1: %% Journal: Phys. Rev. B

2: %% Title: Exchange interaction in quantum rings and wires in the

3: %%   Wigner-crystal limit

4: %% Authors: Michael M. Fogler and Eugene Pivovarov

5: %% Contact address: Dr Michael M. Fogler, Department of Physics,

6: %%   Mail Code 0319, University of California San Diego,

7: %%   9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92093-0319

8: %% Contact e-mail: mfogler@ucsd.edu

9: 

10: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

11: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb,graphicx,bm}

12: 

13: \begin{document}

14: 

15: \title{Exchange interaction in quantum rings and wires in the Wigner-crystal

16: limit}

17: \author{Michael M. Fogler}

18: \author{Eugene Pivovarov}

19: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla,

20: California 92093}

21: \date{\today}

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: 

25: We present a controlled method for computing the exchange coupling in

26: correlated one-dimensional electron systems based on the relation

27: between the exchange constant and the pair-correlation function of

28: spinless electrons. This relation is valid in several independent

29: asymptotic regimes, including low electron density case, under the

30: general condition of a strong spin-charge separation. Explicit formulas

31: for the exchange constant are obtained for thin quantum rings and wires

32: with realistic Coulomb interactions by calculating the pair-correlation

33: function via a many-body instanton approach. A remarkably smooth

34: interpolation between high and low electron density results is

35: shown to be possible. These results are applicable to the case of

36: one-dimensional wires of intermediate width as well. Our method can be

37: easily generalized to other interaction laws, such as the inverse

38: distance squared one of the Calogero-Sutherland-Moser model. We

39: demonstrate excellent agreement with the known exact results for the

40: latter model and show that they are relevant for a realistic

41: experimental setup in which the bare Coulomb interaction is screened by

42: an edge of a two-dimensional electron gas.

43: 

44: \end{abstract}

45: 

46: \pacs{71.10.Pm, 73.21.Hb, 73.22.-f}

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: %% 71.10.Pm Fermions in reduced dimensions (anyons,

50: %%   composite fermions, Luttinger liquid, etc.)

51: %% 73.21.Hb Quantum wires

52: %% 73.22.-f Electronic structure of nanoscale materials:

53: %%   clusters, nanoparticles, nanotubes, and nanocrystals

54: %% 75.75.+a Magnetic properties of nanostructures

55: 

56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: \label{sec:Introduction}

60: 

61: Much interest has been devoted to the spin degree of freedom in novel

62: one-dimensional (1D) conductors, both of linear shape (carbon

63: nanotubes,\cite{Saito-book} semiconductor nanowires,\cite{Huang-01}

64: conducting molecules\cite{Heath-03}) and recently, of a circular one

65: (quantum rings\cite{Lorke-00, Fuhrer-04, Bayer-03}). Parameters of

66: these systems, e.g., average distance between the electrons $a$, their

67: total number $N$, their effective mass $m$, dielectric constant

68: $\epsilon $, effective Bohr radius $a_{B}=\hbar ^{2}\epsilon /me^{2}$,

69: \textit{etc.}\/, can vary over a broad range or can be tuned

70: experimentally. This creates an intriguing opportunity of reaching the

71: Wigner-crystal (WC) limit,\cite{Schulz-93,Egger-99} $r_{s}\equiv

72: a/2a_{B} \gg 1$, where electrons arrange themselves into a nearly

73: regular lattice. According to numerical simulations,\cite{Egger-99} the

74: 1D WC is well formed already at $r_s > 4$. The corresponding electron

75: densities are easily achievable but the presence of disorder has so far

76: hindered experimental investigations of the 1D WC

77: regime.\cite{Field-90} Remarkably, the unwanted disorder can apparently

78: be substantially suppressed in the case of carbon nanotubes

79: \emph{suspended\/} above a substrate. In such devices very large $r_s$

80: with no immediately obvious disorder effects have been recently

81: demonstrated.\cite{Jarillo-Herrero-04} Due to a finite length of the

82: nanotubes used, they contained only a few electrons ($< 30$) in the $r_s

83: > 4$ regime. (Such systems are commonly referred to as Wigner

84: molecules.) These encouraging progress on the experimental side and a

85: recent revival of interest to the 1D WC on the theoretical

86: side\cite{Matveev-04} have motivated us to undertake in the present

87: paper a careful investigation of the fundamental energy scales that

88: govern the spin dynamics in 1D Wigner crystals and molecules.

89: 

90: In a strict academic sense, the term ``crystal'' should not be used in

91: 1D because the phonon-like vibrations of the putative lattice are

92: infrared divergent. It is nevertheless true that at $r_{s}\gg 1$ the

93: pair correlation function (PCF)

94: %

95: \begin{equation}

96: g(x)=\frac{1}{N n}\sum_{i\neq j}\langle \delta (x_{i}-x_{j}-x)\rangle

97: \label{eqn:g_intro}

98: \end{equation}

99: %

100: is sharply peaked at integer multiples of $a$. Here $x_j$ are electron

101: coordinates. Thus, for the study of electron correlations in Wigner

102: molecules or in a group of few nearby electrons in an infinite wire the

103: WC concept is fully adequate. Once adopted, this concept

104: implies\cite{Herring-62} that the low-energy dynamics of electron spins

105: is dominated by the nearest-neighbor Heisenberg interaction of strength

106: $J$ proportional to an exponentially small probability of quantum

107: tunneling under the Coulomb barriers that separate the adjacent

108: electrons. Exchanges of more distant neighbors are penalized with a much

109: stronger tunneling suppression and can therefore be neglected.

110: 

111: %%%%%%%%%%%

112: % FIG. 1

113: %

114: \begin{figure}

115: \begin{center}

116: \includegraphics[height=1.5in]{wcx_1.eps}

117: \end{center}

118: \caption{(Color online) A sketch of the instanton trajectories for

119: the six-electron Wigner molecule on a ring.}

120: \label{fig:ring}

121: \end{figure}

122: %%%%%%%%%%%

123: 

124: As a result of the exponential smallness of the exchange coupling $J$,

125: the energy scales for orbital and spin dynamics are drastically

126: different. This \emph{strong\/} spin-charge separation is expected to

127: cause anomalies in many essential electron properties, e.g., ballistic

128: conductance\cite{Matveev-04} of quantum wires and persistent current of

129: quantum rings.\cite{Reimann-02} To systematically explore such

130: phenomena a reliable estimate of the exchange coupling $J$ is needed.

131: This has been an important open problem however. The smallness of $J$

132: makes it difficult to compute even by rather advanced computer

133: simulations.\cite{Reimann-02} Attempts to derive $J$ analytically (for

134: the nontrivial case $N>2$) have so far been based on the approximation

135: that neglects all degrees of freedom in the problem except the distance

136: between the two interchanging electrons.\cite{Hausler-96, Matveev-04} We

137: call this a Frozen Lattice Approximation (FLA). The accuracy of the FLA

138: is unclear because it is not justified by any small parameter. When a

139: given pair does its exchange, it sets all other electrons in motion, too

140: (Fig.~\ref{fig:ring}). Simple dimensional considerations (confirmed by

141: the calculations below) show that the maximum tunneling displacements of

142: the electrons nearby the first pair reach a fraction of $a$, i.e., they

143: are at most numerically, but not \emph{parametrically}, small. In view

144: of the aforementioned and other recent experimental\cite{Auslaender-05,

145: Claessen-02} and theoretical\cite{Cheianov-04, Fiete-04, Fiete-05} work

146: on spin-related effects in 1D conductors a controlled calculation of $J$

147: seems a timely goal. It is accomplished in this paper, where we treat

148: the spin exchange in a Wigner molecule (or a WC) as a true many-body

149: process and compute $J$ to the leading order in the large parameter

150: $r_s$. A brief account of this work has been reported in

151: Ref.~\onlinecite{Fogler-05b}. The same problem has been independently

152: studied by \textcite{Klironomos-05} and wherever they can be compared

153: our results agree.

154: 

155: The paper is organized as follows. The definition of the model and our

156: main results are given in Sec.~\ref{sec:Results}. The step-by-step

157: derivation for the simplest nontrivial case of a three-electron molecule

158: is presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:Three}. The $N > 3$ case is discussed in

159: Secs.~\ref{sec:Many} and \ref{sec:Instanton}. An alternative route to

160: the derivation of $J$ is outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:Alternative}. The

161: comparison with the known analytical results for related models is done

162: in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrable_model}. The issues relevant to the current

163: experiments are addressed at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec:integrable_model}

164: and in Sec.~\ref{sec:Domain}. The concluding remarks are in

165: Sec.~\ref{section:Conclusions}.

166: 

167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

168: \section{Model and main results}

169: \label{sec:Results}

170: 

171: We assume that electrons are tightly confined in the transverse

172: dimensions on a characteristic lengthscale (``radius'' of the wire)

173: $R\ll a_{B}$. In this case the energy separation $\hbar^2 / m R^2$ of

174: the 1D subbands greatly exceeds the characteristic Coulomb interaction

175: energy $e^2 / \epsilon R$. Assuming that only the lowest subband is

176: occupied, the Hamiltonian can be projected onto the Hilbert space of

177: this subband. This turns the problem into a strictly 1D one, with the

178: Coulomb law replaced by an effective interaction $U(r)$ that tends to a

179: finite value at distances $r\ll R$. The precise form of $U$ depends on

180: the details of the confinement. For simplicity, we adopt a

181: model\cite{Fogler-05a, Usukura-05}

182: %

183: \begin{equation}

184: U(r) = \frac{e^2}{\epsilon} \frac{1}{r + R},

185: \label{eqn:U}

186: \end{equation}

187: %

188: which nevertheless correctly captures both short- and long-range

189: behavior of the interaction for \emph{any\/} realistic confinement

190: scheme and is similar to other expressions used in the

191: literature,\cite{Friesen-80, Szafran-04} see more in

192: Sec.~\ref{sec:Domain}. Most of our calculations below pertain to the

193: ring geometry where $r$ stands for the chord distance, $r = (Na/\pi

194: )\left\vert \sin (\pi x/Na)\right\vert$, $x$ being the coordinate along

195: the circumference. At large $r_s$ the electrons assume a Wigner-molecule

196: configuration where they reside at the corners of a regular polygon. The

197: effective low-energy Hamiltonian of such a state is given by

198: %

199: \begin{equation}

200: H=\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2I}L^{2}+J\sum_{j}\mathbf{S}_{j}

201: \mathbf{S}_{j+1}+\sum_{\alpha }n_{a}\hbar \omega _{\alpha },

202: \label{eqn:H}

203: \end{equation}

204: %

205: where $L$ is the center-of-mass angular momentum, $\mathbf{S}_{j}$ are

206: electron spins, and $n_{\alpha }$ are the occupation numbers of

207: ``molecular vibrations.'' (The same

208: Hamiltonian applies to small-$N$ quantum dots.\cite{Reimann-02})

209: At large $r_{s}$, the total moment of inertia $I$ and the vibrational

210: frequencies $\omega_\alpha$ are easy to compute because they are

211: close to their classical values. Our task is to calculate $J$, which

212: is more difficult.

213: 

214: We show that the asymptotically exact relation exists between $J$ and

215: the PCF $g_0(x)$ of a \emph{spin polarized\/}

216: 1D system. For an ultrathin wire, $\mathcal{L}\equiv \ln

217: ({a_{B}}/{R})\gg 1$, it is particularly simple:

218: %

219: \begin{equation}

220: J = \frac{e^2 a_B^2}{2\mathcal{L}\epsilon} g_0^{\prime \prime}(0),

221: \quad r_{s}\gg \frac{1}{\mathcal{L}}.

222: \label{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}

223: \end{equation}

224: %

225: By virtue of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}), the calculation of $J$

226: reduces to an easier task of computing $g_0(x)$. For large $r_{s}$ our final

227: result has the form

228: %

229: \begin{equation}

230: J=\frac{\kappa }{\left( 2r_{s}\right) ^{5/4}}\frac{\pi }{\mathcal{L}}

231: \frac{e^{2}}{\epsilon a_{B}}\exp \left( -\eta \sqrt{2r_{s}}\,\right) ,

232: \quad r_{s}\gg 1,  \label{eqn:J}

233: \end{equation}

234: %

235: where the values of $\eta $ and $\kappa $ are given in

236: Table~\ref{tbl:Results} together with the prediction of the

237: FLA,\cite{Hausler-96,Matveev-04} for comparison.

238: [\textcite{Klironomos-05} independently obtained $\eta =2.79805(5)$ for

239: the case of a wire.]

240: %

241: \begin{table}[tbp]

242: \begin{ruledtabular}

243: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}

244: $N$      &3      &4         &6         &8         &$\infty$  &$\infty$-FLA\\

245: $\eta$   &2.8009 &2.7988(2) &2.7979(2) &2.7978(2) &2.7978(2) &2.8168      \\

246: $\kappa$ &3.0448 &3.18(6)   &3.26(6)   &3.32(7)   &3.36(7)   &2.20        \\

247: \end{tabular}

248: \end{ruledtabular}

249: \caption{Results for Wigner molecules on a ring (finite $N$) and for wires

250: ($N=\infty $). }

251: \label{tbl:Results}

252: \end{table}

253: %

254: 

255: In the remainder of the paper we give the derivation of the above results

256: and discuss their consequences for various experimental and theoretical

257: questions.

258: 

259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

260: 

261: \section{Three-electron quantum ring}

262: \label{sec:Three}

263: 

264: We start with the simplest nontrivial example: three electrons on a

265: ring. Let $0\leq x_{j}<3a$, $j=0,1,2$ be their coordinates along the

266: circumference. We will compute the exchange coupling $J$ between the

267: $j=0$ and the $j=1$ electrons. In the FLA the third electron remains at

268: rest while the other two interchange, as in a classical picture.

269: However, we will show that the consistent calculation of $J$ requires

270: taking quantum fluctuations of this third electron into account.

271: 

272: The system has the total of three degrees of freedom: the center of mass

273: $x_{\text{cm}}$, the distance between the exchanging electrons $x\equiv

274: x_{1}-x_{0}$, and the distance between the third electron and the center

275: of mass, $X_{2}\equiv x_{2}-x_{\text{cm}}\ -a$. We can restrict the

276: variables $x$ and $X_{2}$ to the fundamental domain, $|x|<3a/2$,

277: $|X_{2}|<a/2$, where only the chosen two electrons can closely approach

278: each other. This allows us to ignore exchanges involving the $j=2$

279: electron, and hence, its spin. Ignoring also the irrelevant

280: center-of-mass motion, we obtain the Hamiltonian

281: %

282: \begin{equation}

283: H_{3} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu} \partial _{x}^{2}

284:       - \frac{\hbar^2}{2M} \partial_{X_2}^2

285:       + U_{\text{tot}}(x, X_2),

286: \label{eqn:H_3}

287: \end{equation}

288: %

289: where $\mu = m / 2$ and $M = 3 \mu$. The potential term

290: %

291: \begin{align}

292: U_{\text{tot}} & = U(x)+U_{\text{ext}},

293: \\

294: U_{\text{ext}} & = U\left[ (3/2)(X_{2}+a)-x/2\right]

295: \notag\\

296: & + U\left[ (3/2)(X_{2}+a)+x/2\right] ,

297: \notag

298: \end{align}

299: %

300: has two minima in the fundamental domain, at $x=\pm a$, $X_{2}=0$. The

301: minima are separated by a high potential barrier at $x=0$. They give

302: rise to the two lowest-energy states of the system: the spin-singlet ground

303: state, $\mathbf{S}_{0}+\mathbf{S}_{1}=0$, with an orbital wavefunction $\Phi

304: _{s}=\Phi _{s}(x,X_{2})$ and a triplet with a wavefunction $\Phi _{t}$.

305: Their energy splitting is the desired exchange coupling $J$. In close

306: analogy with Herring's classic treatment of H$_2$-molecule\cite{Herring-64}

307: (see also Ref.~\onlinecite{Landau-III}) for our $N=3$ ``molecule''

308: we obtain

309: %

310: \begin{equation}

311: J = \frac{2\hbar^2}{\mu} \int dX_{2}\left. \Phi _{1}\partial _{x}\Phi

312: _{1}\right\vert _{x=0},  \label{eqn:J_from_Phi_1}

313: \end{equation}

314: %

315: where the (normalized to unity) ``single-well'' wavefunction $\Phi _{1}(x,X_{2})$

316: is the ground-state of $H_{3}$ with a modified potential $U_{\text{tot}}\

317: \rightarrow U_{1}\equiv U_{\text{tot}}(\max \{x,0\},X_{2})$.

318: Equation~(\ref{eqn:J_from_Phi_1}) is valid\cite{Herring-64} to order $O(J^{2})$;

319: with the same accuracy,

320: %

321: \begin{equation}

322: \Phi _{s,t}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\Phi _{1}(x,X_{2})\pm \Phi _{1}(-x,X_{2})].

323: \end{equation}

324: %

325: 

326: Let us discuss the form of the single-well wavefunction

327: $\Phi _{1}(x,X_{2})$. Near its maximum at $x=a$,

328: $X_{2}=0$, it is a simple Gaussian,

329: %

330: \begin{equation}

331: \Phi _{1}\left( x,X_{2}\right) \propto \exp \left[ -\frac{(x-a)^{2}}{2l^{2}}-%

332: \frac{M}{2\hbar }\omega (a)X_{2}^{2}\right],

333: \label{eqn:Phi_1_Gauss}

334: \end{equation}

335: %

336: where $l=[\hbar ^{2}/\mu U_{\text{tot}}^{\prime \prime }(a)]^{1/4}\sim

337: r_{s}^{-1/4}a$ is the amplitude of the zero-point motion in $x$

338: ($U_{\text{tot}}$ written with a single argument is meant to be evaluated at

339: $X_{2}=0$). The quantity

340: %

341: \begin{equation}

342: \omega (x)=\left[ M^{-1}\partial _{X_{2}}^{2}U_{\text{tot}}(x)\right] ^{1/2}

343: \end{equation}

344: %

345: is real and positive in the classically forbidden region $0<x<a-l$.

346: Therefore, the tunneling barrier is the lowest and $\Phi _{1}$ is the

347: largest along the line $X_{2}=0$. Furthermore, it is easy to see that $\Phi

348: _{1}(x,X_{2})$ rapidly decays at $|X_{2}|\gtrsim l$. Since $l\ll a$,

349: the following Gaussian approximation is justified in the \emph{entire\/}

350: fundamental domain of $x$:

351: %

352: \begin{equation}

353: \Phi_{1}=\phi \left( x\right) \exp \left[ -\frac{M}{2\hbar }\Omega \left(

354: x\right) X_{2}^{2}\right].

355: \label{eqn:Phi_1_ansatz}

356: \end{equation}

357: Acting on this \emph{ansatz\/} with $H_{3}$ and neglecting the subleading

358: terms $O(l/a)$, we obtain the following equations on $\Omega(x)$ and

359: $\phi(x)$:

360: %

361: \begin{subequations}

362: \label{eqn:Omega-phi-3}

363: \begin{gather}

364: \partial _{x}\Omega = \frac{\Omega^2(x) - \omega^2(x)}

365: {\left[(2 / \mu) \Delta U_{\text{tot}}(x)\right]^{1/2}},

366: \label{eqn:Omega_3} \\

367: \left\{ \frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu} \partial _{x}^{2}-U_{\text{tot}}(x)- \frac12

368: \hbar \Omega(x) + E\right\} \phi (x)=0,

369: \label{eqn:phi_3}

370: \end{gather}

371: \end{subequations}

372: %

373: where $\Delta U_{\text{tot}}(x)\equiv U_{\text{tot}}(x)-U_{\text{tot}}(a)$.

374: We wish to comment that the basic idea of the Gaussian ansatz has been

375: used previously for computing exchange constants in $^{3}$\textsc{H}e

376: crystals,\cite{Roger-83} but the simple closed form of

377: Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Omega-phi-3}) has not been demonstrated.

378: 

379: Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Phi_1_Gauss}) and (\ref{eqn:Phi_1_ansatz})

380: we see that near $x = a$ function $\phi(x)$ takes the form,

381: %

382: \begin{equation}

383: \phi \left( x\right) =\left[ \frac{M\Omega \left( a\right) }{\pi ^{3/2}\hbar

384: l}\right] ^{1/2}e^{-\left( x-a\right) ^{2}/2l^{2}},

385: \end{equation}

386: %

387: while $\Omega(x)$ satisfies the boundary condition $\Omega(a) = \omega

388: (a)$. Resolving the $0/0$ ambiguity in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Omega_3}) by

389: L'H\^opital's rule we furthermore obtain

390: %

391: \begin{equation}

392: \Omega ^{\prime }\left( a\right) =\frac{\omega ^{\prime }\left( a\right) }

393: {1 + \left\{ \left( \frac{M}{16 \mu }\right) \left[ 1+U^{\prime \prime }\left(

394: a\right) /U_{\text{ext}}^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right] \right\}

395: ^{1/2}}.

396: \end{equation}

397: %

398: Finally, using this formula and straightforward algebraic manipulations one

399: can fix the constant term $E$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:phi_3}) to be

400: %

401: \begin{equation}

402: E = U_{\text{tot}}(a)+ \frac{\hbar}{2} \left[ \omega (a)+\omega _{0}\right],

403: \quad \omega_0 \equiv \frac{\hbar}{\mu l^2}.

404: \end{equation}

405: %

406: %

407: % Indeed, self-consistency requires that the derivatives of $\Omega

408: %\left( x\right)$ are small, which implies that

409: %%

410: %\begin{equation}

411: %\frac{\Omega ^{2}-\omega ^{2}}{\Omega ^{2}}\left[ \left( 2/\mu \right)

412: %\Delta U_{\text{tot}}(x)\right] ^{-1/2}\ll \sqrt{\frac{\mu }{\hbar \Omega }}.

413: %\end{equation}

414: %%

415: %This condition is obviously satisfied in the classically forbidden region.

416: %Since $\phi ^{\prime }\left( a\right) =0$, the boundary condition $\Omega

417: %(a)=\omega (a)$ assures that this condition is met everywhere.

418: %

419: Next consider the interior of the classically forbidden region, $x \ll a$.

420: Since the tunneling barrier $\Delta U_{\text{tot}}(x)$ is large here,

421: $\Omega$ is a slow function of $x$. Taking advantage of the following

422: expression for the PCF of a spin-polarized molecule,

423: %

424: \begin{equation}

425: g_0(x)\equiv 2\!\int \prod_{j=2}^{N-1}dX_{j}\Phi _{t}^{2}\left( x,X_{2},\ldots

426: ,X_{N-1}\right),

427: \quad |x|<\frac{3a}{2},

428: \label{eqn:g_def}

429: \end{equation}

430: %

431: we find that Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_Phi_1}) entails the relation

432: %

433: \begin{equation}

434: J = \frac{\hbar^2}{4\mu} \frac{\phi(0)}{\phi^\prime(0)}

435:     g_0^{\prime \prime}(0).

436: \label{eqn:J_from_g_triplet}

437: \end{equation}

438: %

439: Anticipating the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:Many},

440: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:g_def}) is written for an arbitrary $N>2$, with the

441: notation $X_{j}\equiv x_{j}-x_{\text{cm}}\ +(N-1-2j)(a/2)$ being used;

442: the PCF is normalized as appropriate in the WC limit,

443: %

444: \begin{equation}

445: \int_{0}^{3a/2} g_0(x) dx = 1.

446: \label{eqn:g_normalization}

447: \end{equation}

448: %

449: 

450: %%%%%%%%%%%

451: % FIG. 2

452: %

453: \begin{figure}

454: \begin{center}

455: \includegraphics[height=1.3in]{wcx_2a.eps}

456: \end{center}

457: \caption{The PCF of a spin-polarized system (schematically). Regions I, II,

458: and III are described in the main text.}

459: \label{fig:PCF}

460: \end{figure}

461: %%%%%%%%%%%

462: 

463: The dependence of $g_0$ on $x$ that results from this formalism is

464: sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:PCF}. Near the $x = a$ maximum (region III),

465: $g_0(x)$ is given by [cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Phi_1_Gauss})]

466: %

467: \begin{equation}

468: g_0(x)=\left( 1/\sqrt{\pi }\,l\right) \exp \left[ -(x-a)^{2}/l^{2}\right] .

469: \label{eqn:g_Gauss}

470: \end{equation}

471: %

472: In the region II the quasiclassical approximation applies. In particular, at

473: $a_{B}\ll x\ll a$ the result for $g_0(x)$ can be written in terms of the

474: tunneling action,

475: %

476: \begin{equation}

477: S_{3}(x)=\frac{1}{\hbar }\int\limits_{x}^{a}dy\left[ 2\mu \Delta U_{\text{tot%

478: }}(y)\right] ^{1/2},  \label{eqn:S_3}

479: \end{equation}

480: %

481: and the appropriate prefactor, as follows:

482: %

483: \begin{align}

484: g_0(x)& =\frac{a}{l^{2}}\left[ \frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\Omega (a)}{\Omega (x)}%

485: \frac{\hbar \omega _{0}}{U(x)}\right] ^{1/2}e^{\xi (x)-2S_{3}(x)},

486: \label{eqn:g_II} \\

487: \xi (x)& =\int\limits_{x}^{a}dy\left\{ \frac{\omega _{0}+\Omega (a)-\Omega

488: (y)}{\left[ (2/\mu )\Delta U_{\text{tot}}(y)\right] ^{1/2}}-\frac{1}{a-y}%

489: \right\} .  \label{eqn:xi}

490: \end{align}

491: %

492: In comparison, the FLA\cite{Matveev-04} amounts to replacing

493: $\Omega(x)$ by a constant in the above equations, thereby effectively

494: ignoring the quantum fluctuations of the dynamical variable $X_2$.

495: Finally, in an ultrathin wire, $\mathcal{L} \gg 1$, there is also region

496: I, $x\lesssim a_{B}$, where the quasiclassical approximation breaks

497: down. Fortunately, at such $x$, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:phi_3}) can be simplified,

498: as $\Omega (x)\simeq \Omega (0)$ and $U_{\text{tot}} (x)\simeq

499: U(x)+2U(3a/2)$. This enables us to express $\phi (x)$ and $g_0(x)$ in

500: terms of the Whittaker functions,\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik} similar to

501: Ref.~\onlinecite{Fogler-05a} (see also Appendix~\ref{sec:U_sigma}).

502: Using such a representation, it is easy to show that

503: %

504: \begin{equation}

505: \phi (0)/\phi ^{\prime }(0)\simeq a_{B}/\mathcal{L},\quad r_{s}\gg 1,

506: \label{eqn:phi_log_derivative}

507: \end{equation}

508: %

509: which, combined with Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_triplet}), yields

510: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}). With a bit

511: more algebra, one can match Eq.~(\ref{eqn:g_II}) with another formula in

512: region I, leading finally to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}) with $\eta $ and $\kappa $

513: given by

514: %

515: \begin{align}

516: \eta & =\frac{2S_{3}(0)}{\sqrt{2r_{s}}}=2\int\limits_{0}^{a}\frac{dx}{a}%

517: \left[ \frac{\epsilon a}{e^{2}}\,\Delta U_{\text{tot}}(x)\right] ^{1/2},

518: \label{eqn:eta_3} \\

519: \kappa & =\frac{2^{5/4}}{\sqrt{\pi }}\,e^{\xi (0)}\sqrt{\frac{\Omega (a)}

520: {\Omega (0)}}\left[ \frac{\epsilon a^{3}}{e^{2}}\,U_{\text{tot}}^{\prime

521: \prime }(a)\right] ^{3/4}.  \label{eqn:kappa_3}

522: \end{align}

523: %

524: Thus, for the $N=3$ case we were able to reduce the original complicated

525: three-body eigenvalue problem to routine operations of solving an

526: \emph{ordinary\/} differential equation~(\ref{eqn:Omega_3}) and taking two

527: quadratures, Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:xi}) and (\ref{eqn:eta_3}). The resultant $\eta$

528: and $\kappa$ are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:Results}. In comparison, the FLA%

529: \cite{Matveev-04} underestimates $\kappa $ by about $50\%$. It gets $\eta$

530: correctly but only for $N=3$, see more below.

531: 

532: One more important comment is in order. The antisymmetry of the total

533: fermion wavefunction imposes certain selection rules\cite{Maksym-96} for the

534: allowed values of $L$ [see Eq.~(\ref{eqn:H})] at a given total spin $S$.

535: Thus, the lowest-energy $L$ eigenstates for the two possible spin states of

536: the $N = 3$ system, $S = 1/2$ and $S = 3/2$, are, respectively, $|L| = 1$

537: and $0$. Since $J \ll \hbar^2 / I$ at large $r_s$, the ground-state of the

538: system is the $L = 0$ spin-quartet, in agreement with prior numerical work.%

539: \cite{Reimann-02, Usukura-05}

540: 

541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

542: 

543: \section{Case $N>3$}

544: \label{sec:Many}

545: 

546: In a system of more than three electrons, the Hamiltonian that governs the

547: important degrees of freedom, $x$ and $\mathbf{X}=(X_{2},\ldots

548: ,X_{N-1})^{\dagger }$, becomes

549: \begin{equation}

550: H_{N}=-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2\mu }\partial _{x}^{2}-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2}\left(

551: \mathbf{M}^{-1/2}\partial _{\mathbf{X}}\right) ^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{M}%

552: ^{-1/2}\partial _{\mathbf{X}}\right) +U_{\text{tot}},  \label{eqn:H_N}

553: \end{equation}

554: where

555: 

556: \begin{equation}

557: M_{ij}^{-1/2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\frac{\delta _{ij}-\left( 1-\sqrt{2/N}%

558: \right) }{N-2}.

559: \end{equation}

560: Again, the potential energy has two minima separated by a large barrier.

561: The single-well function $\Phi _{1}(x,\mathbf{X})$ can be sought in the form

562: \begin{equation}

563: \Phi _{1}=\phi (x)\exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2\hbar }\Delta \mathbf{X}^{\dagger }%

564: \mathbf{M}^{1/2}\bm{\Omega}(x)\mathbf{M}^{1/2}\Delta \mathbf{X}\right] ,

565: \label{eqn:Phi_1}

566: \end{equation}

567: where $\Delta \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{X}^{\ast }$. In the language of

568: the quantum tunneling theory, $\mathbf{X}^{\ast }(x)$ is the instanton

569: trajectory and $\bm{\Omega}(x)$ is a matrix that controls Gaussian

570: fluctuations around the instanton. Our goal is to compute them. The usual

571: route is to parametrize the dependence of $\mathbf{X}^{\ast }$ on $x$ in

572: terms of an ``imaginary-time'' $\tau $, in

573: which case $x(\tau )$ and $\mathbf{X}^{\ast }(\tau )$ must minimize the

574: action functional

575: \begin{equation}

576: S_{N}=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }\frac{d\tau }{\hbar }\left[ \frac{\mu }{2}%

577: (\partial _{\tau }x)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\partial _{\tau }\mathbf{X})^{\dagger }%

578: \mathbf{M}\,\partial _{\tau }\mathbf{X}+\Delta U_{\text{tot}}\ \right]

579: \label{eqn:S_N}

580: \end{equation}

581: subject to the boundary conditions $x(0)=0$, $x(\infty )=a$, and $\mathbf{X}

582: (\infty )=0$. Henceforth $U_{\text{tot}}$ is always meant to be evaluated on

583: the instanton trajectory and $\Delta U_{\text{tot}}$ stands for the

584: difference of its values at a given $\tau $ and at $\tau =\infty $.

585: Repeating the steps of the derivation for the $N=3$ case, we find that

586: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Omega_3}) for $\bm{\Omega}$ is still valid once we define

587: $\bm{\omega}$ to be a positive-definite matrix such that $\bm{\omega}^{2}=

588: \mathbf{M}^{-1/2}\bm{\Xi}\mathbf{M}^{-1/2}$, where $\bm{\Xi}$ is the matrix

589: of the second derivatives $\Xi _{ij}=\partial _{X_{i}}\partial _{X_{j}}

590: U_{\text{tot}}$. This equation has an equivalent but more elegant form in terms

591: of $\tau $:

592: \begin{equation}

593: \partial _{\tau }\bm{\Omega}=\bm{\Omega}^{2}(\tau )-\bm{\omega}^{2}(\tau ).

594: \label{eqn:Omega}

595: \end{equation}

596: Also, for practical calculations, it is convenient to take advantage of a

597: formula

598: \begin{equation}

599: \text{tr}\,\left( \mathbf{M}^{-1}\bm{\Xi}\right) +\frac{1}{\mu }

600: \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}U_{\text{tot}}\left( x\right) =

601: \frac{1}{2\mu }\sum\limits_{\substack{ i,j=0  \\ i\neq j}}^{N-1}

602: U^{\prime \prime }\left( x_{i}-x_{j}\right) .

603: \end{equation}

604: 

605: As for Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:phi_3}) and (\ref{eqn:xi}), they require only the

606: replacement $\Omega \rightarrow \text{tr}\,\bm{\Omega}$,

607: \begin{equation}

608: \left\{ \frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2\mu }\partial _{x}^{2}-U_{\text{tot}}(x) -

609: \frac{\hbar }{2}\,\text{tr}\,\bm{\Omega}(x) + E\right\} \phi (x)=0,

610: \end{equation}

611: while in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:kappa_3}) one has to replace $\Omega $ with $\det

612: \bm{\Omega}$.

613: 

614: Finally, instead of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:eta_3}) we have $\eta =2S_{N}/\sqrt{2r_{s}}

615: $, consistent with the notion that the main exponential dependence of $J$ is

616: always determined by the tunneling action.

617: 

618: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

619: 

620: \section{Calculation of the instanton}

621: \label{sec:Instanton}

622: 

623: A few properties of the instanton follow from general considerations. The

624: dimensional analysis of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:S_N}) yields $S_{N}\propto \sqrt{r_{s}}

625: $, so that $\eta $ is indeed just a constant. Also, from the symmetry of the

626: problem, $X_{N+1-j}(\tau )=-X_{j}(\tau )$. Thus, in the special case of

627: $N=3$, the instanton trajectory is trivial: $X_{2}\equiv 0$, i.e., the $j=2$

628: electron does not move. This is why we were able to compute $S_{3}$ in a

629: closed form, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:S_3}). For $N>3$ the situation is quite

630: different: all electrons [except $j=(N+1)/2$ for odd $N$] do move. In order

631: to investigate how important the motion of electrons distant from the

632: $j=0,1$-pair is let us consider the $N=\infty $ (\emph{quantum wire\/}) case,

633: where the far-field effects are the largest. If $X_{j}$'s were small, we

634: could expand $\Delta U_{\text{tot}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:S_N}) to the second order

635: in $X_{j}$ to obtain the harmonic action

636: \begin{equation}

637: S_{h}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{\hbar }\int \frac{dk}{2\pi }\int \frac{d\omega }

638: {2\pi }\left\vert u_{k\omega }\right\vert ^{2}\left[ \omega ^{2}+\omega

639: _{p}^{2}(k)\right] ,  \label{eqn:action_harmonic}

640: \end{equation}

641: where $u_{k\omega }$ is the Fourier transform of $u_{j}(\tau )\equiv

642: x_{j}-x_{j}^{0}$, electron displacement from the classical equilibrium

643: position $x_{j}^{0}\equiv (j-1/2)a$, $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, and

644: %

645: \begin{equation}

646: \omega_{p}(k)\simeq s_{0} k \ln^{1/2}\left(\frac{4.15}{ka}\right),

647: \quad s_{0} \equiv \sqrt{\frac{e^2}{\epsilon \mu a}}

648: \end{equation}

649: %

650: is the plasmon dispersion in the 1D WC (the logarithmic term is due to

651: the long-range nature of the Coulomb interaction). Minimization of

652: $S_{h}$ with the specified boundary conditions yields

653: %

654: \begin{equation}

655: u_{j}(\tau ) \propto \frac{v x_j^0}{(x_j^0)^2 + v^2 \tau^2},\quad

656: v \simeq \frac{s_0}{2}

657:           \ln \frac{(x_{j}^{0})^2 + s_0^2 \tau^2}{a^2}.

658: \end{equation}

659: %

660: Substituting this formula into Eq.~(\ref{eqn:action_harmonic}), we

661: find that the contributions of distant electrons to $S_{h}$ rapidly

662: decay with $|j|$. Since $u_{j}(\tau )$'s are small at large $j$ and

663: $\tau $ we expect that these $j$- and $\tau $-dependencies are rendered

664: correctly by the harmonic approximation. Thus, a fast convergence of

665: $\eta $ to its thermodynamic limit is expected as $N$ increases.

666: 

667: Encouraged by this conclusion, we undertook a direct numerical minimization

668: of $S$ for the set of $N$ listed in Table~\ref{tbl:Results} using standard

669: algorithms of a popular software package \textsc{MATLAB}. The optimal

670: trajectories that we found for the case $N = 8$ are shown in

671: Fig.~\ref{fig:Instanton}. In agreement with our earlier statement, $u_j(0)$

672: reach a finite fraction of $a$. This collective electron motion lowers the

673: effective tunneling barrier and causes $\eta$ to drop below its FLA value,

674: although only by $0.7\%$, see Table~\ref{tbl:Results}. Further decrease of

675: $\eta$ as $N$ increases past $8$ is beyond the accuracy of the employed

676: minimization procedure.

677: 

678: Let us now discuss the prefactor $\kappa$. In the inset of

679: Fig.~\ref{fig:Instanton} we plot $\text{tr}\,\bm{\Omega}(x)$ computed by

680: solving Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Omega}) numerically. To reduce the calculational

681: burden, we set $\mathbf{X}^\ast(\tau) \to 0$ instead of using the true

682: instanton trajectory. The error in $\kappa$ incurred thereby is $\sim

683: 2\%$ (see Sec.~\ref{sec:integrable_model}). In comparison, the FLA, where

684: $\text{tr}\,\bm{\Omega}(x) = \text{const}$, yields $\kappa$ about $50\%$

685: smaller than the correct result, similar to $N = 3$.

686: 

687: %%%%%%%%%%%

688: % FIG. 3

689: %

690: \begin{figure}

691: \begin{center}

692: \includegraphics[height=1.75in]{wcx_3.eps}

693: \end{center}

694: \caption{(Color online) The instanton trajectories of $1\leq j\leq 4$

695: electrons in the $N = 8$ Wigner molecule on a ring. Inset: $\text{tr}\,

696: \bm{\Omega}(x)$. The units of $\protect\tau$ and $\bm{\Omega}$ are $\protect%

697: \sqrt{2} a / s_0$ and its inverse.}

698: \label{fig:Instanton}

699: \end{figure}

700: %%%%%%%%%%%

701: 

702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

703: 

704: \section{Alternative derivation of the exchange constant}

705: \label{sec:Alternative}

706: 

707: The relation~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) between the exchange

708: constant $J$ and the PCF of the spinless system --- which is one of our

709: main results --- was derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:Three} assuming $r_s \gg

710: 1$. In this section we show that in ultrathin wires, $\mathcal{L} \equiv

711: \ln (a_B / R) \gg 1$, this relation holds under a more general

712: condition: with an accuracy $O(1 / \mathcal{L})$, it remains valid as

713: long as the \emph{strong\/} spin-charge separation persists, $J \ll E_F

714: \sim \hbar^2 / m a^2$. In particular, it applies at $r_s \sim 1$, i.e.,

715: in a parametric regime which has been notoriously difficult for a

716: controlled theoretical analysis. Therefore, we think that

717: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) amounts to some definite progress.

718: The fundamental reason for the broad domain of validity of

719: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) is that in 1D the $1/r$ fall-off of

720: the Coulomb potential~(\ref{eqn:U}) constitutes a sufficiently rapid

721: decay. In fact, the relations of type of

722: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) are generic for 1D models in which

723: electrons interact via the potential $U(r) \sim 1 / r^\alpha$ with

724: $\alpha \geq 1$. Known to us physical realizations of $\alpha > 1$ cases

725: include (i) $\alpha = 3$, which occurs when the bare Coulomb interaction

726: is screened by a nearby metallic plane,\cite{Fogler-05a} and (ii)

727: $\alpha = 2$, where the screening is accomplished by a half-plane, see

728: Sec.~\ref{sec:integrable_model} below.

729: 

730: In order to derive Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) for the unscreened

731: Coulomb interaction ($\alpha = 1$) we make a connection with a previous

732: work of one of us\cite{Fogler-05a} where it was shown that in ultrathin

733: wires an unusual correlated regime --- Coulomb Tonks gas (CTG) ---

734: exists in the window $1 / \mathcal{L} \ll r_s \ll 1$. In the CTG, unlike

735: in a WC, the long-range tails of the Coulomb potential have no important

736: effect on the spin degree of freedom. To the leading order in $r_s$, the

737: Coulomb interaction~(\ref{eqn:U}) acts simply as a strong short-range

738: repulsion. This allows one to characterize its effect solely in terms of

739: the transmission coefficient $t(q)$ for a two-electron collision with

740: the relative momentum $q$. Based on this observation, the following

741: formula for $J$ was derived\cite{Fogler-05a}

742: %

743: \begin{equation}

744: J = \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \int \frac{d q}{2 \pi} \tilde{g}_0(q) q\,

745:     \text{Im}\,t(q),\quad J \ll E_F.

746: \label{eqn:J_CTG_from_t}

747: \end{equation}

748: %

749: To see how it leads to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) we

750: first note that for the potential~(\ref{eqn:U})

751: the transmission coefficient has the form\cite{Fogler-05a}

752: %

753: \begin{equation}

754: t(q) = \frac{i q}{i q - (m / \hbar^2) c(q)},

755:  \quad q \gg \frac{1}{a_B},

756: \label{eqn:t_q}

757: \end{equation}

758: %

759: where $c(q) = 2 (e^2 / \epsilon) \ln \left(1 / 2 q R\right)$. The slow

760: (in this case, logarithmic) dependence of $c$ on $q$ is crucial here and

761: it is precisely due to the aforementioned fast decay of $U(r)$ with

762: distance. As explained in Ref.~\onlinecite{Fogler-05a}, in the CTG

763: regime the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CTG_from_t}) is dominated by $q

764: \sim 1 / a$; therefore, to the order $O(1 / \mathcal{L})$ one can

765: replace $c(q)$ by $c(1 / a)$ and then by $2 (e^2 / \epsilon)

766: \mathcal{L}$. Finally, it is permissible to neglect $i q$ in the

767: denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:t_q}), thereupon

768: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CTG_from_t}) becomes identical to

769: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}).

770: 

771: Our next task is to show that Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) holds

772: not only in the two limiting case (CTG and WC) but also everywhere in

773: between. We do so with the help of a formalism that can be considered a

774: continuum analog of the Schrieffer-Wolfe transformation in the Hubbard

775: model, in particular, in its 1D version.\cite{Ogata-90}

776: 

777: Let $j\in \mathbb{Z}$ label electrons in the order of increasing

778: instantaneous coordinates $x_{j}$. Then, by construction, the coupling

779: constant $J$ refers to the exchanges of nearest-neighbors, say, $j = 0$

780: and $j = 1$. This coupling is suppressed because in order to exchange,

781: the two electrons have to approach each other very closely and at that

782: moment their mutual Coulomb repulsion $U(x)$ is very strong. Let $a_c$

783: be a suitable short-range cutoff. Since we are interested

784: in the physics at the energy scale $J$, it should be possible in

785: principle to ``integrate out'' the processes at the much higher energy

786: scale $U(a_c)$. In doing so one would trade the bare Hamiltonian $H$ for

787: a renormalized one, $H + H_\sigma$, which however yields the same value

788: of the effective coupling $J$. Traditionally, this renormalization

789: program is accomplished by incrementally increasing $a_c$ from zero to

790: $a$, the natural upper limit. In particular, the

791: Hamiltonian~(\ref{eqn:H}) can be viewed as the final result of such a

792: renormalization. However, it is fully legitimate to stop the process

793: while $a_c$ is still much smaller than $a$. At this stage the charge

794: correlations at scales shorter than $a_c$ can not longer be studied

795: because the corresponding degrees of freedom are already integrated out.

796: This implies that the form of $H_\sigma$ is not unique: $H_\sigma$ may

797: differ in their structure on scales $x < a_c$ as long as the resultant

798: $J$ is unchanged. Therefore, it should be possible to choose $H_\sigma$

799: in the form

800: %

801: \begin{equation}

802: H_{\sigma} = U_{\sigma }(x)(\mathbf{S}_{0}\mathbf{S}_{1}-1/4)

803:            + \Delta c \delta(x).

804: \label{eqn:H_sigma}

805: \end{equation}

806: %

807: It is especially convenient to take the limit $\Delta c \rightarrow

808: \infty$, in which electrons behave as impenetrable particles. Although

809: thus renormalized Hamiltonian forbids the pair-exchange in the real

810: space, if the choose $U_\sigma(x)$ correctly, the spin exchange rate $J$,

811: which is the only observable manifestation of an interchange of

812: identical particles, would be preserved. A familiar example of such a

813: $H_\sigma$ on a lattice is the added term

814: %

815: \begin{equation}

816: \frac{4 t^2}{U} \left(\mathbf{S}_{i}\mathbf{S}_{i+1}

817:  - \frac14 n_{i}n_{i+1}\right)

818: \label{eqn:H_sigma_Hubbard}

819: \end{equation}

820: %

821: complemented with the no-double-occupancy constraint (i.e., $U \to U +

822: \Delta U = \infty$) in the theory of a large-$U$ 1D Hubbard

823: model.\cite{Ogata-90}

824: 

825: The choice of $U_\sigma(x)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:H_sigma}) is again not

826: unique. To readily get the result we want, we require

827: that (i) $U_{\sigma }(x)$ decays exponentially with $x$ and (ii)

828: its effect on any wavefunction $\Phi(x)$ that vanishes at $x = 0$ is

829: adequately described by the first-order perturbation theory. Under

830: such conditions the spin dynamics is captured

831: correctly to the leading order in $1 / \mathcal{L}$ as long as

832: $U_\sigma(x)$ satisfies the constraint

833: %

834: \begin{equation}

835: I_2 \equiv \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} d x\, x^2 U_\sigma(x)

836:     = \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \frac{a_{B}}{\mathcal{L}}.

837: \label{eqn:U_sigma}

838: \end{equation}

839: %

840: The proof is relegated to Appendix~\ref{sec:U_sigma}. From this point

841: the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) is straightforward.

842: After the renormalization, the infinitely strong $\delta$-function

843: included in $H_\sigma$ causes the orbital wavefunction of the

844: system to vanish at $x = 0$, so that the perturbation theory in

845: $U_\sigma$ now applies. To the leading order we can compute the

846: sought exchange constant $J$ by averaging $U_{\sigma}$ over

847: such a wavefunction or equivalently over the renormalized PCF

848: $g_{\text{ren}}(x)$:

849: %

850: \begin{equation}

851: J = \frac12 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty }U_{\sigma }(x)g_{\text{ren}}(x)dx.

852: \label{eqn:J_from_g_ren}

853: \end{equation}

854: %

855: (The factor $1/2$ accounts for the two-body nature of the interaction.)

856: Let us discuss $g_{\text{ren}}(x)$ in more detail. First of all, under the

857: conditions of a strong spin-charge separation the PCF a spinful ($g$)

858: and spinless ($g_0$) systems are always very similar. Before the

859: renormalization (for the original Hamiltonian) both functions are peaked

860: at $x \sim a$ and rapidly decrease as $x \to 0$, albeit only $g_0(x)$

861: vanishes at $x = 0$, while $g(0)$ is simply very small. Once $H_\sigma$

862: is added, $g(x)$ gets replaced by the function $g_{\text{ren}}(x)$, which

863: vanishes at $x = 0$ and thus is nearly identical to the original $g_0$

864: at \emph{all\/} $x$. The PCF $g_0(x)$ of the spinless system does not

865: change appreciably. Since $U_{\sigma }(x)$ is short-range, the integral

866: in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ren}) is dominated by small $x$. Therefore, we

867: can substitute the expansion $g_{\text{ren}}(x) \simeq g_{0}(x) \simeq

868: g_{0}^{\prime \prime }(0)x^{2}/2$ in place of the full $g_{\text{ren}}(x)$.

869: Comparing the result with Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma}), we arrive at

870: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}).

871: 

872: This alternative route to the derivation of

873: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) has the advantage of being valid in a

874: broader range of $r_s$ compared to Herring's method\cite{Herring-64}

875: originally designed for the quasiclassical case $r_s \gg 1$. It may also

876: be more intuitive because the Hubbard-model

877: expression~(\ref{eqn:H_sigma_Hubbard}) is widely known. Finally, it can

878: be easily generalized to other interaction types, as discussed in the

879: next section.

880: 

881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

882: 

883: \section{An integrable model with a screened Coulomb interaction}

884: \label{sec:integrable_model}

885: 

886: Our instanton calculation in Sec.~\ref{sec:Many} is expected to be

887: asymptotically exact in the limit of large $r_s$. However it is a good

888: practice to verify whenever possible that any given calculation is free

889: of inadvertent arithmetic or coding mistakes. With this in mind we

890: applied our method also to the interaction law

891: %

892: \begin{equation}

893: U(r) = \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \frac{\lambda (\lambda -1)}{(r + R)^2},

894: \label{eqn:U_CSM}

895: \end{equation}

896: %

897: which is similar to the celebrated Calogero-Sutherland-Moser (CSM)

898: model,\cite{Sutherland-71} except for the short-range cutoff $R$ in

899: $U(r)$. Without this cutoff (i.e., for $R = 0$) the potential $U$ is

900: impenetrable, so that $J = 0$. With a finite cutoff a weak tunneling

901: through the potential barrier $U(r)$ is possible, which imparts the

902: system with a spin dynamics and has interesting experimental

903: implications (see Appendix~\ref{sec:CSM_law}). But to finish with

904: the theoretical part,

905: let us first focus on the original CSM model, $R = 0$. This is a good

906: test case because, on the one hand, a number of exact analytical results

907: are available here. On the other hand, the model also possesses a WC

908: regime, at $\lambda \gg 1$, so that the corresponding PCF $g_0(x)$

909: should be calculable by our method. According to the exact

910: results,\cite{Sutherland-71, Forrester-92} the PCF behaves as

911: %

912: \begin{equation}

913: g_0(x)\simeq \frac{\varkappa \sqrt{\lambda}}{a}

914: \left(C \frac{x}{a}\right)^{2\lambda },

915: \quad x\rightarrow 0.

916: \label{eqn:g_CSM_exact}

917: \end{equation}

918: %

919: For the three-electron molecule on a ring the coefficients $C$ and

920: $\varkappa$ can be computed in a straightforward manner directly

921: from the exact\cite{Sutherland-71} three-body wavefunction:

922: %

923: \begin{equation}

924: N = 3,\:\: \lambda \gg 1:\quad C = \frac{8\pi}{9 \sqrt{3}},\quad

925:                     \varkappa = \sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{27}}.

926: \label{eqn:C_3}

927: \end{equation}

928: %

929: For $N = \infty$ the derivation is much more

930: involved, but the result\cite{Forrester-92, Ha-94} is also known:

931: %

932: \begin{equation}

933: \frac{C}{2 \pi \lambda} =  \left[

934: \frac{\Gamma^3(\lambda + 1) \sqrt{{3} / {\pi \lambda}}}

935: {\Gamma(2 \lambda + 1) \Gamma(3 \lambda + 1)}\right]^{1 / (2 \lambda)},

936: \quad \varkappa =\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{3}},

937: \label{eqn:C}

938: \end{equation}

939: %

940: where $\Gamma(z)$ is Euler gamma-function.\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik}

941: In the WC limit the first formula reduces to

942: %

943: \begin{equation}

944: C = \frac{e\pi}{3 \sqrt{3}},\quad \lambda \gg 1.

945: \label{eqn:C_infty}

946: \end{equation}

947: %

948: The calculation of $g_0(x)$ by the instanton method

949: is virtually the same as in Sec.~\ref{sec:Instanton} except for two

950: minor changes. First, the quasiclassical approximation is valid down to

951: $x=0$, i.e., there is no region I in Fig.~\ref{fig:PCF}. Second, to

952: handle the logarithmic divergence of the tunneling action, inherent to

953: the CSM model, one has to impose a different boundary condition for the

954: instanton, $x(\tau =0)=z$, which makes $S_{N}$ a function of $z$

955: [similar to $S_{3}$ being a function of $x$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:S_3})]. At

956: small $z$ it behaves as

957: %

958: \begin{equation}

959: S_{N}\simeq \sqrt{\lambda (\lambda -1)}\,[\ln (a/z)-\Delta S].

960: \label{eqn:Delta_S}

961: \end{equation}

962: %

963: Replacing $\sqrt{\lambda (\lambda -1)}$ by $\lambda -1/2$, we find [cf.

964: Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:eta_3}) and (\ref{eqn:kappa_3})]

965: %

966: \begin{equation}

967: C=e^{\Delta S},\quad \varkappa =\frac{e^{\xi (0)-\Delta S}}{\sqrt{\pi }%

968: \left( l\sqrt{\lambda }/a\right) ^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{\det \mathbf{\Omega }(a)}

969: {\det \mathbf{\Omega }(0)}}  \label{eqn:C_varkappa_CSM}

970: \end{equation}

971: %

972: (it is easy to see that $\varkappa $ is a $\lambda $-independent constant).

973: 

974: Remarkably, for $N=3$ the solution of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Omega_3}) and all the

975: necessary quadratures can be done analytically. Using the expression for

976: total potential energy

977: %

978: \begin{align}

979: U_{\text{tot}}\left( x\right) &=

980: \frac{\pi^2}{9} \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \frac{\lambda (\lambda - 1)}{a^2}

981: \notag\\

982: &\times \left[ \frac{1}{\sin^2 \left( \pi x/3a\right)}

983:  + \frac{2}{\cos^2 \left( \pi x/6a\right)} - 4\right],

984: \end{align}

985: %

986: we derive (for $\lambda \gg 1$)

987: %

988: \begin{equation}

989: \begin{split}

990: \phi \left( x\right) & =\left[ 4\sin \left( \frac{\pi x}{3a}\right) \left(

991: 1+\cos \frac{\pi x}{3a}\right) \right] ^{\lambda }, \\

992: \Omega \left( x\right) & = \frac{\pi^2}{3} \frac{\hbar }{m a^2}

993: \frac{\lambda }{\cos^2 \left( \pi x/6a\right)},

994: \end{split}

995: \end{equation}

996: %

997: which allows one to recover the exact result Eq.~(\ref{eqn:C_3}).

998: 

999: To check if we can also reproduce Eq.~(\ref{eqn:C_infty}) for $N =

1000: \infty$, we calculated $\Delta S$ and $\varkappa $ numerically for

1001: $4\leq N\leq 10$ and fitted them to cubic polynomials in $1/N$.

1002: Extrapolating the fits to $N=\infty $, we obtained $\exp (\Delta

1003: S)=1.6438(4)$ and $\varkappa =1.04$ compared to the exact values

1004: $1.6434$ and $1.02$, respectively. We attribute the $2\%$ discrepancy in

1005: $\varkappa $ to our choice not to use the true instanton trajectory in

1006: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Omega}). Apparently, our method has successfully passed

1007: this test; thus, our results for the unscreened Coulomb interaction

1008: (Table~\ref{tbl:Results}) should also be reliable.

1009: 

1010: Let us now consider the case with a small but non-zero cutoff, $0 < R

1011: \ll a$. As explained in Appendix~\ref{sec:CSM_law}, this model can be

1012: relevant for the existing experimental setup of \textcite{Auslaender-05}

1013: provided the electron density can be made

1014: low enough. Therefore, the calculation of $J$ has an independent

1015: significance. This calculation is again similar to that for the case

1016: of the bare Coulomb interaction, Sec.~\ref{sec:Alternative}, except that

1017: instead of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma}) the constraint on the effective

1018: potential becomes

1019: %

1020: \begin{equation}

1021:  I_{2 \lambda} \equiv \int_{0}^{\infty }dx\, x^{2\lambda}

1022:  U_{\sigma }\left( x\right) = \frac{\pi}{\lambda -1} \frac{\hbar^2}{m}

1023:  R^{2\lambda - 1}.

1024: \label{eqn:U_sigma_CSM}

1025: \end{equation}

1026: %

1027: (For derivation, see Appendix~\ref{sec:U_sigma}.) Consequently,

1028: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) is replaced with

1029: %

1030: \begin{equation}

1031: J = I_{2 \lambda} a_c^{-2\lambda} g_0(a_c),\quad R \ll a_c \ll a.

1032: \label{eqn:J_from_g_CSM}

1033: \end{equation}

1034: %

1035: Since $R$ is parametrically smaller than $a$, it is permissible to

1036: substitute Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:g_CSM_exact}) and (\ref{eqn:C}) into the

1037: last formula, which yields

1038: %

1039: \begin{align}

1040: J &= \gamma \frac{\hbar^2}{m a^2}

1041:      \left(\frac{R}{a}\right)^{2\lambda - 1},

1042: \label{eqn:J_CSM}\\

1043: \gamma &= \frac{1}{2 \lambda (\lambda - 1)}

1044:        \frac{(2 \pi \lambda)^{2\lambda + 1} \Gamma^3(\lambda + 1)}

1045:             {\Gamma(2 \lambda + 1) \Gamma(3 \lambda + 1)}.

1046: \label{eqn:gamma}

1047: \end{align}

1048: %

1049: From Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CSM}) one concludes that the strong spin-charge

1050: separation in the model in hand may arise for an arbitrary $\lambda > 1$

1051: provided ${R} / {a} \ll \min\{1,\,\lambda - 1\}$. In the experimental

1052: setup of \textcite{Auslaender-05}, where this

1053: model can be realized physically, we estimate $R \approx 0.7 a_B$ and

1054: $\lambda = 1.5$--$2$, see Appendix~\ref{sec:CSM_law}, so that $\gamma =

1055: 36$--$40$. Our formula predicts that as the electron density is reduced,

1056: a fairly rapid \emph{algebraic\/} fall-off Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CSM}) of $J$

1057: should become observable, provided the disorder effects do not

1058: intervene. The crossover from high to low-density behavior is discussed

1059: in more detail in the next section where we give arguments that the

1060: strong spin-charge separation sets in already at rather modest $r_s$.

1061: 

1062: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1063: 

1064: \section{Validity domain of the obtained formulas and numerical

1065: estimates}

1066: \label{sec:Domain}

1067: \subsection{Intermediate densities}

1068: 

1069: Returning to the case of the unscreened Coulomb interaction, an

1070: important practical question is the relevance of the obtained formulas

1071: for a more common experimental situation of $r_s \sim 1$. Although

1072: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) reduces this question to an easier

1073: problem of calculating the PCF of spinless fermions, at such $r_s$ it

1074: still has to be done numerically. Deferring this effort for a possible

1075: future work, we attempted to see whether one can estimate $J$ at $r_s

1076: \sim 1$ by a simple interpolation between the high-density limit

1077: $r_{s}\ll 1$, corresponding to the CTG,\cite{Fogler-05a} and the

1078: low-density WC limit, $r_s \gg 1$, studied in this work.

1079: 

1080: Using Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CTG_from_t}) with $\tilde{g}_0(q)$ computed to the

1081: linear order in $r_s$ (per Ref.~\onlinecite{Fogler-05a}) we obtained

1082: for the CTG

1083: %%

1084: %\begin{equation}

1085: %\tilde{g}_0(q) = 2 \pi n \delta(q)

1086: %               - \theta(2 \pi n - q) \frac{2 \pi n - q}{2 \pi n}

1087: %               + O(r_s),

1088: %\label{eqn:g_CTG}

1089: %\end{equation}

1090: %%

1091: %where $n = {1}/{a}$ is the electron density and $\theta(z)$ is the

1092: %step-function.

1093: %

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: J = \frac{e^2}{\epsilon a_B} \frac{\pi^2}{24 r_s^3 \mathcal{L}}

1096: \left[

1097: %1 - 2 r_s \left(\frac{1}{\pi^2}+ \frac{1}{3}\right)

1098: 1 - \frac{2 (3 + \pi^2)}{3 \pi^2} r_s

1099: \right] + O\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{L}^2}\right),

1100: \label{eqn:J_CTG}

1101: \end{equation}

1102: %

1103: which is valid for ${1}/{\mathcal{L}} \ll r_s \ll 1$. We plotted this

1104: dependence in Fig.~\ref{fig:J} together with the prediction of

1105: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}) for the infinite-wire WC. As one can see, a smooth

1106: interpolation between the two is entirely possible. In fact, the curves

1107: match almost seamlessly around $r_s \sim 0.9$ where a tiny gap has been

1108: left on purpose to separate them from each other. However, we must warn

1109: the reader that at such $r_s$ the high-density approximation of

1110: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CTG}) certainly needs higher-order corrections (taken

1111: literally, it would give negative $J$ at $r_s > 1.15$). Similarly,

1112: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}) is likely to have its own non-negligible corrections

1113: at such $r_s$. Thus, one should regard Fig.~\ref{fig:J} as the

1114: indication that the crossover from the CTG to the WC occurs at $r_s =

1115: 1$--$2$. To put it another way, we expect that our Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J})

1116: becomes quantitatively accurate at $r_s \gtrsim 2$. This conclusion

1117: seems to be in agreement with the numerical result of

1118: Ref.~\onlinecite{Egger-99} that the 1D WC is well-formed already at $r_s

1119: > 4$. To get an idea of the size of $J$, we can use parameters $r_s =

1120: 4$, $a_B = 1.5$~nm, and $\epsilon = 1$, which are relevant for the

1121: experiment of \textcite{Jarillo-Herrero-04} For this set of numbers

1122: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}) yields

1123: %

1124: \begin{equation}

1125: J \approx 1\ \text{K}.

1126: \end{equation}

1127: %

1128: Unfortunately, the lowest temperature in that experiment was $0.3$~K, so

1129: the exchange correlations may have been strongly affected. We leave the

1130: investigation of the finite-temperature effects for a future study. We

1131: also hope that lower temperatures can be achieved in the next round of

1132: experiments, so that we would be in a better position to check our

1133: predictions.

1134: 

1135: %%%%%%%%%%%

1136: % FIG. 4

1137: %

1138: \begin{figure}

1139: \begin{center}

1140: \includegraphics[height=1.75in]{wcx_4.eps}

1141: \end{center}

1142: \caption{Exchange constant in units of $e^2/\epsilon a_{B}$ as a function

1143: of $r_s$ for $a_{B}/R = 100$. The left curve is computed according to

1144: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_CTG}), the right one is per Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}).}

1145: \label{fig:J}

1146: \end{figure}

1147: %%%%%%%%%%%

1148: 

1149: \subsection{Thicker wires}

1150: 

1151: Another question that we wish to briefly address is the behavior of the

1152: exchange constant in a wire of radius $R \gtrsim a_B$. This parametric

1153: regime is more common than that of ultrathin wires, $R \ll a_B$, and so

1154: it needs to be investigated.

1155: 

1156: In regards to the WC limit, the correction to parameter $\eta$ of

1157: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}) due to a finite $R$ has been studied by

1158: \textcite{Klironomos-05} These authors pointed out that in the wires

1159: with radius $R\gtrsim a_{B}$ the problem of spin exchange cannot be

1160: treated as a purely 1D one from the outset. They found that the

1161: tunneling trajectories of the primary electron pair avoid the head-on

1162: collision by deviating off the wire center in the transverse direction

1163: by a certain amount $r_0$ each. For the parabolic confinement potential

1164: $U_{\text{con}}(r_\perp) = (\hbar^2 / 2 m R^2) (r_\perp / R)^2$ it is

1165: easy to find the estimate $r_0 \sim (R^4 / a_B)^{1/3}$ by balancing the

1166: Coulomb repulsion and the lateral confinement forces at the point of the

1167: closest approach. As long as $r_0 \ll a$, it remains possible to modify

1168: the interaction potential $U(x)$ to take this effect into account. [At

1169: the simplest level, it is sufficient to replace $R$ by $2 r_0$ in

1170: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U}).] Thereafter, one can still treat the problem as

1171: 1D.\footnote{

1172: %

1173: Significant changes in the calculation would be required only in very

1174: thick wires with radius $R > 11\,a_{B}$.\cite{Klironomos-05} However, in

1175: such wires the 1D WC limit can be achieved only at $r_s \gtrsim 20$

1176: where the exchange coupling $J$ would be unmeasurably small, see

1177: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}). At smaller $r_s$, other physics is likely to come

1178: into play, e.g., the 1D WC may undergo a transition into a multi-row

1179: WC\cite{Piacente-04, Klironomos-xxx} or into a liquid with multiple

1180: subband occupation.

1181: %

1182: }

1183: 

1184: In thick wires the relationship between the PCF and the exchange constant

1185: would differ from Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}). Of

1186: primary importance here is the small-distance behavior of $U(x)$. When

1187: $r_0 \gg a_B$, the interaction potential becomes so smooth near $x = 0$

1188: that it can be approximated by a constant $U(0) \sim e^2 / 2 \epsilon

1189: r_0$. Following the method outlined in Appendix~\ref{sec:U_sigma}, one

1190: arrives at the relation

1191: %

1192: \begin{equation}

1193: J = \frac{e^2 a_B}{2 \epsilon} a_0 g_0^{\prime \prime }(x),

1194: \quad a_0 = \frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{m U(0)}} \sim (R^2 a_B)^{1/3}.

1195: \label{eqn:J_smooth}

1196: \end{equation}

1197: %

1198: We see that the factor $\mathcal{L}$ in

1199: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_from_g_ultrathin}) gets replaced with

1200: $a_B / a_0 \ll 1$.\footnote{

1201: %

1202: It is interesting that in the opposite limit of a short-range $U(x)$,

1203: e.g., $U(x) = c \delta(x)$, the relation between $J$ and $g_0$ is

1204: formally similar, with $a_0 = 2 \hbar^2 / m c$, see

1205: Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:J_CTG_from_t}) and (\ref{eqn:t_q}).

1206: %

1207: }

1208: 

1209: In the case of intermediate-width wires, $R \sim a_B$, one can use $a_0

1210: = a_B$ for order-of-magnitude estimates; however, the exact value of the

1211: coefficient $a_0$ and therefore $\kappa$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J}) would

1212: depend on the details of the confinement potential

1213: $U_{\text{con}}(\textbf{r}_\perp)$.

1214: 

1215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1216: 

1217: \section{Conclusions}

1218: \label{section:Conclusions}

1219: 

1220: In this paper we have developed a method for a controlled calculation of

1221: the exchange constant $J$ in correlated 1D electron systems to the

1222: leading order in the large parameter $r_s$. This method is able to

1223: reproduce a number of exact results for integrable models, which is a

1224: strong indicator of its validity. In comparison to a prior uncontrolled

1225: calculation\cite{Matveev-04} of the same quantity for the Coulomb case,

1226: our method brings a small correction of about $0.7\%$ to the coefficient

1227: in the exponential term; however, the correction to the pre-exponential

1228: factor is large, about 50\%.

1229: 

1230: Our another main result --- the relation between $J$ and the

1231: pair-correlation function of spinless electrons --- is a promising

1232: ground for an attack on the regime of intermediate concentrations, $r_s

1233: \sim 1$, which has so far been difficult for a controlled analytical

1234: study. We demonstrated that a very smooth interpolation between the high

1235: and low-density asymptotic is possible based already on the results in

1236: hand (Fig.~\ref{fig:J}).

1237: 

1238: Finally, we have applied our method to a number of realistic interaction

1239: potentials corresponding to different geometries of experimental setup.

1240: Apart from nearly impenetrable Coulomb interaction in ultrathin quantum

1241: wires and quantum rings, which has been the primary focus of this work,

1242: we have studied penetrable smooth interactions that take place in the

1243: wires of intermediate width and a screened $1/x^2$ interaction that is

1244: realized, e.g., when the wire is located near a metallic half-plane.

1245: 

1246: These findings have direct implications for the energy spectroscopy of

1247: spin-splitting in nanoscale quantum rings\cite{Lorke-00, Fuhrer-04,

1248: Bayer-03} and 1D quantum dots.\cite{Field-90, Jarillo-Herrero-04,

1249: Auslaender-05} Some estimates were given in

1250: Secs.~\ref{sec:integrable_model} and \ref{sec:Domain} above. They should

1251: be especially accurate in the ultrathin-wire limit\cite{Fogler-05a}

1252: $\mathcal{L} = \ln (a_B / R) \gg 1$ that can be achieved in

1253: carbon-nanotube field-effect transistors with high-$k$

1254: dielectrics.\cite{Javey-02}

1255: 

1256: In long 1D wires, the exchange coupling $J$ determines the velocity

1257: of the elementary spin excitations

1258: %

1259: \begin{equation}

1260: v_{\sigma } = \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{J a}{\hbar},

1261: \end{equation}

1262: %

1263: which can nowadays be measured by tunneling,\cite{Auslaender-05}

1264: angle-resolved photoemission,\cite{Claessen-02} or deduced from the

1265: enhancement of the spin susceptibility and electron specific

1266: heat.\cite{Fogler-05a} Our result for $v_{\sigma }$ reads

1267: (cf.~Table~\ref{tbl:Results})

1268: %

1269: \begin{equation}

1270: {v_{\sigma }}/{v_{F}}=17.8\,{r_{s}^{3/4}}e^{-\eta \sqrt{2r_{s}}}/

1271: {\mathcal{L}},\quad \eta =2.7978(2),  \label{eqn:v_sigma_Coulomb}

1272: \end{equation}

1273: %

1274: where $v_F = (\pi /2)(\hbar / m a)$ is the Fermi velocity.

1275: 

1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1277: 

1278: \begin{acknowledgments}

1279: 

1280: The support from the A.~P. Sloan Foundation and C.~\&~W. Hellman Fund is

1281: gratefully acknowledged. We thank A.~D. Klironomos, R.~R. Ramazashvili,

1282: and K.~A. Matveev for discussions.

1283: 

1284: \end{acknowledgments}

1285: 

1286: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1287: \appendix

1288: 

1289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1290: \section{Spin-dependent part of the effective potential}

1291: \label{sec:U_sigma}

1292: 

1293: In this Appendix we derive Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma}),

1294: (\ref{eqn:U_sigma_CSM}), and (\ref{eqn:J_smooth}). Let $x \equiv

1295: x_1 - x_0$ be the relative distance between the two electrons for which

1296: we want to compute the exchange coupling. Consider the orbital part of

1297: the many-body wavefunction $\Phi$,which is a function of $x$ and $N - 1$

1298: other coordinates. In principle, $\Phi$ is different for different

1299: many-body spin states. Nonetheless, under the condition $J \ll E_F$

1300: where only nearest-neighbor exchanges are important, at small $x$

1301: function $\Phi$ depends primarily on the total spin of the given pair.

1302: The triplet-state wavefunction $\Phi_t(x)$ is odd and therefore

1303: $\Phi_t(0) = 0$. In the singlet state we have $\Phi_s(x)$ which is even

1304: and finite at $x = 0$ (cf.~Sec.~\ref{sec:Three}). However, because of

1305: the strong Coulomb repulsion $\Phi_s(0)$ is very small. At $x\ll a$ the

1306: two electrons of interest are under a large Coulomb barrier and it is

1307: legitimate to assume that $\Phi_t$ and $\Phi_s$ are functions of only

1308: $x$, the fastest variable in the problem. Our goal is to choose

1309: $U_{\sigma}(x)$ that reproduces the difference between $\Phi_{s}$ and

1310: $\Phi_{t}$ at the level of the first-order perturbation theory. This is

1311: achieved if there exists a window $a_{c}\ll x\ll a$, where the following

1312: equation is satisfied:

1313: %

1314: \begin{equation}

1315: \Phi_{t}(x) - \Phi_{s}(x) = \int\limits_{0}^{\infty }dx^{\prime}

1316: G(x,x^{\prime})U_{\sigma }(x^{\prime })\Phi_{t}(x^{\prime }).

1317: \label{eqn:U_sigma_eqn}

1318: \end{equation}

1319: %

1320: Here the Green's function $G$ is the solution of

1321: %

1322: \begin{equation}

1323: \left[ -\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2\mu }\partial _{x}^{2}+U(x)-E\right]

1324: G(x,x^{\prime })=-\delta (x-x^{\prime }),

1325: \label{eqn:G_equation}

1326: \end{equation}

1327: %

1328: where $E\sim e^{2}/\epsilon a$ is the total energy. At the end of the

1329: calculation one can verify that the final result

1330: [Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma})] holds independently of the precise value of

1331: $E$ up to terms $O(1/\mathcal{L})$.

1332: 

1333: Our next step is to use the usual representation of $G$,

1334: %

1335: \begin{equation}

1336: G(x,x^{\prime })=-\frac{2\mu }{\hbar ^{2}Q}\left\{

1337: \begin{array}{ll}

1338: u(x)v(x^{\prime }), & x>x^{\prime }, \\

1339: v(x)u(x^{\prime }), & x<x^{\prime },

1340: \end{array}

1341: \right.

1342: \end{equation}

1343: %

1344: in terms of two linearly-independent solutions of the (homogeneous)

1345: Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{eqn:G_equation}). The solution $u(x)$

1346: initially decays exponentially with $x$ and then turns into a wave

1347: propagating towards $x=+\infty $. The other solution, $v(x)$ has a node

1348: at $x = 0$, exhibits an exponential rise and finally becomes a standing

1349: wave. The quantity $Q = u v^{\prime} - u^{\prime } v$ is their Wronskian.

1350: 

1351: Wavefunctions $\Phi_{s}$ and $\Phi_{t}$ are the linear combinations of

1352: $u$ and $v$ that are even and odd in $x$, respectively. For $x$ at which

1353: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma_eqn}) is valid, $\Phi_{t}\simeq \Phi_{s}\simeq

1354: \text{const}\times v(x)$. Using this property and some trivial algebra,

1355: we get

1356: %

1357: \begin{equation}

1358: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} dx U_\sigma(x)v^2(x)=\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu }%

1359: \frac{Q^{2}}{u(+0)u^{\prime }(+0)}.

1360: \label{eqn:U_sigma_II}

1361: \end{equation}

1362: %

1363: For the Coulomb case [Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U})] $u$ and $v$ can be expressed in

1364: terms of Whittaker functions\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik} $W_\alpha(z)$ and

1365: $M_\alpha(z)$ (see an earlier remark in Sec.~\ref{sec:Three} and

1366: Ref.~\onlinecite{Fogler-05a}):

1367: %

1368: \label{eqn:u,v_Coulomb}

1369: \begin{equation}

1370: \begin{split}

1371: u(x)& =W_{-i\nu, 1/2}[i(x-R)/b], \\

1372: v(x)& =M_{-i\nu, 1/2}[i(x-R)/b]  \\

1373: & -M_{-i\nu, 1/2}(-iR / b)u(x)/u(0),

1374: \end{split}

1375: \end{equation}

1376: %

1377: where $b = \hbar / (8\mu E)^{1/2}$ and $\nu = b / a_{B}\sim

1378: \sqrt{r_{s}}\gg 1$. Using the relations\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik}

1379: $W_{-i\nu ,1/2}(0)=1/\Gamma (1+i\nu )$ and $M_{-i\nu,1/2}(iz) \simeq iz$

1380: at $z\ll 1$, we find $Q=i/\Gamma (1-i\nu) b$. Substituting these

1381: results into Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma_II}) and dropping terms that are

1382: small in the parameter $R/a_{B}\ll 1$, we recover

1383: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma}).

1384: 

1385: Similarly, for the CSM model [Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_CSM})] $u$ and $v$ are

1386: given by

1387: %

1388: \begin{equation}

1389: \begin{split}

1390: u\left( x\right) & =\sqrt{x}H_{\lambda -1/2}^{(1)}(qx), \\

1391: v\left( x\right) & =\sqrt{x}J_{\lambda -1/2}(qx),

1392: \end{split}

1393: \end{equation}

1394: %

1395: where $q=\sqrt{m E}/\hbar$, and $H_\nu^{(1)}$, $J_\nu$ are the Hankel

1396: and the Bessel functions of the first kind,\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik}

1397: respectively. Their Wronskian is given by $W\{u,v\}=1/i\pi (\lambda -

1398: 1/2)$, and their known asymptotic behavior leads in this case

1399: to the formulas

1400: %

1401: \begin{equation}

1402: \begin{split}

1403: u(R) &\simeq \Gamma (\lambda -1/2) R^{1-\lambda }/i\pi,

1404: \\

1405: u^{\prime}(R) &\simeq (1-\lambda) u(R) / R,

1406: \\

1407: v(R) & \simeq R^{\lambda }/\Gamma (\lambda +1/2),

1408: \end{split}

1409: \end{equation}

1410: %

1411: so that the constraint on $U_\sigma(x)$ is expressed by

1412: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_sigma_CSM}).

1413: 

1414: Finally, in thick 1D wires, where $U(x) \simeq \text{const}$ at small

1415: $x$ (Sec.~\ref{sec:Domain}), the solutions of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:G_equation})

1416: are $u(x) = \exp(-x / a_0)$ and $v(x)=\sinh (x / a_0)$, where $a_0 =

1417: \hbar / \sqrt{m U(0)}$. These formulas leads to

1418: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:J_smooth}).

1419: 

1420: 

1421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1422: \section{Physical realization of the Calogero-Sutherland-Moser model}

1423: \label{sec:CSM_law}

1424: 

1425: The CSM interaction law can be realized experimentally if the 1D wire is

1426: positioned nearby a metallic half-plane, parallel to its edge, see

1427: Fig.~\ref{fig:CSM}. In this configuration the interaction potential has

1428: the Coulomb form [Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U})] only at small $x$. Below we show

1429: that at larger distances, $|x| \gg D$, the interaction changes to the

1430: CSM law $U(x) \simeq A / x^2$, due to the screening effect of the metal.

1431: For simplicity, let us assume that the metallic half-plane is an ideal

1432: conductor and that $x \gg R$. In this case $U(x) = V(x, D, \theta)$,

1433: where $V$ is the solution of the following electrostatic problem:

1434: %

1435: \begin{align}

1436: \nabla^2 V(\textbf{r}) &= \left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} +

1437:  \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho} \rho

1438:  \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}

1439:  + \frac{1}{\rho^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \varphi^2}\right)

1440:  V(x, \rho, \varphi)

1441: \nonumber\\

1442:  &= -\frac{4 \pi e^2}{\epsilon D} \delta(x) \delta(\rho - D)

1443:     \delta(\varphi - \theta),

1444: \label{eqn:Laplace_V}\\

1445: V(\textbf{r}) &= 0,\quad \varphi = \pm \pi.

1446: \label{eqn:bc_V}

1447: \end{align}

1448: %

1449: Using standard methods (cf.~Ref.~\onlinecite{Fogler-04} and references

1450: therein) one can express $V$ in terms of elliptic integrals. However,

1451: for a general $\theta$, such expressions are not very illuminating. An

1452: exception is the case $\theta = 0$, where $V$ takes the form

1453: %

1454: \begin{equation}

1455: V(\textbf{r}) = \frac{2}{\pi \epsilon} \frac{e^2}{|\textbf{r} - \textbf{D}|}

1456: \arctan \frac{\sqrt{2 D \rho \left( 1 + \cos\varphi\right) }}

1457: {|\textbf{r} - \textbf{D}|},

1458: \label{eqn:V_00}

1459: \end{equation}

1460: %

1461: where $\textbf{D} = (0, 0, D)$. This formula can be verified by the direct

1462: substitution into Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Laplace_V}) and (\ref{eqn:bc_V}). For the

1463: intra-wire interaction law we obtain

1464: %

1465: \begin{equation}

1466: U(x) = \frac{2}{\pi \epsilon} \frac{e^2}{|x|} \arctan \frac{2D}{|x|},

1467: \label{eqn:U_00}

1468: \end{equation}

1469: %

1470: so that $A = 4 D e^2 /\pi \epsilon$ in this case. We can also show that

1471: for an arbitrary $-\pi < \theta < \pi$ the coefficient $A$ is given by

1472: %

1473: \begin{equation}

1474: A = \frac{2 D}{\pi} \frac{e^2}{\epsilon} \left( 1 + \cos\theta\right) .

1475: \label{eqn:A}

1476: \end{equation}

1477: %

1478: First we note that the Fourier transform of $U$ must have the form

1479: $\tilde{U}(q) \simeq \tilde{U}(0) - \pi A |q|$ at small $q$. On the

1480: other hand, $\tilde{U}$ is given by the generalized Fourier series

1481: %

1482: %\begin{equation}

1483: \[

1484: \tilde{U}(q) = \frac{2 e^2}{\epsilon} \sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty

1485: \left[1 - (-1)^n \cos n \theta\right] I_{{n}/{2}} (q D)

1486: K_{{n}/{2}}(q D),

1487: \]

1488: %\label{eqn:U_q}

1489: %\end{equation}

1490: %

1491: where $I_\nu$ and $K_\nu$ are the modified Bessel functions of the first

1492: and the second kind, respectively.\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik} The

1493: non-analytic $|q|$-contribution comes only from the $n = 1$ term in the

1494: series. Using the formulas\cite{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik} $I_{1/2}(z) = (2 /

1495: \pi z)^{1/2} \sinh z$ and $K_{1/2}(z) = (\pi / 2 z)^{1/2} \exp(-z)$, we

1496: arrive at Eq.~(\ref{eqn:A}).

1497: 

1498: %%%%%%%%%%%

1499: % FIG. 5

1500: %

1501: \begin{figure}

1502: \begin{center}

1503: \includegraphics[height=1.75in]{wcx_5.eps}

1504: \end{center}

1505: \caption{The geometry of the electrostatic problem that

1506: gives rise to the CSM interaction law. (a) The cross-sectional view

1507: in a plane normal to the $x$-axis. The thick line symbolizes the metal

1508: half-plane, the large dot stands for the 1D wire. The drawing also

1509: indicates how the polar coordinates $\rho$, $\varphi$ of an arbitrary point

1510: $\textbf{r}$ are defined. (b) A three-dimensional view of the system.}

1511: \label{fig:CSM}

1512: \end{figure}

1513: %%%%%%%%%%%

1514: 

1515: The geometry of Fig.~\ref{fig:CSM}(b) has been realized in the experiment

1516: of \textcite{Auslaender-05}, where the role of the

1517: metallic half-plane was played by a two-dimensional electron gas. In

1518: contrast to our idealized electrostatic model, the two-dimensional metal

1519: has a non-zero Thomas-Fermi screening radius $r_{\text{TF}}$. We expect that in

1520: this situation the only change in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:A}) is the replacement of

1521: $D$ by $D + r_{\text{TF}}$. This yields the following estimate for

1522: the parameter $\lambda$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:U_CSM}):

1523: %

1524: \begin{equation}

1525: \lambda = \frac12 + \sqrt{\frac14 + \frac{2}{\pi}

1526:           \frac{D + r_{\text{TF}}}{a_B} (1 + \cos\theta)}.

1527: \label{eqn:lambda}

1528: \end{equation}

1529: %

1530: In the experimental setup of Ref.~\onlinecite{Auslaender-05} $D \sim a_B

1531: \sim r_{\text{TF}}$, so that $\lambda = 1.5$--$2$.

1532: 

1533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1534: 

1535: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1536: 

1537: \bibitem{Saito-book} R.~Saito, G.~Dresselhaus, and M.~S. Dresselhaus,

1538: \emph{Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes\/} (Imperial College Press,

1539: London, 1998).

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{Huang-01} Y.~Huang, X.~Duan, Y.~Cui, L.~J. Lauhon, K.-H. Kim, and

1542: C.~M. Lieber, Science \textbf{294}, 1313 (2001).

1543: 

1544: \bibitem{Heath-03} A.~Nitzan and M.~A. Ratner, Science \textbf{300}, 1384

1545: (2003).

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{Lorke-00} A.~Lorke, R.~J. Luyken, A.~O. Govorov, J.~P. Kotthaus,

1548: J.~M. Garcia, and P.~M. Petroff, \prl \textbf{84}, 2223 (2000); R.~J.

1549: Warburton, C.~Sch\"aflein, D.~Haft, F.~Bickel, A.~Lorke, K.~Karrai, J.~M.

1550: Garcia, W.~Schoenfeld, and P.~M. Petroff, Nature (London) \textbf{405}, 926

1551: (2000).

1552: 

1553: \bibitem{Fuhrer-04} A.~Fuhrer, T.~Ihn, K.~Ensslin, W.~Wegscheider, and

1554: M.~Bichler, \prl \textbf{93}, 176803 (2004).

1555: 

1556: \bibitem{Bayer-03} M.~Bayer, M.~Korkusinski, P.~Hawrylak, T.~Gutbrod,

1557: M.~Michel, and A.~Forchel, \prl \textbf{90}, 186801 (2003).

1558: 

1559: \bibitem{Schulz-93} H.~J. Schulz, \prl \textbf{71}, 1864 (1993).

1560: 

1561: \bibitem{Egger-99} R.~Egger, W.~H\"ausler, C.~H. Mak, and H.~Grabert,

1562: \prl \textbf{82}, 3320 (1999).

1563: 

1564: \bibitem{Field-90} S.~B. Field, M.~A. Kastner, U.~Meirav,

1565: J.~H.~F. Scott-Thomas, D.~A. Antoniadis, H~I. Smith, and S.~J. Wind,

1566: \prb \textbf{42}, 3523 (1990).

1567: 

1568: \bibitem[Jarillo-Herrero \emph{et al.}(2004)]{Jarillo-Herrero-04} P.~Jarillo-Herrero,

1569: S.~Sapmaz, C.~Dekker, L.~P. Kouwenhoven, and H.~S.~J. van der Zant,

1570: Nature (London) \textbf{429}, 389 (2004).

1571: 

1572: \bibitem[Matveev(2004)]{Matveev-04} K.~A. Matveev, \prb \textbf{70}, 245319

1573: (2004).

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{Herring-62} C.~Herring, \rmp \textbf{34}, 631 (1962);

1576: 

1577: \bibitem{Reimann-02} S.~M. Reimann and M.~Manninen, \rmp

1578: \textbf{74}, 1283 (2002); S.~Viefers, P. Koskinen, P.~Singha Deo, and

1579: M.~Manninen, Physica\ E \textbf{21}, 1 (2004).

1580: 

1581: \bibitem[H\"ausler(1996)]{Hausler-96} W.~H\"ausler, Z.\ Phys.\ B

1582: \textbf{99}, 551 (1996).

1583: 

1584: \bibitem[Auslaender \emph{et al.}(2005)]{Auslaender-05} O.~M. Auslaender,

1585:  H.~Steinberg, A.~Yacoby, Y.~Tserkovnyak, B.~I. Halperin,

1586:  K.~W. Baldwin, L.~N. Pfeiffer, and K.~W. West,

1587: Science \textbf{308}, 88 (2005),

1588: and references therein.

1589: 

1590: \bibitem{Claessen-02} R.~Claessen, M.~Sing, U.~Schwingenschl\"{o}gl,

1591: P.~Blaha, M.~Dressel, and C.~S. Jacobsen, \prl \textbf{88}, 096402 (2002).

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{Cheianov-04} V.~V. Cheianov and M.~B. Zvonarev,

1594: \prl \textbf{92}, 176401 (2004).

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{Fiete-04} G.~A. Fiete and L.~Balents,

1597: \prl \textbf{93}, 226401 (2004).

1598: 

1599: \bibitem{Fiete-05} G.~A. Fiete, J.~Qian, Ya.~Tserkovnyak, and B.~I. Halperin,

1600: \prb \textbf{72}, 045315 (2005).

1601: 

1602: \bibitem[Fogler and Pivovarov(2005)]{Fogler-05b} M.~Fogler and E.~Pivovarov,

1603: \eprint{cond-mat/0504502}.

1604: 

1605: \bibitem[Klironomos \emph{et al.}(2005)]{Klironomos-05} A.~D. Klironomos,

1606: R.~R. Ramazashvili, and K.~A. Matveev, \eprint{cond-mat/0504118}.

1607: 

1608: \bibitem[Fogler(2005)]{Fogler-05a} M.~M. Fogler, \prb\textbf{71}, 161304(R)

1609: (2005).

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{Usukura-05} J.~Usukura, Y.~Saiga, and D.~S. Hirashima, J.\ Phys.\

1612: Soc.\ Jpn. \textbf{74}, 1231 (2005), and references therein.

1613: 

1614: \bibitem{Friesen-80} W.~I. Friesen and B.~Bergerson,

1615: J.\ Phys.\ C \textbf{13}, 6627 (1980).

1616: 

1617: \bibitem{Szafran-04} B.~Szafran, F.~M. Peeters, S.~Bednarek, T.~Chwiej, and

1618: J.~Adamowski, \prb \textbf{70}, 035401 (2004).

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{Herring-64} C.~Herring, Phys.\ Rev. \textbf{134}, A362 (1964).

1621: 

1622: \bibitem{Landau-III} L.~D. Landau and E.~M. Lifshitz,

1623: \textit{Quantum Mechanics} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1977), Sec.~81.

1624: 

1625: \bibitem{Roger-83} M.~Roger, J.~H. Hetherington, and J.~M. Delrieu, \rmp

1626: \textbf{55}, 1 (1983).

1627: 

1628: \bibitem{Gradshteyn-Ryzhik} I.~S. Gradshteyn and I.~M. Ryzhik, \emph{Table

1629: of Integrals, Series, and Products}, 6th ed., edited by A.~Jeffrey and

1630: D.~Zwillinger (Academic, San Diego, 2000).

1631: 

1632: \bibitem{Maksym-96} P.~A. Maksym, \prb \textbf{53}, 10871 (1996);

1633: P.~Koskinen, M.~Koskinen, and M.~Manninen,

1634: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ B \textbf{28}, 483 (2002).

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{Ogata-90} M.~Ogata and H.~Shiba, \prb \textbf{41}, 2326 (1990).

1637: 

1638: \bibitem{Sutherland-71} B.~Sutherland, \pra \textbf{4}, 2019 (1971);

1639: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{11}, 355 (1997).

1640: 

1641: \bibitem{Forrester-92} P.~J. Forrester, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{388}, 671

1642: (1992).

1643: 

1644: \bibitem{Ha-94} Z.~N.~C. Ha,

1645: \prl \textbf{73}, 1574 (1994).

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{Javey-02} A.~Javey, H.~Kim, M.~Brink, Q.~Wang, A.~Ural, J.~Guo,

1648: P.~Mcintyre, P.~Mceuen, M.~Lundstrom, and H.~Dai, Nature Materials

1649: \textbf{1}, 241 (2002); B.~M. Kim, T.~Brintlinger, E.~Cobas, M.~S. Fuhrer,

1650: H.~Zheng, Z.~Yu, R.~Droopad, J.~Ramdani, and K.~Eisenbeiser,

1651: Appl.\ Phys.\ Lett. \textbf{84}, 1946 (2004).

1652: 

1653: \bibitem{Fogler-04} M.~M. Fogler,

1654: \prb \textbf{69}, 245321 (2004); \textbf{70}, 129902(E) (2004).

1655: 

1656: \bibitem{Piacente-04} G.~Piacente, I.~V. Schweigert, J.~J. Betouras,

1657: and F.~M. Peeters,

1658: \prb \textbf{69}, 045324 (2004).

1659: 

1660: \bibitem{Klironomos-xxx} A.~D. Klironomos, J.~S. Meyer,

1661: and K.~A. Matveev,

1662: \eprint{cond-mat/0507387}.

1663: 

1664: \end{thebibliography}

1665: 

1666: \end{document}

1667: