# Full text of "Deformed Wigner crystal in a one-dimensional quantum dot"

## See other formats

Deformed Wigner crystal in a one-dimensional quantum dot Yasha Gindikin and V. A. Sablikov Kotel'nikov Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Fryazino, Moscow District, 141190, Russia The spatial Fourier spectrum of the electron density distribution in a finite ID system and the distribution function of electrons over single-particle states are studied in detail to show that there are two universal features in their behavior, which characterize the electron ordering and the defor- mation of Wigner crystal by boundaries. The distribution function has a <5-like singularity at the Fermi momentum Uf- The Fourier spectrum of the density has a step- like form at the wavevector with the harmonics being absent or vanishing above this threshold. These features are found by calculations using exact diagonalization method. They are shown to be caused by Wigner ordering of electrons, affected by the boundaries. However the common Luttinger liquid model with open boundaries fails to capture these features, because it overestimates the deformation of the Wigner crystal. An improvement of the Luttinger liquid model is proposed which allows one to describe the above features correctly. It is based on the corrected form of the density operator conserving the particle number. I. INTRODUCTION One-dimensional (ID) quantum dots attract a great deal of attention as appealing model objects to study the effects of electron-electron (e-e) interaction, which is principally important for ID electron systems!^ The interest to the many-electron state in bounded ID sys- tems is presently increased due to the recent progress in m agnet otunnelling spectroscopy studies of such struc- tures 13I415J a s a conS equence of e-e interaction, electrons form the strongly correlated state, which is referred to as Luttinger liquid. Main distinctive features of a Lut- tinger liquid are the absence of fermionic quasiparticles, which manifests itself in the absence of the Fermi step in the momentum distribution function, the power-law be- havior of spectral functions near the Fermi energy with interaction-dependent exponents, and Wigner- like cor- relations of electronsP These properties were established for ideal, i.e. bound- less ID systems. However, whether they hold for realistic mesoscopic systems of finite length is not obvious. In- deed, the presence of boundaries may strongly affect the electron state and excitations since ID electron correla- tion functions are known to decay as a power of distance, hence there is no characteristic length. Many observa- tions performed on mesoscopic structures containing a finite ID system do not confirm the theoretical predic- tions made for ideal systems. Just recall the interaction- driven conductance renormalizatiorP in an infinite ID syste m that does not actually occ ur be cause of the con- tactsJ^^J^ the spin polarizatio n 1 13 1 14 1 that should not exist according to the Mattis-Lieb theorem, the '0.7' anomaly,^ many f acts of t he nonuniversality of conduc- tance quantizationjiSli^liSI which existing theories fail to explain, and so on. It is commonly believed that electrons in a bounded ID system form the Luttinger liquid. The boundary ef- fect consists in the change of electron correlations near the ends which are described by additional boundary ex- ponents. This conclusion was made in several theoretical works using the bosonization approach! 19 * 20 ! 21 ! Unfortu- nately, this approach is based on a number of model as- sumptions, which are not well justified. These are (i) the extension of the linear electron spectrum to infinite negative energ y, wh ich results in a violation of the con- servation lawsp^H (ii) the linearization of the electron spectrum, which can lead to a striking departure from the properties of a real system with quadratic disper- sion relationJ231 and (iii) neglecting some parts of the 2kp components of the electron densities in the e-e interac- tion Hamiltonian. The goal of our paper is to investigate the electron state in ID quantum dots beyond model assumptions. For this purpose the exact diagonalization method is em- ployed to calculate numerically the electron density dis- tribution in a finite ID wire and the distribution function of electrons over single-particle states. We have found that there are two unexpected features. First, the dis- tribution function has a <5-like singularity at the Fermi energy at the background of a smooth dependence on the energy. The second feature relates to the Fourier spectrum of the spatial distribution of the electron den- sity. The Fourier spectrum has a step-like form at the wavevector 2kp. Above this threshold, the harmonics are absent or vanishing. These properties are universal in the sense that they do not depend on the e-e interac- tion strength, interaction radius, wire length, mean elec- tron density. We argue that these features are caused by the Wigner ordering of electrons. We compare the obtained results with the calculations carried out within the frame of the common Luttinger liquid approach to find that it fails to capture the above results. The Lut- tinger liquid theory also gives a singularity of the dis- tribution function at the Fermi energy, but its form is incorrect. The Fourier spectrum of the electron density distribution turns out to have an incorrect singularity at 2k f and not to vanish above this value. We have clarified that this discrepancy appears because the Luttinger liq- uid theory does not describe correctly the deformation of the Wigner crystal by the boundaries. The reason of this 2 shortcoming lies in the violation of the particle number conservation within the bosonization approach used. We find a way to remedy the Luttingcr liquid theory by in- troducing an improved expression for the electron density operator. The proposed approach allows one to describe correctly the above features of the distribution function and the Fourier harmonics of electron density. II. EXACT DIAGONALIZATION STUDY OF ID CORRELATED STATE A. Statement of problem Consider N spinless electrons in a ID quantum box with zero boundary conditions for the many-electron wavef unction, *|x=0 The Hamiltonian is (1) H 2m XV(*i-*i) + I>te) s ( 2 ) l>3 where V(x) is the e-e interaction potential, and U(x) is the potential of positively charged background, which is considered as jelly. Exact diagonalization method reduces to finding the Hamiltonian matrix in the appropriate basis <& p and solv- ing the eigenvalue problem by the standard methods of computational linear algebra.^ As a result we obtain the many-electron wave function ^(x\, .., Xn), expanded in this basis, ..,x N ) = 2ja p $p(xi, ..,x N ) (3) and the spectrum. It is convenient to choose the basis functions in the form of the Slater determinants 1 V'Qi(^l) (4) built from the eigenfunctions of the non-interacting single-particle Hamiltonian, 2 irqx (5) The quantum number q G N, labelling single-particle states, is analogous to momentum in translationally invariant systems, and will be called so for brevity. The many-particle state, labelled by the vector p = ,(Xn), is obtained by occupying the single-particle states ip ai , i — 1 . . . N. We adhere to the ordering con- vention that 014 < Qffc for i < k. The details of the calculation of the Hamiltonian ma- trix elements are given in Appendix [A] The interac- tion potential is chosen in the form V{x\ — X2) — Ve 2 /(2ed) exp( — \x\ — X2\/d), with d being the interac- tion radius, e the permittivity of the medium. This al- lows us to find the matrix elements analytically to cut the calculation time. Using such form of the potential is not essentially a limitation, because in our calculations we are able to vary the parameters V and d in a broad range. The Coulomb interaction can be modelled by tak- ing d ~ L, and V ~ 2e 2 ln(i/r), where r stands for the quantum wire radius. Now let us express the observables we are going to find via the coefficients of expansion (J3|. The momentum distribution function is defined as n(q) (*l<c,|*) (G) where c q is electron destruction operator. Since |<& p ) is the eigenvector of c+c g , >(<z) = Ei a pi 20 (7) where the function # p equals one if the many-particle state <i> p has the single-particle state tp q occupied, and zero otherwise. The average value of the particle density operator N /J(x - Xi) (8) (9) equals p(z) = (*|p|*> = TV J 1 i'*(x,X2 7 ■■Xn) 1 ^'(x 7 X2, --Xn) dX2---dXN . Using , one gets P{x) = a Pi a P27piP2( a; ) . (10) where for p! = p 2 = («i, ..,ajv) and N 7p 1 p 2 (^) = (-l) fel+fe2 V'* (^a k Ax) (11) (12) for the case when pi and p 2 have only two different occu- pied states ip ai in positions h\ and respectively; 7 = otherwise. The cosine Fourier-transform of the density is I 7rqx p{q) — I p(x) cos ——dx, q <E N , (13) Jo L and sine Fourier-transform is zero, since according to Eqs. (Ill, (12 1, p{x) contains only cosine harmonics. 3 n{q) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 A A 12 16 20 24 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 ▼ T -0.5- ▼ T -1.5 ▼ Interaction on • Interaction off P(q) FIG. 1: Momentum distribution function, calculated for the system of N = 12 electrons. The value of q — 12 corresponds to kp. FIG. 2: The Fourier-transform of electron density. The value of q = 24 corresponds to 2/cf- B. Results Below we present the results obtained for N = 12 electrons. The system length is L = 333 as, the in- teraction radius d — 33 as, with being effective Bohr's radius, V = 3.6. The corresponding value of the RPA parameter r s — (2nas)~ 1 is 13.9, the estimate of the Luttingcr liquid interaction parameter according to g = (1 + V q=0 /TThv F )-°- 5 gives 0.3. The distribution function n(q) over the single-particle states ijj q is shown in Fig. [T] Far from the Fermi surface, the form of the n(q) curve is smoothed by the interaction, which is familiar from the Luttinger model. However, right at the Fermi surface there appears an unexpected (5-type singularity, with the value of the distribution func- tion being close to 1 at this point. The presence of the singularity was checked by chang- ing the number N of electrons from 3 to 20, varying the length parameters and the interaction strength by the two orders of magnitude. The result proved to be per- fectly stable against the change in the system parameters (L,d,V, N). Hence, the (S-singularity in the momentum distribution n(q) at q = kp is a universal property of finite ID systems. Its origin is explained in section |TV) Electron density p(x) in the ground state is an oscil- latory function, the amplitude of which decays off the boundaries. To analyze the ordering in the electron state, consider the Fourier-transform of electron density p(q), which is shown in Fig. [2j For comparison, the results for non-interacting electrons are also provided. For free electrons, p(q) has a step-like structure, with p(q) = -0.5 for < q < 2k F , and p(q) = for q > 2k F . We emphasize that such threshold behavior holds even for a strongly interacting system, where p(q) remains very close to zero for q > 2k p. Electron-electron interaction modifies the values of density harmonics only for < q < 2k F . The harmonics p(q) for < q < 2kp are suppressed by the interaction. The q = 2kp harmonic of the density is enhanced by interaction, reaching the values comparable to one half of the background density. This reflects the well-known fact that e-e interaction leads to the strong electron correlations on the scale of average inter-particle distance, or in other words, to the Wigner-type ordering in the system. The presented results are exact, since they are based on a precise many-particle wave function. In the next section we compare them to the results of the Luttingcr liquid theory. III. BOUNDED LUTTINGER LIQUID THEORY One of the most advanced analytical theories of a strongly correlated electron state in ID quantum dots is a Luttinger liquid theory, based o n the b osonization with zero (open) boundary conditions! 19 * 20 * 2 ^ In this the- ory, the spatial distribution of electron density and the distribution of electrons over single-particle states are ex- pressed through the Green function of chiral fcrmions G + (x,y) = (^+(y)^ + (x)) via n(q) = 2L dxdyG + (x,y)e tq{y - (14) and p[x) = — e FX G+(— x, x)+c.c. The Green function G+(x,y) ^{e 13 - 1)** f3L zM 9 ( 2^r [(cosh 0- cos 2p) (cosh (3- cos ^VT ; cosh j3 (a+i) 2 4g cosh (3 (15) 4 P(q) 20 10 -10 -20 2k T FIG. 3: Momentum distribution in the Luttinger model with zero (filled circles) and periodic (empty circles) boundary con- ditions, the interaction parameter g = 0.3. FIG. 4: The Fourier-transform of electron density in the Lut- tinger model with zero boundary conditions, the interaction parameter g — 0.3. with the dimensionless cutoff parameter j3 ~ N 1 . The momentum distribution function is presented in Fig. [3j A comparison with exact diagonalization shows that this result is qualitatively incorrect. The momen- tum distribution function, calculated within bosoniza- tion, also has a singularity at q — kp, but instead of a single (5-peak at q = kp, n(q) deviates from a smoothed step in a finite band around kp, where the form of the curve is close to the derivative of the 5-peak!^ Electron density, calculated according to (151, equals p(x) N T l-25 S inh s (/3/2) with f(x) being cos(2kpx — 2f(x)) [cosh (3 - cos(27rx/L)]f/ 2 (16) ,, 1 sin(2-KX I L) fix) = - arctan — = ; — — JK ' 2 e0 - cos(27rar/L) (17) Its Fourier-transform is presented in Fig. Q. The qual- itative error of this result is that p(q) does not van- ish at q > 2k p, but, on the contrary, grows rapidly as q — » 2kp + 0. In other words, a whole branch appears in the region q > 2k p, which is absent in the exact solution. Thus bosonization breaks down for the momenta close to kp and multiples of it. This scale corresponds to the mean inter-particle distance. Hence, the bosoniza- tion with zero boundary conditions incorrectly treats the short-ranged electron correlations, responsible for the for- mation of the ordered, Wigner-like state in ID quantum dots. In fact, the results of this section describe the de- formed Wigner crystal. To demonstrate this, let us con- sider a simple model that takes into account the Wigner ordering from the very beginning. IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS In this model, the many-electron wavefunction <J>(yi , ..,2/jv) is represented by the Slater determinant 1 'm <j>{Vi-x\) (j>{yi-x N ) (18) built on the single-particle wave functions 4>(x) = 7r _1 / 4 a -1 / 2 exp(— x 2 /2a 2 ), localized at positions x^, k — 1 . . . N. The wavefunction 'width' a is assumed to be smaller than the distance between the particles L/N, so the wavefunctions do not overlap and form an orthonor- mal set. The Fourier-transform of the density is P(?) JV £< k=l nqxk L (19) The momentum distribution function n(g) can be ex- pressed through the electron Green function, similarly to Eq. (14) n(q) dxdyG(x,y)ip*(x)ip q (y) (20) The Green function G(x,y) = (tl> + (y)'4'(x)} is related to the one-particle density matrix p(x,y) = / z 2 ,..,z N )$(x, z 2 , .., z N )dz 2 ..dz N ■ (21) via G(x, y) = Np(x, y) Substitute this into Eq. Q to get n(q) = Njdz J dy<$>*(y,z)*(; q (y) (22) 5 0.8 0.6 0.4 ■ 0.2 ■ n{q) n(q) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 2k r 10 15 FIG. 5: Momentum distribution function in the model of lo- calized electrons. where z = (z 2l --,z N ). Using Eq. (18 1, we finally obtain (?) = E / dy ^ ( y ~ x k)^g(y) k N 9 2 2 (23) = A^Jn — e 1^ fe=i 2 irqxk L First consider the case of a Wigner crystal, i.e. when Xk = (k — h)jj- The Fourier-transform of the density p(q) is non-zero only for multiples of 2fef , p(n • 2fc F ) = (-l)"Ar e -« 2 4™ 2 . ( 2 4) The momentum distribution function n(q) equals n(q) q,mN exp L 2 (25) Fig. [5] shows that n(q) is fully consistent with the re- sults of exact diagonalization, including the ^-singularity at the Fermi surface. Moreover, the additional 6- singularities at multiples of hp, predicted by the model, do exist in the exact solution for stronger interaction (flwO.l), see Fig. [6] This model proves that the origin of the singularities of n(q) is the ordering of electrons in bounded ID systems. In infinite ID systems, the ordering is destroyed by fluc- tuations, and short-range electron correlations manifest themselves only in dynamic response to external pertur- bation.^ If the system is finite, the boundaries pin the charge density waves, giving rise to Friedel oscillations, the amplitude of which is enhanced by e-e interaction. This results in the increase of the weight of the state with q = hp, which is reflected in the momentum distribution function, as well as in the high value of 2fc F -harmonic of density. The conclusion about the important role of short-range electron correlations in bounded ID systems FIG. 6: Momentum distribution function, calculated by exact diagonalization for the system of N = 5 electrons. The value of q — 5 corresponds to ftp- FIG. 7: Momentum distribution of the deformed Wigner crys- tal. P(q) 20 10 -10 -20 FIG. 8: The Fourier-transform of electron density for the de- formed Wigner crystal. 6 is confirmed by the calculation of momentum distribution of electrons in a ring, i. e. in a system without boundaries. In this case the singularity of the momentum distribution disappears, as can be seen from Fig. Q3J) . Now let us squeeze electrons down to the center of the system by introducing a displacement Sx k oc — (k — The momentum distribution function and the density Fourier-spectrum, calculated according to ( 19]), (|23j) for this case, are presented in Figs. [7J [8j The curves are clearly identical to those from the previous section. This confirms our suggestion that bosonization describes the electron state that is deformed in comparison with the exact solution. V. BOSONIZATION WITH PARTICLE NUMBER CONSERVATION The origin of such deformation is quite simple. Bosonization introduces an uncompensated positive charge that attracts electrons to the center of the sys- tem. In order to demonstrate it, let us trace the steps that led to Eq. (pi Formalism In the theory of the bounded Luttinger liquids EL 9 I 2 ° I 21 I the electron field operator (26) is decomposed into the fields tp r (x) of the so-called r- fermions (r = ±), ip(x) Akpx where '2L E c k e The fields are not independent, since ^+0) = -tp-(-x) , (27) (28) (29) so we will deal with ip+(x) alone. The latter has the property that 1>+(L) = M-L) , (30) i.e. it satisfies periodic boundary conditions on the inter- val [— L, L]. Hence, it can be bosonized in a conventional way. The main assumptions of bosonization are the lin- earization of r-fcrmion spectrum near the Fermi surface and its extrapolation to infinity. They allow one to solve the model exactly. Introduce the r-fermion density operator, P(Q) = E : c i+g Ck := E { c t+g c k ~ 8q,o (4 c fe>) ( 31 ) k k for q 0. Zero harmonic p(q = 0) is the number of particles operator AN. The density operator obeys the commutation relation [p(q),p(-<i')] qL which allows one to introduce bosons bq =iJ—p q , q>0 (32) (33) The r-fermion field operator has the following boson rep- resentation, where the bosonic phase cf> equals -iqx—a\q\ -Pi (34) (35) 9#0 U stands for the ladder operator, a denotes the ultravi- olet cutoff, which by the order of magnitude equals kp . The r-fermion spatial density is related to bosonic phase via p+(x) =: xl>X{x)M*) ^ + ^ . (36) and p~{x) = p+(—x). To obtain the density operator of real electrons, one has to express tj){x) in terms of ip r { x )- Using Eq. (27 1, one gets p{x) = pi w (x) + pcbw(x) , (37) where the first term is the long-wave component of the density, Piw(x) = p+(x) + p-(x) , (38) and the second term is the charge density wave (CDW) component Pcdw(x) = e- 2ik » x xl}%{x)i>-{x) + h.c. (39) which describes short-range electron correlations. In terms of bosonic phase, the electron density operator equals p(x) = —--^- — cos(2k F x-2cp(x)-2f(x)), (40) 7T TT OX 7T where <p(x) — \ (<j>(— x) — <fi(x)), and function f(x) is an additional phase due to zero boundary conditions, 1 f(x) = - n [^(x),4>(-x)] 4/ 1 4 sin(27ra/i) 2 e$ -cos(27ra;/L) (41) 7 with dimensionless cutoff f3 — wa/L « JV 1 . The kinetic energy Ho = v F ^2 k '■ c t c k '■ is bosonized using Kronig's identity to give H Q = vp^q : b+b q q>0 TTVp ^2L (AN)' (42) (43) The interaction part of the Hamiltonian equals V = - J dxdyp(x)V(x - y)p(y) , where ere taining only the direct e re p(x) is given by Eq. ( 40 1 . In the model consid- j| i9 | 20 | 2i ] ^ ne interaction operator is simpli (44) lsid- implified by re- f V d = ^ J dxd v (p+( x )p+(y) + p-{x)p-{v)) v{x - y) (45) and cross terms V c = ^ J dxdy (p+(x)p-(y) + p-(x)p+(y)) V(x - y) . The cross term contains the non-local contribution p+(x)p-(y) = pj r (x)pj r (—y), which makes the diagonal- ization of the Hamiltonian impossible, unless the inter- action potential is assumed short-ranged, that is of the form V8(x — y). Under this assumption, the direct and cross terms transform into V f Vd = y J ^dxp + (x) , V f L V c =— J ^dx p + (x)p+(-x) (47) (48) Combining the terms, and using bosonic representa- tion p6) of the density operator, we arrive at the follow- ing model Hamiltonian: H=H + V d + V c = {v F + y-)Y,1 (K b i + \ V 4tt £ q (b+b+ + b q b q ) + ^ L (vf + ")(AA0 2 9>0 q>0 TV (49) The Hamiltonian is diagonalized by Bogoliubov transfor- mation b q = e^bge (50) where q>0 The Hamiltonian is diagonal if e 2 ^ = (1 + V/ttvf)^ 1 ^ 2 ■ The interaction parameter g = e 2 ^ belongs to (0,1) for repulsive interaction, and equals unity for free electrons. The diagonal form of the Hamiltonian is ff = X>(«) b q>0 Pq 2L v N (AN)< with v(q) v F + V/2tt V , v N = v F + — cosh 2£ 7r (52) (53) The bosonic representation (34 1 of the field operator, the density operator ( 40 1 and quadratic Hamiltonian ( 52 ) are sufficient to obtain the Green function (151 with all the ensuing problems for the momentum distribution (14 1 and density (16 1. The problem lies in the violation of the particle number conservation within the bosonization approach. B. Density operator To see this, just notice that the integral of the density fluctuation (the second term in Eq. (16l) over the sys- tem length is not zero. This is a well-known problem, which exists not only in the case of zero boundary condi- tions, but also in a standard bosonization on the ring.ES The problem arises at the level of the electron density operator (40), the CDW component of which does not conserve the number of particles in an isolated system. The physical reason of the violation of the particle num- ber conservation is that the CDW component of (40 1 in- cludes the response of the infinite positron sea, which is not completely eliminated when using the approximate relation (27 1. In the case of zero boundary conditions, the situation is reacher because now there appear problems even with the long-wave component of the density. Indeed, Eq. ( 16 1 of the common Luttinger liquid theory does not give a correct transition to the case of non-interacting electrons in the box. The density of free electrons Ptree(%) N 1 2L sin(2k F + j)x 2sinf^ (54) contains an additional term 1/2L, missing in (16 1. This term, being integrated over the length of the system, gives an extra charge of e/2. Thus the microscopic theory leads to the density oper- ator that violates the particle number conservation. We will obtain the correct operator, following the harmonic- fluid approach by HaldanePSl Let us introduce the phase 9{x) that increases by 7r each time x passes the location Xk of a A:-th particle. Then the particle density operator pi becomes JY (51) p(x) = d x 6j2 S{9(x)-kw) = d x 9 ^ e 2im8(x) (55) k=l 8 n{q) 2kv 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -2 -4 -6 P(q) FIG. 9: Momentum distribution function, the violation of the particle number conservation is fixed. FIG. 10: The Fourier-transform of electron density, the vio- lation of the particle number conservation is fixed. According to Eq. ( 40 ) , 0(x) = 2k F x - 2ip(x) - 2/0) Thus the density operator takes the form k F d x ip d x f (56) p(x) IT IT IT -M.) C0S (2k F x - 2<p(x) - 2f(x)), 7T 7T 7T (57) where we retain only m = 0, ±1 harmonics, and halve the amplitude of the CDW component to obtain the correct transition to the non-interacting case^l The density operator of Eq. (57 1 has the form of a full differential, which guarantees that the integral of the density fluctuation over the length of the system is zero, i.e. the number of particles is conserved. The long- wave part of the operator contains an additional term — d x f /tt that gives the 1/2L component, missing in (16 1, since in the bulk of the system f(x) s» 77.; 2L- Hamiltonian and observables The interaction part (44) of the Hamiltonian, having been calculated with the density operator of Eq. (57 1, gets additional terms of the forrrp3 V 2tt 2 By shifting bosons [ dxd x ipd x f = iV^J^=-(b% q -b 2q ). q>0 d 2q = b 2q + i 9° 4u F V 2irqL (58) (59) we obtain a diagonalizcd full Hamiltonian H + Hi , H + H 1 = J2'lv(q)d+d q . q>0 (60) The bosonic phase ( |35[ ) is transformed into 4>(x) = 4>o(x) + (f>i(x), where 4>o{x) is linear in new bosons, c -se- tqx )d q + {ce- iqx -se lqx )d+] , (61) with c and s being, respectively, cosh£ and sinh£. The function 4>\{x) is the new phase, specific to the case of zero boundary conditions, 4>\{x) = Af(x), A — Vg 2 /2irv F . As a result, the field operator (34 1 acquires the factor of exp(iAf(x)), and the Green function (151 transforms as G ncw (x, y) = G+(x, y)e iA «M-Hv» . (62) The average value of the density equals (p(x)) = ^-(l-A) d *l 7T 7T sinh 9 (/3/2) d sin{2k F x - 2(1 - A)f(x)) 2 1 -9/ 2 tt dx [cosh /3 - cos ^] a/ 2 (63) Note that the additional phase (1 — A)f(x), which ap- pears in Eq. ( 63 1 , changes the period of density oscil- lations. Since d x f < everywhere in the system ex- cept narrow regions near the ends, the Wigner crystal is squeezed by the boundaries. The deformation is deter- mined by the coefficient (1 — A). In the common Lut- tinger liquid theory A = 0. Our approach with corrected expression (57) for the density operator gives A > 0. Hence, restoring total neutrality results in the reduction of the Wigner crystal compression. 9 XIL FIG. 11: The spatial distribution of the density, calculated according to Eqs. (16 1 (dashed line) , Eq. (541 (thin solid line), Eq. |63f (solid lineK The distribution function n(q) and the Fourier spec- trum of the density calculated with the use of the above expression for A coincide with the numerical calculations quite well. However this formula is justified for weak interaction (1 — g <C 1). We propose a generalized ex- pression for any g taking into account that A is known for three limiting cases: i) For g = 1, A = to provide the correct transition to the case of non-interacting electrons. ii) For weak interaction, A should be proportional to A = V/2t:vf, in agreement with our model. iii) For strong interaction g — > 0, A — > 1 to provide the transition to the limiting case of the Wigner crystal with strictly periodic density. The simplest choice of A = l—g satisfies these require- ments and proves to be highly successful, as is demon- strated below. Figs. [9j [10] show the momentum distri- bution function and the density Fourier-transform, cal- culated according to Eqs. (62 1, (63 1. They are seen to agree nicely with the exact results of section |XTJ Fig. [TT] shows the spatial distribution of the density, calculated according to Eqs. (16 1, (54), (63). It is seen that according to the standard bosonization the electron density maxima almost coincide with those of free elec- trons, even for strong interaction. In contrast, accord- ing to Eq. ( 63 1 the electron locations are shifted towards the periodic positions as Wigner ordering prescribes at strong interaction. Thus the bosonization approach that does not respect the particle number conservation leads to the picture of the state with electrons squeezed to the center of the system. VI. CONCLUSION To conclude, we investigated the ground state of in- teracting electrons in a ID quantum dot using the ex- act diagonalization. An unexpected <5-like singularity was discovered in the momentum distribution function at the Fermi energy. A threshold behavior was found for the spatial Fourier-spectrum of electron density, with the step at 2kp . These effects are stable against the change in the system length, interaction radius, the number of electrons, and the interaction strength. Thus we suggest that they are inherent in finite ID electronic systems. We proposed a simple model which proved that these effects originate from the formation of the Wigner molecule in a ID quantum dot. Comparison of exact results with the Luttingcr model with zero boundary conditions shows that the latter does not correctly describe both the mo- mentum distribution near the Fermi energy and the den- sity Fourier-spectrum. The problem is that bosoniza- tion overestimates the deformation of the Wigner crystal caused by the boundaries by introducing the fake posi- tive charge into the ID system, which squeezes electrons to the center of the system by attractive forces. This is a result of using the density operator that violates the number of particles conservation. We derived the density operator devoid of the mentioned shortcoming, corrected the Hamiltonian, and calculated the observables to find a nice agreement with the exact results. Acknowledgments This work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 05-02-16854), Russian Academy of Sciences (programs Quantum Nanostruc- tures and Strongly Correlated Electrons in Semiconduc- tors, Metals, Superconductors, and Magnetic Materials), RF Ministry of Education and Science, and Russian Sci- ence Support Foundation. APPENDIX A: EXACT DIAGONALIZATION METHODOLOGY The solution of the non-interacting problem is the Slater determinant Q built from N lowest energy single- particle states. For interacting electrons, the expan- sion (3j) of the many-particle wave function contains in- finitely many terms, because the interaction scatters elec- trons among the excited states. The coefficients in ^ tend to zero for high-energy states. Therefore it is suf- ficient to retain only the terms with energies E p < A, where A is the energy cut-off, by the order of magnitude defined by e-e interaction energy. The specific value of A should be determined from the requirement that the observables reach the saturation with the increase of A. Once A is fixed, the number of functions in expan- sion (|3| and the size of the Hamiltonian matrix are de- termined. The task then reduces to the calculation of the Hamiltonian matrix elements. #piP2 = / $p 1 H$ P2 dxi..dx N (Al) 10 The matrix elements are calculated by substituting Eqs. @, Q into Eq. (KJ\ , expanding the Slater deter- minants, and using the orthogonality property of single- particle functions ^ during integration. The matrix clement of the kinetic energy equals _ h 2 TT 2 FpiP2 ~ 2^L2 P2 • (A2) For the matrix elements of the pair e-e interaction, four situations are possible, depending on pi and P2. 1. If Pi = P2 = {ot\, --iOln), i-e. diagonal matrix ele- ments arc calculated, then N ^PlPl — ^QiQj.QiQj 7 1>J = 1 (A3) where ( f>*a ia] (xi,X 2 )V(x 1 ~ X 2 )(f>a k a l (x 1 ,X 2 )dx 1 dx 2 , and <t>ot i a j (Xl,X2) 1pa z (x 2 ) lp aj (x 2 ) (A4) (A5) 2. If pi and P2 are identical except two states, numbered k\ and fc 2 , respectively, i.e. if pi = {ax, -.a*!, ..ajv), P2 = («i, --Pk 2 , -ajv), then JV (_!)*+<* £ y QfciQiA2Qi , (A6) i=l 3. If pi and p 2 are identical except four states, numbered ki, i — 1 . . . 4, i.e. if pi = (ax,..ajfe 1 ,..ajfe a ,..ajv), P2 = (ai, -A 3 , • A 4 ) -a/v), then ^PiP2 — ( I) 1 1 V akl a k2 ,0 k3 l3, (A7) 4. If pi and p 2 contain more than four not coincident states aj, then Vp lP2 = (A8) Matrix elements of the interaction between electrons and positive background are as follows. 1. If pi = p 2 = (ai, ..,a N ), then N fpipi = y ] /a,o, j where fa iak = / 1pai( x W(x)ljj ak (x)dx . (A9) (A10) 2. If p! and P2 are identical except two states, numbered k\ and k 2 , respectively, i.e. if pi = (ai, ..a kl , ..ajv), P2 = ("l, ../3k a) -ajy), then U PlP2 - (-l) fel+fe2 /a fcl/3 . (All) 3. Otherwise, U PlP2 = 0. The matrix element of the pair e-e interaction (A4| equals Ve 2 d [f(l,j,k,m) - f(l,j,k,-m)- lj,km ~ 2 eL 2 f(l,j, ~k,m) + f(l,j, -k, -m) - f(l, -j, k,m)+ f(l, -j, k , -m) + f(l, -j, -k, m) - f(l, -j, -k, -m)- f(j, I, k, m) + f(j, I, k, -m) + f(j, I, -k, m)- f(j, I, -k, -m) + f(j, -I, k, m) - f(j, -I, k, -m)- f(j,-l,-k,m) + f(j,-l,-k,-m)], (A12) where f(l, n, k, m) = g(l + k,n + m), and g(p, q) = for odd (p + q) , while for even (p + q) g{ Pl q) = {e- a {-lY -1) 1 rPQ (l + ^p 2 )(l + ^q 2 ) a , °p, — q 1 (A13) with a = L/d. Matrix element (AlOl equals Ve 2 d fin = N—{g{l + n, 0) - g(l - n, 0)) . (AH) eL z 1 L.P. Kouwenhoven, D.G. Austing, and S. Tarucha, Rep. Prog. Phys. 64, 701 (2001). 2 S.M. Reimann and M. Manninen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1283 (2002). 3 G.A. Fiete, J. Qian, Ya. Tserkovnyak, and B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045315 (2005). 4 H. Steinberg, O.M. Auslaender, A. Yacoby, J. Qian, G.A. Fiete, Y. Tserkovnyak, B.I. Halperin, K.W. Baldwin, 11 L.N. Pfeiffer, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. B 73, 113307 (2006). 5 O.M. Auslaender, H. Steinberg, A. Yacoby, Y. Tserkovnyak, B.I. Halperin, K.W. Baldwin, L.N. Pfeif- fer, and K.W. West, Science 308, 88 (2005). 6 F.D.M. Haldane, J. Phys. C 14, 2585 (1981). 7 J. Voit, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, 977 (1995). 8 H.J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1864 (1993). 9 C.L. Kane and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 46, 15233 (1992). 10 S. Tarucha, T. Honda, and T. Saku, Solid State Commun. 94, 413 (1995). 11 D.L. Maslov and M. Stone, Phys. Rev. B 52, R5539 (1995). 12 V.A. Sablikov and B.S. Shchamkhalova, Phys. Rev. B 58, 13847 (1998). 13 C.-K. Wang and K.-F. Berggren, Phys. Rev. B 57, 4552 (1998). 14 L.P. Rokhinson, L.N. Pfeiffer, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 156602 (2006). 15 K.J. Thomas, J.T. Nicholls, M.Y. Simmons, M. Pepper, D.R. Mace, and D.A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 135 (1996). 16 R. Crook, J. Prance, K.J. Thomas, S.J. Chorley, I. Farrer, D.A. Ritchie, M. Pepper, and C.G. Smith, Science 312, 1359 (2006). 17 A. Shailos, A. Ashok, J.P. Bird, R. Akis, D.K. Ferry, S.M. Goodnick, M.P. Lilly, J.L. Reno, and J. A. Simmons, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, 1715 (2006). 18 R. de Picciotto, L. N. Pfeiffer, K.W. Baldwin, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 036805 (2004). 19 M. Fabrizio and A.O. Gogolin, Phys. Rev. B 51, 17827 (1995). 20 A.E. Mattsson, S. Eggert, and H. Johannesson, Phys. Rev. B 56, 15615 (1997). 21 J. Voit, Y. Wang, and M. Grioni, Phys. Rev. B 61, 7930 (2000). 22 V.A. Sablikov and Y. Gindikin, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12766 (2000). 23 O.A. Starykh, D.L. Maslov, W. Hausler, and L.I. Glazman, in Interaction and Quantum Transport Properties of Lower Dimensional Systems, Lect. Notes Phys., Vol. 544, p. 37, edited by T. Brandeis, Springer, New York, (2000). 24 M. Khodas, M. Pustilnik, A. Kamenev, and L.I. Glazman, |cond-mat/0702505| 26 G.H. Golub and CF. van Loan, Matrix computations, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, (1996). 26 Since bosonization is applicable only for low-energy ex- citations, the results for n(q) can only be considered in the vicinity of the Fermi surface, at \kF — q\ <C fcf. The suppression of n(q) at &f — q ~ &f is the consequence of ultraviolet cutoffs, performed in the theory to exclude the high-energy contribution of the positron sea. Cutoffs should not affect the low-energy region near kp. 27 G.D. Mahan, Many- Particle Physics, 2nd ed., Plenum Press, New York, (1990). 28 F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1840 (1981). 29 The terms linear in the bosons for the Hamiltonian of elec- trons in a ID box were also obtained in by different argu- ments in V. Meden, W. Metzner, U. Schollwock, O. Schnei- der, T. Stauber, and K. Schonhammer, Eur. Phys. J., 16, 631 (2000).