format: text

text:
# Supersymmetric Dark Matter - How Light Can the LSP Be?

## I Introduction

One of the most puzzling experimental observations in astrophysics has for a long time been the dominance of the invisible cold dark matter in the universe. Experiments measuring the cosmic microwave background , high red-shift supernovae , galactic clusters and galactic rotation curves  have found that the matter density of the universe is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3`$$`0.4`$. In contrast, constraints from big-bang nucleosynthesis indicate that the baryonic matter density must be well below this number . Last but but not least, the observed density of luminous matter is very small, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L<0.01`$ . Therefore, the vast majority of the mass in the universe is dark. In addition, cosmic microwave background studies and large scale structure formation requires that the majority of the dark matter be cold (non-relativistic) .

Starting from a completely different set of experiments and looking at collider-oriented high energy physics, the challenge for the next generation of experiments is to understand how electroweak symmetry is broken and masses are generated. Electroweak precision studies  clearly point into the direction of spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking — a mechanism which creates masses for fermions and gauge bosons but which also automatically yields a scalar Higgs boson. Furthermore, precision experiments prefer a light Higgs boson with a mass below $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$. Unfortunately, the mass of a light Higgs boson in the Standard Model is not stable in perturbation theory, but this mass hierarchy problem can be naturally solved by adding supersymmetry to the gauge symmetries on which the Standard Model is based. We emphasize that supersymmetry does not accidentally cancel the divergences in the Higgs boson mass nor does it have a complicated array of mechanisms to get rid of them. The hierarchy problem is solved by the most basic idea of a supersymmetry between fermionic and bosonic fields .

The most general supersymmetric Lagrangean, however, induces flavor-changing neutral interactions which are experimentally very well constrained . The simplest way to avoid these constraints is an exact or approximate $`R`$ symmetry which translates into the conservation of a supersymmetric spectrum quantum number . Although being inspired by flavor physics constraints, this $`R`$ symmetry has a huge impact on astrophysics: it leads to the existence of a stable lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). One possible experimental signature of LSPs with masses of the order of the weak scale could be the measured amount of cold dark matter. Which MSSM particle the LSP is depends on the model parameters. Again there might be other theories with a discrete symmetry which for that very reason lead to cold dark matter . However, in the MSSM the existence of the LSP is not at all ad-hoc but the natural consequence of flavor physics constraints.

## II Supersymmetric Dark Matter

If supersymmetry is to provide us with a suitable dark matter candidate, we can say some things about the nature of the LSP. First, it must be colorless and neutral to avoid observation . Although it may be possible for a colored or charged particle to form bound states with Standard Model particles, searches for exotic isotopes have ruled out exotic charged bound states over a large mass range . Neutral exotic bound states, consisting of squarks or gluons and Standard Model particles, could possibly evade this type of detection, but would also need to be very heavy or be carefully designed to evade collider searches. On the other hand these collider searches usually assume that these strongly interacting superpartners decay to a weakly interacting LSP .

A second class of constraints on a SUSY dark matter candidate comes from the limits placed by direct elastic scattering experiments. Sneutrinos with relatively large elastic scattering cross sections can be probed by these experiments. By now, all of sneutrino LSP parameter space has been ruled out by direct and indirect searches .

This leaves the lightest neutralino as the neutral and colorless SUSY dark matter candidate . Generally, it has a small enough elastic scattering cross section to be missed by experimental searches. Moreover, the mass and annihilation cross section for a neutralino LSP lie naturally in a region which yields a thermal dark matter relic density in agreement with observation. In these LSP annihilation processes light superpartners, such as scalar tau leptons, play an important role as $`t`$ channel propagators. We calculate the neutralino LSP relic density using the full cross section, including all resonances and thresholds, and solving the Boltzmann equation numerically . The issue of neutralino co-annihilation with other light superpartners will be discussed in detail later in this letter.

## III Theoretical Assumptions

Of all supersymmetric parameters, the mass difference between the LSP and heavier MSSM states has a particularly crucial impact on collider searches at hadron colliders as well as at TESLA. The question we attempt to answer in this paper is straightforward: how light can the LSP be assuming nothing about the unknown SUSY breaking mechanism?

A huge number of constraints on the MSSM spectrum have been accumulated over the last years. Using these constraints, observables like the light Higgs boson mass, the LEP limits on chargino and slepton masses, the squark and gluino mass limits from the Tevatron and flavor physics constraints like the $`bs\gamma `$ rate can be translated into limits on the LSP mass. However, all of these links rely on theoretical assumptions, usually on the assumption of unified Majorana fermion or scalar masses at some GUT scale, as it is suggested by the gauge coupling unification . A very instructive discussion of these issues can be found, for example, in Ref. . More recently, some effort has been put into the effect which breaking the weak gaugino mass and the gluino mass unification can have on the detection of supersymmetric dark matter . Speculative relations between MSSM parameters can for example stem from the attempt to link features of an unknown underlying string theory to the current experimental results . Top-down approaches to the MSSM spectrum can only be a first step to understand the interplay between different assumptions and observables. For example the effect of non-universal Higgs masses should be and has been explored in detail . A preliminary scan over the supersymmetric parameter space including non-universal gaugino masses can be found in Ref. , and a more complete analysis seems to produce similar results to the ones we will show in this letter . In general less model-dependent analyses become increasingly promising the more hard data becomes available .

In the setup of our analysis we try to minimize the effects of MSSM model building. Instead we start from a completely general non-unified MSSM spectrum only assuming $`R`$ parity, since without $`R`$ parity the LSP as a cold dark matter candidate ceases to exist. The LSP we assume to be the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. On top of that we only assume a very minimal set of general LEP2 limits for charginos, sleptons and sneutrinos, and the measured relic density $`0.05<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$. We note, however, that the assumption of a general LEP2 mass limit implicitly assumes an $`SU(2)`$ relation between the mass of the left handed slepton and the sneutrino in each generation. We do not consider the possible effects of complex soft supersymmetry breaking terms .

## IV Experimental Limits

The present density of dark matter has been measured to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2=0.12\pm 0.04`$ . This result is the combination of data from measurements of the cosmic microwave background, type Ia supernova red-shifts, 2dFGRS and SDSS galaxy red-shifts and data from the Hubble Space Telescope. In order to provide a suitable dark matter candidate, a set of SUSY parameters must yield an LSP with a relic density similar to these observations. We will, however, consider models in which somewhat larger or smaller densities ($`0.05<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2<0.30`$) are produced, acknowledging the possibility that one or more of the pieces of the contributing cosmological evidence is not fully understood theoretically .

Since in this letter we want to determine an as general as possible limit on the neutralino LSP mass, we limit ourselves to a few experimental results which have turned out to be particularly hard to circumvent. The single most limiting collider result is probably the LEP2 search for supersymmetric particles such as charginos and sleptons . It would be far beyond the scope of this letter to discuss in detail all LEP2 limits. Instead we require all scalar leptons and charginos to be heavier than $`103\mathrm{GeV}`$. For particles which decay to leptons and the neutralino LSP this is a direct experimental bound, while for sneutrinos in most cases it requires a very basic $`SU(2)`$ symmetry between the supersymmetry breaking masses of the left handed slepton and the sneutrino of one lepton flavor. The effect of slightly reduced mass limits (for example from background effects at LEP which might push the mass limits below the kinematic boundary) will be discussed later and the numerical impact can easily be determined. Specific properties of the MSSM spectrum are claimed to have significant effects on the mass limits and we discuss them in greater detail in Section VI. Generally, the LEP2 limits become even harder to circumvent for a very light neutralino LSP which is what we require in the following analysis***The reach of the scalar tau search at LEP should for example improve in a light LSP regime: for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}\tau \overline{\tau }+E|`$ two light LSPs make it easier to distinguish the $`2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^04\nu `$ missing transverse momentum from the $`4\nu `$ background. If we compare the signal to the chargino searches $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}+E|`$ we see that they are identical. The only complication would be the acceptance for low values of $`E|`$ which the light LSP will help to avoid..

Since the question how light the LSP can actually be does not directly depend on the squark and gluino masses, we decouple these particles and avoid their, in principle, very powerful mass limits . This choice of heavy squark masses also means that stop–neutralino co-annihilation can be neglected in our analysis . We also decouple the charged Higgs boson and essentially avoid the $`bs\gamma `$ constraints (which we still check for all our parameter points) . Generally, these additional parameters will not have a major direct impact on the minimum LSP mass in a general non-unified MSSM. However it has been shown that the impact through further theoretical assumptions on the MSSM spectrum can be very significant, in particular once the mass spectrum includes mass degeneracies.

For light neutralinos, in particular, the limit on the invisible $`Z`$ decay width can become important. We require that $`Z`$ decays to neutralino LSPs contribute less than one standard deviation to the measured neutrino contribution, which agrees with the Standard Model prediction, i.e.$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\chi \chi }<4.2\mathrm{MeV}`$. This invisible width limit has a major impact on another additional LEP2 search channel: the single photon production. The Standard Model background process is $`e^+e^{}Z^{()}\nu \nu `$ with an additional photon radiated off the initial state. The total cross section for the production of $`Z\gamma `$ at LEP2 is less than $`31\mathrm{pb}`$ for a minimum $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ transverse momentum cut on the photon. The supersymmetric signal process is the production of two lightest neutralinos and an additional photon, which can be radiated off the incoming electrons or the $`t`$ channel selectron. For light Higgsinos, the dominating process is again $`Z\gamma `$ production, but with a decay of the $`Z`$ to neutralinos. Hence the upper limit on the invisible $`Z`$ decay width translates into a suppression factor, $`S/B<8.10^3`$, which does not allow for a significant signal at LEP2. Any additional initial state radiation tends to lead to a far forward photon and we have checked that it will not increase this approximate result by more than a factor of two. The situation is different for light gauginos, in which case the dominating diagram is photon radiation off the $`t`$ channel selectron. We checked typical parameter points from our analysis assuming that the selectron be heavier than $`103\mathrm{GeV}`$ and we find cross sections below $`0.13\mathrm{pb}`$. This translates into $`S/B<0.02`$ or $`S/\sqrt{B}<0.9`$ before cuts and for irreducible backgrounds only. We therefore conclude that the single photon channel does not pose any obvious limits on the parameter points we find in our analysis. The bottom line that there are no experimental limits on the neutraqlino LSP mass without any additional constraints is in agreement with a more complete analysis presented in the context of teh KARMEN time anomaly .

As described in Section II and as we will also see in our analysis later, the limit on the neutralino LSP mass does only mildly depend on the selectron mass value. In contrast a large selectron mass alone could lead to a decoupling of the single photon signature. We emphasize that in our analysis we do not decouple the selectrons to respect the current experimental limits on single photon production. All our parameter points even with a low selectron mass automatically obey the LEP2 limits.

## V Supersymmetric Parameter Space

To probe the supersymmetric parameter space, we use a Monte Carlo scan assuming that squarks, gluinos and heavy Higgs bosons are decoupled with masses of $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$. We scan over the relevant neutralino mass parameters $`M_2=50`$ to $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`|\mu |=50`$ to $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_1=10`$ to $`40\mathrm{GeV}`$. Moreover we scan over a slepton mass parameter from $`100\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$. As we will argue later in this section the most relevant parameter is the lightest slepton mass, i.e. the mass of the lighter stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. We do scan over $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ but we do not find any dependence of the neutralino LSP mass on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ after imposing all other constraints. Its impact on the light stau mass is washed out by the simultaneous scan over $`\mu `$. Negative values of $`M_1`$ which are often ignored and which, for example, decouple neutralino mediated decays of sleptons or squarks , have no impact on our analysis. A second run was conducted with similar parameter ranges, but allowing $`M_1`$ as large as $`60\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the common slepton mass parameter as large as $`400\mathrm{GeV}`$. This second set is used in Fig. 3. Last but not least, for all plots we add $`100`$ data points with slepton and chargino masses right at the LEP2 limits and very low neutralino LSP masses to model the envelope around the lowest allowed neutralino LSP masses. We emphasize that in all plotted parameter points, the strongly interacting MSSM partners are assumed to be heavy and all non-tau sleptons respect the LEP2 mass limit.

All points in the supersymmetric parameter space allowed by the relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2=0.05`$ to $`0.3`$ are given in Fig. 1. The green (grey) points have a too small light chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}<103\mathrm{GeV}`$ while the black points obey the LEP2 limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}>103\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the upper left panel of Fig. 1, we see the correlation between the light chargino and the lightest slepton mass: once the neutralino LSP becomes very light the relic density increases rapidly beyond the allowed limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$. The only way to reduce this relic density is the annihilation of two LSPs to leptons. The dominant diagram for the annihilation of gaugino LSPs is the $`t`$ channel exchange of the lightest slepton (the lighter stau) in the process $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau \tau `$. A too large $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ mass will immediately lead to an over-closing of the universe. The effect of the stau mass limit is shown in Fig. 1. In our analysis, we generally assume that the lighter stau be the lightest scalar lepton. All arguments, however, translate trivially to any other lightest slepton case. The black points which respect the chargino mass limit clearly prefer a light stau, which is experimentally ruled out. Balancing the limit on the relic density with the stau mass limit gives a minimum LSP mass of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}18\mathrm{GeV}`$. For a fixed chargino mass limit the effect of a relaxed stau mass limit can also be read off this figure: for example a reduced mass limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>80\mathrm{GeV}`$ already allows an LSP mass of $`10\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The only way to avoid the correlation described above would be a Higgsino LSP which can annihilate through an $`s`$ channel $`Z`$ boson. The next two panels however show how it is the bino mass parameter $`M_1`$ which drives the LSP mass to low values. In the third panel of Fig. 1, we do see two tails of light LSP masses at small $`|\mu |`$ values, which we deliberately limit to $`|\mu |>50\mathrm{GeV}`$. The reason is that these point represent light Higgsino dark matter and are firmly ruled out by the chargino mass limit. The lower right panel of Fig. 1 shows how the chargino mass works together with the invisible $`Z`$ width measurement: all black parameter points with sufficiently heavy charginos render a gaugino LSP which does not couple to the $`Z`$ boson and, therefore, automatically avoids the invisible $`Z`$ width bound. Once we move towards a lighter Higgsino LSP, the invisible $`Z`$ decay limit is immediately violated. This shows how the LEP2 chargino mass limit, as well as the invisible $`Z`$ width measurement, firmly rule out light dark matter with a non-negligible Higgsino content .

To illustrate the interplay between the chargino and the stau mass limits, we once more print all the points in Fig. 1, but with a different color coding: in Fig. 2 the black points obey the mass limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>103\mathrm{GeV}`$, all other points are printed in green (grey). As described above, a heavier stau leads to an over-closed universe, unless the LSP is a Higgsino. The behavior which can be seen in the left panel of Fig. 2 reflects the lower limit $`|\mu |>50\mathrm{GeV}`$ in our scan. The allowed black data points show a strong correlation of the gaugino LSP mass and the relic density, this time for a fixed limit of the light stau mass: the allowed relic density clearly determines the minimum LSP mass under the condition that the stau mass limit is not violated. Again, the way to obtain a light LSP is the admixture of Higgsino content, to couple to the $`s`$ channel $`Z`$ annihilation diagram. But then small LSP masses yield a small chargino mass, and in the right panel of Fig. 2 we again see the few points which respect both LEP2 mass limits and again find a minimum LSP mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}18\mathrm{GeV}`$. We also see how small LSP masses can be realized with very heavy chargino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}300\mathrm{GeV}`$. This seems to be a slight asymmetry between the chargino mass and the scalar tau mass dependence: since the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ mass directly enters the dominating neutralino LSP annihilation diagram, the relation of its mass with the neutralino LSP mass is very smooth, as can be seen in the first panel of Fig. 1. The chargino mass in contrast has to be heavier than a certain value for any given LSP mass but its actual allowed values are not strongly correlated with the neutralino LSP mass.

The only non-trivial assumption in the analysis presented above is the $`SU(2)`$ relation between the left handed slepton masses and the corresponding sneutrino mass. As always, we implicitly assume that the lighter stau be the lightest slepton, but it is obvious from the discussion above that for very small neutralino LSP masses, all slepton masses have to be right at the LEP limit of $`103\mathrm{GeV}`$. Explicitly we first check what happens if only one lepton generation is available in the annihilation process, i.e. if, for example, the selectrons and smuons are completely decoupled: this decoupling changes the mass limit on the neutralino LSP from $`18\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`25\mathrm{GeV}`$, independent of which lepton generation is available. In contrast, the decoupling of all sneutrinos has no significant effect on the LSP mass limit. This can be understood by comparing the different couplings $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ for left and right handed sleptons and for sneutrinos. The sneutrino coupling is indeed suppressed. As expected from this argument, limiting the neutralino LSP annihilation to sneutrino mediated processes only yields an increase in the mass limit from $`18\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`27\mathrm{GeV}`$. In this sense, a slight violation of the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry between the masses in one lepton generation, which can yield slightly lighter sneutrinos than the LEP2 mass bound of $`103\mathrm{GeV}`$, would not significantly change the mass limit we obtain.

## VI Conspiracies?

Going beyond the generic features described in Section V, there might be a way of avoiding the LEP limits on charginos and sleptons: if the LSP is only very few$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ lighter than the particle produced then the additional final state leptons become soft and the LSP becomes slow. We briefly comment on the effect of two possible mass degeneracies on our lower limit for the neutralino LSP mass:

First, the lighter chargino mass can be almost mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino. This leads to additional neutralino–chargino co-annihilation as a way to circumvent the impact of the slepton mass limits. One way to achieve this degeneracy is to have $`|\mu |`$ define both the lightest neutralino mass and the light chargino mass. However, in Section V we learned that we violate the invisible $`Z`$ decay width measurement in the case of a light Higgsino LSP. Another way this same mass degeneracy occurs is for $`M_2M_1,|\mu |`$, i.e. for a dominantly wino light chargino and lightest neutralino. Moreover, it can once more arise from a diagonal parameter choice $`M_2=M_1|\mu |`$. The effects on the spectrum are identical: the light wino-type chargino decays into slowly moving leptons or quarks and the neutralino LSP.

If a $`Z`$ boson decays into two charginos which are mass degenerate with the LSP, all decay products escape the detector unobserved and the process contributes to the invisible $`Z`$ decay width. In the limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}m_Z`$ and for a pure wino-type chargino we can link the partial decay width of the $`Z`$ boson to the decay width to one generation of neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{})4.7\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \nu }`$. The crucial observation is that while the $`Z`$ boson does not couple to the gaugino fraction in a pair of neutralinos, it does couple to the gaugino fraction in a chargino pair roughly with the same strength as it couples to the Higgsino fraction. The experimental limit on the invisible decay of a $`Z`$ boson translates into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \nu }/40`$. The typical finite mass correction for a $`18\mathrm{GeV}`$ decay product is $`\sqrt{14m^2/m_Z^2}0.9`$ and will not yield the required suppression by a factor of $`1/200`$. We can, therefore, safely assume that mass degenerate neutralinos and charginos can indeed escape detection for continuum production but not for $`Z`$ decays. Their masses have to be above half of the $`Z`$ boson mass and are not in the very light LSP regime which we are exploring.

The second type of mass degeneracy occurs between the neutralino LSP and the lighter stau. This allows a very efficient annihilation of LSPs and prevents the universe from over-closing, even for a very light gaugino LSP. Moreover, it allows neutralino–stau co-annihilation to reduce the relic density further . As for the charginos it is not trivial to avoid the $`Z`$ decay data, since the normalization of events is known, i.e. there is a limit on invisible decays. The typical slepton partial width in the light slepton approximation is $`2(T_3Qs_w^2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \nu }`$ for a left handed and $`2(Qs_w^2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \nu }`$ for a right handed slepton. This is, again, too large to be hidden in the error on the invisible $`Z`$ decay width. However, the stau is the lightest slepton just because it mixes the weak eigenstates into mass eigenstates and yields a light mass eigenstate $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. This mixing can be used to decouple the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ from the $`Z`$ boson, the same way that a light sbottom can avoid the $`Z`$ decay limits . The tree level coupling to the $`Z`$ boson vanishes for a choice of the scalar mixing angle $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =Q/T_3s_w^2`$ which, in case of the stau, is $`\theta _\tau \pi /4`$. This decoupling condition does not affect the LSP annihilation cross section and, therefore, it would be possible to have a very light neutralino and tau slepton and get the correct amount of gaugino dark matter. The only worry is how to get one very light tau slepton with a mass of less than $`18\mathrm{GeV}`$ and keep the second stau heavy. Mixed pairs $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2`$ can in that case be produced at LEP2 even if the heavier stau has a mass of up to $`180\mathrm{GeV}`$. This mixed production cross section is proportional so $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _\tau `$ and will not be suppressed around the decoupling point for the light stau $`\theta _\tau \pi /4`$. At this point it is obvious that this kind of scenario is ruled out assuming any scalar mass unification, involving different flavor slepton masses, Higgs masses and squark masses. Moreover, it will have to be carefully checked that the large stau mass splitting does not violate the experimental limits on the rho parameter.

Going back to the starting point of this section, we want to stress that the statement that an almost mass degenerate stau-neutralino combination can escape the LEP2 trigger has to be carefully examined. Indeed the decay products, i.e. the leptons and the neutralino LSP, will not gain any momentum from the stau or chargino decay. However, the decaying particles, i.e. the stau or the chargino, are very light compared to the beam energy. They themselves will move through the central detector rapidly and in turn boost their decay products. While we are not aware of a detailed study of this part of supersymmetric parameter space and while we did, therefore, point out possible complications in this section we very much doubt that mass degeneracies could hide a light stau or chargino from the LEP2 experiments. To finally close this (non-existing) loop hole should be a simple exercise for these experiments.

## VII Outlook

Following the detailed discussion above, we emphasize that the neutralino LSP mass limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}18\mathrm{GeV}`$ is only possible because we have mass limits on charginos and all sleptons simultaneously. One of the two alone will not constrain the general MSSM parameter space. The kind of collider which seems to be designed to fulfill this task of multiple searches for new particles are $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. The lead in this field has by now been changed from LEP2 to a linear collider . The latter in a first stage could for example collect data at the top threshold. Assuming that this initial stage might not be sufficient to exploit the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production channel and discover the lightest neutralino we estimate what a $`175\mathrm{GeV}`$ limit on charginos and sleptons would mean for the neutralino LSP mass. The results are depicted in Fig. 3. The upper row of plots is color coded the same way as Fig. 1: only the black points respect the mass limit for the lightest chargino $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}>175\mathrm{GeV}`$. As expected the minimal possible neutralino LSP mass decreases once we enforce the stau mass limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>175\mathrm{GeV}`$, yielding a lower limit of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>35\mathrm{GeV}`$. For this figure, we implicitly assume that the light stau be the lightest slepton. A minimum mass of $`175\mathrm{GeV}`$, therefore, means that all other sleptons respect this mass limit as well. The invisible $`Z`$ decay width does not have any impact on this result. The lower row of plots in Fig. 3 is color coded just like Fig. 2: only the black points respect the projected TESLA limit on the lightest slepton $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>175\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In the left panel of the lower row in Fig. 3 we also see the change of the allowed neutralino LSP mass e.g. if we require the relic density to be the central measured value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2=0.12\pm 0.04`$ : no LSP masses below $`30\mathrm{GeV}`$ are consistent with this central value and the $`103\mathrm{GeV}`$ LEP2 bounds. An upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.2`$ will automatically increase the lower LSP mass limit to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>25\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In Summary we investigate how the LEP2 limits narrow the allowed range of the mass of a neutralino LSP in a general $`R`$ parity conserving MSSM. These LEP2 mass limits have to be respected by all scalar leptons including all sneutrinos and by the charginos. The only assumption we use is that the LSP be responsible for the observed dark matter density. Under these assumptions the absolute lower limit on the neutralino LSP mass is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>18\mathrm{GeV}`$. The lowest values for the LSP mass require all sleptons and the chargino to be just above the LEP2 limit of $`103\mathrm{GeV}`$ and yield an allowed relic density at the upper boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$.

Note added: after this paper had appeared as a preprint a similar analysis was published, which pointed out that small neutralino LSP masses are allowed for strongly mixed gaugino–Higgsino neutralinos . The annihilation of these LSPs has to mainly proceed through a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson $`A`$ in the $`s`$ channel. To not over-close the universe the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass has to be light, sitting in an allowed corner of the MSSM parameter space with $`m_A90\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_h90\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the light scalar Higgs boson mass . The main constraint on this kind of models then becomes the invisible $`Z`$ decay width and even more importantly the $`bs\gamma `$. We point out that after including all constraints we do find smaller LSP masses when fixing $`m_A=90\mathrm{GeV}`$ and scanning over the MSSM parameter space. For a fixed value $`m_A=110\mathrm{GeV}`$ there still remain a few parameter points with an allowed LSP mass between 16 and $`17\mathrm{GeV}`$, while for $`m_A130\mathrm{GeV}`$ the LSP annihilation through the $`s`$ channel pseudoscalar is not efficient enough to impact the results described in this letter.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Joakim Edsjo for help on many crucial issues. We would also like to thank Tao Han, Ulrich Nierste, Rohini Godbole, and Abdel Djouadi for very helpful discussions. In particular we would like to thank Toby Falk for numerous discussions throughout this project and for his careful reading of the manuscript. Without him we would certainly not have been able to write this paper. This research was supported in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-95ER40896.


text:
# Super Selection Rules in Quantum Cryptography

## The Model

We assume that the Hilbert space $`H^{(all)}`$ for the protocol is the span of a set of orthogonal states

$$|(q_x)_x^{(all)}=_x|q_x^{(x)},$$

where $``$ is the set of possible modes and, for every $`x`$, $`q_x\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},q_x^{max}\}`$ where $`q_x^{max}=1`$ for fermion modes and $`q_x^{max}`$ depends on the protocol for boson modes. The state space $`H^{(all)}`$ is simply the ordinary tensor product of the state spaces $`H_x`$ associated with the modes $`x`$. A superselection rule does not change the state space $`H^{(all)}`$, but restricts the possible operations on this space.

Superselection rules. A superselection rule $`R`$ requires that, for a subset $`_R`$, the quantity $`Q_R=_{x_R}q_x`$ is preserved by every allowed transformation. More precisely, the allowed unitary transformations are block diagonal and each block is associated with a given value for $`Q_R`$. We assume that every participant has access to a countably infinite number of extra modes $`x_R`$ which are normally not used in the protocol (i.e., normally, $`q_x=0`$ for these modes). For example, these extra modes can lie in some unused locations on the participant’s side.

Local transformations. We assume that $``$ is partitioned between Alice and Bob in two subsets of modes $`^A`$ and $`^B`$. We denote $`H^A`$ the span of the orthogonal states

$$|(q_x)_{x_𝒜}^{(A)}=_{x_𝒜}|q_x^{(x)}.$$

Similarly, we denote $`H^B`$ the span of the orthogonal states

$$|(q_x)_x_{}^{(B)}=_x_{}|q_x^{(x)}.$$

We have $`H^{all}=H^AH^B`$. Locally, Alice can only execute unitary transformations of the form $`U^A𝐈`$ which moreover respect the superselection rules. Locally, Bob can only execute unitary transformations of the form $`𝐈𝐔^𝐁`$ which moreover respect the superselection rules.

Measurements. Alice has access to a countably infinite set of “free” modes $`_F^A^A_R`$. Similarly, Bob has access to a countably infinite set of “free” modes $`_F^B^B_R`$. We denote $`_F=_F^A_F^B`$. Without loss of generality, we assume that only the Hilbert spaces $`H_F^A=_{x_{}^𝒜}H_x`$ and $`H_F^B=_x_{}^{}H_x`$ can be measured by Alice and Bob, respectively. However, there is no restriction on these measurements.

Communication. Alice communicates information to Bob by transferring control over a mode $`x^A`$ to Bob. Before the communication, we have $`x^A`$. After the communication, we have $`x^B`$. Note that the sets $`^A`$ and $`^B`$ can change during the execution of the protocol, but the sets $`_R`$ and $`_F`$ are fixed.

## Why there is no restriction on the possible operations

It may appear that a superselection rule $`R`$ restricts the possible operations on every state space $`H_x`$ associated with a mode $`x_R`$. However, in fact, the restriction only applies to the tensor product $`_{x_R}H_x`$, not to each state space $`H_x`$ individually. We will show that, if a participant has access to as many extra unused modes in $`_R`$ as needed, the superselection rule $`R`$ imposes essentially no restriction on the operations that can be executed by this participant on a given state space $`H_x`$ with $`x_R`$. We will only do the case where $`H_x`$ is a qbit, but the generalisation to higher dimensions is not difficult.

Consider the most general qbit state $`\alpha |0^{(x)}+\beta |1^{(x)}`$ for a mode $`x`$. We will show how the participant can swap this state with the state of a free mode $`z`$ initially in the state $`|0^{(z)}`$. The swapping will only be approximative, but it will be arbitrarily close to perfect. The participant uses $`n1`$ extra modes $`\stackrel{}{y}=y_1,\mathrm{},y_{n1}`$ and prepares the state $`(1/\sqrt{n})_{j=0}^{n1}|j^{(\stackrel{}{y})}`$ where $`|j^{(\stackrel{}{y})}=|1,\mathrm{},1,0,\mathrm{},0^{(\stackrel{}{y})}`$ contains exactly $`j`$ modes $`y_1,\mathrm{}y_j`$ with $`q_{y_j}=1`$. The overall state is

$`(1/\sqrt{n})(\alpha |0^{(x)}+\beta |1^{(x)})({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}|j^{(\stackrel{}{y})})|0^{(z)}`$
which can be rewritten as

$`(1/\sqrt{n})(\alpha |0,0,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}+\beta |1,n1,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\alpha |0,j,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}+\beta |1,j1,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}).`$
Now, each term $`\alpha |0,j,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}+\beta |1,j1,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}`$ in the sum have $`Q_R=j`$. Any operation that preserves $`Q_R`$ is allowed. In particular, the operation $`S`$ on $`H_xH_\stackrel{}{y}`$ that executes the swapping $`|0,j^{(x,\stackrel{}{y})}|1,j1^{(x,\stackrel{}{y})}`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, is allowed. For $`1Q_Rn1`$, the participant can execute the following. First, he executes a CNOT with the mode $`x`$ as the source and the free mode $`z`$ as the target. For $`Q_R=j`$, we obtain the component

$$\alpha |0,j,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}+\beta |1,j1,1^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}).$$

Next, conditioned on the free mode $`z`$, he executes the swapping $`S`$. For $`Q_R=j`$, we obtain the component

$`\alpha |0,j,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}+\beta |0,j,1^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)})`$
$`=|0,j^{(x,\stackrel{}{y})}(\alpha |0^{(z)}+\beta |1^{(z)}).`$
If we sum all the components, the resulting state is

$`(1/\sqrt{n})(\alpha |0,0,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}+\beta |1,n1,0^{(x,\stackrel{}{y},z)}`$
$`+|0^{(x)}({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}|j^{(\stackrel{}{y})})(\alpha |0^{(z)}+\beta |1^{(z)}).`$
Note that we have $`\mathrm{Pr}(Q_R=0)=\alpha ^2/n`$, $`\mathrm{Pr}(Q_R=n)=\beta ^2/n`$ and $`\mathrm{Pr}(Q_R=j)=1/n`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, as expected. No conservation law is violated. Fortunately, this state is arbitrarily close to the state

$`(1/\sqrt{n1})|0^{(x)}({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}|j^{(\stackrel{}{y})})(\alpha |0^{(z)}+\beta |1^{(z)})`$
which corresponds to a swapping of the two modes $`x`$ and $`z`$. This state corresponds to the distribution of probability $`\mathrm{Pr}(Q_R=j)=1/(n1)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, which is arbitrarily close to the actual distribution of probability associated with the true final state. So, the participant has essentially executed a swap operation $`S_{xz}`$ between the two modes $`x`$ and $`z`$, despite the fact that $`z`$ is a free mode and $`x`$ is apparently restricted by a superselection rule.

Let $`H_E`$ be the state space of some extra system. It is not difficult to see that, given such a swap operation, one can execute the most general transformation $`U`$ on $`H_xH_E`$. First, one execute the swap operation $`S_{xz}`$ on $`H_xH_z`$. Second, one executes $`U`$ on $`H_zH_E`$ in the same way it would have been executed on $`H_xH_E`$. Finally, one execute the inverse swap operation $`S_{xz}^{}`$ on $`H_xH_z`$.

## The easier case

Now, we consider the easier case in which an initial superposition of states with different values for the conserved quantity is not allowed. Note that, on Alice’s side, a mixture of different values for $`Q_R^A`$ can be purified with a state that has a fixed value for $`Q_R^A`$, the maximum of the possible values for $`Q_R^A`$ in the mixture. The samething is true on Bob’s side. Without loss of generality, we can restrict the analysis to protocols in which the initial state on both sides is such a purification instead of a mixture. The attack will use the purification, but this is fine because a cheater against a non purified protocol can himself create such a purification in place of the mixture. This is essentially the same purification technique as in the original proof which ignored superselection rules. The difference is that here, in addition, we make sure that all states in the initial superposition have the same value for the conserved quantity. Let $`Q_R^A`$ and $`Q_R^B`$ be the fixed value for the conserved quantity on Alice’s side and Bob’s side, respectively. Because the protocol is known by both parties, we have that $`Q_R^A`$ and $`Q_R^B`$ and thus $`Q_R=Q_R^A+Q_R^B`$ is known by both parties. The fact that bit commitment is impossible in the model where $`Q_R`$ is fixed and known by both parties was proven independently by Kitaev personal02  and the author. The two proofs are completely different. Here we present the author’s proof. We assume that the protocol is perfectly concealing and show that Alice can swap bit $`0`$ to bit $`1`$. The generalization to the inexact case is not difficult.

After the commit phase, the overall state of the protocol associated with an honest commitment of bit $`w\{0,1\}`$ can be written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(w)=_{k=0}^{Q_R}\sqrt{p_k(w)}\psi _k(w)`$ where

$$\psi _k(w)=|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\varphi _{\lambda ,k}^A(w)\varphi _{\lambda ,k}^B(w).$$

and $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}^A(w)`$ and $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}^B(w)`$ are states with $`Q_R^A=k`$ and $`Q_R^B=Q_Rk`$, respectively. Both Alice and Bob can measure $`k`$. Because the protocol is concealing, we have that $`p_k(0)=p_k(1)`$ for every $`k`$ because otherwise $`k`$ provides information about $`w`$. Let $`\rho _k^B(w)=\mathrm{Tr}_A(|\psi _k(w)\psi _k(w)|)`$ be the residual density matrix on Bob’s side associated with a given $`k`$ and $`w`$. Since Bob can measure $`k`$ and then try to distinguish $`\rho _k^B(0)`$ and $`\rho _k^B(1)`$ to obtain information about $`w`$, we have that $`\rho _k^B(0)=\rho _k^B(1)`$, for every $`k`$. The impossibility of bit commitment applies to each $`k`$ individually. Therefore, conditioned on $`k`$, Alice can execute a unitary transformation on her side which maps every $`\psi _k(0)`$ exactly into $`\psi _k(1)`$. Because the different $`\psi _k(w)`$ are in a superposition, the relative phase between these states is important. This is not a problem because Alice has control over this relative phase and she knows exactly the states $`\psi _k(w)`$, including their relative phase. This concludes the proof.

## Discussion

We have shown that a charge conservation superselection rule imposes no constraint on the allowed operations on every single qbit. Therefore, even though neither Kitaev or Mayers were aware of this fact at the time personal02 , the models that they used in their respective impossibility proofs are actually valid even in the context of such a superselection rule. In this way, we have addressed the specific concern mentioned by Popescu popescu02 . It should be possible to generalize this result to superselection rules that are based on more general conservation laws. An impossibility proof is no more general than the model used. This is not at all a new understanding for the author. In computational complexity, many models were considered and only then Church and Turing proposed their general thesis that all reasonable models are equivalent for the purpose of computation. The lesson that we learned here is that we should be careful in quantum cryptography before we propose this kind of thesis for quantum protocols.

On the experimental side, in view of our result, one may ask whether or not it is experimentally difficult to swap a fermion mode and the polarization of a photon. This question is irrelevant if we are interested in unconditional security, but nevertheless it is an interesting question in itself. We suspect that it is difficult and this may have lead some people to the wrong conclusion that it is fundamentally prohibited by a conservation law. The required state $`(1/\sqrt{n})_{j=0}^{n1}|j^{(\stackrel{}{y})}`$ can in principle be prepared with a non zero probability. One simply creates the state $`_{j=0}^{n1}(1/\sqrt{2})(|0^{(y_j)}+|1^{(y_j)})`$ and then do a projection on the desired state. The probability of success is small but more efficient algorithms can most likely be designed. In any case, in the context of unconditional security, efficiency is not an issue. However, it is not clear whether or not the individual states $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|0^{(y_j)}+|1^{(y_j)})`$ are available in nature. Moreover, a fully functional quantum computer might not help because it might not be able to manipulate systems that are restricted by the superselection rule.


text:
# Chemical localization

## I Introduction

The band theory of metals with its concept of energy-band overlap describes rather than explains the metallic properties of matter. The fundamental reason for the existence of the metallic state is that in an isolated metal atom the valence electrons occupy energy levels close to the upper edge of the potential well, so that in the condensed state any perturbation introduced by neighboring metal atoms leads to delocalization of the valence electrons. From this viewpoint, the grouping chemical elements into metals and metalloids is caused by the structure of the atoms; metals are in the lower left corner of the Periodic Table, and the boundary between metals and metalloids, which is a diagonal of the Periodic Table, is blurred and extremely conventional. The transport properties of chemical substances and substances that are a mixture of metal and metalloid atoms depend of various factors. By selecting one of these factors as the control parameter we can initiate a metal–insulator transition.

The most common model describing a metal–insulator transition is the Anderson model , in which disorder is the cause of the transition. The model examines a periodic lattice of rectangular wells of different depths. The energy levels in the wells are within an interval of values $`W`$, and the level density in this interval is assumed constant. Thanks to the tails of the wave functions $`\mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )`$ there is an overlap of the wave functions of electrons localized on neighboring wells. If the distance between the neighboring wells $`r_{12}`$, is much larger than Bohr raduis $`\lambda `$, i.e. if $`r_{12}\lambda `$, the overlap integral

$$J\psi _1^{}\widehat{H}\psi _2d^3rJ_0\mathrm{exp}(r_{12}/\lambda )$$
(1)
is small, with the smallness determined by the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(r_{12}/\lambda )`$.

Two limits are possible here. Each electron may occupy its own well — this is the case for very deep but different wells. On the other hand, all electrons may be delocalized, so that any electron may find itself in any well. For instance, if all the wells are the same or almost the same, the electron wave functions are simply Bloch waves.

The ratio of two energies, the width of the band $`W`$ and the overlap integral $`J`$, acts as a parameter in this problem. What Anderson stated was that for delocalized (or extended) states to emerge, i.e. for metallic conduction to set in, the following condition must be met:

$$\frac{J}{W}\left(\frac{J}{W}\right)_{\mathrm{crit}}.$$
(2)
When the ratio $`J/W`$ is critical, delocalized states appear in the center of the band at $`ϵ=0`$; a further increase in $`J/W`$ leads to a gradual ‘thickening’ of the layer of delocalized states.

Plugging the estimate (1) for the overlap integral into (2) and replacing $`r_{12}`$ with the average distance between the centers, $`n^{1/3}`$, we arrive at the following criterion for a transition to occur:

$$\lambda n^{1/3}=(\mathrm{ln}c_aW/J_0)^1,c_a=\left(\frac{J}{W}\right)_{\mathrm{crit}}^1.$$
(3)
We select $`W`$ as the measure of disorder and consider the ($`W,n`$) plane. Let us assume that the Bohr radius $`\lambda `$ is a constant. The disorder introduced into the system by atomic displacements has an upper limit. The limit is reached when there is no correlation between the positions of the atoms (we denote it by $`W_{\mathrm{max}}`$). In this limit the plane is reduced to a strip (see Fig. 1). The solid curve within the strip is the transition curve (3), with insulator states to the right of the curve and metal states, to the left. The value $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ corresponds to the disorder $`W_{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the transition curve. But what are the electron concentrations $`n`$ in real metals and alloys compared to $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$? If $`n>n_{\mathrm{max}}`$, an Anderson transition cannot be initiated no matter how great the disorder. Of course, $`W`$ can be considered a quantitative measure of disorder only very conditionally. Hence the diagram in Fig. 1 is only an illustration. Nevertheless, the question exists and only experiments will provide an answer.

Not only disorder but also the electron–electron interaction may serve as the driving force behind a metal–insulator transition. A transition initiated by such interaction is a Mott transition . What makes it so different from an Anderson transition is that it occurs at a fixed degree of disorder. When the number of metal atoms is very small, even if we were to arrange them inside an insulator to form a superlattice, so that there is no disorder, the substance still remains an insulator. Actually, it is impossible to vary the electron concentration $`n`$ and, at the same, to keep the amplitude and the characteristic lengths of the random potential constant; it is also impossible to vary the parameters of the random potential and keep the concentration $`n`$ constant. Hence usually it is impossible to distinguish between an Anderson transition and a Mott transition. However, the fact that there are two possible reasons for metal–insulator transitions should never be ignored.

The criterion of a Mott transition can easily be written in a form similar to (3):

$$\lambda n^{1/3}=(\mathrm{ln}c_mU/J_0)^1,$$
(4)
the only difference being that instead of $`W`$ we have the Hubbard energy $`U`$, which describes the electrostatic repulsion of two electrons localized at a single center, and instead of $`c_a`$ we have a different numerical constant $`c_m`$. The transition curve (4) is represented in the diagram in Fig. 1 by a straight horizontal line, and the smaller the value of $`\lambda `$ the higher the line. The two lines, (3) and (4), intersect at the point $`W_0=(c_m/c_a)U`$. As long as the disorder is large ($`W>W_0`$), the metal—insulator transition is controlled by it and occurs along the curve (3). Small disorder ($`W<W_0`$) does not play any role since localization occurs is caused by the electron–electron interaction at concentration $`n`$ higher than those that follow from (3).

The metal–insulator transition has been realized in dozens of experiments. But all these experiments involved systems in which the metal atoms were diluted by nonmetal atoms, which are not inclined to provide electrons for the general ‘pool’ (see Fig. 2, which has been taken from Ref. ). As techniques for fabricating amorphous metals (completely disordered materials based on metal alloys) developed, it seemed that metal–insulator transition would be discovered in them. However, even with the enormous diversity of such alloys, their resistivity never exceeds $`\rho ^{}300÷400\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm .

For a given concentration $`n`$ of carriers in the metal, $`n=k_F^3/3\pi ^2`$, maximum resistance occurs when the mean free path $`l`$ is at its minimum $`l_{\mathrm{min}}`$, which is expressed in terms of the Fermi wave vector $`k_F`$ as follows: $`l_{\mathrm{min}}k_F^1`$. Then, to within a factor of order unity,

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{}k_F}{ne^2l}\frac{\mathrm{}}{e^2}k_F^1(k_Fl)^1\rho ^{}\frac{\mathrm{}}{e^2}k_F^1=\frac{\mathrm{}}{e^2}n^{1/3}.$$
(5)
Assuming that the average atomic separation $`a`$ in a condensed medium is approximately 3 Å, we can introduce the electron concentration in a standard metal

$$n^{}=a^3410^{22}\text{см}^3,$$
(6)
for which with a mean free path $`l`$ of order of the carrier separation $`n^{1/3}`$ and approximately equal to the de Broglie wavelength $`k_F^1`$,

$$\rho ^{}\frac{\mathrm{}}{e^2}n^{1/3}(200÷400)\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm}.$$
(7)
The maximum resistivity $`\rho ^{}`$ of a metal with such a carrier concentration is of order of the resistivity observed in amorphous materials. It occurs that in condensed media consisting only of metal atoms (they are called metal alloys) a rise in disorder does not by itself lead to localization. By introducing maximum disorder into the alloy we only bring it closer to the brink of localization. For a transition to occur, a fraction of the metal atoms must be replaced by metalloid atoms, which drives the concentration $`n`$ of the delocalized electrons down to below of $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

Injection of metalloid atoms can prove to be twice as effective in the sense that the concentration of metal atoms does not always uniquely determine the concentration $`n`$ of the delocalized or potentially delocalizable electrons. If the metal and metalloid atoms can form stable chemical molecules, metal electrons enter the chemical bonds: from the shallow potential well of a metal atom they go to a much deeper potential well of the molecule and, therefore, remain localized, notwithstanding the surroundings of the molecule. Hence the effective electron concentration $`n`$, which affects the position of the material on the metal–insulator phase diagram, decreases even more due to the emergence of chemical bonds.

Bearing in mind the tying-up of a fraction of the potentially free valence electrons into chemical bonds, we can formulate the following question: Is there a way to build deep potential wells using only metal atoms, which would transform a material in which there are no metalloid atoms into an insulator with an electron concentration (6) of a standard metal? The experimental data discussed in the present paper shows that this is possible.

## II Intermetallic compounds in two-component melts

For a long time it has been known that the resistivity of a liquid melt of two very good metals may change severalfold, even by a factor of 10, depending on the relative concentration of the two components, and reach its maximum at a certain rational ratio of the atomic concentrations, such as 1:1 or 1:3 or 1:4 . To gather such data one must know how to measure the resistivity at a fixed temperature as a function of the alloy component concentration. A description of the respective experimental facilities can be found in Refs. .

Figure 3 shows the results of measurements of the resistivity of Na–Pb melts at 725C done by Calaway and Saboungi . Clearly, the concentration ratio Na:Pb$``$4:1 is preferred. An addition of 20% of lead increases the resistivity compared to that of pure Na by a factor of about 20. Here the peak value of resistivity is of order of the maximum possible value $`\rho ^{}`$ of a standard metal. The Li–Pb system behaves in a similar manner.

Replacing Li and Na with a heavier alkali metal, K, Rn, or Cs, changes the resistivity vs. concentration diagram significantly. For example, Fig. 4 shows the diagram for the Rb–Pb system taken from Ref. . The peak has shifted to another rational ratio of the component concentrations Rb:Pb$``$1:1, while the peak value of the resistivity increased severalfold. Now this value exceeds the maximum resistivity (7) of a standard metal (6) by a factor of 10. The survey diagrams in Fig. 5 show that melts of alkali metals with another tetravalent metal, tin, behave in the same manner . The highest resistivity values are realized in Cs-based melts.

The high values of resistivity mean that near the respective concentration ratios the melt ceases to be a standard metal in the sense that a fraction of carriers in it are bound in some manner and the remaining effective concentration $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}410^{22}\text{cm}^3`$ (cf. (6)). Indeed, for the Rb–Pb system, the value $`\rho 2200\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm is 10 times greater than the maximum value for a standard metal, $`\rho ^{}(200÷400)\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm. According to equations (5) and (7), this implies that the number of free carriers in the melt is no greater than $`10^2÷10^3`$ of the ordinary number of carriers in a standard metal.

From the rational component-concentration ratios it follows that the increase in resistivity is due to formation of compounds within which most electrons prove to be locked. The position of the peak in resistivity in Li- and Na-based melts unquestionably points to the existence of Na4Pb and Li4Pb compounds in the melts. The five atoms comprising such a compound have eight electrons in their valence shells. Apparently, they form a single stable outer shell of the Pb4- ion, while four alkali ions held together by Coulomb forces surround that ion. The four ions form a barrier thanks to which the eight electrons in the outer shell of Pb are kept within this electrically neutral atomic configuration and do not participate in conduction (Fig. 6a).

An increase in the size of the alkali atoms leads to a qualitative change of the forming compounds, with the ability of these compounds to act as electron traps gaining in strength. Such structures are well known and are called Zintl’s structural units (named after the German chemist who in the 1930s discovered the rule of formation of ionic configurations ). If an electron goes from an alkali atom to the lead atom, the Pb1- ion will have five electrons in the outer shell, the same as in the P or As atoms. As is known, these two elements form in the gaseous phase tetrahedral molecules P4 or As4. Here there are eight electrons near each atom: five electrons belonging to the atom proper and one electron from the covalent bonds with each of the three neighbors in the tetrahedron. Pb1- ions also form such tetrahedrons, and the total electric charge $`4e`$ of such a tetrahedron is balanced by the electric charge of the four alkali-metal ions surrounding it. Sn1- ions form similar tetrahedrons (Sn$`{}_{4}{}^{})^4`$ surrounded by four alkali ions. It is the structural unit

$$\mathrm{A}_4\mathrm{B}_4,\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{Pb},\mathrm{Sn},\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{K},\mathrm{Pb},\mathrm{Cs}$$
(8)
that is the configuration within which 20 valent electrons are locked (Fig. 6b).

Binary melts consisting of alkali metals and some other metals behave in a similar manner. The absolute champion when it comes to forming effective electron traps is the isoatomic melt of two ideal metals, the alkali metal Cs and the noble metal Au. As Fig. 7 shows, the formation of compounds in the melt reduces the conductivity by a factor of 10000 . Here the conductivity is comparable to that of salt melts (3 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-1 for CsAu and 1 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-1 for the CsCl salt melt).

## III The model with structural disorder

Quantum chemistry and chemical thermodynamics have the tools that are needed to answer the questions of where, when, and how many Zintl configurations can form in a metallic melt and what are the binding energies of these configurations. Since melts, by definition, exist at high temperatures, the curves in Figs. 4 and 7 should not be considered as demonstration of metal–insulator transitions. To bring these materials into the realm of objects described by the theory of metal–insulator transitions, they should be quenched into glass. Then, for example, the low-temperature dependence of the transport characteristics can, probably, be used to determine the quantitative parameters of the electron traps. So far nothing is known of any attempts to quench such melts with a view to investigating their low-temperature properties.

At the same it is true that what occurs when component concentrations are stoichiometric is undoubtedly localization. Therefore, when discussing the results of experiments in this area of research, it seems appropriate to use the concepts and models developed for a description of metal–insulator transitions.

Earlier we mentioned the most common model of regularly arranged potential wells of different depths, or the Anderson model (Fig. 8). Each well is formed because of the potential of one or several atoms. For the levels in the wells to form a continuous band, the wells must be arranged against a background of smooth random fields, say, the electric fields of charged acceptors or donors with partial compensation of impurities (see Chap. 3 in Ref. ). Such broadening of a level into a band may be called classical.

The alternative of the Anderson model for the description of a transition in a system of noninteracting electrons that is driven by a change of disorder is the model with structural disorder. Here the random potential is built from identical but randomly distributed wells each of which contains a level $`E_0`$

$$V(𝐫)=\underset{𝐑_i}{}v(𝐫𝐑_i),$$
(9)
with the disorder determined by the randomness of the set of vectors $`𝐑_i`$. The model contains no classical random fields. Despite the fact that all the wells are identical, the level $`E_0`$ in this model also broadens into a band. The broadening is caused by the quantum interaction of the wells due to the overlap of their wave functions .

We now break down all the pairs into nearest neighbors. If the distance between the wells in such a pair is $`r_{12}`$, then, since the wells are resonant, i.e. the unperturbed values of the level energy are the same, the overlap of the tails of the wave functions splits the levels into two levels with energies

$$E=E_0\pm \epsilon _{1,2},\epsilon _{1,2}=J_0\frac{\mathrm{exp}(r_{12}/\lambda )}{r_{12}}.$$
(10)
They have collectivized wave functions

$$\psi _{1,2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi _1\pm \phi _2),$$
(11)
expressed in terms of the unperturbed wave functions $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$.

The constants $`J_0`$ and $`\lambda `$ contain the specific characteristics of the wells, the dielectric constant of the material, the effective electron mass, etc. Due to the splitting (10), both levels $`\epsilon _{1,2}`$ are no longer resonant with respect to other neighboring levels, and their interaction with such levels leads to essentially smaller energy shifts

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{exp}(2r_{s,t}/\lambda )(s\text{или}t1,2).$$
(12)
Figure 9, where the resonant pairs are designated by dashed ellipses, shows that not all centers belong to resonant pairs. For instance, well 2, being the nearest neighbor of well 3, may have well 1 as its nearest neighbor, so that $`r_{12}<r_{23}`$. Within this triplet, the resonant shifts $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ are the biggest, while the shift $`\epsilon _3`$ is nonresonant and much smaller, since $`\epsilon _3\mathrm{exp}(2r_{23}/\lambda )`$. Two such configurations have been depicted in Fig. 9, a triplet and a quadruplet, the latter with $`r_{12}<r_{23}<r_{34}`$. But in triplets and more complicated configurations consisting of four and more wells there is always at least one resonant pair with the smallest well separation and the biggest level shift . Since the characteristic width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the resulting density of states is determined by the resonant well pairs and the average well separation is $`n^{1/3}`$, from (10) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }J_0n^{1/3}\mathrm{exp}(n^{1/3}/\lambda ).$$
(13)
The tail of the density of states in the region $`|\epsilon |\mathrm{\Delta }`$ emerges due to the pairs of anomalously close wells with $`r_{12}n^{1/3}`$, while states with small $`|\epsilon |\mathrm{\Delta }`$ emerge due to nonresonant and single wells (; see also Chap. 2 in Ref. ). Formula (13) clearly shows that the ratio of the decay length $`\lambda `$ to the average distance $`n^{1/3}`$ between wells is the main parameter in the structural disorder model, just as it is in the Anderson model. (Note: In the metallic limit $`\lambda n^{1/3}1`$, where all the electrons are delocalized (i.e. collectivized) and the potential (9) is screened and is only a scattering source, this potential is used in the diffraction theory of electron transport in liquid metals (see Ref. )).

The metal–insulator transition in the region where

$$n^{1/3}\lambda 1$$
(14)
has been studied theoretically much less thoroughly in the model with structural disorder than in the Anderson model and, apparently, only numerically (e g see Ref. ). Still, in this model such a transition undoubtedly exists. Since initially all the ionic traps, or Zintl configurations, are identical, the model with structural disorder seems to be more appropriate for describing them. Each configuration A4B4 from (8) is an almost spherical well for the $`44+4=20`$ valence electrons located inside it on a sequence of energy levels . The decay length $`\lambda `$ in (14) actually refers to the uppermost occupied level. The electrons on deeper levels do not leave the well. This reduces by a factor of 10 the concentration of potentially delocalizable electrons and facilitates the metal–insulator transition.

Thus, the number of electrons and the level structure in an ionic trap determine by how much the concentration $`n`$ in the parameter (14) of the model with structural disorder is reduced, while the shape of the well $`v(𝐫𝐑_i)`$ determines $`\lambda `$. Another control parameter in this model is the magnitude of correlations on the set of vectors $`𝐑_i`$ : by strengthening the correlations one can change this set from random to regular. The result is shown in Fig. 10, which depicts the change in conductivity of an almost stoichiometric alloy CsAu under crystallization . Here the majority of the wells become resonant and have identical and identically located neighbors. The randomness in the location of the wells is partially retained only to the extent to which the alloy is nonstoichiometric and due to the presence of crystal defects and intercrystalline boundaries. The result of the increase in the number of resonant wells is partial delocalization and a tenfold increase in the conductivity of the crystal compared to that of the melt. However, as Fig. 10 clearly shows, the conductivity of crystalline CsAu is still about 50 times lower than the maximum conductivity $`1/\rho ^{}`$ of a standard metal (equation (7)). It remains unclear to what extent and how the conductivity depends on deviations from stoichiometry, the number of defects, temperature, and other factors.

## IV Quasicrystals

Introducing translational symmetry is not the only way to establish long-range correlations on the set of vectors $`𝐑_i`$. Another way to achieve the same result is to see to it that quasicrystalline long-range order sets in .

Translational symmetry, always present in crystals, allows for the existence of axes of 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-fold symmetry only. At the same time, it is easy to imagine that of all possible local configurations of a small number of atoms, AnBmCp, of the chemical elements A, B, and C the configuration with the lowest energy has a different symmetry axis, say the axis of 5-fold symmetry. Formation of a crystal from a material with the composition AnBmCp then becomes a problem. Sometimes optimal local symmetry is sacrificed, so that a crystal with a different configuration of the nearest neighbors of each atom is formed, with the loss in local configurations energy balanced by gain caused by translational symmetry. There is, however, another possibility. Let us arrange optimal configurations of $`n+m+p`$ atoms at the sites of a crystal lattice, say, a body-centered cube, as in Fig. 11. Then the loss in energy emerges caused by mismatch and distortions in the places where these configurations meet, where the short-range order is sure to be nonoptimal. Nevertheless, some substances have such crystal structures. They are called crystal approximants or crystal prototypes of quasicrystals.

It occurs, however, that we can do entirely without translational symmetry by densely packing the space with optimal configurations. That this is possible, at least theoretically, is demonstrated by the Penrose tiling in the lower part of Fig. 12; the plane is covered perfectly (i.e. without gaps and overlaps) by rhombic tiles of two types, with the acute angles equaling 2$`\pi `$/5 and $`\pi `$/5. Single tiles are depicted in the upper left corner of the same figure. Since the rhombuses adjoin each other at preassigned vertices, the correctly specified functions $`F(𝐫)`$ on the rhombuses remain continuous at the junctions and form a continuous aperiodic function whose separate segments are repeated in the plane an infinite number of times. In the upper right corner of Fig. 12 the set of the vertices of the rhombuses are depicted to the 1:2 scale. Since there is no translational symmetry, it is rather difficult to notice any correlations in this arrangement. However, there is long-range order in this system: the rhombic tiles are arranged on the plane in a well-distinguishable pattern (although the pattern is not unique).

Quasicrystals are built according to the same principles. Optimal configurations with high-order symmetry axes are separated by matching configurations-spacers that minimize energy losses at the junctions. The resulting arrangement has no translational symmetry but does not have long-range order. Many families of such materials are known today. Most of them are metal alloys in the sense that they consist only of metal atoms: Al–Mn, Ga–Mg–Zn, Al–Cu–Fe, Al–Pd–Re, etc. Here the local base configurations may be extremely complex. For instance, in quasicrystals with the Al–Pd–Mn composition one of the local base configurations consists of three sells inserted into each other ; altogether there are 51 atoms in this configuration (Fig. 13).

Basically, quasicrystals are identified and studied by the X-ray diffraction method. The Fourier transform of any function of coordinates in a perfect crystal, e.g. the density $`\varrho (𝐫)`$, is a sum of an infinite number of narrow peaks (ideally, $`\delta `$-functions):

$$\varrho (𝐫)=\underset{𝐪}{}\varrho _𝐪\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}).$$
(15)
The set of vectors $`𝐪`$ form a lattice in the $`q`$-space with the same symmetry as the initial lattice of atoms. To each site of this reciprocal lattice there corresponds a Bragg reflection in the Laue diffraction pattern. The more perfect the crystal the shaper the reflections.

Bragg reflections are not an exceptional property of crystals. As the Fourier transform we can initially select the series (15) in which the set of vectors $`𝐪`$ does not possess translational symmetry. By an inverse Fourier transformation we arrive at a function $`\varrho (𝐫)`$ that has no translational symmetry either. Such series are the Fourier transforms of quasicrystals. Here the width of the Bragg reflections is still determined by the imperfectness of the structure, namely, by deviation of the local configurations from the ideal configuration, failure of long-range order because of impurities and vacancies, etc. The sharper the Bragg reflections the closer the quasicrystal is to a perfect one.

The following correlation is typical for metallic single crystals: the higher the quality of the Laue diffraction pattern of a certain substance, the lower the residual resistivity $`\rho `$ of the crystals. The correlation reflects the wave nature of electrons: the better the conditions for the propagation of an X-ray wave, the smaller the scattering of the Bloch wave. In quasicrystals it is just the opposite: annealing, while increasing the quality of the Laue diffraction pattern, also increases the resistivity. Here the very values of resistivity are extremely high . For instance, in quasicrystals of the Al–Cu–Ru composition at 4 K the resistivity values are as high as 30 $`m\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm, which is approximately a 100 times higher than the value of $`\rho ^{}`$ estimated by equation (5) from the concentration $`n`$ of the metallic valence electrons.

The properties of an insulator manifest themselves most vividly for the Al–Pd–Re system, where the resistivity values at 4 K are stably of order $`200÷300m\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm . Ingots of this alloy can be made by arc melting a mixture of extremely pure Al, Pd, and Re in an atmosphere of pure argon. After being annealed in vacuum for 24 hours at 980C the alloy becomes an icosahedral quasicrystal. However, even after this it remains sensitive to low-temperature annealing at 600C. Such annealing in the course one to two hours may double or even triple the resistivity at 4 K, with the quality of the Laue diffraction pattern remaining the same or even growing.

The temperature dependence of the resistivity of Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 quasicrystals can be described in exact agreement with the existing theoretical scheme used to describe conduction in the vicinity of metal–insulator transitions in ordinary media. Figure 14 depicts the conductivity as a function of $`T^{1/3}`$ (the four lower curves) or $`T^{1/2}`$ (the three upper curves) . To distinguish between the various samples and between the various states of a single sample obtained in the low-temperature annealing process, we select the value $`\sigma _{10}`$ of conductivity at 10 K as a parameter (the scales along the horizontal axes in Fig. 14 have been selected in such a way that at this temperature the two scales coincide, as they also do at $`T=0`$).

Figure 14 clearly shows that for all measured functions $`\sigma (T)`$ a linear extrapolation on the selected scales makes it possible to determine $`\sigma (0)`$ (cf. Ref. ). For the tree upper states with $`\sigma (0)6(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm})^1`$ we can assume that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \sigma _{10}\sigma (0)\sigma (0).$$
(16)
This makes it possible to assume that the temperature-dependent part of the conductivity is a quantum correction , and this is why the function $`\sigma (T)`$ looks as a straight line in the $`(T^{1/2},\sigma )`$ plane. For the four lower states with $`\sigma _{10}12÷14(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm})^1`$ we have the opposite of (16). This means that these states are in the critical vicinity of the metal–insulator transition. Hence, when built in the $`(T^{1/3},\sigma )`$ plane, the function $`\sigma (T)`$ is represented by a straight line :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \sigma (T)\sigma (0)T^{1/3}.$$
(17)
The function $`\sigma (T)`$ in the critical region in the vicinity of the metal-insulator transition should evolve in this manner (e.g. see Ref. ).

Correspondence to ordinary behavior is retained in states with higher resistivity values. The extrapolation we have described implies that the metal–insulator transition occurs at the state with $`\sigma (10K)\sigma _{10}9(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{cm})^1`$. For states with smaller values of $`\sigma _{10}`$ low-temperature transport is realized through the hopping conduction mechanism. That this is actually the case is illustrated by Fig. 15 taken from Ref. . The diagram shows that the conductivity of high-resistance Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 quasicrystals obeys Mott’s law

$$\mathrm{ln}\sigma T^{1/4}.$$
(18)
Such temperature dependence implies that near the Fermi level the density of states of the electronic spectrum has a constant, finite value.

Thus, everything that happens with Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 quasicrystals under low-temperature annealing, which improves conditions for the propagation of electromagnetic wave packets, fully corresponds to the pattern of metal–insulator transitions as the parameter $`n^{1/3}\lambda `$ decreases.

Although the tendency of the resistivity to increase as the Bragg reflections get narrower is a characteristic feature of many families of quasicrystals, so far the metal–insulator transition has been observed only in the Al–Pd–Re. The maximum resistivity values at 4 K for the Al–Cu–Fe, Al–Cu–Ru, and Al–Cu–Mn systems are smaller than the value for Al–Pd–Re by factor of 10 to 100. Note that even these values are higher than $`\rho ^{}`$ calculated by (7) by a factor of 10 to 100.

Let us try to understand how the insulator Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 is organized. The Al70Pd22Mn8 structure is the most thoroughly studied one and differs from Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 in only one aspect, i.e. the isovalence Re is replaced by Mn. The quantitative characteristics of these quasicrystals can be assumed to be the same.

Thus, the structure of the Al70Pd22Mn8 and Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 quasicrystals is based on high-symmetry, close to spherical configurations consisting of 51 atoms (see Fig. 13). According to diffraction data, the number density of the atoms in these substances is close to $`610^{22}\text{cm}^3`$. Since the atoms of the transition elements ‘grab’ some of the three valence electrons of aluminum, the number of the remaining ‘potentially metallic’ electrons is somewhat smaller than two per atom, i.e. about $`10^{23}\text{cm}^3`$. For a substance with such a huge electron concentration to be an insulator, the electrons must reside in deep potential wells, or traps. In intermetallic binary melts the traps are configurations of type (8), while in quasicrystals they are the high-symmetry configuration of Fig. 13, which have levels for about 90 of the former valence electrons . Under favorable condition only one to two electron from the upper levels may leave a trap. Hence initially the electron configuration is reduced by a factor of 100, after which the more or less standard models describing the metal–insulator transition can be employed.

The arrangement of the levels in all atomic configurations that are traps is, in the zeroth approximation, the same. If the configurations were arranged periodically, the levels would become (in accordance with band theory) bands and the electrons from the upper levels could become delocalized. However, in a quasicrystal there are many ways in which the neighboring configurations can be arranged in relation to a given configuration. According to the model with structural disorder, each variant of the surroundings corresponds to a specific shift of the levels in the given configuration. Let us explain this using Penrose tiling as an example, for which we turn to Fig. 12. The distance between a given site and a neighboring site can be equal to the length $`a`$ of the rhombus side or to the length of the smaller diagonal of the narrow rhombus, $`a_1=0.62a`$, or to the length of the smaller diagonal of the wide rhombus, $`a_2=1.18a`$. However, the number of variants of the surroundings, which determine the shift of the level of a specific site, is very large. For instance, sites with close neighbors at distance $`a_1`$ may form resonant pairs or triplets. Sites 1 and 2 each have five neighbors at a distance $`a`$, but all five neighbors of site 1 enter into resonant pairs or compact triplets with pairwise distances $`a_1<a`$, while site 2 has no such neighbors; site 3 has six neighbors at a distance $`a`$, but three of these neighbors form a compact triplet; site 4 has seven neighbors at a distance $`a`$, but six of these neighbors form two compact triplets; etc. As a result, a single level, which initially was the same for all configurations (sites), becomes a band. Whether or not the states in this band are localized depends on the parameter (14), where the $`\lambda `$ is the decay length of the wave function outside the configuration well.

The very fact that the conductivity of Al70Pd22.5Re7.5 is so small is, apparently, caused by the specific combination of the parameters of the configuration well, which makes the decay length $`\lambda `$ smaller than in other quasicrystals. In the event of low-temperature annealing of Al70Pd22.5Re7.5, the configuration wells in the quasicrystal undergo ‘internally repair’ accompanied by a decrease in the leakage of the wave function from the well, i.e. a decrease in the effective decay length $`\lambda `$.

## V Conclusion

Processes that form the electronic spectrum in two-component melts with an alkali metal as one of the components and in quasicrystals have proved to be very similar. In such systems the effective carrier concentration decreases and the screening weakens while material structuring, which makes an ordinary metal–insulator transition possible.

The overall scheme is as follows. Suppose that each configuration contains $`N`$ valence electrons. The potential produced by the ion cores of the atoms in a configuration is so strong, i.e. the potential well is so deep, that the electronic spectrum of these $`N`$ electrons becomes radically transformed so that the electrons occupy ‘positions’ on a ladder of levels. Only one or two electrons on the upper levels have a chance of leaving the well. As a result, the concentration of ‘potentially delocalizable’ electrons becomes of order $`n/N`$, where $`n`$ is the concentration of the ‘initially metallic’ valence electrons. In two-component melts, $`N`$ is of order 10, while in quasicrystals it is of order 100. Thus, the metal–insulator transition occurs in a system with a reduced carrier concentration.

The same line of reasoning can be formulated differently if we imagine each configuration as being a quantum dot in 3D space. The concentration of such dots is of order $`n/N`$, with each dot containing $`N`$ electrons. When one electron leaves a quantum dot, the dot’s charge increases by $`e`$, and this requires energy of order

$$\epsilon _ee^2/r,$$
(19)
where $`r`$ is the radius of the quantum dot. This quantity is similar to the Hubbard energy in the theory of Mott’s transitions . At the same time, $`e^2/r`$ is the Coulomb energy of an isolated metal sphere of radius $`r`$ carrying charge $`e`$ or the energy of the capacitor that appears in the theory of the Coulomb blockade in nanostructures. On the metal side of the metal–insulator transition, the electric field of a charged dot is screened and the energy (19) is insignificant. On the insulator side there is no screening of free carriers, and the number of charged dots is determined by comparing the energy (19) with the temperature. When $`\epsilon _eT`$, the number $`\nu `$ of charged dots is exponentially small:

$$\nu =(n/N)\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _e/T).$$
(20)
Since conduction in these conditions is determined by tunnelling between charged and uncharged dots, $`\nu `$ acts as the number of carriers. This standard line of reasoning used to describe granulated metals  determines the activation nature of the conduction.

The importance of replacing $`n`$ with $`n/N`$ can be illustrated by the fact that when an amorphous alloy is transformed by annealing into a quasicrystal, its resistivity often increases severalfold . Localization is also substantially enhanced by the absence of translational symmetry and of universal short-range order in the mutual arrangement of configurations. Irregularities in this mutual arrangement prevents resonant tunnelling. Of course, the presence of translational symmetry by itself cannot guarantee metallic conduction. Is is obvious from Fig. 1, where a Mott transition is possible even at $`W=0`$. Near the limiting values of concentrations, $`nn_{\mathrm{Mott}}`$, disorder is essential. Indeed, when the CsAu alloy crystallizes, its resistivity decreases by a factor of 10 (see Fig. 10).

Thus, the two classes of condensed media briefly discussed in this paper provide an affirmative answer to the question posed at the end of the Introduction: It is possible to localize a system of valence electrons in a medium consisting only of metal atoms. Such localization is realized through the formation of molecule-like configurations at least in two cases: in two-component melts with an alkali metal as one of the components, and in quasicrystals.