text:
# NONSTANDARD GRAPHS

Abstract — From any given sequence of finite or infinite graphs, a nonstandard graph is constructed. The procedure is similar to an ultrapower construction of an internal set from a sequence of subsets of the real line, but now the individual entities are the vertices of the graphs instead of real numbers. The transfer principle is then invoked to extend several graph-theoretic results to the nonstandard case. After incidences and adjacencies between nonstandard vertices and edges are defined, several formulas regarding numbers of vertices and edges, and nonstandard versions of Eulerian graphs, Hamiltonian graphs, and a coloring theorem are established for these nonstandard graphs.

Key Words: Nonstandard graphs, transfer principle, ultrapower constructions.

1. Introduction

In the book  (se Sec. 19.1), R. Goldblatt constructed a nonstandard graph by applying the transfer principle to a set $`V`$ of vertices with the set $`E`$ of edges defined by a symmetric irreflexive binary relationship on $`V`$. Thus, the conventional graph $`V,E`$ is transferred to the nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G=^{}V,^{}E`$. This result was used to establish in a nonstandard way the standard theorem that, if every finite subgraph of a conventional infinite graph $`G`$ has a coloring with finitely many colors, then $`G`$ itself has such a finite coloring.

On the other hand, in several recent works (see , , and the references therein), the idea of nonstandard transfinite graphs and networks was introduced and investigated. The basic idea in those works was to start with a given transfinite graph, to reduce it to a finite graph by shorting and opening edges, and then to obtain an expanding sequence of finite graphs by restoring edges sequentially. If all this is done in an appropriate fashion, it may happen that the sequence of finite graphs fills out and restores the original transfinite graph once the restoration process is completed. If in addition there is an assignment of electrical parameters to the edges, the final result may be sequences of edge currents and edge voltages, from which nonstandard hyperreal currents and voltages can be derived. The latter hyperreal quantities will then automatically satisfy Kirchhoff’s laws, even though Kirchhoff’s laws may on occasion be violated in the original transfinite network when standard real numbers are used—an important advantage of this nonstandard approach.

However, this is only a partial construction of a nonstandard graph in the sense that the completion of the restoration process—if successful—results in the original standard transfinite graph. The sequence of restorations only provides a means of constructing hyperreal currents and voltages satisfying Kirchhoff’s laws. Another approach might start with an arbitrary sequence of conventional (finite or infinite) graphs and construct from that a nonstandard graph in much the same way as an internal set in the hyperreal line $`{}_{}{}^{}IR`$ is constructed from a given sequence of subsets of the real line $`IR`$, that is, by means of an ultrapower construction \[5, page 36\]. In this case, the resulting nonstandard graph has nonstandard edges and nonstandard vertices, and it thereby is much different from those of the prior works , . Also, the present approach differs from Goldblatt’s result in that the graphs of the sequence need not be vertex-induced subgraphs of a given graph.

Our objective in this work is to develop this latter approach to nonstandard graphs. The individual elements are chosen to be the vertices of the graphs along with all the natural numbers. These individuals are not sets by assumption and therefore have no members. All the other standard and nonstandard entities are derived from these individuals. For example, an edge is defined to be a pair of vertices, which is one of the conventional ways of defining a graph. Then, certain equivalence classes of sequences of standard vertices are defined to be nonstandard vertices, and these then yield nonstandard edges as certain equivalence classes of sequences of standard edges. In this approach, there are no multiedges (i.e., no parallel edges) and no self-loops (i.e., no edge consisting of just a single vertex).

After setting up our nonstandard graphs using an ultrapower approach, we invoke the transfer principle to lift several standard graph-theoretic results into a nonstandard setting. For example, the relationship between the number of vertices, the number of edges, and the cyclomatic number of a standard finite connected graph continues to hold for nonstandard graphs except that these numbers are replaced by hypernatural numbers. Similarly, standard theorems concerning Eulerian graphs, Hamiltonian graphs, and a coloring theorem are also extended to the nonstandard setting. By virtue of the transfer principle, this only requires that the standard theorems be stated as sentences in symbolic logic, which are then transferred to appropriate sentences for nonstandard graphs.

In the following, $`|A|`$ will denote the cardinality of a set $`A`$. Also, $`IN=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ is the set of all natural numbers, and $`IR`$ is the set of real numbers. Thus, $`{}_{}{}^{}IN`$ is the set of hypernaturals, and $`{}_{}{}^{}IR`$ is the set of hyperreals.

2.Nonstandard Graphs

A standard graph $`G`$ is a conventional (finite or infinite) graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$, where $`X`$ is the set of its vertices and $`B`$ is the set of its edges. Each edge $`bB`$ is a two-element set $`b=\{x,y\}`$ with $`x,yX`$ and $`xy`$; $`b`$ and $`x`$ are said to be incident and so, too, are $`b`$ and $`y`$. Also, $`x`$ and $`y`$ are said to be adjacent through $`b`$.

Next, let $`G_n:nIN`$ be a given sequence of graphs. For each $`n`$, we have $`G_n=\{X_n,B_n\}`$, where $`X_n`$ is the set of edges and $`B_n`$ is the set of vertices. We allow $`X_nX_m\mathrm{}`$ so that $`G_n`$ and $`G_m`$ may be subgraphs of a larger graph. In fact, we may have $`X_n=X_m`$ and $`B_n=B_m`$ for all $`n,mIN`$ so that $`G_n`$ may be the same graph for all $`nIN`$. Furthermore, let $``$ be a chosen nonprincipal ultrafilter on $`IN`$ \[5, pages 18-19\].

In the following, $`x_n=x_n:nIN`$ will denote a sequence of vertices with $`x_nX_n`$ for all $`nIN`$. A nonstandard vertex $`{}_{}{}^{}x`$ is an equivalence class of such sequences of vertices, where two such sequences $`x_n`$ and $`y_n`$ are taken to be equivalent if $`\{n:x_n=y_n\}`$, in which case we write “$`x_n=y_n`$ a.e.” or say that $`x_n=y_n`$ “for almost all $`n`$.” We also write $`{}_{}{}^{}x=[x_n]`$, where it is understood that the $`x_n`$ are the members of any one sequence in the equivalence class.

That this truly defines an equivalence class can be shown as follows. Reflexivity and symmetry being obvious, consider transitivity: Given that $`x_n=y_n`$ a.e. and that $`y_n=z_n`$ a.e., we have $`N_{xy}=\{n:x_n=y_n\}`$ and $`N_{yz}=\{n:y_n=z_n\}`$. By the properties of the ultrafilter, $`N_{xy}N_{yz}`$. Moreover, $`N_{xz}=\{n:x_n=z_n\}(N_{xy}N_{yz})`$. Therefore, $`N_{xz}`$. Hence, $`x_n=z_n`$ a.e.; transitivity holds. We let $`{}_{}{}^{}X`$ denote the set of nonstandard vertices.

Next, we define the nonstandard edges: Let $`{}_{}{}^{}x=[x_n]`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}y=[y_n]`$ be two nonstandard vertices. This time, let $`N_{xy}=\{n:\{x_n,y_n\}B_n\}`$ and $`N_{xy}^c=\{n:\{x_n,y_n\}B_n\}`$. Since $``$ is an ultrafilter, exactly one of $`N_{xy}`$ and $`N_{xy}^c`$ is a member of $``$. If it is $`N_{xy}`$, then $`{}_{}{}^{}b=[\{x_n,y_n\}]`$ is defined to be a nonstandard edge; that is, $`{}_{}{}^{}b`$ is an equivalence class of sequences $`b_n`$ of edges $`b_n=\{x_n,y_n\}B_n`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. In this case, we also write $`{}_{}{}^{}x,^{}y^{}b`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}b=\{^{}x,^{}y\}`$. We let $`{}_{}{}^{}B`$ denote the set of nonstandard edges. On the other hand, if $`N_{xy}^c`$, then $`[\{x_n,y_n\}]`$ is not a nonstandard edge.

We shall now show that this definition is independent of the representatives chosen for the vertices. Let $`[\{x_n,y_n\}]`$ and $`[\{v_n,w_n\}]`$ represent the same nonstandard edge. We want to show that, if $`x_n=v_n`$ a.e., then $`y_n=w_n`$ a.e. Suppose $`y_nw_n`$ a.e. Then, $`\{n:x_n=v_n\}\{n:y_nw_n\}`$. Thus, there is at least one $`n`$ for which the three vertices $`x_n=v_n`$, $`y_n`$, and $`w_n`$ are all incident to the same standard edge—in violation of the definition of a edge. Similarly, if all of $`x_n`$, $`y_n`$, $`v_n`$, $`w_n`$ are different a.e., then there would be a standard edge having four incident vertices—again a violation.

Next, we show that we truly have an equivalence relationship for the set of all sequences of standard edges. Reflexivity and symmetry being obvious again, consider transitivity: Let $`{}_{}{}^{}b=[\{x_n,y_n\}]`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}=[\{\stackrel{~}{x}_n,\stackrel{~}{y}_n\}]`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{´}{b}=[\{\stackrel{´}{x}_n,\stackrel{´}{y}_n\}]`$, and assume that $`{}_{}{}^{}b=^{}\stackrel{~}{b}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}=^{}\stackrel{´}{b}`$. We want to show that $`{}_{}{}^{}b=^{}\stackrel{´}{b}`$. We have $`N_{b\stackrel{~}{b}}=\{n:\{x_n,y_n\}=\{\stackrel{~}{x}_n,\stackrel{~}{y}_n\}\}`$ and $`N_{\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{´}{b}}=\{n:\{\stackrel{~}{x}_n,\stackrel{~}{y}_n\}=\{\stackrel{´}{x}_n,\stackrel{´}{y}_n\}\}`$. Moreover, $`N_{b\stackrel{´}{b}}=\{n:\{x_n,y_n\}=\{\stackrel{´}{x}_n,\stackrel{´}{y}_n\}\}(N_{b\stackrel{~}{b}}N_{\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{´}{b}})`$. Therefore, $`N_{b\stackrel{´}{b}}`$. Thus, $`{}_{}{}^{}b=^{}\stackrel{´}{b}`$, as desired.

Finally, we define a nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ to be the pair $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$.

Let us now take note of a special case that arises when all the $`G_n`$ are the same standard graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$. In this case, we call $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$ an enlargement of $`G`$, in conformity with an “enlargement” $`{}_{}{}^{}A`$ of a subset $`A`$ of $`IR`$ \[5, pages 28-29\]. If in addition $`G`$ is a finite graph, each vertex $`x^{}X`$ can be identified with a vertex of $`X`$ because the enlargement of a finite set equals the set itself. Similarly, every branch $`b^{}B`$ can be identified with a branch in $`B`$. In short, $`{}_{}{}^{}G=G`$. On the other hand, if $`G`$ is a conventionally infinite graph, $`X`$ is an infinite set and its enlargement $`{}_{}{}^{}X`$ has more elements, namely, nonstandard vertices that are not equal to standard vertices, (i.e., $`{}_{}{}^{}XX`$ is not empty). Similarly, $`{}_{}{}^{}BB`$ is not empty too. In short, $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ is a proper enlargement of $`G`$.

Example 2.1. Let $`G`$ be a one-way infinite path $`P`$:

$$P=x_0,b_0,x_1,b_1,x_2,b_2,\mathrm{}$$

Also, let $`G_n=G`$ for all $`nIN`$, and let $`{}_{}{}^{}G=[G_n]=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$. Next, let $`k_n:nIN`$ be any sequence of natural numbers, and set $`{}_{}{}^{}x=[x_{k_n}]`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}y=[x_{k_n+1}]`$. Then, $`{}_{}{}^{}x`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}y`$ are two vertices in the enlargement $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ of $`G`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{}b=\{^{}x,^{}y\}=[\{x_{k_n},x_{k_n+1}\}]`$ is an edge in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$. On the other hand, if $`m_n:nIN`$ is another sequence of natural numbers with $`m_n>1`$, then $`{}_{}{}^{}z=[x_{k_n+m_n}]`$ is another nonstandard vertex in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ different from $`{}_{}{}^{}x`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}y`$ and appearing after $`{}_{}{}^{}y`$ in the enlarged path. Moreover, $`[\{x_{k_n},x_{k_n+m_n}\}]`$ is not a nonstandard edge. In this way, no vertex or edge repeats in the enlarged path. $`\mathrm{}`$

Another special case arises when almost all the $`G_n`$ are (possibly different) finite graphs. Again in conformity with the terminology used for hyperfinite internal subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{}R`$ \[5, page 149\], we will refer to the resulting nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ as a hyperfinite graph.111This should not be confused with a hypergraph—an entirely different object . As a result, we can lift many theorems concerning finite graphs to hyperfinite graphs. It is just a matter of writing the standard theorem in an appropriate form using symbolic logic and then applying the transfer principle. We let $`{}_{}{}^{}G_{f}^{}`$ denote the set of hyperfinite graphs.

3. Incidences and Adjacencies between Vertices and Edges

Let us now define these ideas for nonstandard graphs both in terms of an ultrapower construction and by transfer of appropriate symbolic sentences. In the subsequent sections, we will usually confine ourselves to the transfer principle. We henceforth drop the asterisks when denoting nonstandard vertices and edges. These are specified as members of $`{}_{}{}^{}X`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}B`$ respectively.

Incidence between a vertex and an edge: Given a sequence $`G_n:nIN`$ of standard graphs $`G_n=\{X_n,B_n\}`$, a nonstandard vertex $`x=[x_n]^{}X`$ and a nonstandard edge $`b=[b_n]^{}B`$ are said to be incident if $`\{n:x_nb_n\}`$, where as always the nonprincipal ultrafilter $``$ is understood to be chosen and fixed.

On the other hand, we can define incidence between a standard vertex $`xX`$ and a standard edge $`bB`$ for the graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$ through the symbolic sentence

$$(xX)(bB)(xb)$$

By transfer, we have that $`x^{}X`$ and $`b^{}B`$ are incident when the following sentence is true.

$$(x^{}X)(b^{}B)(xb)$$

These are equivalent definitions.

Adjacency between vertices: For a standard graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$, two vertices $`x,yX`$ are called adjacent and we write $`xy`$ if the following sentence on the right-hand side of $``$ is true.

$$xy(x,yX)(bB)(b=\{x,y\})$$

By transfer, this becomes for a nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$

$$xy(x,y^{}X)(b^{}B)(b=\{x,y\})$$

Alternatively, under an ultrapower construction, we have for $`{}_{}{}^{}G=[G_n]=[\{X_n,B_n\}]`$ that $`x=[x_n]^{}X`$ and $`y=[y_n]^{}X`$ are adjacent (i.e., $`xy`$) if there exists a $`b=[b_n]^{}B`$ such that $`\{n:b_n=\{x_n,y_n\}\}`$.

Adjacency between edges: For a standard graph, two edges $`b,cB`$ are called adjacent and we write $`bc`$ when the following sentence on the right-hand side of $``$ is true.

$$bc(b,cB)(xX)(xbxc)$$

By transfer, we have for nonstandard edges $`b`$ and $`c`$

$$bc(b,c^{}B)(x^{}X)(xbxc)$$

Under an ultrapower approach, we would have $`b=[b_n]`$ and $`c=[c_n]`$ are adjacent nonstandard edges when there exists a nonstandard vertex $`x=[x_n]`$ such that

$$\{n:x_nb_n\mathrm{and}x_nc_n\}.$$

4. Nonstandard Hyperfinite Paths and Loops

Again, we start with a standard graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$. Remember that since $`B`$ is a set of two-element subsets of $`X`$, all edges are distinct (i.e., there are no multiedges) and there are no self-loops. A finite path $`P`$ in $`G`$ is defined by the sentence

$$(kIN\{0\})(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_kX)(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{}b_{k1}B)$$

$$(x_0b_0b_0x_1x_1b_1b_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{k1}b_{k1}b_{k1}x_k)$$
(1)
That all the vertices and edges in $`P`$ are distinct is implied by the fact that the those $`k`$ vertices in $`X`$ and those $`k1`$ edges in $`B`$ are perforce all distinct. The length $`|P|`$ of $`P`$ is the number of edges in $`P`$; thus, $`|P|=k`$.

We may apply transfer to (1) to get the following definition of a nonstandard path $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$.

$$(k^{}IN\{0\})(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k^{}X)(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{}b_{k1}^{}B)$$

$$(x_0b_0b_0x_1x_1b_1b_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{k1}b_{k1}b_{k1}x_k)$$
(2)
In this case, the length $`|^{}P|`$ equals $`k^{}IN\{0\}`$; in general, $`k`$ is now a positive hypernatural number. We therefore call $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$ a hyperfinite path. To view this fact in terms of an ultrapower construction of $`{}_{}{}^{}G=[G_n]`$, note that the $`G_n`$ may be finite graphs growing in size or indeed be conventionally infinite graphs. Thus, $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$ may have an unlimited length, that is, its length may be a member of $`{}_{}{}^{}ININ`$.

A standard loop is defined as is a standard path except that the first and last vertices are required to be the same. Upon applying transfer, we get the following definition of a nonstandard loop.

$$(k^{}IN\{0\})(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{k1}^{}X)(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{}b_{k1}^{}B)$$

$$(x_0b_0b_0x_1x_1b_1b_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{k1}b_{k1}b_{k1}x_0)$$
(3)
5. Connected Nonstandard Graphs

A standard graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$ is called connected if, for every two vertices $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`G`$, there is a finite path (1) terminating at those vertices, that is, $`x_0=x`$ and $`x_k=y`$. Let $`𝒞`$ denote the set of connected standard graphs, and let $`𝒫(G)`$ be the set of all finite paths in a given standard graph $`G`$. Also, for any $`P𝒫(G)`$, let $`x_0(P)`$ and $`x_k(P)`$ denote the first and last nodes of $`P`$ in accordance with (1); $`k`$ depends upon $`P`$. Then, the connectedness of $`G`$ is defined symbolically by the truth of the following sentence to the right of $``$.

$$G𝒞(x,yX)(P𝒫(G))((x_0(P)=x)(x_k(P)=y))$$
(4)
By transfer, we obtain the definition of the set $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ of all connected nonstandard graphs: For $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$, for $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒫(^{}G)`$ being the set of nonstandard paths $`{}_{}{}^{}P^{}G`$, and for $`x_0(^{}P)`$ and $`x_k(^{}P)`$ being the first and last vertices of $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$, we have

$${}_{}{}^{}G^{}𝒞(x,y^{}X)(^{}P^{}𝒫(^{}G))((x_0(^{}P)=x)(x_k(^{}P)=y))$$
(5)
Here, $`k^{}IN\{0\}`$ as in (2).

Let us explicate this still further in terms of an ultrapower construction of $`{}_{}{}^{}G=[G_n]`$ from an equivalence class of sequences of (possibly infinite) graphs, $`G_n`$ being one of those sequences. With $`{}_{}{}^{}P=[P_n]`$ denoting a nonstandard path obtained similarly from a representative sequence $`P_n`$ of finite paths, $`P_n`$ being in $`G_n`$, we let $`x_0(P_n)`$ and $`x_k(P_n)`$ denote the first and last vertices of $`P_n`$. (Thus, $`k`$ also depends on $`n`$ of course.) Then, $`x_0(^{}P)=[x_0(P_n)]`$ and $`x_{}_{}{}^{}k(^{}P)=[x_k(P_n)]`$ are the first and last nonstandard vertices of $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$. (In (5), $`{}_{}{}^{}k`$ is denoted by $`k^{}IN\{0\}`$.) Then, $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ is called connected if and only if, given any nonstandard vertices $`{}_{}{}^{}x=[x_n]`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}y=[y_n]`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$, we have that, for almost all $`n`$, there exists a finite path $`P_n`$ terminating at $`x_n`$ and $`y_n`$. This can be restated by saying that there exists a hyperfinite path $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ terminating at $`{}_{}{}^{}x`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}y`$.

Later on, we will need a special case of $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$: Let $`𝒞_f`$ denote the subset of $`𝒞`$ consisting of all finite connected standard graphs $`G=\{X,B\}`$, where $`|X|IN\{0,1\}`$, $`|B|IN\{0\}`$. Then, $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞_{f}^{}`$ is the subset of $`𝒞`$ obtained by lifting $`𝒞_f`$ through transfer to a subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$. In this case,

$${}_{}{}^{}G^{}𝒞_f(^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}^{}𝒞)(|^{}X|^{}IN\{0,1\}|^{}B|^{}IN\{0\}).$$
(6)
We call such a $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ a nonstandard hyperfinite connected graph.

6. Nonstandard Subgraphs

If $`A`$ and $`C`$ are sets of vertices with $`AC`$ , we get upon transfer the following definition for sets of nonstandard vertices.

$${}_{}{}^{}A^{}C(x^{}A)(x^{}C)$$

Our purpose in this section is to define a nonstandard subgraph $`{}_{}{}^{}G_{s}^{}`$ of a given nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$. We let $`𝒢`$ denote the set of all standard graphs. By definition, $`G_s=\{X_s,B_s\}`$ is a (vertex induced) subgraph of $`G=\{X,B\}𝒢`$ if $`X_sX`$ and $`B_s`$ is the set of those edges in $`B`$ that are each incident to two vertices in $`X_s`$. Let us denote the set of all such subgraphs of $`G`$ by $`𝒢_s(G)`$. Then, symbolically $`G_s`$ is defined by

$$G_s𝒢_s(G)$$

$$(G_s=\{X_s,B_s\}𝒢)(G=\{X,B\}𝒢)$$

$$((X_sX)(B_s=\{b=\{x,y\}B:x,yX_s\})).$$

By transfer, we get the definition of a nonstandard subgraph $`{}_{}{}^{}G_{s}^{}`$ of a given nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$. In this case, $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒢`$ denotes the set of all nonstandard graphs, and $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒢_{s}^{}(^{}G)`$ denotes the set of all nonstandard subgraphs of a given $`{}_{}{}^{}G^{}𝒢`$.

$${}_{}{}^{}G_{s}^{}^{}𝒢_s(^{}G)$$

$$(^{}G_s=\{^{}X_s,^{}B_s\}^{}𝒢)(^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}^{}𝒢)$$

$$((^{}X_s^{}X)(^{}B_s=\{b=\{x,y\}^{}B:x,y^{}X_s\})$$

7. Nonstandard Trees

The symbols $`𝒢`$, $`𝒢_s(G)`$, $`𝒞`$, $`𝒞_f`$, and their nonstandard counterparts have been defined above. Now, let $`(G)`$ be the set of all loops in the standard graph $`G`$, and let $`𝒯`$ be the set of all standard trees. Then, a tree $`T`$ can be defined symbolically by

$$T𝒯(T𝒞)(\neg (L(T)))$$
(7)
To transfer this, we let $`{}_{}{}^{}(^{}G)`$ be the set of all nonstandard loops in a given nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$, as defined by (3), and we let $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒯`$ denote the set of nonstandard trees $`{}_{}{}^{}T`$, defined as follows:

$${}_{}{}^{}T^{}𝒯(^{}T^{}𝒞)(\neg (^{}L^{}(^{}T)))$$
(8)
Next, let $`𝒯_{sp}(G)`$ be the set of all spanning trees in a given finite connected standard graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$. That $`T`$ is such a spanning tree can be expressed symbolically as follows.

$$T𝒯_{sp}(G)$$

$$(G=\{X,B\}𝒞_f)(T=\{X_T,B_T\}𝒯)((T𝒢_s(G))(|X|=|X_T|))$$
(9)
By transfer, we have the set $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒯_{sp}^{}(^{}G)`$ of all spanning trees of a given hyperfinite connected nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$, defined as follows:

$${}_{}{}^{}T^{}𝒯_{sp}(^{}G)$$

$$(^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}^{}𝒞_f)(^{}T=\{^{}X_T,^{}B_T\}^{}𝒯)((^{}T^{}𝒢_s(^{}G))(|^{}X|=|^{}X_T|))$$
(10)
8. Some Numerical Formulas

With these symbolic definition in hand, we can now lift some standard formulas regarding numbers of vertices and edges into a nonstandard setting. For example, if $`p`$, $`q`$, and $`r`$ are the number of vertices, the number of edges, and the cyclomatic number respectively of a given connected finite graph, then $`r=qp+1`$. Symbolically, this can be stated as follows. Again, we use the notation $`G=\{X,B\}`$ for a graph and $`T=\{X_T,B_T\}`$ for a tree.

$$(p,q,rIN)(G𝒞_f)(T𝒯_{sp}(G))$$

$$((p=|X|q=|B|r=|B||B_T|)(r=qp+1))$$

By transfer, we obtain the following formula in hypernatural numbers.

$$(p,q,r^{}IN)(^{}G^{}𝒞_f)(^{}T^{}𝒯_{sp}(^{}G))$$

$$((p=|^{}X|q=|^{}B|r=|^{}B||^{}B_T|)(r=qp+1))$$

Another standard formula for a connected finite graph having no multiedges is that $`p1qp(p1)/2`$. Symbolically, we have

$$(p,qIN)(G𝒞_f)((p=|X|q=|B|)(p1qp(p1)/2)).$$

So, by transfer, we have

$$(p,q^{}IN)(G^{}𝒞_f)((p=|^{}X|q=|^{}B|)(p1qp(p1)/2)).$$

Still another example of such a lifting concerns the radius $`R`$ and diameter $`D`$ of a finite connected graph $`G`$. It is a fact that $`RD2R`$ \[3, page 37\], \[4, pages 20-21\]. Again, we need to express ideas symbolically.

Let $`AIN`$ be such that $`|A|IN`$ (i.e., $`A`$ is a finite subset of $`IN`$). We use the symbols $`\overline{a}=\mathrm{max}A`$ and $`\underset{¯}{a}=\mathrm{min}A`$ as abbreviations for the following sentences.

$$\overline{a}=\mathrm{max}A(cA)(\overline{a}A)(\overline{a}c)$$

$$\underset{¯}{a}=\mathrm{min}A(cA)(\underset{¯}{a}A)(\underset{¯}{a}c)$$

This transfers to

$$\overline{a}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{max}}A(c^{}A)(\overline{a}^{}A)(\overline{a}c)$$

$$\underset{¯}{a}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{min}}A(c^{}A)(\underset{¯}{a}^{}A)(\underset{¯}{a}c),$$

where now $`{}_{}{}^{}A`$ is a hyperfinite subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}IN`$ and $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{a}`$ are hypernatural numbers. $`{}_{}{}^{}A`$ does have a maximum element and a minimum element so that these definitions are valid \[5, pages 149-150\].

Now, for a given finite connected graph $`G𝒞_f`$, let $`𝒫_x`$ denote the set of all paths $`P_x`$ starting at $`x`$. The length $`|P_x|`$ of any $`P_x𝒫_x`$ is the number of edges in $`P_x`$. Also, let $`(G)`$ be the set of eccentricities of the vertices in $`G=\{X,B\}`$. Symbolically, we have

$$e_x(G)(xX)(P_x𝒫_x)(e_x=\mathrm{max}\{|P_x|:P_x𝒫_x\}).$$

So, for a hyperfinite connected graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}^{}𝒞_f`$, we have by transfer

$$e_x(^{}G)(x^{}X)(^{}P_x^{}𝒫_x)(e_x=\mathrm{max}\{|^{}P_x|:^{}P_x^{}𝒫_x\}),$$

where now $`(^{}G)`$ is the set of hypernatural eccentricities in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}P_{x}^{}`$ is any nonstandard hyperfinite path in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ starting at the nonstandard vertex $`x`$.

Then, for any $`G=\{X,B\}𝒞_f`$, the radius $`R(G)`$ is defined by

$$(e_x(G))(R(G)IN)(R(G)=\mathrm{min}\{e_x:xX\}),$$

which by transfer gives the following definition of the hypernatural radius $`R(^{}G)^{}IN`$ of any $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}^{}𝒞_f`$:

$$(e_x^{}(G))(R(^{}G)^{}IN)(R(^{}G)=\mathrm{min}\{e_x:x^{}X\}),$$

Similarly, the diameter $`D(G)`$ of $`G`$ is defined by

$$(e_x(G))(D(G)IN)(D(G)=\mathrm{max}\{e_x:xX\}),$$

which by transfer gives the hypernatural diameter $`D(G)^{}IN`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$.

$$(e_x(^{}G))(D(^{}G)^{}IN)(D(^{}G)=\mathrm{max}\{e_x:x^{}X\}),$$

So, we have the following sentence for the standard result:

$$(G𝒞_f)(R(G)D(G)2R(G)),$$

which by transfer yields the nonstandard result

$$(G^{}𝒞_f)(R(^{}G)D(^{}G)2R(^{}G)).$$

9. Eulerian Graphs

A finite trail is defined much as a finite path is defined except that the condition that all the vertices be distinct is relaxed; however, edges are still required to be distinct. Thus, the truth of the following sentence defines a trail $`T`$ in a finite graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$, with $`T`$ having two or more edges. This time we use the notation $`b_m=\{x_m,y_m\}`$ to display the vertices $`x_m`$ and $`y_m`$ that are incident to $`b_m`$.

$$(kIN\{0\})(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_kB)(m\{0,\mathrm{},k1\})(y_m=x_{m+1})$$

That $`B`$ is a set insures that the edges $`b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_k`$ are all distinct. On the other hand, this sentence allows vertices to repeat in a trail.

For a closed trail, we have the truth of the following sentence as its definition.

$$(kIN\{0\})(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_kB)(m\{0,\mathrm{},k1\})(y_m=x_{m+1})(y_k=x_0)$$

With $`Q`$ denoting a trail, we denote the set of edges in $`Q`$ by $`B(Q)`$. Also, we let $`𝒬(G)`$ denote the set of closed trails in a given graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$.

By attaching asterisks as usual, we obtain by transfer the corresponding sentence for trails in a given nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$. Thus, a nonstandard trail $`{}_{}{}^{}Q`$ is defined by the truth of the following sentence; now, $`b_m=\{x_m,y_m\}`$ is a nonstandard edge with the nonstandard vertices $`x_m`$ and $`y_m`$.

$$(k^{}IN\{0\})(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_k^{}B)(m\{0,\mathrm{},k1\})(y_m=x_{m+1}).$$

A similar expression holds for a nonstandard closed trail (just append $`(y_k=x_0)`$). With $`{}_{}{}^{}Q`$ denoting a nonstandard trail, we denote the set of nonstandard edges in $`{}_{}{}^{}Q`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{}B(^{}Q)`$. Also, we let $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒬(^{}G)`$ denote the set of nonstandard closed trails in a given nonstandard graph $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$.

A finite connected graph $`G=\{X,B\}𝒞_f`$ is called Eulerian if it contains a closed trail that meets every vertex of $`X`$. The degree $`d_x`$ of $`xX`$ is the natural number $`d_x=|\{bB:xb\}|`$. The nonstandard version of this definition is as follows: Given $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}^{}𝒞_f`$, for any $`x^{}X`$, the degree of $`x`$ is $`d_x=|\{b^{}B:xb\}|`$. In this case, $`d_x`$ may be an unlimited hypernatural number when $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ is a hyperfinite graph. However, $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ might happen to be a finite graph $`G𝒞_f`$, which from the point of view of an ultrapower construction can occur if all the $`G_n`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{}G=[G_n]`$ are the same finite graph $`G𝒢_f`$; in this case, $`d_x`$ will be a natural number for all $`x^{}X`$.

Let $`_u`$ (resp. $`{}_{}{}^{}_{u}^{}`$) denote the set of all standard Eulerian graphs (resp. nonstandard Eulerian graphs). Then, Eulerian graphs can be defined by asserting the truth of the following sentence to the right of $``$, where as usual $`G=\{X,B\}`$.

$$G_u(Q𝒬(G))((bB)(bB(Q))$$

By transfer, the truth of the following right-hand side defines nonstandard Eulerian graphs. Now, $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$.

$${}_{}{}^{}G^{}_u(^{}Q^{}𝒬(G))((b^{}B)(b^{}B(^{}Q)))$$

Now an ancient theorem of Euler asserts that a graph $`G`$ is Eulerian if and only if the degree of every vertex of $`G=\{X,B\}`$ is an even natural number. Symbolically, this can be stated as follows.

$$G_u(xX)(d_x/2IN)$$

Transferring this, we get the nonstandard version of this theorem of Euler:

$${}_{}{}^{}G^{}_u(x^{}X)(d_x/2^{}IN)$$

10. Hamiltonian Graphs

In this section, it is assumed that each graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$ is connected and finite and has at least three vertices (i.e., $`|X|3`$). A graph $`G`$ is called Hamiltonian if it contains a loop that meets every vertex in the graph. Let $`(G)`$ denote the set of all loops in $`G`$. Also, for any loop $`L(G)`$, let $`X(L)`$ denote the vertex set of $`L`$. Then, a Hamiltonian graph $`G=\{X,B\}𝒞_f`$ is also defined by the truth of the following sentence to the right of $``$. The set of Hamiltonian graphs will be denoted by $``$, where $`𝒞_f`$.

$$G(L(G))((xX)(xX(L)))$$

By transfer of this sentence, we define a nonstandard Hamiltonian graph as follows, where now $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ is the set of nonstandard hyperfinite Hamiltonian graphs, $`(^{}G)`$ is the set of all nonstandard loops in $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}X((L)`$ is the set of nonstandard vertices in $`L(^{}G)`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$.

$${}_{}{}^{}G^{}(L(^{}G))((x^{}X)(x^{}X(L))).$$

A simple criterion for a graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$ to be Hamiltonian is that the degree $`d_x`$ of each of its vertices $`x`$ be no less than one half of $`|X|`$ \[1, page 134\], \[3, page 79\]. Symbolically, this condition is expressed as follows:

$$((xX)(d_x|X|/2))𝒢.$$

By transfer, we get the following criterion for a nonstandard Hamiltonian graph.

$$((x^{}X)(d_x|^{}X|/2))^{}𝒢^{}.$$

A more general criterion due to Ore asserts that $`G=\{X,B\}`$ is Hamiltonian if, for every pair of nonadjacent vertices $`x`$ and $`y`$, $`d_x+d_y|X|`$ \[1, page 134\], \[3, page 79\]. Symbolically, we have

$$((x,yX)((\neg (xy))(d_x+d_y|X|)))G,$$

which by transfer becomes

$$((x,y^{}X)((\neg (xy))(d_x+d_y|^{}X|)))^{}G^{}.$$

Still more general is Posa’s theorem \[1, page 132\], \[3, page 79\]: If, for every $`jIN`$ satisfying $`1j<|X|/2`$, the number of vertices of degree no larger than $`j`$ is less than $`j`$, then the graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$ is Hamiltonian. The following symbolic sentence states this criterion.

$$((jIN)(xX)((1j<|X|/2)(|\{xX:d_xj\}|<j)))G$$

By transfer the following criterion holds for nonstandard graphs $`{}_{}{}^{}G=\{^{}X,^{}B\}`$.

$$((j^{}IN)(x^{}X)((1j<|^{}X|/2)(|\{x^{}X:d_xj\}|<j)))^{}G^{}$$

11. A Coloring Theorem

A simple graph-coloring theorem that is not restricted to planar graphs asserts that, if the largest of the degrees for the vertices of a graph $`G=\{X,B\}`$ is $`k`$, then the graph is $`(k+1)`$-colorable \[6, page 82\].222There exists a function $`f`$ that assigns to each vertex one of $`k+1`$ colors such that no two adjacent vertices have the same color. To express this symbolically, first let $`M(X,IN_{k+1})`$ denote the set of all functions that map a set $`X`$ into the set $`IN_{k+1}`$ of those natural numbers $`j`$ satisfying $`1jk+1`$. Then, the following restates this theorem for the given graph $`G`$.

$$(kIN)(x,yX)$$

$$((d_xk)((fM(X,IN_{k+1}))((xy)(f(x)f(y)))))$$

To transfer this, we first let $`{}_{}{}^{}M(^{}X,IN_{k+1})`$ be the set of all internal functions mapping the enlargement $`{}_{}{}^{}X`$ into $`IN_{k+1}`$. Then, this theorem is transferred to nonstandard graphs simply by appending asterisks, as usual:

$$(kIN)(x,y^{}X)$$

$$((d_xk)((^{}f^{}M(^{}X,IN_{k+1}))((xy)(^{}f(x)^{}f(y)))))$$

Note here that the assumption of a natural-number bound $`k`$ on the degrees of all the nonstandard vertices has been maintained. This conforms to the fact that the enlargement of the finite set $`IN_{k+1}`$ is $`IN_{k+1}`$. As a consequence, the conclusion remains strong.

On the other hand, we could generalize this transferred theorem as follows: In terms of an ultrapower construction, we could replace $`IN_{k+1}`$ by an internal set $`{}_{}{}^{}IN_{k+1}`$ obtained from a sequence $`IN_{k_n+1}:nIN`$ of finite sets $`IN_{k_n+1}`$, one set for each $`G_n`$ with regard to $`{}_{}{}^{}G=[G_n]`$ and with $`k_n`$ being the maximum vertex degree in $`G_n`$. But then, our conclusion would be weakened to a coloring with a hypernatural number $`{}_{}{}^{}k=[k_n]`$ of colors.

12. A Final Comment

Undoubtedly, other standard results for graphs can be lifted in this way to nonstandard settings.


format: text

text:
# Light emission from Na/Cu(111) induced by a scanning tunneling microscope

## I Introduction

The formation of quantum well states (QWS) near the Fermi level is a characteristic feature of the electronic structure of alkali overlayers on the (111) surfaces of noble metals. Wallden\_SSC80 ; lin:87 ; Diehl\_SS96 ; Stampfl95 ; Tochihara\_PSS98 ; Hellsing\_PRB00  In these systems electrons may be confined to a narrow surface region; they cannot escape from the surface because of the vacuum barrier, and at the same time they cannot propagate into the noble metal because the periodic potential in the bulk creates a local band gap near the L point of the Brillouin zone. Alkali overlayers thus offer an interesting opportunity to study confined electron systems in metals and they have attracted considerable interest.

Up to now, most investigations of alkali overlayers have been carried out using photoemission spectroscopy (PES), inverse photoemission spectroscopy (IPES) and two-photon photoemission (2PPE). lin:87 ; car:00 ; dud:91 ; fis:91 ; car:96  Thus the energies of the quantum well states have been studied as a function of substrate and overlayer material as well as overlayer thickness (or coverage). In addition to measuring the position in energy of the quantum well states, the lifetimes of these states have also been addressed.bauer:97 ; ogawa:99 ; borisov:01  The quantum well states overlap in energy and space with three-dimensional states, producing interesting possibilities for quasiparticle decay to proceed simultaneously through both two- and three-dimensional channels as well as electron-phonon scattering.

In a recent experiment the system Na/Cu(111) was studied with an alternative experimental technique, light emission induced by electron injection from the tip of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM). NaPRL  This technique has previously been used in studies of quite a few systems, most notably noble metal surfaces and semiconductors. review  In those cases photons are generated by a fraction of the tunneling electrons that undergo inelastic tunneling processes in which an amount of energy, limited to $`eU`$ with $`U`$ the bias voltage, is transferred from the electron to the photon. If the substrate is metallic, the rate of spontaneous light emission is increased compared with the case of inverse photoemission from an isolated surface. gim:88 ; gim:89 ; joh:90 ; ber:91 ; per:92 ; Ueh:92 ; bergim:93 ; joh:98 ; ueh:99 ; nil:00  This is due to enhanced vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in the tunnel gap between tip and sample as a result of the formation of localized interface-plasmon modes there. For semiconductor samples, on the other hand, electromagnetic effects are less important, instead the light emission is due to interband transitions in the semiconductor. ALV90 ; CDS  The STM tip serves to locally inject or generate minority charge carriers which then recombine with majority carriers giving rise to luminescence. Similar studies have also been carried out on semiconductor surfaces,thi:99 ; kag:01  semiconductor quantum wellsren:91  and quantum dots,lind:96  and adsorbed molecules.ber:93 ; poi:01

Interestingly enough, the light emission from Na/Cu(111) reported in Ref. NaPRL, , appears to involve both mechanisms described above. For a wide range of coverages, Na on Cu(111) exhibits several QWS. The lowest one, QWS1, has an energy close to the Fermi level (see Table 1). At the coverages to be discussed below, it is either occupied or unoccupied. The other state, QWS2, lies well above the Fermi energy. As long as the bias voltage is low enough that electrons cannot be injected into QWS2 light emission is still possible, and it proceeds through the same “plasmon-mediated” mechanism as in the case of clean noble-metal surfaces. In this case electrons undergo an inelastic transition from a filled state in the tip to the empty QWS1 and a photon is emitted. This gives a fairly broad peak in the light emission spectrum. Once the bias voltage is high enough that electrons can be injected directly into the upper quantum well state (QWS2) the emission mechanism changes. A large part of the tunnel current will now go through QWS2, and light emission will mainly be due to transitions between QWS2 and QWS1, yielding a fairly sharply peaked spectrum. Of course, since the QWS wave functions are to a large extent confined to the region of space between the tip and sample, the light emission rate is still enhanced by the electromagnetic fluctuations there.

In this paper we will support the scenario outlined above by model calculations that lead to very good qualitative agreement between experiment and theory. We will also present additional experimental results.

The rest of the paper is organized in the following way. In Section II we outline the experimental setup, and the experimental results are presented in Sec. III. Section IV gives a comprehensive description of the model calculation that we have carried out. Next, in Sec. V, we compare theoretical and experimental results and discuss the implications. The paper is summarized in Sec. VI. Finally, an Appendix presents a derivation of the rate of light emission based on the Keldysh non-equilibrium Green’s function technique.

## II Experimental details

The experiments were performed with an ultra-high vacuum (UHV) STM operated at a temperature $`T=4.6`$ K.Diss\_Kliewer  Photons in the energy range $`1.2`$ eV $`<`$ h $`\nu <3.5`$ eV were detected with a lens-system in UHV coupling the light to a grating spectrometer and a liquid nitrogen cooled charge-coupled device camera.GHaufbau:01  All spectra have been corrected for the wavelength dependent detection efficiency. Throughout the measurements it was verified that the surface structure was not modified during data acquisition.

W tips were prepared by electrochemical etching and subsequent sputtering and annealing in UHV. The Cu(111) surface was cleaned by repeated cycles of Ar-ion bombardment and annealing. Na films were evaporated from outgassed SAES Getters sources onto the Cu crystal held at room temperature. A quartz crystal microbalance was used to estimate the coverage $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ which was further calibrated by the known binding energies of the quantum well states. lin:87 ; car:00 ; dud:91 ; fis:91 ; car:96  After preparation at room temperature the sample was transferred to the STM and cooled to $`T=4.6`$ K.

Following Ref. tan:91,  we define 1 monolayer (ML) as the most densely packed structure of the first Na layer, namely a $`(3/2\times 3/2)`$ mesh. This pattern corresponds to 4 Na atoms per 9 first layer Cu atoms.

## III Experimental results

Figure 1 shows fluorescence spectra recorded over a range of sample voltages $`U`$ from Cu(111) covered with 1 monolayer of Na. The emission from these surfaces is comprised of two distinct components. First, there is an emission band which is most clearly observed at low $`U`$. Its maximum shifts linearly to higher energies as $`U`$ is increased. This emission is similar to the plasmon-mediated emission observed from noble metal surfaces due to inelastic tunneling processes. gim:89 ; joh:90 ; ber:91 ; Ueh:92 ; ijn

A new spectral structure, the position of which only weakly depends on the sample voltage $`U`$, emerges at h$`\nu =2.4`$ eV when the bias is raised to $`U2.5`$ V. From its intensity, assuming isotropic emission, a quantum efficiency of roughly $`10^5`$ photons per electron is estimated which is higher than typical values for conventional inverse photoelectron spectroscopy.

Qualitatively similar observations were made at other coverages (Fig. 2). In addition to a plasmon-related emission (circles) at low bias voltages we find emission (dots) at higher photon energies which are almost independent of the applied sample voltages. The positions of these emission features vary with the Na coverage: $`h\nu `$ 1.7, 2.5, and 2.1 eV at coverages 0.6, 1, and 2 ML, respectively. Comparing these photon energies to the data of Table 1 the emission is assigned to interband transitions between quantum well states. Small deviations between the expected transition energies ($`E_2E_1`$) and the measured photon energies are in part due to the electric field of the tip which causes a Stark shift.becker ; bin:85 ; Stark  This shift is strongest for higher energy states.

Closer inspection reveals a distinct difference of the data from 0.6 and 2 ML compared to the 1 ML case. At 1 ML coverage, a sharp drop on the high energy side of the emission occurs owing to energy conservation given by the condition $`h\nu =eU`$. The emission from the 0.6 and 2 ML Na films exhibits a similarly sharp drop at a different energy, $`h\nu =eUE_1`$, where $`E_1`$ is the energy of quantum well state 1 relative to the Fermi level.

## IV Model and theory

### IV.1 General considerations

In this section we will use a rather simple, basically one-dimensional model of the W-tip/Na/Cu(111) system that nevertheless captures the essential physics of the experiment and yields calculated spectra that can explain the experimental results.

The general framework of this calculation is based upon what we have used in earlier calculationsjoh:90 ; ZPB  of light emission from noble metal surfaces. As the more detailed derivation in the Appendix shows, the intensity of the emitted light (per unit photon energy and solid angle) can be calculated from the expression

$$\frac{dP}{d(\mathrm{}\omega )d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}\underset{i,f}{}|j_{fi}|^2\frac{|G(\omega )|^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega ^2}{2ϵ_0c^3}\delta (E_iE_f\mathrm{}\omega ).$$
(1)
Thus, the intensity is found from a summation over filled initial electron states $`i`$ and empty final states $`f`$, and $`j_{fi}`$ is the current matrix element between these states,

$$j_{fi}=\frac{ie\mathrm{}}{2m}d^3r\left[\frac{\psi _f^{}}{z}\psi _i\psi _f^{}\frac{\psi _i}{z}\right].$$
(2)
In Eq. (1), $`ϵ_0`$ is the permittivity of vacuum and $`c`$ the speed of light, and $`G`$, finally, is an electromagnetic enhancement factor. Note that Eq. (1) agrees with Eqs. (6) and (7) of Ref. ZPB, , considering that the formulas in that work employed CGS units.

Since the calculation of $`G(\omega )`$ in Eq. (1) has been treated in earlier papers (see, for example, Ref. MCD2, ) we will just give a brief outline of the procedure here. As discussed in the Appendix, a reciprocity relation makes it possible to interchange the source and detection points in the electromagnetic calculation. Thus, since we are interested in evaluating the light emission intensity found at an observation angle $`\theta `$=1 rad., we let an incident electromagnetic wave hit the tip-sample system from exactly that direction and calculate the electric field enhancement at a point between the tip apex and the surface, where it reaches its highest values. The field in the cavity between the tip and sample is essentially constant along the direction normal to the surface, however, in the lateral direction the field enhancement begins to drop off at distances exceeding 2–3 nm from the symmetry axis. The optical properties of tip and sample are modeled using macroscopic dielectric functions for Cu and W found from Ref. Palik, . We have approximated the optical properties of the Na layer by the Cu dielectric function since the treatment of such a thin layer in terms of macroscopic dielectric functions would not be very reliable.liebsch:01  The tip is represented by a sphere with radius $`R=30\mathrm{nm}`$.

### IV.2 Model potential

We use a one-dimensional model potential, illustrated in Fig. 3, to calculate both the tunneling current and the matrix elements that set the light emission rate. The parameter values that enter this model originate from the physical properties of bulk Cu and bulk Na that are most relevant to the problem at hand. Similar models have been used in earlier calculationsSmith ; LW  (see also Ref. Zangwill, ).

Of course, using a strictly one-dimensional model corresponds to a situation where both electrodes, sample and tip, are completely flat. This is not the real situation in an STM experiment. Thus, we use the 1D model to calculate a current density which then multiplied by a suitable effective area yields the tunnel current. A similar procedure is applied for the matrix-element calculations as well.

Inside the copper sample the potential is modulated along the (111) direction (normal to the surface) as

$$V_{\mathrm{Cu}}(z)=V_{111}(e^{igz}+e^{igz})=2V_{111}\mathrm{cos}(gz),$$
(3)
where the reciprocal lattice wave vector $`g=2\pi /a_{\mathrm{Cu}}`$, and $`a_{\mathrm{Cu}}=2.08`$ Å is the inter-plane distance in Cu in the (111) direction. The top layer is centered at $`z=0`$, and the copper sample is assumed to end at $`z=z_{\mathrm{Cu}}=a_{\mathrm{Cu}}/2`$. The value of $`V_{111}`$ is taken to be 2.5 eV.LW  The potential in (3) yields a band gap for energies (related to electron motion in the $`z`$ direction) between $`E_gV_{111}`$ and $`E_g+V_{111}`$, where $`E_g=\mathrm{}^2(g/2)^2/(2m)8.7`$ eV is the kinetic energy of a free electron with a wave vector at the L point on the Brillouin zone boundary. Thus, just as in copper our model has a 5 eV wide band gap at the L point. This feature is crucial in forming quantum well states in the overlayer system. Experimentally the energy difference between the lower band edge and the Fermi level is 0.9 eV, we therefore put the Cu Fermi level at $`E_F=E_gV_{111}+0.9\mathrm{eV}=7.1\mathrm{eV}`$.

We treat the sodium overlayer as a bulk, free-electron metal. The thickness is assumed to correspond to 2 monolayers (6.13 Å).LW  The constant value of the potential in the sodium is set to $`V_{\mathrm{Na}}=3.9\mathrm{eV}`$. The choice of this value is based on the fact that the Fermi energy of bulk Na is 3.2 eV, so that now an electron with the kinetic energy of 3.2 eV in the Na layer will have a total energy of $`(3.9+3.2)\mathrm{eV}=7.1\mathrm{eV}`$, i.e. identical to $`E_F`$.

Moreover, in order to get a tunnel current from electrons with energies in the Cu band gap, it is necessary to add a negative imaginary part to the potential. We have chosen to put this in the sodium layer, thus the full Na potential is

$$V_{\mathrm{Na}}i\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1\mathrm{eV}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in an approximate way represents the effects of electron-phonon, electron-electron, and interface scattering that in the real system eventually remove electrons from the quantum-well states near the surface. If the potential had this value in all of space, the electron density due to a particular state would decay in time as $`e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t/\mathrm{}}`$. Thus the lifetime would be $`\tau =\mathrm{}/(2\mathrm{\Gamma })3\mathrm{fs}`$, and the peak in the spectral function associated with the state would have a full width at half maximum of $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It must be kept in mind that an electron in a QWS only spends part of the time ($`50`$ % for QWS1) in the Na layer. Our choice for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would thus give a lifetime of some 6 fs, and a line width of 0.1 eV for QWS1. These values are comparable with measured values found in the literature.acarl:97

We have for simplicity assumed that the potential is constant in the W tip. This is of course a rather crude approximation, but not a crucial one since the electronic structure of the tip is not of primary importance for the analysis of the experiment at hand. With the free-electron band width $`W=8.0\mathrm{eV}`$, the potential in the tungsten tip at zero bias is $`V_{\mathrm{tip}}=E_FW=0.9\mathrm{eV}`$, however, when the tip is biased the potential is given by $`V_{\mathrm{tip}}=E_FW+eU`$.

Finally, we need a barrier potential to use in vacuum between the Na overlayer and the tip. This potential essentially consists of two parts: a tilted square barrier and image potential contributions. The tilted square barrier can be written

$$V_{\mathrm{tilt}}(z)=\frac{z_{\mathrm{tip}}z}{d}(E_F+\varphi _{\mathrm{Na}})+\frac{zz_{\mathrm{Na}}}{d}(E_F+eU+\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}),$$
(4)
where $`z_{\mathrm{tip}}`$ is the coordinate of the tip apex, $`z_{\mathrm{Na}}`$ is the coordinate of the Na overlayer surface, and $`d`$ is the tip-sample separation. Here $`\varphi _{\mathrm{Na}}=2.7\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}=5.2\mathrm{eV}`$ denote the Na and tip work functions, respectively, and $`U`$ is the bias voltage. The image contributions are

$$V_{\mathrm{im}}(z)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}(zz_{\mathrm{Na}}^{im})}\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}(z_{\mathrm{tip}}^{im}z)}.$$
(5)
We have chosen the image plane position as

$$z_{\mathrm{Na}}^{im}z_{\mathrm{Na}}=e^2/[16\pi ϵ_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{Na}}+E_FV_{\mathrm{Na}})]$$
(6)
in the sample. This guarantees that the total potential $`V_{\mathrm{tilt}}+V_{\mathrm{im}}`$ equals $`V_{\mathrm{Na}}`$, the potential inside Na, at $`z=z_{\mathrm{Na}}`$ provided the tip is far away. In the tip, following the same reasoning,

$$z_{\mathrm{tip}}^{im}z_{\mathrm{tip}}=e^2/[16\pi ϵ_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}+W)].$$
(7)
The resulting potential is illustrated in Fig. 3 for two different values of the bias voltage.

The model potential described above yields an electronic structure of the Na overlayer that is in reasonable agreement with experimental observations. In particular, using this model we are able to reproduce the essential features found in the experiment by Hoffmann, Kliewer, and Berndt.NaPRL  At the same time it should be pointed out that the model is not detailed enough to reproduce exactly the same energy level positions as found experimentally. Given that the Na layer is modeled using bulk parameters, the theoretical results should be more accurate for thicker overlayers. We have therefore concentrated on calculating results for the 2-monolayer case.

### IV.3 Wave functions

To calculate the tunnel current and subsequently the light emission intensity we must solve the Schrödinger equation for the electron wave functions. Since we have chosen to work with a potential that is translationally invariant in the directions perpendicular to the tunneling direction, we can write all wave functions on the form

$$\psi (𝐫)=\psi (z)e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{r}_{}}.$$
(8)
In the copper sample, in view of the potential given by Eq. (3), we make the nearly-free electron model Ansatz

$$\psi (z)=\alpha e^{ikz}+\beta e^{i(kg)z}$$
(9)
for the wave function. Inserting this into the Schrödinger equation one finds that there is a band gap for energies (related to the motion in the $`z`$ direction) between $`E_gV_{111}`$ and $`E_g+V_{111}`$. In this energy interval there are no bulk states in the copper, however, one can still have surface states for which $`k=piq`$ with $`p=g/2`$, and

$$q=\sqrt{2m(\sqrt{4\epsilon E_g+V_{111}^2}E_g\epsilon )}/\mathrm{}.$$

Thus, the wave function envelope decays exponentially as $`e^{qz}`$ and the electron is confined to the region near the copper surface. Since we use a positive value for the corrugation of the potential ($`V_{111}=2.5`$ eV) states near the bottom of the gap will be p-like, whereas states near the top of the gap are s-like.Smith

The wave function in Na takes the form

$$\psi (z)=Ae^{ik_{\mathrm{Na}}z}+Be^{ik_{\mathrm{Na}}z},$$
(10)
where $`k_{\mathrm{Na}}=\sqrt{2m(\epsilon V_{\mathrm{Na}}+i\mathrm{\Gamma })}/\mathrm{}`$ and the branch cut of the square root function is placed along the negative real axis so that the imaginary part of $`k_{\mathrm{Na}}`$ is positive. In the barrier region, the wave function must be integrated numerically and then joined to the tip wave function

$$\psi (z)=Ce^{ik_{\mathrm{tip}}z}+Fe^{ik_{\mathrm{tip}}z},$$
(11)
(with $`k_{\mathrm{tip}}=\sqrt{2m(\epsilon V_{\mathrm{tip}})}/\mathrm{}`$) at $`z=z_{\mathrm{tip}}`$. The coefficients $`C`$ and $`F`$, as well as $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Eq. (10), must be determined by wave function matching.

### IV.4 Tunnel current

Before we can evaluate the matrix elements entering Eq. (1) we have to calculate the tunnel current $`I_{\mathrm{dc}}`$, or rather, determine the tip-sample separation $`d`$ that yields a certain, set value for $`I_{\mathrm{dc}}`$. The probability current density in the $`z`$ direction associated with one particular wave function can be written

$$j_\psi =\frac{1}{A_{\mathrm{eff}}L}\frac{1}{|F|^2}\mathrm{Re}[\psi ^{}(z)\frac{\widehat{p}_z}{m}\psi (z)].$$
(12)
Here the first two factors serve as normalization. $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective area of the tunnel contact, which we also use as a normalization area for the wave functions,Areanote  $`L`$ is a normalization length (in the tip), and by dividing by $`|F|^2`$ we normalize the current to the current carried by the wave impinging on the barrier from the tip side. For a real-valued potential the probability current $`j_\psi `$ is independent of the $`z`$ coordinate. In the present case, with a potential that has a non-zero imaginary part in the sodium layer, the probability current is independent of $`z`$ to the right (in the barrier and tip) of the Na layer, and can be evaluated anywhere in that part of space. $`j_\psi `$ vanishes, on the other hand, in the copper since we cannot have any propagating states in the energy gap there. A tunnel current is flowing across the tunnel gap only because of the scattering processes that eventually scatter electrons out of the quantum well states confined to the Na overlayer and surface region of the copper.

The total electric current is obtained by summing over all contributing states to get a total current density and then multiply by the electron charge and the effective tunneling area

$$I_{\mathrm{dc}}=eA_{\mathrm{eff}}\underset{\psi }{}j_\psi .$$
(13)
This sum can then be turned into an energy integral.

### IV.5 Intensity of emitted light

To calculate the differential power of the emitted light we must carry out the sum over initial and final electron states as indicated in Eq. (1). In contrast to the case of light emission from noble metals the final electron state is in this case, at least in one sense, discrete. Light is primarily emitted while the electron traverses the vacuum barrier and then QWS1 is in practice the only possible final state (assuming parallel momentum is conserved); it dominates the local density of states completely in the energy range just above the substrate Fermi level.

Therefore in the calculations, we have solved for a bound state to represent $`\psi _f`$. This state is calculated with essentially the same potential as was used for the tunnel current calculation, however, in this case we set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ equal to zero, and determine an energy eigenvalue by requiring that the wave function is decaying well inside the tunnel barrier. In the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions this bound state wave function is assumed to behave like a plane-wave state with a certain momentum. Furthermore, in the following we will assume that this state is almost always unoccupied so that tunneling electrons can make inelastic transitions into it and emit light at the same time. This last assumption is reasonable because even if most of the tunnel current passes via QWS1, the lifetime of this state is of the order 10<sup>-14</sup> s while with a tunnel current of 10 nA the delay between each tunnel event is $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$ s.

In our one-dimensional model the momentum parallel to the interfaces and the electron spin is conserved in the inelastic tunneling process. The sum over initial and final states in Eq. (1) then reduces to integrals over parallel and perpendicular momentum,

$$\frac{dP}{d(\mathrm{}\omega )d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\omega ^2|G(\omega )|^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ_0c^3}\underset{i,f}{}|j_{fi}|^2\delta (E_iE_f\mathrm{}\omega )=2\frac{\omega ^2|G(\omega )|^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ_0c^3}A_{\mathrm{eff}}L\frac{dk_z}{2\pi }\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}|j_{fi}|^2\delta (E_iE_f\mathrm{}\omega ).$$
(14)
Here the integration over parallel momentum can be turned into an energy integration over an interval starting at zero and ending at the maximum energy $`E_{,\mathrm{max}}`$ that the electron can have due to the motion parallel to the interfaces. This energy is given by the tip Fermi energy, i.e. $`E_F+eU`$ minus the $`z`$ motion energy $`E_f+\mathrm{}\omega `$ in the initial state, i.e. $`E_{,\mathrm{max}}=E_F+eUE_f\mathrm{}\omega `$. We then get

$$\frac{dP}{d(\mathrm{}\omega )d\mathrm{\Omega }}=2\frac{\omega ^2|G(\omega )|^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ_0c^3}A_{\mathrm{eff}}L\frac{mE_{,\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{,\mathrm{max}})}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{dk_z}{2\pi }|j_{fi}|^2\delta (E_iE_f\mathrm{}\omega ),$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes a step function. It remains to carry out the $`k_z`$ integration, and also this is, in view of the $`\delta `$ function in the integrand, straightforward. If we let $`E_b`$ stand for the band bottom energy in the tip, one has $`\mathrm{}^2k_z^2/(2m)=E_iE_b`$. It is then possible to show that

$$\delta (E_iE_f\mathrm{}\omega )=\frac{\delta \left(k_z+\sqrt{2m(E_f+\mathrm{}\omega E_b)/\mathrm{}^2}\right)}{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}\sqrt{2m(E_f+\mathrm{}\omega E_b)}},$$
(16)
and when this is inserted into Eq. (15) we get the final result

$$\frac{dP}{d(\mathrm{}\omega )d\mathrm{\Omega }}=A_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{e^2\omega ^2|G(\omega )|^2}{64\pi ^4ϵ_0\mathrm{}c^3}\frac{(E_F+eUE_1\mathrm{}\omega )\mathrm{\Theta }(E_F+eUE_1\mathrm{}\omega )}{\sqrt{2m(E_1+\mathrm{}\omega E_b)}}\left|𝑑z\left[\frac{\psi _f^{}}{z}\psi _i\psi _f^{}\frac{\psi _i}{z}\right]\right|^2.$$
(17)
Note that we have made the replacement $`E_fE_1`$ in the last equation because the final state here is identical to the lowest QWS. The $`z`$ integration is limited to the vacuum part of space, since the electromagnetic field enhancement is much higher there than in the tip and sample.

## V Results and Discussion

Figure 4 shows spectra calculated from the model of Sec. IV for a number of different bias voltages. The calculated tunnel current was kept constant at $`I_{\mathrm{dc}}=10\mathrm{nA}`$ in all cases by changing the tip-sample separation.

We see that these spectra have a number of general qualitative features in common with the experimental spectra shown in Figs. 1 and 2. At first, for bias voltages $`<2.5\mathrm{V}`$, the spectrum has a relatively broad peak that is cut off on the high-energy side. Since QWS1 is the final state in the light emission process the maximum photon energy equals $`eU(E_1E_F)`$, and not $`eU`$, \[cf. Eq. (17)\].

Once the bias voltage becomes high enough that electrons can be injected into the upper QWS most of the tunnel current will take this path. At the same time the tip-sample separation increases to maintain the tunnel current at a constant value. Quite naturally the electrons injected into the upper QWS will also dominate the light-emission processes at these higher voltages. Most of the emitted photons will have an energy closely corresponding to the energy difference between the two quantum well states.

Returning to the model, these facts can be understood as follows. As long as the tip Fermi energy lies below QWS2 all initial state wave functions will decrease exponentially upon traversing the tunnel barrier. Therefore wave functions $`\psi _i`$, corresponding to a broad range of energies give comparable contributions to the integral in Eq. (17). The shape of the spectrum in this case is mainly determined by the phase space factor $`(E_F+eUE_1\mathrm{}\omega )`$ and the field enhancement factor $`|G(\omega )|^2`$.

For higher bias voltages, when $`E_F+eU`$ exceeds $`E_2`$, it is instead the last factor in Eq. (17), the matrix element integral, that determines the spectral shape. The final state remains the same and therefore, to have a large matrix element, the initial-state wave function $`\psi _i`$ must be large in the part of space where the final state resides. This will happen when the initial state energy coincides with $`E_2`$ since then resonant tunneling into QWS2 is possible and $`\psi _i`$ will look like the upper wave function illustrated in Fig. 3. Even if there are plenty of initial states with energies both somewhat below and above $`E_2`$, they will not at all give as large contributions to the emitted light intensity because their wave functions are much smaller near the Na overlayer surface. As a result of this the light emission spectrum develops a peak around $`h\nu =\mathrm{}\omega =E_2E_1`$.

The overall intensity of the emitted light is smaller at the higher voltages. The main reason for this is that raising the voltage moves the peak of the light emission spectrum away from the frequency range near 2 eV where a tungsten tip and a copper sample have an interface-plasmon resonance causing resonantly enhanced light emission. At a photon energy of 2.3–2.4 eV there is still a considerable field enhancement between the tip and sample, but $`G`$ is typically down by a factor of 2 compared with the resonant case. Thus, the peak in the light emission spectrum at $`h\nu 2.3`$ eV is entirely due to the special electron structure of the Na/Cu(111) surface.

The experimental results also illustrate the last point in an interesting way. With 1 ML coverage \[Figs. 1 and 2(b)\] the emission peak due to quantum well (or interband) transitions falls at a high photon energy where the electromagnetic enhancement is relatively small. Consequently, comparing spectra taken at different voltages, the plasmon-mediated light emission yields the more intense peaks in these spectra. However, for 0.6 ML coverage \[Fig. 2(a)\] the quantum well transition occurs at a lower photon energy, near the maximum of the electromagnetic enhancement. In this case the “quantum-well peak” is more intense than the peak occurring at the lower bias voltage.

In this context let us discuss why it is reasonable to calculate the electromagnetic enhancement at a point just below the tip apex both for plasmon-mediated and QWS transition light emission. In the first case, this is natural since the light emission event must take place while the electron tunnels from tip to sample. In the latter case, the electron is injected into a fairly long-lived state, and in principle it may end up in a point quite far away from the tip apex before a photon is emitted. However, with a lifetime of 10 fs and a lateral electron velocity of $`10^5`$ m/s the distance traveled by the electron is no more than 1 nm, thus it would still be in a region where the electromagnetic enhancement has not dropped off very much (cf. the discussion in subsection IV.1).

From the calculated results, one can estimate the quantum efficiency of the light emission process to be $`10^5`$ emitted photons per tunneling electron. This number compares well with the experimental result. It is considerably larger than what is observed for inverse photoemission processes at a single surface, however, the quantum efficiency of STM-induced light emission from most notably Ag samples may reach values between $`10^4`$ and $`10^3`$.

## VI Summary

In summary we have interpreted experimental observations of STM-induced light emission from the quantum well system Na on Cu(111) using model calculations of the electronic structure and the optical properties of the tip-sample region. The main features of the experimental data, namely two distinct spectral structures, and their intensity variation with the tip-sample voltage are reproduced by the calculations. The emission lines are attributed to (a) emission from a localized plasmon which is excited by inelastic tunneling to a quantum well state and (b) transitions between two quantum well states. The electromagnetic enhancement present in the tip-sample cavity substantially enhances the intensity of the emission and explains the observed, high quantum efficiencies.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the European Commission via the TMR network EMIT. The work of GH and RB is further supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via the “Schwerpunktsprogramm Elektronentransferprozesse an Grenzflächen,” and the work of PJ is supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (VR) and by the SSF through the Nanometer Consortium at Lund University.

*

## Appendix A

In this appendix we derive Eq. (1) using the Keldysh non-equilibrium Green’s function (GF) technique.Mahan ; Jauho  We wish to calculate the intensity of the spontaneously emitted light at a detection point $`𝐫_0`$ far away from the STM tip and sample. Since all photons appearing at this point that are of interest to us originate from the region around the STM tip, the intensity can be found by multiplying the electromagnetic energy density, excluding the zero-point energy, by the speed of light. The energy density can be expressed in terms of Keldysh GF’s as

$$\mathrm{w}=iϵ_0_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }[D_{EE}^<(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,+\omega )+D_{EE}^>(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,\omega )],$$
(18)
where $`D_{EE}^<(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,\omega )`$ and $`D_{EE}^>(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,\omega )`$ are the Fourier transforms of

$$D_{EE}^<(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,t)=iE_\theta (𝐫_0,0)E_\theta (𝐫_0,t)$$
(19)
and

$$D_{EE}^>(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,t)=iE_\theta (𝐫_0,t)E_\theta (𝐫_0,0),$$
(20)
respectively. In writing these expressions we have assumed that the tunnel current causing light emission flows in the $`z`$ direction near the origin and sends out p-polarized light with an electric field $`𝐄=\widehat{\theta }E_\theta `$, pointing in the $`\theta `$ direction in the far field. Consequently, the radiated differential power can be written

$$\frac{dP}{d(\mathrm{}\omega )d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{icϵ_0r_0^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}[D_{EE}^<(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,+\omega )+D_{EE}^>(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,\omega )].$$
(21)
The two Keldysh GF’s in Eq. (21) actually yield identical contributions and in the following we will only deal with $`D^<`$.

We need to find an expression for the contributions to $`D_{EE}^<`$ that result from interactions between the electromagnetic field and the electron system in the STM tip and sample. This interaction is to lowest order

$$H^{}=\frac{e}{2m}\underset{n}{}[𝐀(𝐫_n)𝐩_n+𝐩_n𝐀(𝐫_n)],$$
(22)
where $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential ($`𝐄=𝐀/t`$), the sum runs over the electrons, and $`𝐫_n`$ and $`𝐩_n`$ are the electron coordinates and momentum operators, respectively. By performing an S-matrix expansion of $`D_{EE}^<`$ to second order in $`H^{}`$ we find, using the rules for “analytic continuation”,Jauho  that $`D_{EE}^<`$ can be expressed as a product of two photon Green’s functions and a current-current Green’s function,

$`D_{EE}^<(𝐫_0,𝐫_0,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle d^3r_1d^3r_2}`$
$`\times D_{EA}^r(𝐫_0,𝐫_1,\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }^<(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\omega )D_{AE}^a(𝐫_2,𝐫_0,\omega ).`$
(23)
These Green’s functions are the Fourier transforms of a retarded photon GF

$$D_{EA}^r(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=i\theta (t)[E_\theta (𝐫,t),A_z(𝐫^{},0)],$$
(24)
an advanced photon GF

$$D_{AE}^a(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=i\theta (t)[A_z(𝐫,t),E_\theta (𝐫^{},0)],$$
(25)
and the current-current GF

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^<(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=ij_z(𝐫^{},0)j_z(𝐫,t).$$
(26)
The current density operator

$$j_z(𝐫)=\frac{ie\mathrm{}}{2m}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫)\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)}{z}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫)}{z}\right],$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ are electron annihilation and creation operators.Rick

At this point we can make a number of approximations and simplifications. The inelastic tunneling events occur in a very small part of space in the tunnel gap in a region of (sub-)nanometer size. The photon Green’s functions do not vary very much on this length scale, so $`D^r`$ and $`D^a`$ can be taken outside the integral, and $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ can be replaced by a fixed point $`𝐫_s`$ in the tunnel gap in these functions. Fourier transformation turns time derivatives into frequency multiplications. Therefore the photon Green’s functions only need to involve the vector potential. Moreover, in Fourier space retarded and advanced GF’s are each others complex conjugates, and finally the reciprocity theorem of electrodynamics allows us to interchange the source and field points in the retarded photon GF. This gives us

$$D_{EA}^r(𝐫_0,𝐫_s,\omega )D_{AE}^a(𝐫_s,𝐫_0,\omega )=\omega ^2|D_{z\theta }^r(𝐫_s,𝐫_0,\omega )|^2.$$
(28)
In a case where parts of space is filled with materials characterized by a relative dielectric function $`ϵ_r(𝐫)`$ the (tensor) photon Green’s function $`D_{\alpha \beta }`$ solvesMahan ; StatPhys2

$$[\times \times ϵ_r(𝐫)\frac{\omega ^2}{c^2}]D_{\alpha \beta }^r(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )=\mathrm{}\mu _0\widehat{\beta }\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{})$$
(29)
and yields the $`\alpha `$ component of the vector potential in the point $`𝐫`$ if there is a $`\delta `$ function current source pointing in the $`\beta `$ direction in $`𝐫^{}`$. Thus, $`D_{\alpha \beta }^r(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )`$ can be calculated within the framework of classical electrodynamics. The $`z\theta `$ element of interest here can be written

$$D_{z\theta }^r(𝐫_s,𝐫_0,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}}{ϵ_0c^2}\frac{e^{ikr_0}}{4\pi r_0}G(\theta _0,\omega ),$$
(30)
where $`G`$ is an enhancement amplitude. $`G`$ is given by the $`z`$ component of the local electric field in the tunnel gap when a plane wave of unit amplitude incident from the direction of $`𝐫_0`$ impinges on the tip-sample system. In free space one would simply have $`G(\theta ,\omega )=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. The detailed scheme for calculating $`G`$ has been described earlier, for example in Ref. MCD2, .

It remains to evaluate the current-current Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Pi }^<(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\omega )`$ and to carry out the integrations over the coordinates $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ in Eq. (23). A straightforward evaluation yields the result

$`{\displaystyle d^3r_1d^3r_2\mathrm{\Pi }^<(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\omega )}=`$
$`=2\pi i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{fi}{}}|j_{fi}|^2\delta (\mathrm{}\omega +E_fE_i)`$ (31)
where the sum runs over filled initial electron states $`i`$ with energy $`E_i`$ and wave function $`\psi _i`$ and empty final electron states $`f`$ with energy $`E_f`$ and wave function $`\psi _f`$, and

$$j_{fi}=\frac{ie\mathrm{}}{2m}d^3r\left[\frac{\psi _f^{}}{z}\psi _i\psi _f^{}\frac{\psi _i}{z}\right].$$
(32)
By inserting the results of Eqs. (23), (28), (30), and (31) in Eq. (21) we arrive at the final result

$$\frac{dP}{d(\mathrm{}\omega )d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\omega ^2|G(\theta _0,\omega )|^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ_0c^3}\underset{fi}{}|j_{fi}|^2\delta (\mathrm{}\omega +E_fE_i),$$
(33)
which is identical to Eq. (1).