text:
# Poisson equation and self-consistent periodical Anderson model

## I Introduction

The local density approximation (LDA) to density functional theory (DFT) is working surprisingly well in many cases for which is is expected not to work at all. One of its most important features is that the self-consistent procedure provides a quite accurate distribution of the charge density, calculated from the Kohn-Sham equation  which is more accurate than the Poisson equation It is also important to understand why the form of the potential which has been derived from the theory of a *homogeneous* electron gas with the charge density which includes contributions from the localized electrons (the extreme case of non-homogeneity) works so well. Below we will show that, at least, the Poisson equation can be formulated also in the case of strongly correlated system, where some part of the electrons are either fully or partly localized. One the one hand, physically it is clear that the role played by the localized (core) electrons in the formation of the potential is the screening of the nuclear potential experienced by the conduction electrons (which contribute to the cohesive energy). The localized electrons do not contribute to the cohesive energy and, therefore, the error, coming from an insufficient description of the core electrons is not so essential for the properties derived from a calculation of the total energy at zero temperature. On the other hand, the experience accumulated using the LDA-DFT shows that it fails to describe the properties, which require information about (quasi)localized electrons, like photo-electron spectroscopy experiments, or exchange interaction between localized electrons in magnetic insulators, semiconductors, etc. In these cases, methods either completely based on the field theory or the ones combining the field-theory and DFT, are desirable. The models often used are the Anderson impurity and periodical models and here we will discuss mainly the periodical model. There are two ways for providing methods combining DFT and field theory. The first way is the following. The field operators can be constructed using the functions generated within a LDA-DFT calculation and a correction, constructed from the difference $`^{int}=^{full}^{LDA}`$, can be used to correct the electronic structure generated by the initial LDA calculation . The motivation for using the LDA-DFT basis here is that one can expect compensation by the LDA potential from those part of the self-energy for the conduction electrons, which corresponds to a static random phase approximation . This way, however, involves complex calculations of the matrix elements of the Coulomb interaction and frequency-dependent magnitudes, like the self-energy, that in practice such calculations are quite hard to perform . The other way, much more often used, is some mapping to the Anderson or Hubbard models. Then, two difficulties arise. First, the question about double counting of some of the interactions, and also how to calculate the parameters of the model which is chosen for treating correlations. Second, the model calculations often involve a redistribution of spectral weights between low- and high-energy regions and a redistribution of the charge density caused by it. The latter is never taken into account in the model calculations. It is especially important since any redistribution of charge involves a large Coulomb energy. This is especially important when the Anderson model is used for discussing magnetic properties. These properties are determined by the effective exchange integral $`V^2/U`$ (where $`V`$ is the mixing and $`U`$ is the Hubbard on-site repulsion) and, therefore, involves *small* energies. Calculations of this small energy difference, having neglected a possibly greater Coulomb energy, can easily lead to a misinterpretation of the experimental data. It is also important that the mixing interaction is representation dependent and, therefore, for the description of a real system within a model it is important to define clearly what is mixing interaction for that special case. This shows the need for a formulation which allows for a self-consistent calculation of the parameters of the model together with the charge density. Such an opportunity arise in a natural way if one starts with the full Hamiltonian and treat the single-ion Coulomb interactions in some approximation which takes into account the strong local electron correlations. Such a scheme has been suggested earlier , however, the strong electron correlations (SEC) have been treated within the slave-boson technique which at present seems to be unsatisfactory for reasons which we will not discuss here (see, Ref. ). Here we will discuss the parameters of the Anderson model within the same scheme, using the definitions of the operators in a non-orthogonal basis set different from Ref. , but coinciding with the ones used in Ref.  and . We have discussed a way to calculate the single-site Coulomb repulsion parameter, Hubbard $`U`$, earlier . Here we pay attention mainly to the mixing interaction. The organization of the paper is as follows. In section II we rewrite the Hamiltonian in an non-orthogonal basis set, and construct the many-electron operators. Using a saddle point approximation we get the Poisson equation for the SEC system. In section III we show how the periodical Hubbard-Anderson model appears using the results of section II. In section IV we discuss the mixing parameter entering the model, and in section V we conclude with a discussion.

## II The Poisson Equation in the System with SEC

Here we reformulate the derivation given in Ref. , using the same ideology of separating the electrons in core and valence states. The zero level Hamiltonian is the one considered in Ref. , but within a non-orthogonal basis set and, what is more important, here we avoid the slave-boson technique in favor of the diagram technique from the atomic limit developed in Ref. . Let us consider an ion which has $`n`$ $`f`$-electrons in the ground state. Then, only the transitions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n\pm 1}`$ will be allowed in the spectrum of excitations while all other transitions like $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n\pm 2},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n\pm 3}`$, involving a larger number of electrons, will be strongly suppressed by the large energy separation between these states. If the energy of the atomic-like transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n+1)}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{(n)}`$ between an $`(n+1)`$ and $`n`$-electron state, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, of the $`f`$-ion is much higher than the Fermi energy, $`\epsilon _F`$, the number of $`f`$-electrons in the ion will be fixed. Indeed, in this limit this upper ”single-electron” level is empty while the lower one, even if it forms a band, will be fully filled. In the rare earth elements the populated part of the $`f`$-spectral density corresponding to the transitions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1E_{(n)}E_{(n1)}`$ is much below $`\epsilon _F`$ (except for Ce, and perhaps Sm). It can be also much below the bottom of the conduction-electron bands. When an orbital has such a low energy, the mixing interaction, as well as overlap between these core-like levels and conduction electrons are negligible . This physical picture exactly corresponds to the type of *ab initio* calculation where the $`f`$-electrons are kept in the core. One can use the many-electron functions for the description of the ground state of an ion from DFT-LDA-based calculations too. All electrons in this case experience the same potential. As has been shown in Ref. , this picture is valid when the energy of the upper transition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=E_{(n+1)}E_n`$, is much above Fermi energy. However, the photo-electron spectroscopy experiments show that even in rare earth elements, for which this picture seems to be most appropriate, the level $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ is sometimes only slightly above $`\epsilon _F`$ . Therefore, due to mixing interaction and, possibly, hopping, a band with mixed $`f`$\- and conduction electron states  can be formed. As discussed in details in Ref. , this leads to shifts of spectral weights from integer values and a violation of the single-electron picture. These spectral weights, therefore, must enter the expression for the charge density in the Poisson equation. Besides, they control the strength of the mixing and hopping. Let us derive the Poisson equation which contains the information about these spectral weights and is valid not only for zero temperature. Here, we will not consider the formation of phonons and scattering processes which involve them, nor plasmons.

### A The Hamiltonian in a Non-Orthogonal Basis Set

An orthogonalization procedure of the wave-functions belonging to different ions leads to a coupling of the states. This makes it difficult to separate the strongest single-site interactions. Therefore, the local strong interactions between $`f`$-electrons can most easily be taken into account in the *non-orthogonal* site representation. For this reason we will, to some extent, use the technique developed previously  (below referred to as I). The delocalized electrons are treated within the weak-coupling perturbation theory (WCPT), while the localized (or semi-localized) within the strong-coupling theory (SCPT), see I. In order to introduce, for the $`f`$-operators (and other core electrons), the many-electron representation we rewrite the field operator, $`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma (𝐫)`$, in the $`jL`$-representation

$`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma (𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐪e^{i𝐪𝐫}\varphi _{jL}(𝐫)a_{jL}},`$ (1)
$`a_{jL}`$ $`=`$ $`[(1\delta _{L,\mu })c_{jL}+\delta _{L,\mu }f_{j\mu }].`$ (2)
Here, $`jR_j`$ is the site, $`L(l,m_l,s=1/2,\sigma )`$, $`l`$ is the orbital moment, $`m_l`$ is its projection to the $`z`$-axis, $`s`$ is electron spin and $`\sigma `$ its projection to the same axis $`\mu `$ indicates localized electrons. In Eq.(2) we have separated all electrons to two classes: core electrons, $`f_{j\mu }`$, which either remain fully localized in solids, or only partly delocalized, and delocalized electrons, $`c_{jL}`$, which will be described in $`𝐤`$-space in regular crystals. Since the essential part of the work to be done concerns the localized electrons, it is reasonable to formulate the approach in the site representation first. The basis functions $`\varphi _{jL}(𝐫)`$ are in general not orthogonal to each other,

$$d𝐫\varphi _{jL}^{}(𝐫)\varphi _{j^{}L^{}}^{}(𝐫)=𝒪_{jL,j^{}L^{}}.$$
(3)
therefore, from $`\{\psi _\sigma (𝐫),\psi _\sigma ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})\}=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$, we see that

$$\{a_{jL}^{},a_{j^{}L^{}}^{}\}=𝒪_{jL,j^{}L^{}}^1,$$
(4)
where $`𝒪_{jL,j^{}L^{}}^1`$ is the $`(jL,j^{}L^{})`$-matrix element of the inverse of the overlap matrix $`𝐎`$.

The full Hamiltonian is

$`={\displaystyle d𝐫\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫)\left[\frac{p^2}{2m}\underset{j}{}\frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐫𝐑_j|}C_{\mathrm{}}\right]\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫)}+_{nn}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d𝐫d𝐫^{}\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫)\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫)v(𝐫𝐫^{})\psi _\sigma ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})\psi _\sigma ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})},`$ (6)
$`_{nn}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_iZ_je^2}{|𝐑_i𝐑_j|}},`$ (7)
where $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the infinite constant $`\mathrm{d}𝐫\mathrm{d}𝐫^{}\delta 𝐫𝐫^{})v(𝐫𝐫^{})_\sigma ^{}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ which arose when we transformed $`\psi _1^{}\psi _2^{}v(1,2)\psi _2^{}\psi _1^{}`$ into $`\psi _1^{}\psi _1^{}v(1,2)\psi _2^{}\psi _2^{}`$. We omit this constant below, since it does not influence the physics. Let us rewrite the Hamiltonian in the representation using the functions $`\varphi _{jL}(𝐫)`$ (which can also be defined in different ways and we shall discuss it later). Using the expansion in Eq.(1) inserted into Eq.(6) gives

$`=_{nn}+{\displaystyle \underset{j_2L_2,j_3L_3}{}}h_{j_2L_2,j_3L_3}^0a_{j_2L_2}^{}a_{j_3L_3}^{}`$ (8)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{jL\}}{}}v_{j_2L_2,j_3L_3,j_4L_4,j_5L_5}^{}a_{j_2L_2}^{}a_{j_5L_5}^{}a_{j_3L_3}^{}a_{j_4L_4}^{}\right].`$ (9)
Here

$$h_{j_2L_2,j_3L_3}^0(j_2L_2|\left[\frac{p^2}{2m}\underset{j}{}\frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐫𝐑_j|}\right]|j_3L_3),$$
(10)
Now we assume that the nuclei are in fixed positions and separate the part of the Hamiltonian which contains on-site interactions between electrons that are treated as core electrons

$`^{ion}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}_j^{ion}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _2,\mu _3}{}}h_{j\mu _2,,j\mu _3}^0f_{j\mu _2}^{}f_{j\mu _3}^{}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mu \}}{}}v_{j\mu _2,j\mu _3,j\mu _4,j\mu _5}^{}a_{j\mu _2}^{}a_{j\mu _5}^{}a_{j\mu _3}^{}a_{j\mu _4}^{}\}.`$
The single-site part of the problem and the rest will be treated in different approximations. We want to use Hubbard operators that are usually introduced in such a way that they diagonalize the single-ion Hamiltonian

$`H_j^{ion}|j,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ $`=`$ $`E_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}|j,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,`$ (13)
$`X_j^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_m}`$ $``$ $`|j,\mathrm{\Gamma }_nj,\mathrm{\Gamma }_m|.`$ (14)
Let us now discuss how to construct them.

### B The Hubbard Operators in Terms of Fermions

We are not able to diagonalize the full Hamiltonian exactly, unless for certain model calculations, and we have to use some approximation. In order to ensure that the ground-state wave function fulfills Hunds rules, we will follow the technique by Irkhin , who translated the Racah technique, used in atomic spectroscopy  for the wave functions, into the operator language. Although this issue has been discussed in Refs. , we find the definition used not fully satisfactory and in need of a slight modification. For this reason we discuss the definition of the many-electron operators and, correspondingly, the connection between the Hubbard operators and the many-electron creation and annihilation operators and the modification needed. The creation operator for a group of $`n`$ equivalent electrons (say, in an $`f`$-shell) in the many-electron state $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}^{}|0`$ in Irkhin’s definition has the form

$$A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\underset{\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}{}G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1},\mu }^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}f_\mu ^{}A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}^{}.$$
(15)
Here $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}`$ are the fractional parentage coefficients, which do not depend on the momentum projections (if $`n2`$, $`G=1`$ and the squared coefficient, $`(G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})^2`$ , measures the fracture of the state $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}`$ in $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$); $`C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1},\mu }^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}`$ are the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients,

$$C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1},\mu }^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}C_{L_nM_L^{(n1)},lm_l}^{L_nM_L^{(n)}}C_{S_{n1}M_S^{(n1)},1/2,\sigma }^{S_nM_S^{(n)}},$$
(16)
where $`L_n,M_L^{(n)},S_n,M_S^{(n)}`$ are the orbital moment, its projection, spin moment and its projection for the $`n`$-electron configuration $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. In order to be able to calculate the commutation relations between the conduction electrons and the Hubbard operators (H-operators) as well as between the H-operators themselves, we have to express them in terms of Fermion operators. We have to provide the correct commutation relations for H-operators, belonging to the same site

$$[X^{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }},X^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\chi }]_\pm =\delta ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }}X^{\gamma \chi }\pm \delta ^{\chi \gamma }X^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(17)
If we try to define an H-operator in the form of a product of the operators $`A`$,i.e. $`X^{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}=A_\gamma ^{}A_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we should get zero if we multiply by $`X^{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_n}X^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m\chi }`$ for $`nm`$. This should be provided by the fact, that for the Fermion operators $`f^2=(f^{})^2=0`$. However, the product $`A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}^{}0`$, if $`n<m`$, because the operators $`A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}`$ do not contain information about non-filled orbitals of the shell. The operators $`A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}`$ do not provide the orthogonality of the states with different number of electrons in shell. The recipe suggested in Ref.  is to define new operators as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}^{}=A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}^{}\underset{\mu }{}(1\widehat{n}_\mu ),\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}=\underset{\mu }{}(1\widehat{n}_\mu )A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}.$$
(18)
The product should run over all non-filled orbitals. Let us consider, for example, the two-electron state composed of $`f`$-states, $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=|L=5,M_L^{(2)}=4,S=1,M_S^{(2)}=0`$. Then, the operator

$$A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}^{}=\underset{m_1m_2\sigma _1\sigma _2}{}C_{3m_1,3m_2}^{5,4}C_{1/2,\sigma _1;1/2,\sigma _2}^{1,0}f_{3m_1;1/2,\sigma _1}^{}f_{3m_2;1/2,\sigma _2}^{}$$
(19)
combines three terms (for briefness below we omit indices $`l=3`$ and spin $`s=1/2`$ :

$$A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}=\alpha [f_3^{}f_1^{}+\gamma f_2^{}f_2^{}+f_1^{}f_3^{}]$$
(20)
with $`\alpha =\sqrt{5/253},\gamma =27/\sqrt{15}`$. Now, we have to multiply this by the product of the factors $`(1\widehat{n}_\mu )`$, where $`\mu `$ runs over all empty orbitals. From this a problem is apparent: the different terms of the combinations of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients involve *different* orbitals and, therefore, it is impossible to choose a single factor which includes all empty orbitals for each term in the sum. Therefore, *each term* of the sum must be supplemented with its own factor. In this particular example the new many-electron operator should be defined as follows

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha [f_3^{}f_1^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m_13}{}}(1\widehat{n}_{m_1}){\displaystyle \underset{m_21}{}}(1\widehat{n}_{m_2})+\gamma f_2^{}f_2^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m_12}{}}(1\widehat{n}_{m_1}){\displaystyle \underset{m_22}{}}(1\widehat{n}_{m_2})`$ (22)
$`+f_1^{}f_3^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m_11}{}}(1\widehat{n}_{m_1}){\displaystyle \underset{m_23}{}}(1\widehat{n}_{m_2})]\alpha [\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(3,1)}^{}+\gamma \stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(2,2)}^{}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(1,3)}^{}].`$
Obviously, in a general case, when we construct the operator $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}`$, *each term* in the sum should be multiplied by the product of the factors $`(1\widehat{n}_{m\sigma })`$ corresponding to this term, where the set of $`\{m\sigma \}`$ includes only those orbitals which are not included in the product of the $`f`$-operators in the corresponding term of the Clebsch-Gordan sum. Let us denote this product $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$, where the bar over $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ means that it contains only complementary orbitals. In I we used the *orbital representation,* where each H-operator contains only one term, containing $`n`$ creation $`f`$-operators for the $`n`$-electron state which is multiplied by the product $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$. We we will call it *elementary operator*. In the case of Eq.(LABEL:tot\_prod:eq) these operators are $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(3,1)}^{},\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(2,2)}^{},\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(1,3)}^{}`$. We can, therefore, make the statement that any operator of a state in a central field (i.e. of the Clebsch-Gordan combination type) or in a crystal field, can be represented as a sum of elementary operators with the coefficients, which are dictated by the symmetry of the surrounding of the ion. Since the construction of the state in central field within the Racah technique is recursive, i.e. the $`n`$-electron state is composed of $`(n1)`$-electron states and one-electron states, the $`(n1)`$-one is made of the combination of $`(n2)`$-and one-electron states, and so on, this statement needs proof. Let us start with a many-electron operator, describing one localized electron in orbital $`1`$. The electron state has the form $`f_1^{}_{\nu 1}(1\widehat{n}_\nu )`$. In order to construct the state, which contain two electrons localized in the states 1 and 2, we have to multiply this operator by $`f_2^{}`$ from the left-hand side. Since $`f_2^{}(1\widehat{n}_2)=f_2^{}`$, all extra factors $`(1\widehat{n}_\nu )`$ are automatically projected out and we are back at Eq.(15). Therefore, each step to a higher number electron operator will be started again with Eq.(15). This means that the factors $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ should be added in each term of the sum in the last step only. Thus, the Hubbard operator can be written in the form

$$X^{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}=\stackrel{~}{A}_\gamma ^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(24)
where each elementary operator entering the sum for the operator $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\gamma ^{}`$ contains the projecting product $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\gamma ^{(i)}`$. The same is valid for $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}`$. Then, we can represent each $`f_{j\mu }`$-operator in any place where we meet it, particularly, in the Hamiltonian, in terms of H-operators $`X_j^aX_j^{a(\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })}X_j^{[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}`$:

$$f_{j\mu }(f_\mu )^aX_j^a.$$
(25)
Here, repeated indices are summed over. The H-operators can also be written in the Hubbard form $`X_j^{[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}|𝐑_j,n,\gamma 𝐑_j,n+1,\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ or in terms of products of Fermion operators as discussed above (here $`|𝐑_j,n,\gamma `$ and $`|𝐑_j,n+1,\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are many-electron $`n`$\- and $`(n+1)`$-particle states). Using the definition of the many-electron operators and the Hubbard operators in terms of Fermion operators one can calculate all commutation relations between the conduction electrons operators and the Hubbard operators ,

$$\{c_{jL}^{},X_j^{}^{\overline{a}}\}=O_{jL,j^{}\nu }^1f_\nu ^b\epsilon _\xi ^{b\overline{a}}Z_j^{}^\xi .$$
(26)
Here, $`a,b`$ denote the Fermi-like transitions from the $`n`$\- to ($`n+1`$)-electron state ($`a=a(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1})`$), $`\overline{a}`$ denotes the inverse transition ($`\overline{a}=\overline{a}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1},\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)`$), $`\xi =\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{})`$ and $`\epsilon _\xi ^{b\overline{a}}`$ are the structure constants of the algebra for the Hubbard operators,

$$\{X_j^b,X_j^{}^{\overline{a}}\}=\epsilon _\xi ^{b\overline{a}}Z_j^{}^\xi ,\{X_j^b,Z_j^{}^\xi \}=\epsilon _a^{b\xi }X_j^{}^a,\{X_j^{\overline{b}},Z_j^{}^\xi \}=\epsilon _{\overline{a}}^{\overline{b}\xi }X_j^{}^{\overline{a}}.$$
(27)
The summation over repeating indices is implied. A Bose-like transition is denoted as $`Z^\xi `$ and a diagonal Bose-like operator is denoted as $`h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }Z_j^{\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$.

### C The Field for the Electric Potential and the Poisson Equation

Let us introduce the Fourier-component of the charge density for the nuclei in the point $`𝐑_\alpha `$ with the charge $`Z_\alpha `$:

$$\widehat{\rho }_n(𝐪)=\underset{j}{}Z_je^{i𝐪𝐑_j}.$$
(28)
Then, the interaction between the nuclei is

$$_{nn}^{coul}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{jj^{}}{}\frac{Z_jZ_j^{}e^2}{|𝐑_j𝐑_j^{}|}=d𝐪\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪)\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪).$$
(29)
The interaction between electrons and nuclei,

$`_{en}^{coul}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle d𝐫\widehat{\rho }_e(𝐫)\frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐑_j𝐫|}}`$ (31)
$`={\displaystyle d𝐪\widehat{\rho }_e(𝐪)\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}\widehat{\rho }_n(𝐪)},`$
contains the electrons which are localized to the same nucleus, or to other ones, and those which are in a mixed state. The interaction of the localized electrons with their own nucleus is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle d𝐫\frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐫𝐑_j|}\varphi _\nu ^{}(𝐫𝐑_j)\varphi _\mu (𝐫𝐑_j)(f_\nu ^{}f_\mu ^{})^\xi Z_j^\xi }`$ (32)
$`={\displaystyle d𝐪\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}\underset{j}{}Z_jS_j^\xi (𝐪)Z_j^\xi },`$ (33)
where $`S_j^\xi `$ is the form-factor of the ion, which takes into account the contribution of the orbitals $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ into the transition $`\xi `$

$$𝒪_j^\xi (q)=𝑑re^{iqr}\varphi _{j\nu }^{}(r)\varphi _{j\mu }(r)(f_\nu ^{}f_\mu ^{})^\xi $$
(34)
and the index $`j`$ in $`\varphi _{j\mu }(𝐫)`$ denotes affiliation of this function to the ion on $`𝐑_j`$. This term is included to the Hamiltonian for the ion in this point. The term

$`{\displaystyle \underset{jn}{}}{\displaystyle d𝐫\frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐫𝐑_j|}(1\delta _{jn})\varphi _\nu ^{}(𝐫𝐑_n)}`$ (35)
$`\times \varphi _\mu (𝐫𝐑_n)(f_\nu ^{}f_\mu ^{})^\xi Z_n^\xi `$ (36)
$`={\displaystyle d𝐪\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}\underset{jn}{}[Z_je^{i𝐪𝐑_j}𝒪_n^\xi (𝐪)Z_n^\xi e^{i𝐪𝐑_n}]}`$ (37)
describes the interaction of localized electrons belonging to one ion with a nucleus of another ion. Then, the operator of an effective density of ions can be written as

$$\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪)=\underset{j}{}[Z_j\underset{\xi }{}𝒪_j^\xi (𝐪)Z_j^\xi ]e^{i𝐪𝐑_j}$$
(38)
and the interaction between all nuclei which are screened by their electrons is

$$\frac{1}{2}d𝐪\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪)\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪)_D.$$
(39)
Here, $`_D`$ takes into account the terms which are double counted in the first term, since there is no interaction of the ion with itself

$`_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝐪[Z_j{\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{}}𝒪_j^\xi (𝐪)Z_j^\xi ]{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}}[Z_j`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{}}𝒪_j^\xi (𝐪)Z_j^\xi ].`$ (41)
The terms of this interaction at small $`𝐪`$, as well as $`_D`$ itself, diverge. This is the standard problem of screening.

All other electrons belong either to the class of the transitions between different ions, or to a mixed state between conduction-electron and localized electrons, or to the conduction electrons. The operator of the charge density, $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐫(𝐪)`$, of these remaining electrons can be written as follows

$`\widehat{\rho }_𝐫(𝐪)={\displaystyle \underset{_{jLj^{}L^{}}}{}}𝒪_{jLj^{}L^{}}^{}(𝐪)c_{jL}^{}c_{j^{}L^{}}^{}`$ (42)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{_{jLj^{}L^{}}}{}}𝒪_{jLj^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(𝐪)(f_\mu ^{}^{})^ac_{jL}^{}X_j^{}^a+𝒪_{j\mu j^{}L^{}}^{}(𝐪)(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}X_j^{\overline{a}}c_{j^{}L^{}}`$ (43)
$`+(1\delta _{jj^{}}^{})𝒪_{j\mu j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(𝐪)(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^bX_j^{\overline{a}}X_j^{}^b`$ (44)
The matrices $`𝒪(𝐪)`$ are defined as

$$𝒪_{jLj^{}L^{}}(𝐪)=d𝐫e^{i𝐪𝐫}\varphi _{jL}^{}(𝐫)\varphi _{j^{}L^{}}^{}(𝐫).$$
(45)
Thus, we obtain the Hamiltonian in the many-electron representation

$$=_0+(^{coul}+T),$$
(46)
where $`T`$ is the kinetic energy, and the zero Hamiltonian is

$$_0=_0^X+_0^c=\underset{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}E_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }+h_{jL,j^{}L^{}}^{0c}c_{jL}^{}c_{j^{}L^{}}^{}.$$
(47)
Here $`_0^X`$ describes the electrons treated as core electrons when the interaction between the ions and all other electrons is switched off

$`E_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}=(j,\mathrm{\Gamma }|{\displaystyle \underset{i𝐑_j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{i𝐑_j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐑_j𝐫_i|}}`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,i^{}𝐑_j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_je^2}{|𝐫_i𝐫_i^{}|}}|j,\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$ (49)
and the function $`|j,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a many-electron wave-function. The Hamiltonian of the conduction electrons, $`_0^c`$, describes the electrons in the field of the unscreened nuclei. This will be supplemented with the self-consistent field from the electrons. The kinetic energy of the electrons which belong to one site is taken into account, while the part $`T`$ of it, which is proportional to $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐫(𝐪)`$, is not. We will treat this part of the kinetic energy as a perturbation. Thus, the full Coulomb interaction can be written as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d𝐪[\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪)\widehat{\rho }_𝐫(𝐪)]\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}[\widehat{\rho }_i(𝐪)\widehat{\rho }_𝐫(𝐪)]}`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d𝐪\widehat{\rho }_𝐪\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}\widehat{\rho }_𝐪}.`$ (51)
The partition function, written in the standard form, is

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mu N)]`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`Z_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_0}}Tr\{\mathrm{exp}[\beta _0]𝒯_\tau \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau _{int}(\tau )]\}`$ (53)
$``$ $`Z_0𝒯_\tau \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau _{int}(\tau )]^{(0)}`$ (54)
Let us write the part $`_{\rho \rho }^{coul}`$ of $`_{int}`$ in the Fourier transformed form, Eq.(44). Then, we introduce the Gaussian functional integral

$$1=D\phi _𝐪(\tau )\mathrm{exp}[_0^\beta \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{8\pi }d𝐪q^2\phi _𝐪(\tau )\phi _𝐪(\tau )]$$
(55)
under the trace of the partition function. We make the shift

$$\phi _𝐪(\tau )\phi _𝐪(\tau )+i\frac{4\pi e}{q^2}\widehat{\rho }_𝐪,$$
(56)
in this Gaussian integral. This allows us to rewrite the Coulomb interaction in terms of interaction of electrons with the random field $`\phi _𝐪(\tau )`$. This shift generates the term $`(_{\rho \rho }^{coul})`$ which cancels the $`_{\rho \rho }^{coul}`$ in the $`_{int}`$ but adds the term

$$\frac{ie}{2}_0^\beta d\tau d𝐪[\phi _𝐪(\tau )\widehat{\rho }_𝐪(\tau )+\widehat{\rho }_𝐪(\tau )\phi _𝐪(\tau )].$$
(57)
Note that, although the $`f`$-orbitals of the same site are orthogonalized, the $`𝐪0`$-components of the overlap matrix have non-zero values and, therefore, non-diagonal transitions $`\xi [\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ enter the expression for $`𝐪`$-component of the charge density. Thus, we have to work with the following expression for the partition function

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{Z_0}}={\displaystyle D\phi _𝐪(\tau )\mathrm{exp}[_0^\beta d\tau d𝐪\frac{q^2}{8\pi }\phi _𝐪(\tau )\phi _𝐪(\tau )]}`$ (58)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[\beta _i[\phi _𝐪(\tau ),\phi _𝐪(\tau )]],`$ (59)
where

$`_i[\phi _𝐪(\tau ),\phi _𝐪(\tau )]`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}𝒯_\tau \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle _0^\beta }\mathrm{d}\tau {\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝐪(T_𝐪_\rho `$
$`_D)]^{(0)},`$
$`T_𝐪`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}}\right]_𝐪\rho _𝐫(𝐪)`$ (63)
$`_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝐪[(ie\phi _𝐪(\tau )\mu )\widehat{\rho }_q(\tau )+\widehat{\rho }_𝐪(\tau )`$ (66)
$`\times (ie\phi _𝐪(\tau )\mu )],`$
$`_i^0=_0^c+_0^X.`$
Here, we have used the fact that the fields $`\phi _𝐪(\tau )`$ commute with any operator. The function $``$ is written in the form usually used for the cumulant expansion.

Since both the mixing interaction and overlap matrices are non-zero, a part of the charge is in the mixed $`cf`$-states. Besides, the $`f`$-subsystem is described in terms of *non-linear* $`X`$-operators. For these reasons we cannot describe the full contribution from the term $`\mu \widehat{N}`$ in the zero Hamiltonian. The field $`\phi _𝐪(\tau )`$ can be interpreted as the field for the electrical potential which is generated by Coulomb interaction. If we put $`e=0`$ the system does not have charged particles and, therefore, there are no contribution to the partition function from this field. At $`e0`$ in a non-homogeneous system an average charge density is not equal to zero, and, therefore, the expectation value $`\phi _𝐪(\tau )_\phi `$ is non-zero too. Taking the functional derivative of the free energy, we find that the saddle-point approximation generates the Poisson equation for this field

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi _𝐪(\tau )}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (𝒯\mathrm{ln}Z)}{\delta \phi _𝐪(\tau )}}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8\pi }}\phi _𝐪(\tau )_\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}\widehat{\rho }_𝐪(\tau )_\phi =0.`$ (68)
The static part of the field of the electrical potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ is connected with the field $`\phi `$ as follows

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)\underset{\tau 0}{lim}i\phi (𝐫,\tau )_\phi =i\phi (𝐫,0)_\phi .$$
(69)
Thus, we have the Poisson equation for the electric field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$,

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)=4\pi \widehat{\rho }_𝐪(0)_\phi ,$$
(70)
where the charge density is the difference between the densities of the delocalized electrons and ”soft” ion (where the polarization of the ion and excitations are allowed).

## III The Self-Consistent Hubbard-Anderson Model

Since the charge density, $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐪(0)_\phi `$, contains expectation values $`c_{jL}^{}c_{j^{}L^{}}^{}`$, $`c_{jL}^{}X_j^{}^a`$, $`X_j^{}^{\overline{a}}c_{jL}^{}`$, $`X_j^{\overline{a}}X_j^{}^b`$, we need expressions for them. Since the field $`\phi (𝐫,\tau )`$ contains the average static field and deviations of it

$$\phi (𝐫,\tau )=\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)+\delta \phi (𝐫,\tau ),$$
(71)
it is reasonable to start with the approximation $`i\phi _𝐪(\tau )_\phi i\phi _𝐪(0)_\phi \mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)`$, and to neglect the fluctuations of this field. Then, we obtain the following saddle-point Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐪q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)}`$ (74)
$`+{\displaystyle (h_{jL,j^{}L^{}}\mu 𝒪_{jL,j^{}L^{}})c_{jL}^{}c_{j^{}L^{}}^{}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle (E_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}n\mu )h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`T+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}{\displaystyle d𝐪[\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)\widehat{\rho }_𝐪+\widehat{\rho }_𝐪\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)]}_D.`$ (75)
Here

$$h_{jL,j^{}L^{}}=(jL|\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|j^{}L^{})$$
(76)
is the frequency matrix of the conduction electrons in the self-consistent field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$. The Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{𝐡}`$ for them can be obtained if we make a transformation to the orthogonal variables $`\alpha `$, using the Cholesky decomposition for the overlap matrix $`𝐎`$:

$`𝐜^{}(𝐡\mu 𝐎)𝐜`$ $`=`$ $`𝐜^{}[\overline{𝐙}(\overline{𝐙}^1\mathrm{𝐡𝐙}^1)𝐙\mu \overline{𝐙}𝐙]𝐜=`$ (77)
$`(𝐜^{}\overline{𝐙})[\stackrel{~}{𝐡}\mu 𝐈](\mathrm{𝐙𝐜})`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}[\stackrel{~}{𝐡}\mu 𝐈]\alpha .`$ (78)
Let us now insert into $`\stackrel{~}{}_{int}`$ the expression for $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐪`$ in the $`jL`$-representation. Taking into account that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}{\displaystyle d𝐪\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)𝒪_{jL,j^{}L^{}}(𝐪)}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}{\displaystyle d𝐫\varphi _{jL}^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)\varphi _{j^{}L^{}}^{}(𝐫)}`$ (79)
$`V_{jL,j^{}L^{}}`$ (80)
are matrix elements of the self-consistent Coulomb field, we find that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ actually gives the periodic Hubbard-Anderson Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐪q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)}`$ (89)
$`+{\displaystyle (h^{LDA}\mu 𝒪)_{jL,j^{}L^{}}^{}c_{jL}^{}c_{j^{}L^{}}^{}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle (\stackrel{~}{E}_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}n\mu )h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle }[V_{j\mu ,j\mu ^{}}(f_\mu ^{}f_\mu ^{}^{})^{\xi [\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]}Z^\xi +h.c.]`$
$`+{\displaystyle (\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{jL,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^ac_{jL}^{}X_j^{}^a}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}X_j^{\overline{a}}c_{j^{}L}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle (1\delta _{jj^{}})(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}}`$
$`\times (f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}(f_\mu ^{})^bX_j^{}^{\overline{a}}X_j^{}^b`$
$`_D.`$
Thus, within this approximation, the single-ion energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}`$ are shifted by the self-consistent field of interaction with other ions, delocalized electrons and the localized ones, but belonging to other sites: $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}=`$ $`E_{j\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{\Phi }(r)|\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ However, the self-consistent field should be found from the Poisson equation and, therefore, it contains only the Hartree part of the interaction between the collective quasi-particles. Nevertheless, this problem does not coincide with the single-particle Hartree approximation, since it contains additional information about the structure of the many-electron states $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the ion. Due to the non-linearity of the problem the approximations for the Green functions (GFs) can be used in a different form from the standard single-particle problem in the Hartree approximation. This does not only lead to different expressions for the charge density, but makes it possible to improve the approximations for the matrix elements. Thus, in spite of the fact that the static field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ fulfills the Poisson equation, in this approximation $`V_{jLj^{}L^{}}`$ does not necessarily correspond to the potential for the electrons in the Hartree approximation. Particularly, as seen from the solution of the self-consistent Anderson model, presented in Ref. , the potential depends implicitly on the many-body population numbers of the ion states already in the lowest approximation.

The exchange contribution appears in first order between electrons via the fluctuation of the field $`\phi `$, $`𝒯\delta \phi (\tau )\delta \phi (\tau ^{})`$. This study we leave for the future, however, it is interesting to note that this exchange involves also the contributions from fluctuations caused by the intra-ion transitions.

The charge density for the Poisson equation can be found from the GFs. It is clear that if it is possible to approximate this potential by a spherically symmetrical one, $`V_{j\mu j\mu ^{}}=\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}V_j,`$ then $`(f_\mu ^{}f_\mu )^\xi =\delta _{\xi ,[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]}`$ for the orbitals, $`\mu `$, occupied in the state $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The averages $`c^{}c`$, $`c^{}X`$, $`X^{}c`$, $`X^{}X`$ needed for finding $`\rho (𝐫)`$, can be found from the corresponding GFs.

## IV Mixing Interaction

Let us now rewrite the problem in a form close to the standard periodical Anderson model. This allows us to discuss different possible definitions for the matrix element of the mixing interaction. Usually the Hamiltonian of the Anderson model is written in the following form

$`^{(And)}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}\epsilon _𝐤^\sigma c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}[V_{𝐤\mu }^\sigma e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}f_{j\mu }^{}+H.c.]`$ (90)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j\{\mu \}}{}}U_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}f_{j\mu _1}^{}f_{j\mu _2}^{}f_{j\mu _3}^{}f_{j\mu _4}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j\mu }{}}ϵ_\mu f_{j\mu }^{}f_{j\mu }^{}.`$ (91)
Here $`\epsilon _𝐤^\sigma `$ is the spectrum of the conduction electrons, $`V_{𝐤\mu }^\sigma `$ is the matrix element of mixing interaction,

$$V_{𝐤\mu }^\sigma =d𝐫\varphi _𝐤^\sigma (𝐫)[\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(𝐫)]\phi _\mu (𝐫𝐑_j),$$
(92)
and $`U_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}`$ is the matrix elements of the Coulomb intra-shell interactions. For the mixing no problem arises in the case of the impurity Anderson model, since the potential in this case is the difference between the periodical potential for the conduction electrons and the potential of the impurity, although the local on-site term is equal to zero due to symmetry reasons, overlap with the orbitals of neighboring ions gives non-zero contribution (see the paper by Anderson ). In the case of the periodic Anderson model (PAM) this form of the matrix element suggests that either the potential has different symmetry from the Bloch wave functions, or the functions $`\varphi _𝐤^\sigma (r)`$ and $`\phi _\mu (𝐫𝐑_j)`$ are not orthogonal. It is not clear how to fulfill the first assumption in the case of elemental metals (like Ce metal) since we are dealing with a periodic system. In the second case

$`{\displaystyle d𝐫\varphi _𝐤^\sigma (𝐫)[\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(𝐫)]\phi _\mu ^{}(𝐫𝐑_j)}`$ (93)
$`=\epsilon _𝐤^\sigma {\displaystyle d𝐫\varphi _𝐤^\sigma (𝐫)\phi _\mu ^{}(𝐫𝐑_j)}=\epsilon _𝐤^\sigma 𝒪_{𝐤\sigma ,j\mu }^{}.`$ (94)
Therefore, in order to have a non-zero mixing, one has to work in terms of an non-orthogonal basis set, but in this case a) there is a contribution from the chemical potential to the partition function which affects the mixing, and b) the non-orthogonality causes non-zero anticommutation relations between the $`f`$\- and $`c`$-operators. This is never taken into account in model calculations.

Let us consider the consequences from our formulation. Since the mixing matrix element has a single-electron form, let us make in our saddle-point Hamiltonian a transformation that diagonalizes the conduction electrons. First we have to rewrite the Hamiltonian, Eq.(89) in $`𝐤`$-space (for the formulas to be transparent, we will write them for the case of one atom in the elementary cell, then, the single-ion matrix elements and energies do not depend on the ion index). Using the definition:

$$c_{jL}^{}=\underset{𝐤}{}e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}c_{𝐤L}^{},c_{jL}^{}=\underset{k}{}e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}c_{𝐤L}^{},$$
(95)
we find

$`\stackrel{~}{}={\displaystyle d𝐪q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)}`$ (96)
$`+{\displaystyle [h_{L,L^{}}(𝐤)\mu 𝒪_{L,L^{}}(𝐤)]c_{𝐤L}^{}c_{𝐤L^{}}^{}}`$ (97)
$`+{\displaystyle }(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}n\mu )h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle }[V_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}(f_\mu ^{}f_\mu ^{}^{})^{\xi [\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]}Z_j^\xi +h.c.]`$ (98)
$`+{\displaystyle (\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{jL,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}(f_\mu ^{})^ac_{𝐤L}^{}X_j^{}^a}`$ (99)
$`+{\displaystyle }({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}L^{}}^{}e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}X_j^{\overline{a}}c_{𝐤L}^{}]`$ (100)
$`+{\displaystyle (1\delta _{jj^{}})(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^bX_j^{}^{\overline{a}}X_j^{}^b}`$ (101)
$`_D.`$ (102)
Now we have to rewrite this in terms of the operators $`\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}=Z_𝐤^{\gamma L}c_{𝐤L}^{},\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}=c_{𝐤L}^{}\overline{Z}_𝐤^{L\gamma }`$. It is easy to see that they are orthogonal to each other

$`\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}\alpha _{𝐤\gamma ^{}}^{}+\alpha _{𝐤\gamma ^{}}^{}\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}=Z_𝐤^{\gamma L}(c_{𝐤L}^{}c_{𝐤L^{}}^{}+c_{𝐤L^{}}^{}c_{𝐤L}^{})\overline{Z}_𝐤^{L^{}\gamma ^{}}`$ (103)
$`=`$ $`Z_𝐤^{\gamma L}(𝒪^1)_{LL^{}}^{}\overline{Z}_𝐤^{L^{}\gamma ^{}}=Z_𝐤^{\gamma L}(Z_𝐤^1)^{L\gamma _1}(\overline{Z}^1)^{\gamma _1L^{}}\overline{Z}_𝐤^{L^{}\gamma ^{}}`$ (105)
$`=\delta _{\gamma \gamma ^{}}.`$
$`𝐜^{}(𝐡\mu 𝐎)𝐜`$ $`=`$ $`𝐜^{}[\overline{𝐙}(\overline{𝐙}^1\mathrm{𝐡𝐙}^1)𝐙\mu \overline{𝐙}𝐙]𝐜=`$ (106)
$`(𝐜^{}\overline{𝐙})[\stackrel{~}{𝐡}\mu 𝐈](\mathrm{𝐙𝐜})`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}[\stackrel{~}{𝐡}\mu 𝐈]\alpha .`$ (107)
Thus, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{}={\displaystyle d𝐪q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)}`$ (108)
$`+{\displaystyle [(\overline{Z}_𝐤^1)^{\gamma L}h_{L,L^{}}(𝐤)(Z_𝐤^1)^{L\gamma ^{}}\mu \delta _{\gamma \gamma ^{}}]\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}\alpha _{𝐤\gamma ^{}}^{}}`$ (109)
$`+{\displaystyle }(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}n\mu )h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle }[V_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}(f_\mu ^{}f_\mu ^{})^{\xi [\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]}Z_j^\xi +h.c.]`$ (110)
$`+{\displaystyle (\overline{Z}^1)^{\gamma L}(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{jL,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^a\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}X_j^{}^a}`$ (111)
$`+{\displaystyle (\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}L}^{}(Z_𝐤^1)^{L\gamma }(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}X_j^{\overline{a}}\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}}`$ (112)
$`+{\displaystyle (1\delta _{jj^{}})(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^bX_j^{}^{\overline{a}}X_j^{}^b}`$ (113)
$`_D.`$ (114)
At last, diagonalizing the conduction electron Hamiltonian $`\overline{𝐙}^1\mathrm{𝐡𝐙}^1`$ , we have

$`\stackrel{~}{}={\displaystyle d𝐪q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)}+{\displaystyle [\epsilon _{𝐤\lambda }\mu ]\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤\lambda }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤\lambda }^{}}`$ (115)
$`+{\displaystyle }(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}n\mu )h_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle }[V_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}(f_\mu ^{}f_\mu ^{}^{})^{\xi [\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]}Z_j^\xi +h.c.]`$ (116)
$`+{\displaystyle V_\lambda ^{\overline{a}}(k)e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}\stackrel{~}{c}_{𝐤\lambda }^{}X_j^{}^a}`$ (117)
$`+{\displaystyle e^{i𝐤𝐑_j}X_j^{\overline{a}}\alpha _{𝐤\gamma }^{}}`$ (118)
$`+{\displaystyle (1\delta _{jj^{}})(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^bX_j^{\overline{a}}X_j^{}^b}`$ (119)
$`_D,`$ (120)
where the band energy and mixing matrix elements are

$$\epsilon _{𝐤\lambda }=\vartheta _\gamma ^\lambda (𝐤)(\overline{Z}_𝐤^1)^{\gamma L}h_{L,L^{}}^{}(𝐤)(Z_𝐤^1)^{L\gamma ^{}}\vartheta _\gamma ^{}^\lambda (𝐤),$$
(121)
$`V_\lambda ^{\overline{a}}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta _\gamma ^\lambda (𝐤)(\overline{Z}^1)^{\gamma L}({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V\mu 𝒪)_{jL,j^{}\mu ^{}}^{}(f_\mu ^{}^{})^a`$ (122)
$``$ $`v_\mu ^{}^\lambda (𝐤)(f_\mu ^{}^{})^a,`$ (123)
$`V_\lambda ^{\overline{a}}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V\mu 𝒪)_{j\mu ,j^{}L}^{}(Z_𝐤^1)^{L\gamma }\theta _\gamma ^\lambda (𝐤)(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}`$ (124)
$``$ $`(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}v_\mu ^{}^\lambda (𝐤),`$ (125)
where $`\{\vartheta \}`$ diagonalizes $`\overline{𝐙}^1\mathrm{𝐡𝐙}^1`$, and $`v_i^\lambda `$ is the one-electron hybridization parameter Thus, the matrix element of the mixing interaction has to be found self-consistently together with the charge density (which in turn depends on the particular approximation in which the PAM is solved) and can be represented in the form of a sum over all localized orbitals of products of the matrix element of the single-particle potential (on the conduction electron Bloch function $`\varphi _{k\lambda }(𝐫)`$ and the localized orbital $`\chi _\mu (𝐫)`$) and the factor $`(f_\mu ^{})^a`$, which reflects the contribution of this orbital into Fermion-like transition. Irkhin  has performed the calculation of this factor for the $`4f`$-elements making use of the Racah technique leaving, the single-particle matrix element undefined. Putting $`\overline{a}=\overline{a}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1})`$ and $`\mu =(l,m,\sigma )`$ and using the result of the calculation of Irkhin, we can write these coefficients as follows

$`(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_n|f_{lm\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}`$ (126)
$`=\sqrt{n[\mathrm{\Gamma }_n][\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}]}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}S_n& L_n& J_n\\ S_{n1}& L_{n1}& J_{n1}\\ 1/2& l& j\end{array}\right\}G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n},`$ (130)
where $`\gamma =(lm_l\sigma )`$ are the one-electron quantum numbers, $`[a]=2a+1`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}`$ is the parentage Racah coefficients and $`j=l+1/2`$. The coefficients $`(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}`$ are different for the two channels, $`j=5/2`$ and $`j=7/2`$. The square of them are given in Table. I.

However, there are more considerations to the problem, since the Bloch orbitals are not orthogonal to the localized orbitals. In the equation of motion for the operators appear combinations involving the overlap matrices. For the Hamiltonian which includes hopping and mixing interactions (the periodic Hubbard-Anderson model) the diagram technique and different approximations for the Green functions (GF) are given in I, while the full self-consistent solution for rare earths in the simplest possible approximation is presented in Ref. .

## V Discussion

Many different suggestions exists in the literature on how the parameters of the Anderson Hamiltonian (periodical or impurity) should be calculated from an ab initio approach and a consensus is not yet achieved. This motivated us to make an attempt to derive the parameters from a total Hamiltonian. Since the Anderson model is usually used for the description of the cases when strong electron correlations are well developed, it is reasonable to consider strong intra-atomic Coulomb interactions first. For this reason we have performed a derivation of the self-consistent PAM in four steps: i) first we separate, in the Hamiltonian, the strong intra-atomic interactions and approximately diagonalized them with the help of many-electron functions describing different ion terms; ii) we expressed all operators, describing $`f`$\- and core electrons in terms of Hubbard operators; iii) we performed the Hubbard-Stratanovich decoupling of the Coulomb interaction and finally iv) we found the equation for the electric potential in a saddle-point approximation. This lead us to the effective Hamiltonian, which coincide with the generalized PAM.

All three operations before making the saddle-point approximation are exact. However, the saddle-point approximation neglects the contributions from the exchange interaction for the delocalized particles (excitations) and Coulomb screening effects, which appear only in the next orders with respect to fluctuations of this field near its saddle-point value. Thus, we may conclude that from this point of view this model is quite rough. On the other hand, the way suggested here has an obvious advantage compared to the PAM with non-self-consistent parameters since it, at least, takes care about perturbations of the local charge density which may introduce quite large changes in energy.

## Acknowledgment

We are grateful to The Natural Science Foundation (NFR and TFR), The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) and the Göran Gustafsson foundation for support.


format: text

text:
# Quantum wires and dots driven by intense surface acoustic waves and the quantum attenuation of sound in an electron plasma

## I Introduction

Quantum wires, channels, and dots are very intriguing objects in the modern solid-state physics. They display new physical properties due to reduced dimensionality. The electric conductance of narrow channels in a semiconductor nanostructures demonstrates the quantization  described by the Landauer-Büttiker theory . More recently the quantized conductance has also been found for the thermal transport in free-standing quantum wires . Furthermore the quantum wires and dots are attracting significant theoretical interest due to the enhanced many-particle interactions .

Experimentally, semiconductor quantum wires and channels are realized or by the electrostatic method or in etched nanostructures . Recently, another method to create electron wires has been demonstrated . This method involves an intense surface acoustic wave (SAW) in a hybrid structure  containing a semiconductor quantum-well and a strongly piezoelectric (PE) host crystal (Fig. 1a). In the experiments  a formerly homogeneous two-dimensional (2D) electron gas in the hybrid structure turns into moving electron wires due to a very strong piezoelectric potential induced by a SAW. This effect has been demonstrated in the above-mentioned experiments  for the classical regime of the acoustoelectric (AE) interaction at room temperature. In the room-temperature electron system the dissipation of the SAW energy increases with increasing the sound intensity and approaches its maximum in the limit of the high amplitude of a SAW .

For low temperatures and a sufficiently strong PE potential of a SAW, the electron spectrum of wires can be quantized in the direction of the SAW momentum (Fig. 1b) . For the first time the electron quantization effects in an acoustic wave have been discussed by Keldysh . Our estimations show that the lateral quantization could be observed in low-temperature experiments on the recently fabricated hybrid structures.

Here we develop a quantum theory of the AE interaction in a 2D system in the strongly nonlinear regime when intense SAW’s split a 2D electron system into moving quantum wires and dots. We model the AE interaction from first principles for the case of electron scattering by impurities and use time-dependent perturbation theory. In the quantum regime the SAW absorption due to electrons reflects the density of states in quantum wires. When a few quantum subbands are occupied the SAW energy dissipation comes mostly from the inter-subband transitions assisted by impurities. Furthermore, even in the strictly 1D case the SAW dissipation in quantum wires remains finite. The residual absorption of SAW in the 1D wires originates from the intra-subband transitions in the direction perpendicular to the SAW momentum. Our numerical results show that the residual SAW absorption in high-quality GaAs quantum wells is small enough and, so, the heating effect is weak in the quantum limit. In the case of two SAW’s moving in the perpendicular directions, an electron system can be split into moving dots. In contrast to the case of wires, the SAW dissipation due to electron dots decreases and approaches zero in the quantum limit.

Many experimental papers report on interactions of SAW’s with the quantum Hall effect systems and lateral nanostructures . However, most of those studies relate to the linear regime of the AE interaction. A linear theory of the AE interaction in a 2D system and various nanostructures was developed in Refs. . Also, theoretical aspects of single-electron transport through a quantum-point contact were discussed in Ref. .

The nonlinear AE interaction in the classical regime in bulk crystals was widely discussed theoretically . Recently a theory of the nonlinear AE effects has also been considered for the case of a classical 2D plasma in hybrid structures . For the case of 3D plasma, the attenuation of sound in the presence of quantization in one direction was studied by Laikhtman and Pogorel’skii (Ref. ). They used the quasi-classical approach based on the Boltzmann equation and have predicted the quantum oscillations of the attenuation due to the density of states. Here we study the nonlinear quantum AE interactions for the case of a 2D system in the regimes of moving quantum wires and dots. Furthermore, we develop a quantitative theory based on the density-matrix motion equation. The quantum-mechanics treatment of this problem is necessary for the quantitative theory, which takes into account non-diagonal elements of the density matrix and the quantum dynamical screening of the impurity potential. In particular, the screening effect is important for the model of background Coulomb impurities. The calculations performed in the Coulomb-impurity model without the screening effect lead to the infinitely large sound attenuation. Basing on our numerical data we can conclude that the quantum attenuation regime is possible in high-mobility GaAs structures despite heating. It is in contrast to the AE interaction in the 3D plasma where the heating effect is predicted to be strong (Ref. ). In addition, we find that the sound dissipation in the case of driven quantum dots behaves differently compared to the nonlinear regimes in the 3D plasma and to the quantum wires.

## II  General formalism

The interaction between a SAW and a 2D electron system is characterized by the SAW energy absorbed in an electron system per unit time and aria

$$Q=<𝐣_s(𝐫,t)𝐄_{SAW}(x,t)>_𝐫,$$
(1)
where $`<\mathrm{}>_𝐫`$ means averaging over surface aria of a macroscopic sample. $`𝐫=(x,y)`$ is the in-plane coordinate and $`t`$ is the time. The 2D electron current $`𝐣_s`$ in the plane of a quantum well is induced by the PE field of a SAW, $`𝐄_{SAW}(xc_st)`$. The Rayleigh SAW propagates in the $`x`$-direction with a velocity $`c_s`$ and interacts with a 2D plasma (Fig. 1). In this case, the in-plain component of $`𝐄_{SAW}`$ is parallel to the $`x`$\- axis. Eq. 1 can be used for a description of the SAW dissipation in the nonlinear regime in the limit of a weak AE coupling $`K_{eff}^21`$ .

To find the electron current in the presence of the SAW piezoelectric field, we use the equation of motion for the one-particle density matrix $`\widehat{f}`$ within the framework of the self-consistent field approximation ,

$$\frac{\widehat{f}}{t}+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H},\widehat{f}]=(\frac{\widehat{f}}{t})_{Collisions},$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the electron Hamiltonian.

The conventional approach to the equation (2) is based on the constant relaxation time $`\tau `$ and the assumption that the collision term in Eq. 2 is proportional to the divination from the local thermal equilibrium . However, this approach is not effective in our case. By integrating Eq. 2 and the similar equation for the current we can show that the SAW-energy dissipation in the regime of well separated wires is $`Q=<j_sE_{SAW}>_𝐫=m^{}c_s^2N_s/\tau `$, where $`m^{}`$ is the electron mass. Here $`N_s=<n_s(x,t)>_x`$ is the averaged 2D density and $`n_s(𝐫,t)`$ is the local density. This result coincides with the Weinreich relation  obtained within the Drude model . Thus, the absorption $`Q`$ found in the simplified model does not exhibit any physical features of the lateral quantization.

To describe the AE interaction in the quantum wire regime we need to model scattering from the first principles. For low temperatures the main contribution to $`Q`$ comes from the electron scattering by impurities . So, we introduce the potential of randomly located impurities directly into the Hamiltonian in the right-hand side of Eq. 2. The Hamiltonian describing the in-plane single electron motion in the presence of SAW piezoelectric potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}`$ is

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2m}+e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}(xc_st)+U_{ind}(𝐫,t)+U_{imp}(𝐫),$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ is the in-plane momentum and $`e`$ is the electron charge. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}(xc_st)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0\mathrm{cos}(kx\omega t)`$ is the piezoelectric potential and $`\omega =c_sk`$. $`U_{ind}`$ is the potential induced by the electrons. $`U_{imp}(𝐑)=_iU_0(𝐑𝐑_i)`$, where $`𝐑=(𝐫,z)`$ is the 3D electron coordinate, and $`U_0(𝐑𝐑_i)`$ is the potential of the $`i`$-impurity. Here the electron motion is 2D in the plane $`z=0`$ whereas the impurity position $`R_i`$ is a 3D vector. In a quantum well the electron motion in the $`z`$-direction is described by a localized wave function $`\chi _0(z)`$. For simplicity, we will neglect the width of the function $`\chi _0(z)`$ and consider the potential $`U_{imp}(𝐑)`$ only in the plane $`z=0`$. Also, we assume that electrons occupy only the ground 2D subband. To describe the SAW dissipation we intend to use the model of background Coulomb impurities with homogenous spatial distribution. In the following we will denote the average 3D density of impurities by $`N_t`$.

## III Perturbation theory

First we qualitatively analyze perturbation theory for the regime of wide wires where the quantization is negligible. The impurity potential is assumed to be weak perturbation. If the SAW intensity is sufficiently low a SAW slightly modulates a 2D plasma. In this linear regime , the sound absorption coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=Q/I_{SAW}\sigma _0\tau _{tr}`$ when $`\sigma _00`$. Here $`I_{SAW}`$ is the SAW intensity. In the limit $`U_00`$, $`\tau _{tr}\mathrm{}`$ and $`Q\mathrm{}`$. It shows that the simplest first-order perturbation theory is not valid. Indeed, it is known that the conductivity can be calculated as an infinite series of ”ladder” diagrams . The perturbation theory of Ref.  is based on the parameter $`k_fl_e1`$, where $`k_f`$ and $`l_e`$ are the Fermi wave vector and the electron mean free path, respectively. We see that the first diagram in terms of the impurity potential is not sufficient in the linear regime of the AE interaction. The situation in the nonlinear case is qualitatively different. For a high SAW intensity a 2D plasma forms well separated wires. When $`I_{SAW}\mathrm{}`$, the SAW dissipation due to classical wires becomes saturated and equal to $`Q_{max}=m^{}c_s^2N_s/\tau _{tr}`$ . One can see that $`Q_{max}1/\tau _{tr}0`$ when $`U_00`$. It means that we can calculate $`Q_{max}`$ by using the first diagram in terms of the parameter $`U_0^2`$. In other words, in the case of wires the SAW potential confines strongly electrons and we can take into account the impurity scattering using simplest first-order perturbation theory. In the following we will use this fact to calculate the SAW absorption.

In the regime of wires, it is convenient to introduce the new moving coordinate $`x^{}=xc_st`$. In the moving coordinate system $`𝐫^{}=(x^{},y)`$, the strong SAW potential $`e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}(x^{})`$ is time-independent but the impurity potential $`U_{imp}(𝐫^{},t)`$ depends on the time. By changing $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$ we change $`\widehat{f}`$ to $`\widehat{f}^{}`$, where $`\widehat{f}^{}`$ is the density matrix in the moving system of coordinates. Obviously, the motion equation (2) is conserved when $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$.

The quantum wire width $`l_0`$ is typically much less than the acoustic-wave length $`\lambda 1\mu m`$ and, thus, the interaction between the quantum wires can be neglected. So, for convenience we will consider the density matrix for a single wire. In the moving coordinate system the electron current of a single wire contains only the random term $`\delta 𝐣_w`$ which is induced by impurities. The dissipation is given by

$$Q=\frac{1}{\lambda }𝑑x^{}<\delta 𝐣_w(𝐫^{},t)𝐄_{imp}(𝐫^{},t)>_{𝐑_i},$$
(4)
where $`𝐄_{imp}=_𝐫^{}U_{imp}(𝐫^{},t)/e`$ is the random electric field of impurities. $`<..>_{𝐑_i}`$ means averaging over random positions of impurities. Eqs. 1 and 4 are equivalent because the dissipation is independent of the coordinate system. The electron density and current in the static system can be written as $`n_s(𝐫,t)=n_0(xc_st)+\delta n_1(𝐫,t)`$ and $`𝐣_s(𝐫,t)=𝐣_0(xc_st)+\delta 𝐣_1(𝐫,t)`$, respectively. Here $`\delta n_1`$ and $`\delta 𝐣_1`$ are random terms. The regular contributions are connected by $`𝐣_0=e𝐜_sn_0(xc_st)`$. The dissipation given by Eq. 1 is $`Q=𝐣_0𝐄_{SAW}𝑑x`$ because $`<\delta 𝐣_1(𝐫,t)𝐄_{SAW}>_{𝐑_i}=0`$. We can directly show that $`𝐣_0𝐄_{SAW}𝑑x=<\delta 𝐣_w𝐄_{imp}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$ if we multiply the equation of motion (2) by the current operator and then take the trace. Here we note that the electron density $`n_s`$ and the currents relate to a single wire.

On the next step we consider linear response of a wide electron wire to the potential of ”moving” impurities $`U_{imp}(𝐫^{},t)`$. In wide wires we can neglect the lateral quantization. In a small part of the electron wire, the electron plasma can be regarded as a homogeneous 2D Fermi gas. The linear response of a homogeneous 2D plasma to the potential $`U_{imp}(𝐫^{},t)`$ can be calculated from Eq. 2 . The dissipation in the a small part of the channel near the point $`x_0^{}`$ is $`\delta Q=_{x_0^{}}^{x_0^{}+\delta x^{}}<\delta 𝐣_w𝐄_{imp}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$. Then, using the dynamic 2D electron conductivity $`\sigma _s(𝐪,\omega )`$, we obtain $`\delta Q=\delta x^{}n_s(x^{})c_s^2m^{}/\tau _{tr}`$. After integration over all parts of the wire we again come to the above-mentioned equation for $`Q_{max}`$.

In the absence of impurities, the electron-electron scattering in the moving coordinate system results in thermal equilibrium. In this case the density matrix is equal to the Fermi distribution function $`\widehat{f}^0`$ which depends on the electron temperature $`T_e`$. In the presence of weak impurity scattering the density matrix becomes equal to $`\widehat{f}^{}=\widehat{f}^0+\delta \widehat{f}^{}`$. The spectrum of quantum wires has the 1D subband structure: $`E_{p_y,\alpha }=E_\alpha +p_y^2/2m^{}`$, where $`p_y`$ and $`\alpha `$ are the $`y`$-component of the momentum and the subband index; $`\alpha =0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ . In the self-consistent field approximation, the electrons in an ideal wire move in the potential $`e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}(x^{})+V_{ind}(x^{})`$, where $`V_{ind}(x^{})`$ is the term induced by the Coulomb repulsion. The single-electron wave functions will be denoted as $`\psi _\alpha (x^{})e^{ip_yy}`$. Also, it is convenient to use the parabolic approximation for the SAW potential, $`e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}=e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0+m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2`$, which is valid near the center of a wire. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=k\sqrt{|e|\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0}/m^{}`$.

In the coordinate system $`(𝐫^{},t)`$, the potential $`U_{imp}(𝐫^{},t)`$ at $`z=0`$ plays the role of perturbation. By using a linear response theory  we find the Fourier transform of the charge density perturbation induced by the time-dependent impurity potential

$`\delta \rho (x^{},q_y,\omega )=e{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\psi _\alpha (x^{})\psi _\beta (x^{})<\psi _\alpha (x^{})|\stackrel{~}{U}_{imp}(x^{},q_y,\omega )|\psi _\beta (x^{})>\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha ,\beta }(\omega ,q_y),`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha ,\beta }(\omega ,q_y)={\displaystyle \frac{dp_y}{\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{f_{p_y,\alpha }^0f_{p+q_y,\beta }^0}{\mathrm{}\omega +E_{p_y,\alpha }^0E_{p_y+q_y,\beta }^0+i0}}`$ (6)
where $`q_y`$ and $`\omega `$ appear after Fourier transformation in terms of $`y`$ and $`t`$, respectively. Here we have neglected weak electron-electron scattering. $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{imp}`$ is the screened impurity potential at $`z=0`$.

Using Eqs. 4 and 5 we obtain

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{N_t}{(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_x𝑑q_yD_{\alpha ,\beta }(q_y,c_sq_x)}<|U_0(q_x,q_y,Z_i)|^2>_{Z_i}`$ (7)
$`|A_{\alpha ,\beta }(q_x)|^2{\displaystyle 𝑑p_yc_sq_x(f_{p_y,\alpha }^0f_{p_y+q_y,\beta }^0)\delta (\mathrm{}c_sq_x+E_{p_y,\alpha }^0E_{p_y+q_y,\beta }^0)},`$ (8)
where $`N_t`$ is the 3D impurity density. $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }(q_x)=𝑑x\psi _\alpha (x)\psi _\beta (x)e^{iq_xx}`$ and $`D_{\alpha ,\beta }(q_x,q_y,\omega )`$ is the screening factor. The single-impurity potential is given by $`U(q)=2\pi e^2/(ϵ|q|)e^{|Z_i||q|}`$; $`<|U_0|^2>_{Z_i}=(2\pi )^2e^4/(ϵ^2|q|^3)`$ and $`𝐪=(q_x,q_y)`$. The screening factor for the impurity potential in a quantum wire with many occupied subbands should be found from the system of linear equations . In the simplest case of the lowest occupied 1D subband we obtain $`D_{0,0}(q_y,\omega )=1/|ϵ_{0,0}(q_y,\omega )|^2`$, where $`ϵ_{0,0}(q_y,\omega )=1+V_{0,0}(q_y)\mathrm{\Pi }_{0,0}(q_y,\omega )`$ and $`V_{0,0}`$ is the matrix element of the Coulomb potential.

Equation 7 describes inter- and intra-subband transitions in a quantum wire induced by ”moving” impurities. The momentum and energy transfers in these transitions are $`𝐪=(q_x,q_y)`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐪𝐜}_𝐬=\mathrm{}c_sq_x`$. In Fig. 1c we show electron transitions which contribute to $`Q`$. The difference between Eq.7 and the quasi-classical results of Ref. is the screening factor $`D_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ calculated from the quantum equations. In the case of a few occupied subbands, the screening factor has a complex structure.

Electron scattering by impurities also leads to the spatial shift of the electron distribution from the center of a quantum wire. This shift directly relates to the dissipation. Multiplying the equation of motion (2) by the current operator and then taking the trace, we can obtain the steady-state condition $`Q/c_s=e(1/\lambda )<n_sE_{SAW}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$, where $`n_s`$ relates to a single wire. Here the term $`e<n_sE_{SAW}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$ is the averaged force acting on the electrons in the wire and $`\lambda Q/c_s`$ plays the role the friction force. The nonzero quantity $`e<n_sE_{SAW}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}=m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2<x^{}n_s>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$, i.e. it is proportional to the shift of the electron distribution from the wire center. We have directly calculated the shift $`e<n_sE_{SAW}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$ using the second-order perturbation theory for the density matrix $`\widehat{f}^{}`$. The obtained formula was consistent with the steady-state condition $`Q/c_s=e(1/\lambda )<n_sE_{SAW}>_{𝐑_i}𝑑x^{}`$ and Eq. 7 for $`Q`$.

## IV Numerical results for the quantum wire regime

In Figs. 2 and 3 we show the calculated SAW absorption as a function of the potential amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ for various temperatures. We choose the following parameters $`\lambda =1\mu m`$, $`c_s=3.910^5cm/s`$, $`N_L=410^5cm^1`$, $`N_s=N_L/\lambda =410^9cm^2`$, $`N_t=4.110^{14}cm^3`$, $`m^{}=0.07m_0`$, and $`ϵ=12.5`$. The Fermi energy in the 1D limit is $`E_f^{1D}2meV`$. The parameter $`N_t`$ is found from the low-temperature mobility of a 2D homogeneous gas $`\mu _{2D}`$. For the mobility we take $`\mu _{2D}=310^6cm^2/Vs`$ at the 2D density $`310^{11}cm^2`$. $`\mu _{2D}`$ was calculated by using the Born approximation and involving the screened impurity potential .

Figure 2 shows the SAW absorption for the case of electron scattering by background impurities with a short-range potential. The 3D density and the potential of $`\delta `$-impurities correspond to the 2D mobility $`310^6cm^2/Vs`$. To calculate $`\mu _{2D}`$ we take into account a finite width of a quantum well in the $`z`$-direction. In the case of $`\delta `$-impurities we use the equation similar to Eq. 7 and involve a few lowest 1D subbands. To demonstrate a general behavior of $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{SAW})`$, we use the single-particle wave functions, neglecting self-consistent Coulomb effects. The function $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ reflects the density of states in a wire. For relatively small SAW potentials electrons occupy a few 1D subbands and the main contribution to $`Q`$ comes from inter-subband transitions induced by impurities (Fig. 1c). The contribution of inter-subband transitions is responsible for the absorption in the quasi-classical and classical regimes. At $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^00.08V`$ the Fermi level coincides with the bottom of the first exited subband $`\alpha =1`$ which leads to a maximum in the function $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$. When $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^00`$, $`QQ_{max}`$. For the small $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$, the features related to higher subbands are not seen because of finite temperature. For the high $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ the electrons occupy only the ground subband. In the case of $`\delta `$-impurities the dissipation $`Q`$ is an increasing function of the potential amplitude in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0\mathrm{}`$. In the latter case the SAW absorption occurs only due to intra-subband electron transitions (Fig. 1c).

Now we calculate the function $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ in the model of dynamically screened Coulomb impurities. We use the self-consistent field approximation and the variational method to find the wave functions $`\psi _\alpha (x^{})`$. In the Coulomb-impurity model, the SAW absorption strongly decreases with increasing the SAW potential amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ (Fig. 3). At high $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$, the absorption $`Q`$ becomes saturated. The residual absorption at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0\mathrm{}`$ originates from scattering within the ground subband (Fig. 1c) and depends on the quality of a quantum well and on the electron density. Again at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^00.2V`$ we can see the characteristic maximum in the function $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ which reflects the electron occupation of the second subband. The maximum of $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ in Fig. 3 is shifted to higher potentials compared with the data of Fig. 2. The reason is the Coulomb interaction in a wire. Inter-subband transitions for small potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ result in the strong increase of $`Q`$.

The dynamic screening of Coulomb impurities plays the very important role. The dissipation $`Q`$ calculated by Eq. 7 is non-convergent in the absence of the screening effect. Also, we find that the screening effect for intra-subband transitions is much stronger than that for inter-subband transitions. It leads to a strong increase of the absorption as the sound intensity decreases. Another effect of inter-particle interaction is that the energy spacing between 1D subbands becomes essentially less due to Coulomb repulsion in a wire . The energy quantization in a wire is reduced by a factor of $`2`$ after the inclusion of the self-consistent Coulomb effects. This effect is seen from the data of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

It is interesting to compare the quantum attenuation with that in the classical limit. At room temperature the absorption is increasing with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}`$ and becomes saturated for high sound intensities (insert of Fig. 3) . The maximal absorption depends directly on the mobility: $`Q_{max}=m^{}c_s^2N_s/\tau _{tr}`$. For the typical room-temperature parameters $`\mu =5000cm^2/Vs`$ and $`N_s=410^9cm^2`$ , we obtain $`Q_{max}210^5erg/s`$ which is a few orders of magnitude larger than the calculated quantum-limit absorption.

Here we have calculated the SAW absorption assuming that the electronic temperature in a wire is independent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$. However, the electron temperature $`T_e`$ can depend on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ and differ from the lattice temperature $`T_l`$. The important factor is the phonon relaxation efficiency, which depends on a material. The heating effect can be analyzed by the energy balance equation $`Q=P_{ph}`$, where $`P_{ph}`$ describes the efficiency of the electron energy relaxation due to the emission of acoustic phonons. Involving the deformation- potential and piezoelectric mechanisms we calculate the energy-loss rate $`P_{ph}(T_l,T_e)`$ for the driven electron wires in the $`GaAs`$-based quantum well . Figs. 4 and 5 show the phonon energy-loss rate $`P_{ph}`$ and the calculated heating temperature $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_eT_l`$ in the 1D limit for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0=2V`$. Here we find the electron temperature from the equation $`Q(T_e)=P_{ph}(T_l,T_e)`$ for the case of Coulomb impurities (Fig. 5). One can see that the heating effect in the 1D quantum regime is small in high mobility systems (Fig. 5). At the same time, we find that at smaller SAW intensity, when the function $`Q`$ rapidly increases, the heating effect in $`GaAs`$-wires is stronger and can destroy the quantum state. In particular, the maximum of the function $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^00.25V`$ can vanish. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^00.25V`$ and $`Q10^4erg/(cm^2s)`$, the roughly estimated electron temperature in wires can be about $`30K`$.

As an example, we now discuss the solution of the balance equation $`Q(T_e)=P_{ph}(T_l,T_e)`$ for $`T_l=2K`$ (Fig. 5). One can see that the crossing between the curves for $`Q`$ and $`P_{ph}`$ in Fig. 4 exists when $`\mu >0.810^6cm^2/Vs`$ (Fig. 5). So, for given lattice temperature the solution of $`Q(T_e)=P_{ph}(T_l,T_e)`$ is not longer existing if the 2D mobility is low. We can speculate that, if $`\mu <0.810^6cm^2/Vs`$, the SAW can heat the electron wire up to the temperature about $`30K`$. At $`T_e30K`$ the $`LO`$-phonon scattering starts to play the role . Thus, the quantum regime can exist only in high-quality quantum wells. In addition, we note that the solutions of the balance equation shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are stable.

The predicted quantum effects can occur if the potential amplitude induced by a SAW is sufficiently high. For $`N_L=410^5cm^1`$, $`T_e=2K`$, and $`\lambda =1\mu m`$, the quantum 1D regime occurs when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0>1V`$. The amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ up to $`2V`$ have been achieved in the experiments  on the hybrid structures with a closely-located top metallic gate for SAW’s with $`\lambda =10\mu m`$. Additional enhancement of quantum effects can be expected in hybrid structures involving even stronger piezoelectric materials (Potassium Niobate, $`K_{eff}^20.5`$ ) and semiconductors with smaller effective masses ($`InAs`$, $`m^{}=0.03m_0`$).

In most of experiments on SAW’s  the measured quantity is the absorption coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Q/I_{SAW}`$, where $`I_{SAW}`$ is the SAW intensity. The calculated SAW absorption becomes saturated at high sound intensity and thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ behaves as $`1/I_{SAW}`$ in the limit $`I_{SAW}\mathrm{}`$ . To observe the quantum effects we suggest to measure directly the SAW absorption because it is not decreasing in the limit $`I_{SAW}\mathrm{}`$. In the experiments on hybrid structures the total measured absorption in a sample was about or more then $`0.5erg/s`$ . In $`GaAlAs`$ systems, the observed absorption can be even less . The total sound absorption in a sample with a surface aria $`S`$ is given by $`W=SQ`$. Using the data of Fig. 3 we obtain $`Werg/s`$ for $`T=2K`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0>1V`$, and $`S=0.10.1cm^2`$. Hence, the residual attenuation in the quantum 1D limit could be experimentally observed. In experiments, the electron plasma can be induced by the metal gate (Fig. 1)  or photogenerated . Recently, the nonlinear AE interactions between SAW’s and a photogenerated plasma were observed in $`GaAs`$-based structures .

## V Quantum dots driven by acoustic waves

In the presence of two SAW’s with perpendicular wave vectors the electron motion can be quantized in two directions. Assume that SAW1 and SAW2 propagate in the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-directions, respectively. Their potentials are $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}^0\mathrm{cos}(kx\omega t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}^0\mathrm{cos}(ky\omega t)`$. The total potential near its minimums can be approximated as $`e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}+e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}^0+e\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}^0+(m^{}/2)(\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2x^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_y^2y^2)`$, where the frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{x,y}=k\sqrt{|e|\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1(2)}^0/m^{}}`$ depend on the intensities of the SAW’s. In the moving coordinate system $`(x^{},y^{})=(xc_st,yc_st)`$, the electron spectrum is discrete and given by $`E_{n,m}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_x(n+1/2)+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_y(m+1/2)`$. The corresponding wave function will be denoted as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m}(x^{},y^{})=\psi _n^x(x^{})\psi _m^y(y^{})`$. In the following we will consider a single dot and, for simplicity, neglect the Coulomb interaction.

The electron current in a dot in the moving coordinate system can be calculated by using Eq. 2. The $`x^{}`$-component of the random electron current induced by impurities in the moving coordinate system is

$`\delta j_{ind,x^{}}(x^{},y^{},\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}e}{2m^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m}(x^{},y^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_1,m_1}(x^{},y^{})}{x^{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_1,m_1}(x^{},y^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m}(x^{},y^{})}{x^{}}}]`$ (9)
$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_1,m_1}|U_{imp}(x^{},y^{},\omega )|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m}>{\displaystyle \frac{f_{n,m}^0f_{n_1,m_1}^0}{\mathrm{}\omega +E_{n,m}E_{n_1,m_1}+i0}}.`$ (10)
The absorption of two SAW’s by a single dot is given by

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑y^{}<\delta 𝐣_{ind}𝐄_{imp}>_{𝐑_i}}.`$ (11)
By using Eqs. 9 and 11 we obtain

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}N_t2{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_x𝑑q_y}<|U_0(q)|^2>_{Z_i}|A_{n,m,n_1,m_1}(𝐪)|^2`$ (12)
$`(c_sq_x+c_sq_y)(f_{n,m}^0f_{n_1,m_1}^0)\delta (\mathrm{}c_sq_x+\mathrm{}c_sq_y+E_{n,m}E_{n_1,m_1}),`$ (13)
where $`𝐪=(q_x,q_y)`$ and $`A_{n,m,n_1,m_1}(𝐪)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m}\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_1,m_1}e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}𝑑x𝑑y`$. The factor $`2`$ in Eq. 12 is due to the spin degeneracy.

For the case $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}^0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}^0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m}e^{r^2/2l_0}`$, where $`l_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Omega }_0m^{}}`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0\mathrm{}`$ and for low temperatures, the leading terms in Eq. 12 have the indexes $`nn_1=\pm 1`$ and $`m=m_1`$ or $`mm_1=\pm 1`$ and $`n=n_1`$. The asymptotic behavior of $`Q`$ is

$`Qe^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2l_0^2}{2c_s^2}}=e^{\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{2m^{}c_s^2}}=e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0}{\mathrm{\Phi }_s}}},`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s=4(m^{}c_s^2)^2m^{}/[e\mathrm{}^2k^2]`$. We see that the absorption in the limit of the large SAW intensity decreases exponentially.

The absorption $`Q`$ is a sum of two contributions $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ which relate to the SAW1 and the SAW2, respectively. In the general case $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}^0\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}^0`$ and both $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ depend on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}^0`$. It shows that there is a nonlinear quantum interaction between the SAW1 and SAW2. This interaction is seen from the expression for $`Q_1`$

$`Q_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}N_t2{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_x𝑑q_y}<|U_0(q)|^2>_{Z_i}|A_{n,m,n_1,m_1}(𝐪)|^2`$ (15)
$`c_sq_x(f_{n,m}^0f_{n_1,m_1}^0)\delta (\mathrm{}c_sq_x+\mathrm{}c_sq_y+E_{n,m}E_{n_1,m_1}).`$ (16)
In this equation the energies $`E_{n,m}`$ depend on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW1}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW2}^0`$. Physically, the first SAW interacts with the second because the latter changes the energy spectrum in dots. This interaction can be observed as giant quantum oscillations .

Recent experiments , which involved two SAW’s propagating in the perpendicular directions, were performed using the pump-probe method. The first SAW had a high intensity and the second was a probing wave. These experiments demonstrated strongly nonlinear AE effects in the presence of photogenerated electrons and holes.

## VI Intense acoustic waves in nanostructures

In this section, we briefly consider the nonlinear AE interaction in a nanostructure which includes an array of quantum wires. Electron quantum wires can be realized by etching a formerly uniform 2D system . In our model a SAW propagates along the wire direction $`x`$ (Fig.6). In the $`y`$-direction, the electron motion is finite due to the wire confinement. At high intensity, the SAW can induce moving electron dots. The electron potential near its minimum can be approximated by $`(m^{}/2)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}^2x^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}^2y^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}`$ describes the static confinement in a quantum wire in the $`y`$-direction and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}`$ is a function of the sound intensity. The SAW absorption is given by Eq. 15 with the corrections $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}`$ and $`\delta (\mathrm{}c_sq_x+\mathrm{}c_sq_y+E_{n,m}E_{n_1,m_1})\delta (\mathrm{}c_sq_x+E_{n,m}E_{n_1,m_1})`$.

The calculated absorption of a SAW, $`Q`$, demonstrates giant quantum oscillations due to the discrete spectrum in ’moving’ quantum dots (Fig. 6) . The minimums of $`Q`$ occur due to the commensurability effect in the energy spectrum and correspond to the condition $`s\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}=s^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}`$, where $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ are integers. For example, we consider the main minimum in $`Q(I_{SAW})`$ when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}=1meV`$ ($`s=s^{}=1`$). Under the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}`$, the spacing between energy levels is equal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}=1meV`$, and the absorption is dramatically suppressed. This is due to the exponential function (14). When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}`$ slightly differs from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}`$, the minimum spacing between energy levels becomes less and the absorption $`Q`$ increases.

Experiments with SAW’s propagating along quantum wires have been performed in Ref. . In these experiments, SAW’s drove photogenerated electrons and holes through the quantum wires fabricated on patterned interfaces.

## VII Discussion

We see from our results that the acoustic absorption in an electron system in the quantum limit is very different to that in the classical case. In the classical plasma, $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ approaches $`Q_{max}`$ in the limit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0\mathrm{}`$ . In the quantum case, the absorption $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ first decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ and then becomes saturated at the minimal quantum absorption which comes from residual scattering in the ground subband. When two intense SAW’s form electron quantum dots, the absorption exponentially decreases. Thus, the dissipation of sound in a system with moving dots vanishes in the limit of the high acoustic intensity. This is due to the fully quantized spectrum in the dots.

In first principle approach the electron conductivity $`\sigma _0=e\mu n_s`$ can be calculated as an infinite series of the ”ladder” diagrams . Another method to derive the formula for $`\sigma _0`$ is based on the so-called Landauer dipole . In this method, the impurities induce the dipole moments in the moving coordinate system in which the electron plasma does not move. The resulting polarization should coincide with the electric field in a sample. The equality between the electric field and the impurity-induced polarization permits to find the conductivity. Here we use another argument based on dissipation. By using our arguments we can also obtain the formula for the conductivity. To do this, we calculate the dissipation in the moving coordinate system. Then, we compare the results for the moving and static coordinates.

In conclusion, we have developed a quantum theory of the nonlinear interaction between acoustic waves and a 2D electron system in the limit of the high acoustic intensity. The intense SAW creates electron quantum wires. The SAW absorption as a function of the sound intensity reflects the 1D density of states. In wide wires the SAW absorption originates from the inter-subband transitions. In the strictly 1D case there is still a residual SAW absorption, which comes from the intra-subband electron transitions. In the regime of quantum dots the SAW absorption approaches zero in the limit of high sound intensity. The modern hybrid structures can be a candidate to experimentally observe the described quantum nonlinear mechanisms of the acoustoelectric interaction.

We would like to thank A. Wixforth and J. P. Kotthaus for important motivating remarks, and B. Laikhtman, A. V. Chaplik, A. Mayer, and H.-J. Kutschera for helpful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Volkswagen-Foundation and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

E-mail: Govor@isp.nsc.ru

<sup>∗∗</sup> E-mail: Kalam@isp.nsc.ru

Figure Captions

Fig. 1
a) The cross section of a hybrid semiconductor-piezoelectric structure. The electron density in a quantum well depends on the transport gate voltage $`V_t`$. A SAW propagates near the surface and interacts with the 2D plasma in a quantum well.
b) The moving piezoelectric potential of a SAW and the energy structure of moving quantum wires.
c) Intra-subband transitions in the 1D limit when electrons occupy only the ground subband. The second diagram shows the inter-subband transitions when electrons occupy the two lowest subbands.

Fig. 2 Calculated SAW absorption as a function of the potential amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ for various temperatures for the case of $`\delta `$-impurities. $`\lambda =1\mu m`$, $`N_L=410^5cm^1`$, $`N_s=410^9cm^2`$, and $`N_t=4.110^{14}cm^3`$. The low-temperature mobility in a homogeneous 2D gas with $`N_s=310^{11}cm^2`$ is equal to $`310^6cm^2/Vs`$.

Fig. 3 Calculated SAW absorption as a function of the potential amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0`$ for various temperatures for the case of background Coulomb impurities which are dynamically screened by electrons. The parameters are similar to those of Fig. 2. Insert: the SAW absorption $`Q_{class}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0)`$ for the case of a classical electron system in a quantum well at room temperature.

Fig. 4 The energy-loss rate due to acoustic phonon emission in quantum wires formed by a SAW as a function of the electron temperature $`T_e`$ for various lattice temperatures $`T_l`$ (solid curves). The dashed curves show the SAW dissipation $`Q(T_e)`$ in the quantum regime for the case of Coulomb impurities. The dashed curves 1 and 2 relate to $`\mu _{2D}=1`$ and $`310^6cm^2/Vs`$, respectively. The corresponding impurity densities are $`N_t=12.3`$ and $`4.110^{14}cm^3`$. The 2D mobility is calculated for $`N_s=310^{11}cm^2`$. The crossing points give the electron temperature in a wire. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0=2V`$.

Fig. 5 The heating temperature $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_eT_l`$ in a wire as a function of the mobility $`\mu _{2D}`$ for the system with Coulomb impurities; the lattice temperature $`T_l=2K`$; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SAW}^0=2V`$. $`\lambda =1\mu m`$ and $`N_L=410^5cm^1`$. The 2D mobility is calculated for $`N_s=310^{11}cm^2`$.

Fig. 6 Calculated SAW absorption as a function of the quantization $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{SAW}^0`$ in the system with etched quantum wires; the energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{wire}`$ describes the static quantization in the potential of wires. Insert: Sketch of the system with etched quantum wires and a SAW. The velocity of dots is $`(c_s,0)`$.