text:
# Possibility of the tunneling time determination

## I Introduction

Tunneling phenomena are inherent in numerous quantum systems, ranging from atom and condensed matter to quantum fields. Therefore, the questions about the tunneling mechanisms are important. There have been many attempts to define a physical time for tunneling processes, since this question has been raised by MacColl  in 1932. This question is still the subject of much controversy, since numerous theories contradict each other in their predictions for “the tunneling time”. Some of these theories predict that the tunneling process is faster than light, whereas the others state that it should be subluminal. This subject has been covered in a number of reviews (Hauge and Støvneng , 1989; Olkholovsky and Recami , 1992; Landauer and Martin , 1994 and Chiao and Steinberg , 1997). The fact that there is a time related to the tunneling process has been observed experimentally . However, the results of the experiments are ambiguous.

Many of the theoretical approaches can be divided into three categories. First, one can study evolution of the wave packets through the barrier and get the phase time. However, the correctness of the definition of this time is highly questionable . Another approach is based on the determination of a set of dynamic paths, i.e., the calculation of the time the different paths spend in the barrier and averaging over the set of the paths. The paths can be found from the Feynman path integral formalism , from the Bohm approach , or from the Wigner distribution . The third class uses a physical clock which can be used for determination of the time elapsed during the tunneling (Büttiker and Landauer used an oscillatory barrier , Baz’ suggested the Larmor time ).

The problems rise also from the fact, that the arrival time of a particle to the definite spatial point is a classical concept. Its quantum counterpart is problematic, even for the free particle case. In classical mechanics for the determination of the time the particle spends moving along a certain trajectory we have to measure the position of the particle at two different moments of time. In quantum mechanics this procedure does not work. From Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle it follows that we cannot measure the position of a particle without alteration of its momentum. To determine exactly the arrival time of a particle, one has to measure the position of the particle with a great precision. Because of the measurement, the momentum of the particle will have a big uncertainty and the second measurement will be indefinite. If we want to ask about the time in quantum mechanics, we need to define the procedure of the measurement. We can measure the position of the particle only with a finite precision and get a distribution of the possible positions. Applying such a measurement, we can expect to obtain not a single value of the traversal time but a distribution of times.

The question How much time does the tunneling particle spend in the barrier region? is not precise. There are two different, but related questions connected with the tunneling time problem :

1. How much time does the tunneling particle spend under the barrier?
2. At what time does the particle arrive to the point behind the barrier?

There have been many attempts to answer these questions. However, there are several papers showing, that according to quantum mechanics the question (i) makes no sense . The goal of this paper is to investigate the possibility to determine the tunneling time using a concrete model of time measurements.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II we prove that it is impossible to determine the time the tunneling particle spends under the barrier. In section III we present the procedure of the time measurement. This procedure leads to the dwell time if no distinctions between tunneled and reflected particles are made. This is shown in section IV. In section V we modify the proposed procedure of the time measurement to make the distinction between tunneled and reflected particles and obtain the tunneling time. The result of such a procedure clearly shows the impossibility of the determination of the tunneling time. However, it also gives the method of the asymptotic time calculation. In sections VI and VII we examine the properties of the tunneling and reflection times. In section VIII, we derive the formula for asymptotic time. Section IX summarizes our findings.

## II Impossibility of the tunneling time determination

To answer the question How much time does the tunneling particle spend under the barrier? we need a criterion of the tunneling. In this paper we accept the following criterion: the particle had tunneled in the case it was in front of the barrier at first and later it was found behind the barrier. We require that the mean energy of the particle and the energy uncertainty must be less than the height of the barrier. Following this criterion, we introduce an operator corresponding to the “tunneling-flag” observable. This operator projects the wave function onto the subspace of functions localized behind the barrier

$$\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\widehat{x}X\right)$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside unit step function and $`X`$ is a point behind the barrier. We call operator $`\widehat{f}_T`$ as the tunneling flag operator. This operator has two eigenvalues: $`0`$ and $`1`$. The eigenvalue $`0`$ corresponds to the fact that the particle has not tunneled, while the eigenvalue $`1`$ corresponds to the tunneled particle.

We will work in the Heisenberg’s representation. In this representation, the tunneling flag operator is

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t\right)\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t\right).$$
(2)
To take into account all tunneled particles, the limit $`t+\mathrm{}`$ must be taken. So, the “tunneling-flag” observable in the Heisenberg’s picture is represented by the operator $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T(\mathrm{},X)=lim_{t+\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)`$. We can obtain explicit expression for this operator.

The operator $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)`$ obeys the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)=[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{H}].$$
(3)
The commutator in Eq. (3) may be expressed as

$`[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{H}]=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}t\right)[\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right),\widehat{H}]\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}t\right).`$

If the Hamiltonian has the form $`\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2M}\widehat{p}^2+V\left(\widehat{x}\right)`$ then the commutator takes the form

$$[\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right),\widehat{H}]=i\mathrm{}\widehat{J}\left(X\right)$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{J}\left(X\right)`$ is the probability flux operator

$$\widehat{J}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2M}\left(|xx\left|\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}\right|xx|\right).$$
(5)
Therefore, we have equation for the commutator

$$[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{H}]=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{J}(X,t).$$
(6)
The initial condition for the function $`\stackrel{~}{f(t,X)}`$ may be defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_T\left(t=0,X\right)=\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right).`$

From Eqs. (3) and (6) we obtain equation for the evolution of the tunneling flag operator

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{J}(X,t).$$
(7)
From Eq. (7) and initial condition it follows an explicit expression for the tunneling flag operator

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)=\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)+_0^t𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{J}(X,t_1).$$
(8)
In the question “How much time does the tunneling particle spend under the barrier?” we ask about the particles, which we know with certainty have tunneled. In addition, we want to have some information about the location of the particle. However, does quantum mechanics allow us to have the information about the tunneling and location simultaneously? A projection operator

$$\widehat{D}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}𝑑x|xx|$$
(9)
where $`|x`$ is the eigenfunction of the coordinate operator, represents the probability for the particle to be in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the Heisenberg’s representation this operator takes the form

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(\mathrm{\Gamma },t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t\right)\widehat{D}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t\right).$$
(10)
From Eqs. (5), (8) and (10) we see that the operators $`\stackrel{~}{D}(\mathrm{\Gamma },t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T(\mathrm{},X)`$ in general do not commute. This means that we cannot simultaneously have the information about the tunneling and location of the particle. If we know with certainty that the particle has tunneled then we can say nothing about its location in the past and if we know something about the location of the particle, we cannot determine definitely whether the particle will tunnel. Therefore, the question How much time does the tunneling particle spend under the barrier? cannot be answered in principle, if the question is so posed that its precise definition requires the existence of the joint probability that the particle is found in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at time $`t`$ and whether or not it is found on the right side of the barrier at a sufficiently later time. A similar analysis has been performed in Ref. . It has been shown that due to non-commutability of operator there exist no unique decomposition of the dwell time.

This conclusion is, however, not only negative. We know that $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|xx|=1`$ and $`[1,\stackrel{~}{f}_T(\mathrm{},X)]=0`$. Therefore, if the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is large enough, one has a possibility to answer the question about the tunneling time.

From the fact that the operators $`\stackrel{~}{D}(\mathrm{\Gamma },t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T(\mathrm{},X)`$ do not commute we can predict that the measurement of the tunneling time will yield a value dependent on the particular detection scheme. The detector is made so that it yields some value. But if we try to measure non-commuting observables, the measured values depends on the interaction between the detector and the measured system. So, in the definition of the Larmor time there is a dependence on the type of boundary attributed to the magnetic-field region .

## III The model of the time measurement

We consider a model for the tunneling time measurement which is somewhat similar to the “gedanken” experiment used to obtain the Larmor time, but it is simpler and more transparent. This model had been proposed by A. M. Steinberg , however, it was treated in non-standard way, introducing complex probabilities. Here we use only the formalism of the standard quantum mechanics.

Our system consists of particle P and several detectors D. Each detector interacts with the particle only in the narrow region of space. The configuration of the system is shown in Fig. 1. When the interaction of the particle with the detectors is weak the detectors do not influence the state of the particle. Therefore, we can analyze the action of detectors separately.

First of all we consider the interaction of the particle with one detector. The Hamiltonian of the system is

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_P+\widehat{H}_D+\widehat{H}_I$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{H}_P=\frac{1}{2M}\widehat{p}^2+V\left(\widehat{x}\right)`$ is the Hamiltonian of the particle, $`\widehat{H}_D`$ is the detector’s Hamiltonian and

$$\widehat{H}_I=\gamma \widehat{q}\widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)$$
(12)
represents the interaction between the particle and the detector. The operator $`\widehat{q}`$ acts in the Hilbert space of the detector. We require a continuous spectrum of the operator $`\widehat{q}`$. For simplicity, we can consider this operator as the coordinate of the detector. The operator $`\widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)`$ acts in the Hilbert space of the particle. In the coordinate representation it is nonvanishing only in the small region around the point $`x_D`$. In an ideal case the operator $`\widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)`$ may be expressed as $`\delta `$-function of the particle coordinate,

$$\widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)|x_Dx_D|=\delta \left(\widehat{x}x_D\right).$$
(13)
Parameter $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (12) characterizes the strength of the interaction. A very small parameter $`\gamma `$ ensures the undisturbance of the particle’s motion.

Hamiltonian (12) with $`\widehat{D}`$ given by (13) represents the constant force acting on the detector D when the particle is very close to the point $`x_D`$. This force results in the change of the detector’s momentum. From the classical point of view, the change of the momentum is proportional to the time the particle spends in the region around $`x_D`$ and the coefficient of proportionality equals to the force acting on the detector. In the ordinary quantum mechanics there is no general method of the time determination. If we want to define such a method, we have to make additional assumptions about the time. It is natural to extend the classical method of the time determination into the quantum mechanics, too. Therefore we assume that the change of the mean momentum of the detector is proportional to the time the constant force acts on the detector and that the time the particle spends in the detector’s region is the same as the time the force acts on the detector.

We can replace the $`\delta `$-function by the narrow rectangle of the width $`L`$ and height $`\frac{1}{L}`$. From (12) it follows that the force acting on the detector when the particle is in the region around $`x_D`$ is $`\gamma \frac{1}{L}`$. The time the particle spends in the region around $`x_D`$ equals to $`\left(\gamma \frac{1}{L}\right)^1\left(p_q\left(t\right)p_q\right)`$ where $`p_q`$ is the momentum of the detector conjugated to the coordinate $`q`$, while $`p_q`$ and $`p_q\left(t\right)`$ are the mean initial momentum and momentum after time $`t`$, respectively. The time the particle spends until time moment $`t`$ in the unit length region is

$$\tau \left(t\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(p_q\left(t\right)p_q\right).$$
(14)
To find the time the particle spends in the region of the finite length, we have to add the times spent in the regions of length $`L`$. When $`L0`$ we obtain an integral.

The evolution operator is

$$\widehat{U}\left(t\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{H}_P+\widehat{H}_D+\widehat{H}_I\right)t\right].$$
(15)
In the moment $`t=0`$ the density matrix of the whole system is $`\widehat{\rho }\left(0\right)=\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)\widehat{\rho }_D\left(0\right)`$ where $`\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)`$ is the density matrix of the particle and $`\widehat{\rho }_D\left(0\right)=|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ is the density matrix of the detector with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ being the normalized vector in the Hilbert space of the detector. After the interaction, the density matrix of the detector is $`\widehat{\rho }_D\left(t\right)=Tr_P\left\{\widehat{U}\left(t\right)\left(\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|\right)\widehat{U}^+\left(t\right)\right\}`$. In the moment $`t=0`$ it must be $`x\left|\rho _P\left(0\right)\right|x^{}0`$ only when $`x<0`$ and $`x^{}<0`$.

Further, for simplicity we will neglect the Hamiltonian of the detector. The evolution operator then approximately equals to the operator $`\widehat{U}(t,\gamma \widehat{q})`$ where

$$\widehat{U}(t,\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{2M}\widehat{p}^2+V\left(\widehat{x}\right)+\alpha \widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)\right)t\right].$$
(16)
After such assumptions from our model we can obtain the time, the particle spends in the definite space region. Similar calculations were done for detector’s position rather than momentum by G. Iannaccone .

## IV Measurement of the dwell time

We expand the operator $`\widehat{U}(t,\gamma \widehat{q})`$ into the series of the parameter $`\gamma `$, assuming that $`\gamma `$ is small. Introducing the operator $`\widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)`$ in the interaction representation

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}_Pt\right)\widehat{D}\left(x_D\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}_Pt\right)$$
(17)
we obtain the first order approximation for the operator $`\widehat{U}(t,\gamma \widehat{q})`$,

$$\widehat{U}(t,\gamma \widehat{q})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}_Pt\right)\left(1+\frac{\gamma \widehat{q}}{i\mathrm{}}_0^t𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t_1)\right).$$
(18)
For shortening the notation we introduce an operator

$$\widehat{F}(x_D,t)_0^t𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t_1)$$
(19)
and the equation for the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(t,\gamma \widehat{q})`$ is expressed as

$$\widehat{U}(t,\gamma \widehat{q})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}_Pt\right)\left(1+\frac{\gamma \widehat{q}}{i\mathrm{}}\widehat{F}(x_D,t)\right).$$
(20)
The density matrix of the detector in the coordinate representation in the first order approximation then is

$`q\left|\rho _D\left(t\right)\right|q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`q|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|q^{}Tr\left\{\widehat{U}(t,\gamma q)\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)\widehat{U}^{}(t,\gamma q^{})\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`q|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|q^{}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma q}{i\mathrm{}}}\widehat{F}(x_D,t){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma q^{}}{i\mathrm{}}}\widehat{F}(x_D,t)\right)`$
$``$ $`q\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\gamma \widehat{F}(x_D,t)\widehat{q}\right]\right|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\gamma \widehat{F}(x_D,t)\widehat{q}\right]\right|q^{}.`$
The average momentum of the detector after time $`t`$ is $`p_q\gamma \widehat{F}(x_D,t)`$ where $`p_q=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|\widehat{p}_q\right|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\widehat{F}(x_D,t)=Tr\left\{\widehat{F}(x_D,t)\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)\right\}`$. From Eq. (14) we obtain the time the particle spends in the unit length region between time momentum $`t=0`$ and $`t`$

$$\tau ^{\text{Dw}}(x,t)=\widehat{F}(x,t).$$
(21)
The time spent in the space region restricted by the coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ is

$$t^{\text{Dw}}(x_2,x_1)=_{x_1}^{x_2}𝑑x\tau ^{\text{Dw}}\left(x,t\mathrm{}\right)=_{x_1}^{x_2}𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (x,t)𝑑t.$$
(22)
This is a well-known expression for the dwell time . The dwell time is the average over entire ensemble of particles regardless they are tunneled or not. The expression for the dwell time obtained in our model is the same as the well-known expression obtained by other authors. Therefore, we can expect that our model can yield a reasonable expression for the tunneling time as well.

## V Conditional probabilities and the tunneling time

Having seen that our model gives the time averaged over the entire ensemble of particles, let us now take the average only over the subensemble of the tunneled particles. The joint probability that the particle has tunneled and the detector has the momentum $`p_q`$ at the time moment $`t`$ is $`W(f_T,p_q;t)=Tr\left\{\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)|p_qp_q|\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)\right\}`$ where $`|p_q`$ is the eigenfunction of the momentum operator $`\widehat{p}_q`$ and the tunneling flag operator $`\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)`$ is defined by Eq. (1). In quantum mechanics such a probability does not always exist. If the joint probability does not exist then the concept of the conditional probability is meaningless. But in our case the operators $`\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)`$ and $`|p_qp_q|`$ commute, therefore, the probability $`W(f_T,p_q;t)`$ exists. The conditional probability that the momentum of the detector is $`p_q`$ provided that the particle has tunneled is given according to the Bayes’s theorem, i.e.,

$$W(p_q;t|f_T)=\frac{W(f_T,p_q;t)}{W(f_T;t)}$$
(23)
where $`W(f_T;t)=Tr\left\{\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)\right\}`$ is the probability that the particle has tunneled until time $`t`$. The average momentum of the detector with the condition that the particle has tunneled is

$`p_q\left(t\right)={\displaystyle p_q𝑑p_qW(p_q;t|f_T)}`$

or

$$p_q\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{W(f_T;t)}Tr\left\{\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)\widehat{p}_q\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)\right\}.$$
(24)
In the first order approximation the probability $`W(f_T;t)`$ is given by equation

$$W(f_T;t)\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)+\frac{\gamma }{i\mathrm{}}q[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{F}(x_D,t)].$$
(25)
The expression $`Tr\left\{\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)\widehat{p}_q\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)\right\}`$ in Eq. (24)in the first order approximation reads

$`Tr\left\{\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)\widehat{p}_q\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)\right\}`$ $``$ $`p_q\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{i\mathrm{}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)\widehat{F}(x_D,t)\widehat{p}_q\widehat{q}\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_q\widehat{F}(x_D,t)\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)\right).`$
Using the commutator $`[\widehat{q},\widehat{p}_q]=i\mathrm{}`$ from Eqs. (14) and (24) we obtain the time the tunneled particle spends in the unit length region around $`x`$ until time $`t`$

$`\tau (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)}}\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)\widehat{F}(x,t)+\widehat{F}(x,t)\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)}}\left(qp_q\text{Re}\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_q\right)[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{F}(x,t)].`$
The obtained expression (27) for the tunneling time is real, on the contrary to the complex-time approach. It should be noted that this expression even in the limit of the very weak measurement depends on the particular detector. This yields from the impossibility of the determination of the tunneling time. If the commutator $`[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{F}(x,t)]`$ is zero, the time has a precise value. If the commutator is not zero, only the integral of this expression over a large region has the meaning of an asymptotic time related to the large region as we will see in Sec. VIII.

Eq. (27) can be rewritten as a sum of two terms, the first term being independent of the detector and the second dependent, i.e.,

$$\tau (x,t)=\tau ^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)+\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\left(qp_q\text{Re}\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_q\right)\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)$$
(28)
where

$`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)}}\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)\widehat{F}(x,t)+\widehat{F}(x,t)\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),`$ (30)
$`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X)}}[\stackrel{~}{f}_T(t,X),\widehat{F}(x,t)].`$ (31)
The quantities $`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ and $`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ do not depend on the detector.

In order to separate the tunneled and reflected particles we have to take the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, the particles which tunnel after the time $`t`$ would not contribute to the calculation. So we introduce operators

$`\widehat{F}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{D}(x,t_1),`$ (33)
$`\widehat{N}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{J}(x,t_1).`$ (34)
From Eq. (8) it follows that the operator $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T(\mathrm{},X)`$ is equal to $`\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)+\widehat{N}\left(X\right)`$. As long as the particle is initially before the barrier

$`\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)=\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)\widehat{f}_T\left(X\right)=0.`$

In the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ we have

$`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{F}\left(x\right)+\widehat{F}\left(x\right)\widehat{N}\left(X\right),`$ (36)
$`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}[\widehat{N}\left(X\right),\widehat{F}\left(x\right)].`$ (37)
Let us define an “asymptotic time” as the integral of $`\tau (x,\mathrm{})`$ over a wide region containing the barrier. Since the integral of $`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ is very small compared to that of $`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ as we will see later, the asymptotic time is effectively the integral of $`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ only. This allows us to identify $`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ as “the density of the tunneling time”.

In many cases for the simplification of mathematics it is common to write the integrals over time as the integrals from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. In our model we cannot without additional assumptions integrate in Eqs. (V) from $`\mathrm{}`$, because the negative time means the motion of the particle to the initial position. If some particle in the initial wave packet had negative momentum then in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ it was behind the barrier and contributed to the tunneling time.

## VI Properties of the tunneling time

As it has been mentioned above, the question How much time does a tunneling particle spend under the barrier has no exact answer. We can determine only the time the tunneling particle spends in a large region, containing the barrier. In our model this time is expressed as an integral of quantity (36) over the region. In order to determine the properties of this integral it is useful to determine properties of the integrand.

To be able to expand the range of integration over time to $`\mathrm{}`$, it is necessary to have the initial wave packet far to the left from the points under the investigation and this wave packet must consist only of the waves moving in the positive direction.

It is convenient to make calculations in the energy representation. Eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_P`$ are $`|E,\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =\pm 1`$. The sign ’$`+`$’ or ’$``$’ corresponds to the positive or negative initial direction of the wave, respectively. Outside the barrier these eigenfunctions are:

$`x|E,+`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi \mathrm{}p_E}}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_Ex\right)+r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_Ex\right)\right)\text{}x<0,\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi \mathrm{}p_E}}t\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_Ex\right)\text{}x>L,\hfill \end{array}`$ (41)
$`x|E,`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi \mathrm{}p_E}}t\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_Ex\right)\text{}x<0,\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi \mathrm{}p_E}}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_Ex\right)\frac{t\left(E\right)}{t^{}\left(E\right)}r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_Ex\right)\right)\text{}x>L\hfill \end{array}`$ (44)
where $`t\left(E\right)`$ and $`r\left(E\right)`$ are transmission and reflection amplitudes respectively,

$$p_E=\sqrt{2ME},$$
(45)
the barrier is in the region between $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$ and $`M`$ is the mass of the particle. These eigenfunctions are orthonormal, i.e.,

$$E,\alpha |E^{},\alpha ^{}=\delta _{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}\delta \left(EE^{}\right).$$
(46)
The evolution operator is

$`\widehat{U}_P\left(t\right)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E|E,\alpha E,\alpha |\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}Et\right).`$

The operator $`\widehat{F}\left(x\right)`$ is given by the equation

$`\widehat{F}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E𝑑E^{}|E,\alpha E,\alpha |xx|E^{},\alpha ^{}E^{},\alpha ^{}|\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(EE^{}\right)t_1\right)}`$

where the integral over the time is $`2\pi \mathrm{}\delta \left(EE^{}\right)`$ and, therefore,

$`\widehat{F}\left(x\right)=2\pi \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E|E,\alpha E,\alpha |xx|E,\alpha ^{}E,\alpha ^{}|}.`$

In analogous way

$`\widehat{N}\left(x\right)=2\pi \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E|E,\alpha E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E,\alpha ^{}E,\alpha ^{}|}.`$

We consider the initial wave packet consisting only of the waves moving in the positive direction. Then we have

$`\widehat{N}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \mathrm{}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+E,+\left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E,+E,+|,`$
$`\widehat{F}\left(x\right)\widehat{N}\left(X\right)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+E,+|xx|E,\alpha E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(X\right)\right|E,+E,+|.`$
From the condition $`X>L`$ it follows

$$\widehat{N}\left(X\right)=dE|E,+|t\left(E\right)|^2E,+|.$$
(47)
For $`x<0`$ we obtain the following expressions for the quantities $`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ and $`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$

$`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2(2+r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex)`$ (50)
$`+r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right))E,+|,`$
$`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ip_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2(r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex)`$ (52)
$`r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right))E,+|.`$
For $`x>L`$ these expressions take the form

$`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2(2{\displaystyle \frac{t\left(E\right)}{t^{}\left(E\right)}}r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right)`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}\left(E\right)}{t\left(E\right)}}r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex))E,+|,`$
$`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2({\displaystyle \frac{t\left(E\right)}{t^{}\left(E\right)}}r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right)`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}\left(E\right)}{t\left(E\right)}}r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex))E,+|.`$
We illustrate the obtained formulae for the $`\delta `$-function barrier

$`V\left(x\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }\delta \left(x\right)`$

and for the rectangular barrier. The incident wave packet is Gaussian and it is localized far to the left from the barrier.

In Fig. 2 and 3, we see interference-like oscillations near the barrier. Oscillations are not only in front of the barrier but also behind the barrier. When $`x`$ is far from the barrier the “time density” tends to the value close to $`1`$. This is in agreement with classical mechanics because in the chosen units the mean velocity of the particle is $`1`$. In Fig 3, another property of “tunneling time density” is seen: it is almost zero in the barrier region. This explains the Hartmann and Fletcher effect : for opaque barriers the effective tunneling velocity is very large.

## VII The reflection time

We can easily adapt our model for the reflection, too. For doing this, we should replace the tunneling-flag operator $`\widehat{f}_T`$ by the reflection flag operator

$$\widehat{f}_R=1\widehat{f}_T.$$
(58)
Replacing $`\widehat{f}_T`$ by $`\widehat{f}_R`$ in Eqs. (V) we obtain the equality

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_R\left(t=\mathrm{},X\right)\tau ^{\text{Refl}}\left(x\right)=\tau ^{\text{Dw}}\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_T\left(t=\mathrm{},X\right)\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right).$$
(59)
We see that in our model the important condition

$$\tau ^{\text{Dw}}=T\tau ^{\text{Tun}}+R\tau ^{\text{Refl}}$$
(60)
where $`T`$ and $`R`$ are transmission and reflection probabilities is satisfied automatically.

If the wave packet consist only of the waves moving in positive direction, the density of dwell time is

$$\tau ^{\text{Dw}}(x,t)=2\pi \mathrm{}dE|E,+E,+|xx|E,+E,+|.$$
(61)
For $`x<0`$ we have

$`\tau ^{\text{Dw}}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}(1+|r\left(E\right)|^2+r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex)`$ (63)
$`+r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right))E,+|`$
and for the reflection time we obtain the “time density”

$`\tau ^{\text{Refl}}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{1\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}\left(2\right|r\left(E\right)|^2`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+|r\left(E\right)|^2)r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex)+r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right))E,+|.`$
For $`x>L`$ the density of the dwell time is

$$\tau ^{\text{Dw}}(x,t)=MdE|E,+\frac{1}{p_E}|t\left(E\right)|^2E,+|$$
(66)
and the “density of the reflection time” may be expressed as

$`\tau ^{\text{Refl}}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2({\displaystyle \frac{t\left(E\right)}{t^{}\left(E\right)}}r^{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right)`$ (68)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}\left(E\right)}{t\left(E\right)}}r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex))E,+|.`$
We illustrate the properties of the reflection time for the same barriers. The incident wave packet is Gaussian and it is localized far to the left from the barrier.

In Fig. 4 and 5, we also see the interference-like oscillations at both sides of the barrier. As far as for the rectangular barrier the “time density” is very small, the part behind the barrier is presented in Fig. 6. Behind the barrier, the “time density” in certain places becomes negative. This is because the quantity $`\tau ^{\text{Refl}}\left(x\right)`$ is not positive definite. Non-positivity is the direct consequence of non-commutativity of operators in Eqs. (V). There is nothing strange in negativity of $`\tau ^{\text{Refl}}\left(x\right)`$, because this quantity itself has no physical meaning. Only the integral over the large region has the meaning of time. When $`x`$ is far to the left from the barrier the “time density” tends to the value close to $`2`$ and when $`x`$ is far to the right from the barrier the “time density” tends to $`0`$. This is in agreement with classical mechanics because in the chosen units the velocity of the particle is $`1`$ and the reflected particle crosses the area before the barrier two times.

## VIII The asymptotic time

As it was mentioned above, we can determine only the time which the tunneling particle spends in a large region containing the barrier, i.e., the asymptotic time. In our model this time is expressed as an integral of quantity (36) over this region. We can do the integration explicitly.

The continuity equation yields

$$\frac{}{t}\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t)+\frac{}{x_D}\stackrel{~}{J}(x_D,t)=0.$$
(69)
The integration in Eq. (19) can be performed by parts

$`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t_1)=t\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}{\displaystyle _0^t}t_1𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{J}(x_D,t_1).`$

If the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)`$ represents localized particle then $`lim_t\mathrm{}\left(\stackrel{~}{D}(x,t)\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)\right)=0`$. The operator $`\stackrel{~}{D}(x,t)`$ in all expressions under consideration is multiplied by $`\widehat{\rho }_P\left(0\right)`$. Therefore we can write an effective equality

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{D}(x_D,t_1)=\frac{}{x}_0^{\mathrm{}}t_1𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{J}(x_D,t_1).$$
(70)
We introduce the operator

$$\widehat{T}\left(x\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}t_1𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{J}(x,t_1).$$
(71)
We consider the asymptotic time, i.e., the time the particle spends between points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ when $`x_1\mathrm{}`$, $`x_2+\mathrm{}`$,

$`t^{\text{Tun}}(x_2,x_1)={\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}𝑑x\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right).`$

After the integration we have

$$t^{\text{Tun}}(x_2,x_1)=t^{\text{Tun}}\left(x_2\right)t^{\text{Tun}}\left(x_1\right)$$
(72)
where

$$t^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\widehat{N}\left(x\right)}\widehat{N}\left(x\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)+\widehat{T}\left(x\right)\widehat{N}\left(x\right).$$
(73)
If we assume that the initial wave packet is far to the left from the points under the investigation and consists only of the waves moving in the positive direction, then Eq. (72) may be simplified.

In the energy representation

$`\widehat{T}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}t_1𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E𝑑E^{}|E,\alpha E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E^{},\alpha ^{}E^{},\alpha ^{}|\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(EE^{}\right)t_1\right)}.`$

Integral over time is equal to $`2i\pi \mathrm{}^2\frac{}{E^{}}\delta \left(EE^{}\right)`$ and we obtain

$`\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}2\pi \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle }dE|E,\alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{}{E^{}}}E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E^{},\alpha ^{}|_{E^{}=E}E,\alpha ^{}|`$
$`+E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E,\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}E,\alpha ^{}\left|\right),`$
$`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+E,+\left|\widehat{J}\left(X\right)\right|E,\alpha }`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{}{E^{}}}E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E^{},+|_{E^{}=E}+E,\alpha \left|\widehat{J}\left(x\right)\right|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}})E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
Substituting expressions for the matrix elements of the probability flux operator we obtain equation

$`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+t^{}\left(E\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}t\left(E\right)E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`+Mx{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`+i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E^2}}r^{}\left(E\right)t^2\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right)E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
When $`x+\mathrm{}`$, the last term vanishes and we have

$`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+t^{}\left(E\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}t\left(E\right)E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (75)
$`+Mx{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2E,+|\mathrm{\Psi },x+\mathrm{}.`$
This expression is equal to $`\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$:

$$\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right),x+\mathrm{}.$$
(76)
When the point with coordinate $`x`$ is in front of the barrier, we obtain equality

$`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+|t\left(E\right)|^2({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{p_E}}x`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2p_E^2}}r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}2p_Ex)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}})E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
When $`\left|x\right|`$ is large the second term vanishes and we have

$`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)`$ $``$ $`Mx{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}|t\left(E\right)|^2E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (78)
$`+{\displaystyle }dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+|t\left(E\right)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
The imaginary part of expression (78) is not zero. This means, that for determination of the asymptotic time it is insufficient to integrate only in the region containing the barrier. For quasimonochromatic wave packets from Eqs. (71), (72), (73), (75) and (78) we obtain limits

$`t^{\text{Tun}}(x_2,x_1)`$ $``$ $`t_T^{\text{Ph}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_E}}M\left(x_2x_1\right),`$ (80)
$`t_{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}(x_2,x_1)`$ $``$ $`t_T^{\text{Im}}`$ (81)
where

$$t_T^{\text{Ph}}=\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dE}\left(\mathrm{arg}t\left(E\right)\right)$$
(82)
is the phase time and

$$t_T^{\text{Im}}=\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dE}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left|t\left(E\right)\right|\right)$$
(83)
is the imaginary part of the complex time.

In order to take the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$ we have to perform more exact calculations. We cannot extend the range of the integration over the time to $`\mathrm{}`$, because this extension corresponds to the initial wave packet being infinitely far from the barrier. We can extend the range of the integration over the time to $`\mathrm{}`$ only for calculation of $`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)`$. For $`x<0`$ we obtain the following equality

$$\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{4\pi Mi}_0^{\mathrm{}}t𝑑t\left(I_1^{}(x,t)\frac{}{x}I_2(x,t)I_2(x,t)\frac{}{x}I_1^{}(x,t)\right)$$
(84)
where

$`I_1(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dE{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p_E}}}|t\left(E\right)|^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(p_ExEt)\right)E,+|\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (85)
$`I_2(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dE{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p_E}}}(\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex\right)+r\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}p_Ex))\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}Et)E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (86)
$`I_1(x,t)`$ is equal to the wave function in the point $`x`$ at the time moment $`t`$ when the propagation is in the free space and the initial wave function in the energy representation is $`|t\left(E\right)|^2E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. When $`t0`$ and $`x\mathrm{}`$, then $`I_1(x,t)0`$. That is why the initial wave packet contains only the waves moving in the positive direction. Therefore $`\widehat{N}\left(X\right)\widehat{T}\left(x\right)0`$ when $`x\mathrm{}`$. From this analysis it follows that the region in which the asymptotic time is determined has to contain not only the barrier but also the initial wave packet.

In such a case from Eqs. (72) and (73) we obtain expression for the asymptotic time

$$t^{Tun}(x_2,x_1\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}dE\mathrm{\Psi }|E,+t^{}\left(E\right)(\frac{M}{p_E}x_2i\mathrm{}\frac{}{E})t\left(E\right)E,+|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(87)
From Eq. (76) it follows that

$$t^{Tun}\left(x_2,x_1\mathrm{}\right)=\frac{1}{\widehat{N}\left(X\right)}\widehat{T}\left(x_2\right)$$
(88)
where $`\widehat{T}\left(x_2\right)`$ is defined as the probability flux integral (71). Eqs. (87) and (88) give the same value for tunneling time as an approach in Refs.

The integral of quantity $`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ over a large region is zero. We have seen that it is not enough to choose the region around the barrier—this region has to include also the initial wave packet location. We illustrate this fact by numerical calculations.

The quantity $`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ for $`\delta `$-function barrier is represented in Fig. 7. We see that $`\tau _{\text{corr}}^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ is not equal to zero not only in the region around the barrier but also it is not zero in the location of the initial wave packet. For comparison, the quantity $`\tau ^{\text{Tun}}\left(x\right)`$ for the same conditions is represented in Fig. 8.

## IX Conclusion

We have shown that it is impossible to determine the time a tunneling particle spends under the barrier, because the knowledge about the location of the particle is incompatible with the knowledge whether the particle will tunnel or not. This is because the corresponding operators, given by Eqs. (2) and (10) do not commute. However, it is possible to speak about the asymptotic time, i.e., the time the particle spends in a large region.

In order to illustrate those facts, to obtain an expression of the asymptotic time and to investigate its behavior, we consider a procedure of time measurement, proposed by A. M. Steinberg . This procedure shows clearly the consequences of non-commutativity of the operators and the possibility of determination of the asymptotic time. Our model also reveals the Hartmann and Fletcher effect, i.e., for opaque barriers the effective velocity is very large, because the contribution of the barrier region to the time is almost zero. We cannot determine whether this velocity can be larger than $`c`$, because for this purpose one has to use a relativistic equation (e.g., the Dirac’s equation).

Due to non-commutativity of operators (2) and (10) the outcome of measurements depends on particular detector even in an ideal case. This makes the measurement of the tunneling time difficult for opaque barriers, because the tunneling time is very short and the term depending on the detector increases linearly with the barrier width. This term vanishes when the time spent in a large region, including initial packet location, is measured.

###### Acknowledgements.

I wish to thank Prof. B. Kaulakys for his suggestion of the problem, for encouragement, stimulating discussions and critical remarks. I am also indebted to the referee for the useful comments and suggestions for the improvement of this work.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

The work was supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of China and by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DOE-EY-76-02-3071.


text:
# Effect of nearest- and next-nearest neighbor interactions on the spin-wave velocity of one-dimensional quarter-filled spin-density-wave conductors

## I Introduction

Organic conductors of the tetramethyltetraselenafulvalene (TMTSF) and tetramethyltetrathiafulvalene (TMTTF) salts family often exhibit density-wave (DW) instability at low temperature.  Recent experiments have shown that a $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ spin-density wave (SDW) may coexist with a $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ and/or a $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ charge-density wave (CDW).  (The quantity $`k_\mathrm{F}`$ denotes the one-dimensional Fermi wave vector and 2$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ is the nesting wave vector for the SDW.) Furthermore, these CDW’s seem to be of pure electronic origin without any (significant) contribution from the lattice.

This unusual ground-state can be understood on the basis of a mean-field theory for a quarter-filled one-dimensional system in the presence of several kinds of Coulomb interaction. Within an extended Hubbard model with on-site ($`U`$) and nearest-neighbor ($`V`$) interactions, it has been shown that a $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW may coexist with the $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW when $`V`$ is strong enough.  When the next-nearest-neighbor interaction ($`V_2`$) is also taken into account, three different ground states can be stabilized:  (i) a pure $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW at small $`V`$ and $`V_2`$, (ii) coexisting $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW and $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW at large $`V`$, (iii) coexisting $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW, $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW and $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW at large $`V_2`$. Although the SDW instability is driven by the on-site repulsive interaction $`U`$, the nearest and next-nearest neighbor interactions play a crucial role for the appearance of CDW’s.

Following the standard analysis,  fluctuations around the mean-field ground-state have been studied. For a quarter-filled system, commensurability effects with the underlying crystal lattice pin the DW’s and produce a gap in the sliding modes.  Surprisingly, this gap vanishes at the boundary between the pure $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW and the coexisting 2$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW and 4$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW.  The spin-wave modes have been studied only within the Hubbard model ($`V=V_2=0`$). The spin-wave velocity decreases monotonically with increasing $`U`$, in qualitative agreement with the exact solution of the one-dimensional Hubbard model.

In this paper, we study the spin-wave modes in presence of the nearest and next-nearest neighbor interactions ($`V,V_20`$). We consider a one-dimensional system, assuming that long-range order is stabilized by (weak) interchain coupling. Our analysis is based on a functional integral formulation  which allows a simple treatment of the spin-wave modes even in the presence of these interactions. The electron-electron interaction is treated within (Hartree-Fock) mean-field theory, while the SU(2) spin rotation symmetry is maintained by introducing a fluctuating spin-quantization axis in the functional integral. Transverse spin-wave modes then correspond to fluctuations of the spin-quantization axis around its mean-field value.

In Secs. II and III, we extend the derivation of Ref.  from the incommensurate to the commensurate case. Previous mean-field results are recovered within a saddle point approximation. Then we derive the effective action of the spin-wave modes and obtain the spin-wave velocity. In Sec. IV, the spin-wave velocity is calculated as a function of $`V,V_2`$ and the dimerization along the chain. Section V is devoted to discussion.

## II Path integral formulation

We consider a one-dimensional electron system at quarter-filling with dimerization along the chain. Within the extended Hubbard model, the Hamiltonian is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_I,`$ (1)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,n,n^{}}{}}t_{nn^{}}\psi _{n\sigma }^{}\psi _{n^{}\sigma },`$ (2)
$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`U{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n_nn_n+V{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\psi _n^{}\psi _n)(\psi _{n+1}^{}\psi _{n+1})`$ (4)
$`+V_2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\psi _n^{}\psi _n)(\psi _{n+2}^{}\psi _{n+2})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\psi _n^{}\sigma _z\psi _n)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}(\psi _n^{}\psi _n)V_{nn^{}}(\psi _n^{}^{}\psi _n^{}),`$ (5)
where $`\psi _n=(\psi _n,\psi _n)^t`$, $`n_{n\sigma }=\psi _{n\sigma }^{}\psi _{n\sigma }`$, and $`\psi _{n\sigma }^{}`$ is the creation operator of an electron with spin $`\sigma (=,)`$ at the lattice site $`n`$. The transfer integral in the kinetic term $`H_0`$ is defined by

$`t_{nn^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}t(1)^nt_\mathrm{d}\hfill & \mathrm{for}n^{}=n+1,\hfill \\ t+(1)^nt_\mathrm{d}\hfill & \mathrm{for}n^{}=n1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
where a finite $`t_\mathrm{d}`$ is due to the dimerization. The interaction Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of the Hubbard interaction $`U`$ and the density-density interaction $`V_{nn^{}}`$ defined by

$`V_{nn^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}U/4\hfill & \mathrm{for}n^{}=n,\hfill \\ V/2\hfill & \mathrm{for}n^{}=n\pm 1,\hfill \\ V_2/2\hfill & \mathrm{for}n^{}=n\pm 2,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (15)
where $`V`$ ($`V_2`$) is the coupling constant for nearest (next-nearest) neighbor-site interaction ($`U,V,V_20`$).

In order to derive the effective action for the spin-wave modes, we write the partition function $`Z`$ as a path integral:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\psi ^{}𝒟\psi e^{𝒮[\psi ^{},\psi ]}},`$ (16)
$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left[\underset{n}{}\psi _n^{}\left(_\tau \mu \right)\psi _n+H[\psi ^{},\psi ]\right]},`$ (17)
where the action $`𝒮`$ is a function of the Grassmann variable $`\psi `$. $`\tau `$ is a Matsubara time-varying between $`0`$ and $`1/T`$. Following Refs.  and , we now introduce the new field $`\varphi `$ defined by

$`\psi _n`$ $`=`$ $`R_n\varphi _n,`$ (18)
$`R_n\sigma _zR_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝝈𝐧_n,`$ (19)
where $`R_n`$ is an SU(2)/U(1) unitary matrix and $`𝐧_n`$ is a unit vector which gives the direction of the spin-quantization axis at site $`n`$ and time $`\tau `$ for the field $`\varphi `$. Substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (17), the action is rewritten as $`𝒮=𝒮_0+𝒮_I`$, where

$`𝒮_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau \{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\varphi _n^{}(_\tau \mu +R_n^{}_\tau R_n)\varphi _n`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\varphi _n^{}R_n^{}t_{nn^{}}R_n^{}\varphi _n^{}\},`$
$`𝒮_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left\{\frac{U}{4}\underset{n}{}\rho _{sn}^2+\underset{n,n^{}}{}\rho _{cn}V_{nn^{}}\rho _{cn^{}}\right\}}.`$ (22)
$`\rho _{cn}=\varphi _n^{}\varphi _n`$ and $`\rho _{sn}=\varphi _n^{}\sigma _z\varphi _n`$ are the charge- and spin-density operators. The quantities $`\sigma _x,\sigma _y`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ are Pauli matrices. Note that $`𝒮_I`$ is invariant under the transformation $`\psi \varphi `$, since the interaction is invariant with respect to spin rotations. It is convenient to rewrite the action as

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau \{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\varphi _n^{}(_\tau \mu A_{0n})\varphi _n`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\varphi _n^{}t_{nn^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle _n^n^{}}𝑑lA_{xl}\right)\varphi _n^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\rho _{sn}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\rho _{cn}V_{nn^{}}\rho _{cn^{}}\}.`$
where the SU(2) gauge fields $`A_0`$ and $`A_x`$ are defined by

$`A_{0n}`$ $``$ $`R_n^{}_\tau R_n,`$ (2.26a)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle _n^{n+\delta }}𝑑lA_{xl}\right)`$ $``$ $`R_n^{}R_{n+\delta },(\delta =\pm 1).`$ (2.26b)
The lattice spacing is taken as unity. Using the Stratonovich-Hubbard identity, the interaction part of the action is rewritten as (note that $`U,V,V_2>0`$)

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \rho _{cn}V_{nn^{}}\rho _{cn^{}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }_c\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n,n^{}}{}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}V_{nn^{}}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn^{}}+2i\underset{n}{}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}\rho _{cn}\right)},`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{U}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \rho _{sn}^2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }_s\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{U}\underset{n}{}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}^2+\underset{n}{}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}\rho _{sn}\right)},`$ (28)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}`$ are (real) auxiliary fields. By using Eqs. (27) and (28), the final form of the partition function is given by

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }_c𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }_s𝒟𝐧𝒟\varphi ^{}𝒟\varphi e^{(𝒮_0+𝒮_I)}},`$ (29)
$`𝒮_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau \{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\varphi _n^{}(_\tau \mu A_{0n})\varphi _n`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\varphi _n^{}t_{nn^{}}\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle _n^n^{}}dlA_{xl})\varphi _n^{}\},`$
$`𝒮_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau \{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}\rho _{sn}2i\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}\rho _{cn}]`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}V_{nn^{}}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn^{}}\},`$
where $`V_{nn^{}}^1=V_{n^{}n}^1`$.

## III Effective Action for the Spin-Wave Mode

In this section, we derive the action corresponding to the spin-wave modes at quarter-filling. First, we reproduce the mean-field result of Ref.  within a saddle-point approximation. Then we consider transverse spin fluctuations arising from the dynamics of the spin-quantization axis.

### A Mean-field solution

The standard mean-field solution is recovered from a saddle-point approximation with $`𝐧=\widehat{z}`$ at each lattice site. One then has $`R_n=1`$ and $`A_0=A_x=0`$.

By minimizing the free energy with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}`$, we obtain the self-consistent mean-field equations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}\rho _{sn}_{\mathrm{MF}},`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}}{}}V_{nn^{}}\rho _{cn^{}}_{\mathrm{MF}}.`$ (2)
The average $`_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ is to be calculated with the mean-field action

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}^2+\beta {\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}V_{nn^{}}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn^{}}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle }d\tau \{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\varphi _n^{}(_\tau \mu 2i\mathrm{\Delta }_{cn}\mathrm{\Delta }_{sn}\sigma _z)\varphi _n`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}\varphi _n^{}t_{nn^{}}\varphi _n^{}\}.`$
At quarter-filling, the mean-fields $`\rho _{sn}_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ and $`\rho _{cn}_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ are periodic with a periodicity of four lattice spacings. They can be written as

$`\rho _{sn}_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{3}{}}}S_me^{imQ_0n},`$ (6)
$`\rho _{cn}_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{3}{}}}D_me^{imQ_0n},`$ (7)
where $`Q_0=2k_\mathrm{F}=\pi /2`$. Since $`\rho _{cn}_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ and $`\rho _{sn}_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ are real quantities, one finds $`D_0=D_0^{},D_1=D_3^{},D_2=D_2^{}`$ and $`S_0=S_0^{},S_1=S_3^{},S_2=S_2^{}`$. In Eqs. (6) and (7), $`S_0=0`$ due to the absence of ferromagnetism and $`D_0=1/2`$ for a quarter-filled band. From Eqs. (1)-(7), the final form of the mean-field action is obtained as

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{U}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}(|D_1|^2|S_1|^2){\displaystyle \frac{U}{4}}(D_2^2S_2^2)V({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}D_2^2)V_2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}2|D_1|^2+D_2^2)\right]`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle }d\tau \{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _k^{}(_\tau \mu +{\displaystyle \frac{U}{4}}+V+V_22t\mathrm{cos}k)\varphi _k`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _k^{}({\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}(D_1S_1\sigma _z)2V_2D_1)\varphi _{kQ_0}+c.c.]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _k^{}({\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}(D_2S_2\sigma _z)2VD_2+2V_2D_22it_\mathrm{d}\mathrm{sin}k)\varphi _{k2Q_0}\},`$
where $`\varphi _k=(1/\sqrt{N})_ne^{ikn}\varphi _n`$ and $`N`$ is the number of lattice sites. The action (11) agrees with the mean-field Hamiltonian obtained previously by the conventional method.

### B Fluctuations

In the long-wavelength limit, collective modes can be separated into sliding (charge) modes and spin-wave modes. In this paper, we consider only transverse (acoustic) spin-wave modes (i.e. magnons). These modes show up in the fluctuations of the unit vector field $`𝐧`$. They do not couple to charge modes and gapped spin-wave modes. We shall make the following two approximations: (i) We neglect the coupling to long-wavelength spin fluctuations \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(q)`$ with $`|q|Q_0`$\]. In the Hubbard model ($`V=V_2=0`$), this coupling is known to renormalize the spin-wave velocity by the factor $`[1UN(0)]^{1/2}`$ in the weak-coupling limit \[$`N(0)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level\]; (ii) We also neglect any possible coupling to spin fluctuations at wave-vector $`2Q_0+q`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(2Q_0+q)`$ with $`|q|Q_0`$\].

When two SDW’s coexist in the ground-state, our formalism can only yield the “in-phase” modes where the two spin-density waves oscillate in phase. It misses the modes where the oscillations are out-of-phase.  These modes are gapped and do not couple to the “in-phase” modes considered in this paper.

Before proceeding with the spin-wave mode analysis, let us discuss the limit of validity of our approach. The spin-wave modes will be obtained by expanding about the (Hartree-Fock) mean-field state. Such an approach should hold (at least qualitatively) as long as the interaction is smaller than the bandwidth, i.e. $`U,V,V_24t`$. Nevertheless, it does not necessary break down in the strong-coupling limit. In the context of the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Schrieffer et al. have shown that an RPA analysis of the fluctuations about the mean-field state in the limit $`Ut`$ agrees with the conclusions obtained from the Heisenberg model with exchange constant $`J=4t^2/U`$.

Another limitation of our approach comes from the analysis of the fluctuations of the unit vector $`𝐧`$. As will become clear below, the main assumption is that $`𝐧`$ is a slowly varying field, thus allowing a gradient expansion. Whereas this assumption is perfectly valid in the weak-coupling limit ($`U,V,V_24t`$), it breaks down in the strong-coupling limit. In the latter, one should write $`𝐧_n=𝐧_n^{\mathrm{slow}}+\mathrm{cos}(n\pi /2)𝐋_n`$ where $`𝐧_n^{\mathrm{slow}}`$ is a slowly varying field and $`𝐋_n`$ a small perpendicular component ($`𝐋_n𝐧_n^{\mathrm{slow}}=0`$ and $`|𝐋_n||𝐧_n^{\mathrm{slow}}|1`$).  The effective action of the spin-wave modes, $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝐧^{\mathrm{slow}}]`$, is then obtained by integrating out both the fermions and the (small) transverse component $`𝐋_n`$. For $`V=V_2=0`$, this allows to interpolate smoothly between the weak-coupling regime and the strong-coupling regime which is well described by the Heisenberg model.

Long-wavelength transverse spin fluctuations correspond to fluctuations of the SU(2) gauge fields $`A_0`$ and $`A_x`$ \[Eqs. (2.26a) and (2.26b)\] which are rewritten as

$`A_{0n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y,z}{}}A_{0n}^\nu \sigma _\nu ,`$ (12)
$`A_{xn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y,z}{}}A_{xn}^\nu \sigma _\nu .`$ (13)
From eqs. (25), (11), (12) and (13), we write the action of the spin degrees of freedom as

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{\mathrm{MF}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \varphi _n^{}A_{0n}\varphi _n}`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \varphi _n^{}\left[t_{nn^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i_n^n^{}𝑑lA_{xl}\right)t_{nn^{}}\right]\varphi _n^{}}.`$
To order $`O`$($`A_x^2`$) we obtain

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{\mathrm{MF}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \varphi _n^{}A_{0n}\varphi _n}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau t_{nn^{}}\varphi _n^{}\left(\frac{i}{2}(nn^{})\left(A_{xn}+A_{xn^{}}\right)\frac{1}{2}A_{xn}^2\right)\varphi _n^{}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`𝒮_{\mathrm{MF}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0,x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y,z}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau j_{\mu n}^\nu A_{\mu n}^\nu }+𝒮_x^{\mathrm{dia}},`$ (18)
where $`j_{xn}^\nu `$, $`j_{0n}^\nu `$ and $`𝒮_x^{\mathrm{dia}}`$ are given by

$`j_{xn}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\delta =\pm 1}{}}\delta \left[t_{n,n+\delta }\varphi _n^{}\sigma _\nu \varphi _{n+\delta }+t_{n\delta ,n}\varphi _{n\delta }^{}\sigma _\nu \varphi _n\right],`$ (19)
$`j_{0n}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _n^{}\sigma _\nu \varphi _n,`$ (21)
$`𝒮_x^{\mathrm{dia}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}}{}}t_{nn^{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \varphi _n^{}\sigma _\nu \sigma _\nu ^{}\varphi _n^{}A_{xn}^\nu A_{xn}^\nu ^{}}.`$ (22)
The second term of Eq. (18) denotes the coupling of the gauge field $`A_{\mu n}^\nu `$ to the spin current ($`j_{xn}^\nu `$) and spin density ($`j_{0n}^\nu `$). The last term of Eq. (18), $`𝒮_x^{\mathrm{dia}}`$, is the diamagnetic contribution.

The effective action of the gauge field is obtained by integrating out the fermions in the partition function. By substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (29), one obtains the effective action up to $`O(A^2)`$ as

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{eff}}[A_\mu ^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_x^{\mathrm{dia}}_{\mathrm{MF}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,\mu ,\nu }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau j_{\mu n}^\nu _{\mathrm{MF}}A_{\mu n}^\nu }`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\mu ^{},\nu ,\nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}A_{\mu n}^\nu (\tau )}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^{}^\nu ^{}}(n,\tau ,n^{},\tau ^{})A_{\mu ^{}n^{}}^\nu ^{}(\tau ^{}),`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^{}^\nu ^{}}(n,\tau ,n^{},\tau ^{})=j_{\mu n}^\nu (\tau )j_{\mu ^{}n^{}}^\nu ^{}(\tau ^{})_{\mathrm{MF}},`$ (26)
$`𝒮_x^{\mathrm{dia}}_{\mathrm{MF}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{},\nu }{}}t_{nn^{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \varphi _n^{}\varphi _n^{}_{\mathrm{MF}}(A_{xn}^\nu )^2}.`$ (27)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^{}^\nu ^{}}`$ denotes the current-current correlation function in the mean-field state. We note that $`j_{\mu n}^\nu _{\mathrm{MF}}=0`$ in the long-wavelength limit  and that $`A_{\mu n}^\nu `$ is of the order $`O()`$. To order $`O(^2)`$), we obtain

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}}\{K_{\mathrm{MF}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y,z}{}}|A_x^\nu (\stackrel{~}{q})|^2`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\mu ^{}(=0,x)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}}{}}A_\mu ^\nu (\stackrel{~}{q})A_\mu ^{}^\nu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{q})\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^{}^\nu ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{q})\},`$
$`K_{\mathrm{MF}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}t_{nn^{}}\varphi _n^{}\varphi _n^{}_{\mathrm{MF}},`$ (30)
where $`K_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ is the mean value of the kinetic energy per site in the mean-field state. $`\stackrel{~}{q}=(q,i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bosonic Matsubara frequency. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^{}^\nu ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ is the Fourier transform of Eq. (26) with respect to $`n`$ and $`\tau `$. In Eq. (29), it can be evaluated at $`\stackrel{~}{q}=0`$ since $`A_\mu ^\nu O()`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^xj_\mu ^{}^y}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^xj_\mu ^{}^z}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^yj_\mu ^{}^z}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^\nu j_x^\nu }(\stackrel{~}{q})|_{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}=0`$. Taking the continuum limit $`n\xi `$ (with $`\xi `$ a real continuous variable) and writing $`A_{\mu n}^\nu =A_\mu ^\nu (\xi ,\tau )`$, the effective action (29) is rewritten as

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y,z}{}}\left\{K_{\mathrm{MF}}|A_x^\nu (\stackrel{~}{q})|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}|A_\mu ^\nu (\stackrel{~}{q})|^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^\nu }\right\}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi 𝑑\tau \left\{\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}\right)\underset{\nu =x,y}{}A_x^{\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\xi ,\tau )+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^xj_0^x}\underset{\nu =x,y}{}A_0^{\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\xi ,\tau )\right\}}`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}}\left\{\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^zj_x^z}\right)|A_x^z(\stackrel{~}{q})|^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^zj_0^z}|A_0^z(\stackrel{~}{q})|^2\right\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^\nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^\nu j_\mu ^\nu }(\stackrel{~}{q}=0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^xj_\mu ^x}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^yj_\mu ^y}`$. Here we note the identities $`K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^zj_x^z}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^zj_0^z}=0`$, which can be deduced from the gauge invariance of Eq. (18) (Appendix A). We have verified numerically the validity of these identities. Finally, noting that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y}{}}A_x^{\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\xi ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\xi 𝐧)^2,`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =x,y}{}}A_0^{\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\xi ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\tau 𝐧)^2,`$ (35)
we obtain the following final expression for the effective action of the spin-wave modes  (Appendix A):

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi 𝑑\tau \left\{\chi (_\tau 𝐧)^2+\rho (_\xi 𝐧)^2\right\}},`$ (36)
where $`\chi `$ and $`\rho `$ are the uniform transverse spin susceptibility and the spin stiffness, respectively:

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`S_\nu S_\nu _{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}^{\mathrm{MF}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^\nu j_0^\nu },(\nu =x,y),`$ (37)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^\nu j_x^\nu }\right),(\nu =x,y).`$ (38)
From Eq. (36) we deduce the spin-wave velocity

$`v=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\chi }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (39)
In the incommensurate case, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^\nu j_x^\nu }0`$ in the weak coupling limit so that $`\rho =K_{\mathrm{MF}}/4`$.  As shown in the next section, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^\nu j_x^\nu }`$ gives rise to a contribution of the same order as $`K_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ in the quarter-filled case when the on-site interaction $`U`$ is of the order of the bandwidth. In Eqs. (37) and (38), $`j_\mu ^\nu `$ and $`K`$ can be expressed as \[$`\varphi _k=(\varphi _k,\varphi _k)^t`$, $`\nu =x,y`$\]

$`j_0^\nu (\stackrel{~}{q}=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _k^{}\sigma _\nu \varphi _k,`$ (40)
$`j_x^\nu (\stackrel{~}{q}=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(2t\mathrm{sin}k\varphi _k^{}\sigma _\nu \varphi _k`$ (42)
$`2it_\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}k\varphi _k^{}\sigma _\nu \varphi _{k+2Q_0}),`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(2t\mathrm{cos}k\varphi _k^{}\varphi _k`$ (44)
$`2it_\mathrm{d}\mathrm{sin}k\varphi _k^{}\varphi _{k+2Q_0}).`$
## IV Spin-Wave Velocity

In this section, we evaluate the spin-wave velocity at zero temperature ($`T=0`$). We take $`t=1`$ and calculate the velocity normalized to its value at $`V=V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$.

The phase diagram of the present model as a function of $`V`$ and $`V_2`$ is shown in Fig. 1 for $`U=4`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$ (solid curve). For small $`V`$ and $`V_2`$, there is a pure 2$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW state (region I). A large $`V`$ induces a phase with both a 2$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW and 4$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW (region II), while in the presence of a large $`V_2`$ there is coexistence between a 2$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW, a 2$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW and a 4$`k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW (region III). The dashed curve denotes the boundary at which a first order transition occurs between II and III. The dash-dotted curve shows the phase diagram for $`t_\mathrm{d}=0.1`$. The sliding modes are gapped in all three regions. However, the charge fluctuations become gapless at the transition between I and II. We discuss below the spin-wave velocity \[Eq. (39)\] as a function of $`V`$ and $`V_2`$ for both $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}0`$.

### A $`U`$ dependence ($`V=V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$)

The spin stiffness $`\rho `$ and the susceptibility $`\chi `$ are shown in Fig. 2(a) as a function of $`U`$ for $`V=V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$. Both $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ are almost constant for small $`U`$ and decrease monotonically for large $`U`$. The inset shows the corresponding $`U`$-dependence for $`K_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}`$ which determine $`\rho `$ \[Eq. (38)\]. A behavior similar to

the incommensurate case is seen for $`U2`$: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}`$ is vanishingly small, and $`\chi `$, $`\rho `$ and $`K_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ are almost constant with respect to $`U`$. The limiting values for small $`U`$ are given by $`\chi =1/(2\sqrt{2}\pi )0.113`$, $`K_{\mathrm{MF}}=2\sqrt{2}/\pi 0.90`$, and $`v=\sqrt{2}`$. The variation of these quantities for $`U2`$ comes from the effect of commensurability at quarter-filling.
In Fig. 2(b) (solid curve), we show the spin-wave velocity $`v`$ \[Eq. (39)\], which is almost independent of $`U`$ although slightly suppressed at large $`U`$. Here we note that we have neglected the coupling to long-wavelength spin fluctuations. In the Hubbard model ($`V=V_2=0`$), the spin-wave velocity $`v=(\rho /\chi )^{1/2}`$ becomes $`(\rho /\chi )^{1/2}[12\chi U]^{1/2}`$ when this coupling is taken into account within the RPA.  One obtains $`12\chi U=1UN(0)`$ in the weak-coupling limit where $`N(0)=1/\sqrt{2}\pi `$ at quarter-filling. In Fig. 2(b), we show $`v`$ and $`v[12\chi U]^{1/2}`$ (dashed curve). The open circles denote the exact result for the one-dimensional Hubbard model.  For $`U2`$, the RPA result turns out to be a good approximation, while the difference becomes noticeable at larger $`U`$. Nevertheless we use $`v=(\rho /\chi )^{1/2}`$ as a first step to examine the spin-wave velocity as the function of $`V`$ and $`V_2`$. The present calculation is performed by choosing $`U=4`$, which leads to $`v1.29`$ for $`V=V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$.

### B $`V`$ dependence ($`V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$)

Now we consider the $`V`$ dependence of the spin-wave velocity for $`V_2=0`$, $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$ and $`U/t=4`$. Contrary to the weak-coupling limit which can be studied analytically as the incommensurate case, this intermediate coupling regime requires numerical calculation. Figure 3 shows the $`V`$-dependence of $`v`$, $`\chi `$ and $`\rho `$ (all quantities are normalized to their value at $`V=V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$). The arrow indicates the critical value $`V_c=0.34`$ separating regions I ($`S_10`$) and II ($`S_1,D_20`$). In region II ($`V>V_c`$), both $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ decrease for decreasing $`V`$. The stronger decrease of $`\rho `$ results in a decrease of the spin-wave velocity. For large $`V`$, both the spin stiffness

and the spin-wave velocity vanish. It seems that the decrease of $`v`$ in region II mainly comes from the reduction of kinetic energy due to the formation of the $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$-CDW. Note that the spin-wave velocity is discontinuous at the critical value $`V=V_c`$. The small jump at $`V_c`$ originates in the discontinuity of $`S_1`$ and $`D_2`$ (see inset of Fig. 3) which is found only for $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$.

### C $`V_2`$ dependence ($`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$)

In this section, we analyze the $`V_2`$ dependence of the spin-wave velocity for $`U=4`$, $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$ and different values of $`V`$.

Figure 4 shows $`v/v^0`$, $`\chi /\chi ^0`$ and $`\rho /\rho ^0`$ in the case $`V=0`$ (the inset shows $`S_1`$, $`D_1`$ and $`S_2`$ as a function of $`V_2`$). There is a transition between regions I and III at the critical value $`V_{2c}`$. $`v/v^0`$, $`\chi /\chi ^0`$ and $`\rho /\rho ^0`$ are constant for $`V_2<V_{2c}`$, and decrease for $`V_2>V_{2c}`$ (note that $`v`$ actually slightly increases at large $`V_2`$). However, all these quantities remain finite in the limit of large $`V_2`$. This is to be contrasted to the large-$`V`$ limit (region II) where the spin-wave velocity vanishes (Fig. 3). Such a behavior can be understood as follows. For $`V_2\mathrm{}`$ (region III), the spin- and charge-density waves in the ground-state are of the type ($``$,$``$,0,0) and (1,1,0,0), respectively. Our numerical calculation shows that this behavior already shows up for $`V_2/t4`$. In this limit ($`V_2/t4`$), the one-dimensional chain divides into independent two-site clusters. For this problem, one can find the exact expression of the spin-wave velocity (Appendix B):

$`v/v^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\chi }}\right)^{1/2}/v^0=(tt_\mathrm{d})/v^0.`$ (1)
For $`U=4`$, $`v^0=1.286`$, so that $`v/v^0=`$ 0.777. For $`V_2/t=4`$ and 13, the numerical calculation gives $`v/v^0=`$ 0.763 and 0.776, respectively, in excellent agreement with the analytical result of the two-site problem.

Now we consider the $`V_2`$-dependence of $`\chi /\chi ^0`$, $`\rho /\rho ^0`$ and $`v/v^0`$ for $`V=`$ 0, 1, 2 and 3. For $`V=1`$, there is first a transition from region II to region I, and then a transition from I to III. For $`V=2`$ or 3, there is a single transition occuring between II and III. The ratio $`\chi /\chi ^0`$ and $`\rho /\rho ^0`$ (inset) exhibit a similar behavior (Fig. 5(a)). They are constant in region I, and increase (decrease) in II (III) when $`V_2`$ increases. Figure 5(b) shows the spin-wave velocity $`v/v^0`$ which turns out to be mainly determined by $`\rho /\rho ^0`$. Except in region I and for large values of $`V_2`$, $`v`$ varies strongly as a function of $`V_2`$.

Here we comment on the fact that $`v`$ remains finite at large $`V_2`$. Within the mean-field treatment, which is expected to be valid for a moderate coupling between chains, both $`\chi `$ and $`\rho `$ remain finite at large $`V_2`$. On the other hand, for one-dimensional systems it is known from bosonization that $`\chi `$ vanishes at large $`V_2`$ due to the formation of a spin gap.  Thus, we expect our mean-field analysis in region III of Fig. 1 to break down when the interchain coupling becomes sufficiently small.

### D Effect of dimerization

Finally, we consider the effect of dimerization on the spin-wave velocity $`v`$. Figure 6(a) shows the $`V`$-dependence for $`U=4`$, $`V_2=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$ (solid curve), 0.1 (dotted curve), 0.3 (dashed curve) and 0.5 (dash-dotted curve). The effect of dimerization is large in region I, but rather small in region II. A finite $`t_\mathrm{d}`$ increases the band gap. This induces a suppression of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}`$ and $`\rho `$, and leads ultimately to a reduction of the spin-wave velocity. We note that the reduction of $`S_1`$ and $`D_2`$ in region II by the dimerization has little effect on $`v`$, since the dependence of $`S_1`$ and $`D_2`$ on dimerization is very small for $`V4`$.

Figure 6(b) shows the $`V_2`$-dependence of $`v`$ for $`U=4`$, $`V=0`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}=0`$ (solid curve), 0.1 (dotted curve), 0.3 (dashed curve) and 0.5 (dash-dotted curve). The effect of dimerization is noticeable in both regions I and III. The limiting behavior for large $`V_2`$ is given by Eq. (1). In that limit, the SDW exists for $`U>2(tt_\mathrm{d})`$ and the spin-wave velocity $`v`$ depends only on $`t`$ and $`t_\mathrm{d}`$.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, the nearest and next-nearest neighbor interactions strongly affects the spin-wave velocity in the intermediate coupling regime $`U4t`$. Our main results are as follows. (i) In the pure SDW state (region I), the spin-wave velocity $`v`$ is independent of the nearest ($`V`$) and next-nearest ($`V_2`$) interaction (Fig. 3). (ii) For coexisting $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW and $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW (region II), $`v`$ decreases (increases) as a function of $`V`$ ($`V_2`$) \[Figs. 3 and 5(b)\]. It is slightly discontinuous at the transition between I and II and vanishes (as well as the spin stiffness) at large $`V`$ (Fig. 3). (iii) For coexisting $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW, $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ CDW and $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ SDW (region III), $`v`$ is suppressed by $`V_2`$. It tends to a finite value at large $`V_2`$ \[Figs. 4 and 5(b)\]. (iv) The dimerization decreases the spin-wave velocity \[Figs. 6(a) and (b)\].

As discussed in Sec. III.B, our approach is limited to the weak to intermediate coupling regime and should hold when $`U,V,V_24t`$. In the half-filled Hubbard model, a strong coupling is known to reduce the spin-wave velocity from $`v=O(t)`$ to $`v=O(J)`$ (with $`J=4t^2/Ut`$). We also expect a decrease of the spin-wave velocity in the more general case we have studied when $`U,V,V_2`$ become larger than $`4t`$. Therefore, our main conclusion (a reduction of the spin-wave velocity by the interactions $`V,V_2`$) is likely to be strengthened by strong coupling effects. The Stoner factor $`(12\chi U)^{1/2}`$, which arises from the coupling to long-wavelength spin fluctuations, was not considered in our analysis. It leads to a decrease of $`v`$ when the on-site interaction $`U`$ increases. Whether the Stoner factor depends on the interactions $`V`$ and $`V_2`$ remains an open question.

In the compounds that have been studied experimentally,  the Bechgaard salts (TMTSF)<sub>2</sub>PF<sub>6</sub> and (TMTSF)<sub>2</sub>AsF<sub>6</sub>, and the Fabre salt (TMTTF)<sub>2</sub>Br, the electron-electron interaction is expected to be in the intermediate coupling regime ($`U4t`$). Furthermore, estimates by Mila and quantum-chemistry calculations have revealed the finite-range part of the Coulomb potential, the first-neighbor interaction $`V`$ being equal or even larger than $`U/2`$. We therefore think that our conclusions are relevant to the Bechgaard-Fabre salts studied in Refs.  and .

## Acknowledgments

We (Y.T. and Y.S.) thank H. Sakanaka for useful discussion. This work was financially supported by Université Paris–Sud, France and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (Grant No.09640429), Japan. It was also supported by Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST), Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST).

## A Derivation of eq. (3.22)

We rewrite Eq. (31) as

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi 𝑑\tau \left\{\chi (_\tau 𝐧)^2+\rho (_\xi 𝐧)^2\right\}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}}\left\{\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^zj_x^z}\right)|A_x^z(\stackrel{~}{q})|^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^zj_0^z}|A_0^z(\stackrel{~}{q})|^2\right\},`$ (A1)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ are given by

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^yj_x^y}\right),`$ (A2)
and

$`\chi =S_\nu S_\nu _{\mathrm{MF}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^\nu j_0^\nu },\nu =x,y.`$ (A3)
To show that the second term of Eq. (A1) vanishes, we use the invariance of the action under the gauge transformation $`A_\mu ^z(\xi ,\tau )A_\mu ^z(\xi ,\tau )+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\tau )`$ ($`\mu =\xi `$ or $`\tau `$) . This transformation corresponds to a rotation of $`𝐧_{\mathrm{MF}}=\widehat{z}`$ around the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis and does not change the state of the system. The invariance of the action in this gauge transformation implies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}}\left\{\left(K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^zj_x^z}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_x^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{q})|^2iA_x^z(\stackrel{~}{q})q_x\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{q})\right]+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^zj_0^z}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{q})|^2+iA_0^z(\stackrel{~}{q})\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{q})\right]\right\}=0.`$ (A4)
Since Eq. (A4) should be valid for an arbitrary function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we deduce

$`K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^zj_x^z}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A5)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^zj_0^z}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A6)
which lead to the vanishing of the second line of Eq. (A1).

Equations (A5) and (A6) can also be obtained from the U(1) electromagnetic field gauge invariance. Noting that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^zj_\mu ^z}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_\mu ^0j_\mu ^0}`$, Eqs. (A5) and (A6) can be rewritten as

$`K_{\mathrm{MF}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^0j_x^0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_0^0j_0^0}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (A8)
We recognize here the components of the polarization tensor for the usual U(1) electromagnetic gauge field. Equations (A7) and (A8) follow from (electromagnetic) gauge invariance.

## B Limiting case of large $`V_2`$

When $`V_2\mathrm{}`$, the mean-field solution in region III corresponds to that of a half-filled two-site system given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`(tt_\mathrm{d}){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (B2)
$`+U\left(n_1n_1+n_2n_2\right)+V{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}n_{1\sigma }n_{2\sigma ^{}},`$
where $`n_{1\sigma }(n_{2\sigma })=C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{1\sigma }(C_{2\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma })`$ and $`C_{1\sigma }^{}(C_{2\sigma }^{})`$ denote the creation operators of an electron at site 1 (2) with spin $`\sigma `$. The mean-field equations are given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{1\sigma }={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}C_{2\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (B3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{1\sigma }\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (B4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}C_{2\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma }\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (B5)
where the average $``$ is performed with the mean-field Hamiltonian

$`H_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`(tt_\mathrm{d}){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma }+h.c.)`$ (B9)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}[({\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}+V\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta })C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{1\sigma }`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}+V+\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta })C_{2\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma }]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2.`$
From Eqs. (B3), (B4), (B5) and (B9), the self-consistency equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is expressed as

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U/2}{\sqrt{[(U/2)\mathrm{\Delta }]^2+(tt_\mathrm{d})^2}}},`$ (B10)
where $`\mu =U/2+V`$ at half-filling. The solution of Eq. (B10) is obtained as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(tt_\mathrm{d})}{U}}\right)^2},`$ (B11)
for $`U/(tt_\mathrm{d})>2`$. By using Eq. (B11), we compute the uniform transverse spin susceptibility ($`\chi ^{}`$) and the spin stiffness ($`\rho ^{}`$):

$`\chi ^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}=1,2}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}j_0^x(n)j_0^x(n^{})|_{i\mathrm{\Omega }=0}\right]`$ (B12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2U}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(tt_\mathrm{d})^2}{U^3}},`$ (B13)
$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(K^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}^{}\right)`$ (B14)
$`=`$ $`(tt_\mathrm{d})^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2U}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(tt_\mathrm{d})^2}{U^3}}\right),`$ (B15)
where the kinetic energy per site ($`K^{}`$) and the spin current-current correlation function ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}^{}`$) are given by

$`K^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(tt_\mathrm{d}){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(C_{1\sigma }^{}C_{2\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (B16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(tt_\mathrm{d})^2}{U}},`$ (B17)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j_x^xj_x^x}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}=1,2}{}}j_x^x(n)j_x^x(n^{})|_{i\mathrm{\Omega }=0}`$ (B18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8(tt_\mathrm{d})^4}{U^3}},`$ (B19)
with

$`j_0^x(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}C_{n,\sigma }^{}C_{n,\sigma },`$ (B20)
$`j_x^x(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(tt_\mathrm{d})}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left(C_{1,\sigma }^{}C_{2,\sigma }C_{2,\sigma }^{}C_{1,\sigma }\right).`$ (B21)
By noting that $`\chi =\chi ^{}/2`$ and $`\rho =\rho ^{}/2`$, we obtain the spin-wave velocity of the one-dimensional system \[Eq. (1)\] in the limit $`V_2\mathrm{}`$ as

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\chi }}\right)^{1/2}=tt_\mathrm{d}.`$ (B22)