text:
# Current and power spectrum in a magnetic tunnel device with an atomic size spacer

## I Introduction

Recent interest in single-electron tunneling in ferromagnetic double tunnel junctions is stimulated by expected potential applications at microelectronics and by new phenomena observed in such systems.  In order to have a device operating at room temperature the single electron charging energy $`E_c=e^2/2C`$ should be much larger than the thermal energy $`k_BT`$. It can be achieved decreasing the capacitance $`C`$ of the metallic spacer, which is proportional to its size. In a small metallic spacer a discreteness of the energy spectrum can be relevant and a separation of energy levels $`\mathrm{\Delta }Ek_BT`$. Such the situation was studied numerically just recently.

In the present paper we would like to investigate sequential tunneling in an extreme case, when the spacer particle has only a single electron level available for the tunneling process. This simplified model gives us possibility to gain a better insight into spin dependent tunneling processes and to solve the problem analytically. We will show that Coulomb interactions between electrons with different spins can lead to new effects. In some circumstances due to the Coulomb blockade effect the device can operate as a diode, in others it can show the negative differential resistance (NDR). The power spectrum analysis will be performed to understand correlations between currents for electrons of different spins and the transition from the sub-Poissonian to the super-Poissonian current noise in the ferromagnetic device.

## II Model and general derivations

Let us specify the system considered in detail. The separation between the ferromagnetic metallic electrodes is large and therefore, there is no direct electron tunneling between them. The electronic transport can be only via electronic states of the spacer particle placed between the electrodes. The particle can be a molecule (e.g. $`C_{60}`$), or a semiconductor quantum dot, in which the relevant energies are $`\mathrm{\Delta }E,E_ck_BT`$. For a small applied voltage $`V`$ ($`eV\mathrm{\Delta }E,E_c`$) electronic transport is only through a single electronic level $`E_0`$. Such the model was considered for a nonmagnetic device in Ref.\[\] and we generalize it for a ferromagnetic case including tunneling channels for electrons with opposite spin directions. The tunneling process for an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ through the left ($`j=1`$) and the right ($`j=2`$) junction is described by the net tunneling rates $`\gamma _{j\sigma }`$, which are assumed to be small $`\mathrm{}\gamma _{j\sigma }k_BT`$. This relation implies that the corresponding tunnel resistances $`R_{j\sigma }`$ are much larger than the quantum resistance $`R_Q=h/2e^2`$ and electronic transport can be described within the sequential tunneling approach.  Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is large, the tunneling process can be considered elastic (there is no thermalization of electrons on the spacer particle, which was usually assumed in the single electron transistor with a large metallic grain) . We also neglect fluctuations of the position of the electronic level $`E_0`$, which can be caused by thermal and electrostatic fluctuations of the environment.

Our model seems to be familiar to that considered recently for the Kondo effect in quantum dots.  A condition for a development of the Kondo resonance is a buildup of many-body correlations between the dot and the electrodes, which can be achieved when electronic waves are coherently scattered on a magnetic impurity. It is in contrast to the present situation, where coupling between the particle and the electrodes is weak and electron tunneling events are uncorrelated and incoherent.

### A Stationary currents

Electronic transport is governed by the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_{}\\ p_{}\\ p_0\end{array}\right]=\widehat{M}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_{}\\ p_{}\\ p_0\end{array}\right],`$ (7)
where $`p_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$ denotes the probability to find an electron with the spin $`\sigma =`$ and $``$, $`p_0`$ \- the probability for an empty state $`E_0`$. Of course, the total probability $`p_{}+p_{}+p_0=1`$. The matrix $`\widehat{M}`$ is given by

$`\widehat{M}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}& 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\end{array}\right],`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\sigma }^\pm +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\sigma }^\pm `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^\pm =f_j^\pm \gamma _{j\sigma }`$ are the total tunneling rates to ($`+`$) and off ($``$) the particle level $`E_0`$, $`f_j^\pm =\{1+\mathrm{exp}[\pm (E_0E_F(1)^jeV_j)/k_BT]\}^1`$. The voltage $`V`$ is applied to the left electrode and the voltage drop across the left and the right junction is $`V_1=C_2V/C`$ and $`V_2=C_1V/C`$, respectively. Here, $`C_j`$ denotes the capacitance of the $`j`$-th tunnel junction and $`C=C_1+C_2`$.

At the stationary state the probability $`p_\sigma `$ and $`p_0`$ are determined from the master equation (7) with the left hand side equal to zero, and the result is

$$p_\sigma =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}}{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+},p_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}}{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+},$$
(12)
where $`\gamma _\sigma =\gamma _{1\sigma }+\gamma _{2\sigma }`$. The current through the left junction for electrons with the spin $`\sigma `$ is the difference of the tunneling current flowing to (+) and from ($``$) the particle

$`I_{1\sigma }I_{1\sigma }^+I_{1\sigma }^{}=e\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\sigma }^+p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\sigma }^{}p_\sigma \right]`$ (13)
$`=e(f_1^+f_2^+){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{1\sigma }^+\gamma _{2\sigma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}}{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+}}.`$ (14)
Since there are no electronic relaxation processes on the particle, it results from the current conservation rule that $`I_{1\sigma }=I_{2\sigma }`$ for each electronic channel.

In magnetic tunnel junctions the resistance depends on the relative configuration of magnetic moments in the electrodes and this effect is known as the tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR). The value of TMR is given by the ratio $`TMR=(I_PI_{AP})/I_{AP}`$, where $`I_P`$ and $`I_{AP}`$ are the tunneling currents in the parallel (P) and the antiparallel (AP) configuration of the magnetic moments in the electrodes. It is convenient to express the tunneling rate coefficients in the form $`\gamma _{1\sigma }=\gamma _0(1\pm P_1)`$ and $`\gamma _{2\sigma }=\gamma _0\alpha (1\pm P_2)`$, where the sign $`+`$ ($``$) corresponds to the spin $`\sigma =`$ ($``$), $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is the magnetic polarization of the left and the right electrode, $`\alpha `$ denotes the asymmetry between the potential barriers. Using Eq.(13) one gets

$$TMR=\frac{(1f_1^+f_2^+)4\alpha P_1P_2}{(1+\alpha )^2(P_1+\alpha P_2)^2(f_1^++\alpha f_2^+)^2+(P_1f_1^++\alpha f_2^+P_2)^2}.$$
(15)
For comparison we present the results for noninteracting electrons, i.e when the single electron charging energy $`E_c=0`$. In this limit the double occupancy of the level $`E_0`$ is allowed. The current through the left junctions for electrons with the spin $`\sigma `$ is then

$$I_{1\sigma }^0=e(f_1^+f_2^+)\frac{\gamma _{1\sigma }\gamma _{2\sigma }}{\gamma _\sigma }$$
(16)
and TMR

$$TMR^0=\frac{4\alpha P_1P_2}{(1+\alpha )^2(P_1+\alpha P_2)^2}.$$
(17)
Comparison of both the expressions for TMR \[Eq.(15) and (17)\] shows that Coulomb interactions can significantly increase the value of the magnetoresistance.

### B Fluctuations

Fluctuations in the system are studied within the generation-recombination approach for multi-electron channels.  The Fourier transform of the correlation function of the quantity $`X`$ can be expressed as

$`S_{XX}(\omega )2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\left[X(t)X(0)X^2\right]`$ (18)
$`=4{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}X_n\left[P(n,m;\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{p_n}{i\omega }}\right]X_mp_m,`$ (19)
where $`p_m`$ is the stationary value of the probability $`\widehat{p}`$ at the state $`m`$ \[given by Eq.(12)\], $`X_m`$ is the value of $`X`$ at this state. The conditional probability $`P(n,m;t)`$ to find the system in the state $`n`$ at time $`t`$, if it was in the initial state $`m`$ at $`t=0`$, satisfies the master equation (7),  and its Fourier transform is given by $`P(n,m;\omega )=[i\omega \widehat{M}]_{nm}^1`$. The elements of the Green’s function $`G(n,m;\omega )[i\omega \widehat{M}]_{nm}^1p_n/i\omega `$ can be determined directly by matrix inversion and the result is

$$\widehat{G}(\omega )=\frac{\widehat{A}^+}{i\omega \lambda _+}\frac{\widehat{A}^{}}{i\omega \lambda _{}},$$
(20)
where $`\lambda _\pm =(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\pm \mathrm{\Delta })/2`$ are the nonzero eigenvalues of the matrix $`\widehat{M}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{(\gamma _{}\gamma _{})^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+}`$,

$`\widehat{A}^r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}a_,^r& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+a_,^r& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+a_{,0}^r\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}a_,^r& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+a_,^r& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+a_{,0}^r\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}a_{,0}^r& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}a_{,0}^r& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+a_{,0}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+a_{,0}^r\end{array}\right]`$ (24)
corresponding to $`\lambda _r`$ ($`r=\pm `$), $`a_{\sigma ,\sigma }^r=\lambda _r\gamma _\sigma +\gamma _\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+`$, $`a_{\sigma ,\sigma }^r=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}(\lambda _r+\gamma _{}+\gamma _{})`$, $`a_{\sigma ,0}^r=(\lambda _r+\gamma _\sigma )\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}`$, and $`D=\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+)`$. The Green’s function (20) is not singular for $`\omega 0`$ and therefore, one can easily separate the amplitudes of the noise resulting from fluctuation processes characterized by the relaxation time $`\tau _r=1/\lambda _r`$.

The fluctuations of the charge and the spin are expressed as

$`S_{NN}(\omega )=4e^2{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}G_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(\omega )p_\sigma ^{}=`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,r}{}}r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}(\lambda _r+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{})}{i\omega \lambda _r}},`$ (26)
$`S_{MM}(\omega )=4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _B^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}\sigma \sigma ^{}G_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(\omega )p_\sigma ^{}=`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _B^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,r}{}}r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+(\gamma _\sigma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+)(\lambda _r+\gamma _\sigma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+)}{i\omega \lambda _r}},`$ (28)
where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton.

The correlations between the currents $`I_{j\sigma }`$ and $`I_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ in the tunnel junction $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$ for the electrons with the spin $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are described by the power spectrum

$$S_{I_{j\sigma }I_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}}(\omega )=\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}S_{j\sigma }^{Sch}+S_{I_{j\sigma }I_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}}^c(\omega ),$$
(29)
where

$$S_{j\sigma }^{Sch}2e(I_{j\sigma }^++I_{j\sigma }^{})=2e^2\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^+p_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^{}p_\sigma \right]$$
(30)
is the high frequency ($`\omega \mathrm{}`$) limit of the shot-noise (the Schottky noise), which is the sum of the components corresponding to the tunneling current flowing to and from the particle. The frequency dependent part is expressed as

$`S_{I_{j\sigma }I_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}}^c(\omega )=2e^2(1)^{jj^{}}\{[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^+G_{0\sigma ^{}}(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^{}G_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(\omega )]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}^+p_0+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}^+G_{0\sigma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}G_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }(\omega )]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^+p_0`$ (31)
$`+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^{}G_{\sigma 0}(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^+G_{00}(\omega )]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}p_\sigma ^{}+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}G_{\sigma ^{}0}(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}^+G_{00}(\omega )]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j\sigma }^{}p_\sigma \}.`$ (32)
The shot noise of the total current (including the displacement currents as well) is given by

$`S_{II}={\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2C_2^2}{C^2C_jC_j^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}[\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}S_{j\sigma }^{Sch}+S_{I_{j\sigma }I_{j^{}\sigma ^{}}}^c(\omega )].`$ (33)
## III Results

The analysis of the results we begin from a simplified situation, when the electrodes are made of paramagnetic metals. Next the device with ferromagnetic electrodes is considered. Since Coulomb interactions break the electron-hole symmetry, one can expect that the characteristics of the device for $`E_0<E_F`$ are different from those for $`E_0>E_F`$. Therefore, the both situations are considered separately.

### A Paramagnetic case

In the system with paramagnetic electrodes both the channels for electrons with the spin $``$ and $``$ are equivalent and the tunneling rates $`\gamma _j=\gamma _j=\gamma _j`$, $`\gamma _{}=\gamma _{}=\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm `$. The total current $`I_1=2e(f_1^+f_2^+)\gamma _1\gamma _2/[\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+]`$ differs form that for noninteracting electrons by the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ in the denominator, which results form Coulomb interactions. In low temperatures there is a current blockade for the voltage within the range $`C/C_2<eV/(E_0E_F)<C/C_1`$. Dynamics of the fluctuations are characterized by the eigenvalues $`\lambda _+=\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and $`\lambda _{}=\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. Using Eqs.(29)-(31) and (20)-(24) one can derive the correlation function between the currents for electrons with the same spin as

$`S_{I_1I_1}(\omega )=2e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1(f_1^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+f_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)}{\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}}`$ (34)
$`2e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1^2}{\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f_1^+f_1^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})^2}{\omega ^2+\lambda _+^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{\omega ^2+\lambda _{}^2}}\right]`$ (35)
and between the different spins

$$S_{I_1I_1}(\omega )=2e^2\frac{\gamma _1^2}{\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}\left[\frac{f_1^+f_1^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})^2}{\omega ^2+\lambda _+^2}+\frac{a_{}}{\omega ^2+\lambda _{}^2}\right],$$
(36)
where $`a_{}=(1+f_1^+)[f_1^+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+2}+2\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^+\gamma ^2)2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)^2]`$. Thus, the power spectrum of the total current through the left junction is expressed by

$`S_{I_1I_1}(\omega )=4e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1(f_1^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+f_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)}{\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}}`$ (37)
$`+8e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1^2}{\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{\omega ^2+\lambda _{}^2}}.`$ (38)
The noise corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\lambda _+`$ is completely cancelled. In the high-voltage regime the above formulae are much simpler, e.g. for $`V>0`$ the current  $`I_1=2e\gamma _1\gamma _2/(\gamma _1+2\gamma _2)`$ and the Fano factor

$$_{11}\frac{S_{I_1I_1}(\omega =0)}{2eI_1}=1\frac{4\gamma _1\gamma _2}{(\gamma _1+2\gamma _2)^2}.$$
(39)
(see also \[\] and references therein).

For comparison in the case of noninteracting electrons ($`E_c=0`$) there are two independent channels and the power spectrum can be written as

$`S_{I_{1\sigma }^0I_{1\sigma }^0}^0(\omega )=2e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{1\sigma }[f_1^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}+f_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+]}{\gamma _\sigma }}`$ (40)
$`4e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{1\sigma }^2[f_1^+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{})^2+f_1^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+)^2]}{\gamma _\sigma (\omega ^2+\gamma _\sigma ^2)}}`$ (41)
for electrons with spin $`\sigma `$. For the paramagnetic electrodes and in the limit of a large positive $`V`$ one gets \[from Eqs.(16) and (40)\] the total current $`I_1^0=2e\gamma _1\gamma _2/(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)`$ and the Fano factor $`_{11}^0=12\gamma _1\gamma _2/(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)^2`$

Let us present also the correlation function between the currents through different tunnel junctions

$`\text{Re}[S_{I_1I_2}(\omega )]=4e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\gamma _2}{\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{12}}{\omega ^2+\lambda _{}^2}},`$ (42)
where $`b_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+2}(4+f_1^++f_2^+2f_1^+f_2^+)+(f_1^++f_2^++2f_1^+f_2^+)(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)\gamma `$. Now, using Eq.(33) one gets the total power spectrum of the device

$`S_{II}(\omega )=4e^2{\displaystyle \frac{(C_2^2\gamma _1f_1^++C_1^2\gamma _2f_2^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+(C_2^2\gamma _1f_1^{}+C_1^2\gamma _2f_2^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}{C^2(\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)}}`$ (43)
$`+8e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+2}+2\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^+\gamma ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}\gamma _{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }^22\gamma _{12}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+2}}{(\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)(\omega ^2+\lambda _{}^2)}},`$ (44)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=(C_2\gamma _1f_1^+C_1\gamma _2f_2^+)/C`$, $`\gamma _{12}=(C_2\gamma _1C_1\gamma _2)/C`$. One can check that in the zero-frequency limit $`S_{I_1I_1}(0)=`$Re$`[S_{I_1I_2}(0)]=S_{I_2I_2}(0)`$. Therefore, the Fano factors $`_{11}=_{12}=_{22}`$, which in the high-voltage range can be simply expressed as $`=14\gamma _1\gamma _2/(\gamma _1+2\gamma _2)^2`$.

We are also interested in charge and spin fluctuation induced by the flowing current. Using the formula (25) and (27) for the paramagnetic device one can write the charge-charge and the spin-spin correlation function as

$`S_{NN}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{8e^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{(\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)(\omega ^2+\lambda _{}^2)}}`$ (45)
$`S_{MM}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _B^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{(\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)(\omega ^2+\lambda _+^2)}}.`$ (46)
From a frequency dependence of the correlation functions $`S_{NN}`$ and $`S_{MM}`$ one can assign the relaxation time corresponding to the charge and the spin fluctuations as $`\tau _{charge}=1/\lambda _{}`$ and $`\tau _{spin}=1/\lambda _+`$, respectively. One can check that the same result for the correlation functions can be derived from the two-level generation-recombination approach  using $`S_{XX}(\omega )=4\text{var}(X)\tau /(\omega ^2\tau ^2+1)`$, where var$`(X)=X^2X^2`$ is the variance of the quantity $`X`$. Since $`\tau _{spin}>\tau _{charge}`$ then spin fluctuations occur in a low frequency regime, while the charge fluctuations in higher frequencies. The amplitude of the spin noise $`S_{MM}(\omega =0)`$ is larger than $`S_{NN}(\omega =0)`$ (in some cases the difference can be a few orders of magnitudes ). In the paramagnetic system the spin fluctuations, however, do not contribute to the current shot noise. The frequency dependence of the power spectrum (37) has then a Lorentzian form with the relaxation time $`\tau _{charge}`$.

### B Ferromagnetic electrodes and $`E_0<E_F`$

Let us first consider the ferromagnetic double tunnel barrier device, in which the particle level is below the Fermi level of the electrodes. A typical voltage dependence of the current is shown in Fig.1a. The $`I`$-$`V`$ function has a step like shape, with the current blockade for small voltages \[in the range $`C/C_1<eV/(E_FE_0)<C/C_2`$\] and the plateaux in the limit of large voltages, in which

$`I_1=\{\begin{array}{ccc}e\frac{\gamma _1\gamma _1(\gamma _2+\gamma _2)}{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\gamma _2\gamma _2}\hfill & \text{for}& V(E_FE_0)/e,\\ e\frac{\gamma _2\gamma _2(\gamma _1+\gamma _1)}{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\gamma _1\gamma _1}\hfill & \text{for}& V(E_FE_0)/e.\end{array}`$ (49)
We remind that according to our assumptions $`|V|\mathrm{\Delta }E,E_c`$ and the tunneling rates $`\gamma _{j\sigma }`$ are independent of $`V`$, even for the so called high voltages when the currents are given by Eq.(49). The current intensities (49) for large positive and negative voltages are different, in contrast to the case of noninteracting electrons, where both the $`I`$-$`V`$ steps are equal. Fig.1a shows that the height of the steps depends on the magnetic asymmetry of the electrodes, and an increase of the magnetic polarization $`P_1`$ in the left electrode reduces the current for $`V>0`$. If this electrode is made of a half-metallic ferromagnet (i.e. for $`P_1=1`$ and $`\gamma _1=0`$) the conducting channel corresponds only to electrons with the spin $``$, and there is the Coulomb blockade $`I_1=0`$ in low temperatures ($`k_BT(E_FE_0)`$) for any positive voltage. An electron with the spin $``$, which has tunneled form the right electrode into the particle, is captured there forever. The electron can neither tunnel to the left nor to the right electrode, and blocks the conducting channel for electrons with the spin $``$. Electronic transport can only occur for large negative voltages. Such the device works as a diode.

Using Eq.(49) one finds

$$TMR=\frac{4\alpha P_1P_2}{1P_1^2+2\alpha 2\alpha P_1P_2}$$
(50)
in the limit $`V(E_FE_0)/e`$. For comparison the value for noninteracting electrons

$$TMR^0=\frac{4\alpha P_1P_2}{1P_1^2+2\alpha 2\alpha P_1P_2+\alpha ^2(1P_2^2)},$$
(51)
is much smaller, especially in the system with asymmetric tunnel junctions ($`\alpha 1`$). One can say that Coulomb interactions enhance the value of TMR.

The power spectrum on the conducting step (for $`V>0`$) is given by

$`S_{I_1I_1}(\omega )=2e^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\gamma _1(\gamma _2+\gamma _2)}{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\gamma _2\gamma _2}}`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^2\gamma _1\gamma _1(\gamma _2+\gamma _2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\gamma _2\gamma _2)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}r\lambda _r{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _ra+b}{\omega ^2+\lambda _r^2}}`$ (53)
where $`a=\gamma _1\gamma _1(\gamma _2+\gamma _2)`$ and $`b=\gamma _1^2\gamma _2(\gamma _2\gamma _1)+\gamma _1^2\gamma _2(\gamma _2\gamma _1)2\gamma _1\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _2`$. The eigenvalue in this case is $`\lambda _r=(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}+r\mathrm{\Delta })/2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{(\gamma _{}\gamma _{})^2+4\gamma _2\gamma _2}`$. The voltage dependence of the Fano factor is presented in Fig.1b. One can show that the zero-frequency power spectrum $`S_{I_jI_j^{}}(\omega =0)`$ corresponding to the currents through different tunnel junctions are equal, and thus, the Fano factors $`_{11}=_{12}=_{22}`$ for any model parameters (for any transition rates $`\gamma _{j\sigma }`$ at any voltage). In the regime of high-voltage its value is $`=1+2b/(\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\gamma _2\gamma _2)^2`$. If the coefficient $`b`$ is negative, then $`<1`$ and the noise is of the sub-Poissonian type. It occurs for $`2\alpha P_1^2(1P_2^2)<(1P_1P_2)(1P_1^2)`$. The transition from the sub-Poissonian to the super-Poissonian type of the current shot noise is a continuous process. In order to understand it we plotted in Fig.2 the frequency dependent part of the correlation functions $`S_{I_{1\sigma }I_{1\sigma ^{}}}^c(\omega =0)`$ \[given by Eq.(31)\] for the currents of electrons with different spins through the left junction in the high-voltage limit. One can expect competition between tunneling processes for electrons with the spin $``$ and $``$, which leads to an enhancement of the current noise. For simplicity the right electrode is taken paramagnetic, i.e. the source electrode can emit electrons with the same transition rate ($`\gamma _2=\gamma _2`$). The drain electrode is ferromagnetic and therefore, there is an asymmetry between the out-going channels for electrons with opposite spin directions, which is described by the magnetic polarization $`P_1`$. For $`P_1=0`$, the functions are equal $`S_{I_1I_1}^c(0)=S_{I_1I_1}^c(0)=S_{I_1I_1}^c(0)`$ and negative. It means that all tunneling events are anti-correlated, which leads to a reduction of the noise. An increase of the polarization $`P_1`$ increases the tunneling rate $`\gamma _1`$ for electrons with the spin $``$, they can faster leave the particle. Electrons with the opposite spin ($``$) spend a long time on the particle. It effects in the spin accumulation,  which is responsible for an increase of $`S_{I_1I_1}^c(0)`$ and $`S_{I_1I_1}^c(0)`$. Their values can cross zero and achieve maxima for $`P_11`$. The function $`S_{I_1I_1}^c(0)`$ is always negative (for $`P_1>0`$). The process results an enhancement of the shot noise and the transition to the super-Poissonian range. The maximum value of the Fano factor $`=1+2\gamma _2/\gamma _1`$ occurs for the left electrode made of a half-metallic ferromagnet ($`P_1=1`$). Fig.2 shows also that a large asymmetry factor $`\alpha 1`$ between the left and the right tunnel barrier can prefer the transition to the super-Poissonian shot noise (see the dashed curves corresponding to $`\alpha =10`$).

### C Ferromagnetic electrodes and $`E_0>E_F`$

In the case of $`E_0>E_F`$ one can expect similar characteristics of our device to those presented above for $`E_0<E_F`$. It is really the case, but only for the high-voltage regime, where the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve has plateaux, whose level is given by Eq.(49). Fig.3 presents the voltage dependence of the current and the Fano factor. (Since the curves in the range of negative $`V`$ are very similar to those from Fig.1, we present the dependences for $`V>0`$ only). It is seen a resonant-like peak of the current in the range of moderate voltages, at $`E_0eV_2E_F`$ (i.e. for $`V/(|E_0E_F|/e)2`$ in Fig.3a). Its height can be much above the plateau level in the device with large asymmetry of the tunnel junctions. The most pronounced peak is for the device with the left electrode made of a half-metallic ferromagnet ($`P_1=1`$, $`\gamma _1=0`$). The total current, in this case, can be written as

$$I_1=e\frac{(f_1^+f_2^+)f_2^{}\gamma _1\gamma _2}{(1f_1^+f_2^+)\gamma _1+(1f_2^{+2})\gamma _2}.$$
(54)
It is worth noticing, that in this limit the current (54) and the occupation probability $`p_{}`$, $`p_{}`$, $`p_0`$ are independent of the transition rate $`\gamma _2`$. The current peak is the resonant-like transition of electrons through the particle level and the current blockade effect in the low and the high-voltage range. For a small $`V`$ the position of the particle level $`E_0eV_2`$ is above the Fermi level $`E_F`$ of the right electrode and electrons can not tunnel to the particle, whereas in a high-voltage range there is a Coulomb blockade of the conducting channel by an electron with spin $``$ captured on the particle. The width of the current peak depends on the smearing of the Fermi surface and decreases with a decreasing temperature.

The $`I`$-$`V`$ curve (54) resembles that obtained in the case of resonant tunneling through double barrier in semiconductors (the Esaki diode).  The nature of the both tunneling effects is, however, different. In the present case the negative differential resistance (NDR) is caused by Coulomb interactions between electrons on the particle (by the Coulomb blockade effect). In the Esaki diode  the charge accumulation in the well is irrelevant for electronic transport and the NDR results from a shift of the conduction band of the source electrode out of the resonant tunneling range (see \[\], which considered coulomb interactions in resonant tunneling as well). The width of the peak depends in the Esaki diode on the electronic structure of the device. It can be smeared due to fluctuations of the bottom of the potential well.  In our model the position of $`E_0`$ is fixed and the broadening of the peak results only from the thermal distribution of electrons around the Fermi level.

Fig.3b shows the voltage dependence of the Fano factor. Its value is below unity in the low-voltage range and rapidly increases when $`E_0eV_2`$ crosses the Fermi level $`E_F`$ (i.e. for $`V/(|E_0E_F|/e)>2`$ in Fig.3b). The increase of $``$ is only in a narrow range of $`V`$, in the same in which the NDR effect is observed. In the high-voltage regime the noise is super-Poissonian for the most situations exhibited in Fig.3b. The voltage dependence of the Fano factor in the present case (see the curve for $`P_1=1`$ in Fig.3b) is qualitatively different from that in the resonant tunneling diode , where $``$ shows a large peak in the NDR region. The origin of the Fano peak is activation of interaction-induced fluctuations of the band bottom in the quantum well, when the system passes to the off-resonant electronic transport.  As we have explained already in the previous section, the high value of $``$ in our system is related with the asymmetry of the conducting channels for electrons with the opposite spin directions.

Flowing electrons induce the charge and the spin fluctuations on the particle with the characteristic frequencies $`1/\tau _{charge}=\lambda _{}`$ and $`1/\tau _{spin}=\lambda _+`$, respectively. These fluctuations should be seen in the current noise. Therefore, we separate the Schottky term $`S_I^{Sch}`$ from the current noise and perform the spectral decomposition of the frequency dependent part $`S_{II}^c(\omega )`$. The total power spectrum can be expressed as

$$S_{II}(\omega )=S_I^{Sch}+S_{II}^{c+}(\omega )+S_{II}^c(\omega ),$$
(55)
where $`S_I^{Sch}=(C_2^2S_{I1}^{Sch}+C_1^2S_{I2}^{Sch})/C^2`$ and

$$S_{II}^{c\pm }(\omega )=\pm \left(\frac{C_1C_2}{C}\right)^2\underset{j,j^{}}{}\frac{\lambda _\pm }{C_jC_j^{}}\frac{\lambda _\pm a_{jj^{}}+b_{jj^{}}}{\omega ^2+\lambda _\pm ^2}.$$
(56)
The coefficient $`a_{jj^{}}`$ and $`b_{jj^{}}`$ are determined from Eq.(31), (20), (24) and (12). The voltage dependences of these terms for $`\omega =0`$ are presented in Fig.4. The system is the same as studied above (Fig.3), in which the asymmetry between the tunnel barriers is $`\alpha =10`$. The transition rates $`\gamma _{2\sigma }`$ are larger than $`\gamma _{1\sigma }`$, and therefore $`S_{I2}^{Sch}>S_{I1}^{Sch}`$. In the low-voltage range the term $`S_{I2}^{Sch}`$ is very large and dominates in $`S_I^{Sch}`$. The Fano factor $`=[S_I^{Sch}+S_{II}^{c+}(0)+S_{II}^c(0)]/(2eI)`$ is, however, below unity. In the considered system we change the magnetic polarization $`P_1`$, which influences of $`S_{I1}^{Sch}`$, but it is irrelevant for $`S_I^{Sch}`$. It explains, why all the curves in Fig.4a are so close to each other.

Fig.4b and 4c show the terms $`S_{II}^{c+}(0)`$ and $`S_{II}^c(0)`$ corresponding to the contribution of the spin and the charge fluctuations to the current noise. They are negative in the low-voltage range and positive for larger voltages. This indicates a change of current correlations when the particle level crosses the Fermi level ($`E_0eV_2E_F`$). The value $`S_{II}^{c+}(0)`$ strongly increases with an increase of the magnetic polarization $`P_1`$. Since $`S_{II}^c`$ and $`S_I^{Sch}`$ (see Fig.4c and 4a) are weakly dependent on $`P_1`$, it is evident that $`S_{II}^{c+}`$ is responsible for an enhancement of the Fano factor. Frequency dependent measurements of the current noise can confirm our prediction, that low frequency fluctuations dominate in the super-Poissonian noise in ferromagnetic tunnel junctions.

## IV SUMMARY

Summarizing, our sequential tunneling studies, performed in the ferromagnetic double barrier device with the atomic size particle, showed a few interesting effects. First, Coulomb interactions lead to an enhancement of the TMR effect. Second, an electron-hole symmetry is broken in the system, due to Coulomb interactions. The characteristics of the ferromagnetic device, with the electronic state $`E_0`$ of the spacer particle below the Fermi level $`E_F`$ of the electrodes, are qualitatively different from those for the case of $`E_0>E_F`$. We showed that the system, in which $`E_0<E_F`$ and one electrode is made of a half-metallic ferromagnet, can operate as a diode. When $`E_0>E_F`$ the device showed the NDR effect, which is better pronounced for ferromagnetic electrodes with different magnetic polarizations. Third, the transition from the sub-Poissonian to the super-Poissonian current noise is a continuous process, which depends on the magnetic asymmetry between the tunneling channels for electrons with the spin $``$ and $``$. The asymmetry between the left and the right tunnel barrier can facilitate the transition to the super-Poissonian range. Spin fluctuations are relevant for the super-Poissonian current noise and they are activated in the Coulomb blockade regime. The charge fluctuations are responsible for the sub-Poissonian current noise. The spin and the charge fluctuations have distinct relaxation times $`\tau _{spin}>\tau _{charge}`$, which can be observed in frequency dependent measurements of the power spectrum in a low and in a high-frequency range, respectively.

###### Acknowledgements.

The paper is supported from the State Committee for Scientific Research Republic of Poland within Grant No. 2 P03B 075 14.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction.

## I Introduction.

The uniqueness problem for the sources of the evoked potential in the brain is a relevant research question due to its role in the development of cerebral electric tomography,  , ,  . Since long time ago, it is known that the general inverse problem of the determination of volumetric sources from the measurement of the potential at a surface is not solvable in general,. However, under additional assumptions about the nature of the sources, solutions can be obtained ,,. The supplementary assumptions can be classified in two groups: the physically grounded ones, which are fixed by the nature of the physical problem and the ones which are imposed by invoking their mathematical property of determining a solution, but having in another hand, a weak physical foundation. The resumed situation implies that the determination of physical conditions implying the uniqueness of the sources for the evoked potentials remains being an important subject of study. Results in this direction could avoid the imposition of artificial conditions altering the real information on the sources to be measured.

The question to be considered in this work is the uniqueness of the sources for evoked potentials under the assumption that these sources are localized over surfaces. This issue was also treated in Ref.  by including also some specially defined volumetric sources. The concrete aim here is to present a derivation of the results enunciated in  for the case of open surfaces and to generalize it for a wider set of surfaces including closed ones.

We consider that the results enunciated in Ref.  are valid and useful ones. Even more, we think that a relevant merit of that paper is to call for the attention to the possibility for the uniqueness for classes of surface density of sources. Specifically, in our view, the conclusion stated there about the uniqueness of the sources of evoked potentials as restricted to sources distributed in open surfaces is effectively valid. In the present work, the central aim is to extend the result for a wider set of surfaces including closed ones by also furnishing an alternative way to derive the uniqueness result. The uniqueness problem for the special class of volumetric sources discussed in  is not considered here in any way.

The physical system under consideration is conformed by various volumetric regions, each of them having a constant value of the conductivity, separated by surface boundaries at which the continuity equations for the electric current is obeyed. It should pointed out that the special volumetric sources examined in Ref.  are not addressed here. The precise definition of the generators under examination is the following. The sources are assumed to be defined by continuous and smooth surface densities lying over a arbitrary but finite number of smooth open or closed surfaces. The unique constraint to be imposed on these surfaces is that there is no nesting among them. That is, there is no closed surface at which interior another open or closed of the surfaces resides. This class of supports expands the one considered in Ref.  and in our view is sufficiently general to create the expectative for the practical applications of the results. It should be stressed that the boundaries between the interior metallic regions are not restricted by the ”non-nesting” condition. That is, the fact that the skull and the few boundaries between cerebral tissues can be visualized as nearly closed surface does not pose any limitation on the conclusion. The ”non-nesting” condition should be valid only for the surfaces in which the sources can be expected to reside. For example, if by any mean we are sure that the sources stay at the cortex surface, then the uniqueness result apply whenever the portion of the cortex implied does not contains any closed surface.

The paper is organized as follows. An auxiliary property is derived in the form of a theorem in the Section II. In Section III the proof of uniqueness for the kind of sources defined above is presented.

## II Green Theorem and Field Vanishing Conditions

Let us consider the potential $`\varphi `$ generated by a source distribution concentrated in the ”non-nested” set of open or closed surfaces defined in last Section, which at the same time are contained within a compact and simply connected spatial region $`R.`$The set $`R,`$ as explained before, is formed by various connected subregions $`R_i,i=0,1,\mathrm{}n`$ each of them filled with a metal having a constant conductivity $`\sigma _i`$. Also, let $`B_{ij}`$ the possibly but non necessarily existing, boundary between the subregions $`R_i`$ and $`R_j`$ and $`B_0`$the boundary of $`R.`$ For the sake of a physical picture, we can interpret $`B_0`$ as the surface of the skull, $`R`$ as the interior of the head and the subregions $`R_i`$ as the ones containing the various tissues within the brain. It is defined that the exterior space of the head corresponds to $`R_0`$. In addition, let $`S_i,i=1,\mathrm{}m`$ the surfaces pertaining to the arbitrary but finite set $`S`$ of non-nested open or closed surfaces in which the sources are assumed to be localized. The above mentioned definitions are illustrated in Fig.1.

Then, the Poisson equation satisfied by the potential $`\varphi `$ in the interior region of $`R`$ can be written as

$`^2\varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)}{\sigma \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)}},`$ (1)
$`g\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{J}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right),`$ (2)
where$`\stackrel{}{J}`$ are the impressed currents (for example, generated by the neuron firings within the brain) and the space dependent conductivity is defined by

$$\sigma \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\sigma _ifor\stackrel{}{x}R_i.$$
(3)
It should be noticed that the conductivities are different from zero only for the internal regions to $`R.`$ The vacuum outside is assumed to have zero conductivity and the field satisfying the Laplace equation. In addition outside the support of the sources where $`g=0`$ the Laplace equation is also satisfied.

The usual boundary conditions within the static approximation, associated to the continuity of the electric current at the boundaries, take the form

$$\sigma _i\frac{\varphi }{n_i}_{xB_{ij}}=\sigma _j\frac{\varphi }{n_j}_{xB_{ij}},$$
(4)
where $`n_i`$ symbolizes the directional derivative along a line normal to $`B_{ij}`$ but taken in the limit of $`x>B_{ij}`$from the side of the region $`R_i.`$

A main property is employed in this work in obtaining the claimed result. In the form of a theorem for a more precise statement it is expressed as

Theorem.

Let $`\varphi `$ is a solution of the Laplace equation within an open and connected spatial region $`R^{}`$. Assume that $`\phi `$have a vanishing electric field over an open section of certain smooth surface $`S^{}`$ which is contained in an open subset $`Q`$ of $`R^{}`$. Let the points of the boundaries between $`Q`$ and $`R^{}`$ have a minimal but finite distance among them. Then, the potential $`\varphi `$ is a constant over any open set contained in $`R^{}.`$

As a first stage in the derivation of this property, let us write the Green Theorem as applied to the interior of the open region $`Q`$defined in the Theorem 1 in which a field $`\phi `$ satisfies the Laplace equation. Then, the Green Theorem expresses $`\phi `$ evaluated at a particular interior point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ in terms of itself and its derivatives at the boundary $`B_Q`$ as follows.

$$\phi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=_{B_Q}𝑑\stackrel{}{s^{^{}}}.\left(\frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x^{^{}}}\right|}\stackrel{}{_x^{^{}}}\phi \left(\stackrel{}{x^{^{}}}\right)\stackrel{}{_x^{^{}}}\left(\frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x^{^{}}}\right|}\right)\phi \left(\stackrel{}{x^{^{}}}\right)\right)$$
(5)
where the integral is running over the boundary surface $`B_Q`$ which is described by the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x^{^{}}}.`$ This relation expresses the potential as a sum of surface integrals of the continuous and bounded values of $`\phi `$ and its derivatives. Those quantities are in addition analytical in all the components of $`\stackrel{}{x},`$ if the point have a finite minimal distance to the points in $`B_Q.`$ These properties follow because $`Q`$ $`R^{}`$ and then, $`\phi `$ satisfies the Laplace equation in any open set in which $`Q`$ and its boundary is included. But, due to the finite distance condition among the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and the points of $`B_Q`$, the expression (5) for $`\phi `$ should be an analytical function of all the coordinates of $`\stackrel{}{x}.`$ Figure 2 depicts the main elements in the formulation of the Green Theorem.

Further, let us consider that $`S^{}`$ is siting inside the region $`Q.`$ Then, as this surface is an equipotential and also the electric field over it vanishes, it follows that no line of force can have a common point with it. This is so because the divergence of the electric field vanishes, then it is clear that the existence of nonvanishing value of the electric field at another point of the line of force will then contradicts the assumed vanishing of the divergence. Therefore, the lines of forces in any sufficiently small open neighborhood containing a section of $`S^{}`$ should tend to be parallel to this surface on approaching it, or on another hand, the electric field should vanish. Next, it can be shown that in such neighborhoods the lines of forces can not tend to be parallel.

Let us suppose that lines of forces exist and tend to be tangent to the surface $`S^{}`$ and consider the integral form of the irrotational property of the electric field as

$$_C\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}=_{C_1}\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}+_{C_2}\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}=_{C_1}\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}=0$$
(6)
where the closed curve $`C`$ is constructed as follows: the piece $`C_1`$coincides with a line of force, the piece $`C_2`$ is fixed to rest within the surface $`S^{}`$ and the other two pieces necessary to close the curve are selected as being normal to the assumed existing family of lines of forces. The definitions are illustrated in Fig. 3. By construction, the electric field is colinear with the tangent vector to $`C_1`$ and let us assume that we select the segment of curve $`C_1`$for to have a sufficiently short but finite length in order that the cosine associated to the scalar product will have a definite sign in all $`C_1`$. This is always possible because the field determined by (5) should be continuous. Then Eq. (6) implies that the electric field vanish along all $`C_1`$ as a consequence of the integrand having a definite sign and then should vanish identically. Since this property is valid for any curve pertaining to a sufficiently small open interval containing any particular open section of $`S^{},`$ it follows that in certain open set containing $`S^{}`$there will be are no lines of forces, or what is the same, the electric field vanish.

To finish the proof of the theorem, it follows to show that if $`\phi `$ and the electric field vanish within a certain open neighborhood $`N,`$ included in an arbitrary open set $`O`$ pertaining to the region $`R^{}`$ in which the Laplace equation is obeyed, then $`\phi `$ and the electric field vanish in all $`O`$ . Consider first that $`Q`$ is an open set such that $`OQ`$ and also suppose that the smallest distance form a point in $`O`$ to the boundary $`B_Q`$ of $`Q`$ has the finite value $`\delta `$. Then, the Green Theorem (5) as applied to the region $`Q`$ expresses that the minimal radius of convergence of $`\phi `$considered as analytical function of any of the coordinates is equal or greater than $`\delta .`$

Imagine now a curve $`C`$ starting in an interior point $`P`$ of $`N`$ and ending at any point $`P_1`$ of $`O.`$ Assume that$`C`$ is formed by straight lines pieces (See Fig. 4). It is then possible to define $`\phi `$ as a function of the length of arc $`s`$ of $`C`$ as measured form the point $`P`$. It should be also valid that in any open segment of $`C,`$ not including the intersection point of the straight lines, the potential $`\phi `$is an analytical function of $`s.`$Furthermore, let consider$`C`$as partitioned in a finite number of segments of length $`\sigma <\delta .`$ Suppose also, that the intersection points of the straight lines are the borders of some of the segments. It can be noticed that $`\phi `$ vanishes in any segment of $`C`$ starting within $`N`$ because it vanishes in $`N`$exactly. Thus, if $`\phi `$and the electric field are not vanishing along all $`C,`$there should be a point over the curve in which the both quantities do not vanish for an open region satisfying $`s>s_o,`$ and vanish exactly for another open interval obeying $`s<s_o`$. However, in this case, all the derivatives of $`\phi `$ of the electric field over $`s`$ vanish at $`s_o.`$This property in addition with the fact that the Taylor series around $`s_o`$ should have a finite radius of convergence $`r>\delta ,`$ as it assumed in the Theorem 1, leads to the fact that $`\phi `$ and the electric field should vanish also for $`s>s_o.`$ Henceforth, the conclusion of the Theorem 1 follows: the potential $`\phi `$ and its corresponding electric field vanish at any interior point of $`R^{}.`$

## III Uniqueness of the Non-Nesting surface sources

Let us argue now the uniqueness of the sources which are defined over a set of non nested surfaces $`S`$ producing specific values of the evoked potential $`\varphi `$ at the boundary $`B_0`$of the region $`R.`$ For this purpose it will be assumed that two different source distributions produce the same evoked potential over $`B_0.`$ The electrostatic fields in all space associated to those sources should be different as functions defined in all space. They will be called $`\varphi _{1\text{ }}`$and $`\varphi _2.`$ As usual in the treatment of uniqueness problems in the linear Laplace equation, consider the new solution defined by the difference $`\varphi =`$ $`\varphi _1\varphi _2.`$ Clearly $`\phi `$ corresponds to sources given by the difference of the ones associated to$`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2.`$ It is also evident that $`\varphi `$ has vanishing values at $`B_0.`$ Then, since the sources are localized at the interior of $`R`$ and $`\varphi `$ satisfies the Laplace equation with zero boundary condition at $`B_0`$ and at the infinity, it follows that the field vanishes in all $`R_0,`$that is, in the free space outside the head. Therefore, it follows that the potential and the electric field vanish in all$`B_0`$when approaching this boundary from the free space ($`R_0).`$ The continuity of the potential, the boundary conditions (3) and the irrotational character of the electric field allows to conclude that $`\varphi `$ and the electric field also vanish at any point of $`B_0`$ but now when approaching it from any interior subregion $`R_i`$ having a boundary $`B_{i0}`$ with the free space. Moreover, if the boundary surface of any of these regions which are in contact with the boundary of $`R`$ is assumed to be smooth, then it follows from Theorem 1 that the potential $`\varphi `$ and its the electric field vanish in all the open subsets of $`R_i`$ which points are connected through its boundary $`B_{i0}`$with free space by curves non-touching the surfaces of $`S`$. It is clear that this result hold for all the open subsets of these $`R_i`$ in which Laplace equation is satisfied excluding those which are also residing inside one of the closed surfaces $`S_i`$ in the set $`S.`$

It is useful for the following reasoning to remark that if we have any boundary $`B_{ij}`$ between to regions $`R_{i\text{ }}`$ and $`R_j,`$ and the potential $`\varphi `$ and the electric field vanish in certain open (in the sense of the surface) and smooth regions of it, then Theorem 1 implies that the potential and the electric field also vanish in all the open subsets of $`R_i`$ and $`R_j`$ which are outside any of the closed surfaces in $`S.`$ Since the sources stay at the surfaces in $`S`$ the field $`\varphi `$ in some open region of $`R`$ included inside certain of the closed surfaces $`S_i`$ will not necessarily satisfy the Laplace equation in any interior point of $`R`$ and Theorem 1 is not applicable.

Let us consider in what follows a point $`P`$ included in a definite open vicinity of a subregion $`R_i.`$ Suppose also that $`P`$ is outside any of the closed surfaces in $`S`$ . Imagine a curve $`C`$which join $`P`$ with the free space and does not touch any of the surfaces in $`S`$. It is clear that, if appropriately defined, $`C`$ should intersect a finite number of boundaries $`B_{ij}`$ including always a certain one $`B_{j0}`$with free space. Let us also assume that $`C`$is adjusted in a way that in each boundary it crosses, the intersection point is contained in a smooth and open vicinity (in the sense of the surface) of the boundary (See Fig. 1 and 5). Then, it also follows that the curve $`C`$can be included in open set $`O_C`$ having no intersection with the non-nested surfaces in $`S.`$ This is so because the region excluding the interior of the closed surfaces in $`S`$ is also connected if the $`S_i`$are disjoint . But, from Theorem 1 it follows that $`\varphi `$and the electric field must vanish in all $`O_C.`$ This should be the outcome because the successive application of the Theorem 1 to the boundaries intersected by the curve $`C`$ permits to recursively imply the vanishing of $`\varphi `$and the electric field in each of the intersections of $`O_C`$ with the subregions $`R_i`$ through which $`C`$ passes. The first step in the recursion can be selected as the intersection of $`C`$ with $`B_{j0}`$ at a point which by assumption is contained in an open neighborhood of the boundary $`B_{j0}`$. As the electric field and $`\varphi `$ vanish at free space, the fields in the first of the considered intersection of $`Oc`$should vanish. This fact permits to define another open and smooth neighborhood of the next boundary intersected by $`C`$in which the field vanish and so on up to the arrival to the intersection with the boundary of the region $`R_i`$containing the ending of $`C`$at the original point P. Therefore, the electric field and the potential should vanish at an arbitrary point $`P`$ of $`R`$ with only two restrictions: 1) $`P`$ to be contained in an open neighborhood of some $`R_i`$ and 2) $`P`$ to reside outside any of the surfaces in $`S.`$ Thus, it is concluded that the difference solution $`\varphi `$ and its corresponding electric field, in all the space outside the region containing the sources vanish. Henceforth, it implies that the difference between the two source distributions also should be zero over any of the open surface in the set $`S.`$ This is necessary because the flux going out from any small piece of the considered surface is zero, which means that the assumed continuous density of surface sources exactly vanish. This completes the proof of the conclusion of Ref.  in connection with sources supported by open surfaces. It only rests to show that the sources are also null over the closed $`S_i.`$

Before continuing with the proof, it is illustrative to exemplify from a physical point of view how the presence of nested surfaces among the $`S_i`$ destroys the uniqueness. For this aim let us let us consider that a closed surface $`S_i`$ has another open or closed of the surface $`S_j`$ properly contained inside it. That means that an open set containing $`S_j`$ is contained inside $`S_i.`$Imagine also that $`S_i`$ is interpreted as the surface of a metal shell connected to the ground; that is, to a zero potential and that the surface $`S_j`$ is the support of an arbitrary density of sources. As it is known from electrostatics theory, the charge density of a metal connected to the ground is always capable to create a surface density of charge at $`S_i`$ such that it exactly cancels the electric field and the potential at the outside of $`S_i,`$ in spite of the high degree of arbitrariness of the charge densities at the interior. That is, for nested surfaces in $`S`$, it is not possible to conclude the uniqueness, because at the interior of a nesting surface, and distributed over the nested ones, arbitrary source distributions can exist which determine exactly the same evoked potential at the outside boundary $`B_0`$.

Let us finally show that if no nesting exists the uniqueness also follows. Consider any of the closed surfaces, let say $`S_i.`$ As argued before $`\varphi `$ and the electric field vanish at any exterior point of $`S_i`$ pertaining to certain open set containing $`S_i.`$ Then, the field created by the difference between the sources associated to the two different solutions assumed to exist should be different from zero only at the interior region. That zone, in the most general situation can be filled by a finite number of metallic bodies with different but constant conductivities. The necessary vanishing of the interior field follows from the exact conservation of the lines of forces for the ohmic electric current as expressed in integral form by

$$𝑑\stackrel{}{s}.\sigma \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\stackrel{}{E}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=0.$$
(7)
Let us consider a surface $`T`$defined by the all the lines of forces of the current vector passing through an arbitrarily small circumference $`c`$ which sits on a plane being orthogonal to a particular line of force passing through its center. Let the center be a point at the surface $`S_i`$ . Because, the above defined construction, all the flux of the current passing trough the piece of surface of $`S_i(`$which we will refer as $`p)`$ intersected by $`T`$ is exactly equal to the flux through any intersection of $`T`$with another surface determining in conjunction with $`p`$ a closed region. By selecting a sufficiently small radius for the circumference $`c`$ it can be noticed that the sign of the electric field component along the unit tangent vector to the central line of forces should be fixed. This is so because on the other hand there will be an accumulation of charge in some closed surface. Now, let us consider the fact that the electric field is irrotational and examine a line of force of the current density which must start at the surface $`S_i.`$ It should end also at $`S_i`$, because in another hand the current density will not be divergence less. After using the irrotational condition for the electric field in the form

$$_C\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}=_{C_1}\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}+_{C_2}\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}=_{C_1}\stackrel{}{E}.d\stackrel{}{l}=0$$
(8)
in which $`C_1`$ is the line of force starting and ending at $`S_i`$ and $`C_2`$ is a curve joining the mentioned points at $`S_i`$ but with all its points lying outside $`S_i`$ where $`\varphi =\varphi _1`$-$`\varphi _2`$and the electric field vanish. Let us notice that the electric field and the current have always the same direction and sense as vectors, because the electric conductivity is a positive scalar. In addition, as it is argued above, the current can not reverse the sign of its component along the tangent vector of line of forces. Therefore, it follows that also the electric field can‘t revert the sign of its component along a line of force. Thus, the integrand of the line integral over the $`C_1`$ curve should have a definite sign at all the points, hence implying that $`\varphi `$and the electric field should vanish exactly in all $`C_1.`$ Resuming, it follows that the electric field vanish also at the interior of any of the closed surfaces $`S_i.`$ Therefore, the conclusion arises that the difference solution $`\varphi =\varphi _1`$-$`\varphi _2=0`$ in all the space, thus showing that the evoked potential at $`B_0`$ uniquely fixes the sources when they have their support in a set of non nesting surfaces $`S.`$

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the helpful discussions with Drs. Augusto González , Jorge Riera and Pedro Valdés. One of the authors ( A.C.) also would like acknowledge the support for the development of this work given by the Christopher Reynolds Foundation (New York,U.S.A.) and the Center of Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems of the Clark Atlanta University (Atlanta, U.S.A). The support of the Associateship Programme of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (Trieste Italy) is also greatly acknowledged.

Figure Captions

Fig.1. An illustration of a simply connected region $`R`$ constituted in this case by only two simply connected subregions $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ having a boundary $`B_{12}.`$The boundary with free space is denoted by $`B_0.`$ The set of non-nesting surfaces $`S`$have four elements $`S_i`$ , $`i=1,\mathrm{..4}.`$ two of them open and other two closed ones. A piece wise straight curve $`C`$ joining any interior point $`P`$ of $`R`$ and a point $`O`$ in the free space is also shown.

Fig.2. Picture representing the region $`Q`$ in which a field $`\phi `$ satisfies the Laplace equation and its value at the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is given by the Green integral (5).

Fig.3. The contour employed in the line integral in Eq. (6).

Fig.4. Picture of the region $`R_i`$and the open neighborhood $`N`$ in which the field $`\phi `$ vanish exactly . A piece wise straight line curve $`C`$joining a point $`PN`$and certain point $`P_1`$ in $`R_i`$ is also shown.

Fig.5. Scheme of the curve $`C`$ and the open region$`O_C`$ containing it.


text:
# References

Deformation Quantization of Coadjoint Orbits

M. A. Lledó

Dipartimento di Fisica, Politecnico di Torino,

Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, I-10129 Torino, Italy, and

INFN, Sezione di Torino, Italy.

e-mail: lledo@athena.polito.it

## Abstract

A method for the deformation quantization of coadjoint orbits of semisimple Lie groups is proposed. It is based on the algebraic structure of the orbit. Its relation to geometric quantization and differentiable deformations is explored.

Let $`G`$ be a complex Lie group of dimension $`n`$ and $`G_R`$ a real form of $`G`$. Let $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢_R`$ be their respective Lie algebras with Lie bracket $`[,]`$. As it is well known, $`𝒢_R^{}`$ has a Poisson structure,

$$\{f_1,f_2\}(\lambda )=<[(df_1)_\lambda ,(df_2)_\lambda ],\lambda >,f_1,f_2C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒢_R^{}),\lambda 𝒢_R^{}.$$
(1)
Choosing a basis $`\{X_1,\mathrm{}X_n\}`$ of $`𝒢_R`$ and its dual, $`\{\xi ^1,\mathrm{}\xi ^n\}`$, the Poisson bracket can be written as

$$\{f_1,f_2\}(x)=c_{ij}^k\lambda _k\frac{f_1}{x_i}\frac{f_2}{x_j},x=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i\xi ^i𝒢^{}.$$

Notice that this Poisson bracket is never symplectic, in particular it is 0 at the origin. Under the action of $`gG_R`$, it satisfies $`g^{}\{f_1,f_2\}=\{g^{}f_1,g^{}f_2\}`$, so $`G_R`$ is a group of automorphisms of the Poisson algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒢_R^{})`$. The action of $`G_R`$ on $`𝒢_R^{}`$ is not transitive, so $`𝒢_R^{}`$ is foliated in orbits. This foliation coincides with the foliation given by the Hamiltonian vector fields of (1). So the orbits of the coadjoint action of a Lie group are symplectic manifolds.

We want to describe formal deformations of the Poisson algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a coadjoint orbit) or of some subalgebra of it. It is convenient to work with the complexification of the Poisson algebra.

An associative algebra $`𝒜_h`$ over $`[[h]]`$ is a formal deformation of a Poisson algebra $`(𝒜,\{,\})`$ over $``$ if there exists an isomorphism of $`[[h]]`$-modules $`\psi :𝒜[[h]]𝒜_h`$ satisfying the following properties:

a. $`\psi ^1(F_1F_2)=f_1f_2`$ mod($`h`$) where $`F_i𝒜_h`$ are such that $`\psi ^1(F_i)=f_i`$ mod$`(h)`$, $`f_i𝒜`$. (By mod$`(h)`$ we mean that the projections $`p:𝒜[[h]]𝒜[[h]]/h𝒜[[h]]`$ of both quantities coincide).

b. $`\psi ^1(F_1F_2F_2F_1)=h\{f_1,f_2\}`$ mod($`h^2`$).

An example of interest for our purposes is the polynomial algebra on $`𝒢^{}`$. A formal deformation of $`\text{Pol}(𝒢^{})`$  is given by the algebra $`U_h=T_{[[h]]}(𝒢)/_h`$, where $`T_{[[h]]}(𝒢)`$ is the tensor algebra over $`[[h]]`$ and $`_h`$ is the proper two sided ideal

$$_h=\underset{X,Y𝒢}{}T_{[[h]]}(𝒢)(XYYXh[X,Y])T_{[[h]]}(𝒢)T_{[[h]]}(𝒢).$$

The isomorphism $`\psi :\text{Pol}(𝒢^{})U_h`$ is not canonical. A possible choice is in terms of a Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt basis,

$$\psi (x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_k})=X_{i_1}X_{i_2}\mathrm{}X_{i_k},1i_1\mathrm{}i_kn.$$
(2)
Another choice is the symmetrizer map,

$$\text{Sym}(x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_k})=\frac{1}{k!}\underset{\sigma S_k}{}X_{\sigma (i_1)}X_{\sigma (i_2)}\mathrm{}X_{\sigma (i_k)},$$
(3)
where $`S_k`$ is the group of permutations of order $`k`$.

Given a choice for $`\psi `$ one can define an associative product (star product) on $`𝒜[[h]]`$ by

$$a_\psi b=\psi ^1(\psi (a)\psi (b)).$$

Then, for any choice of $`\psi `$, $`(𝒜_h,_\psi )`$ is an algebra isomorphic to $`𝒜_h`$. With the star product we recover the semiclassical interpretation of the elements of the algebra as functions on the phase space. The star product can always be written as a formal series

$$a_\psi b=ab+\underset{n>0}{}h^nC_\psi ^n(a,b),$$

where $`C_\psi ^n`$ are some bilinear operators. Let $``$ and $`^{}`$ be two isomorphic star products,

$$ab=T^1(T(a)T(b)),T:𝒜[[h]]A[[h]].$$

It is clear that $`T`$ can be written as

$$T(a)=\underset{n0}{}h^nT^n(a),$$

and because of property a, $`T^0`$ must be an automorphism of the commutative algebra $`𝒜[[h]]`$. If $`T_0`$ is the identity we say that $``$ and $`^{}`$ are equivalent (or gauge equivalent) star products. (2) and (3) are two equivalent star products.

For $`𝒜`$ being the full algebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions on the Poisson manifold, if the operators $`C_\psi ^n`$ are bidifferential operators we say that the star product is differentiable. Gauge equivalence can be restricted to the class of differentiable star products by considering only differentiable $`T^n`$. Notice that the differentiability is a property of the particular star product and not of the formal deformation. The star products (2) and (3) can be extended to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ as differentiable star products, but we will see later an example of a star product corresponding to the same formal deformation which is not differentiable .

We will consider only semisimple Lie groups. The semisimple coadjoint orbits of $`G`$ on $`𝒢`$ are complex algebraic varieties defined over $``$. They are given by the invariant polynomials. If $`l`$ is the rank of $`G`$, we can choose $`l`$ homogeneous polynomials $`p_i(x)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$ generating the subalgebra of invariant polynomials, $`[p_1,\mathrm{}p_n]`$. Then the semisimple coadjoint orbits are given by the algebraic equations

$$p_i(x)=c_i.$$
(4)
(see for example ). The intersection of the complex orbit with $`𝒢_R`$ is a real algebraic variety consisting on a finite number of connected components, which are orbits of the real form of the group. For the compact real form there is only one connected component.

It is easy to check that the star products 2 and 3 do not restrict well to the orbit, that is, in general

$$ap_i|_\mathrm{\Theta }0.$$

We want to know if there is some choice of $`\psi `$ that gives a star product which restricts to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

In the approach of geometric quantization, the algebra of quantum observables is given by the quotient of $`U_h`$ by a certain ideal. This ideal, $`I_h`$, is prime and $`\text{Ad}_G`$-invariant, so there is a well defined action of $`G`$ on $`U_h/I_h`$. We summarize here the results of , where the quantization of the coadjoint orbits are obtained in terms of the quotient of the enveloping algebra by a prime, AdG-invariant ideal. We consider the polynomial algebra over the real algebraic manifold (union of orbits) defined by (4),

$$\text{Pol}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\text{Pol}(𝒢^{})/_0,_0=\{p\text{Pol}(𝒢^{})/p|_\mathrm{\Theta }=0\}.$$

This is the Poisson algebra that we want to deform. We quote first a result from Varadarajan  that we need.

Lemma (1). Let $`x𝒢^{}`$ be a regular element of $`𝒢^{}`$ (or equivalently, a point in which the centralizer has dimension equal to the rank of $`𝒢^{}`$). Then $`(dp_1)_x`$, …, $`(dp_l)_x`$ are linearly independent.

From now on we will restrict to regular orbits only. It is clear that in this case $`_0`$ is generated by $`p_1c_1,\mathrm{}p_lc_l`$. We consider now the elements in $`U_h`$ that are the image of $`p_i`$ by the symmetrizer, $`P_i=\text{Sym}(p_i)`$, called Casimir operators. $`P_i`$ are central elements in $`U_h`$ and they are also AdG-invariant (the symmetrizer commutes with the action of $`G`$).

Let $`_h`$ be the ideal generated by $`P_iC_i(h)`$, where $`C_i(0)=c_i`$. Then $`U_h/_h`$ is a formal deformation of $`\text{Pol}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$. The technical assumption of regularity is needed to prove the existence of a $`[[h]]`$-module isomorphism $`\psi :\text{Pol}(\mathrm{\Theta })[[h]]U_h/_h`$, which is not obvious. The ideal $`_h`$ itself is AdG-invariant, so $`G`$ has a natural action by automorphisms on the algebra $`U_h/_h`$. For special values of $`C_i(h)`$, $`_h`$ is in the kernel of an irreducible unitary representation of $`G_R`$.

This deformation of polynomials can be specialized for any value of $`h`$. For SU(2),

$$[H,X]=\mathrm{}2X,[H,Y]=\mathrm{}2Y,[X,Y]=\mathrm{}H,$$

the Casimir operator is

$$P=\frac{1}{2}(XY+YX+\frac{1}{2}H^2).$$

It was shown in  that with the choice

$$C=l(l+\mathrm{})),l=\mathrm{}m/2,$$

the algebra obtained is the same than the one obtained in geometric quantization.

According to our definition, a star product in Pol$`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is given by a $`[[h]]`$-module isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }:\text{Pol}(\mathrm{\Theta })[[h]]U_h/_h`$. In particular, to obtain a star product in Pol$`(𝒢^{})`$ which restricts to the orbit one should look for an isomorphism $`\psi :\text{Pol}(𝒢^{})[[h]]U_h`$ such that the following diagram commutes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Pol}(𝒢^{})[[h]]& \stackrel{\psi }{}& U_h\\ \pi & & \widehat{\pi }& & \\ \text{Pol}(\mathrm{\Theta })[[h]]& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{}& U_h/I_h.\end{array}$$
(5)
$`\pi `$ and $`\widehat{\pi }`$ are the natural projections. If $`\psi (_0)=_h`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is defined uniquely by the diagram (5). An example of such star product is given in , where it is also shown that it is not differentiable. Since $`\widehat{\psi }`$ is not unique one could ask if there is some choice that renders it differentiable. This issue will be addressed in .