text:
# Analysis of previous microscopic calculations for second 0⁺ state in 12C in terms of 3-alpha particle Bose-condensed state

## Abstract

The wave function of the second $`0^+`$ state of 12C which was obtained long time ago by solving the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$ problem is shown to be almost completely equivalent to the wave function of the 3$`\alpha `$ condensed state which has been proposed recently by the present authors. This equivalence of the wave functions is shown to hold in two cases where different effective two-nucleon forces are adopted. This finding gives strong support for interpreting the second $`0^+`$ state of 12C which is the key state for the synthesis of 12C in stars ( ’Hoyle’ state ), and which is one of the typical mysterious $`0^+`$ states in light nuclei, as a gas-like structure of three $`\alpha `$ particles, Bose-condensed into an identical s-wave function.

The $`\alpha `$ clustering nature of the nucleus 12C has been studied by many authors using various approaches carbon . Among these studies, solving the fully microscopic three-body problem of $`\alpha `$ clusters gives us the most important and reliable theoretical information of $`\alpha `$ clustering in 12C within the assumption that no $`\alpha `$ cluster is distorted or broken except for the change of the size parameter of the $`\alpha `$ cluster’s internal wave function. As representatives for the solution of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$ problem where the antisymmetrization of nucleons is exactly treated, we here quote two works: one by Uegaki et al. uegaki  and the other by Kamimura et al. kamimura  both of which were published almost a quarter century ago. In these works, the 12C levels are described by the wave function of the form $`𝒜\{\chi (𝒔,𝒕)\varphi _\alpha ^3\}`$ with $`𝒜`$ standing for the antisymmetrizer, $`\varphi _\alpha ^3\varphi (\alpha _1)\varphi (\alpha _2)\varphi (\alpha _3)`$ for the product of the internal wave functions of 3 $`\alpha `$ clusters, and $`𝒔`$ and $`𝒕`$ for the Jacobi coordinates of the center-of-mass motion of 3 $`\alpha `$ clusters. Here $`\varphi (\alpha _i)`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) is the internal wave function of the $`\alpha `$-cluster $`\alpha _i`$ having the form $`\varphi (\alpha _i)\mathrm{exp}[(1/8b^2)_{m>n}^4(𝒓_{im}𝒓_{in})^2]`$. The wave function $`\chi (𝒔,𝒕)`$ of the relative motion of 3 $`\alpha `$ clusters is obtained by solving the eigen-energy problem of the full three-body equation of motion; $`\varphi _\alpha ^3|(HE)|𝒜\{\chi (𝒔,𝒕)\varphi _\alpha ^3\}=0`$, where $`H`$ is the microscopic Hamiltonian consisting of the kinetic energy, effective two-nucleon potential, and the Coulomb potential between protons. The difference between the works by Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al. lies in the adopted effective two-nucleon forces, besides the differing techniques of solution.

Both calculations by Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al. reproduced reasonably well the observed binding energy and r.m.s. radius of the ground $`0_1^+`$ state which is the state with normal density, while they both predicted a very large r.m.s. radius for the second $`0_2^+`$ state which is larger than the r.m.s. radius of the ground $`0_1^+`$ state by about 1 fm, i.e. by over 30%. The observed $`0_2^+`$ state lies slightly above the 3$`\alpha `$ breakup threshold and the energies of the calculated $`0_2^+`$ state reproduced reasonably well the observed value although the value by Uegaki et al. is slightly higher than the 3$`\alpha `$ breakup threshold by about 1 MeV. The second $`0^+`$ state of 12C is well known as the key state for the synthesis of 12C in stars ( Hoyle state ) and also as one of the typical mysterious $`0^+`$ states in light nuclei which are very difficult to understand from the point of view of the shell model. For the understanding of the nature of the $`0_2^+`$ state with dilute density, the analysis by Uegaki et al. of the Reduced Width Amplitude (RWA) function of the 8Be-$`\alpha `$ breakup is very useful. The RWA function $`y_L(\rho )`$ which is defined as $`y_L(\rho )=\sqrt{12!/8!4!}[\mathrm{\Phi }({}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{Be},L)\varphi (\alpha )Y_L(\widehat{\rho })]_{J=0}|𝒜\{\chi (𝒔,𝒕)\varphi _\alpha ^3\}`$ with $`\rho `$ standing for the realtive coordinate between 8Be and $`\alpha `$, proved to have similar magnitude for all partial waves $`L`$ ( $`L`$= 0, 2, 4) for the ground $`0_1^+`$ state but it turned out to be large only for $`L`$=0 for the $`0_2^+`$ state. This result for the $`0_2^+`$ state with dilute density implies that the $`0_2^+`$ state has a gas-like structure of 3 $`\alpha `$-particles which interact weakly among one another, predominantly in relative S waves. This understanding of the $`0_2^+`$ state structure had been already presented by Horiuchi on the basis of the 3$`\alpha `$ OCM ( orthogonality condition model ) calculation hori , and is quite different from the picture of a 3$`\alpha `$ linear-chain structure mori  for this state. It should be mentioned here that both calculations by Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al. reproduced well not only the energy but also other observed quantities related to the $`0_2^+`$ state indicating that their wave fuctions of the $`0_2^+`$ state are highly reliable. For example, the reduced $`\alpha `$-decay widths of the $`0_2^+`$ state calculated by Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al. at the channel radius $`a`$ = 7 fm are 0.39 and 0.56, respectively, while the observed value is 0.38. The calculated values of the monopole matrix element $`M(0_2^+0_1^+)`$ by Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al are 6.6 fm2 and 6.7 fm2, respectively, while the observed value is 5.4 fm2.

Recently, based on the investigations by Röpke, Schuck, and coauthors on the possibility of $`\alpha `$-particle condensation in low-density nuclear matter roepke , the present authors proposed a conjecture that near the $`n\alpha `$ threshold in self-conjugate $`4n`$ nuclei there exist excited states of dilute density which are composed of a weekly interacting gas of self-bound $`\alpha `$ particles and which can be considered as an $`n\alpha `$ condensed state thsr . This conjecture was backed by examining the structure of 12C and 16O using a new $`\alpha `$-cluster wave function of the $`\alpha `$-cluster condensate type. The new $`\alpha `$-cluster wave function actually succeeded to place a level of dilute density ( about one third of ground state density ) in each system of 12C and 16O in the vicinity of the 3 respectively 4 $`\alpha `$ breakup threshold, without using any adjustable parameter. In the case of 12C, this success of the new $`\alpha `$-cluster wave function may seem rather natural because, as we explained above, we had already known that the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$ cluster models had predicted that the $`0_2^+`$ in the vicinity of the 3$`\alpha `$ breakup threshold has a gas-like structure of $`3\alpha `$-particles which interact weakly with each other predominantly in relative $`S`$ waves.

The new $`\alpha `$-cluster wave function of the $`\alpha `$-cluster condensate type used in Ref. thsr  represents a condensation of $`\alpha `$-clusters in a spherically symmetric state. The present authors extended the wave function so that it can describe the $`\alpha `$-cluster condensate with spatial deformation fhtsr . They applied this new wave function to 8Be and succeeded to reproduce not only the binding energy of the ground state but also the energy of the excited $`2^+`$ state. In addition, they found that although the effect of the spatial deformation is not large, the introduction of the spatial deformation brought forth a 100 % overlap of the condensate wave function with the ”exact” wave function given by the microscopic 2$`\alpha `$ cluster model which solves the 2$`\alpha `$-cluster equation of motion, $`\varphi _\alpha ^2|(HE)|𝒜\{\chi (𝒓)\varphi _\alpha ^2\}=0`$. This fact forces us to modify our understanding of the 8Be structure from the 2$`\alpha `$ ’dumb-bell’ structure to the 2$`\alpha `$ dilute ( gas-like ) structure.

The purpose of this short note is to report on our study of 12C using the extended 3$`\alpha `$ condensate wave function with spatial deformation and comparing the obtained results for 12C with those of the ”exact” 3$`\alpha `$ cluster model wave functions by Uegaki et al. and by Kamimura et al. The most remarkable result of this comparison is that the $`0_2^+`$ wave functions by Uegaki et al. and by Kamimura et al. are almost completely equivalent to our condensate wave functions with slight spatial deformation which are obtained by using the same effective two-nucleon force as Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al., respectively. This result implies that the ”exact” 3$`\alpha `$ cluster model wave functions for the second $`0_2^+`$ state of 12C can definitely be interpreted as 3$`\alpha `$-particle Bose-condensed state.

The wave function of the $`n\alpha `$-cluster condensate with spatial deformation was introduced in Ref. fhtsr  and the detailed explanation of it is given there. So here we give a brief explanation which is necessary in this paper. The wave function has the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)={\displaystyle d^3R_1\mathrm{}d^3R_n}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{ix}^2}{\beta _x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{iy}^2}{\beta _y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{iz}^2}{\beta _z^2}}\right)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{B}(𝑹_1,\mathrm{},𝑹_n)`$
$``$ $`𝒜\left[\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2X_{ix}^2}{B_x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2X_{iy}^2}{B_y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2X_{iz}^2}{B_z^2}}\right)\right\}\varphi (\alpha _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (\alpha _n)\right],`$
where $`𝑿_i=(1/4)_{n=1}^4𝒓_{in}`$ is the center-of-mass coordinate of the $`i`$th $`\alpha `$-cluster $`\alpha _i`$, $`\varphi (\alpha _i)`$ is the same internal wave function of the $`\alpha `$-cluster $`\alpha _i`$ as the previous microscopic $`3\alpha `$ cluster model, $`B_k^2=b^2+2\beta _k^2`$ ($`k=x,y,z`$), and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{B}(𝑹_1,\mathrm{},𝑹_n)`$ is Brink’s $`\alpha `$-cluster model wave function brink . It is to be noted that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ expresses the state where $`n`$ $`\alpha `$-clusters occupy the same spatially deformed center-of-mass orbit $`\mathrm{exp}[(2/B_x^2)X_x^2(2/B_y^2)X_y^2(2/B_z^2)X_z^2]`$, while the internal $`\alpha `$-cluster wave functions stay spherical. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ can be written as a product of the total center-of-mass wave function and the internal wave function $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2nX_{Gx}^2}{B_x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nX_{Gy}^2}{B_y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nX_{Gz}^2}{B_z^2}}\right\}`$
$`\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)=𝒜[\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{B_x^2}}(X_{ix}X_{Gx})^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{B_y^2}}(X_{iy}X_{Gy})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{B_z^2}}(X_{iz}X_{Gz})^2)\}\varphi (\alpha _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (\alpha _n)].`$
All the calculations are made not with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ but with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }(\beta _x,\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ which is an eigen state of total momentum with eigen value zero. In this paper we assume axial symmetry of the deformation around the intrinsic $`z`$-axis and put $`\beta _x=\beta _y`$. The $`\alpha `$-condensed wave function with good angular momentum which is obtained by spin projection is then written as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }^J(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)=d\mathrm{cos}\theta d_{M0}^J(\theta )\widehat{R}_y(\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z),$$

where $`\widehat{R}_y(\theta )`$ is the rotation operator around the intrinsic $`y`$ axis which rotates $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n\alpha }`$ by an angle $`\theta `$, and $`d_{M0}^J(\theta )`$ is the small $`D`$-function.

As effective two-nucleon forces, we adopt the ones of Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al. One is the Volkov force No.1 volkov  with Majorana parameter $`M=0.575`$, used by Uegaki et al., and the other is the Volkov force No.2 volkov  with Majorana parameter $`M=0.59`$, used by Kamimura et al. Hereafter, we refer to the former force as force I while the latter force is referred to as force II. We adopt the same values for the oscillator parameter $`b`$ as Uegaki et al. and Kamimura et al., namely $`b=1.41`$ fm for force I while $`b=1.35`$ fm for force II.

In Fig.1 we give the contour map of the $`J^\pi =0^+`$ binding energy surface corresponding to the spin-projected state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ in the two parameter space, $`\beta _x(=\beta _y)`$ and $`\beta _z`$. The adopted effective force for this energy surface is force II. We see the energy minimum at $`\beta _x(=\beta _y)`$ = 1.5 fm and $`\beta _z`$ = 1.5 fm, which means that the minimum has a spherical shape. The minimum energy of $`87.68`$ MeV is about 1.7 MeV higher than the binding energy of $`89.4`$ MeV obtained by Kamimura et al. for the ground $`0_1^+`$ state. The energy surface in the case of force I is similar to the energy surface of Fig.1. The minimum energy obtained by the use of force I is $`86.09`$ MeV and it is about 1.8 MeV higher than the binding energy of $`87.92`$ MeV obtained by Uegaki et al. for the ground $`0_1^+`$ state.

In Fig.2 we give the contour map of the $`J^\pi =0^+`$ binding energy surface corresponding to the state orthogonalized to the minimum energy state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)`$ ( the state at the minimum energy point in Fig.1). The orthogonalized state is denoted as $`P_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ and is expressed as

$`P_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$
$`=(1|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{N,J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{N,J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)|)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{N,J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)/\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)}`$ .
The adopted effective force for Fig.2 is force II. We see an energy minimum at $`\beta _x(=\beta _y)`$ = 5.7 fm and $`\beta _z`$ = 1.3 fm in the oblate region of the map and a second energy minimum at $`\beta _x(=\beta _y)`$ = 2.9 fm and $`\beta _z`$ = 9.4 fm in the prolate region of the map. The minimum energy value is $`81.55`$ MeV and, what is very remarkable, this value is almost the same as the binding energy of $`81.66`$ MeV obtained by Kamimura et al. for the second $`0_2^+`$ state. The minimum energy of $`81.55`$ MeV is close to the second minimum energy of $`81.39`$ MeV, and there is a valley with an almost flat bottom connecting these two minima. An almost flat bottom of the valley means that the energy of the spherical configuration is only slightly higher than that of the deformed configuration, namely the energy gain due to the deformation is small. The energy surface by the orthogonalized state $`P_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ in the case of the force I is similar to the energy surface of Fig.2, and the minimum energy of the orthogonalized state is $`79.83`$ MeV. Here again it is very remarkable that this value is almost the same as the binding energy of $`79.3`$ MeV obtained by Uegaki et al. for the second $`0_2^+`$ state.

The fact that for each case of the two different effective forces a single orthogonalized state $`P_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ yields almost the same energy as the ”exact” energy of the $`0_2^+`$ state obtained by solving a full three-body problem of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model, strongly suggests that the $`0_2^+`$ state wave function given by the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model is similar to the rather simple state $`P_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ as long as the adopted effective two-nucleon force is reasonably realistic.

We also calculated the $`J^\pi =2^+`$ energy surface corresponding to the spin-projected state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=2}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ for the forces I and II. The minimum energies for the forces I and II are obtained to be $`83.61`$ MeV at $`\beta _x(=\beta _y)`$ = 1.30 fm and $`\beta _z`$ = 0.35 fm, and to be $`84.65`$ MeV at $`\beta _x(=\beta _y)`$ = 1.50 fm and $`\beta _z`$ = 0.35 fm, respectively. These minimum energy values for forces I and II are both higher by about 2 MeV than the lowest $`2^+`$ energies by Uegaki et al. and by Kamimura et al., respectively, whose values are shown in Table I.

We also performed the GCM ( generator coordinate method ) calculation for $`J^\pi =0^+`$ and $`2^+`$ by superposing $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^J(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ over various sets of $`(\beta _x,\beta _z)`$;

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(\beta _x,\beta _z)}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^J(\beta _x^{}=\beta _y^{},\beta _z^{})|(HE_k)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^J(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$
$`\times f_k^J(\beta _x,\beta _z)=0.`$
The adopted values of $`\beta _x`$ are $`\beta _x=(i0.5)`$ fm with $`i=16`$, and those of $`\beta _z`$ is $`\beta _z=(j0.5)`$ fm with $`j=18`$. Hence the total number of the adopted grid points $`(\beta _x,\beta _z)`$ is 48. The calculated eigen energies of the $`0_1^+`$, $`0_2^+`$, and $`2_1^+`$ states are given in Table I for the two forces I and II. We have checked the convergence of the calculation of the eigen energies by changing the sets of $`(\beta _x,\beta _z)`$ for the GCM calculation. We see in Table I that all the GCM eigen energies of the $`0_1^+`$, $`0_2^+`$, and $`2_1^+`$ states are almost the same as the energies of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model in both cases of forces I and II. Since the eigen energies obtained by solving the full three-body problem of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model are the ”exact” energies, we can say by using the mini-max theorem of the variational problem that this almost complete equivalence of our GCM energies with the exact energies means that our GCM wave functions of the $`0_1^+`$, $`0_2^+`$, and $`2_1^+`$ states are almost equivalent respectively to the $`0_1^+`$, $`0_2^+`$, and $`2_1^+`$ wave functions of the microscopic 3-$`\alpha `$-cluster model in both cases of force I and II. In order to check further this almost complete equivalence, we give in Table II the comparison of the calculated r.m.s. radii and monopole matrix elements $`M(0_2^+0_1^+)`$ between our GCM and the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model. We see nice agreement of the calculated quantities between our GCM and the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model. In Table II, we see that the large r.m.s. radius of the $`0_2^+`$ state is also predicted by our GCM as by the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model, but at the same time we see that the calculated value corresponding to our GCM is slightly larger than that of the 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model. We think the reason is because our wave function of the $`0_2^+`$ state which contains a large amount of the components of the 3$`\alpha `$ condensed wave functions $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ with large $`\beta _x`$ and/or $`\beta _z`$ so as to yield large r.m.s. radius may have a longer tail than the former 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model. This possibly longer tail behavior of the GCM $`0_2^+`$ wave function may explain the slight underestimation of the monopole matrix element of the GCM versus the 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model through the slightly enhanced mismatch between the $`0_1^+`$ and $`0_2^+`$ wave functions in the GCM case.

The fact that the second $`0_2^+`$ wave function of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model is almost completely equivalent to our GCM wave function of the second $`0_2^+`$ state which has a very large r.m.s. radius or equivalently very dilute density is very important. Since our GCM wave function of the $`0_2^+`$ state expresses the Bose-condensed state of 3$`\alpha `$-clusters, as is clear from its large r.m.s. radius and from its functional form, we can say that the second $`0_2^+`$ wave function of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$-cluster model obtained long time ago underlines the fact that the second $`0^+`$ state of 12C in the vicinity of the 3$`\alpha `$ breakup threshold has a gas-like structure of 3$`\alpha `$ clusters with ”Bose-condensation”.

Now we discuss the relation between our GCM wave function of the $`0_2^+`$ state which we denote as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)`$ and the orthogonalized state $`P_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y,\beta _z)`$ with minimum energy which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$. Although the energy of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ is almost equivalent to that of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)`$ and also to that of the $`0_2^+`$ wave function of the microscopic 3$`\alpha `$ cluster model, we cannot simply conclude that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ is almost equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)`$. It is because $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ is not yet guaranteed to be orthogonal to the $`0_1^+`$ wave function. The orthogonality of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\mathrm{min}.)`$ which is the state at the minimum energy point of the energy surface is not the same as the orthogonality to the $`0_1^+`$ wave function, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ may contain some amount of the $`0_1^+`$ wave function. We therefore calculated the squared overlap value of the two wave functions, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)|^2`$. The obtained values are 0.95 and 0.97 for forces I and II, respectively. These large overlap values mean that the GCM $`0_2^+`$ wave functions are very similar to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ in both cases of force I and II and hence verify our former statement that the $`0_2^+`$ wave function of the microscopic $`3\alpha `$ cluster model is very similar to a simple state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0_2^+)`$ so long as the adopted two- nucleon force reasonably describes the physics.

We also studied the magnitude of the spherical condensate component contained in our GCM $`0_2^+`$ wave functions. For this purpose, we first constructed the projection operator $`P_{\mathrm{sph}}`$ onto the functional space Ssph spanned by spherical condensate wave functions as $`P_{\mathrm{sph}}=_k|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sph}}^k\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sph}}^k|`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sph}}^k`$ are the orthonormal basis functions of the space Ssph. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sph}}^k`$ are constructed as follows,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta _x}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x^{}=\beta _y^{}=\beta _z^{})|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y=\beta _z)g^k(\beta _x)`$
$`=\mu _kg^k(\beta _x^{}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta _x}{}}g^k^{}(\beta _x)g^k(\beta _x)=\delta _{\beta _k^{}\beta _k},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sph}}^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu _k}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta _x}{}}g^k(\beta _x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{3\alpha }^{J=0}(\beta _x=\beta _y=\beta _z).`$
The calculated values of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)|P_{\mathrm{sph}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)|^2`$ are 0.92 and 0.91 for forces I and II, respectively. Of course, we checked the convergence of the calculation by changing the number of the adopted components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sph}}^k`$ in $`P_{\mathrm{sph}}`$. The large magnitudes of these values imply that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GCM}}(0_2^+)`$ is mostly composed of the spherical condensate component by more than 91 %. At the same time we have to note that some amount (less than 9 %) of the deformed component which is orthogonal to the spherical component is necessary in order to have quantitatively good reproduction of the observed quantities.

We finally make a remark on the ground $`0_1^+`$ wave function. Since this state has a normal radius and density, three $`\alpha `$ clusters overlap strongly with each other in this state, which is totally different from the situation of the $`0_2^+`$ state where the mutual overlap of three, or even two $`\alpha `$ clusters is small. Therefore even though the $`0_1^+`$ state is well represented by a superposition of our condensate wave functions (we recall that our wave function contains the Slater determinant as a limit case), it does not mean at all that the state has an $`\alpha `$ condensation character which is only valid for the gas-like state of $`\alpha `$-clusters.

In summary, we have shown that the $`0_2^+`$ wave function of 12C which was obtained long time ago by solving the full three-body problem of the microscopic $`3\alpha `$ cluster model is almost completely equivalent to the wave function of the $`3\alpha `$ condensed state. This equivalence has been shown to hold for two different effective two-nucleon forces. This result gives us strong support to our opinion that the $`0_2^+`$ state of 12C has a gas-like structure of $`3\alpha `$ clusters with ”Bose-condensation”. A more detailed report of the present problem will be given elsewhere.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Size Effect in Conductivity of Multilayer Metal Films

## I Introduction

Boundary scattering is essential for complete description of nanosystems such as quantum wells, ultrathin films or wires, *etc.* Due to the large surface-to-volume ratio, boundaries are expected to play a much greater role in determining the overall properties in a nanostructure than in a bulk material. For example, recent scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) data have shown that electron energy spectra can be more strongly correlated to the buried interfacial lattices than to the surface immediately beneath the STM tip alt1 . These observations clearly indicate that a small lateral variation along the boundary can have a significant long range effect in a semi-ballistic electron system. Thus, a more realistic description of a nanoscale quantized system must go beyond the common perfect geometric boundary and include boundary corrugations. Indeed, random surface roughness of a thin metal film can dominate incoherent scattering and relaxation, and can lead to anomalous quantum size effect such as large oscillatory dependence of the in-plane conductivity on the film thickness pon1 .

The same must be true not only for the quantum well (film) walls but also for the interlayer interfaces in multilayer films. It is well known that the roughness of the interlayer interfaces plays an important role in, for example, giant magnetoresistance (see review levy1  and references therein). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of irregular corrugation of the interlayer interfaces on the lateral conductivity of quantized multilayer films without magnetic effects. We will see that the interface scattering can result in unique features of the quantum size effect (QSE) which are strikingly different from QSE with scattering by bulk or wall inhomogeneities. Orbital and spin magnetic effects of the type studied in Refs. joy  will be studied separately.

In ultrathin films, the motion of electrons across the films can be quantized. QSE in metal films is studied experimentally by measuring conductivity conduct1 ; qse2  and susceptibility susc1  of the films or in spectroscopy spect1  and STM alt1  measurements (for earlier results, see references therein). As a result of QSE, the $`3D`$ electron spectrum $`ϵ\left(𝐩\right)`$ splits into a set of minibands $`ϵ_j\left(𝐪\right)`$ where $`𝐪`$ is the $`2D`$ momentum along the film ($`yz`$plane). In the simplest case of a single-layer film approximated by a rectangular quantum well, the quantized values of the $`x`$component of momentum are $`p_{x_j}=\pi j/L`$ (here and below $`\mathrm{}=1`$). If in such quantized metal films the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ is unaffected by the quantization, the Fermi surface reduces to a set of $`2D`$ curves $`ϵ_{Fj}\left(𝐪\right)`$ that correspond to cross-sections of the $`3D`$ Fermi surface $`ϵ\left(𝐩\right)=E_F`$ by a set of planes $`p_{x_j}=\pi j/L`$, $`ϵ_{Fj}\left(𝐪\right)=ϵ_F(p_{x_j},𝐪)`$.

This quantization of motion, which is determined by the film thickness $`L`$, leads to several types of QSE. First, any change of the film thickness $`L`$ results in the change in size and number of the Fermi curves $`ϵ_{Fj}\left(𝐪\right)`$. This thickness-driven change in number of the Fermi curves $`ϵ_{Fj}\left(𝐪\right)`$ \[or, what is the same, number of occupied minibands $`ϵ_j\left(𝐪\right)`$\] leads to a singularity in the density of states. These singularities are the most obvious manifestations of QSE.

These singularities in the density of states, by itself, do not lead to any *striking* anomalies in the dependence of the lateral conductivity $`\sigma `$ of the film on the thickness $`L`$. The conductivity is more sensitive to electron scattering than to the density of states. However, the change in the number of the occupied minibands $`S`$ can be accompanied by a change in number of allowed scattering channels that correspond to the scattering-driven electron transitions between minibands $`ϵ_j\left(𝐪\right)`$. The effect of this step-like change in the number of scattering channels on the conductivity is much stronger than that of the singularities in the density of states ser1 . When all scattering-driven interband transitions are allowed, QSE manifests itself as a pronounced saw-like dependence of the conductivity on the film thickness. This type of QSE in quantized films has been predicted both for scattering by impurities and surface inhomogeneities sand ; ash .

When the main scattering mechanism is the scattering by surface inhomogeneities, many of the interband transitions can often be suppressed. This happens, for example, when the average size of the surface inhomogeneities $`R`$ is much larger than the the thickness of the film and/or the particle wavelength $`\lambda _F`$. Then the usual QSE, which is described above, disappears and is replaced by a different kind of the size effect pon1 . This anomalous QSE, which is somewhat reminiscent of the magnetic breakthrough, is completely decoupled from the singularities in the density of states and is associated solely with opening of interband scattering channels for gliding electrons at certain values of the film thickness, $`L_i\sqrt{\left(i+1/2\right)R\lambda _F/2}`$.

The main goal of this paper is to analyze QSE in *multilayer* films with an emphasis on the scattering by the interface between the layers. We will see that, in addition to the above two types of QSE, the multilayer films can exhibit a peculiar ”geometric” QSE with very narrow high peaks in the lateral conductivity. Some of the positions of these spikes in conductivity are universal; these spikes appear when the ratio of the thicknesses of the film layers is given by simple fractions. The position of the rest of the spikes depend on the strength of the interlayer interface.

In the next Section, we briefly present the main equations for the conductivity and introduce proper dimensionless variables. The results are presented in Section III. Section IV contains the summary and brief discussion of the results. Appendix contains auxiliary information on the energy spectrum of multilayer films of the type used in the calculations.

## II Conductivity

### II.1 Scattering by the interlayer interface

For simplicity, we consider an ultrathin film of thickness $`L`$ consisting of only two layers with the thickness of $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$. The interface between the layers is rough with random corrugation. The exact position of the interface, $`x=L_1+\xi (y,z),`$ is described by the random function $`\xi (y,z)`$ with the zero average, $`\xi =0`$. The random interface inhomogeneities $`\xi (y,z)`$ are best characterized by the correlation function $`\zeta \left(𝐬\right)`$,

$`\zeta \left(𝐬\right)`$ $`=\zeta \left(\left|𝐬\right|\right)=\xi (𝐬_1)\xi (𝐬_1+𝐬)`$
$`A^1{\displaystyle \xi (𝐬_1)\xi (𝐬_1+𝐬)𝑑𝐬_1},`$ (1)
where the vector $`𝐬`$ gives the $`2D`$ coordinates along the interface and $`A`$ is the averaging area. Here, it is assumed that the correlation properties of the surface do not depend on direction. Two main characteristics of the surface correlation functions $`\zeta `$ are the average amplitude (”height”) and the correlation radius (”size”) of surface inhomogeneities, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`R`$.

To emphasize the scattering by inhomogeneities of the interlayer interface, we start from films with ideal outside walls that do not contribute to electron scattering. The combined effect of interface and wall inhomogeneities will be considered elsewhere.

Mostly we are interested in the dependence of the lateral conductivity on the film thickness and have in mind the following experimental situation. The first layer of the film is grown on some (ideal) substrate. The surface is then roughened by adding inhomogeneous adsorbate or by some other means. The growth of the second layer starts from this rough interface and the conductivity is measured at different values of $`L_2`$ either in the process of growth or after the growth is completed. An advantage of such setup with a buried interface is that it allows one to measure the conductivity at various values of the film thickness with *exactly the same* random rough interface.

In this setup, the thickness of the first layer, $`L_1`$, should be considered as fixed, while the thickness of the second layer, $`L_2`$, is variable. Below we are calculate the film conductivity $`\sigma `$ as a function of the film thickness $`L=L_1+L_2`$, $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$, assuming that $`L_1=const`$. The measurements of conductivity can be performed in stationary conditions at different values of $`L_2`$ or as a function of time, in the process of film growth as in Ref. pal1 .

The second layer can be made of the same or different material as the first. If the material is different, then the electron potential energy between the layers differs by some $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$. The the structure of the energy spectrum becomes a complicated function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ making the behavior of conductivity highly irregular arm2 .

Below we consider both layers to be made of the same material with the interface being the only disruption in the potential relief. Then the simplest model of the interface is the $`\delta `$functional potential barrier

$$U=U_0\delta \left(xL_1\xi (y,z)\right).$$
(2)
This immediately introduces two new physical parameters into the problem: the strength of the barrier $`U_0`$ and its (average) position $`L_1`$. In what follows, we study the dependence of the conductivity on these parameters. When necessary, instead of the $`\delta `$-function we will study the corrugated interface with the finite width $`D`$. In experiment, the barrier can be a dislocation wall, twin boundary, or an oxide or dielectric layer (see, *e.g.,* Ref. bul1  and references therein).

The presence of the interface $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ changes the spectrum. When calculating the changes in the spectrum, one can ignore small corrugation $`\xi (y,z)`$. The changes in spectrum caused by the $`\delta `$type barrier $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ are discussed in Appendix. The random corrugation of the interface is responsible for the electron scattering and gives rise to the collision operator in the transport equation.

The scattering by the interface inhomogeneities leads to the transitions between the states $`ϵ_i\left(𝐪\right)ϵ_j\left(𝐪^{}\right)`$. Several ways of calculating the corrugation-driven transition probabilities $`W_{ij}(𝐪,𝐪^{})`$ are described in Ref. arm2 . The simplest methods are either the direct perturbation approach fish1  or the mapping transformation method map1  with both giving the same result in most of the parameter range.

The corrugation-driven contribution $`\delta U`$ to the interface potential, Eq. $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$, with small corrugation $`\xi `$ is

$$\delta U=U_0\xi (y,z)\delta ^{}\left(xL_1\right).$$
(3)
The matrix element $`V_{ij}(𝐪,𝐪^{})`$ of this perturbation between the states $`ϵ_j\left(𝐪\right),ϵ_j\left(𝐪^{}\right)`$ is

$`V_{ij}=U_0{\displaystyle e^{i𝐬(𝐪𝐪^{})}\xi \left(𝐬\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(x\right)\delta ^{}\left(xL_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j\left(x\right)𝑑x𝑑𝐬}`$
$`=U_0\xi \left(𝐪𝐪^{}\right)\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\left(L_1\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j\left(L_1\right)\right],`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(x\right)`$ are the quantized wave functions for electron motion across the film. Note that the derivatives $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(x\right)`$ for films with a $`\delta `$type barrier inside are discontinuous at the position of the barrier $`x=L_1`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)`$ in Eq. $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ should be understood as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1+0\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_10\right)\right]/2`$.

The corrugation-driven transition probability $`W_{ij}(𝐪,𝐪^{})`$ is given by the square of this matrix element which should be averaged over the random inhomogeneities $`\xi `$:

$`W_{ij}(𝐪,𝐪^{})`$ $`=\left|V_{ij}(𝐪,𝐪^{})\right|^2_\xi =U_0^2\zeta \left(\left|𝐪_i𝐪_j^{}\right|\right)G_{ij},`$ (5)
$`G_{ij}`$ $`=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\left(L_1\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j\left(L_1\right)\right]^2,`$ (6)
where $`\zeta \left(\left|𝐪_i𝐪_j^{}\right|\right)`$ is the Fourier image of the correlation function of the interface inhomogeneities $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$. The coefficients $`G_{ik}`$ are calculated with the help of the wave functions presented in the Appendix. The explicit form of $`G_{ik}`$ is given in the next subsection.

The transport equation is a set of equations for the electron distribution functions $`n_i\left(𝐪\right)`$ in minibands $`ϵ_i`$ and has the standard Boltzmann-Waldmann-Snider form arm2 :

$$\frac{dn_i}{dt}=2\pi \underset{j}{}W_{ij}\left[n_jn_i\right]\delta \left(ϵ_{i𝐪}ϵ_{j𝐪^{}}\right)\frac{d^2q^{}}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}.$$
(7)
The integration over $`dq^{}`$ is done using the $`\delta `$-function, $`\delta \left(ϵ_{i𝐪}ϵ_{j𝐪^{}}\right)=m_{ij}^{}\delta \left(q^{}q_{ij}\right)/q_{ij}`$, where $`q_{ij}\left(q\right)`$ is the solution of the equation $`ϵ_j\left(𝐪_{ij}\right)=ϵ_i\left(𝐪\right)`$ and the effective masses $`m_{ij}^{}=q_{ij}/(ϵ_j/q)|_{q=q_{ij}}`$. As always in the transport theory, the angular integration is eliminated by using the angular harmonics. The current is given by the first harmonic of the distribution $`n_i^{\left(1\right)}\nu _i`$ the equation for which involves only the zeroth and first harmonics $`W_{ij}^{(0,1)}(q,q_{ij})`$ of $`W\left(𝐪𝐪_{ij}\right)`$ over the angle $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}}_{jj^{}}`$,

$`d\nu _i\left(q\right)/dt`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\nu _j\left(q_{ij}\right)/\tau _{ij},`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{ij}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[\delta _{ij}W_{ik}^{\left(0\right)}\delta _{jk}W_{ij}^{\left(1\right)}\right],`$
$`W_{ij}^{(0,1)}`$ $`=U_0^2\zeta ^{(0,1)}\left(𝐪_i𝐪_j\right)G_{ij},`$
where we, to simplify the equations, assume that the effective mass $`m_{ij}^{}`$ does not depend on its indices, $`m=m_{ij}^{}`$.

The solution of Eqs. $`\left(\text{8}\right)`$ provides the $`2D`$ conductivity of the film:

$$\sigma =\frac{e^2}{3\mathrm{}^2}\underset{i}{}\nu _i\left(q_i\right)q_i.$$
(9)
### II.2 Dimensionless variables

The problem involves several length scales - particle Fermi wavelength $`\lambda _F=\pi /p_F,`$ the thickness of the layers $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ ($`L_1+L_2=L`$), the correlation radius of the surface inhomogeneities $`R`$, and the interface thickness $`D`$. Another length parameter, the amplitude of inhomogeneities $`\mathrm{}`$, is perturbative and enters conductivity as a coefficient,

$$\sigma =\frac{2e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{R^2}{\mathrm{}^2}f(\lambda _F,L_i,R,D).$$
(10)
Note, that we consider only the contribution from surface roughness and disregard the bulk scattering. As a result, the conductivity $`\left(\text{10}\right)`$ diverges in the limit of vanishing inhomogeneities $`\mathrm{}0`$ or $`R\mathrm{}`$. The proper account of bulk scattering arm3  eliminates this divergence.

It is convenient to measure all the length parameters in the units of the Fermi wavelength $`\lambda _F=\pi /p_F`$. Instead of the interface strength $`U_0,`$ we use interchangeably two equivalent dimensionless parameters $`g`$ and $`u_0`$,

$$g=u_0L/\pi \lambda _F=2mU_0\lambda _FL/\pi \mathrm{}^2$$
(11)
($`g`$ is convenient for the calculation of the spectrum while $`u_0`$ is a proper energy parameter for characterization of the conductivity in our setup). The position of the interface is characterized by the parameter $`\delta ,`$

$$\delta =L_2/L.$$
(12)
In computations, $`\delta `$ changes from $`0`$ (no second layer) to $`1`$ (the second layer much wider than the first). It is worth repeating that we are looking at the experimental situation when the thickness of the first layer is fixed and the conductivity is measured as a function of the thickness of the second layer (or the overall film thickness).

The energy spectrum $`ϵ_i\left(𝐪\right)`$ is described by dimensionless energy units $`z_i,`$

$$ϵ_i\left(𝐪\right)=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{L^2}z_i^2+q^2\right),$$
(13)
where $`z_i`$ is given by the solution of the $`1D`$ Schroedinger equation for a quantum well with a $`\delta `$type barrier inside (see Appendix):

$$\mathrm{sin}\pi z+\frac{g}{z}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z\delta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi z\left(1\delta \right)\right]=0,$$
(14)
Finally, the conductivity $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ for the experimental setup which has been described above, will be displayed by the dimensionless function $`f_L\left(L/\lambda _F\right),`$

$$\sigma \left(L\right)=\frac{2e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{R^2}{\mathrm{}^2}f_L,$$
(15)
for various values of $`R/\lambda _F`$, $`D/\lambda _F`$, $`L_1/\lambda _F`$ and the strength of the barrier $`u_0`$.

All the figures below present this dimensionless function $`f_L`$. This function is plotted under the assumption that the experiment is performed at fixed thickness of the first layer. For uniformity, the figures for weak interfaces are plotted for $`u_0=0.1`$, and for strong interface barriers - for $`u_0=10`$. The simplest energy spectrum corresponds to thin first layers, $`\lambda _FL_1<2\lambda _F`$. Therefore, for transparency of results, the majority of the data are presented for $`L_1/\lambda _F=1.1`$ (for comparison, some of the graphs give the conductivity for larger $`L_1`$).

The computational results below are presented for the Gaussian correlation function of the interface inhomogeneities,

$$\zeta \left(𝐬\right)=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{exp}\left(s^2/2R^2\right).$$
(16)
The angular harmonics for this correlator, which enter the transition probabilities in Eq. $`\left(\text{8}\right)`$, are equal to

$`\zeta ^{\left(0\right)}(q_i,q_j)`$ $`=4\pi \mathrm{}^2R^2\left[e^{QQ^{}}I_0\left(QQ^{}\right)\right]e^{\left(QQ^{}\right)^2/2},`$ (17)
$`\zeta ^{\left(1\right)}(q_i,q_j)`$ $`=4\pi \mathrm{}^2R^2\left[e^{QQ^{}}I_1\left(QQ^{}\right)\right]e^{\left(QQ^{}\right)^2/2}`$
where $`Q=q_iR`$, $`Q^{}=q_jR`$.

Analysis of QSE in Ref. pon1  for ultrathin films with scattering by the film walls demonstrated that the results for all types of correlators are qualitatively the same as for the Gaussian one when $`RL`$. For large inhomogeneities, $`RL`$, the results for all types of correlators with exponential power spectra are similar to those for the Gaussian correlator and are qualitatively different from the power-law correlators. The results for the power-law correlators are less interesting: such films always exhibit the standard saw-like QSE irrespective of the value of $`R`$ because of the wider fluctuations of the inhomogeneity sizes. Therefore, in this paper we consider only the exponential correlators with a well-defined size of inhomogeneities.

## III Results

### III.1 Standard quantum size effect

The standard quantum size effect (QSE) in films manifests itself by a saw-like dependence of the conductivity $`\sigma `$ on the film thickness $`L`$ sand ; ash . The positions of the singularities - the saw teeth - correspond to the values of thickness at which a new energy miniband $`ϵ_j`$ becomes accessible. The amplitude of the conductivity drop in such a singular point depends, in the case of scattering by surface inhomogeneities, on the effectiveness of the roughness-driven interband transitions. If the probability of such transitions $`W_{ij}`$, is small in comparison to the rate of the intraband scattering $`W_{ii}`$, the singularities in the curves $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ are almost completely suppressed and the standard QSE disappears ser1 .

Analysis of the roughness-driven transition probabilities for surface scattering in Ref.pon1  for different classes of surface roughness showed that, when the average size of inhomogeneities, $`R`$, is much smaller than the film thickness $`L`$, the values of the interband transition probabilities $`W_{ij}`$ are comparable to that for the intraband scattering $`W_{ii}`$, all the scattering channels are equally important. In this case, the curves $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ always exhibit the standard QSE. The same should be true for scattering by the interlayer interfaces. This is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 which show $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ for a weak and strong interface potentials $`u_0=0.1`$ and $`u_0=10`$ respectively. In Figure 1 the thickness of the first layer is $`L_1=2.1\lambda _F`$, in Figure 2 - $`L_1=1.1\lambda _F`$. In both figures, the size of inhomogeneities is $`R=\lambda _F`$. Both figures exhibit a well-pronounced saw-like structure. The positions of the singularities for the weak interface are almost equidistant reflecting the fact the energy structure is close to that for a square well without perturbation inside. The strong interface affects the energy spectrum and, therefore, the positions and the shapes of the saw teeth. However, at very large film thickness $`LL_1`$ the interface is located very close to the well wall and the spectrum start to recover its unperturbed structure. This manifests itself in a recovery of the equidistant distribution of the singularities in Figure 2 at large $`L`$. Because of a peculiar dependence of the transition probabilities on the interface strength (see Appendix), the conductivity grows much faster with increasing film thickness in the case of the weak interface than for the strong interface.

### III.2 Quantum size effect for large-scale inhomogeneities

The standard QSE of the type described in the previous subsection disappears in the single-layer film when the correlation size of inhomogeneities, $`R`$, is larger than the film thickness, $`RL`$, *and* the correlation function in the momentum space $`\zeta \left(𝐪\right)`$ (the so-called power spectrum of inhomogeneities) decays exponentially at large wave numbers $`𝐪`$. Instead, the single-layer films exhibit an anomalous QSE pon1 .

The explanation involves the interband transitions. It seems that at large $`R`$ the off-diagonal $`W_{ik}`$ are small and the interband transitions are suppressed. However, at certain values of large $`L`$, few of the elements $`W_{ik}`$, which are close to the main diagonal, could become comparable to $`W_{ii}`$ even for large $`R`$. Then the transitions $`ii+1`$ could become noticeable leading to a drop in conductivity. A simple estimate of the peak positions is the following. Scattering by surface inhomogeneities changes the tangential momentum by $`\mathrm{\Delta }q\pi /R`$. This is sufficient for the interband transition when this $`\mathrm{\Delta }qq_iq_{i+1}`$. When the number of occupied minibands is large, the lateral Fermi momentum for the gliding electrons, *i.e.,* electrons from the miniband with a relatively small index $`i,`$ $`q_ip_F`$. For such electrons, $`q_i^2q_{i+1}^22\pi \mathrm{\Delta }q/\lambda _F2\pi ^2/R\lambda _F`$. On the other hand, the energy conservation law dictates $`q_i^2q_{i+1}^2=\left(2i+1\right)\pi ^2/L^2.`$ Accordingly, with increasing $`L`$ the transition channel $`ii+1`$ opens at $`L^2\left(i+1/2\right)R\lambda _F`$. The opening of a new scattering channel in the points

$$L_i\sqrt{\left(i+1/2\right)R\lambda _F}$$
(18)
is always accompanied by a drop in conductivity. The first such drop occurs for the electrons in the lowest miniband $`ϵ_1\left(𝐪\right)`$ with $`i=1`$, *i.e.,* for the grazing electrons. Note, that these particular electrons contribute the most to the conductivity. Since the electrons from the lowest miniband are responsible for the dominant contribution to the conductivity, the conductivity drops almost by half in the point $`L_1\sqrt{3R\lambda _F/2}`$ where $`W_{12}`$ becomes comparable to $`W_{11}`$ and the effective cross-section doubles. \[In the quasiclassical film without bulk scattering, the current, which is an integral over momenta, diverges when the component of momentum perpendicular to the film goes to zero, *i.e.*, for the grazing electrons. Without the bulk scattering, the conductivity is finite only because of the quantum cut-off at $`p_x=\pi /L`$\].

The anticipation was that this type of QSE should manifest itself also for the interface scattering in multilayer films at $`RL`$ for exponentially decaying surface correlators. Indeed, such a picture can be observed in Figures 3 and 4 for $`u_0=0.1;10`$ respectively (in both figures, $`L_1=1.1\lambda _F,R=200\lambda _F`$). The positions of the peaks in Figure 3 for the weak interface are close to Eq. $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$. In the case of the strong interface, the shift of the energy levels from those for an ”empty” square well is much more noticeable and the positions of the peaks in Figure 4 deviate from those given by Eq. $`\left(\text{18}\right).`$ At large values of $`L`$, the positions of the peak with strong interface become close to the points in which the thickness of the second layer, $`L_2=LL_1`$, rather than the overall thickness $`L`$ is given by Eq. $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$. The amplitude of the anomalous QSE oscillations grows with the increasing strength of the interface approaching that for the impenetrable wall.

Of course, for the inhomogeneities of the intermediate size, the picture exhibits the features of both standard and anomalous QSE. As it has already been mentioned, our numerical examples address the experiment in which the size of the inhomogeneities $`R`$ is fixed while the thickness of the film $`L`$ is changing. In general, at the values $`L<R`$ one should see the smooth anomalous QSE oscillations with large period, while at $`L>R`$ one should, on the same curve, see the reappearance of the standard QSE with sharper oscillations with period equal to 1. Roughly, the transitions between the regimes occurs when the distance between the peaks of the anomalous QSE, Eq. $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$, decreases to the value $`\left(L_{i+1}L_i\right)/\lambda _F1`$. In principle, the reappearance of the standard QSE should be seen in Figures 3 and 4 when the computations are extended to sufficiently large $`L`$. However, the amplitude of the standard QSE oscillations on these curves is very small and the reappearance of the oscillations is barely noticeable on the scale of the curve. It is much more illustrative to demonstrate the effect at intermediate values of $`R`$ when both anomalous and standard QSE oscillations have comparable amplitude. This is shown in Figure 5 for $`R/\lambda _F=3`$ and weak interface $`u_0=0.1`$. On the left side of the graph one can clearly see smooth ”new” oscillations with a relatively large period, while on the right side the oscillations recover the sharp saw-like structure with the period equal to 1.

### III.3 Geometric (fractional) quantum size effect

To exhibit the QSE oscillations of the previous subsection, Figures 3 and 4 were plotted not for the exact $`\delta `$type interfaces $`\left(\text{2}\right),\left(\text{3}\right)`$ but for a somewhat smeared (less sharp) interface

$$\delta U=U_0\xi (y,z)\left[\delta ^{}\left(xL_1\right)+D\delta ^{\prime \prime }\left(xL_1\right)\right].$$
(19)
The interface width $`D`$ can have two origins. If its origin is corrugation-related, then the interface width is given by the next term of expansion of the interface barrier in $`\xi `$ and is characterized by the same parameters $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`R`$, $`D^2\xi ^2`$. In this case, depending on the correlation function, $`D\mathrm{}`$ or $`D\mathrm{}^2/R`$. On the other hand, $`D`$ can originate from some ”internal” smearing of the interface and can exist even without surface inhomogeneities. In this case, $`D`$ is a new independent small parameter. Note, that here we are interested in the ”smearing” of the interface and not in its ”fixed” width so that the average of the square of the matrix elements of $`\delta U`$ over the interface starts from $`D^2`$. In Figures 3,4, the interface thickness was chosen as $`d=D/\lambda _F=0.1`$.

If the interface is thinner, the character of the curves changes dramatically. For example, Figure 6 presents the conductivity $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ exactly for the same values of all parameters as in Figure 3 except for the interface thickness which is now $`d=D/\lambda _F=0.0001`$. The difference between the two curves is astonishing.

The conductivity in Figure 6 exhibits two types of spikes. The explanation for first type of spikes is the following. The scattering-driven transition probabilities $`W_{ij}`$, Eq.$`\left(\text{5}\right),`$ contain the factor with the correlation function $`\zeta \left(𝐪_i𝐪_j^{}\right)`$ and the geometric coefficients $`G_{ij}`$, Eq.$`\left(\text{6}\right).`$ For exponentially decaying correlators with large $`RL,`$ the off-diagonal values of the correlation function $`\zeta \left(𝐪_i𝐪_j^{}\right)`$ with $`ij`$ are exponentially small in comparison with the diagonal ones, $`\zeta \left(𝐪_i𝐪_i^{}\right)`$. Then it is sufficient to analyze only the diagonal elements of the matrix $`G_{ij}`$, Eq.$`\left(\text{6}\right):`$

$$G_{ii}=4\mathrm{\Psi }_i^2\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^2\left(L_1\right).$$
(20)
If, accidentally, the $`\delta `$type interface is positioned in the points in which either $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(L_1\right)=0`$or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)=0`$, then the coefficient $`G_{ii}`$, and, therefore, the transition probability $`W_{ii}`$, become zero. This, in turn makes the conductivity of electrons in the miniband $`ϵ_i`$, and , therefore, the overall conductivity, almost infinite. The cut-off is determined by one of three factors: 1) exponentially small interband transitions; 2) scattering by other defects such as impurities, inhomogeneities of external walls, *etc.*; 3) smearing of the interface $`\left(\text{19}\right)`$ that leads to the averaging of $`G_{ii},`$ Eq. $`\left(\text{6}\right),\left(\text{20}\right)`$ over a finite interval making it non-zero. In this paper, for obvious reasons, we are interested in the third option. Note, that in the case of scattering by external film walls instead of the interlayer interface, the coefficients $`G_{ij}i^2j^2`$ are never equal to zero and this type of QSE does not exist.

The first type of spikes corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(L_1\right)=0`$. The ”resonance” positions of the $`\delta `$type interface are universal and do not depend on the potential strength. This is true for all rational points $`\delta =L_2/L`$. Of course, the conductivity of the film becomes infinite for this position of the interface *only*  if the corresponding miniband $`ϵ_i`$ is occupied. This means that the integer $`n`$ in the denominator of the corresponding fraction $`\delta =m/n`$ should not exceed the number of the occupied minibands, $`nS=\mathrm{Int}\left[L/\lambda _F\right]`$. Indeed, for points $`\delta =L_2/L=m/n`$ there is a number of the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(x\right)`$ of the *empty* well that have nodes in the points $`x=L_1`$. Since the unperturbed homogeneous potential barrier has a $`\delta `$functional form $`U_0\delta \left(xL_1\right)`$, these wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(x\right)`$ remain the eigenfunctions of the well *with* the unperturbed barrier $`U_0\delta \left(xL_1\right)`$ inside and retain their nodes in the points $`x=L_1`$. Then the corresponding diagonal coefficients $`G_{ii}`$ are zero making the diagonal roughness-driven transition probabilities $`W_{ii}`$ for particles from the miniband $`ϵ_i`$ equal to zero as well. Since the off-diagonal transition probabilities are exponentially small in $`R/L1`$, the condition $`W_{ii}=0`$ makes the conductivity for particles from the miniband $`ϵ_i,`$ and, therefore, the overall conductivity exponentially large in $`R/L1`$.

The structure of the corresponding resonance spikes becomes more and more complicated with an increase in $`L_1`$ when the structure of the minibands and their occupancy become more convoluted. The simplest structure is observed when $`L_1`$ is between $`\lambda _F`$ and $`2\lambda _F`$ as in Figure 6. In this case, the observed rational spikes correspond to the rational numbers of the form $`\delta =\left(n1\right)/n`$ and are equidistant with the separation $`L_1/\lambda _F`$. The first spike corresponds to the film with $`\delta =L_2/L=1/2`$, the second - to $`\delta =2/3`$, the third - to $`\delta =3/4`$, the fourth - to $`\delta =4/5`$, and so on. The odd peaks, with the exception of the first one, look wider and consist of bigger and smaller sub-peaks. The smaller sub-peaks correspond to the geometrical resonance with $`\delta =\left(n1\right)/n`$ which is described above. The bigger and wider sub-peaks have a somewhat different nature and are not universal with respect to the barrier strength. These sub-peaks will be described later. Note, that the peak $`\delta =3/4`$ is so close to the first peak from the other series that these two peaks are hardly distinguishable.

When $`L_1`$ becomes bigger, the first few geometric resonances can be observed at much narrower second layers, well before the point $`\delta =L_2/L=1/2`$, while the density of the resonances become higher. For example, Figure 7 presents the conductivity as a function of thickness for the film with the same parameters as in Figure 6 except for the thickness of the first layer which is now $`L_1=4\lambda _F`$. Though the overall distribution of the peaks is now much more complicated, the majority can still be understood as the ones generated by the eigenfunctions of the empty quantum well with the nodes in the positions of the barrier. The complexity of the peak structure is explained by the fact that at wider first layer $`L_1`$ more minibands are occupied thus allowing a wider selection of the rational numbers that determine the peak positions $`\delta =L_2/L=m/n`$.

The geometric resonances can coexist with the anomalous QSE of the previous section if the interface is relatively strong as in Figure 8 for the same configuration as in Figure 6 but with much higher value of $`u_0`$, $`u_0=10`$. For weak interfaces, the geometric resonances suppress the QSE of the previous subsection which gets restored only for bigger values of the interface thickness $`d`$. This graduate disappearance of the geometric resonances can be seen when comparing Figure 6 for $`u_0=0.1,`$ $`d=10^4`$ with Figure 9 ($`d=10^2`$) and Figure 10 ($`d=10^1`$). Figure 10 presents conductivity for the same configuration as Figure 3 but in logarithmic scale. In this scale, one can see both the wide QSE oscillations of the previous subsection and the only surviving geometric resonance at $`\delta =1/2`$.

Above we explained only the narrower, universal geometric resonances at $`\delta =m/n`$ in Figures 6 - 9. The second, non-universal type of spikes has a similar explanation - zeroes of $`G_{ii}`$. According to Appendix,

$`G_{ii}`$ $`=4\mathrm{\Psi }_i^2\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^2\left(L_1\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{L^4}}A_i^4\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi z_i\delta \right)\left[g\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_i\delta \right)+2z_i\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z_i\delta \right)\right]^2,`$ (21)
where $`z_i(g,\delta )`$ is given by the solution of the $`1D`$ Schroedinger equation $`\left(\text{14}\right)`$ for a quantum well with a $`\delta `$type barrier inside. The explicit form of the coefficients $`A_i`$ is not important. The factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi z_i\delta \right)`$ in Eq. $`\left(\text{21}\right)`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^2\left(L_1\right)`$; its zeroes are responsible for the geometric resonances with rational $`\delta =\left(n1\right)/n`$. There are no other zeroes of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi z_i\delta \right)`$.

However, Eq. $`\left(\text{21}\right)`$ also contains the factor in the square brackets which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)`$. The simultaneous solution of Eq. $`\left(\text{14}\right)`$ for the spectrum, $`g\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z\delta \right)+2z\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z\delta \right)=0,`$ and equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)=0`$ yield the following equation for the resonance positions of the interface:

$$\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi z_i\left(12\delta \right)\right]=0,$$
(22)
which is equivalent to

$$z_i(g,\delta )\left(12\delta \right)=k$$
(23)
with integer $`k`$. First, there is a universal solution $`\delta =1/2`$ at $`k=0`$. In this case, when the interface is exactly in the middle of the film, both $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(L_1\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(L_1\right)`$ are zero (the former with an even index, the latter - with the odd). This explains why the geometric resonance with $`\delta =1/2`$ is the most stable one with respect to the smearing of the interface.

The rest of the resonances with $`k0`$ are not universal. These resonances explain the earlier unaccounted for spikes in Figures 6 - 8. Since the spectrum $`z_i(g,\delta )`$ is a complicated function of the interface strength and its position, the solution of Eq. $`\left(\text{23}\right)`$ for $`k0`$ is rather complicated. We will give the analytic equation for the simplest case of $`\lambda _FL_1<2\lambda _F`$ when Eq. $`\left(\text{23}\right)`$ is equivalent to

$$\frac{L}{\lambda _F}=\frac{2z_n}{z_nn+1}\frac{L_1}{\lambda _F}$$
(24)
(the only allowed values of $`k`$ are $`k=n+1`$). For weak interfaces $`g/z_n1`$ this equation can be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{1\delta }=2n\left[1\frac{n1}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right],\mathrm{\Delta }_n\frac{g}{\pi z_n}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi n\delta \right).$$
(25)
Analysis of Eq. $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$ shows that several first of such resonance positions of the interface are indeed close to the odd rational universal resonances as in Figure 6,

$$\delta \frac{2l1}{2l},$$

and separate from the universal resonances with increasing integer $`l`$. The very first resonance at $`\delta =1/2`$ is, as it is explained above, exactly the same as the first universal resonance. The reason why these non-universal resonances are wider and stronger than the universal ones described above is still unclear.

## IV Conclusions

In summary, we analyzed QSE in conductivity of multilayer films when the main scattering mechanism is the scattering of electrons by random inhomogeneities of the interlayer interface. Three different types of QSE are predicted.

The first one is a standard QSE with a typical saw-like dependence of the conductivity $`\sigma `$ on the film thickness $`L`$, $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$. This effect dominates when the correlation radius (size) of the interface inhomogeneities $`R`$ is much smaller than the film thickness, $`RL`$. This effect should be observed for all types of the correlation functions of the interface roughness. This effect is easily explained by the singularities in the electron density of states related to the quantization of motion across the film.

The second type of QSE is explained not by the quantization-driven singularities in the density of states, but by the anomalies in the cross-section for scattering by interface inhomogeneities. This scattering-driven QSE replaces the standard saw-like QSE when the correlation radius (size) of the interface inhomogeneities is large, $`RL`$. This type of QSE manifests itself as smooth large-scale oscillations on the dependence $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ and should be observed only when the Fourier image of the interface correlation function (the so-called power spectrum of inhomogeneities) decays exponentially at large momenta. The main difference of this QSE from a similar effect in scattering by the film walls pon1  is that the observation of this effect in multilayer film requires certain smearing of the interface.

The third type of QSE is new and is most unusual. This effect manifests itself as a set of very narrow and high spikes in $`\sigma \left(L\right)`$ and replaces the scattering-induced QSE described above when the interface is narrow. The finite cutoff in the spikes can be ensured either by some other scattering mechanism or by the smearing of the interface.

The spikes are observed only for certain resonance positions of the interface. The number of spikes is determined by the relation between the thickness of the layers and the Fermi wavelength. The resonance positions of the interface are described. These positions can be split into two general classes. Some of these positions are universal and do not depend on the amplitude of the interface potential barrier and correspond to the situations when the ratio of the layer widths is given by simple rational fractions. The integer in the denominator of such fractions does not exceed the number of occupied minibands. The remaining resonance positions of the interface are non-universal and depend on the strength of the interface potential. In the case of weak interface, some of these non-universal positions are close to the universal ones giving the impression of a split in the conductivity spikes.

Too small width of the resonance spikes can impede the experimental observation of the geometric resonances. The width of the resonance spikes increases and their height decreases with increasing smearing of the interface and the resonance spikes gradually disappear. Note, that this disappearance of the resonance spikes is related not to the widening, but to the random smearing of the interface - the widening of the interface, by itself, results just in a shift of the spike positions. The width of the universal resonances is equal, by the order of magnitude, to the width of the smeared interface $`D`$, Eq. (19), or, in dimensionless variables, $`d=D/\lambda _F`$. The width of non-universal resonances is somewhat larger and is less sensitive to $`D`$; the reason is still unclear. Note, that the smearing width $`D`$ can be much smaller than the physical thickness of the interface, which in metals is often larger than or of the order of the Fermi wavelength $`\lambda _F`$. In contrast to this, the smearing parameter $`d=D/\lambda _F`$ can be very small. The most stable spike with respect to smearing corresponds to the layers of equal width. The wide range of possible values of $`D`$, which are determined either by the roughness with $`D`$ of the order of $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mathrm{}^2/R`$ or by the ”internal” smearing of the interface, makes the observation of the geometric resonances possible.

The spikes in the conductivity occur when the scattering probabilities for electrons in one of the quantized minibands become exactly zero. Since scattering probabilities for scattering by different interfaces add up, the spikes in conductivity of multilayer films with many layers can be observed only if the scattering probabilities for electrons from one miniband become zero simultaneously for scattering by all the interfaces. This can happen only if all the interfaces are located in the universal resonance positions corresponding to the rational fractions from the same series. Otherwise, the scattering by inhomogeneities of the ”non-resonant interface” will curtail the contributions from the resonant ones. This imposes a restriction on the number of layers for an observation of this type of QSE for a film of fixed overall thickness.

We analyzed the multilayer films under the condition that the disruption in the electron spectrum is caused only by the interface potential while electron potential deep into the layers is the same for all layers. One can imagine a different physical situation when the electron potential in different layers differ from each other as in Ref. arm2 . In this situation the resonance spikes in conductivity should be observed when the position of the interface coincides with one of the nodes in the wave function. It is clear that this occurs at least for certain values of the interlayer potential difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$.

The calculations in the paper are aimed primarily at the experimental setup when the lateral conductivity is measured as a function of the film thickness at fixed thickness of the first layer (fixed position of the buried interface). The main obstacle for the experimental observation of the predicted effect is a rather small width of the conductivity spikes and their sensitivity to the position of the interface. On the other hand, this sensitivity of QSE to the position of the interface may open the door for using this effect for precision control of the interface positions in multilayer films. This may be very useful for better quality ultrathin films without short-range surface inhomogeneities coupl1 . Recent experiments with controlled ultrathin metal films with buried rough interfaces alt1  indicate that the existing experimental setups are sufficient for the observation of the predicted quantum size effect.

Usually, QSE in conductivity of semiconductor films is less pronounced than for the metal films. This is explained by the smoother distribution of electrons in non-degenerate semiconductors. In the absence of sharp drop in the distribution at the Fermi energy, singular features in the conductivity, which is an integral over the particle distribution, tend to be smeared out. However, the universal geometric spikes in conductivity, which are described above, are explained by the zeroes in quantized electron wave functions on the interface and have nothing to do with the electron distribution. Then these spikes in conductivity can be the only striking common feature for QSE in multilayer metal and semiconductor films. The only obstacle for observation of such spikes in semiconductors could be a relatively large screening radius which may lead to an effective smearing of the interface.

This work was supported by NSF grant DMR-0077266.

## V Appendix: Energy spectrum and matrix elements

One-dimensional Schrödinger equation for a square well with a $`\delta `$-functional barrier inside has the form

$$\psi \left(x\right)^{\prime \prime }+k^2\psi \left(x\right)=u_0\delta \left(xa\right)\psi \left(x\right),$$
(26)
where

$$k^2=2mE/\mathrm{}^2,u_0=2mU_0/\mathrm{}^2.$$
(27)
The wave functions can be written as

$`\psi _1`$ $`\psi \left(xL_1\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}}A\mathrm{sin}kx,`$ (28)
$`\psi _2`$ $`\psi \left(xL_1\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}}B\mathrm{sin}k\left(xL\right).`$
In dimensionless notations of Sec. II.2, the equation on spectrum acquires the form

$$\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z\right)+\frac{g}{z}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \delta z\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi \left(1\delta \right)z\right]=0,$$
(29)
$$\delta =L_2/L1/2,kL=\pi z,g=u_0L/\pi .$$

The normalized coefficients in the wave function $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ are equal to

$`A_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta +\left(1\delta \right)t_n^2+t_n\mathrm{sin}\left(z_n\pi \right)/z_n\pi }}},`$ (30)
$`B_n`$ $`=A_nt_n,`$
where

$$t_n=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi \delta z_n}{\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi \left(1\delta \right)z_n\right]}.$$
(31)
The explicit expression for the spectrum $`\left(\text{29}\right)`$ can be given in the limiting cases of weak and strong potential barriers. If the barrier is weak, $`g/z1`$, the spectrum is

$$z_n=n+\mathrm{\Delta }_n,\mathrm{\Delta }_n\frac{g}{\pi n}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi n\delta \right).$$
(32)
In the opposite case of strong interface $`g\mathrm{}`$, the spectrum decouples into two independent series of levels for each layer:

$$z_{n_1}=n_1/\delta ,z_{n_2}=n_2/\left(1\delta \right).$$
(33)
For large, but finite $`g`$, the corrections to the spectrum $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ can be easily obtained by expansion in $`z_n/g\delta `$ or $`z_n/g\left(1\delta \right)`$:

$$z_{n_1}\frac{n_1}{\delta }\left(1\frac{1}{g}\right),z_{n_2}\frac{n_2}{1\delta }\left(1\frac{1}{g}\right).$$
(34)
An important restriction for Eq. $`\left(\text{34}\right)`$ is that the energy levels in each of the layers, Eq. $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$, should not be very close to each other. In the case of near degeneracy, the two close levels, as usual, repel each other with a resulting gap equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z_n\frac{z_n}{\pi g\delta \left(1\delta \right)}.$$
(35)
The above equations should be modified if the interface is very close to one of the external walls of the well,  *i.e.*, if either $`\delta 1`$ or $`1\delta 1`$.

Note, that if the $`\delta `$-type barrier is located exactly in the node of one the wave functions of the empty well, this wave function remains the eigenfunction of the well with a barrier inside irrespective of the strength of the barrier. This means that the energy levels that correspond to such wave functions are not shifted by the presence of the barrier.

The matrix elements of the roughness-related perturbation $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ can be calculated with the help of the above functions $`\left(\text{28}\right),\left(\text{30}\right)`$:

$`G_{nm}`$ $`=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_m\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}\left(L_1\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}\left(L_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_n\left(L_1\right)\right]^2`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L^2}}A_mA_n\right)^2g_{nm}^2,`$ (36)
$`g_{nm}`$ $`=g\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_m\delta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)+z_m\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z_m\delta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)`$
$`+z_n\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_m\delta \right).`$
The most important are the diagonal matrix elements

$`g_{nn}`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)\left[g\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)+2z_n\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)\right]`$ (37)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{z_n\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi z_n\left(12\delta \right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi z_n\left(1\delta \right)\right]}}.`$
Note that the zeroes of the denominator in Eq. $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$ are cancelled out by the zeroes of $`A_n^2`$, Eq. $`\left(\text{36}\right)`$. When the interface has a finite width $`d`$, the matrix elements acquire the following addition:

$$g_{nm}^{2\left(tot\right)}=g_{nm}^2+d^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{nm}\right)^2$$

where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{nm}`$ $`=2z_nz_m\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi z_m\delta \right)`$
$`\left(z_n^2+z_m^2\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_n\delta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi z_m\delta \right)+gg_{nm}..`$ (38)
The total matrix element, $`G_{nm}^{\left(tot\right)}`$, is never zero. This means that the term with $`d^2`$, which originates from the smearing of the interface, provides a natural cutoff for the conductivity.

In degenerate metal films, of all the energy minibands $`ϵ_n`$ only the minibands with $`n\mathrm{Int}\left[L/\lambda _F\right]`$ are occupied.