be $``$55$`\pm `$16 Jovian planets per $``$1000 white dwarf systems. However, for a significant sample of nearby white dwarfs we can only detect planets $`>5\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ with current technology. LG fit the observed planetary mass function as;

$$\frac{\text{d}N}{\text{d}\mathrm{log}(M\mathrm{sin}i)}=a\mathrm{log}(M\mathrm{sin}i)+b$$
(7)
where $`a=24\pm `$4. To produce 55$`\pm `$16 planets over the mass range $`0.84\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}<M\mathrm{sin}i<13\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ we need to set $`b=58.4\pm 19.7`$. Therefore, from equation 7, we expect $``$15$`\pm `$6 planets $`>5\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ per 1000 white dwarfs. Hence, we may expect $``$1–2% of white dwarfs to possess one or more planets $`>5\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$. Note that we treat $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$ as equivalent to $`M`$, so this predicted number density is a lower limit.

This analysis is, however, based on statistics for planets in orbits $``$ 3.5 AU. It is quite possible that laws derived for planets in this area of orbital parameter space around $``$1$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ stars do not apply to Jovian planets at large radii ($`>`$5 AU) around more massive stars ($`28\mathrm{M}_{}`$).

## 6 Discussion

We have suggested that Jovian planets will survive the late stages of stellar evolution, and that some nearby white dwarfs possess planetary systems in wide orbits. Utilising evolutionary models for Jovian planets, we have shown that infra-red imaging of suitable nearby white dwarfs should allow us to resolve and detect companions M$`>`$3$`\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ with 8m class telescopes. The best candidates for an observational search are relatively hot (young), massive ($`>0.6\mathrm{M}_{}`$) white dwarfs, as they have the shortest overall system age. However, given that we have neglected potential heating mechanisms such as thermal insolation and accretion from the red giant’s wind, Jovian planets around nearby white dwarfs are likely to be brighter than we have suggested in Figure 2, and may be detectable around $`0.55\mathrm{M}_{}`$ white dwarfs descended from progenitors as low in mass as $`1.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

Our “top ten” list of targets among nearby white dwarfs (Table 1) includes degenerates descended from main sequence progenitors from 2.6$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ $``$ 7.4$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, corresponding to spectral types early A and B. The existence of a dust disk around Vega (A0V) strongly suggests that planetary systems may exist around such early-type stars, although they are not the subject of current radial velocity searches.

Detection of massive planetary companions to nearby white dwarfs would prove that such objects can survive the final stages of stellar evolution, place constraints on the frequency of main sequence stars with planetary systems dynamically similar to our own, and allow direct spectroscopic investigation of their composition and structure.

An unsuccessful search would suggest one of, or a combination of, a number of scenarios, including: (a) that planets $`>3\mathrm{M}_{\text{JUP}}`$ are fainter than expected from the evolutionary models we have used; (b) that, at least for a sub-sample of targets, any accompanying planets have too small a projected separation from the white dwarf to be resolved; (c) that massive Jupiters in wide orbits around 1–8$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ main sequence stars are not common; (d) that these planets do not remain bound to white dwarfs. This last scenario would raise the possibilty that the Galaxy contains a population of isolated Jovian-mass planets ejected by white dwarfs during the final stages of their evolution.

## 7 Acknowledgements

MRB, FJC and STH acknowledge the support of PPARC, UK. We would like to thank Eduardo Martin for an illuminating discussion, and James Murray and Andrew King for comments concerning orbital evolution.


text:
# Method of approximation for potentials in impenetrable boxes: Harmonic Oscillator and Coulomb potentials.

## 1 Harmonic Oscillator in a one dimensional box

We start by treating the harmonic oscillator in a box, similarly to the treatment given to the quasi-exactly solvable potentials -, which did lead us to obtain analytically approximated solutions for the eigenvalues of anharmonic oscillators under usual boundary conditions .

Remembering that the general solution for the harmonic oscillator is given by something like

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n\left(x\right)=P_n\left(x\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha x^2\right),$$
(1)
where Pn(x), in principle, is a polynomial of infinite degree (the parabolic cylindrical functions), which however is taken finite (Hermite polynomials) in the case of boundary conditions at the infinity, in order to get a convergent function. Here however, the exponential does not guarantees that the wavefunction vanishes at the walls of the interval, so that this condition determines the energy spectrum. Notwithstanding, when we do insist to using finite polynomials, which are nothing but the known Hermite ones, whose energy is well defined and given by E$`{}_{n}{}^{}=\left[\mathrm{}\omega (n+\frac{1}{2})\right]`$, we get an equation for the oscillator frequency which, once solved, give us those frequencies which generate polynomials whose zeroes are at the walls of the box. At this point it is important to stress the similarity of this problem with that of the so called quasi-exactly solvable potentials, in the sense that in this case only for some specific frequencies the eigenfunction will be elementary or, in other words, it is represented by a finite polynomial, the Hermite ones, times an usual exponentially decaying factor. Once one gets those frequencies, one must to substitute them on the above expression for the energy, so obtaining the corresponding exact energy for the harmonic oscillator in a box.

In order to obtain the frequency and the energy for an oscillator in a box whose walls are at -a/2 and a/2, by applying the idea which was outlined above, we use the condition

$$H_n\left(\pm \frac{a}{2}\right)=0,$$
(2)
so that $`H_0(x)=1`$, does not give us any solution, the polynomial $`H_2\left(\pm \frac{a}{2}\right)`$ generates one solution, $`H_4\left(\pm \frac{a}{2}\right)`$ two solutions, so for and so on. To be more precise, let us exemplify with case of $`H_2\left(\pm \frac{a}{2}\right)`$. In this case the equation which implies that the wavefunction vanishes at the boundary is given by

$$H_2\left(\pm \frac{a}{2}\right)=a_0\left(2+4\xi \right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(3)
where $`\xi =\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{\mathrm{}}}`$. Remembering that in this case $`E_2=\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{}\omega `$, one gets finally:

$$\omega =\frac{2\mathrm{}}{ma^2},E=5\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{ma^2}.$$
(4)
As can be easily verified, the wavefunction of the harmonic oscillator for the above frequency and energy vanishes at the boundaries, not presenting any nodes between the walls. So it corresponds to the ground state of the oscillator in a box with impenetrable walls. Now, if one takes the following even case of $`H_4\left(\pm \frac{a}{2}\right)`$, it is straightforward to show that there are now two possible solutions of 2, respectively corresponding to the ground state and the second excited one, so for and so on. Analogously a similar structure appears in the odd cases. The first solution of each polynomial always corresponds to the first excited state, the second to the third excited state, etc…

However, before to do such a calculation, we take profit of a scaling symmetry of this kind of problem in order to simplify it. In doing so, we show that this problem has only one independent variable for the energy dependence. By choosing $`x=\frac{a}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega _a}}y`$, and redefining the frequency and the energy conveniently, one gets

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\psi }{dy^2}+\frac{1}{2}\omega _a^2y^2\psi =E_a\psi ,$$
(5)
where the new variables in terms of the old ones look like

$$\omega _a=\frac{m}{\mathrm{}}\frac{a^2}{4}\omega ,E_a=\frac{ma^2}{4\mathrm{}^2}E,$$
(6)
and now we need to find the zeros of $`\psi `$ such that $`\psi \left(\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. The resulting solution will be valid for arbitrary values of the box length and its frequency. In this way, by solving a sufficiently great number of polynomials, we can plot the energy as a function of the frequency for each one of the energy levels, and then try to get a functional relation between these several levels. So obtaining an approximate analytical expression for the dependence on the frequency, the length of the box and the quantum number.

At this point, in order to help our quest for a suitable analytical expression for the energy, we remember that in the limit of zero frequency one recalls the free particle in a box. On the other hand, when the length of the box goes to infinity, one should recover the well known harmonic oscillator spectra. Finally for great values of the principal quantum number, once again the energy becomes close to that of a free particle in a box. As a consequence of these physical constraints, we write the expression for the energy as

$$=\left(\frac{2ma^2}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}\right)E=n^2+k\omega _a+g\left(\omega _a\right),$$
(7)
where

$$k=\frac{8}{\pi ^2}\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right),n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}$$
(8)
and the function $`g\left(\omega _a\right)`$ should have the following appropriate limits

$$g\left(\omega _a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},g\left(\omega _a\mathrm{}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(9)
Furthermore, one should also have this function going to zero when $`n`$ increases or at most growing more slowly than $`n^2`$. Using this hypothesis as a guide we try the following form for $`g_n\left(\omega _a\right)`$:

$$g_n\left(\omega _a\right)=c_0\left(n\right)\omega _ae^{_{j=1}^Jc_j\left(n\right)\omega _a^j}.$$
(10)
After performing the necessary calculations we verify that indeed, this function has the expected behavior supposed above. Besides, by obtaining the roots of Hermite polynomials up to two hundred degree, we did find an approximated expression for the coefficients $`c_j\left(n\right)`$, taking $`J=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, whose expressions are given below:

$$c_0\left(n\right)=\frac{1}{\left(0.405231+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.810579}n\right)},$$
(11)
$$c_1\left(n\right)=\frac{0.0104832}{n}\frac{0.00588616}{n^2}\frac{0.00187449}{n^3},$$
(12)
$$c_2\left(n\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^6\left[1.24+1.35\mathrm{cos}h\left(0.1762n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.12}\right)\right]^1,n>1,$$
(13)
$$c_3\left(n\right)=10^8\left[2.5+2.6\mathrm{cos}h\left(0.086n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.278}\right)\right]^1,n>3,$$
(14)
Note that for the last two coefficients, the first elements were separated in order to getting better fittings. In these cases one have

$$c_2\left(1\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.70973\hspace{0.17em}10}^6,$$

$$c_3\left(1\right)=\mathrm{1.54146\hspace{0.17em}10}^6,c_3\left(2\right)=\mathrm{8.78283\hspace{0.17em}10}^7,c_3\left(3\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.56951\hspace{0.17em}10}^8.$$
(15)
Note that, in fact, the coefficients really approaches to zero for larger values of $`n`$. These calculations were performed for $`n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$, so that for higher values of $`n`$, one must extrapolate it, but it should be expected good results due to the behavior of $`g_n\left(\omega _a\right)`$ when $`n`$ becomes greater and greater.

The comparison of the energy coming from the above analytical approximation with pure numerical values, in the case of the range of frequencies considered, shows that the error was always less than $`0.07\%`$ along the range of the parameters verified which due to technique reasons, depend of the energy level studied and grows for higher quantum numbers, below we present a Table with the corresponding ranges and their respective maximum percentual errors for the first twenty levels.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}n\hfill & \omega _{a_{\mathrm{max}}}\hfill & \delta \%_{\mathrm{max}}\hfill & n\hfill & \omega _{a_{\mathrm{max}}}\hfill & \delta \%_{\mathrm{max}}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 2.0\hfill & 9.0\times 10^5\hfill & 11\hfill & 60.5\hfill & 0.018\hfill \\ 2\hfill & 6.0\hfill & 0.072\hfill & 12\hfill & 67.3\hfill & 0.018\hfill \\ 3\hfill & 10.9\hfill & 9.1\times 10^3\hfill & 13\hfill & 74.1\hfill & 0.017\hfill \\ 4\hfill & 16.3\hfill & 0.02\hfill & 14\hfill & 81\hfill & 0.017\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 22.1\hfill & 0.016\hfill & 15\hfill & 87.9\hfill & 0.016\hfill \\ 6\hfill & 28.1\hfill & 9.3\times 10^5\hfill & 16\hfill & 94.9\hfill & 0.016\hfill \\ 7\hfill & 34.4\hfill & 0.012\hfill & 17\hfill & 101.9\hfill & 0.015\hfill \\ 8\hfill & 40.8\hfill & 0.017\hfill & 18\hfill & 109\hfill & 0.013\hfill \\ 9\hfill & 47.2\hfill & 0.019\hfill & 19\hfill & 116.1\hfill & 0.016\hfill \\ 10\hfill & 53.8\hfill & 0.019\hfill & 20\hfill & 123.2\hfill & 8.9\times 10^3\hfill \end{array}$$

It is interesting to stress that the type of energy expression obtained here, can be used to study the appearing of quantum chaos in the cases of anharmonic systems , . This happens because one can use the energy expressions coming from this approach in order to get the number of levels for a given range of energy and the corresponding related parameters, used to discuss the appearing of the quantum chaos.

## 2
Coulomb Potential in a sphere

In this section we work with the more mathematically involved case of the Coulomb potential in a sphere of radius $`a.`$ Notwithstanding, the basic program to be followed is the same of the previous section. Once again the general solution for the radial wavefunction of this problem is of the kind

$$R(x)=R_n^{}(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu \alpha r}{\mathrm{}^2n}\right)$$
(16)
where V(r) = -$`\alpha /r`$, and $`n`$ is the principal quantum number. This polynomial will be of infinity degree, unless that we impose that the wavefunction vanishes at the infinity, in which case the polynomial degree is finite, one gets the generalized Laguerre polynomials. However, as in the previous section, despite we are treating a case with finite boundary conditions for which it has in general an infinity number of terms, we will insist in using a finite polynomial in order to generate simple exact solutions, remembering that the price to be paid is that consequently, the energy is established and given by $`E_n=\mu \alpha ^2/\left(2\mathrm{}n\right)`$. As a consequence the constant $`\alpha `$ will be chosen in a manner to guarantee the vanishing of the wavefunction at the sphere surface. After that we substitute the so obtained constant in the above expression for the energy, getting the corresponding energy for the system.

Starting from the radial Schroedinger equation, once that the angular part of it is unchanged due to the fact that the boundary condition preserves the spherical symmetry :

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{1}{r}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\left[r\left(R\left(r\right)\right)\right]+\left[\frac{l\left(l+1\right)}{2\mu r^2}\mathrm{}^2+V\left(r\right)\right]R\left(r\right)=ER\left(r\right)$$
(17)
with $`V(r)=\frac{e^2}{r}`$. Defining $`R(r)=\frac{u\left(r\right)}{r}`$, we have

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{l\left(l+1\right)}{2\mu r^2}\mathrm{}^2+V\left(r\right)\right]u\left(r\right)=Eu\left(r\right).$$
(18)
Redefining the radial variable as $`\rho =\frac{\mu e^2}{\mathrm{}^2}r`$ and then substituting it in the previous equation one gets

$$\left[C\left[\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{l\left(l+1\right)}{\rho ^2}\frac{2}{\rho }\right]E\right]v\left(\rho \right)=0$$
(19)
where $`C=\frac{\mu e^4}{2\mathrm{}^2}`$. By choosing the ansatz u$`\left(\rho \right)=v\left(\rho \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(ar\right)`$ one obtains

$$\left[C\left[\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+2a\frac{d}{d\rho }a^2+\frac{l\left(l+1\right)}{\rho ^2}\frac{2}{\rho }\right]E\right]v\left(\rho \right)=0.$$
(20)
By choosing $`v\left(\rho \right)=\rho ^{l+1}_0^nb_n\rho ^n`$ and performing the identification $`E=Ca^2,`$ we get the following recurrence relation

$$b_{n+1}=\frac{2\left(1a\left(n+l+1\right)\right)}{l(l+1)(n+l+2)(n+l+1)}b_n.$$
(21)
Taking into account the boundary conditions at the infinity, we can truncate the series at $`b_N`$ ($`N`$, integer), getting $`b_{N+1}=0`$, so obtaining

$$a=\frac{1}{N+l+1},$$

and as $`E=Ca^2`$, one gets the usual expression for the eigenenergies in such boundary conditions

$$E_N=\frac{C}{(N+l+1)^2}=\frac{\mu e^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{n^2}.$$
(22)
We can still use the recurrence relation in order to obtain an expression for the generic coefficient $`b_n`$ in terms of $`b_0`$. In doing so we get

$$\frac{b_n}{b_0}=\underset{j=l}{\overset{n}{}}\left\{\frac{2\left[a\left(j+l\right)1\right]}{j(j+2l+1)}\right\}.$$
(23)
As in the case of boundary condition at a finite radius, the series does not truncate and so we must to work with the infinite polynomial generated from the above coefficients. This polynomial will be analogous to the Parabolic Cylinder function which appeared in the case of the harmonic oscillator, as treated in the last section.

On the other hand the equation for $`R(r)`$, can be written in terms of the Laguerre polynomial

$$R(r)=r^l\mathrm{exp}\left(kr\right)L_{nl1}^{2l+1}\left(2kr\right),$$
(24)
where $`k=\sqrt{\frac{2\mu E}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$. Imposing that $`R(r=r_0)=0`$, we get

$$L_{nl1}^{2l+1}\left(\frac{2\mu e^2r_0}{\mathrm{}^2n}\right)=L_{nl1}^{2l+1}\left(\frac{g}{n}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(25)
with $`g=\frac{2\mu e^2r_0}{\mathrm{}^2}`$. In absolute analogy with the case of the harmonic oscillator, in this case we must to substitute the values of $`g`$ coming from the above equation in that of the energy of the Coulomb potential,

$$E_{n,l}=\frac{\mu e^4}{2\mathrm{}^2n^2}=\frac{g_{n,l}^2\text{ }h^2}{8n^2\mu r_0^2}.$$
(26)
Now, by using the recurrence relation and imposing that the polynomial be finite, one obtains as expected the usual generalized Laguerre polynomials. In this case, the first solution coming from the equation 25 for each polynomial will give us the ground state energy, each second solution generates the first excited state, so for so on. Consequently we used the Mathematica software in order to perform this calculation in a systematic way. This was done for the first nine energy levels, using one hundred degree polynomials. For each energy level, we plotted the exact energies coming from the solutions described above as a function of the parameter $`g`$, and fitted it with a polynomial of the third degree given by

$$E_{n,l}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{3}{}}C_m^{(n,l)}g^m$$
(27)
where the coefficients $`C_m^{(n,l)}`$ are presented in the Table 1.

| n,l$`\backslash `$m | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1,0 | -1.00421 | 0.502846 | 0.0152158 | 0.00487229 |
| 2,0 | -4.50591 | 0.918442 | 0.0402514 | 0.00162719 |
| 2,1 | -2.05892 | 0.384483 | 0.00167988 | 0.000448289 |
| 3,0 | -9.69984 | 0.938899 | -0.0182804 | 0.000282908 |

The energy expression coming from the use of the above parameters is in good accordance with the exact numerical data and, as happened in the harmonic oscillator case, does have a increasing range of validity with the increasing of the principal quantum number, as can be seen in the Table below. In these ranges, the error is quite small, about $`10^2\%`$.

| n,l | gmax | gmin | $`\delta \%_{\mathrm{max}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1,0 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 4.7$`\times `$10-5 |
| 2,0 | 7.1 | 6.15 | 4.3$`\times 10^3`$ |
| 2,1 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 6.2$`\times 10^4`$ |
| 3,0 | 15.5 | 12.9 | 9.4$`\times 10^3`$ |

By analyzing the data, one can verify that the range was limited by the maximum polynomial used (in this case we used polynomials of degree 100). So, in order to increase the precision and the range of validity, one should use higher degrees for the Laguerre polynomials.

One interesting feature observed was that, in this case the energy is no more degenerate in the angular momentum quantum number, in contrast with the usual boundary condition at the infinite. So indicating the broke of some symmetry of the system. As the spherical symmetry was preserved by the boundary condition used, we must to look for another broken symmetry to be responsible for this behavior. In fact, the symmetry related to the conservation of the Runge-Lenz vector is that one. This can be argued by remembering that classically is associated to fact that the eccentricity of the elliptical orbits does not alter their energy. However in a finite sphere some of those will not be allowed. From the point of view of a geometric transformation, one can use the fact that the commutator of the Runge-Lenz vector with the radial coordinate, will generate a change in this coordinate such as

$$r^{}=r+\{r,\alpha .E\},\{r,\alpha .𝐄\}=\frac{1}{km}\frac{\left(𝐫xL\right)}{r}.\alpha ,$$
(28)
where $`𝐄`$ and $`\alpha `$ are respectively the Runge-Lenz vector and the infinitesimal vectorial parameter of this symmetry transformation. From above one can conclude that when one is close to the frontier, the transformation could led it to beyond it, and this is not allowed by the boundary condition. Consequently this symmetry is now broken at the quantum level. It is interesting to observe that technically the Runge-Lenz operator and the Hamiltonian of the system is still commuting but, now due to the boundary conditions, the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian of this complete set of commuting operators is not shared with those of the Runge-Lenz operator. It is interesting to note that this is a generic property of this kind of system.

On the other hand it is not difficult to extend this approach in order to take care of other situations like, for instance, the case of finite walls, symmetric and antisymmetric boundary conditions, which can represent other kind of physical systems. Finally it should be interesting to study the applicability of this approach to systems with time-dependent boundary conditions -.

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to FAPESP and CNPq for partial financial support.


text:
# Electron-phonon scattering at the intersection of two Landau levels

## I INTRODUCTION

The acoustic phonon scattering of electrons in two-dimensional (2D) systems in quantizing magnetic fields has been extensively studied for the last three decades. The peculiar density of states of the 2D electrons in a transversal magnetic field $`B`$ produces a suppresion of the electron-phonon stattering rate at strong magnetic fields , at which the so called inelasticity parameter $`\eta =s/\lambda \omega _c`$ is less than unity, here $`s`$ is the sound velocity, $`\lambda =\sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$ is the magnetic length, and $`\omega _c=eB/m`$ is the cyclotron frequency. A detailed analysis of the acoustic phonon emission and absorption spectra in 2D electron systems has been carried out in connection with developing a phonon absorption spectroscopy , which is used to investigate the states of electronic matter in both integer and fractional quantum Hall effects. It was also noticed that, at a certain stage of supression of the one-phonon inter-Landau-level transition, the two-phonon transition dominates the electron relaxation rate . However, in a two-subband system, the electron relaxation rate can still be due to the one-phonon transitions occurring between Landau levels of different size-quantization subbands. An oscillatory behavior of the electron lifetime was found in a two-subband system .

In this paper we focus on an intersection of two Landau levels belonging to different size-quantization subbands of a two-dimensional electron gas in a transversal magnetic field $`B`$ (see Fig. 1). The electron density is chosen so that there are enough electrons to fill only one Landau level out of the two at the intersection point. Despite the general suppression due to small $`\eta `$, we find that, at an energy separation between the two Landau levels of the order of the characteristic acoustic-phonon energy $`T_\lambda =\mathrm{}s/\lambda `$, the electron-phonon scattering is significantly enhanced. In what follows, we neglect the effects related to the Coulomb interaction between the electrons. These effects change significantly the results at low temperatures . The virtue of the considered structure, from the point of view of electron-phonon scattering, is that an enhancement of the dissipative conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ arises on the background of its strong overall suppression. This enhancement can be understood from the following physical consideration.

At the intersection of two Landau levels, say level $`\mathrm{}=0`$ of the upper subband and level $`\mathrm{}=1`$ of the lower subband, the matrix element of the electron-phonon interaction requires a phonon momentum $`q1/\lambda `$ for the most efficient transition. Note that two Landau levels can be intersected at a magnitude of $`B`$ corresponding to $`\lambda a`$, where $`a`$ is the characteristic width of the quantum well confining the two-dimensional electron gas. This results in $`q_zq_{}1/\lambda `$, where $`q_z`$ and $`q_{}`$ are the perpendicular and in-plane components of the phonon momentum, respectively. On the other hand, the energy conservation law requires that the phonon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _𝐪`$ matches the energy separation between the two Landau levels $`\mathrm{\Omega }=|_{\mathrm{}=0}_{\mathrm{}=1}|`$. For acoustic phonons, we have $`\omega _𝐪=sq`$, and if combined with the momentum requirement, two resonances are obtained, one on each side of the crossing point, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}s/\lambda T_\lambda `$. At each resonance the electron-phonon scattering is significantly enhanced, owing to the one-phonon transitions.

It is worth noting that a simultaneous intersection of two Landau levels with the Fermi level leads to a missing quantum Hall effect plateau as expected from a single-subband consideration. Such intersections occur repeatedly with decreasing $`B`$, if the electron density per spin orientation $`n_{2D}=n_c(1+(2p1)/q)`$, where $`p`$, $`q`$ are natural numbers, and $`n_c=mE_{12}/2\pi \mathrm{}^2`$, with $`E_{12}`$ being the energy separation between the two size-quantization subbands. However, if the Coulomb interaction between the electrons is taken into account, a new energy gap emerges at the intersection point .

An enhancement of the electron scattering in a two-subband system occurs also at zero magnetic field, when the second size-quantization subband starts being filled with electrons. This effect can be viewed in terms of a Lifshitz topological transition of the Fermi surface, which is well known for the 3D case . The 2D case of this transition was considered in Ref. , where the electron scattering occured on a random potential of impurities. At $`B0`$, one can hardly speak of a Fermi surface. However, we refer the peculiar behaviour of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ in our case to the same origin – a strong variation in the density of states at the Fermi level. The case considered in this paper has the advantage of more pronunced anomalies.

An experimental realization of the above described situation can be acheived in GaAs/AlGaAs heterojunctions. Usually, the donor supply of the electrons into the 2D layer is not sufficient to achieve filling of the second size-quantization subband. However, a significant increase in the concentration can be achieved by illuminating the sample with photons of energy close to the band gap of GaAs. The photoexcited electrons come either from the DX centers in the AlGaAs layer  or from the valence band of the bulk GaAs producing a charge separation at the interface . Furthermore, the 2D electron concentration can be tuned within a large range using the method of continuous photoexcitation . Population of the second subband of size quantisation in a magnetic field has been observed in a number of experiments related to magneto-optical studies of the integer and fractional quantum Hall effects <sup>-</sup>.

In this paper we consider only scattering of electrons by phonons, although in a real 2D system the main contribution into $`\sigma _{xx}`$ at low temperatures comes from the scattering of electrons by the impurity potential. This was extensively studied in connection with the integer quantum Hall effect. However, since the electron-phonon coupling constant $`\alpha B`$, the phonon-induced $`\sigma _{xx}`$, at high enough magnetic fields, may be comparable with the impurity induced $`\sigma _{xx}`$.

## II GENERAL RELATIONS

We consider an electron gas in a quantum well, formed by a confining potential $`V(z)`$, in a strong magnetic field $`B`$ directed along the axis $`z`$. In the Landau gauge the vector potential $`𝐀=(0,xB,0)`$, and the electron can be characterised by the center of orbit coordinate $`X`$. The energy spectrum of the electron, $`_n\mathrm{}=E_n+\mathrm{}\omega _c(\mathrm{}+1/2)`$, consists of the size quantization energy $`E_n`$ and the magnetic quantization energy, described by the Landau level number $`\mathrm{}`$. The acoustic phonons, with dispersion $`\omega _{𝐪j}`$, interact with the electrons via both deformation potential (DP) and piezoelectric (PE) mechanisms. We shall restrict ourselves to the isotropic Debye approximation in which the phonon modes fall into a branch of longitudinal (LA) phonons ($`j=1`$) and two branches of transversal (TA) phonons ($`j=2,3`$). This seems to be a good approximation for phonons at thermal equilibrium, in contrast with the case of balistic phonon propagation, where the anysotropy gives rise to self-focusing effects . For GaAs, it follows that the DP mechanism couples electrons only with LA phonons. We assume that acoustic phonons are the only sourse of scattering for the electrons in the well, neglecting the effects of interface roughness and random potential of impurities, as well as the presence of optical phonon modes. This assumption is valid for fairly pure samples at temperatures below the optical phonon energy. We also suppose the acoustical phonons to be three dimentional, neglecting the effects of interface phonons. The electrons are considered spinless. The spin degeneracy can be easily accounted for at the final stage of calculation. Electron scattering by phonons is spin preserving, and the results for the conductivity will differ only by a factor of 2.

The system of interacting electron and phonon gases is described by the following second quantized Hamiltonian

$$H=H_0+H_{int},$$
(1)
with

$$H_0=\underset{n\mathrm{}X}{}_n\mathrm{}C_{n\mathrm{}X}^{}C_{n\mathrm{}X}+\underset{𝐪j}{}\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j}(b_{𝐪j}^{}b_{𝐪j}+1/2),$$
(2)
and

$$H_{int}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{𝐪jX}}{}M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})(b_{𝐪j}^{}+b_{𝐪j})C_{n^{}\mathrm{}^{}X\lambda ^2q_y}^{}C_{n\mathrm{}X}.$$
(3)
Here $`C_{n\mathrm{}X}^{}`$, $`C_{n\mathrm{}X}`$ and $`b_{𝐪j}^{}`$, $`b_{𝐪j}`$ stand for the creation and annihilation operators of the electron and phonon respectively. The matrix element of electron-phonon interaction is given by the formula

$$M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})=(e\beta _{𝐪j}iq\mathrm{\Xi }_{𝐪j})\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega _{𝐪j}\rho _cV_{3d}}}F_{nn^{}}(q_z)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}(q_{})e^{iq_x(X\lambda ^2q_y/2)+i\phi (\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})},$$
(4)
where $`q_{}=\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}`$ is the value of the in-plane component of the phonon wave vector q, and $`\phi `$ is the polar angle of $`𝐪_{}`$, counted from the $`x`$-axis. The sample volume and density are noted by $`V_{3d}`$ and $`\rho _c`$, respectively. The factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}(q_{})`$ for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}(q_{})=i^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^{}!}{\mathrm{}!}\right)^{1/2}e^{\chi ^2/2}\chi ^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}L_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}(\chi ^2),$$
(5)
$$\chi ^2=\lambda ^2q_{}^2/2,$$

where $`L_n^m(x)`$ are the associated Laguerre polynomials. For $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}(q_{})`$ is obtained from Eq. (5) by interchanging the indices $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ in the right-hand-side of (5). The parameter $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{𝐪j}`$ is introduced as follows,

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{𝐪j}=\frac{1}{2q}\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mu \nu }(q_\mu e_\nu ^{(j)}(𝐪)+q_\nu e_\mu ^{(j)}(𝐪)),$$
(6)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mu \nu }`$ being the deformation potential tensor and $`𝐞^{(j)}(𝐪)`$ the polarization vector of the $`j`$-th phonon branch. For GaAs, it reduces to $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{𝐪j}=\mathrm{\Xi }_0\delta _{j1}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Xi }_07\mathrm{eV}`$. The parameter $`\beta _{𝐪j}`$ is introduced as follows,

$$\beta _{𝐪j}=\frac{4\pi }{2q^2\kappa }\beta ^{\mu \nu \omega }q_\mu (q_\nu e_\omega ^{(j)}(𝐪)+q_\omega e_\nu ^{(j)}(𝐪)),$$
(7)
where $`\beta ^{\mu \nu \omega }`$ is the piezomodulus tensor and $`\kappa `$ is the relative permittivity of the material. In GaAs the piezomodulus tensor is completely symmetric and has only the off-diagonal components not equal to zero. The value of such a component is denoted by $`h_{14}0.14\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{m}^2`$ and is called the only piezomodulus of the crystal. The parameter $`\beta _{𝐪j}`$ thus depends only on the spatial orientation of the vector $`𝐪`$ and can be presented in the following form

$$\beta _{𝐪\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=\beta _0\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi ,$$

$$\beta _{𝐪\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\beta _0\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}2\phi ,$$
(8)
$$\beta _{𝐪\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=\beta _0\frac{1}{2}(3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi ,$$

where $`\beta _0=(4\pi /\kappa )h_{14}`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle formed by $`𝐪`$ and $`z`$-axis. The quantum well form-factor $`F_{nn^{}}(q_z)`$ is defined as

$$F_{nn^{}}(q_z)=\psi _n^{}(z)e^{iq_zz}\psi _n(z)𝑑z,$$
(9)
with $`\psi _n(z)`$ being the $`n`$-th size quantization level wave function (chosen to be real), which is completely determined by the confinding potential $`V(z)`$. Explicit expressions for $`F_{nn^{}}(z)`$ for three cases of $`V(z)`$ are given in Appendix . As a general feature, the factor $`F_{nn^{}}(z)=\delta _{nn^{}}`$ at $`q_z1/a`$, is of the order of unity at $`q_z1/a`$, and rapidly tends to zero at $`q_z1/a`$, where $`a`$ is the characteristic size measure entering V(z).

The matrix element (4) possesses the following symmetry relation

$$M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})=\left[M_{X\lambda ^2q_y}^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n\mathrm{}\\ n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\end{array})\right]^{}.$$
(10)
We calculate $`\sigma _{xx}`$ starting from Kubo’s formula for the conductivity tensor

$$\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\omega )=\frac{1}{V_{2d}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}_0^\beta 𝑑\lambda J_\nu (i\mathrm{}\lambda )J_\mu (t),$$
(11)
which gives the exact amplitude and phase of induced current in an applied electric field of frequency $`\omega `$. Here $`𝐉(t)`$ is the current operator in the Heisenberg representation, $`V_{2d}`$ is the area of the 2D plain, and $`\beta =1/T`$, with $`T`$ being the temperature measured in energy units. The average denoted by brackets in Eq. (11) is carried out in the grand canonical ensemble with the density matrix

$$\rho =\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta (H\mu N)\},$$
(12)
where $`\mu `$ is the electron chemical potential, $`N`$ is the electron number operator, and $`Z`$ is the partition function of the system of electrons and phonons.

In the case of the quantizing magnetic field, the events of electron scattering are rare if compared to the frequency of the orbital motion (cyclotron frequency). One can say that the electron orbital degree of freedom is frozen, and the electron scattering occurs between states characterised by the the center of orbit coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$ . The electron conductivity then can be deduced to the migration of the electron center of orbit . Mathematically, it results in replacing the current operator $`𝐉`$ in formula (11) by $`e\dot{𝐑}`$, where $`𝐑(X,Y)`$ is the radius-vector of the electron center of orbit, and adding an antisymmetric tensor with the $`xy`$-component equal to $`en_{2D}/B`$ to the conductivity tensor, $`n_{2D}`$ being the 2D electron density. The coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$ cannot be measured simultaneously. Their operators satisfy the commutation relation $`[X,Y]=i\lambda ^2`$. Operator $`𝐑`$ satisfies the following equation of motion,

$$\dot{𝐑}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H_{int},𝐑].$$
(13)
We shall restrict ourselves to the study of the dissipative conductivity only. For this purpose we rewrite the $`xx`$-component of Eq. (11) in an equivalent form,

$$\sigma _{xx}=\underset{\delta +0}{lim}\frac{1}{i\omega +\delta }[\varphi _{xx}(0)+_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t\delta t}\dot{\varphi }_{xx}(t)𝑑t],$$
(14)
where the response function $`\varphi _{xx}(t)`$ is given by

$$\varphi _{xx}(t)=e^2_0^\beta \dot{X}(i\mathrm{}\lambda )\dot{X}(t)𝑑\lambda ,$$
(15)
with $`\dot{X}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt/\mathrm{})\dot{X}\mathrm{exp}(iHt/\mathrm{})`$. An expression for $`\dot{X}`$ is straightforward from Eq. (13),

$$\dot{X}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{𝐪jX}}{}\lambda ^2q_yM_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})(b_{𝐪j}^{}+b_{𝐪j})C_{n^{}\mathrm{}^{}X\lambda ^2q_y}^{}C_{n\mathrm{}X}.$$
(16)
Introducing the retarded bosonic Green’s function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^R(tt^{})=i\vartheta (tt^{})[\dot{X}(t)\dot{X}(t^{})\dot{X}(t^{})\dot{X}(t)],$$
(17)
and noting that

$$\dot{\varphi }_{xx}(t)=\frac{ie^2}{\mathrm{}}[\dot{X}\dot{X}(t)\dot{X}(t)\dot{X}],$$
(18)
one can express the dissipative conductivity in the following way

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{ie^2}{\mathrm{}V_{2d}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^R(\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega 0},$$
(19)
where the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^R(t)`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^R(\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{\Pi }^R(t)𝑑t.$$
(20)
Formula (19) deduces the calculation of the dissipative conductivity to the evaluation of the two-particle Green’s function (17). The latter can be easily performed using the finite-temperature diagramatic technique , which is based on the Matsubara Green function introduced as,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\tau )=\vartheta (\tau )\dot{X}(\tau )\dot{X}\vartheta (\tau )\dot{X}\dot{X}(\tau ),$$
(21)
where $`\tau `$ is the imaginary time ($`\beta \tau \beta `$), and $`\dot{X}(\tau )`$, in this formula, is defined as

$$\dot{X}(\tau )=e^{\tau (H\mu N)}\dot{X}e^{\tau (H\mu N)}.$$
(22)
Performing an S-matrix expansion of the Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\tau )`$ and expressing each term in terms of non-perturbed electron and phonon Green’s functions, one obtaines an infinite series of diagrams, the first terms of which are shown on Fig. 2. This series can be summed up graphically to the diagram of Fig. 3a. The solid heavy lines mean the exact electron Green’s function $`G_X(n\mathrm{};ip_n)`$, and the dashed heavy line represents the exact phonon Green’s function $`D(𝐪j;i\omega _m)`$. The shaded triangle is the total vertex part of the electron-phonon interaction, which we note by $`_X^{𝐪j}(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{n\mathrm{}};ip_n,i\omega _n)`$.

The Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^R(\omega )`$ is obtained from the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\tau )`$ by the standart analytical continuation to the real axis , i. e. by the replacement $`i\omega _n\omega +i\delta `$. An analytic expression for the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\tau )`$ follows form the diagram of Figure 3a,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(i\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4}{\mathrm{}^2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{𝐪jX}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\omega _m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ip_n}{}}M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})\widehat{Q}_y^2_{X\lambda ^2q_y}^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n\mathrm{}\\ n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\end{array};ip_n,i\omega _m)\times `$ (28)
$`D(𝐪j;i\omega _m)G_{X\lambda ^2q_y}(n^{}\mathrm{}^{};ip_n+i\omega _mi\omega _n)G_X(n\mathrm{};ip_n),`$
where the operator $`\widehat{Q}_y`$ acts on the total vertex part $`_X^{𝐪j}(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{n\mathrm{}};ip_n,i\omega _n)`$ and chooses the component $`q_y`$ referring to the non-perturbed phonon line of one of the fermionic angles of the total vertex. The Matsubara frequency $`i\omega _n`$ has to be inserted in the same vertex where $`\widehat{Q}_y`$ acts.

In the next Section we shall work in a representation where the electron Green’s function is a matrix. It can be obtained by projecting $`G_X(n\mathrm{};ip_n)`$ onto the single-particle states of the electron.

## III Energy Spectrum of Electrons in the Presence of Phonons

It is well known that, in the general case, taking into account of a perturbation has two effects on a electron gass. One is the renormalisation of the energy spectrum, and the other is the introduction of a finite lifetime for electrons. We will focus here on the energy renormalisation effects in a special case when two Landau levels of different subbands of size quantisation have approached each other at an energy distance comparable to the characteristic phonon energy. Let 1 (2) be a combined label $`n\mathrm{}`$ for the energy level belonging to the lower (upper) size quantisation subband, and hence $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ stand for the energies of these levels.

The renormalised electron energy spectrum can be extracted from the poles of the electron Green’s function. By the virtue of circumstances the electron self-energy is diagonal in the Landau level number, and hence, so is the the exact electron Green’s function. Therefore, one can consider the Green’s function of each electron level separately. For the level $`1`$ in the presence of the level $`2`$, the Dyson equaton reads,

$$G_{11}(ip_n)=G_{11}^{(0)}(ip_n)+G_{11}^{(0)}(ip_n)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ip_n)G_{11}(ip_n),$$
(29)
where $`G_{11}^{(0)}(ip_n)`$ is the Green’s function of the non-perturbed electron of level $`1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ip_n)`$ is the self-energy of the electron level $`1`$, and $`ip_n`$ is the imaginary fermionic frequency, $`p_n=(2n+1)\pi /\beta `$. The influence of level $`2`$ is manifested indirectly through the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ip_n)`$. The lowest order approximation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}(ip_n)`$ is given by the diagram of Fig. 4. An analytical expression of this diagram is as follows,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{(0)}(ip_n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{\text{self}}(ip_n)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{\text{inter}}(ip_n),$$
(30)
with

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{\text{self}}(ip_n)=\underset{𝐪j}{}\left|M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array})\right|^2\left(\frac{N_𝐪+n_F(\xi _1)}{ip_n+\omega _{𝐪j}\xi _1}+\frac{N_𝐪+1n_F(\xi _1)}{ip_n\omega _{𝐪j}\xi _1}\right),$$
(31)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{\text{inter}}(ip_n)=\underset{𝐪j}{}\left|M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}2\\ 1\end{array})\right|^2\left(\frac{N_𝐪+n_F(\xi _2)}{ip_n+\omega _{𝐪j}\xi _2}+\frac{N_𝐪+1n_F(\xi _2)}{ip_n\omega _{𝐪j}\xi _2}\right),$$
(32)
where $`\xi _i=_i\mu `$. The self-energy part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{\text{self}}`$ accounts for the renormalization of the energy level in the absence of other levels. This renormalization is not expected to change significantly in the neighbourhood of the level crossing, and we will not take it into account, considering that it has been included initially in the electron effective mass. This assumption is correct as far as the deviation from the non-perturbated energy levels is small in comparison with the characteristic phonon energy.

Neglecting the imaginary part of the retarded self-energy, which is equivalent to using the Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory , one arrives at the following equation for the renormalized electron energy level,

$$E_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{\text{inter}}(E)=0.$$
(33)
Solving Eq. (33) relative to $`E`$ one finds the renormalized electron energy level $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$. A similar equation holds for the level 2.

Fig. 5 shows the qualitative dependence of the renormalized energy levels $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_2`$ on the magnetic field $`B`$ for the crossing of the Landau levels $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}=0`$ of the first and the second subbands of size quantization, respectively. One can see that there are two values of $`B`$ on both sides of the crossing, where repulsion of levels changes to attraction. We can prove analytically that this happens when the energy distance betwen the two unperturbed electron levels is close to the caracteristic phonon energy $`\mathrm{}s/\lambda _+`$, where $`\lambda _+`$ is $`\lambda `$ at the level crossing. This characteristic energy of phonons will reappear in Section IV in the calculation of the dissipative conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$, where some peculiar behaviour of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ are found at the same characteristic magnetic fields on both sides of the level crossing.

Notably, the typical value of the deviation $`\delta E`$ of the renormalized levels from unperturbed is very small for all temperatures of interest in GaAs systems. A rough analytical estimate gives $`\delta E\alpha T`$ at temperatures $`T\mathrm{}s/\lambda _+`$, but still low enough that the perturbation theory works, $`T\mathrm{}s/(\alpha \lambda _+)`$. The dimensionless coupling constant of electron-phonon interaction $`\alpha 0.1[(100\mathrm{\AA })/\lambda ]^2`$ for GaAs . Thus, for $`B=6.6`$ Tesla and $`T=10K`$ one obtains $`\delta E10^1\text{m}\mathrm{eV}`$. Numerical calculations give an even smaller value of $`\delta E10^3\text{m}\mathrm{eV}`$. We shall neglect these energy corrections in our further calculations, stating only that the electron levels do intersect in the presence of equilibrium phonons.

## IV DISSIPATIVE CONDUCTIVITY

The dissipative conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is calculated using formula (19) and the expression for the Fourier transform of the two-particle correlation function (28). The results of the perturbation theory are obtained using the S-matrix expansion for the electron Green’s functions. The effects of renormalization of the phonon spectrum due to the presence of electrons will not be taken into account in what follows. We have made a rougher approximation already, neglecting the interface phonon modes and the variance of the sound velocity, as one goes from the quantum well to the substrate material. We use the Green’s function of non-perturbed phonons instead of the exact phonon Green’s function.

### A The One-phonon Process

This process is described by the first diagram of Fig. 2. The analytical expression of this diagram reads,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(i\omega _n)=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\lambda ^4\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{i\omega _m}{}\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{ip_n}{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{𝐪jX}}{}q_y^2|M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})|^2\times $$

$$D^{(0)}(𝐪j;i\omega _m)G_{X\lambda ^2q_y}^{(0)}(n^{}\mathrm{}^{};ip_n+i\omega _mi\omega _n)G_X^{(0)}(n\mathrm{};ip_n),$$
(34)
where $`G_X^{(0)}(n\mathrm{},ip_n)=1/(ip_n\xi _n\mathrm{})`$ is the non-perturbed electron Green’s function, and $`D^{(0)}(𝐪j,i\omega _m)=2\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j}/(\omega _m^2+\mathrm{}^2\omega _{𝐪j}^2)`$ is the non-perturbed phonon Green’s function. The summation over the discrete Matsubara frequencies can be easily performed in (34) and, using (19), one arrives at the following expression for the dissipative conductivity,

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{1}{V_{2d}}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\lambda ^4\pi \beta \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}}{𝐪jX}}{}q_y^2|M_X^{𝐪j}(\begin{array}{c}n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array})|^2f(\xi _n\mathrm{})\times $$

$$\{N_{𝐪j}[1f(\xi _n\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j})]\delta (\xi _n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\xi _n\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j})+$$

$$(N_{𝐪j}+1)[1f(\xi _n\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j})]\delta (\xi _n^{}\mathrm{}^{}\xi _n\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j})\},$$
(35)
where $`f(\xi )=1/(\mathrm{exp}(\beta \xi )+1)`$ is the fermionic distribution function and $`N_{𝐪j}=1/(\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j})1)`$ is the bosonic distribution function.

Formula (35) has the following physical interpretation. The electron can be scattered from the lower (upper) in energy Landau level onto the other one by absorbing (emitting) a phonon. Each of these processes leads to the diffusion of the electron within these two Landau levels. Thus, one can think of the diffusion of the electron in the upper level induced by the emission of a phonon, and of the diffusion of the electron in the lower level induced by the absorption of a phonon. At thermal equlibrium the number of electrons transfered up and down is equal, which mathematically is related by the identity,

$$f(_1)(1f(_2))N_{q_0}=f(_2)(1f(_1))(N_{q_0}+1),$$
(36)
where $`q_0=|_2_1|/(\mathrm{}s)`$. Threfore, it is not important that at each scattering event the electron is transfered from one Landau level onto the other. In a diffusive motion the “memory” after one scattering event is lost. Thus, one can safely assign to each Landau level a diffusion coefficient and disregard the conservation of the number of electrons during inelastic processes. This way we interpret formula (35) as a generalised Einschtein relation,

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{e^2}{2\pi \lambda ^2}\frac{f(_1)}{T}D_{xx}^{12}+\frac{e^2}{2\pi \lambda ^2}\frac{f(_2)}{T}D_{xx}^{21},$$
(37)
with the diffusion coefficients being calculated according to the formula,

$$D_{xx}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐪j}{}\underset{X^{}}{}(XX^{})^2W_{XX^{}}^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(38)
The probability $`W_{XX^{}}^{\alpha \beta }`$ for an electron in level $`\alpha `$ to be scattered from point $`X`$ to point $`X^{}`$, and at the same time to be transfered to the level $`\beta `$, can be as well calculated with the means of the Fermi golden-rule, which straightforwardly yields,

$`W_{XX^{}}^{12}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}\left|M_X^{𝐪j}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}}\right)\right|^2(1f(_2))N_{𝐪j}\delta _{X^{},X\lambda ^2q_y}\delta (_2_1\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j}),`$ (39)
$`W_{XX^{}}^{21}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}\left|M_X^{𝐪j}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}}\right)\right|^2(1f(_1))(N_{𝐪j}+1)\delta _{X^{},X\lambda ^2q_y}\delta (_2_1+\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐪j}).`$ (40)
The processes of phonon absorption and emission give equal contributions into $`\sigma _{xx}`$. Formula (37) together with (36),(38) give just the same result for $`\sigma _{xx}`$ as formula (35) when the contribution from the levels other than the two considered ones is neglected in (35). Finally, we note that such a simple picture of independent diffusion of electrons in each Landau level is not valid generally in a non-equilibrium situation.

Taking into account the contributions from the deformation potential ($`dp`$), longitudinal-phonon piezo-electric (peLA), and transverse-phonon piezo-electric (peTA) mechanisms of electron-phonon interaction, one obtains,

$$\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{xx}^{dp}+\sigma _{xx}^{peLA}+\sigma _{xx}^{peTA},$$
(41)
where

$`\sigma _{xx}^{dp}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_{q_{_{0LA}}}^2\mathrm{}}{2\rho _cs_{_{LA}}\lambda ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_\lambda T}}f(\xi _1)(1f(\xi _2))N_{q_{_{0LA}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_{_{0LA}}\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}}\right)^{5+2(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})}`$ (42)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{}!}{\mathrm{}!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xZ(q_{_{0LA}}x)(1x^2)^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}+1}\left[L_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}((1x^2)q_{_{0LA}}^2\lambda ^2/2)\right]^2e^{(1x^2)q_{_{0LA}}^2\lambda ^2/2},`$ (43)
and

$$\sigma _{xx}^{peLA}=\frac{9}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^2\mathrm{}\beta _{q_{_{0LA}}}^2}{2\rho _cs_{_{LA}}\lambda ^2}\frac{1}{T_\lambda T}f(\xi _1)(1f(\xi _2))N_{q_{_{0LA}}}\left(\frac{q_{_{0LA}}\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{3+2(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})}\times $$

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^{}!}{\mathrm{}!}_0^1𝑑xZ(q_{_{0LA}}x)x^2(1x^2)^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}+3}\left[L_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}((1x^2)q_{_{0LA}}^2\lambda ^2/2)\right]^2e^{(1x^2)q_{_{0LA}}^2\lambda ^2/2},$$
(44)
and

$$\sigma _{xx}^{peTA}=\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^2\mathrm{}\beta _{q_{_{0TA}}}^2}{2\rho _cs_{_{TA}}\lambda ^2}\frac{1}{T_\lambda T}f(\xi _1)(1f(\xi _2))N_{q_{_{0TA}}}\left(\frac{q_{_{0TA}}\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{3+2(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{})}\times $$

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^{}!}{\mathrm{}!}_0^1𝑑xZ(q_{_{0TA}}x)(9x^42x^2+1)(1x^2)^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}+2}\left[L_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}((1x^2)q_{_{0TA}}^2\lambda ^2/2)\right]^2e^{(1x^2)q_{_{0TA}}^2\lambda ^2/2}.$$
(45)
Here $`q_{_{0j}}=(_2_1)/\mathrm{}s_j`$, and the form-factor $`Z(q_z)=|F_{n_1n_2}(q_z)|^2`$ depends on the form of the quantum well potential $`V(z)`$.

The largest value of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is obtained for the crossing of the Landau levels with the smallest possible numbers, i.e. $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}=0`$, and belonging to the two lowest subbands of size quantization. For the case of a parabolic quantum well of characteristic size $`a`$ ($`E_{12}=\mathrm{}^2/ma^2`$) the calculations can be performed analytically and the result reads,

$$\sigma _{xx}^{dp}=\frac{e^2}{h}A\alpha _{dp}\frac{T_\lambda }{T}f(\xi _1)(1f(\xi _2))N_{q_{_{0LA}}}\lambda ^7a^2q_{_{0LA}}^9\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2q_{_{0LA}}^2}{2}\right),$$
(46)
$$\sigma _{xx}^{peLA}=\frac{e^2}{h}B\alpha _{peLA}\frac{T_\lambda }{T}f(\xi _1)(1f(\xi _2))N_{q_{_{0LA}}}\lambda ^5a^2q_{_{0LA}}^7\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2q_{_{0LA}}^2}{2}\right),$$
(47)
$$\sigma _{xx}^{peTA}=\frac{e^2}{h}C\alpha _{peTA}\frac{T_\lambda }{T}f(\xi _1)(1f(\xi _2))N_{q_{_{0TA}}}\lambda ^5a^2q_{_{0TA}}^7\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2q_{_{0TA}}^2}{2}\right),$$
(48)
where $`A10^3`$ is a weak function of the magnetic field. The effective coupling constants of electron-phonon ineteraction for differents mechanisms were introduced in the following way,

$$\alpha \alpha _{dp}=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Xi }__0^2}{2\rho _cs_{_{LA}}\lambda ^4}\frac{1}{T_\lambda ^2}$$
(49)
$$\alpha _{peLA}=\frac{e^2\beta __0^2}{2\rho _cs_{_{LA}}^3\mathrm{}}$$
(50)
$$\alpha _{peTA}=\frac{e^2\beta __0^2}{2\rho _cs_{_{TA}}^3\mathrm{}}$$
(51)
Fig. 6 shows the dependence of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ (formula (41)) on the magnetic field $`B`$ in the vicinity of an intersection of two Landau levels in a parabolic quantum well. The magnetic field corresponding to the intersection of the levels is that of the minimum on the graph. The two maxima appear at magetic fields close to those at which the electron-phonon scattering rate is maximal. The distance between the Landau levels at the maxima of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is of the order of $`T_\lambda =\mathrm{}s/\lambda `$. In computing the dependence of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ on the magnetic field, the electron concentration $`n_{2D}`$ was kept constant and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ was calculated according to the following formula,

$$\mu =\frac{_1+_2}{2}T\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{_2_1}{2T}}\zeta \mathrm{cosh}\frac{_2_1}{2T}}{1+\zeta }\right)$$
(52)
with

$$\zeta =\frac{\lambda ^2}{\lambda _+^2}\nu _0(N_0+1)$$
(53)
where $`\nu _0`$ is the filling factor at $`\lambda =\lambda _+`$, and $`N_0`$ is the number of Landau levels bellow the two considered ones. The electron concentration $`n_{2D}`$ is related to the filling factor $`\nu _0`$ in the usual way, $`n_{2D}=\nu _0/2\pi \lambda _+^2`$.

We compare different contributions into $`\sigma _{xx}`$ (see Eq. (41)) on Fig. 7. At a small value of the quantum well width $`a`$, the deformation potential mechanism (dashed line) dominates the dissipative conductivity (Fig. 7$`a`$). However, at a larger value of $`a`$, the piezoelectric mechanism is the dominant contribution into $`\sigma _{xx}`$, e.g. the piezoelectric interaction with the transversal phonon mode (solid line) in Fig. 7$`b`$. This is not surprising, since the deformation potential mechanism contains one extra power of the phonon momentum, as it is seen from the matrix element (4). The relevant phonon momentum is related to the quantum well width and to the magnetic length, $`qa\lambda `$. The characteristic well width, at which the crossover from the deformation potential to the piezoelectric mechanism happens, is given by $`a\mathrm{\Xi }_0\kappa /eh_{14}`$. We find that, although this criterion gives a characteristic $`a700\mathrm{\AA }`$, the actual crossover happens at a smaller value of $`a`$ (see Fig. 7$`b`$), owing to a larger overlap integral of the electron with the phonons via the piezoelectric interaction.

### B The Two-phonon Process

When the distance between the two Landau levels on both sides of the Fermi level is much greater than $`\mathrm{}s/\lambda `$, then the one-phonon electron transitions become inefficient, and the two-phonon ones should be taken into account. The two-phonon process associated with the electron transition between two Landau levels was considered in Ref. . The two-phonon process assiciated with the scattering of the electron within the same infinitely narrow Landau level was considered in Ref. . Since there was a mistake in Ref. , we reconsider the latter process here again.

Consider one Landau level only, which has a $`\delta `$-functional density of states. Within this infinitely narrow energy level, the one-phonon electron transitions are not possible, since phonons with zero energy are not efficient for the electron scattering, and, moreover, there are no such phonons, because the phonon density of states is proportional to $`\omega _{𝐪j}^2`$. However, the multiple-phonon scattering makes it possible to transfer momentum without transferring any energy to the electron. In the simplest case a simultaneous absorption of one phonon with momentum $`𝐪`$ and emission of another phonon with momentun $`𝐪^{}`$ transfers a momentum $`𝐪𝐪^{}`$ to the electron, and doesn’t change its energy, provided $`|𝐪|=|𝐪^{}|`$.

All the two-phonon processes are described by the diagrams (b)-(e) of Fig. 2. The main contribution is given by the processes which do not involve the transition of the electron to another Landau level. The diagram (b) accounts for the renormalisation of the phonon spectrum and will not be taken into account in this paper. The dissipative conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ can be presented in the following form,

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{e^2}{2\pi \lambda ^2}f(\xi )(1f(\xi ))\frac{D}{T}$$
(54)
The diffusion coefficient for the deformation potential type of interaction:

$$D^{dp}=\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_0^4\lambda ^4}{2\rho _c^2s_{_{LA}}^5\mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}d^3qd^3q^{}(q_yq_y^{})^2N_q(1+N_q^{})\delta (qq^{})\times $$

$$[L_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ^2q_{}^2/2)L_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ^2q_{}^{}_{}{}^{}2/2)]^2|Z(q_z)Z(q_z^{})|^2e^{\lambda ^2(q_{}^2+q_{}^{}_{}{}^{}2)/2}\mathrm{sin}^2\{\lambda ^2𝐞_z[𝐪_{}\times 𝐪_{}^{}]/2\},$$
(55)
where $`𝐞_z`$ is the unit vector normal to the quantum well plane.

At $`TT_\lambda `$ the diffusion coefficient is given by

$$D=A_1\alpha ^2\lambda s\left(\frac{T}{T_\lambda }\right)^{11},$$
(56)
where $`A_1=2^9\pi ^7/2975.2\times 10^3`$.

At $`TT_\lambda `$ the diffusion coefficient is given by

$$D=A_2\alpha ^2\lambda s\left(\frac{T}{T_\lambda }\right)^2,$$
(57)
$$A_2=\frac{3}{2^{9/2}\pi ^{5/2}}_0^1\frac{dx}{(1+x)^{3/2}}[1F(5/4,7/4;1;4x/(1+x)^2)]K(\sqrt{x}),$$
(58)
where $`K(z)`$ is the elliptic integral and $`F(\alpha ,\beta ;n;z)`$ is the hypergeometric function. The numerical value of the constant $`A_2`$ is approximately $`5.7\times 10^3`$.

## V CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we considered the scattering of electrons by equilibrium phonons in a two-subband two-dimensional electron gas in a quantizing magnetic field. A resonat enhancement of the dissipative conductivity was found in the vicinity of an intersection of two Landau levels, belonging to different size-quantization subbands.


text:
# Precise Measurement of Muon Capture on the Protonwork supported by Paul Scherrer Institute, Russian Ministry of Science and Technology, US Department of Energy, US National Science Foundation and INTAS.

## 1 Introduction

The goal of this experiment  is a determination of the rate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ of the basic charged–current reaction

$`\mu ^{}+p\nu _\mu +n`$ (1)
via the lifetime of $`\mu ^{}`$ bound in the singlet $`p\mu ^{}`$(F=0) system to an accuracy $`\delta \tau _\mu /\tau _\mu `$ better than $`10^5`$. The comparison of $`\tau _\mu =1/\lambda _\mu `$ for $`p\mu `$ atoms with that for free $`\mu ^+`$’s will considerably improve the determination of the induced pseudoscalar coupling constant $`g_p(q_0^2=0.88m_\mu ^2)`$ to the level $`\delta g_P/g_P7\%`$. The $`\mu ^+`$ lifetime will be measured simultaneously as a reference and to check systematics. The lifetime measurements will be done with a time projection chamber (TPC) filled with 10 bar of ultra-pure deuterium-depleted hydrogen surrounded by multi wire proportional chambers and a hodoscope of scintillation detectors.

Precision measurements of muon capture by the proton provide a challenging opportunity to test our understanding of chiral symmetry breaking in QCD. In the absence of second class currents, the electroweak structure of the nucleon can be described by four form factors $`g_V`$, $`g_M`$, $`g_A`$, and $`g_P`$ that determine the matrix elements of the charged vector and axial currents. While the first three of these form factors are well determined by Standard Model symmetries and experimental data, the pseudoscalar form factor $`g_P`$ is experimentally known to much less precision (Fig. 1). The recent RMC result $`g_P=12.2\pm 0.9\pm 0.4`$  exceeds the theoretical predictions by 4.2 $`\sigma `$. The precision of the older OMC results was mainly limited by absolute calibration of the neutron detectors. The most accurate measurement with 4.5% precision was performed in Saclay  using the lifetime technique in a liquid hydrogen target. At this high density $`p\mu `$ capture proceeds not only from the free proton, but also from the ortho and para states of the $`pp\mu `$ molecule. The uncertainty in the transition rate $`\lambda _{op}`$ between these states leads to a significant error in the interpretation of this measurement. A recent experiment on $`\mu ^3\text{He}`$ capture  gives $`g_p=8.53\pm 1.54`$ (the accuracy is limited by the theoretical extraction of $`g_P`$ from the three–nucleon system) in better agreement with theory.

This controversial experimental situation is in stark contrast to the recent progress in the theoretical understanding of muon capture achieved within the framework of low energy effective theories of QCD. The dominant contribution to the pseudoscalar form factor is given by the pion pole (PCAC), and the leading correction to the pole term can be derived from QCD Ward identities  confirming the old current–algebra result . Possible higher order corrections appear to be small . Recent calculations of singlet and triplet muon capture rates in heavy–baryon chiral perturbation theory and in the small-scale expansion  are in a good agreement with the careful analysis .

| Reference |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`g_P`$ | $`8.44\pm 0.23`$ | $`8.21\pm 0.09`$ | $`8.475\pm 0.076`$ |  |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S(\mathrm{s}^1)`$ |  |  | $`688.4\pm 3.8`$ | $`695`$ | $`687.4`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T(\mathrm{s}^1)`$ |  |  | $`12.01\pm 0.12`$ | $`11.9`$ | $`12.9`$ |

The main experimental challenges for a significantly improved measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ result from three different sources. a) statistics: The capture rate will be determined as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S=`$$`\lambda _\mu \lambda _{\mu +}`$, thus $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$$`\sqrt{2}\delta \lambda _\mu `$. As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S1.5\times 10^3\lambda _\mu `$ the lifetime of the positive and negative muon have to be measured with at least 10 ppm precision, i.e. 1010 reconstructed events each. b) interpretation: $`pp\mu `$ formation should be slow so that capture takes place predominantly from the well defined F=0 hfs states of the muonic hydrogen atom. c) distortions of the muon decay time spectrum: Dangerous physics effects for $`\mu ^{}`$ include direct or delayed muon stops in the wall material, transfer to gas impurities or to deuterium. The $`\mu ^+`$ polarization is partially preserved in hydrogen, leading to effects of muon spin rotation and relaxation. Detector imperfections might cause time dependent efficiency variations due to instrumental correlations between a muon and its decay electron and overlapping muon–electron pairs.

## 2 Experimental set-up

The central part of our detector is a time projection chamber (TPC) embedded in a pressure vessel filled with 10 bar of ultra-pure deuterium-depleted hydrogen (protium). The TPC which was specially developed for this experiment has a sensitive volume of 15 x 12 x 30 cm3 and acts as active target monitoring all muon stops and electrons from muon decay. The vertical drift field of $``$2.4 kV/cm causes electrons to drift with a velocity of $``$ 0.7 cm/$`\mu `$s toward multiwire proportional planes at the bottom. There, charges are amplified by typically a factor of 104 and read out by 75 anode wires in x-direction and by 38 cathode strips made of wires in z-direction. The y-coordinate, defining the height in the TPC, is determined by the drift time which ranges from 0 to 17 $`\mu s`$. Incoming muons are detected by two planes of wire chambers in front of the TPC. Track reconstruction inside the TPC clearly distinguishes between muons stopping in H2 versus in the walls, thus allowing the use of low gas density (1% of liquid H2) which reduces problem b) to a negligible level.

The pressure chamber has cylindrical walls made of 4 mm aluminum to reduce multiple scattering of through-going decay electrons. The hydrogen vessel and its interior wire chambers are made of clean materials (metals, ceramics, quartz-glass frames, etc.) that can be baked out up to 150oC and evacuated down to $`10^710^8`$ mbar. This level is required to maintain a required hydrogen purity of 10-8. Ultra clean protium is filled via a specially developed gas system using chemical purifying methods. The gas can be circulated and purified during the measurements. Since this is an active target experiment, very low levels of impurities can be determined from the chamber signals themselves, in addition to chromatographic gas analysis.

Surrounding the pressure tank, two cylindrical proportional chambers and an array of plastic detectors are mounted covering an effective solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi `$75%. For the electron time determination, the measurements will rely entirely on the detectors outside the hydrogen pressure vessel, i.e. on the two wire chambers for directional back tracking and on the plastic hodoscope for the absolute time measurement. The separation of detector functions for electrons from those for muons ensures independent absolute time measurements without the danger of electronic cross-talks and tail effects. The tracking chambers can handle event rates of $``$ 30 kHz, since pile-up problems can be reduced by identifying the muon-electron pair originating from a common vertex. This method also suppresses other possible background.

A coil will be installed outside the TPC vessel to generate a uniform magnetic field of $``$70 Gauss tranverse to the beam and muon spin axis. This field will precess the remaining free muon polarization at 1 MHz creating a sinusoid on top of the exponential decay spectrum. Monte Carlo studies indicate that amount and relaxation of this polarization can be determined in a fit over 15 $`\mu `$s. The oscillating part largely decouples from the lifetime measurement. Moreover spin asymmetries get strongly reduced by the cylindrical symmetry of the setup.

## 3 Detector performance

Significant R&D was required to establish the feasibility of the new method and to optimize physics and detector parameters. In particular, several engineering runs with a prototype TPC have been performed at PSI (cf. contribution  and references ). The performance of the prototype detector was satisfactory and proved that stable chamber operation in pure hydrogen can be achieved. Rather high chamber voltages of 6.8 kV on 2-4 mm spacing were required in order to obtain sufficient gas amplification. The main data was recorded by a custom-designed dead-time free TDC (TDC400) operating at a clock rate of 5 MHz. The hits of all detectors were stored for contiguous time regions of $``$10 ms, providing the full history information around individual muon stops. A short time slice from this time region is displayed in Fig. 3.

The behavior of the observed $`\mu ^{}`$ decay rate is consistent with the decline of the target purity with time and purity recovery by refilling. The $`\mu ^+`$ spectra reveal $`\mu ^+`$SR effects consistent with muonium precession in a residual magnetic field of 0.2-0.4 G (no tranverse field was applied during this test). For pile-up free events the accidental to signal level is already $`10^4`$ for a simple coincidence between a MWPC and electron telescope. It can be further improved by an order of magnitude using the 4 MWPC’s and the TPC to precisely track the decay electron back to the end of the muon track (Fig. 4).

By using the TPC as active target, charged products of muon induced reactions with impurities can be detected. Most critical are O2, N2, H2O and D2. The TPC is sensitive to recoil nuclei (200-350 keV) from $`\mu `$-capture on impurities with Z$`>`$1 and from the $`pd\mu `$ fusion channel $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(0.2MeV)+\mu (5.3MeV)`$. The information is collected both with the TDC system and from 12 TPC anodes instrumented with FADC’s. For the selection of $`\mu `$-capture reactions logarithmic amplifiers, discriminators with high threshold about 70 keV and a hardware trigger were developed . For about 106 muon stops in the sensitive TPC volume 3876 $`\mu `$-capture events with $`\mu ^{}`$ beam and only one event under the same requirements with $`\mu ^+`$ beam were found. As this data corresponds to an impurity level of 30 ppm as estimated by chemical analysis, a sensitivity to determine impurities with Z$`>`$1 of about 0.01 ppm has been demonstrated.

Due to the ”Ramsauer-Townsend” minimum in elastic d$`\mu `$-p scattering, d$`\mu `$ atoms formed after transfer from protium can travel several cm in 10 bar hydrogen. Some fractions even leave the sensitive volume of the chamber, especially at late times after muon stop. Therefore, the $`\mu `$-e time distribution can get significantly distorted toward a steeper slope simulating a larger capture rate. This is the principal reason why it is necessary to use protium which is strongly depleted from any deuterium. The distortions depend on the geometrical $`\mu e`$ vertex cuts used, increasing with tighter cuts. Fortunately the diffusion correction can be self calibrated by monitoring deuterium impurities in the experiment and then extrapolating to zero deuterium concentration. The most promising method is the direct observation of muon diffusion by observing an electron track displaced from the muon stop point in the TPC. Fig. 5 shows the result of a d$`\mu `$ diffusion search in our test runs. The outlying points in the left image are from the diffused d$`\mu `$ atoms in a $`\mu ^{}`$ run. For reference only a single event at t=0 leaks through in a $`\mu ^+`$ run shown on the right. Note the importance of the intrinsic TPC tracking accuracy and electron efficiency for this analysis.

## 4 Summary and outlook

We plan to analyze the data with two main and complementary methods.
global pile-up free data. Only events are analyzed which do not have another muon entering the TPC within 10-20 $`\mu `$s. This analysis is particularly clean and simple, and thus ideally suited for a precision experiment. Moreover it allows loose vertex cuts, thereby reducing the experimental sensitivity to deuterium diffusion. It has the disadvantage of significant pile-up losses.
local pile-up free data. The TPC volume is subdivided in smaller volumes during the analysis by requiring no other local muon stop inside a cut volume around the electron reconstructed vector. In this way events can be analyzed where several simultaneous muons stop during the measurement/drift-time interval of the TPC. The vertex matching suppresses the accidental background from uncorrelated muons, but systematic corrections become more important.
The choice between the two analysis methods is made off-line, as in our experiment contiguous event-blocks containing all information are recorded. A summary of estimated statistical and systematic corrections and errors in ppm of the measured lifetimes is given below.

|  | global PU free data | | | local PU free data | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\mu ^{}`$ | $`\mu ^+`$ | comment | $`\mu ^{}`$ | $`\mu ^+`$ | comment |
| statistics | (10) | (10) | 1010 events | (7) | (7) | 2x1010 events |
| wall stops | (2) | - |  | (2) | - |  |
| impurities | 2(3) | - | for cZ=10-8 | 2(3) | - | for cZ=10-8 |
| flat acc. | (2) | (2) | level 10-4 | (3) | (3) | level 5x10-4 |
| $`\mu `$SR | - | (2) |  | - | (2) |  |
| diffusion | 1(1) | - | no vertex cut | 100(5) | - | 5 cm radial cut |
| two event corr. | - | - |  | (2) | (2) | acc. structure |
| total sys. error | 4.2 | 2.8 |  | 7.1 | 4.1 |  |
| $`\delta \lambda `$ total error | 10.9 | 10.4 |  | 10. | 8.1 |  |

The final $`\mu `$Cap detector is presently under construction and first production running is expected in fall 2002. There exist several exciting future extensions of the physics reach for this program. A second phase of the experiment might aim at a 0.3% measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ to achieve an experimental precision of 3% in $`g_P`$ matching the present theoretical error. This proposal is based on an intense chopped muon beam , which is presently being developed for the $`\mu Lan`$ experiment . A very recent idea  concerns a precision measurement of the d$`\mu `$ capture process, both its integral rate and Dalitz Plot distribution. Within the framework of pion-less effective theories muon capture on the deuteron is directly related to the pp fusion in the sun  and neutrino deuteron scattering as observed in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory  and, thus, appears a unique possibility to calibrate these fundamental processes of current topical interest.

Finally, let me express my sincere gratitude to Ken Nagamine and the organizers of MCF’01 for the opportunity to enjoy this stimulating meeting and let me congratulate him for his remarkable contributions to this field of muon physics.