text:
# Cyclotron resonance harmonics in the ac response of a 2D electron gas with smooth disorder

## Abstract

The frequency-dependent conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ of 2D electrons subjected to a transverse magnetic field and smooth disorder is calculated. The interplay of Landau quantization and disorder scattering gives rise to an oscillatory structure that survives in the high-temperature limit. The relation to recent experiments on photoconductivity by Zudov et al. and Mani et al. is discussed.

The magnetotransport properties of a high-mobility 2D electron gas (2DEG) in semiconductor heterostructures are of great importance from the point of view of both fundamental physics and applications. Important information about the dynamical and spectral properties of the system is provided by its response to a microwave field. Within the quasiclassical Boltzmann theory, the dissipative ac conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )=\sigma _+(\omega )+\sigma _{}(\omega )`$ of a non-interacting 2DEG in a magnetic field $`B`$ is given by the Drude formula (we neglect spin for simplicity),

$$\sigma _\pm ^{(D)}(\omega )=\frac{e^2\nu _0v_F^2\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}}{4[1+(\omega _c\pm \omega )^2\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}^2]},$$
(1)
where $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\nu _0=m/2\pi `$ (with $`\mathrm{}=1`$) the density of states (DOS), $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}`$ the transport relaxation time at $`B=0`$, $`\omega _c=eB/mc`$ the cyclotron frequency, and $`m`$ is the electron effective mass. For a sufficiently clean sample, $`\omega \tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}1`$, Eq. (1) predicts a sharp cyclotron resonance (CR) peak at $`\omega _c=\omega `$.

It has been shown by Ando  that the Landau quantization of the orbital electron motion leads, in combination with disorder, to the emergence of harmonics of the CR at $`\omega =n\omega _c`$, $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, such a structure was experimentally observed . The analytical calculations of Ref.  were performed, however, only for fully separated Landau levels with point-like scatterers .

Very recently, great interest in the transport properties of a 2DEG in a microwave field has been caused by experiments on photoconductivity of exceptionally-high-mobility samples by Zudov et al.  and Mani et al. , where oscillations controlled by the ratio $`\omega /\omega _c`$ were observed. Remarkably, these oscillations persisted down to magnetic fields as low as $`B10\mathrm{mT}`$, an order of magnitude smaller than the field at which the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations were damped. The experiments  triggered an outbreak of theoretical activity. Durst et al.  proposed (see also Refs. ) that the oscillations are governed by the following mechanism: an electron is excited by absorbing a photon with energy $`\omega `$ close to $`n\omega _c`$ and is scattered by disorder. In view of the oscillatory structure of the DOS, this leads to an extra contribution to the dc conductivity. In fact, a very similar mechanism of oscillatory photoconductivity was proposed long ago  for the case of a strong dc electric field.

While the proposal of Ref.  is very appealing, calculations presented there involve a number of assumptions and approximations, which complicates a comparison with experiment. First, the consideration of Ref.  is restricted to the case of white-noise disorder with $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}=\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$, where $`\tau _{s,0}`$ is the single-particle relaxation time at $`B=0`$. On the other hand, the experiments are performed on high-mobility samples with smooth disorder, $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}50`$. Second, Ref.  neglects all vertex corrections and discards inelastic processes. As we argue below, the inelastic relaxation rate is of central importance for the magnitude of the photoconductivity.

The development of the full theory of the oscillatory photoconductivity remains thus a challenging task, which we postpone to a future work. In this paper we address the problem of the ac response of a 2DEG with smooth disorder. On top of fundamental theoretical importance and experimental relevance this problem possesses on its own, it is closely related to the photoconductivity mechanism considered above. Indeed, the key ingredient of this mechanism—absorption of a photon—is governed by the dissipative ac conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$. We will return to this relation in the end of the paper, where we discuss implications of our results for the photoconductivity.

We consider a 2DEG subjected to magnetic field $`B`$ and a random potential $`U(𝐫)`$ characterized by a correlation function $`U(𝐫)U(𝐫^{})=W(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)`$ of a spatial range $`d`$. The total and the transport relaxation rates induced by disorder at $`B=0`$ are given by

$`\begin{array}{c}\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}^1\hfill \\ \tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}^1\hfill \end{array}\}=2\pi \nu _0{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{W}(2k_F\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2})\times \{\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ (1\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \end{array}},`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{W}(𝐪)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`W(𝐫)`$. While we are mainly interested in the experimentally relevant case of smooth disorder, when impurities are separated from the 2DEG by a spacer of width $`dk_F^1`$, with $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}(k_Fd)^21`$, our results are valid for arbitrary $`d`$ (including short-range disorder with $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}1`$).

To calculate (the real part of) the conductivity, we use the Kubo formula,

$`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi V}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{\omega }}(f_\epsilon f_{\epsilon +\omega })`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\widehat{v}_x(G_{\epsilon +\omega }^AG_{\epsilon +\omega }^R)\widehat{v}_x(G_\epsilon ^AG_\epsilon ^R)},`$ (8)
where $`f_\epsilon `$ is the Fermi distribution, $`G^{R,A}`$ are the retarded and advanced Green functions, the bar denotes impurity averaging, and $`V`$ is the system area. We will treat disorder within the self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA) , which is justified provided the disorder correlation length satisfies $`dl_B`$ and $`dv_F\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$, where $`l_B=(c/eB)^{1/2}`$ is the magnetic length . The Green function in the Landau level (LL) representation, $`G_n^R=(G_n^A)^{}`$, is given by the SCBA equations ,

$$G_n^R(\epsilon )=(\epsilon \epsilon _n\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon )^1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon =\frac{\omega _c}{2\pi \tau _{s,0}}\underset{n}{}G_n^R(\epsilon ),$$
(9)
where $`\epsilon _n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\omega _c`$ is the n-th LL energy (Fig. 1a).

We will assume throughout the paper that $`\omega ,\omega _c\epsilon _F`$, so that the relevant LL indices are large, $`n\epsilon _F/\omega _c1`$. Further, we will concentrate on the regime of strongly overlapping LLs, $`\omega _c\tau _{s,0}/\pi 1`$; the opposite case will be briefly discussed in the end. To evaluate the self-energy in Eq. (9), we use the Poisson formula, $`_nF_n=_k𝑑xF(x)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ikx)`$. The $`k=0`$ term yields then the $`B=0`$ result, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(0)}=i/2\tau _{s,0}`$, while the $`k=\pm 1`$ contributions provide the leading correction,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon ^{(1)}=(i/2\tau _{s,0})\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2\delta \mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\epsilon /\omega _c)\right],$$
(10)
with $`\delta =\mathrm{exp}(\pi /\omega _c\tau _{s,0})`$ serving as a small parameter of the expansion. According to Eqs. (9), (10), the oscillatory correction to the DOS due to the LL quantization reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (\epsilon )/\nu _0=2\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\pi \epsilon /\omega _c).$$
(11)
The conductivity (8) is given diagrammatically by an electronic bubble with a vertex correction, i.e., by a sum of ladder diagrams, Fig. 1b,c. We evaluate first the bare bubble $`\sigma ^b`$ (which is sufficient for the case of white-noise disorder). Making use of velocity matrix elements in the LL representation, we get for $`\epsilon _F\omega ,\omega _c`$:

$`\sigma _\pm ^b(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{e^2v_F^2\nu _0}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{\omega }(f_\epsilon f_{\epsilon +\omega })\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RA}\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR})},`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR(RA)}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}G_{n\pm 1}^R(\epsilon +\omega )G_n^{R(A)}(\epsilon ).`$ (13)
Using again the Poisson formula, we find

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{s,0}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\epsilon +\omega }^{(1)})}{\omega \pm \omega _c+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\epsilon +\omega }^{(1)}}},`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RA}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{s,0}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\epsilon +\omega }^{(1)})}{\omega \pm \omega _c+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\epsilon +\omega }^{(1)}}}.`$ (15)
For the case of smooth disorder we have to take into account the vertex correction (Fig. 1c) while averaging in Eq. (8). This is a non-trivial task since the disorder mixes strongly the LLs, thus seriously complicating a direct calculation in the LL representation. We choose instead a different way, which is suggested by the quasiclassical nature of the problem, $`\epsilon _F\tau _{s,0}1`$. It is instructive to recall first how the vertex correction is calculated at $`B=0`$. The vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RA}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ \[the average of $`G^Rv_\pm G^A`$ with $`v_\pm =(v_x\pm iv_y)/2`$\] depends then on $`𝐫_1𝐫_2^{}`$ only, yielding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RA}(𝐩)`$ in the Fourier space. In the quasiclassical regime the momentum integrals are dominated by the vicinity of the Fermi surface, reducing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RA}(𝐩)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RA}(\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the polar angle of velocity on the Fermi surface. The equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RA}(\varphi )`$ is then easily solved, yielding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RA}(\varphi )=(v_F/2)e^{\pm i\varphi }\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$.

We are now going to generalize this quasiclassical calculation onto the case of a finite $`B`$. In this situation the vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ are, however, neither gauge- nor translationally invariant. We define a gauge- and translationally invariant vertex function by introducing a phase factor induced by the vector potential $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ on a straight line connecting $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}𝐀(𝐑)𝐫]\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2),$$
(16)
where $`𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$ and $`𝐑=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)/2`$. After the Fourier transformation, $`𝐫𝐩`$ \[note that $`𝐩`$ has the meaning of the kinematic rather than canonical momentum, in view of the transformation (16)\], we get then the following equation for the dressed vertex:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(𝐩)=p_\pm /m+4{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(1)^nG_{n\pm 1}^R(\epsilon +\omega )G_n^{R(A)}(ϵ)`$ (17)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\stackrel{~}{W}(𝐩𝐩^{})e^{l_B^2p^2}L_n^1(2l_B^2p^2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(𝐩^{}),`$ (18)
with $`p_\pm =p_x\pm ip_y/2`$. Using the asymptotic behavior of the Laguerre polynomial $`L_n^1(x)`$ at $`n,x1`$, one can show that the following replacement is justified  in Eq. (17):

$$(1)^ne^{l_B^2p^2}L_n^1(2l_B^2p^2)\delta (2l_B^2p^24n).$$
(19)
The sum over $`n`$ in Eq. (17) is then dominated by a narrow band of width $`\delta n/n1/ϵ_F\tau _{s,0}`$ around the Fermi surface. Exploiting the SCBA condition $`d/v_F\tau _{s,0}1`$, we finally reduce Eq. (17) to the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{2}}e^{\pm i\varphi }+2\pi \nu _0\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR(RA)}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi ^{}}{2\pi }}`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`\stackrel{~}{W}(2k_F\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \varphi ^{}}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pm ^{RR(RA)}(\varphi ^{}).`$ (21)
Therefore, the inclusion of the vertex correction results in a replacement of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR(RA)}`$ in Eq. (12) by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\pm ,\mathrm{tr}}^{RR(RA)}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR(RA)}\right)^1(\tau _{s,0}^1\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}^1)\right]^1.$$
(22)
Evaluating Eq. (12) with this substitution to first order in $`\delta `$, we get the following result for the ac conductivity at zero temperature, $`T=0`$:

$`\sigma _\pm ^{(1)}(\omega )=\sigma _\pm ^{(D)}(\omega )\{12\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\pi \epsilon _F/\omega _c)`$ (23)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _\pm ^2}{\alpha _\pm ^2+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \omega /\omega _c)}{2\pi \omega /\omega _c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _\pm ^2+1}{\alpha _\pm ^2+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \omega /\omega _c)}{\alpha _\pm \pi \omega /\omega _c}}]\},`$ (24)
where $`\alpha _\pm \tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}(\omega \pm \omega _c)`$. Let us stress that the single-particle time $`\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$ enters Eq. (23) only through the damping factor $`\delta `$; everywhere else it has been replaced by the transport time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}`$ due to the vertex correction .

Since the correction in Eq. (23) oscillates with $`\epsilon _F`$, it becomes damped at finite $`T`$ by the factor $`X/\mathrm{sinh}X`$ with $`X=2\pi ^2T/\omega _c`$. If $`T`$ is higher than the Dingle temperature $`T_D1/2\pi \tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$, the temperature smearing becomes the dominant damping factor. In ultra-clean systems of the type used in the experiments  the Dingle temperature is as low as $`T_D100\mathrm{mK}`$, so that for characteristic measurement temperatures $`T1\mathrm{K}`$ the first-order correction (23) will be completely suppressed. We will show, however, that there exists a correction, oscillatory in $`\omega /\omega _c`$, which is not affected by the temperature. To obtain it, we have to extend our calculation to second order in $`\delta `$. Analyzing all arising terms, we find that the required contribution is generated only by the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\pm ,\mathrm{tr}}^{RA}`$, Eq. (22), with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RA}`$ given by Eq. (15), to second order in $`\delta `$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\epsilon +\omega }^{(1)})^22\delta ^2\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\omega /\omega _c)`$. Note that there is no need to calculate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\epsilon `$ to second order, neither to take $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^{RR}`$ into account, since the corresponding terms oscillate with $`\epsilon `$. We thus get the following result for the leading quantum correction at $`TT_D`$:

$`\sigma _\pm ^{(2)}(\omega )=\sigma _\pm ^{(D)}(\omega )\{1+2\delta ^2`$ (25)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\pm ^2(\alpha _\pm ^23)}{(\alpha _\pm ^2+1)^2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \omega }{\omega _c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\pm (3\alpha _\pm ^21)}{(\alpha _\pm ^2+1)^2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \omega }{\omega _c}}]\}.`$ (26)
The regime which is most interesting theoretically and relevant experimentally is that of long-range disorder, $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}1`$, and a classically strong magnetic field, $`\omega _c,\omega \tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}^1`$. In this situation $`|\alpha _\pm |1`$ and Eq. (25) acquires a remarkably simple form (Fig. 2),

$$\sigma _\pm ^{(2)}(\omega )=\sigma _\pm ^{(D)}(\omega )[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+2e^{2\pi /\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \omega /\omega _c)].$$
(27)
We turn now to the opposite limit of fully separated LLs, when the LL width $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }=2(2\omega _c/\pi \tau _{\mathrm{s},0})^{1/2}`$  is small compared to $`\omega _c`$. This calculation can be done either by using Eqs. (12),(22) or directly in the LL representation. We will only briefly present the main results (illustrated in Fig. 2); details will be presented elsewhere . The conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ is non-zero only for $`\omega `$ in intervals $`[M\omega _c2\mathrm{\Gamma },M\omega _c+2\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ with an integer $`M`$. At the center of the $`M=1`$ interval we find a CR peak of height $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega =\omega _c)=(e^2\nu _0v_F^2/\pi \mathrm{\Gamma })\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}`$. All other peaks ($`M1`$) are much smaller \[in view of $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}(k_Fd)^21`$\]:

$$\sigma _{xx}(\omega =M\omega _c)=\frac{4e^2\nu _0v_F^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{3\pi \omega _c^2}\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}}{\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}}\frac{M^2+1}{(M^21)^2}.$$
(28)
In fact, the whole dependence $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ can be described as a Drude-type structure with a renormalized DOS, $`\nu (\epsilon )=\nu _0\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\epsilon \epsilon _n)^2]^{1/2}`$ for $`|\epsilon \epsilon _n|\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the transport time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(\epsilon )=\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}\nu _0/\nu (\epsilon )`$:

$`\sigma _\pm (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{e^2v_F^2}{4\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon (f_\epsilon f_{\epsilon +\omega })\nu (\epsilon )\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^1(\epsilon +\omega )}{[\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^2(\epsilon )+\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^2(\epsilon +\omega )]/2+(\omega \pm \omega _c)^2}}.`$ (29)
Finally, we discuss the relation to the photoconductivity oscillations. For this purpose, we present first a simple way to understand the oscillatory structure in the ac conductivity (27). Since $`\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{xx}(\omega )E_\omega ^2`$ is the power absorbed in a linearly polarized ac field $`E_\omega `$, we have

$$\sigma _{xx}(\omega )\omega ^2V|M(\omega )|^2\nu (\epsilon )\nu (\epsilon +\omega )_\epsilon ,$$
(30)
where $`M(\omega )`$ is the dipole matrix element, and $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ denotes the energy averaging with the corresponding Fermi factors \[see Eq. (8)\]. Using Eq. (11) for the DOS oscillations, we get $`\nu (\epsilon )\nu (\epsilon +\omega )_\epsilon \nu _0^2[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+2\delta ^2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \omega /\omega _c)]`$ at $`TT_D`$, reproducing the oscillatory quantum correction in Eq. (27). In a similar way, we now consider the photoconductivity. The concentration of photo-excited electrons is $`n[\sigma (\omega )/\omega ]E_\omega ^2\tau _{\mathrm{in}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the inelastic relaxation time, and we assumed that the amplitude $`E_\omega `$ of the ac field is sufficiently weak. A correction to the dc conductivity induced by these electrons due to the energy dependence of the DOS can then be estimated as

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ $``$ $`\omega (eE_\omega l_{\mathrm{in}})^2V|M(\omega )|^2\nu (\epsilon )\nu ^{}(\epsilon +\omega )_\epsilon `$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(eE_\omega l_{\mathrm{in}})^2}{\omega \omega _c}}\sigma _{xx}^{(D)}(\omega )e^{2\pi /\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \omega }{\omega _c}},`$ (32)
where $`l_{\mathrm{in}}=v_F(\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}\tau _{\mathrm{in}})^{1/2}/\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{tr},0}`$ is the inelastic length and we used Eqs. (27), (30) in the second line. Note that the steady state to linear order in the radiation power is reached only due to inelastic processes, leading to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ph}}\tau _{\mathrm{in}}`$. We believe that Eq. (31) describes the leading contribution to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ induced by the LL quantization in the limit $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}`$. Let us stress that this contribution comes from an oscillatory correction to the distribution function, as opposed to the mechanism of Ref. , related to the effect of microwaves on the collision integral.

Although Eq. (31) agrees with the experiment as far as the period  and the phase  of the oscillations are concerned, there is a considerable disagreement in the damping of oscillations at low $`B`$. Specifically, our consideration predicts a damping factor $`\delta ^2=e^{2\pi /\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}}`$ \[same as in the ac-conductivity, Eqs. (25), (27)\], so that if the experimental data for the damping of the photoconductivity oscillations are fitted to the form $`e^{\pi /\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}}`$, one should find $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}=\frac{1}{2}`$. On the other hand, the experiments yield much larger values, $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}13\mathrm{ps}/2.5\mathrm{ps}=5.2`$  and $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}/\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}18\mathrm{ps}/11\mathrm{ps}1.6`$ . In other words, the photoconductivity oscillations are observed at such low fields that the contribution due to the above mechanism should be completely suppressed.

This suggests that, at least at lower fields, another mechanism, not related directly to the LL quantization, might govern the observed oscillatory photoconductivity. A possible candidate is quasiclassical memory effects. It has been shown that they may induce strong dc magnetoresistance  and generate harmonics of the CR  in models with smooth disorder and/or strong scatterers. It is thus natural that the memory effects induce also a quasiclassical oscillatory contribution to the photoconductivity; work in this direction is in progress .

To summarize, we have studied the ac magnetoconductivity $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ of a 2DEG with smooth disorder characteristic of high-quality semiconductor structures. The interplay of Landau quantization and disorder induces a contribution oscillating with $`\omega /\omega _c`$ (the CR harmonics). The effect is suppressed both in the classical limit $`\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}0`$ and in the clean limit $`\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}\mathrm{}`$, and can be best observed in the crossover range, $`\omega _c\tau _{\mathrm{s},0}1`$. We have discussed the relation to the recent experiments on photoconductivity of ultra-clean samples . A much stronger damping of our result (27) for weak $`B`$ suggests that another (quasiclassical) mechanism may govern the observed oscillations  in the low-field region.

We thank K. von Klitzing, R. G. Mani, J. H. Smet, and M. A. Zudov for information about the experiments, and I. V. Gornyi and F. von Oppen for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the Schwerpunktprogramm “Quanten-Hall-Systeme” and the SFB195 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, and by RFBR.


format: text

text:
# LOW-MASS RELICS OF EARLY STAR FORMATION

*Nature* 422 (2003), 869–871 (issue 24 April) The Hamburg/ESO objective prism survey team has recently reported the discovery\[¡9¿\] of a star, HE0107-5240, with a mass of $`0.8`$ solar masses, ($`0.8M_{}`$) and an iron abundance of \[Fe/H\] = $`5.3\pm 0.2`$ (here we adopt the standard definition \[Ai/Aj\]=$`\mathrm{log}_{10}(N_i/N_j)\mathrm{log}_{10}(N_i/N_j)_{}`$ where the subscript ’$``$’ refers to solar values). This represents the most iron-deficient star observed to date, and it has been found at a distance of about 11 kpc from the Sun – a region inaccessible to previous spectroscopic surveys that were limited to the inner halo of the Galaxy.
Does the existence of this $`0.8M_{}`$ very iron-deficient star suggest that the first generation of stars also contained low-mass and long-lived objects? The star HE0107-5240 does not show any sign of selective dust depletion that may have altered its elemental abundances. Being a low-mass star, elements heavier than Mg can not be produced by post-formation processes, and their chemical composition reflects the composition of the gas cloud out of which HE0107-5240 formed. The authors of ref. 9 thus conclude that the star is probably a second-generation object that formed from a gas cloud with metal abundance corresponding to \[Fe/H\] $`=5.3`$ that has been pre-enriched by a supernova from a previous generation star.
As the metal composition of supernova ejecta depends on the initial mass of the progenitor star, the observed abundance pattern of HE0107-5240 may represent an important indication of the nature of the first stars and of the physical processes leading to low-mass star formation in primordial gas clouds.
Two plausible models need to be considered. If we assume pre-formation origin for all the heavy elements observed in HE0107-5240, the gas cloud out of which the star formed would have had to be pre-enriched to a metallicity as high as $`Z=10^2Z_{}`$ (where $`Z_{}`$ is the solar metallicity). This metallicity is significantly higher than the proposed minimum level of pre-enrichment $`Z_{\mathrm{cr}}=10^{5\pm 1}Z_{}`$ (ref. 6) above which low-mass stars can form.
In the second model, suggested in ref. 9, the observed abundances of C, N, Na and Mg may be due to post-formation mechanisms, such as mass transfer from a companion star, or self-enrichment according to recent nucleosynthesis models of stars of mass similar to that inferred for HE0107-5240 ($`0.8M_{}`$) of zero or near-zero initial metallicity\[¡10¿\]. In this “minimal pre-enrichment model”, only elements heavier than Mg have a pre-formation origin. Indeed, the authors of ref. 9 argue that the abundance pattern of elements heavier than Mg is consistent with the predicted elemental yields of a $`2025M_{}`$ star that exploded as a Type II supernova, indicating that HE0107-5240 may have formed from a gas cloud which had been pre-enriched by such a supernova. However, if the first stars had a mass within the range $`200M_{}M220M_{}`$ and exploded as pair-creation supernovae\[¡11¿\], the observed abundance pattern of HE0107-5240 for elements heavier than Mg can be equally well reproduced.
Thus, with the current data it is not possible to uniquely determine the mass of the first-generation star(s) that produced the metals locked up in HE0107-5240. To do this, we need improved upper limits on the abundances of Zn (which is predicted to be about two orders of magnitudes smaller in the ejecta of a $`200220M_{}`$ pair-creation supernova than for a $`22M_{}`$ Type II supernova) and heavy r-process elements in HE0107-5240, as well as in other extremely metal-poor stars to be found in the future. The r process is believed to only operate in an extremely neutron-rich environment\[¡12¿\], as is provided during the creation of a central neutron star in a core-collapse (Type II) supernova. A pair-creation supernova, on the other hand, is fundamentally different\[¡11¿\], in that no remnant is created, and that the necessary condition for the r process is not realized. Observing the absence or presence of r-process elements, therefore, holds the promise of directly probing the nature of the first stars\[¡13¿\].

Thus we can ask: what was the actual level of metallicity of the parent cloud out of which HE0107-5240 was born? Assuming the same interstellar medium dilution factor for all the observed heavy elements, we can directly derive a lower limit for the metallicity of the cloud. According to such estimates, the explosions of stars with mass in the ranges $`22M_{}`$ and $`200M_{}<M_{}<220M_{}`$ were able to enrich the star-forming gas up to a metallicity $`10^{5.5}\stackrel{<}{}Z/Z_{}\stackrel{<}{}10^{5.1}`$. This range of initial metallicities falls within the proposed minimum level of metal pre-enrichment\[¡6¿\] above which low-mass objects can form. Thus, the observation of HE0107-5240 appears to be extremely helpful in determining the critical conditions that finally enable low-mass star formation at early times. Following the analysis of ref. 6, we recall that if some efficient cooling mechanism is present, the energy deposited by gravitational contraction cannot balance the radiative losses, and the gas cloud cools and fragments into increasingly smaller gas clumps. The necessary conditions to stop fragmentation and start gravitational contraction within each clump are that cooling becomes inefficient, and the Jeans mass of the fragments does not decrease any further, thus favouring fragmentation into sub-clumps. This condition depends somewhat on the geometry of the fragments, and translates into $`\gamma >4/3`$ ($`\gamma >1`$) for spherical (filamentary) clumps, where $`\gamma `$ is the adiabatic index defined as $`Tn^{\gamma 1}`$.
For a metal-free gas, the only efficient coolant is molecular hydrogen. Cooling due to molecular line emission becomes inefficient at densities above $`n>10^3\text{cm}^3`$, and fragmentation stops when the minimum fragment mass is of order $`10^310^4M_{}`$. As the gas becomes more and more enriched with heavy elements, the cooling rate at low density $`n10^3\text{cm}^3`$ increases because of metal (especially O and C) line emission. More importantly, however, the depletion factor, defined as the dust-to-metals mass ratio $`f_{\mathrm{dep}}=M_{\mathrm{gr}}/M_Z`$, is responsible for activating (through dust-gas thermal exchanges) a new strong phase of fragmentation at high density, which finally leads to fragments of low mass. For initial metallicities in the range $`10^41Z_{}`$, the presence of dust becomes almost irrelevant, and the minimum fragment masses are in the range $`10^21M_{}`$, several orders of magnitude smaller than in the metal-free case.
In Fig. 1, we show the evolution of a star forming gas cloud with initial metallicity of $`Z=10^{5.1}Z_{}`$ as if it were pre-enriched by the pair-creation supernova explosion of a 205 $`M_{}`$ star. The various curves correspond to different values for the depletion factor. The thermal evolution of the gas is insensitive to the presence of different amounts of dust grains as long as the density is below $`10^5\text{cm}^3`$. In this regime, the cooling rate is dominated by molecular line cooling. At higher densities, gas clouds with depletion factors $`\stackrel{>}{}0.2`$ experience a new phase of fragmentation (shown as the dip in the $`\gamma `$ evolution at $`n10^{12}\text{cm}^3`$), which is due to dust-gas thermal exchanges and lasts for about three orders of magnitude in density, leading to characteristic fragment masses of the order of $`10^210^1M_{}`$.
Thus, it appears that a gas cloud with initial metallicity of $`Z10^{5.1}Z_{}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{dep}}\stackrel{>}{}0.2`$ (for comparison the Galactic value is $`f_{\mathrm{dep}}=0.47`$) can generate low-mass fragments, subsequently leading to the formation of low-mass stars, consistent with the observation of HE0107-5240. As an alternative model, a mechanism has been proposed\[¡14¿\] for the formation of a population of extremely metal-poor intermediate-mass stars at very high redshifts. Within this model, the formation of these stars is directly linked to the death of a very massive star exploding as a pair-creation supernova. Indeed, shock compression, heating and subsequent cooling to high density reduces the fragment mass in primordial gas to $`10M_{}`$, allowing small mass stars to form. It might be that HE0107-5240 is the first observed member of such a population.
Our analysis shows that the discovery of HE0107-5240 does not conflict with recent studies which suggest that the formation of low-mass stars that can survive to the present day is inhibited before a minimum level of metal enrichment is reached. The actual value of this threshold metallicity within the currently uncertain range $`Z_{\mathrm{cr}}=10^{5\pm 1}Z_{}`$ (ref. 6) strongly depends on the efficiency of dust formation in first-generation supernova ejecta.
If the previous lack of very iron-deficient halo stars is to be ascribed to the brighter magnitude limits of previous surveys, it is likely that the Hamburg/ESO prism survey will lead to the identification of more stars with \[Fe/H\]$`<5`$. The statistics and properties of these stars should provide insights into the first epochs of cosmic star formation. In particular, if observers were to find a large number of these objects, this might imply that second-generation stars were already forming with characteristic masses of 1 $`M_{}`$, as in the local Universe. Conversely, if future data were to show that the bulk of metal-poor halo stars have a metallicity in the range $`Z=10^410^3Z_{}`$ with only a small number of $`<10^5Z_{}`$ outliers, then this would indicate that in most cases small-mass stars were able to form only after this level of metallicity had been achieved.

Acknowledgements We acknowledge partial support from the Research and Training Network “The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium” set up by the European Community.

Competing interests statement The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.S. (e-mail: raffa@arcetri.astro.it).