text:
# Analysis and Probability over Infinite Extensions of a Local Field, II: A Multiplicative Theory

## 1 INTRODUCTION

This paper is a continuation of the article  (see also ), in which we considered an infinite extension $`K`$ of a local field of zero characteristic assuming that $`K`$ is a union of an increasing sequence of finite extensions. If $`K`$ is equipped with a natural inductive limit topology, its strong conjugate $`\overline{K}`$ is a projective limit with respect to the renormalized trace mappings. A Gaussian measure, a Fourier transform, a fractional differentiation operator, and a cadlag Markov process $`X_\alpha `$ (an analog of the $`\alpha `$-stable process) on $`\overline{K}`$ were constructed. The semigroup of measures defining $`X_\alpha `$ is concentrated on a compact (additive) subgroup $`S\overline{K}`$. Sample paths properties of the part of $`X_\alpha `$ in $`S`$ were studied in .

All the above constructions were based essentially on algebraic structures related to the additive groups of the field $`K`$ and its subfields. In this paper we develop a parallel theory based on the multiplicative structures. Note that in analysis over local fields both the approaches are closely connected (see Sections 3.5 and 4.7 in ).

Let $`k`$ be a non-Archimedean local field of an arbitrary characteristic. We consider a strictly increasing sequence of its finite separable Galois extensions

$$k=K_1K_2\mathrm{}K_n\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
We shall assume that all the extensions (1) are totally and tamely ramified. Denote $`m_n=[K_n:K_1]`$, $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. It will be convenient to write $`m_0=0`$, $`m_1=1`$. By our assumptions, the residue field cardinality for each field $`K_n`$ is the same positive integer $`q=p^\varkappa `$ where $`p`$ is the characteristic of the residue fields. If $`\nu >n`$, then $`[K_\nu :K_n]={\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{m_n}}`$.

Let $`U_{1,n}`$ be the group of principal units of the field $`K_n`$. Then

$$U_{1,1}U_{1,2}\mathrm{}U_{1,n}\mathrm{}.$$

Under the above assumptions the norm mapping $`N_{\nu ,n}:K_\nu K_n`$ maps $`U_{1,\nu }`$ onto $`U_{1,n}`$ ($`\nu >n`$); see Chapter 1, §8 in . For any $`xU_{1,n}`$ denote

$$𝔑_{\nu ,n}(x)=\left[N_{\nu ,n}(x)\right]^{\frac{m_n}{m_\nu }}.$$

Since $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{m_n}}`$ is prime to $`p`$, $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}(x)`$ is well-defined and belongs to $`U_{1,n}`$ (, Chapter 1, Corollary (5.5)). It is easy to check that $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}(x):U_{1,\nu }U_{1,n}`$ is an epimorphism, and $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}(x)=x`$ if $`xU_{1,n}`$.

If $`l>\nu >n`$, then for any $`xU_{1,l}`$

$$𝔑_{\nu ,n}\left(𝔑_{l,\nu }(x)\right)=\left[N_{\nu ,n}\left(\left(N_{l,\nu }(x)\right)^{\frac{m_\nu }{m_l}}\right)\right]^{\frac{m_n}{m_\nu }}.$$

Note that for any positive integer $`r`$ $`N_{\nu ,n}(x^r)=\left[N_{\nu ,n}(x)\right]^r`$. If $`r`$ is prime to $`p`$, we may substitute $`x^{1/r}`$ for $`x`$ and find that $`N_{\nu ,n}(x)=\left[N_{\nu ,n}(x^{1/r})\right]^r`$, so that $`N_{\nu ,n}`$ commutes with the $`r`$-th root operation. Therefore $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}𝔑_{l,\nu }=𝔑_{l,n}`$, and we can define the projective limit

$$V=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}U_{1,n}$$

with respect to the homomorphisms $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}`$.

$`V`$ is a compact topological group. Its structure is investigated in Sect. 2. $`V`$ is totally disconnected, its topology is determined by an explicitly written descending chain of open-closed subgroups. The structure of its dual group is studied.

In Sect. 3 we introduce a fractional differentiation operator $`D^\alpha `$ on $`V`$ (continuous characters on $`V`$ are its eigenfunctions), and prove that it is a generator of a Markov process $`\xi _\alpha `$ on $`V`$, an analog of the stable process. Sect. 4 is devoted to properties of $`\xi _\alpha `$. In particular, we find the Hausdorff and packing dimensions of the image of a time interval under $`\xi _\alpha `$. This is based on the explicit calculation of the Lévy measure corresponding to $`\xi _\alpha `$, and employs the general results by Evans  on sample paths properties of Lévy processes on Vilenkin groups.

## 2 THE GROUP $`V`$ AND ITS DUAL

2.1. The group $`V`$ consists of sequences $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})`$, $`x_nU_{1,n}`$, such that for any $`\nu >n`$ $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}(x_\nu )=x_n`$, with the component-wise operations. The topology on $`V`$ is induced by the Tychonoff topology on the direct product $`\underset{n}{}U_{1,n}`$. Thus a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the unit element in $`V`$ can be obtained by taking finite intersections of the sets

$$\{x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})V:|1x_n|_n\epsilon \}$$

with some $`n1`$, $`0<\epsilon <1`$. Here $`||_n`$ is the normalized absolute value on $`K_n`$. Note that each of the above sets is an open-closed subgroup in $`V`$ due to the ultra-metric property of the absolute values.

Below we shall use the following property of the mappings $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}`$, $`\nu >n`$. Let

$$U_{l,i}=\{yK_i:|1y|_iq^l\},l2.$$

Then

$$𝔑_{\nu ,n}:U_{\frac{m_\nu }{m_n}(l1)+1,\nu }\stackrel{\text{onto}}{}U_{l,n},$$
(2)
$$𝔑_{\nu ,n}:U_{\frac{m_\nu }{m_n}(l1),\nu }\stackrel{\text{onto}}{}U_{l1,n}.$$
(3)
For the mappings $`N_{\nu ,n}`$ this is proved in , Chapter V, §6, Corollary 3, where a more general case is considered; the Hasse-Herbrand function $`\psi (v)`$ of an extension $`L/K`$, which appears in that corollary, equals $`[L:K]v`$ for a totally and tamely ramified extension (see , Chapter IV, §3). In order to consider the mappings $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}`$ it remains to use the $`m`$-divisibility of the groups $`U_{l,n}`$ for any $`m`$ prime to $`p`$ (, Chapter 1, (5.5)).

Let us consider subgroups $`V_nV`$,

$$V_n=\{x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})V:|1x_n|_nq^{nm_n1}\},n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

If $`xV_n`$ and $`n>i`$, then $`x_i=𝔑_{n,i}(x_n)`$, and by (2)

$$|1x_i|_iq^{m_i(n+1)}<q^{im_i1},$$

so that $`x_iV_i`$. Thus we have a filtration

$$V=V_0V_1\mathrm{}V_n\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
The same arguments show that the subgroups $`V_n`$ form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of the unit element.

Note that the descending chain (4) can be “lengthened” by including intermediate subgroups so that the resulting chain would be such that the quotient group of two consequtive subgroups is of a prime order. This property is often assumed in the investigation of totally disconnected groups. In particular, this assumption was made in . However it will be more convenient for us to use the chain (4). All the results of  remain valid here.

Let $`\mu `$ be the normalized Haar measure on $`V`$. Since the mappings $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}`$ are surjective, $`V`$ can be identified with the projective limit of its quotient groups with respect to a descending system of compact subgroups (, Chapter III, §7). Then $`\mu `$ is a projective limit of the normalized Haar measures $`\mu _n`$ on the groups $`U_{1,n}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (, Chapter VII, §1, Sect. 6). This means in particular that

$$\mu \left(V_n\right)=\mu _n\left(U_{nm_n+1,n}\right).$$

On the other hand, $`\mu _n`$ is proportional to the normalized Haar measure $`dx_n`$ on the additive group of the field $`K_n`$. Since (see e.g. ) $`\underset{U_{1,n}}{}𝑑x_n=q^1`$, we have

$$\mu _n\left(U_{nm_n+1,n}\right)=q\underset{|1x_n|_nq^{nm_n1}}{}=q^{nm_n}.$$

It is known  that $`V/V_n`$ is a finite group of the order $`M(n)`$ where $`\mu \left(V_n\right)=[M(n)]^1`$. From the above calculations we find that

$$M(n)=q^{nm_n}.$$
(5)
2.2. By the duality theorem , the dual discrete group $`V^{}`$ is the inductive limit $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}U_{1,n}`$ with respect to the dual mappings $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}^{}:U_{1,n}^{}U_{1,\nu }^{}`$ ($`\nu >n`$) defined as follows. If $`\theta _nU_{1,n}^{}`$, that is $`\theta _n`$ is a (multiplicative) continuous character of the group $`U_{1,n}`$, then $`𝔑_{\nu ,n}^{}(\theta _n)`$ is a character of the group $`U_{1,\nu }`$, and for any $`x_\nu U_{1,\nu }`$

$$𝔑_{\nu n}^{}(\theta _n)(x_\nu )=\theta _n\left(𝔑_{\nu n}(x_\nu )\right).$$

By definition (see  or ), $`V^{}=𝔄/𝔅`$ where $`𝔄`$ is the direct sum $`\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_{1,n}^{}`$, $`𝔅`$ is a subgroup consisting of all elements $`(\theta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\theta _{i_n})`$, $`\theta _{i_j}U_{1,j}^{}`$, such that for some $`ii_1,\mathrm{},i_n`$

$$\left(𝔑_{i,i_1}^{}\theta _{i_1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(𝔑_{i,i_n}^{}\theta _{i_n}\right)=1;$$

in our multiplicative notation we identify $`(\theta _{i_1},\mathrm{},\theta _{i_n})`$ with $`\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_n}`$. Each element of $`V^{}`$ can be written as $`\theta =\theta _i𝔅`$, $`\theta _iU_{1,i}^{}`$ for some $`i`$. Then the coupling between $`V^{}`$ and $`V`$ is given by $`\theta ,x=\theta _i,x_i_i`$, if $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i,\mathrm{})`$. Here $`,_i`$ is the coupling between $`U_{1,i}^{}`$ and $`U_{1,i}`$. The correctness of this definition is proved in .

In our specific situation we can say a little more about the above definition of $`V^{}`$. Suppose that $`\theta _i^{(1)}U_{1,i}^{}`$, $`\theta _j^{(2)}U_{1,j}^{}`$, and

$$𝔑_{n,i}^{}\theta _i^{(1)}=𝔑_{n,j}^{}\theta _j^{(2)},ijn.$$
(6)
The equality (6) means that

$$\theta _i^{(1)}\left(𝔑_{n,i}(x)\right)=\theta _j^{(2)}\left(𝔑_{n,j}(x)\right)\text{for any }xU_{1,n}.$$

In particular, taking $`xU_{1,j}U_{1,n}`$ we find that $`𝔑_{n,j}(x)=x`$, $`𝔑_{n,i}(x)=𝔑_{j,i}\left(𝔑_{n,j}(x)\right)=𝔑_{j,i}(x)`$, so that

$$𝔑_{j,i}^{}\theta _i^{(1)}=\theta _j^{(2)},\text{if }i<j;\theta _i^{(1)}=\theta _j^{(2)},\text{if }i=j.$$

Thus, two representatives of the same coset either coincide (if they belong to the same group $`U_{1,j}^{}`$), or one of them is obtained by “lifting” another.

In order to classify elements of $`V^{}`$, we shall need the notion of a ramification degree of a multiplicative character of a local field (adapted to our setting). Let $`\theta _nU_{1,n}^{}`$. The character $`\theta _n`$ is said to have the ramification degree 1, if $`\theta _n1`$, and the ramification degree $`\nu 2`$, if $`\theta _n(x_n)=1`$ for any $`x_nU_{\nu ,n}`$, and $`\theta _n(x_n^0)1`$ for some $`x_n^0U_{\nu 1,n}`$.

It follows from (2) and (3) that if $`\theta _iU_{1,i}^{}`$ has the ramification degree $`\nu _i`$, and $`n>i`$, then $`𝔑_{n,i}^{}\theta _i`$ has the ramification degree $`\nu _n={\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{m_i}}(\nu _i1)+1`$. We see that

$$\frac{\nu _n1}{m_n}=\frac{\nu _i1}{m_i}.$$

Therefore we may assign to any $`\theta V^{}`$ the number

$$r(\theta )=\frac{\nu _i1}{m_i}$$

where $`\nu _i`$ is the ramification degree of an arbitrary representative of $`\theta `$ lying in $`U_{1,i}^{}`$.

2.3. Let $`V_n^{}V^{}`$ be the annihilator of the subgroup $`V_n`$. We have

$$\{1\}=V_0^{}V_1^{}\mathrm{}V_n^{}\mathrm{};\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n^{}=V^{}.$$

It is known  that $`\mathrm{card}\left(V_n^{}\right)=M(n)`$.

###### Proposition 1.

The annihilator $`V_n^{}`$ consists of those cosets $`\theta V^{}`$ for which $`r(\theta )n`$, and there exists a representative $`\theta _n\theta `$, $`\theta _nU_{1,n}^{}`$.

Proof. Let us show first of all that a coset $`\theta V_n^{}`$ contains a representative $`\theta _nU_{1,n}^{}`$. Indeed, if $`\theta _i\theta `$, and $`i<n`$, then the character $`\theta _i`$ can be lifted (within the coset $`\theta `$) to the character $`\theta _n(x_n)=\theta _i\left(𝔑_{n,i}(x_n)\right)`$, $`x_nU_{1,n}`$.

Suppose that $`i>n`$. Let us define a character $`\theta _nV_n^{}`$ as a restriction of $`\theta _i`$ to $`U_{1,n}`$. We have to check that $`\theta _i\theta _n^1𝔅`$; it is sufficient to verify that $`\theta _i\left(𝔑_{i,n}^{}\theta _n\right)=1`$, that is

$$\theta _i(x_i)\left[\theta _n\left(𝔑_{i,n}(x_i)\right)\right]^1=1$$

for any $`x_iU_{1,i}`$, or (by the definition of $`\theta _n`$) that for each $`x_iU_{1,i}`$

$$\theta _i\left(\frac{x_i}{𝔑_{i,n}(x_i)}\right)=1.$$
(7)
Denote $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i={\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{𝔑_{i,n}(x_i)}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}_l=𝔑_{i,l}\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_i\right)`$ for $`l<i`$ (since $`𝔑_{i,n}(x_i)U_{1,n}U_{1,i}`$, the element $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i`$ belongs to $`U_{1,i}`$). Choosing $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i+1}U_{1,i+1}`$ in such a way that $`𝔑_{i+1,i}\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_{i+1}\right)=\stackrel{~}{x}_i`$, then taking such $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i+2}U_{1,i+2}`$ that $`𝔑_{i+2,i+1}\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_{i+2}\right)=\stackrel{~}{x}_{i+1}`$ etc., we obtain an element $`\stackrel{~}{x}=(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_n,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_i,\mathrm{})V`$. We have

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_n=\left\{\frac{N_{i,n}(x_i)}{\left[𝔑_{i,n}(x_i)\right]^{\frac{m_i}{m_n}}}\right\}^{\frac{m_n}{m_i}}=1,$$

so that $`\stackrel{~}{x}V_n`$, which means that $`1=\theta (\stackrel{~}{x})=\theta _i\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_i\right)`$, and we have proved the equality (7).

Thus, $`\theta =\theta _n𝔅`$, $`\theta _nU_{1,n}^{}`$. If $`r(\theta )>n`$, then the ramification degree of the character $`\theta _n`$ is greater than $`nm_n+1`$, which implies the existence of an element $`xV_n`$, such that $`\theta (x)1`$ (as in the above reasoning, an element $`x_nU_{nm_n+1,n}`$ can be prolonged to an element $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})V_n`$). This means that the inequality $`r(\theta )>n`$ implies that $`\theta V_n^{}`$. On the other hand, if $`r(\theta )n`$ and $`\theta =\theta _n𝔅`$, $`\theta _nU_{1,n}^{}`$, then obviously $`\theta V_n^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Fractional Differentiation Operator

3.1. Let us consider the function $`f`$ on $`V^{}`$ defined as

$$f(\theta )=\phi _n\text{for }\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{},n=1,2,\mathrm{};f(1)=\phi _0,$$

where $`\{\phi _n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a given sequence of complex numbers. It follows from (5) that $`fl_1(V^{})`$, if $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\phi _n|q^{nm_n}<\mathrm{}`$, and $`fl_2(V^{})`$, if $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\phi _n|^2q^{nm_n}<\mathrm{}`$.

Let us compute the Fourier transform

$$F(x)=\underset{\theta V^{}}{}f(\theta )\theta (x),xV.$$

We have

$$F(x)=\phi _0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\phi _n\underset{\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{}}{}\theta (x).$$

If $`xVV_1`$, then $`\underset{\theta V_n^{}}{}\theta (x)=0`$ for $`n1`$, whence $`F(x)=\phi _0\phi _1`$. If $`xV_lV_{l+1}`$, $`l1`$, then

$$F(x)=\phi _0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\phi _n\underset{\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{}}{}1+\phi _{l+1}\left[\underset{\theta V_{l+1}^{}}{}\theta (x)\underset{\theta V_l^{}}{}1\right]+\underset{n=l+2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\phi _n\underset{\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{}}{}\theta (x).$$

Since $`\underset{\theta V_{l+1}^{}}{}\theta (x)=0`$ and $`\underset{\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{}}{}\theta (x)=0`$ for $`nl+2`$, and $`\underset{\theta V_n^{}}{}1=q^{nm_n}`$, we find that

$$F(x)=\phi _0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\phi _n\left[q^{nm_n}q^{(n1)m_{n1}}\right]\phi _{l+1}q^{lm_l}.$$

This gives after a simple transformation that

$$F(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{l}{}}(\phi _n\phi _{n+1})q^{nm_n},xV_lV_{l+1},l0.$$
(8)
If $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\phi _n|q^{nm_n}<\mathrm{}`$, then it follows from (8) that

$$F(1)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\phi _n\phi _{n+1})q^{nm_n}.$$

3.2. Consider the function $`f^{(\alpha )}(\theta )`$, $`\theta V^{}`$, corresponding, as above, to the sequence

$$\phi _n^{(\alpha )}=\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{\alpha nm_n},\hfill & \text{if }n1,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }n=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha <1`$. Let $`F^{(\alpha )}`$ be the Fourier transform of $`f^{(\alpha )}`$. Introducing the convolution operator $`A^{(\alpha )}u=F^{(\alpha )}u`$, $`uL_2(V)`$, we can write

$$\left(A^{(\alpha )}u\right)(x)=\underset{V}{}F^{(\alpha )}(y)u(xy^1)\mu (dy)=\underset{V}{}F^{(\alpha )}(y)\left[u(xy^1)u(x)\right]\mu (dy),$$

since

$$\underset{V}{}F^{(\alpha )}(y)\mu (dy)=f^{(\alpha )}(1)=\phi _0^{(\alpha )}=0.$$

Denote by $`𝒟(V)`$ the vector space of locally constant complex-valued functions on $`V`$, that is such functions $`u`$ that $`u(x)=u(y)`$ if $`xy^1V_l`$ (the number $`l`$ depends on $`u`$ and does not depend on $`x`$). Since $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}V_n^{}=V^{}`$, any continuous character on $`V`$ belongs to $`𝒟(V)`$. Therefore $`𝒟(V)`$ is dense in the Banach space $`C(V)`$ of all continuous functions on $`V`$.

By (8),

$$F^{(\alpha )}(y)=q^\alpha +\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\left(q^{\alpha nm_n}q^{\alpha (n+1)m_{n+1}}\right)q^{nm_n},yV_lV_{l+1},$$
(9)
(the sum is missing for $`l=0`$). If $`u𝒟(V)`$, then $`\left(A^{(\alpha )}u\right)(x)`$ is an entire function of $`\alpha `$, and we define the operator $`D^\alpha u`$, $`\alpha >0`$, as the analytic continuation of $`A^{(\alpha )}u`$. Thus,

$$\left(D^\alpha u\right)(x)=\underset{V}{}F^{(\alpha )}(y)\left[u(xy^1)u(x)\right]\mu (dy),\alpha >0,$$

for any $`u𝒟(V)`$. The expression (9) is valid for $`\alpha >0`$ too. Equivalently, $`D^\alpha `$ can be written on $`𝒟(V)`$ as a pseudo-differential operator with the symbol $`f^{(\alpha )}(\theta )`$.

###### Theorem 1.

(i) The operator $`D^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha >0`$) is an essentially selfadjoint operator on $`L_2(V)`$. Its closure has a purely discrete spectrum consisting of the eigenvalues

$$\phi _n^{(\alpha )}=\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{\alpha nm_n},\hfill & \text{if }n1,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }n=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

corresponding to the eigenspaces $`V_n^{}V_{n1}^{}`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ ($`V_1^{}=\mathrm{}`$). In particular, $`D^\alpha 1=0`$.

(ii) The semigroup $`e^{tD^\alpha }`$, $`t0`$, consists of the integral operators of the form

$$\left(e^{tD^\alpha }u\right)(x)=\underset{V}{}G_\alpha (t,xy^1)u(y)\mu (dy)$$

where the kernel

$$G_\alpha (t,z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{l}{}}\left[e^{t\phi _n^{(\alpha )}}e^{t\phi _{n+1}^{(\alpha )}}\right]q^{nm_n},zV_lV_{l+1},l0,$$
(10)
is positive. The corresponding stochastic process $`\xi _\alpha `$ with independent increments on $`V`$ is stochastically continuous.

Proof. All the assertions except the last one are immediate consequences of the above constructions. Note that the function $`zG_\alpha (t,z)`$ is constant on each open-closed set $`V_lV_{l+1}`$, which implies its continuity. Thus $`\xi _\alpha `$ has a strong Feller property. The stochastic continuity is equivalent to the $`C_0`$-property of the semigroup $`e^{tD^\alpha }`$ in $`C(V)`$. It is sufficient to prove that $`e^{tD^\alpha }uu_{C(V)}0`$ as $`t0`$, for any $`u𝒟(V)`$.

Since $`\underset{V}{}G_\alpha (t,xy^1)\mu (dy)=1`$, we find that for any $`u𝒟(V)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(e^{tD^\alpha }uu\right)(x)=\underset{V}{}G_\alpha (t,xy^1)[u(y)u(x)]\mu (dy)=\underset{V}{}G_\alpha (t,z)u[(xz^1)u(x)]\mu (dz)\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{VV_l}{}G_\alpha (t,z)u[(xz^1)u(x)]\mu (dz)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{l1}{}}\underset{V_jV_{j+1}}{}G_\alpha (t,z)u[(xz^1)u(x)]\mu (dz)\end{array}$$

for some $`l`$. Now it follows from (10) that

$$e^{tD^\alpha }uu_{C(V)}\mathrm{const}u_{C(V)}\underset{j=0}{\overset{l1}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left[e^{t\phi _n^{(\alpha )}}e^{t\phi _{n+1}^{(\alpha )}}\right]q^{nm_n}0,t0,$$

as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Sample Path Properties

4.1. It is well known (see e.g. ) that for any $`\theta V^{}`$

$$𝐄\theta ,\xi _\alpha (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{V}{}[\theta ,x1]\mathrm{\Pi }(t,dx)\right\}$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the Lévy measure, that is $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝐄N(t,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`N(t,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the number of jumps of $`\xi _\alpha `$ on the interval $`[0,t)`$ belonging to a Borel set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\ni ̸1`$.

###### Proposition 2.

The Lévy measure, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ has the form $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t,\mathrm{\Gamma })=t\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ where $`\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a Borel measure on $`V\{1\}`$ finite outside any open neighbourhood of 1, which possesses the following properties:

(i) $`\nu `$ satisfies the condition of local spherical symmetry , that is $`\nu (dx)=\nu _n\mu (dx)`$ on $`V_nV_{n+1}`$. Specifically,

$$\nu _n=q^\alpha +\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{lm_l}\left[q^{\alpha (l+1)m_{l+1}}q^{\alpha lm_l}\right].$$
(12)
(ii) The equality

$$\nu (VV_n)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\nu _j\left[q^{jm_j}q^{(j+1)m_{j+1}}\right]$$
(13)
holds.

(iii) The asymptotic relation

$$\nu (VV_n)q^{\alpha nm_n},\text{as }n\mathrm{},$$
(14)
is valid.

Proof. By the construction of the process $`\xi _\alpha `$,

$$𝐄\theta ,\xi _\alpha (t)=\underset{V}{}\theta ,zG_\alpha (t,z)\mu (dz)=e^{tf^{(\alpha )}(\theta )}=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{tq^{\alpha nm_n}},\hfill & \text{if }\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{},n1,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }\theta 1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`G_\alpha (t,z)=G_\alpha (t,z^1)`$, the measure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is also invariant with respect to the inversion $`zz^1`$. Therefore comparing the last inequality with (11) we find that

$$\underset{V}{}[\theta ,x1]\mathrm{\Pi }(t,dx)=\{\begin{array}{cc}tq^{\alpha nm_n},\hfill & \text{if }\theta V_n^{}V_{n1}^{},n1,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }\theta 1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }V_nV_{n+1}`$ be a Borel set, $`\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ the indicator of the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We have

$$\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\underset{\theta V^{}}{}\widehat{\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\theta )\theta (x),\widehat{\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\theta )=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\overline{\theta ,x}\mu (dx).$$

In particular, $`\underset{\theta V^{}}{}\widehat{\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\theta )=\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=0`$, so that

$$\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\underset{\theta V^{}}{}\widehat{\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\theta )[\theta (x)1],$$

whence

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{V}{}\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\mathrm{\Pi }(t,dx)=t\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{\alpha lm_l}\underset{\theta V_l^{}V_{l1}^{}}{}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\overline{\theta ,x}\mu (dx)=t\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{\alpha lm_l}\mathrm{card}\left(V_l^{}V_{l1}^{}\right)\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill \\ \hfill tq^{\alpha (n+1)m_{n+1}}\left[\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\left(\underset{\theta V_{n+1}^{}}{}\theta ,x\right)\mu (dx)\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{card}V_n^{}\right]\\ \hfill t\underset{l=n+2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{\alpha lm_l}\left\{\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\left[\underset{\theta V_l^{}}{}\theta ,x\right]\mu (dx)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\left[\underset{\theta V_{l1}^{}}{}\theta ,x\right]\mu (dx)\right\}.\end{array}$$

An element $`xV_nV_{n+1}`$ can be considered as a non-trivial character of each group $`V_l^{}`$, $`ln+1`$ (since $`\left(V_l^{}\right)^{}=V_l`$). Therefore $`\underset{\theta V_l^{}}{}\theta ,x=0`$ for $`ln+1`$, so that

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{V}{}\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\mathrm{\Pi }(t,dx)=t\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma })\left\{\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{\alpha lm_l}\left[q^{lm_l}q^{(l1)m_{l1}}\right]q^{\alpha (n+1)m_{n+1}}q^{nm_n}\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill =t\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma })\left\{\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{lm_l}\left[q^{\alpha (l+1)m_{l+1}}q^{\alpha lm_l}\right]+q^\alpha \right\},\end{array}$$

and we have come to (12), which easily implies (13).

In order to prove (14), we apply the Abel transform to the sum in (12). We have

$$\nu _n=q^\alpha +q^{nm_n}\left(q^{\alpha (n+1)m_{n+1}}q^\alpha \right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(q^{(i+1)m_{i+1}}q^{im_i}\right)\left(q^{\alpha (i+1)m_{i+1}}q^\alpha \right).$$
(15)
Since $`m_{n+1}2m_n`$, it follows from (15) that

$$\nu _nq^{nm_n+\alpha (n+1)m_{n+1}},n\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
Now the asymptotics (14) is a consequence of (13) and (16). Indeed, the right-hand side of (14) is clearly the “leading” term in (13). As for other summands of (13), we find that

$$\nu _{n1}q^{nm_n}=\left(\nu _{n1}q^{(n1)m_{n1}}\right)q^{(n1)m_{n1}nm_n}\mathrm{const}q^{\alpha nm_n}q^{\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right)m_n}=o\left(q^{\alpha nm_n}\right);$$

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{n2}{}}\nu _j\left[q^{jm_j}q^{(j+1)m_{j+1}}\right]\mathrm{const}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n2}{}}q^{\alpha (j+1)m_{j+1}}\mathrm{const}(n1)q^{\frac{\alpha }{2}(n1)m_n}=o\left(q^{\alpha nm_n}\right)$$

because $`m_n2^{n1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

4.2. Using Proposition 2 and the general results by Evans , we can find now the Hausdorff and packing dimensions of the image of a time interval under the random mapping $`t\xi _\alpha (t)`$. See  for the definitions. Below we assume that $`\xi _\alpha (0)=1`$.

Let $`\pi (n)`$ be the first exit time of the process $`\xi _\alpha `$ out of the subgroup $`V_n`$. Let

$$Q(n,N)=𝐏\left\{\xi _\alpha (t)V_nt[\pi (n),\pi (N))\right\},n>N.$$

An essential assumption in  is the inequality

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}Q(n,N)>0.$$
(17)
In specific situations the verification of (17) can be a difficult task; see, for example, . However if the Lévy measure is locally spherically symmetric, as we have here by Proposition 2, then (17) takes place if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\nu (VV_n)}{M(n)}\frac{M(n1)}{\nu (VV_{n1})}<1$$
(18)
(, Corollary 2).

It follows from (5) and (14) that the inequality (18) holds if $`\alpha <1`$.

Denote by $`dim`$ the Hausdorff dimension, and by $`\mathrm{Dim}`$ the packing dimension corresponding to the natural metric on $`V`$ (see ).

###### Theorem 2.

If $`\alpha <1`$, then for each $`t>0`$ we have that

$$dim\xi _\alpha ([0,t])=\mathrm{Dim}\xi _\alpha ([0,t])=\alpha $$
(19)
almost surely.

Proof. The equalities (19) follow from (17) and Theorems 8, 10 of . $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the Hausdorff and packing dimensions of an image of an interval for a stable process on the field $`_p`$ of $`p`$-adic numbers were found recently in .


format: text

text:
# Unconventional Spin Density Wave in (TMTSF)2PF6 below 𝑇^⋆≈4 K

## I Introduction

The very anisotropic organic conductors (TMTSF)2X (where TMTSF is tetramethyltetraselenafulvalene and X = PF6, AsF6, ClO4 … stands for monovalent anion) or Bechgaard salts continue to attract much attention since the discovery of their superconductivity in 1979.Jérome et al. (1980) A variety of electronic ground states under pressure and/or magnetic field, (conventional) spin density wave (SDW), field induced spin density wave (FISDW) with quantum Hall effect and unconventional (most likely $`p`$wave) superconductivity, are very intriguing.Ishiguro et al. (1998); Lee et al. (2002)

(TMTSF)2PF6 is metallic down to $`T_{\text{SDW}}12`$ K, where the transition into the semiconducting SDW state occurs. It is known that SDW in (TMTSF)2PF6 undergoes another transition at $`T^{}T_{\text{SDW}}/3`$ (at 3.5–4 K at ambient pressure).Takahashi et al. (1986, 1991); Lasjaunias et al. (1994) The indication of the subphase transition was first seen by NMR,Takahashi et al. (1986) where $`T_1^1`$ diverges and the spin susceptibility changes at $`T^{}`$. The transition at $`T^{}`$ is preserved through the entire $`PT`$ phase diagram. Furthermore, a calorimetric transition at 3.5 K, with a large hysteretic phenomena in the temperature range 2.5–4 K (caused by the sample history), has been observed and interpreted as an indication of a glass transition.Lasjaunias et al. (1994) On the other hand, the low frequency dielectric relaxation of SDW in (TMTSF)2PF6 did not show the existence of the glass transition.Tomić et al. (1997) Since then, the SDW state was widely investigated, but the nature of the possible subphases remains controversial. Our study of the angular dependence of the magnetoresistance (MR) for $`𝐁(𝐚\text{}𝐛^{})`$ plane has shown dramatically different features above and below $`T^{}4`$ K.Basletić et al. (1999); Korin-Hamzić et al. (1999) However, taking into account our MR results for temperatures $`T2.2`$ K, the transition at $`T^{}`$ appears to be unique to (TMTSF)2PF6, as it has not been identified for X = AsF6 and ClO4.Korin-Hamzić et al. (2001) On the other hand, there are a few reportsKagoshima et al. (1999); Lasjaunias et al. (1999) indicating similar transition in (TMTSF)2AsF6, though less pronounced than in (TMTSF)2PF6. Therefore, at this moment, we cannot exclude the presence of similar transitions in other Bechgaard salts.

Recently, we have studied the MR in (TMTSF)2PF6, with a magnetic field rotated within the $`𝐚\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane, which behaves differently for $`T>4`$ K and $`T<4`$ K at ambient pressure.Korin-Hamzić et al. (1998) For $`T>4`$ K the magnetoresistance was described in terms of the quasiparticles scattered by the $`𝐤`$ dependent scattering rate (where $`𝐤`$ is the quasiparticle wave vector). In other words, we could understand the magnetotransport in terms of the standard Fermi liquid theory, i.e. by the quasiparticles with the energy gap given in the model with imperfect nesting.Huang and Maki (1989) In spite of the fact that for $`T<4`$ K we had to introduce a rather artificial scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi =bk_y)`$ the description of the resistance along the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis was not satisfactory.Korin-Hamzić et al. (1998)

More recently, an unconventional density wave (USDW and UCWD) was proposed as a possible ground state of the electronic systems in organic conductors and heavy fermion systems.Dora and Virosztek (2001); Nersesyan et al. (1991); Ikeda and Onashi (1998); Benfatto et al. (2000); Chakraverty et al. (2001) Unlike the conventional SDW, the USDW is defined as the SDW where the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ depends on the quasi-particle momentum $`𝐤`$. In spite of a clear thermodynamic signal (as in the usual mean field-like transition), the first order term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$, corresponding to local charge or local spin, is invisible. Consequently, these states may be called the phase with hidden order parameter.Chakraverty et al. (2001) UCWD has been identified very recently, from the temperature dependence of the threshold electric field,Basletić et al. (2001) in the low temperature phase of $`\alpha `$-(ET)2KHg(SCN)4.Dora et al. (2001) Similarly, a mysterious micromagnetism seen in AF phase of URu2Si2 could also be interpreted in terms of USDW.Virosztek et al.

The aim of this work was to see if the presence of possible subphases in the SDW below 4 K could be observed in the temperature dependence of the conductivity and MR as well as in the anisotropy of the MR. In this paper we compare the experimental MR data of (TMTSF)2PF6 in the SDW state, showing the pronounced differences for $`T>4`$ K and $`T<4`$ K, with our new theoretical results (preliminary results in Ref. Korin-Hamzić et al., ). We propose that the anomaly at $`T^{}4`$ K in (TMTSF)2PF6 signals the appearance of USDW. We point out that USDW requires more subtle balance between different interaction terms than conventional SDW,Dora and Virosztek (2001) and consequently it is perhaps not easily find in other Bechgaard salts.

## II Experiment.

The measurements were done down to 2 K in magnetic fields up to 5 T and with different directions of the current (through the crystal) and different orientations of magnetic field. A rotating sample holder enabled the sample rotation around a chosen axis over a range of $`190^{}`$. The single crystals used come all from the same batch. Their $`𝐚`$ direction is the highest conductivity direction, the $`𝐛^{}`$ direction (with intermediate conductivity) is perpendicular to $`𝐚`$ in the $`𝐚\text{}𝐛`$ plane and $`𝐜^{}`$ direction (with the lowest conductivity) is perpendicular to the $`𝐚\text{}𝐛`$ (and $`𝐚\text{}𝐛^{}`$). The room temperature conductivity values for $`\sigma _𝐚`$, $`\sigma _𝐛`$, and $`\sigma _𝐜`$ are 500 $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm})^1`$, 20 $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm})^1`$, and 1/35 $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm})^1`$ respectively.

The experimental MR data, that will be analyzed here, are for $`𝐜^{}`$ and $`𝐛^{}`$ axis and for different orientations of magnetic field. The MR, defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _0=[\rho (B)\rho (0)]/\rho (0)`$, was measured in various four probe arrangements on samples cut from a long crystal. Moreover, the measurements of $`𝐜^{}`$ axis MR, for two different magnetic field rotations, were performed on the same sample but which was cut to two parts. In the case of $`\rho _𝐛`$ ($`𝐣𝐛^{}`$) two pairs of the contacts were placed on the opposite $`𝐚\text{}𝐜^{}`$ surfaces while for $`\rho _𝐜`$ ($`𝐣𝐜^{}`$) on the opposite $`𝐚\text{}𝐛^{}`$ surfaces. We used very slow cooling rates (about 2–5 K per hour) to avoid the appearance of the irreversible resistance jumps usually encountered for $`𝐣𝐚`$ measurements. This was especially important for $`𝐣𝐛^{}`$ geometry, where additional care was required to avoid possible mixture of $`\sigma _𝐛`$ and $`\sigma _𝐜`$ conductivities.Korin-Hamzić et al. (1998) This can be described by using the concept of the equivalent isotropic sample that gives a simple picture of the current distribution in the anisotropic sample.Cooper et al. (1985) The eligible test for properly measured $`𝐛^{}`$-axis resistivity is linear temperature dependence at high temperatures.Bechgaard et al. (1980) Namely, there is a non-monotonic temperature dependence of $`\rho _𝐜`$ in (TMTSF)2PF6 at ambient pressure going through a well characterized maximum at 80 K in contrast to the results for $`\rho _𝐚`$ ($`T^2`$) and $`\rho _𝐛`$ ($`T`$) exhibiting a monotonous, metallic-like decrease upon lowering temperature.

Figure 1 present three configurations that will be analyzed in this work: a) Fig. 1A shows the case when the current direction is along the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis and the magnetic field is rotated in the $`𝐚\text{}𝐜^{}`$ ($`𝐣𝐛^{}`$, $`𝐁(𝐚\text{}𝐜^{})`$) perpendicular to the current direction. $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐁`$ and the $`𝐚`$ axis, i.e. $`\theta =0`$ for $`𝐁𝐚`$ and $`\theta =90^{}`$ for $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$. b) Fig. 1B shows the case when the current direction is along the $`𝐜^{}`$ axis and the magnetic field is rotated in the $`𝐛^{}\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane ($`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`𝐁(𝐛^{}\text{}𝐜^{})`$). $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐁`$ and the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis, i.e. $`\theta =0`$ for $`𝐁𝐛^{}`$ and $`\theta =90^{}`$ for $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$. c) Fig. 1C shows the case when the current direction is along the $`𝐜^{}`$ axis and the magnetic field is rotated in the

$`𝐚\text{}𝐛^{}`$ plane ($`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`𝐁(𝐚\text{}𝐛^{})`$) perpendicular to the current direction. $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐁`$ and the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis, i.e. $`\theta =0`$ for $`𝐁𝐛^{}`$ and $`\theta =90^{}`$ for $`𝐁𝐚`$.

## III Model, results and discussion.

### III.1 Quasiparticle spectrum above $`T^{}4`$ K.

We limit ourselves to the $`𝐜^{}`$ axis magnetoresistance, i.e. to the case B when the current $`𝐣`$ direction is along the $`𝐜^{}`$ axis, the magnetic field is rotated in the $`𝐛^{}\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane with $`\theta =\mathrm{}(𝐛^{},𝐁)`$. We leave a detailed analysis for another current directions and magnetic field orientations above 4 K for a future publication.

The Landau quantization of the quasiparticle spectrum appears to describe very well the observed results. In the limit of perfect nesting all the electron orbits are open and there will be no Landau quantization. On the other hand, in the presence of the imperfect nestingHuang and Maki (1989) as in (TMTSF)2PF6 the quasiparticle energy landscape develops local minima at $`k_z=\pm k_F`$, $`k_y=\pm \pi /2b`$. In other words, closed orbits appear and they will be quantized in the presence of a magnetic field.

For $`T>4`$ K the quasiparticle energy is given by:Korin-Hamzić et al. (1998)

$`E_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\epsilon _0\mathrm{cos}2bk_y`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}\eta ^2+2\epsilon _0b^2k_y^2,`$
where $`\eta =\left[v_a^2(k_xk_F)^2+v_c^2k_z^2\right]^{1/2}`$ is the quasiparticle energy in the normal state ($`v_a`$ and $`v_c`$ are Fermi velocities in $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐜^{}`$ direction, respectively), $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`34`$ K) is the order parameter for conventional SDW and $`\epsilon _0`$ ($`13`$ K) is the parameter characterizing the imperfect nesting effect.Korin-Hamzić et al. (1998) The quasiparticle energy is expanded for small $`(k_xk_F)^2`$ and $`k_y^2`$. In a presence of a magnetic field within the $`𝐛^{}\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane, with $`\theta `$ being the angle between the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ and the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis, the minimum energy (i.e. the energy gap) in Eq. (1) is given by:

$$E(B,\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _0+\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}v_abeB\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta },$$
(2)
with $`\gamma _2=(1/\epsilon _0\mathrm{\Delta })(v_c/2b)^2`$. For $`B=0`$ the resistance is given as $`\rho _{zz}(T,0)\mathrm{exp}[\beta E(0,\theta )]`$, whereas for $`B0`$ we have:

$$\rho _{zz}(T,B)B\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }e^{\beta E(B,\theta )}.$$
(3)
First, we note that the energy gap is given in the both limits ($`B=0`$ and $`B0`$) by Eq. (2). Second, for $`\omega _c\tau >1`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`\tau `$ is the scattering rate, $`\rho _{zz}(T,B)`$ contains a $`B`$ linear coefficient. So, we may interpolate these expressions as:

$`\rho _{zz}(B,T)`$ $``$ $`e^{\beta (\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _0)\left(1+A_2B\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right)}`$ (4)
$`\times \left(1+C_2B\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right),`$
with $`A_2=(\epsilon _0/\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}v_abe/(\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _0)`$.

We shall compare now our experimental data with the above equations. The magnetic field dependence of MR for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`𝐁𝐛^{}`$ and $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$ at 4.2 K is presented in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the angular dependence of MR for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`B=5`$ T at 4.2 K and 2.2 K. $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐁`$ and the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis (see Fig. 1, case B). Solid line is the fit based on the Eq. (4). The change in the angular dependence of MR for $`T>4`$ K and $`T<4`$ K is clearly seen (the case for $`T=2.2`$ K will be treated in Section III.2). It is evident that the present model describes rather well the data, with both the field and angular dependence of MR, at $`T=4.2`$ K and $`B=5`$ T giving $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _0)=21`$ K, $`A_2=0.014`$ T-1, $`C_2=0.38`$ T-1 and $`\gamma _2=0.85`$. These values enable us to extract the $`𝐚`$ axis coherence length $`\xi _a=v_a/\mathrm{\Delta }=1.2\times 10^6`$ cm and $`v_c/v_a=7.33\times 10^2`$ (we used here flux quantum $`\pi /e=\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2.07\times 10^{11}`$ T cm2). Both $`\xi _a`$ and $`v_c/v_a`$ thus deduced are consistent with the ones deduced from the anisotropy in the resistivity.Ishiguro et al. (1998)

### III.2 Quasiparticle spectrum below $`T^{}4`$ K.

We start by proposing that the anomaly at $`T^{}4`$ K in (TMTSF)2PF6 signals the appearance of USDW with the momentum dependent order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi `$, where $`\varphi =bk_2`$ with wave vector $`𝐐=(2k_F,\pi /2b,0)`$. In other words, below $`T^{}`$ two order parameters (SDW and USDW) coexist. In this case the quasiparticle spectrum changes from Eq. (1) to:

$`E_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(\sqrt{\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\epsilon _0\mathrm{cos}2bk_y\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2\mathrm{cos}^22\varphi }`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2}}+(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)\left(\mathrm{cos}^22\varphi \mathrm{cos}^22\varphi _0\right)^2}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+\stackrel{~}{v}_a^2(k_xk_F)^2+\stackrel{~}{v}_c^2k_z^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)b^2k_y^2},`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)^{1/2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}_a=v_a\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_c=v_c\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)^{1/2}`$. We have not included a constant shift in $`k_y`$ and $`k_z`$, since they are of no importance when one considers the effect of the magnetic field. In the absence of the magnetic field, the effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ (or USDW) is to change the minimum energy gap from $`E_{\text{min}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _0`$ ($`T>4`$ K) to $`E_{\text{min}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ ($`T<4`$ K). As we shall see later, the introduction of the magnetic field changes dramatically the minimum energy gap $`E_{\text{min}}`$. Such a dramatic shift in $`E_{\text{min}}`$ in USDW and UCDW in a magnetic field has already been discussed in Ref. Nersesyan and Vachnadze, 1989 and Nersesyan et al., 1991.

We shall see in the following that the field and the angle dependent quasiparticle spectrum describes the angle dependent MR observed in (TMTSF)2PF6 below $`T^{}4`$ K rather satisfactory. The quasiparticle energy gap in the absence of magnetic field is given by Eqs. (III.2) and (6). Due to the quadratic form in $`𝐤`$ in the square root, we expect the Landau quantization in the presence of magnetic field. Let us consider three cases (Fig. 1) separately.

#### III.2.1 Case A: $`𝐣𝐛^{}`$, $`𝐁(𝐚\text{}𝐜^{})`$, $`\theta =\mathrm{}(𝐚,𝐁)`$

We can recast Eq. (6) as an eigenvalue problem:

$`E^2(B,\theta )\psi `$ $`=`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+\stackrel{~}{v}_a^2(eBy\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2+\stackrel{~}{v}_c^2(eBy\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2`$ (7)
$`(2b)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2){\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}y^2}}]\psi ,`$
where $`\psi `$ is the electron wave function. This gives readily for the quasiparticle energy corresponding to the $`n`$th Landau level:

$$E_n^2(B,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+2\stackrel{~}{v}_a\mathrm{\Delta }_1eB(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}(2n+1),$$
(8)
($`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$). From this we obtain the minimum energy gap $`E_{\text{min}}`$:

$$E_{\text{min}}(B,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+A_1|B|(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}},$$
(9)
$$A_1=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{v}_a\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}be,\gamma _1=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_c}{\stackrel{~}{v}_a}\right)^210^3.$$

In this configuration $`\gamma _1`$ is clearly negligible. By approximating the cyclotron frequency as:

$`E_1(B,\theta )E_0(B,\theta )=`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\sqrt{1+3A_1|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |}\sqrt{1+A_1|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}A_1|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |,`$ (10)
and noting the fact that in the presence of magnetic field

$$\sigma _{yy}\frac{|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{1+A_1|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |}\right]}{1+C^{}\left(B\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^2},$$

we finally obtain the interpolation formula:

$`\rho _{yy}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+A_1|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |}\right)`$ (11)
$`\times \left(1+C_1A_1|B\mathrm{sin}\theta |\right),`$
where $`C_1=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}/\mathrm{\Gamma })^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the quasiparticle relaxation rate (note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`𝐤`$-independent).

The comparison of Eq. (11) (with $`\theta =\pi /2`$) with the experimental data is given in Figs. 4 and 5. Fig. 4 shows the results of the magnetic field dependence of the MR at 2.2 K for $`𝐣𝐛^{}`$ and $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$. The inset shows the temperature dependence of the MR for $`B=5`$ T in the same geometry. The solid lines show the fit to the theoretical model explained above. Fig. 5 shows the angular dependence of MR for $`𝐣𝐛^{}`$ and $`B=5`$ T at 2.2 K (see Fig. 1, case A). Dashed line shows the results at 4.2 K. Solid line is fit based on Eq. (11). Further, the $`1/T`$ dependent magnetoresistance is compared in the inset of Fig. 4. By fitting the data we can deduce $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=20`$ K, $`A_1=0.027`$ T-1 which gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.568`$ (where we took $`b=0.77`$ nm and $`\xi _a=\stackrel{~}{v}_a/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=120`$ Å). We obtain the USDW order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_120`$ K. These numbers look rather reasonable. So, in this geometry, the present model describes the experimental data reported in Ref. Korin-Hamzić et al., 1998 rather well.

#### III.2.2 Case B: $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`𝐁(𝐛^{}\text{}𝐜^{})`$, $`\theta =\mathrm{}(𝐛^{},𝐁)`$

In this configuration the eigenequation is rewritten as:

$`E^2(B,\theta )\psi `$ $`=`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\stackrel{~}{v}_a^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}y^2}}+\stackrel{~}{v}_c^2(eBx\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2`$ (12)
$`+(2b)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)(eBx\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2]\psi ,`$
which is solved as:

$$E_n^2(B,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+2\stackrel{~}{v}_a\mathrm{\Delta }_1eB(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}(2n+1),$$
(13)
($`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$). Therefore, the minimum energy gap $`E_{\text{min}}`$ is:

$$E_{\text{min}}(B,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+A_2|B|(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}},$$
(14)
$$A_2=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{v}_a\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}be,\gamma _2=\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_c^2}{(2b)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)}.$$

The magnetoresistance along the $`𝐜^{}`$ axis is given by:

$`\rho _{zz}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+A_2|B|(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}}\right]`$ (15)
$`\times \left(1+C_2A_2|B|\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right).`$
Figure 6 shows the temperature dependence of the resistance for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$ ($`B=0`$, $`B=5`$ T) and for two different magnetic field orientations $`𝐁𝐛^{}`$ and $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$. The difference in $`R`$ vs. $`10/T`$ behaviour below $`4`$ K for two magnetic field orientations is clearly observed. The magnetic field dependence of magnetoresistance for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$ and $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$ at $`2.2`$ K is presented in Fig. 7. As mentioned before, Fig. 3 shows also the angular dependence of magnetoresistance for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`B=5`$ T at 2.2 K (see Fig. 1, case B). Solid line (on both Fig. 3 and Fig. 7) is fit based on the Eq. (15). The present expression is comparable with both the $`B`$ dependence of magnetoresistance for $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and the $`\theta `$ dependent magnetoresistance at $`T=2.2`$ K and $`B=5`$ T. Again, the present model describes the data rather well. In the present comparison we deduce $`A_2=0.00134\text{ T}\text{-1}=A_1/20.2`$, $`C_2=0.5192\text{ T}\text{-1}=C_1/20.2`$, and $`\gamma _2=0.060`$ which gives $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=20`$ K and $`v_c/v_a=0.02`$. On the other hand, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.0284`$ that gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_11`$ K. This implies the USDW order parameter in the present configuration is reduced by a factor of 1/20 compared with the one in the first configuration. This result is rather unexpected, but we hope the future work will clarify this problem.

#### III.2.3 Case C: $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`𝐁(𝐚\text{}𝐛^{})`$, $`\theta =\mathrm{}(𝐛^{},𝐁)`$

In this configuration the eigenequation is rewritten as:

$`E^2(B,\theta )\psi `$ $`=`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\stackrel{~}{v}_c^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}z^2}}+\stackrel{~}{v}_a^2(eBz\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2`$ (16)
$`+(2b)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)(eBz\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]\psi ,`$
which gives

$$E_n^2(B,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+2\stackrel{~}{v}_c\stackrel{~}{v}_aeB(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}(2n+1),$$
(17)
($`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$). For the minimum energy gap $`E_{\text{min}}`$ we obtain:

$$E_{\text{min}}(B,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+A_3|B|(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}},$$
(18)
$$A_3=\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_a\stackrel{~}{v}_ce}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}be,\gamma _3=\frac{(2b)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\epsilon _0^2)}{\stackrel{~}{v}_a^2}.$$

It follows that the magnetoresistance along the $`𝐜^{}`$ is given by:

$`\rho _{zz}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+A_3|B|(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}}\right]`$ (19)
$`\times \left(1+C_3A_3|B|\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\gamma _3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right).`$
Figure 8 presents the magnetic field dependence of MR for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$ and $`𝐁𝐚`$ at 2.2 K, while Fig. 9 shows the angular dependence of magnetoresistance for $`𝐣𝐜^{}`$, $`B=5`$ T at 2.2 K (see Fig. 1, case C). We point out that there is a maxima in MR for $`𝐁𝐚`$ at 2.2 K, while there is a minima in MR for $`𝐁𝐚`$ at 4.2 K (dashed line Fig. 9). This kind of behaviour cannot be described in terms of conventional SDW where the imperfect nesting plays the crucial role. Namely, in that case we expect maxima in MR for $`𝐁𝐛^{}`$. This big change in MR anisotropy may be described within our new theoretical model. We shall compare now our experimental data at 2.2 K with the Eq. (19). The solid line is fit based on the theory that describes the data on Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 at 2.2 K very well. We deduce $`A_3=0.0165`$ T-1, $`C_30`$, and $`\gamma _3=0.154`$. From $`A_3`$ we obtain:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_a\stackrel{~}{v}_c}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}=\xi _a\xi _c=1.087\times 10^{13}\text{ cm}^2$$

and assuming $`\xi _c/\xi _a=1/13.6`$ we obtain $`\xi _a=1.2\times 10^6`$ cm which is quite reasonable.Ishiguro et al. (1998) On the other hand $`\gamma _3=0.154`$ gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1/\mathrm{\Delta }=1.75`$ that is too large, at least by a factor of 2, giving $`\mathrm{\Delta }_160`$ K.

## IV Concluding remarks

We have proposed that the phase transition at $`T^{}4`$ K in (TMTSF)2PF6 is due to the appearance of the USDW in addition to the already existing SDW. As we have shown, the quasiparticle spectrum in SDW with imperfect nesting and/or USDW in a magnetic field is, due to the Landau quantization, very different from the one for $`B=0`$. The appearance of USDW order parameter modifies the quasiparticle spectrum. This change is readily accessible to both the magnetoresistance and the angular dependence of the magnetoresistance. Indeed, USDW describes the dramatic change in the magnetoresistance below $`T^{}4`$ K. Furthermore, from the angular dependence of the magnetoresistance we can deduce the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=20`$ K, $`v_a/\mathrm{\Delta }=\xi _a=1.2\times 10^6`$ cm, and $`v_c/v_a=7.33\times 10^2`$, which are consistent with the previously known values. However, the new order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, associated with USDW, appears to behave somewhat unexpectedly (as the deduced values give $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=20`$ K, 1 K, and 60 K for $`𝐁`$ in the $`𝐚\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane, in the $`𝐛^{}\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane and in the $`𝐚\text{}𝐛^{}`$ plane, respectively). The reason for differences of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is unclear at present. We note, however, that in contrast to our earlier analysis,Korin-Hamzić et al. (1998) here we have taken into account the Landau quantization of the quasiparticle spectrum, but we have considered the $`𝐤`$-independence of the scattering rate. We can only suppose, that in addition to the Landau quantization the inclusion of the $`𝐤`$-dependent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would solve this $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ discrepancy.

###### Acknowledgements.

This experimental work was performed on samples prepared by K. Bechgaard. We thank P. Thalmeier for drawing our attention to Ref. Nersesyan and Vachnadze, 1989 and Nersesyan et al., 1991. We acknowledge useful discussions with A. Hamzić and S. Tomić.


text:
# Theory of superconductor-insulator transition in single Josephson junctions

## Abstract

A non-band theory is developed to describe the superconductor-insulator (SI) transtition in resistively shunted, single Josephson junctions. The $`IV`$ characteristic is formulated by a Landauer-like formula and evaluated by the path-integral transfer-matrix method. The result is consistent with the recent experiments at around 80 $`mK`$. However, the insulator phase shrinks with decreasing temperature indicating that the single Josephson junction becomes all superconducting at absolute zero temperature, as long as dissipation is present.

The resistively shunted single Josephson junction(RSJ) at $`T=0`$ is described classically by the second order differential equation for the phase difference between the two superconductors,

$$C\frac{\mathrm{}\ddot{\varphi }}{2e}+\frac{1}{R_\mathrm{T}}\frac{\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }}{2e}+I_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi =I$$
(1)
Here $`C`$ is the capacitance, $`R_T`$ is the normal state resistance of the junction, $`I_0`$ is the critical current, and $`I`$ is the bias current. A mechanical analogy of a particle moving in a tilted washboard potential with friction may be helpful. The $`IV`$ characteristic resulting from (1) was studied by Stewart. The capacitance brings about hysteresis. In the weak dissipation limit $`R_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{}`$ current is entirely carried by Cooper pairs at $`V=0`$ and up to the critical current. This is the dc Josephson effect. For $`I>I_0`$, the $`IV`$ curve switches to the Ohmic branch where current is entirely carried by electrons, $`V=RI`$. In the opposit limit $`R_\mathrm{T}0`$ hysteresis disappears and supercurrent at $`V=0`$ is gradualy replaced by the normal current with increasing voltage. The thermal and quantum fluctuation is expected to affect only the regime $`I/I_0R_q/R_Tg`$, where $`R_qh/4e^2=6.45K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the quantum resistance. Now for a typical charging energy of 1K, the critical current is $`I_0=2eE_J/\mathrm{}=42E_J/E_CnA`$ whereas the parameter ranges associated with the SI transition are $`g1,E_J/E_C1`$. The range of current where fluctuation is important is thus up to a few $`nA`$. The focus of the present paper is precisely in this current regime. It should be noted that if $`g1`$, the bias current could be as large as the critical current while still staying in the regime where fluctuation is important. Indeed this case was studied theoretically and experimentally focusing on the negative differential resistance as a signal of the Coulomb blockade of Cooper pair tunneling.

A microscopic description is to take into account the quasi-particle tunneling but with zero superconducting gap (resistively shunted) as a source of dissipation. The path-integral expression of the partition function is,

$$Z_0=𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})$$
(2)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{C}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}\dot{\varphi }\right)^2+U(\varphi )\right]`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\alpha (\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (\tau )\varphi (\tau ^{})}{2}}\right)`$
where

$`U(\varphi )=E_J\mathrm{cos}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{I\mathrm{}}{2e}}\varphi `$ (5)
$`\alpha (\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi e^2R_\mathrm{T}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi /\beta \mathrm{})^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \tau /\beta \mathrm{})}}`$ (6)
The single Josephson junction (JJ) has also been studied by a phenomenological model which is just to replace the term $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\varphi (\tau )\varphi (\tau ^{})}{2}\right)`$ in (4) by $`\varphi (\tau )\varphi (\tau ^{})`$ leading, upon stationally phase approximation, to (1) with retarded dissipation.

The first question concerning the phase dynamics is whether it is coherent or incoherent. A band theory assumes a coherent motion of phase over many local minima of the washboard potential. In band picture, the voltage calculation is easy because it is proportional to the group velocity of the quasi-charge. On the other hand, a non-band theory is appropriate for incoherent motion, and the problem is reduced to the calculation of the escape rate of particle out of a dissipative metastable well, the quantum Kramers rate.

Watanabe and Haviland discussed their recent experiment on the Coulomb blockade at $`g1`$ in light of the band theory. However, other experiments have not found the negative differential resistance in the SI transition regime $`g1`$. This indicates that the phase dynamics near the SI transition is dominated by incoherent tunneling. Indeed a typical experimental setup is, $`E_C=1K,E_J/E_C=0.120,T/E_C=0.11`$ and $`g1`$. And most importantly, the minimum voltage experimentally observable is of order $`0.5\mu V`$ which translates to the temperature $`10mK`$. So when the energy splitting due to tunneling exceeds this value, the corresponding state is experimentally recognized as insulating. However, $`10mK`$ is much smaller than the potential barrier $`E_J`$ at the SI transition. Near the SI transition at $`g=0`$, therefore, the effect of many wells is expected unimportant. Switching on dissipation, the SI transition shifts to a smaller critical $`E_J/E_C`$, but then dissipation will suppress the effect of incresed tunneling strength. One thus expects that the phase dynamics essentially at a single well would determine the SI transition.

In this paper we propose a non-band theory for the SI transition. Two methods have been employed to calculate the quantum Kramers rate along this line. One is the imaginary free energy method with an instanton technique. The other is the quntum transition state (QTS) theory long known in chemistry. Here we develop a new approach combining a Landauer-like formula for the quantum Kramers rate and the cluster transfer matrix (TM) method. The Landauer formula for electrical conductance has proven to be quite useful in mesoscopic systems. In the quantum Kramers rate problem, there is formally exact formula analogous to the Green-Kubo-Nakano formula for electrical conductivity. The corresponding Landauer-like formula is the quantum transient state (QTS) theory which tries to calculate the Kramers rate by summing up all the probabilities of finding particle at the top of the barrier which have positive, outgoing momentum. The QTS theory, however, has often been exercised with a semiclassical approximation and its drawbacks do not show up this way. As soon as one tries to exactly evaluate the path-integrals, however, one encounters difficultiess. First, the contribution to the escape rate is no longer local. The phase motion at different places than at the barrier top contributes. Moreover, the non-local contribution could become negative, as discussed in. This undesirable nonlocality and negativity originates from the Weyle quantization procedure. The original idea to collect all the outgoing, positive contribution at the barrier site, is thus spoiled.

We have recently proposed a Landauer-like formula for the quantum Kramers rate. Applied to the voltage calculation here, it reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{e/2C}}=\left[1\mathrm{exp}(\pi I\mathrm{}\beta /e)\right]\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)P^2/L}`$ (7)
where $`P_\varphi `$, $`\varphi _0`$ is the barrier top in the potential $`U(\varphi )`$, $`L`$ is the system size, and $`<\mathrm{}>`$ is a thermal average. The first factor in (5) takes into account the backward flux by detailed balance, whereas the second term is esentially square root of average of the kinetic energy, in mechanical analogy, at the barrier top with factor 1/2 taking into account only the right-going contribution. In contrast, the QTS formula is obtained from (5) by replacing $`\sqrt{\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)P^2/L}\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)|P|`$. The difference between the formula (5) and the QTS theory is thus a fluctuation which is precisely the undesirable non-local, possibly negative contributions in the QTS theory described in the above. After some manipulations, one can express the average in (7) as

$`\delta (\varphi \varphi _0)P^2=Z/Z_0`$ (8)
$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\varphi ^2W(\varphi ,2\varphi _0\varphi )|_{\varphi =\varphi _0}`$ (9)
$`Z_0={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi W(\varphi ,\varphi )}`$ (10)
in terms of the path integral

$$W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}𝒟\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(0)=\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\beta \mathrm{})=\varphi ^{}`$.

The path-integral (11) with the action $`S`$ given by (4) can be evaluated precisely by the cluster TM method. In the present problem, however, the dimensionless conductance is at $`g1`$, and from the study of the single electron box which has a similar action as (4), this regime of $`g`$ can be accurately handled by the 1-cluster TM method as follows. First divide the interval $`(0,\beta \mathrm{})`$ into $`N`$ segments of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\beta \mathrm{}/N`$. Denoting the discrete phase points as $`\varphi _i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},N+1`$, we have

$$\mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}K(\varphi _i,\varphi _{i+1})\times \mathrm{Rm}$$
(12)
where the TM operator $`K`$ is defined by

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\varphi _i\varphi _{i+1})^2+J\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i+I\varphi _i)`$ (14)
$`2g{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2T^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi T\mathrm{\Delta })}}(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i\varphi _{i+1}}{2}})]`$
with dimensionless parameters $`JE_J/E_C,Tk_BT/E_C,II\mathrm{}/(2eJ)`$ and

$`\mathrm{Rm}\mathrm{exp}\left[2gT^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2{\displaystyle \underset{ji2}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi _j\varphi _i}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi T\mathrm{\Delta }(ji)\right)}}\right]`$ (15)
where the cumulant approximation was used which is precise for $`g1`$. Second write

$$_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}𝒟\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}𝑑\varphi _i\delta \left(\varphi _1\varphi \right)\delta \left(\varphi _{N+1}\varphi ^{}\right)$$
(16)
The first $`\delta `$-function can be written in terms of a complete set {$`\psi _p`$} as

$$\delta \left(\varphi _1\varphi \right)=\underset{p}{}\psi _p^{}(\varphi )\psi _p(\varphi _1)$$
(17)
Now one can choose the complete set such that it satisfies the TM equation,

$$_{\varphi _a}^{\varphi _b}𝑑\varphi K(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})\psi _p(\varphi )=\lambda _p\psi _p(\varphi ^{})$$
(18)
Repeatedly using the TM equation, we arrive at

$$W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=\mathrm{Rm}\underset{p}{}\lambda _p^N\psi _p^{}(\varphi )\psi _p(\varphi ^{})$$
(19)
The correlation function $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi _j\varphi _i}{2}`$ in (15) can be calculated likewise.

There are three parameters $`T,g`$ and $`E_J/E_C`$. In addition the present method contains two more parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`J_R`$. The latter defines the phase space; $`\varphi _a=\pi \varphi _0\pi /J_R`$, $`\varphi _b=\pi \varphi _0+\pi /J_R`$. For numerical results obtained, we have checked that the results are affected a couple of % for the two different $`J_R=2,3`$ and for the two different $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05,0.1`$. The results shown below are for $`J_R=3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.1`$. The ”zero-bias” resistance reported in experiments may need to be treated carefully. In fact, the voltage measurment in a single JJ is limited, unlike 1D or 2D JJ arrays, to $`V_{min}0.5\mu V`$. So we have calculated the differential resistance $`R\frac{dV}{dI}`$ with the constraint that the voltage is equal to 0.5$`\mu V`$ (The calculation is repeated for $`V_{min}=0.05\mu V`$ to find no essential difference from the results below). At the same time, to be consistent with our theoretical consideration above, we have checked that the current is much smaller than the critical one, $`II_0`$. For results below, the current $`I`$ is up to a few % of the critical one $`I_0`$. Fig. 1 shows a temperature dependence of the resistance at $`V=0.5\mu V`$ for $`g=0.4`$. The small $`E_J/E_C`$ case shows an insulator-like temperature dependence $`\frac{dR}{dT}<0`$, while the large $`E_J/E_C`$ case shows a superconductor-like behavior $`\frac{dR}{dT}>0`$. Repeating the calculations for different g, one can draw a phase diagram. Fig. 2 is a phase diagram at $`T=80mK`$. The experimental results are open circles (superconductor-like) and solid circles (insulator-like) at $`T80mK`$. Our result is denoted by open diamonds. The band theory result, thick solid line, is obtained by simply replacing the minimum measurament energy $`eV_{min}`$ by the thermal energy $`k_BT`$. The QTS theory result, triangles, is also plotted for comparison. A major disagreement between theory and experiment is for some data points near $`g=2.8`$. However a similar phase diagram experimentally found for the 2D JJ arrays with similar parameter ranges for $`g,E_j/E_C`$ and $`T`$ is bounded, $`E_J/E_C0.5`$, and $`g0.5`$ (cf. Fig 3 in). The above data near $`g=2.8`$ is currently mysterious.

There are two notable points in the obtained temperature dependence of resistance. First it becomes flat for large $`E_J/E_C`$ irrespective of $`g`$. This is consistent with experimental findings. Theoretically, when the ratio $`E_J/E_C`$ is sufficiently large, the quantum Kramers rate would become less dependent on $`T`$ and $`g`$. Note a sharp contrast between the single JJ and the 2D JJ arrays. The temperature dependence of resistance in the latter case showed a true phase transition behavior, namely resistance decreases or increases roughly exponentially with temperature. Interestingly, the temperature dependence of resistance in 1D JJ arrays also becomes flat deep inside the superconducting phase. The second notable point is that the SI phase boundary defined by vanishing $`dR/dT`$ actually depends on temperature. In Fig. 3, we have plotted the SI phase boundary for $`T=80,60,40,20,10`$ and $`5mK`$. Clearly, the insulator phase diminishes with decreasing temperature. We thus reach a conclusion that, as long as dissipation is present, the single JJ becomes all superconducting at absolute zero temperature. Note that, in contrast, the band theory predicts an essentially temperature independent phase boundary. It is interesting to see if our finding can be observed experimentally.

Finally, related to the last point, we should argue that our finding is indeed consistent with the previous theoretical works on a different RSJ model and the subsequent experimental observations of a universal $`T^2`$-law for the escape rate $`k^+`$ of the zero-voltage state in the single JJ. That is,

$$ln[k^+(T)/k^+(0)]T^2\mathrm{for}T0$$
(20)
These experiments focused on the highly dissipative regime $`g1`$, and the current is very close to the critical current, and therefore the escape rate $`k^+`$ is not quite proportional to voltage. In contrast, we focused on the regime $`g1`$ and calculated voltage since current is only up to a few % of the critical one. Nevertheless the present theory and the previous theories agree in that both $`k^+`$ and $`R(T)`$ increase with temperature at very low T. In fact it was argued that the universal low temperature enhancement arizes from the temperature dependence of the heat-bath. In the present case, it is due to the $`\alpha (\tau )`$ term in the action (4) and its temperature dependence originates from the Fermi distribution function in the electron Green’s function . As $`T0`$, this term dominates the temperature dependence and the voltage behaves as

$$ln[V(T)/V(0)]gT^2$$
(21)
leading to $`\frac{dR}{dT}>0`$ for $`T0`$. Note that, as is clear from (21) and seen in Fig. 3, such a temperature dependence disappears at $`g=0`$.

This work was supported by the Visitor Program of the MPI-PKS. The work was also partially supported by the NSF under Grant No. DMR990002N and utilized the SGI/CRAY Origin2000 at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I thank Mikhail Fistul, Pertti Hakonen and Pavel Lipavsk$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{y}}`$ for helpful discussions and Chiidon Chen and Watson Kuo for correspondence on their experiment. I also thank Peter Hänggi, Ivan Larkin and Anthony Leggett for enlightening conversations.

FIG. 1. Temperature dependence of the ”zero-bias” resistance at $`g=0.4`$. From top to bottom, $`E_J/E_C`$=0.07, 0.56, 0.84, 1.12, 1.4, 1.96, 2.52, 3.0 and 4.0.

FIG. 2. Phase diagram of shunted Josephson junction at $`T=80mK`$. The phase boundary lies between the insulator-like (solid circles) and superconductor-like (open circles) samples experimentally found in . The thick line is the band theory(B-T), the triangle the QTS theory and the diamond is due to the present theory(L-like).

FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of the superconductor-insulator phase boundary in the $`E_J/E_Cg`$ plane. From right to left, $`T=80,60,40,20,10,`$ and $`5mK`$.