text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently size effects in scattering of conduction electrons off magnetic impurities has gained a renewed interest . The estimate for the characteristic size of Kondo interaction around paramagnetic impurities embedded in a normal metal equals in order of magnitude $`\xi _Kv_F/T_K`$ where $`T_K`$ is the characteristic energy scale and $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. In noble metals with such dissolved impurities as Mn, Cr, and Fe $`T_K`$ can be quite small (down to $`10^{13}`$ K in AuMn alloys ) which leads to a macroscopic $`\xi _K`$, easily accessible in experiments. The theory predicts that at low temperatures ($`T<T_K`$) around each impurity the spins of conduction electrons create a ”cloud” which compensates the spin of impurity . At higher temperatures ($`TT_K`$) one might think that the same spatial scale determines the logarithmic behavior of magnetic part in resistivity as a function of temperature. It is unimportant that the average distance between impurities, even in the most dilute alloys, is much less than $`\xi _K`$, since the wave functions of spin-screening conduction electrons at each impurity are mutually orthogonal. There are a number of experiments aiming to discover the changes of Kondo interaction across this characteristic spatial scale . In spite of some controversy in experimental interpretation , a crossover distance was found  having a negative sign for the Kondo scattering intensity as could be naively expected. Namely, when one or more of the dimensions of a sample is decreased below a certain value, the prefactor in the Kondo logarithm is strongly diminished. Unfortunately, this decrease cannot be connected with the fundamental Kondo interaction, since alloys having different bulk $`T_K`$ (e.g., $`T_K=0.2`$ K for AuFe and $`T_K=30`$ K for CuFe ) possess approximately the same value for crossover scale ($`10^5`$ cm). Around $`TT_K`$, the same overall nonlinear temperature behavior evidences that the Kondo temperature does not depend upon the size involved .

In our point-contact measurements we have found the opposite size effect. The samples are fabricated from Kondo alloys in the form of metallic nanowires connecting two bulk electrodes using the technique of mechanically controllable break junctions (MCBJ) (see below) . This nanowire shows strong quantum oscillations of the local density of states (LDOS) in the lateral dimensions. Since the Kondo interaction is essentially local and quasi one-dimensional, those impurities which are located at the maxima of LDOS manifest a noticeable increase in Kondo temperature and give primary contribution to the resistance of a point contact. The lower $`T_K`$ in the bulk the higher is the Kondo-temperature enhancement .

## 2 Experimental manifestation of Kondo scattering enhancement.

### 2.1 Comparison between phonon- and Kondo-induced intensities.

The contact parameters are measured as a function of $`d`$ with the MCBJ technique  (see the inset in the lower panel of Fig.1). A small rod of the material to be investigated $`(1)`$ is fixed by Stycast epoxy $`(3)`$ to the bending beam $`(4)`$, which can be deflected by mechanical and piezo drives $`(5)`$ leading to the pulling off of the electrodes from each other. The notch at the center $`(2`$), made previously, localizes the place where the rod is thinned in a controllable way, allowing the formation of a nanowire.

A typical example of the first and second derivatives of the $`IV`$ characteristics are plotted in Fig.1 for a CuMn (0.18 at.%) alloy. At zero bias the differential resistance shows the Kondo scattering maximum which is displayed in the inset of the upper panel on an enlarged scale. As the first characteristic parameter, we define the Kondo peak height, $`\delta R_K`$. The flat minimum in the $`R(V)=dV/dI(V)`$ dependence, $`R_0`$, is taken as the Sharvin resistance

$$R_0[\mathrm{\Omega }]900/d^2,$$
(1)
where $`d`$ \[in nm\] corresponds to the diameter of the narrowest cross section of the contact and the value in the numerator is valid for copper.

Concomitant with the Kondo peak, one can observe the electron-phonon-interaction (EPI) spectrum $`g_{PC}(eV)`$ (lower panel of Fig.1) whose shape and intensity $`M`$ evidences for the ballistic regime of electron flow. As for the second characteristic parameter, we choose the intensity of phonon-induced nonlinearity which we define as an increase of $`R`$ at bias $`V=20`$ mV, $`\delta R_{ph}`$. For a copper point contact in the form of a clean orifice  the relative phonon intensity equals

$$\left(\frac{\delta R_{ph}}{R_0}\right)_{V=20\mathrm{mV}}=\frac{8}{3}\frac{ed}{\mathrm{}v_F}_0^{20\mathrm{mV}}g_{PC}(\omega )𝑑\omega =4.05\times 10^3d[\mathrm{nm}].$$
(2)
For the ballistic regime of current flow, the experimental data of $`\left(\frac{\delta R_{ph}}{R_0}\right)_{V=20\mathrm{mV}}`$ should not lie below this linear dependence on contact diameter(see below) .

For the weak coupling Kondo limit the theory  predicts a linear dependence of $`\delta R_K/R_0`$ on $`d`$ too, at least for the average distance between impurities, $`r_0`$, being much less than the contact size $`d`$. Moreover, the ratio $`\delta R_K/\delta R_{ph}`$ should not depend on the contact shape and regime of current flow provided the latter is still spectroscopic (non-thermal) .

Fig.2 shows that this is not the case in the experiment. The smaller the size of the contact in the nanometer range, the higher is the ratio $`\delta R_K/\delta R_{ph}`$, at least for small concentrations of impurities. One of the possible explanations might be that more and more impurities become closer to the unitary limit of the scattering cross section, due to the general increase of Kondo temperature for smaller $`d`$. Unfortunately, the condition $`r_0d`$ is violated for smallest diameters and another classical ”shadow” effect may also lead to the qualitatively the same dependence when the single impurity is situated near the contact center . Hence, this property alone cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of enhanced Kondo temperature.

### 2.2 Broadening of the Kondo resonance in nanometer-scale contacts.

Apart from the anomalous amplitude we observe a substantial increase of width in Kondo resonance (Fig.3), for which the classical shadow-effect cannot be responsible. This increase for contacts with sizes smaller than approximately 10 nm is observed without any noticeable increase in width of phonon peaks at $`V20`$ and $`30`$ mV on EPI spectrum, like that shown in the lower panel of Fig.1.This evidences that the broadening is specific to Kondo scattering.

For the thicker nanowires, the width of the Kondo resonance follows the order of bulk $`T_K`$ for alloys CuMn and CuFe shown in Fig.3 111CuCr alloy (with bulk $`T_K=2`$ K) also follows this trend: CuMn$``$CuCr$``$CuFe. Moreover, fitting the experimental Kondo resistance for CuFe by the empirical formula $`\rho _m=AB\mathrm{ln}[1+(T/\theta )^2]`$, where $`\mathrm{ln}(\theta /T_K)=\pi [S(S+1)]^{1/2}`$ , gives the correct $`T_K30`$ K for largest $`d`$ measured assuming the relation $`eV/kT=3.63`$. This formula is valid for $`T`$ and $`eV`$ smaller than the bulk $`T_K`$, which is fully satisfied for CuFe alloy.

On the other hand, for the thinnest nanowires ($`d2`$ nm) the widths of the resonances are almost the same (enhanced $`T_K^{}100`$ K) for both alloys, which can be explained by a saturation of $`T_K^{}`$, approaching the electron energy subband separation $`E_c=\epsilon _F/N_c`$, with $`N_c`$ the number of conduction channels $`N_c=(k_FR/2)^2`$ .

### 2.3 Interplay between Kondo temperature enhancement and Zeeman splitting of the Kondo resonance.

Recently Costi considered the Kondo effect in a magnetic field for strong coupling, especially in the crossover region $`TT_K`$ . He found that a splitting of the spectral density is observed for fields larger than the critical value $`H_c(T=0)0.5T_K`$ in the bulk. In our experiments qualitatively the same trend is observed for increased Kondo temperature by diminishing the nanowire size $`d`$.

In Fig.4 we show as an example the behavior of Kondo resonance in external (a) and internal (b) magnetic field. In the latter case the internal field is due to spin glass ordering of a CuMn alloy with a concentration of 0.1 at.% at $`T`$=0.5 K. Note that a decrease of the contact size from 13.4 to 6.4 nm (a) and 38.7 to 9.94 nm (b) fully suppress the splitting, supporting the interpretation of an enhancement of the Kondo temperature. The suppression of the Zeeman splitting is even more spectacular than the increase of widths of the Kondo resonances, which is not discernible in Fig.4, due to the broadening of the width by the magnetic field for larger diameters.

In general, if the regime of electron flow through the nanowire deviates from ballistic, then the above mentioned three manifestations of Kondo temperature enhancement disappear in the order listed in the above subsection headings. In other words, the suppression of Zeeman splitting by decreasing the contact size is the most robust property.

## 3 Zarand-Udvardi theory of LDOS fluctuations as a cause for the Kondo temperature enhancement.

Zarand and Udvardi  proposed that the cause for the Kondo temperature enhancement is in the strong local electron density of states (LDOS) fluctuations inside a nanowire forming the narrowest part of a point contact. They considered a cylindrical channel with a length $`L`$ and diameter $`d=2R`$ connecting two metallic half spaces (see inset in Fig.5a). The electron wave functions inside a cylinder are angular momentum $`m`$ eigenstates around the axis $`z`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm ,\epsilon \lambda m}(r,z,\phi )=e^{i\phi m}J_m(\lambda r)e^{\pm ik_z(\lambda )z},$$

where cylindrical coordinates are used. The signs $`\pm `$ correspond to right- and left-going states, respectively, $`\epsilon `$ denotes the energy of the conduction electrons, and $`J_m`$ stands for the $`m`$th Bessel function. The $`z`$ component of the momentum, $`k_z`$, can be expressed in terms of the energy $`\epsilon `$ and the radial momentum $`\lambda `$ of the electron as $`k_z=(2m_e\epsilon /\mathrm{}^2\lambda ^2)^{1/2}`$ ($`m_e`$ denotes the electron mass). $`\lambda `$ is a continuous parameter in the infinite half-spaces while it takes discrete values inside the tube due to the hard-wall boundary conditions. The scattering matrices are constructed by matching the wave functions and their derivatives at the two ends of the cylinder .

Figure 5a shows the calculated LDOS inside the channel with $`R=15`$ Å at $`r=7`$ Å and $`z=7`$ Å, where $`z`$ is measured from the left end of the point contact. Each time a new conduction channel is opening a peak appears in the LDOS $`\rho (\epsilon ,r,z)`$. Simultaneously, strong oscillations appear when the spatial coordinate is varied (Fig.5b).

Similar oscillations are the cause of the periodical pattern in a histogram of diameters obtained from large numbers of indentation-retraction cycles of MCBJ in alkali metals, due to so-called shell and supershell structure . Although the stability of diameters for noble metal nanowires do not show the same structure at low temperature, it is quite natural to assume that strong fluctuation of LDOS exists in these metals too.

From the multiplicative renormalization group equations  the leading logarithmic terms give rise to the following expression for the ratio of the enhanced Kondo temperature $`T_K^{}`$ and that referring to the bulk, $`T_K`$,

$$\frac{T_K^{}}{T_K}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{T_K}^D\frac{d\xi }{2\xi }\left[\delta R(\xi )+\delta R(\xi )\right]\right\},$$
(3)
where $`\delta R(\xi )=\left[\rho (\xi )/\rho _{bulk}(\epsilon _F)1\right]`$ , $`\xi =\epsilon \epsilon _F`$ and $`D`$ is the bandwidth. The calculated average over the contact region $`T_K^{}/T_K`$ as a function of the nanowire diameter for fixed length $`L=5`$ Å is shown in Fig.6. The increased average Kondo temperature, $`T_K^{}110`$ K, is orders of magnitude larger than the bulk Kondo temperature for CuMn alloys, $`T_K=0.01`$ K, and is in reasonable agreement with the experiments (see open squares in the figure) whose Kondo temperatures were estimated by measuring the width of the Kondo resonance curves . A rough fitting (not shown) of the calculated data with the experimentally found power-law dependence, $`T_K^{}d^\alpha `$, gives an exponent $`\alpha =2.2\pm 0.5`$, which agrees with the experimental exponent, $`\alpha =2`$. For comparison in Fig.6 the average $`T_K^{}/T_K`$ calculated by integrating the next to leading logarithmic scaling equations  are shown (diamonds). Both calculations show roughly the same trend of increasing $`T_K^{}/T_K`$ with decreasing diameter.

In Fig.7 the calculated amplitude of the dimensionless Kondo conductance is compared to the experimental dependence of $`\delta G_K/(e^2/h)`$ versus contact diameter. Both dependences are roughly proportional to $`R^2`$ and deviate strongly in amplitude and functional form ($`R^3`$) from the case without LDOS fluctuations (shown as a dashed line). This implies that the Kondo resonance of the contact resistance is dominated by the magnetic impurities having large Kondo temperatures. For the calculation, the average $`\delta G_K`$ over 40 randomly chosen impurity positions were used. Note that there is no free parameter in this calculation except for the length of the wire, which hardly influences the results.

Large LDOS fluctuations can be generated by random scattering at the boundary of PC as well as from the adjacent dirty banks. The following results prove that for the observation of an enhanced Kondo temperature a specific shape, namely a nanowire must be fabricated, as it is assumed in the Zarand-Udvardi theory. Fig.8 shows the relative intensity of the phonon nonlinearity, $`\delta R_{ph}/R_0`$, along with the Kondo peak intensity, $`\delta R_K/R_0`$, for two concentration of Mn impurities in Cu. Since the electron mean free path (including the magnetic contribution) is larger than the contact size222The magnetic mean free path can be estimated from the tabulated magnetic resistivity contribution in the bulk ., the regime of current flow is ballistic, which is indeed proved by the approximate coincidence of the phonon dependences for the two noticeably different concentrations. Moreover, the phonon intensities are about two times larger for $`d<10`$ nm than the maximal phonon nonlinearity in clean orifice-type contacts, Eq.(2),  indicated in Fig.8 by a solid straight line333The latter is observed as an upper limit in point-contacts produced by ”needle-anvil” or ”edge-edge” technique .. This means that for diameters less than 10 nm a clean nanowire, with the length at least equal to its diameter should be created as the narrowest part of the contact.

Considering the Kondo peak for large contact diameters, its intensity is roughly proportional to the impurity concentration evidencing that we indeed measure the scattering of conduction electrons off paramagnetic impurities. The slope of $`\delta R_K/R_0(d)`$ is less than for $`\delta R_{ph}/R_0(d)`$ for $`d10`$ nm in accordance to the plot shown in Fig.2 and in Fig.7.

Summarizing, since the Kondo effect is a local probe of the LDOS, the paramagnetic impurities located close to the maxima of the LDOS inside a nanowire give the primary contribution to the contact resistance and show an enhanced Kondo temperature. Unfortunately, the estimates for the Kondo temperature are still quite uncertain due to the lack of a full quantum theory in the region where the Boltzman equation approach becomes inadequate.


format: text

text:
# Metal-Insulator Transitions in Interacting Disordered Systems

## I The Critical Exponent Puzzle.

Based on the Ioffe-Regel criterion, which asserts that the mean free path of an electron in a metallic system cannot be shorter than its wavelength, Mott proposed in 1972 that there exists a minimum value of the conductivity, $`\sigma _{min}=Ce^2/ha`$, below which a system cannot be in the metallic phase; here $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`h`$ is Planck’s constant, $`a`$ is the average distance between electrons at the critical concentration $`n_c`$, and $`C`$ was estimated by Mott to be a number between $`0.15`$ and $`0.3`$. The conductivity is thus expected to drop discontinuously to zero at a Mott transition driven by interactions. Some years later, the scaling theory of Abrahams, Anderson, Licciardello and Ramakrishnan for disordered systems of non-interacting electrons implied that the transition is instead a continuous one, so that arbitrarily small values of conductivity are possible in the metallic phase. Theory soon followed which showed that the electrons (or holes) generally localize even more strongly when weak interactions are included . Experiments in amorphous metal-semiconductor mixtures such as AuGe and NbSi, as well as in some doped semiconductors, most notably the elegant stress-tuning measurements by Paalanen et al. in Si:P, provided strong evidence that the transition is indeed continuous.

Following these early seminal contributions, however, the field has been plagued for nearly two decades by controversy and conflicting results. On the one hand, a consensus emerged rather quickly regarding the behavior of the amorphous metal-semiconductor mixtures: tunneling experiments documented the appearance of a square-root singularity in the density of states as the transition is approached from the metallic side, consistent with theoretical predictions for interacting electrons; the critical exponent $`\mu `$ which characterizes the (continuous) approach of the conductivity to the transition, $`\sigma (nn_c)^\mu `$, was found to be close to $`1`$ in essentially all the amorphous systems examined. In contrast, conflicting results have been reported in doped semiconductors, and these materials continue to be the subject of debate and uncertainty as discussed in more detail below. It should be noted, however, that a number of investigators, most actively A. Moebius, continue to question the generally accepted view; based on a scaling analysis of the conductivity of amorphous CrSe, this school maintains that the transition is discontinuous with a minimum metallic conductivity, as originally postulated by Mott.

Electron interactions are known to play a role in the case of doped semiconductors. This was demonstrated by tunneling experiments in Si:B which yielded results very similar to those found for GeAu and NbSi: a square-root singularity develops as the transition is approached from the metallic side, and a “Coulomb gap” appears in the insulator as the dopant concentration is further decreased. However, a great deal of disagreement persists concerning the critical behavior of the conductivity, with various laboratories reporting different results on different, and sometimes even the same, semiconductor systems.

FIG. 1. Conductivity of Si:B plotted as a function of: (a) temperature $`T`$; and (b) $`T^{1/2}`$. Each curve corresponds to a different dopant concentration, labelled in units of $`10^{18}`$ cm-3. The inset shows zero-temperature extrapolations plotted as a function of dopant concentration.

Typical curves are shown in Fig. 1, where the conductivity of Si:B is plotted as a function of temperature $`T`$ in frame (a), and as a function of $`T^{1/2}`$ in frame (b). The conductivity is given by:

$$\sigma (T)=\sigma (0)+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{int}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{loc}=\sigma (0)+mT^{1/2}+BT^{p/2}$$

The second term on the right-hand side is due to electron-electron interactions and the last term is the correction to the zero-temperature conductivity due to localization. The exponent $`p`$ reflects the temperature dependence of the scattering rate, $`\tau _\varphi ^1T^p`$ of the dominant phase-breaking mechanism responsible for delocalization, such as electron-phonon scattering or spin-orbit scattering. The last term is assumed small at very low temperatures, and the conductivity is generally plotted as a function of $`T^{1/2}`$, as in Fig. 1 (b). There is little theoretical justification for using this expression within the critical range, where it is applied “by default” in a region where the behavior of the conductivity is not known. We note that the slope $`m`$ that determines the conductivity at low temperatures changes sign from negative to positive as the metal-insulator transition is approached. The significance of this change of sign has been a matter of debate, and lies at the heart of the controversy regarding the critical behavior.

The critical conductivity exponent $`\mu `$ is generally determined by the following procedure. For each sample with a given concentration (or for each value of stress, magnetic field, or other tuning parameter), a single, zero-temperature extrapolated value of the conductivity is deduced from data obtained at finite temperatures. The zero-temperature extrapolations are then plotted as a function of concentration (or stress, or field) to obtain the critical behavior, as indicated in the inset to Fig. 1 (a). This experimental protocol has yielded conflicting values for $`\mu `$. Important examples are shown in the next two figures.

FIG. 2. Data of Paalanen et al. (ref. 6) for the conductivity as a function of temperature of uniaxially stressed Si:P very near the metal-insulator transition; the inset shows zero-temperature extrapolations plotted as a function of stress, yielding an exponent $`\mu =1/2`$.

Figure 2 shows early classic measurements of the conductivity of uniaxially-stressed Si:P taken down to unusually low temperatures by the Bell group; fitted to the square-root temperature dependence of Eq. (1), the zero-temperature extrapolations yielded a critical exponent $`\mu =1/2`$ (see the inset). If the correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ is equal to the conductivity exponent $`\mu `$, as expected within Wegner scaling, this violates a lower bound $`\nu >2/3`$ in three dimensions calculated by Chayes et al.. A possible solution to the exponent puzzle was subsequently proposed by the Karlsruhe group of H. v. Lohneysen based on measurements in unstressed Si:P shown in Fig. 3. Stupp et al. suggested that only those samples for which the low temperature slopes of the conductivity are positive are in the critical region and should be used to deduce the critical behavior. As shown in Fig. 3 (b), the Karlsruhe experiments yielded a much larger exponent, $`\mu 1.3`$, based on a restricted range of dopant concentrations very near a critical concentration that is assumed to be substantially smaller than the generally accepted value. The critical exponent near $`1/2`$ obtained by the Bell group was attributed by these authors to the improper inclusion of samples outside the critical region. The Bell group strongly disputed this claim, and attributed the large Karlsruhe exponent to inhomogeneities that cause “rounding” near the transition . Indeed, the unknown breadth of the critical region had been a source of some concern, and the Karlsruhe ansatz offered a relatively simple and attractive solution to a vexing problem. At the same time, however, carefully executed investigations by Itoh et al. of the conductivity of neutron transmutation doped Ge:Ga on both sides of the metal-insulator transition provided strong

FIG. 3. Data of Stupp et al. (ref. 11) for the conductivity as a function of temperature of a series Si:P samples with closely spaced dopant concentrations very near the metal-insulator transition. (b) The conductivity extrapolated to zero-temperature as a function of dopant concentration. Stupp et al. (1993) claim that restricting the analysis to samples whose resistivities have positive slopes at low temperatures yields a true critical conductivity exponent $`\mu 1.3`$ (solid line), while including points further from the transition (claimed to be outside the critical region) results in an apparent exponent $`\mu 1/2`$ (dashed line).

evidence for the smaller exponent around $`1/2`$. To complicate matters further, Castner contended that some of the positive-slope curves that were classified as metallic actually obey Mott variable-range hopping, placing these on the insulating side of the transition. The few who were directly involved in the issue divided rather sharply into opposing camps, while the rest of the community began to lose interest in a problem that was making little apparent headway.

It has been difficult to obtain reliable determinations of the critical behavior for a number of reasons. One important issue is whether the distribution of dopant atoms is statistically random. This problem can be minimized by doping through neutron transmutation, as has been done in Ge:Ga. Another difficulty is that the approach to the transition is most often controlled experimentally by varying the dopant concentration, $`n`$, near its critical value, $`n_c`$, a method that entails the use of a discrete set of carefully characterized samples. This makes it difficult to do systematic, controlled studies on closely spaced samples very near the transition within the critical regime. This problem has been circumvented in a few studies where individual samples have been driven through the transition using a different tuning parameter such as uniaxial stress or magnetic field. The central problem, however, is that zero-temperature conductivities deduced from extrapolations from finite temperature measurements are uncertain and unreliable, particularly in the absence of any theory known to be valid in the critical region.

FIG. 4. For different values of the tuning parameter, $`S`$, the normalized conductivity, $`\sigma /\sigma _c`$, of uniaxially stressed samples of Si:B is shown on a log-log scale as a function of the scaling variable $`[(\mathrm{\Delta }S)/S_c]/T^{1/z\nu }`$, with $`z\nu =3.2`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=(SS_c)`$, where $`S_c`$ is the critical stress; the critical temperature dependence at the transition is $`S_cT^{1/2}`$. The inset shows the unscaled conductivity as a function of temperature on a log-log scale for different values of stress.

FIG. 5. For different values of dopant concentration $`n`$ used here as the tuning parameter, the conductivity $`\sigma `$ of unstressed Si:B is shown on a logarithmic scale as a function of $`(T^{}/T)^{1/2}`$; here $`T^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }n)^{z\nu }`$.

A full scaling analysis which uses data obtained at all temperatures obviates the need for extrapolations to zero. Attempts to apply finite-temperature scaling to the conductivity of crystalline doped semiconductors had largely failed until quite recently (except in the presence of an externally applied magnetic field). Application by Belitz and Kirkpatrick  of finite temperature scaling to data for Si:P gave satisfactory results only over a severely restricted range of temperature, and yielded critical conductivity exponents $`\mu =0.29`$ for the Bell data, and $`\mu =1`$ for the Karlsruhe data. No data were available from either group for the insulating side of the transition; as shown below, the availability of data on both sides of the transition imposes important constraints.

Potentially important progress on this question was recently achieved in experiments on stress-tuned Si:B. As shown in Fig. 4, full scaling of the conductivity with temperature and stress of the form:

$$\sigma (n,T)=\sigma (n_c,T)F(\mathrm{\Delta }n/T^{1/z\nu })$$

was demonstrated on both sides of the transition. Here $`\sigma (n_c)T^{\mu /z\nu }`$, $`n_c`$ is the critical concentration, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=(nn_c)`$, $`\nu `$ is the critical exponent that characterizes the divergence of the length scale, and $`z`$ and $`\mu `$ are the dynamical exponent and critical conductivity exponent, respectively. On a log-log scale, the inset to Fig. 4 shows the (unscaled) conductivity for various values of stress. The critical curve is denoted by the straight corresponding to a power law; the temperature dependence at the critical point is found to be $`\sigma T^{1/2}`$ in stressed Si:B. It is worth emphasizing again that the power of this method lies with the fact that all the data obtained at all temperatures are used in the scaled curves of Fig. 4, rather than a single zero-temperature extrapolation for each stress deduced from a full curve of the conductivity as a function of temperature. This imposes more stringent constraints, particularly when data are available on both sides of the transition, and yields critical exponents that are far more reliable and robust.

It is puzzling that the experiment on stress-tuned Si:B yielded a critical conductivity exponent $`\mu =1.6`$ considerably larger than any previous determination. Instead of answering old questions, this raises new ones. For example, does the use of stress as a tuning parameter yield the same physics as varying the concentration, as had always been assumed? Although it has not resolved the controversy regarding the value of $`\mu `$, the Bogdanovich et al. experiment demonstrated that finite temperature-scaling can be applied. This has triggered a number of new attempts to use the same method in other cases. Among these are reports from Karlsruhe  of scaling for stressed Si:P (yielding $`\mu =1`$), and by Itoh’s group in Ge:Ga.

I will close this section by showing some surprising results of a reanalysis of old data taken at City College on unstressed samples of Si:B. Encouraged by the full scaling form that was successcully applied to stressed Si:B, an equivalent analysis was attempted for data obtained earlier by Peihua Dai where dopant concentration rather than stress was used to tune through the transition. As mentioned earlier, in the case of stressed Si:B the critical curve exhibits a power-law dependence on temperature, $`\sigma T^{1/2}`$; more generally, the critical temperature dependence of the conductivity has been reported in various different semiconductor systems as either $`T^{1/2}`$ or $`T^{1/3}`$. Although the data can be manipulated to yield scaled curves for either the metallic or the insulating branches, neither of these choices for the critical T-dependence yields scaling on both sides of the transition for the conductivity of unstressed Si:B. Surprisingly, the full scaling that was obtained for the stressed samples appears not to hold for the unstressed case. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 5, all the data obtained for insulating samples down to $`0.75n_c`$ (which is clearly outside the critical region) collapse onto a single curve if one chooses to plot $`\sigma `$ itself rather than $`\sigma /T^x`$ with $`x=\mu /z\nu =1/2`$ or $`1/3`$. The conductivity for concentrations ranging from $`0.75n_c`$ to $`n_c=4.38\times 10^{18}`$ cm-3 collapses onto a single curve; although three positive-slope samples (the lowest three curves of Fig. 1) are included that have generally been assumed to be on the metallic side of the transition, further careful work is required to determine whether the collapse holds or whether it breaks down very near the transition. The conductivity of unstressed Si:B on the insulating side of the transition is thus given by $`\rho =\rho _0F(T^{}(n)/T)`$ with $`T^{}(n_cn)^y`$, $`F(0)=1`$, and a prefactor $`\rho _0`$ that is independent of temperature $`T`$ and dopant concentration $`n`$; this implies a resistivity $`\rho =\rho _0`$ that is independent of temperature at the critical point $`n=n_c`$. Deep in the insulating phase the conductivity obeys exponentially activated Efros-Shklovskii variable-range hopping, $`\rho =\rho _0`$ exp$`[(T^{}/T)^{1/2}`$.

It is remarkable that, despite considerable effort over a period of decades, a complete and satisfactory understanding of the behavior of doped semiconductors near the metal-insulator transition has not yet emerged; this remains one of the most interesting and important open questions in condensed matter physics.

## II Novel phenomena in dilute 2D systems: New Physics or Old?

While we continue our efforts to understand the metal-insulator transition in three dimensions, new developments in disordered, dilute two-dimensional systems have opened an entirely new area of exciting physics, launched by the availability of silicon MOSFETs with unusually high mobilities fabricated in the (former) Soviet Union. These samples allowed measurements at substantially lower densities than had been accessible earlier, a regime where interaction energies are very large compared with the Fermi energy. The experimental findings have called into question our long-held belief  that there is no metallic phase in two dimensions in the limit $`T0`$. The strange and enigmatic behavior of dilute 2D systems is illustrated in the next two figures.

The resistivity of a high-mobility silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) is shown in Fig. 6 (a) as a function of density at different temperatures, and in Fig. 6 (b) as a function of temperature at different densities. The crossing point in frame (a) indicates a critical density $`n_c`$ below which the behavior is insulating, and above which the resistivity decreases with decreasing temperature, behavior that is normally associated with a metal (see frame (b)). The curves shown in Fig. 1 (b) as a function of temperature $`T`$ can be collapsed onto two branches by applying a single scaling parameter $`T_o`$, a feature generally associated with quantum phase transitions. These claims first met with considerable skepticism, but were soon confirmed in MOSFETs obtained from different sources, and similar behavior was subsequently found for other two-dimensional systems (p-GaAs, n-GaAs, p-SiGe, etc.).

As is true for many other interesting open questions in condensed matter physics, both interactions and disorder play a role, and their relative importance is unclear: (i) the transition from insulating to metallic temperature-dependence occurs at very low electron (hole) densities ($`10^{11}`$ cm-2 or lower), where interaction energies are much larger than kinetic energies; (ii) the resistivity is on the order of $`h/e^2`$, suggesting that disorder plays a role.

FIG. 6. (a) Resistivity as a function of electron density for the two-dimensional system of electrons in a high-mobility silicon MOSFET; different curves correspond to different temperatures. (b) Resistivity as a function of temperature; here different curves are for different electron densities.

FIG. 7. For different electron densities, the resistivity of a silicon MOSFET at 0.3 K as a function of magnetic field applied parallel to the plane of the 2D electron system. The top three curves are insulating in zero field while the lower curves are conducting.

A second important feature of these dilute 2D systems is their dramatic response to external magnetic fields applied parallel to the plane of the electrons . As shown in Fig. 7, the resistivity increases by several orders of magnitude with increasing field and saturates to a constant plateau value above a density-dependent magnetic field on the order of 2 or 3 Tesla. The magnetoresistance is larger at lower temperatures and in higher mobility samples. It should be noted that the curves of Fig. 7 span densities that have both metallic and insulating temperature dependence in zero field. The dramatic field-dependence thus appears to be a general feature of these dilute two-dimensional electron systems that is distinct from the temperature-dependence.

A lively debate has ensued concerning the significance of these findings: whether they represent fundamentally new physics or whether they can be explained by an extension of physics that is already understood. A view held by many is that these features signal a true zero-temperature quantum phase transition to a novel ground state at T=0 (such as a “perfect” metal, a superconductor, a spin liquid, a Wigner glass, etc.) . Others argue that the anomalous metallic behavior can be explained within a single-particle description in terms of a temperature-dependent Drude conductivity, and that ”metallic” behavior is observed in a restricted range of temperatures so that localization prevails in the limit of zero temperature. Suggestions include scattering at charged traps, temperature-dependent screening, interband scattering, and thermal smearing of a percolation theshold .

The high mobilities that are now attainable in MOSFETs and heterostructures have opened a new area of investigation in low density 2D electron (hole) systems where interactions are very strong. Regardless of how many-body effects will be incorporated into a full description in this regime, the behavior of these materials and the physics that is emerging are new and fascinating. My closing remark as an experimentalist is that much more experimental information is needed before serious progress can be made.

I thank the US Department of Energy for support under grant No. DE-FG02-84-ER45153.


text:
# A Conditional Quasi-greedy Basis of 𝑙₁

## 1. Introduction

In what follows $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the standard unit vector basis of $`l_1`$. In , the following concept was studied:

###### Definition.

Let $`𝔛`$ be a Banach space with dual $`𝔛^{}`$ and let $`(x_i,x_i^{})_{iF}`$ be a fundamental biorthogonal system in $`𝔛\times 𝔛^{}`$ with $`\underset{iF}{inf}x_i>0`$ and $`\underset{iF}{sup}x_i^{}<\mathrm{}`$. For $`m`$, define the operator $`𝒢_m`$ by

$$𝒢_m(x)=\underset{iA}{}x_i^{}(x)x_i,$$

where $`AF`$ is a set of cardinality $`m`$ such that $`|x_i^{}(x)||x_k^{}(x)|`$ whenever $`iA`$ and $`kA`$ (note that the set $`A`$ depends on $`x`$ and may not be unique; nevertheless, $`𝒢_m`$ is well-defined). Then $`(x_i,x_i^{})_{iF}`$ is a quasi-greedy system provided that the operators $`𝒢_m`$ satisfy:

$$\underset{m}{lim}𝒢_m(x)=x,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{each}x𝔛.$$

Equivalently, by \[5, Theorem 1\], $`(x_i,x_i^{})_{iF}`$ is a quasi-greedy system if there exists a constant $`C`$ so that for every $`x𝔛`$ and for every $`m`$, we have

$$𝒢_m(x)Cx.$$

If $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is, in addition, basic, it will be said to be a quasi-greedy basis. A sequence $`\{z_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is unconditional for constant coefficients if there exist positive numbers $`c`$ and $`C`$ such that

$$c\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}z_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}ϵ_iz_iC\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}z_i$$

for any positive integer $`m`$ and for any sequence of signs $`\{ϵ_i\}_{i=1}^m`$.

###### Remark.

By \[5, Proposition 2\] a quasi-greedy basis is necessarily unconditional for constant coefficients.

In , Wojtaszczyk shows that, for $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, the space $`l_p`$ possesses a conditional quasi-greedy basis. Since, by the Remark, a quasi-greedy basis of $`l_1`$ is quite close to being equivalent to $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, and since $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the unique normalized unconditional basis of $`l_1`$ up to equivalence , it is of interest to find a conditional quasi-greedy basis of $`l_1`$. In particular, the existence of such a basis would show that $`l_1`$ does not have a unique (up to equivalence) normalized basis that is unconditional for constant coefficients. In this note, we show that indeed such a basis exists.

Our example is derived from the basic sequence constructed by Lindenstrauss in . This is a monotone, conditional basic sequence in $`l_1`$ whose closed linear span is a $`_1`$-space possessing no unconditional basis. We denote this sequence by $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and its associated sequence of coefficient functionals by $`\{x_i^{}\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$. They are defined as follows: For $`i`$,

$$x_i=e_i\frac{1}{2}(e_{2i+1}+e_{2i+2}).$$

Considering $`x_i^{}`$ as an element of $`l_{\mathrm{}}/[x_i]^{}`$, we write $`x_i^{}=y_i^{}+[x_i]^{}`$ where the $`y_i^{}l_{\mathrm{}}`$ are as defined by Holub and Retherford (see ): For each $`i`$, let $`\alpha _i`$ be the finite sequence of positive integers defined by the following conditions:

* $`\alpha _i(1)=i`$.
* $`\alpha _i(j)=\alpha _i(j1)\left([\alpha _i(j1)/2]+1\right)`$ for admissible $`j<i`$ (that is, such that $`\alpha _i(j)>0`$), where $`[k]`$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $`k`$.

Then $`y_i^{}`$ is defined by

$$y_i^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\alpha _i|}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{j1}e_{\alpha _i(j)}$$

Thus, for example,

$`y_1^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_2^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_3^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_4^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_5^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_6^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_7^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }\frac{1}{4}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{})`$
$`y_8^{}`$ $`=(\text{ }\frac{1}{4}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }1\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\text{ }0\text{ },\mathrm{}).`$
The properties of $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ which we shall use in the sequel are summarized in the following fact (see , , and, also, ).

###### Fact.

The sequence $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies:

* $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a monotone basic sequence (\[4, p. 455\]).
* $`[x_i]`$ has no unconditional basis (\[4, p. 455\]).
* For $`n`$, there exists an isomorphism $`T_n`$ from $`[x_i:1in]`$ onto $`l_1^n`$ satisfying $`T_nT_n^12`$ (\[3, Ex. 8.1\]).

## 2. Results

We now construct the basis heralded in the Introduction. To do this, it suffices by \[5, Proposition 3\] to construct such a basis in a space isomorphic to $`l_1`$. Towards this end, define, for each $`n`$,

$$F_n=[x_i:1in].$$

Let

$$𝔛=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_i\right)_1.$$

We claim that the natural basis $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`𝔛`$ obtained from the $`x_i`$’s is the desired sequence. Indeed, it follows from the Fact that $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a monotone, conditional basis of $`𝔛`$, and that $`𝔛`$ is isomorphic to $`l_1`$. Moreover, assuming for the moment that $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is quasi-greedy, for $`m`$ and $`y=y_i𝔛`$, we have

$$𝒢_m(y)\underset{kK_m}{sup}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒢_{k(i)}(y_i)C\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_i=Cy,$$

where $`C`$ is as in the Definition, $`K_m=\{k:\{0\}:\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k(i)=m\}`$, and $`𝒢_0(x)=0`$ for each $`x𝔛`$ (note that the operators $`𝒢_j`$ appearing in the above inequality are defined with respect to two different sequences). Thus, the fact that $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is quasi-greedy will be a consequence of the following theorem.

###### Theorem.

The sequence $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies

(1)
$$3\underset{iS_1S_2}{}\alpha _ix_i\underset{iS_1}{}\alpha _ix_i,$$

whenever $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are disjoint finite subsets of $``$ with

(2)
$$\underset{iS_1}{\mathrm{min}}|\alpha _i|\underset{iS_2}{\mathrm{max}}|\alpha _i|.$$

###### Proof.

For $`A`$ and $`xl_1`$, we denote by $`P_Ax`$ the vector in $`l_1`$ whose $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$-coordinate is $`x(j)`$ if $`jA`$ and zero otherwise. Let $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$, and $`\{\alpha _i\}_{iS_1S_2}`$ be as above. Set

$$x=\underset{iS_1}{}\alpha _ix_i\mathrm{and}y=\underset{iS_2}{}\alpha _ix_i,$$

and define the sets:

$`A_0`$ $`=\{j:\underset{iS_1}{}x_i(j)=1\},`$
$`B_0`$ $`=\{j:\underset{iS_1}{}x_i(j)=1/2\},`$
and
$`C_0`$ $`=\{j:\underset{iS_1}{}x_i(j)=1/2\}.`$
First, we concentrate our attention on the set $`B_0`$. We define the sets:

$`W_1`$ $`=\{iS_2:x_i(j)=1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}jB_0\},`$
$`A_1`$ $`=\{jA_0:x_i(j)=1/2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}iW_1\},`$
and
$`B_1`$ $`=\{jA_0:x_i(j)=1/2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}iW_1\}.`$
Finally, set

$$y_0=x\mathrm{and}y_1=\underset{iW_1}{}\alpha _ix_i.$$

Note that $`A_1,B_1`$, $`B_0`$, and $`C_0`$ are mutually disjoint. We also have from the triangle inequality that

(3)
$$P_{B_0}y_0P_{B_0}(y_0+y_1)+P_{B_0}y_1.$$

But, since $`P_{B_0}y_1=P_{A_1}y_1+P_{B_1}y_1`$, we obtain from (3) that

$`()`$
$$P_{B_0}(y_0+y_1)+P_{B_1}y_1P_{B_0}y_0P_{A_1}y_1.$$

Concentrating our attention now on the set $`B_1`$, we let

$`W_2`$ $`=\{iS_2:x_i(j)=1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}jB_1\},`$
$`A_2`$ $`=\{jA_0:x_i(j)=1/2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}iW_2\},`$
and
$`B_2`$ $`=\{jA_0:x_i(j)=1/2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}iW_2\}.`$
Set

$$y_2=\underset{iW_2}{}\alpha _ix_i.$$

Then $`A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2`$, $`B_0`$, and $`C_0`$ are mutually disjoint and, as above, we have

$`()`$
$$P_{B_1}(y_1+y_2)+P_{B_2}y_2P_{B_1}y_1P_{A_2}y_2.$$

In general, at the $`l^{\mathrm{th}}`$ step of the induction, we set

$`W_l`$ $`=\{iS_2:x_i(j)=1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}jB_{l1}\},`$
$`A_l`$ $`=\{jA_0:x_i(j)=1/2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}iW_l\},`$
and
$`B_l`$ $`=\{jA_0:x_i(j)=1/2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}iW_l\}.`$
Set

$$y_l=\underset{iW_l}{}\alpha _ix_i.$$

Then the sets $`A_j,B_j`$ ($`1jl`$), $`B_0`$, and $`C_0`$ are mutually disjoint, and we have

$`()`$
$$P_{B_{l1}}(y_{l1}+y_l)+P_{B_l}y_lP_{B_{l1}}y_{l1}P_{A_l}y_l.$$

This process must end at some stage $`k`$ with $`W_{k+1}=\mathrm{}`$. Summing the inequalities $`()`$ so obtained and simplifying, we have:

(4)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}P_{B_{i1}}(y_{i1}+y_i)+P_{B_k}y_kP_{B_0}y_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}P_{A_i}y_i.$$

But, for each $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},k`$, we have $`B_i\mathrm{supp}y_j=\mathrm{}`$ for $`j\{i,i+1\}`$. Moreover, the mutually disjoint sets $`A_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$) are contained in $`A_0`$. Recalling that $`y_0=x`$, from these two observations the inequality (4) reduces to

(5)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}P_{B_i}(x+y)P_{B_0}xP_{A_0}y.$$

Since the sets $`C_0,A_0,B_0,B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_k`$ are mutually disjoint, we have

$$x+yP_{A_0}(x+y)+\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}P_{B_i}(x+y)+P_{C_0}(x+y);$$

and so, using (5):

(6)
$$x+yP_{A_0}(x+y)P_{A_0}y+P_{B_0}x+P_{C_0}x.$$

Using (2) we have $`P_{A_0}(x+y)P_{A_0}y`$, and thus from (6) we have

(7)
$$x+yP_{B_0}x+P_{C_0}x.$$

Also, by (2), we have $`2P_{A_0}(x+y)P_{A_0}x`$; thus,

(8)
$$2x+yP_{A_0}x.$$

Since $`x=P_{A_0}x+P_{B_0}x+P_{C_0}x`$, we may now obtain (1) by adding the inequalities (7) and (8). ∎

###### Remark.

We note that the sequence of coefficient functionals for $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is not quasi-greedy. To see this, it is enough to show that $`\{x_i^{}\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is not quasi-greedy. Towards this end, note that

(9)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}(1)^ix_i^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}(1)^iy_i^{}=1.$$

However, defining

$$\{\alpha _n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\mathrm{}\}$$

and

$$z_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}\alpha _ix_i=e_1+e_2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}e_{2(2^{n+1}2)1+i},$$

we obtain

(10)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}x_i^{}\frac{1}{z_n}|\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}x_i^{}(z_n)|=\frac{1}{4}<\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{n+1}2}{}}x_i^{},e_1+e_2>=\frac{n}{2}.$$

It follows from (9), (10), and the Remark of the Introduction that $`\{x_i^{}\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is not quasi-greedy.

###### Acknowledgement.

The authors thank Professor Wojtaszczyk for providing us with a preprint of his paper .


text:
# The Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics and the Fejér Sum of the Fourier Series Expansion of a Classical Quantity

## I Introduction

It is widely accepted that the expectation value of a quantity in any quantum state must become, in the classical limit, simply the classical value of the quantity, provided that the state itself gives, in the limit, a motion of a particle in a definite path. And the expectation value in the classical limit gives the Fourier series form of the classical quantity. In this Letter, we would like to point out that the expectation value on such a state in classical limit is exactly the Fejér’s arithmetic mean of the partial sums of the Fourier series. The Fourier series itself and the Fejér’s arithmetic mean of the partial sums of the Fourier series are different. Even through both of them can be used to represent a periodic function, conceptually they are totally different from each other. Furthermore, the former is worse than the latter in convergence.

In our approach, the classical limit will refer to the following mathematically well-established one:

$$n\mathrm{},\mathrm{}0,n\mathrm{}=anappropriateclassicalaction.$$
(1)
In order to obtain a definite classical path in classical limit, we must start from a wave function of a particular form. A routine way to construct such a wave function is $`_nc_n\psi _n`$, where the coefficients $`c_n`$ are noticeably different from zero only in some range $`\delta n`$ of values of the quantum number $`n`$ such that $`1<<\delta n<<n`$; the numbers $`n`$ are supposed large and the superposed states $`\psi _n`$ have nearly the same energy. This particular wave function, commonly called wave packet, suffices to discuss the classical limit of quantum mechanics. To note that the choice of a set of coefficients $`c_n`$ is a matter of convenience. The only requirement on the distributions of $`c_n`$ among $`n`$ is that they must be equal to each other in classical limit, otherwise we would give results rather than correct classical mechanical ones (we will come back to this point in Section IV). For example, the commonly used Gaussian distribution or Poisson distribution meets this requirement in classical limit, for both give the same thing: the distribution of $`c_n`$ among $`n`$ being approximately equal. So, the characteristic of the classical limit of quantum mechanics is involved in the classical limit of the following wave packet, which is a linear combination of energy eigenfunctions of large quantum number with equal weight (equally-weighted wave packet, for abbreviation) of the following form:

$$|\psi (t)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N+1}}\underset{m=N}{\overset{N}{}}|n+m>exp(iE_{n+m}t/\mathrm{}),$$
(2)
where $`n`$ and $`N`$ are positive integers and $`N>0`$, $`nN>0`$. In fact, this wave packet not only does the job well but also is very easy to handle. As we will see later, for matching with the exact classical result in classical limit, $`n`$ and the parameter $`N`$ are necessarily large in physics, or approach infinity in terms of mathematics. It is what we expected. However, in the following section II, the expectation value on the equally-weighted wave packet in the classical limit will be shown to be the Fejér’s arithmetic mean of the partial sums of the Fourier series, rather than the Fourier series itself. In section III, an example will be given. In section IV, a brief discussion and conclusion will be presented.

## II Classical limit of equally-weighted wave packet

The expectation of a physical observable $`f`$ on the wave packet is

$$<\psi (t)|f|\psi (t)>=\frac{1}{2N+1}\underset{m^{}=N}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=N}{\overset{N}{}}<n+m^{}|f|n+m>exp[i(E_{n+m^{}}E_{n+m})t/\mathrm{}].$$
(3)
For the simple and integrable quantum systems having classical correspondence, the Bohr’s correspondence principle holds true. It asserts that in classical limit $`(E_{n+m^{}}E_{n+m})/\mathrm{}=(m^{}m)\omega `$, with $`\omega `$ denoting the classical frequency. Also in the classical limit, the matrix element $`<n+m^{}|f|n+m>=f_{m^{}m}`$ is the $`(mm)th`$ Fourier component of the corresponding classical quantity $`f(t)`$ in terms of the ordinary Fourier series. The latter relation appears trivial to some, Landau and Lifshitz for instance, and is quite new to others. It should be emphasized that the two relations above are generally applicable only in the classical limit . One should not confuse the Bohr’s correspondence principle, $`(E_{n+m^{}}E_{n+m})/\mathrm{}=(m^{}m)\omega `$, with the difference of energy eigenvalues for a harmonic oscillator. One can easily verify that the Bohr’s correspondence principle is valid for hydrogen atom, rigid rotators and particles in an infinite square-well potential, etc. Then we have:

$`<\psi (t)|f|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=N}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=N}{\overset{N}{}}}f_{m^{}m}exp[i(mm^{})\omega t]`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=l}{\overset{2Nl}{}}}f_sexp[is\omega t]`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l),`$ (6)
where we have made variable transformations as

$$s=mm^{},l=m+N,$$
(7)
and used the symbol $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\alpha ,\beta )`$ which is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\alpha ,\beta )=\underset{\beta }{\overset{\alpha }{}}f_sexp(is\omega t).$$
(8)
Our aim is to show that the equation given by the last line of Eq.(4) and the RHS of following Eq.(12) are identical although they look different from each other. The following is a proof.

We study the sum in Eq.(4) and find that

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l)+\mathrm{\Sigma }(N,N)+\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l).$$
(9)
Breaking the term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l)`$ in the first sum on RHS of above equation into two parts as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)+\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l+1)`$, the RHS becomes:

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)+\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l+1)+\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l).$$
(10)
The last term in Eq.(8) can be changed into the following form with transformation $`2Nll`$:

$$\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,2N+l).$$
(11)
Then Eq.(8) becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l+1)+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,2N+l)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,2N+l)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)+{\displaystyle \underset{l=N+1}{\overset{2N}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l),`$ (15)
where we have used the transformation $`2Nll`$. Thus we finally obtain:

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(2Nl,l)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l).$$
(16)
¿From the definition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\alpha ,\beta )`$, Eq.(6), we immediately know that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l)`$ is the $`l`$-th partial sum of the ordinary Fourier series of the classical quantity $`f(t)`$. We know that in the classical limit (1) together with limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(N,N)`$ converges to the classical quantity $`f(t)`$. In fact, according to the Fejér’s summation theorem , in the same limit, the following arithmetic mean of the partial sums

$$<\psi (t)|f|\psi (t)>=\frac{1}{2N+1}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2N}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(l,l),$$
(17)
converges uniformly to the classical quantity $`f(t)`$ provided the quantity $`f(t)`$ is continuous. This means that for every observable $`f`$, the expectation value in the equally-weighted wave packet in the classical limit gives the corresponding classical quantity $`f(t)`$. This also means that, in the same limit, the equally-weighted wave packet gives a motion of the particle in a definite classical path. Thus, our proof is complete.

## III Equally-weighted wave packet for a single one-dimensional harmonic oscillator

The wave packet is

$$|\psi (t)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N+1}}\underset{m=N}{\overset{N}{}}|n+m>exp(iE_{n+m}t/\mathrm{}).$$
(18)
We have the expectation values for quantities $`H,H^2,x,x^2,p,p^2`$ in the following.

$`<`$ $`\psi (t)|H|\psi (t)>=(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{}\omega .`$ (19)
$`<`$ $`\psi (t)|H^2|\psi (t)>=[(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{}\omega ]^2+(n\mathrm{}\omega )^2{\displaystyle \frac{N(N+1)}{3n^2}}.`$ (20)
$`<`$ $`\psi (t)|x|\psi (t)>`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{2N+1}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mu \omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=N+1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{n+m})cos\omega t.`$ (22)
$`<`$ $`\psi (t)|x^2|\psi (t)>`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu \omega }})+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu \omega }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=N+2}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{(n+m)(n+m1)}cos2\omega t.`$ (24)
$`<`$ $`\psi (t)|p|\psi (t)>`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{2N+1}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mu \omega }{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=N+1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{n+m})sin\omega t.`$ (26)
$`<`$ $`\psi (t)|p^2|\psi (t)>`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mu \mathrm{}\omega \mu \mathrm{}\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=N+2}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{(n+m)(n+m1)}cos2\omega t.`$ (28)
It is easy to see that these results in the classical limit (1) in conjunction with the limit

$$N\mathrm{},N/n0.$$
(29)
are exactly the classical quantities. And they are respectively

$`<\psi (t)|H|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`E.`$ (30)
$`<\psi (t)|H^2|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`E^2.`$ (31)
$`<\psi (t)|x|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{\mu \omega ^2}}}cos(\omega t).`$ (32)
$`<\psi (t)|p|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\mu E}sin(\omega t).`$ (33)
$`<\psi (t)|x^2|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mu \omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mu \omega ^2}}cos(2\omega t)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`(<\psi (t)|x|\psi (t)>)^2.`$ (35)
$`<\psi (t)|p^2|\psi (t)>`$ $`=`$ $`\mu E\mu E\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`(<\psi (t)|p|\psi (t)>)^2.`$ (37)
## IV Discussion and Conclusion

Before enclosing this Letter, the following points should be mentioned.

1. One should not confuse the classical state, the coherent state, Gaussian or Poisson wave packet for instance, with the classical limit of quantum mechanics. The Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ can not be treat as zero in classical state of quantum mechanics while in classical mechanics it is practically zero.

2. If one starts a wave packet of following from

$$|\psi (t)>=\underset{m=N}{\overset{N}{}}c_m|n+m>exp(iE_{n+m}t/\mathrm{}),$$
(38)
where in classical limit both $`n`$ and the parameter $`N`$ are necessarily large, but the coefficients $`c_m`$ do not be equally distributed among $`m`$ even in classical limit, the dependence of the expectation values $`<\psi (t)|f|\psi (t)>`$ on $`n`$ will be different. It means that, for a specific system, the dependence of classical equation of motion on the classical action would be different if the action is different. It is not the case in classical mechanics. Thus, the characteristic of the classical limit of quantum mechanics is indeed involved in the classical limit of the equally-weighted wave packet.

3. The expectation value of a quantity in the equally-weighted wave packet in the classical limit goes over to the Fejér’s arithmetic mean of the partial sums of Fourier series form of the classical quantity, not the Fourier series itself as widely accepted. The ordinary Fourier series differs from its Fejér sum in convergence, for some cases the former does not converge, whereas the latter does . In comparing with our proof, the usual proof involves some approximations, and is not rigorous. We are confident that Fejér’s arithmetic mean of the partial sums of Fourier decomposition of the classical quantity is the only possible form representing a single classical orbit from classical limit of quantum mechanics.

4. In our approach, we used a prerequisite that classical limit of the matrix element $`<n+m^{}|f|n+m>=f_{m^{}m}`$ is the $`(mm)th`$ Fourier component of the corresponding classical quantity $`f(t)`$ in terms of the ordinary Fourier series. In fact, this prerequisite is not necessary. To note that the Fejér sums can also be used to represent a periodic function, as does the usual Fourier series, and we can then write the classical quantity directly in the form of the Fejér sums. Because the expectation value $`<\psi (t)|f|\psi (t)>`$, Eq.(12), in classical limit gives nothing but a classical quantity, a comparison of the Fejér sums form of the classical quantity with the classical limit of $`<\psi (t)|f|\psi (t)>`$ given by Eq.(12) directly leads to the prerequisite.

5. Our study implys that one may study that physical significance of a constructed quantity $`_mf_{mn}exp[i(E_mE_n)t/\mathrm{}]`$ or its like for it in classical limit corresponds to the physical quantity in terms of ordinary Fourier series. In fact there is already such a theory.

6. Our approach is straightforward and simple, but the results appear exact and new. Obviously, our results do not support the assertion that pure-state quantum mechanics in classcall limit only reduces to classical statistical mechanics then nothing more to it.

## V Acknowledgment

I am indebted to Profs. Huan-Wu Peng, Ou-Yang Zhong-Can and Zu-Sen Zhao for enlightening discussions, to Dr. Zhou Haijun for useful comments and to Prof. V. Srivastava for critical reading of the manuscript. This subject is supported by Grant No: KJ952-J1-404 of Chinese Academy of Science.