# Relaxation of Inter-Landau-level excitations in the Quatised Hall Regime

In recent two decades considerable interest has been focused on the collective excitations in a strongly correlated 2DEG under the quantum Hall regime conditions. The study of such excitation provide a way to determine the fundamental properties of a 2DEG which eventually explain its relaxation and transport features. For integer filling $`\nu `$ the calculation of the exciton-like spectra (which are in fact of Bose type) in the limit of high magnetic fields reduces to an exactly solvable problem \[1-3\]. At the same time the direct experimental discovery of such excitons (spin-flip waves, magneto-plasmons (MPs) without and with spin flip) presents certain difficulties. The inter-Landau-level MPs were observed in the works \[4-5\] by means of inelastic light-scattering. However, a massive breakdown in wave-vector conservation implied for this detection is not understood as yet.

The presented paper is devoted to the properties of MP relaxation (MPR) which might help indirectly to reveal the presence of MP excitations in 2DEG, namely: the two types of MPR for the filling $`\nu =1`$, which are studied below, should give rise to the special features in the hot luminescence and Raman scattering signals from 2DEG. In particular, a nonmonotonic dependence on the magnetic field has to be expected for the intensity of the hot luminescence which arises due to electron relaxation from the first and the second Landau levels (LLs).

We concern only the MPs without spin flip, i.e. with the energies

$$ϵ_{ab}(q)=\mathrm{}\omega _c(n_bn_a)+_{ab}(q)(n_b>n_a),$$
$`(1)`$   
where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`n_a`$ and $`n_b`$ are the numbers of initially (in the ground state) occupied and unoccupied LLs respectively. Having a Coulomb origin the energy $`_{ab}`$ is of the order of or smaller than $`E_C=e^2/\kappa _0l_B`$ which is a characteristic energy of electron-electron interaction in 2DEG ($`l_B`$ is the magnetic length, $`\kappa _0`$ is the dielectric constant). We should especially pay attention for MPs in such portions of their spectrum where the density of states becomes infinite (i.e. where $`dϵ_{ab}/dq=0`$) or/and the wave-vector $`q`$ is equal to zero. When so doing we take into account the definitive role of an experimental test. Indeed, the features in light-scattering spectra \[4-5\] attributed to the one-level excitations (where $`n_bn_a=1`$) are only detected in the vicinity of $`q=0`$ (therewith $`_{ab}=0`$ but $`d_{ab}/dq0`$) or near their roton minimum. In the latter case the interaction energy is

$$_{01}\epsilon _0+(qq_0)^2/2M,|qq_0|q_0$$
$`(2)`$   
(the index $`ab`$ is specified by replacing it with $`n_an_b`$, since the spin state does not change in our consideration). We consider the case where $`n_a=0`$ and $`n_b=1`$ with filling $`\nu =1`$; then in this equation $`q_01.92/l_B`$, $`M^10.28E_Cl_B^2`$ and $`\epsilon _00.15E_C`$ in the strict 2D limit (namely if 2DEG thickness $`d`$ satisfies the condition $`dl_B`$). Actually the MP spectra depend on $`d`$ but their shape do not change qualitatively.

A. First we consider the magnetophonon resonance conditions when the energy $`ϵ_{01}`$ defined by Eq. (1) is equal to the LO-phonon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}=35`$meV . The resonance with $`q=0`$ when $`\omega _c=\omega _{LO}`$ is just a consequence of the Kohn theorem and does not demonstrate the presence of MP excitations in the system. Therefore, we consider the case of magnetoroton relaxation when MP energy is transferred to the emitted optic phonon. Then in the vicinity of $`qq_0`$ we should expect the resonance if $`\mathrm{}(\omega _{LO}\omega _c)_{01}(q_0)=\epsilon _0`$. In the strict 2D limit this condition leads to the resonant magnetic field $`B=19`$T instead of $`21`$T corresponding to the case of $`\omega _c=\omega _{LO}`$. Note that in this case the MPR has to be accelerated. As a result, if the hot luminescence from the 1-st LL is measured, then a fall in its intensity in the resonant magnetic field should be detected.

We calculate now the rate of this relaxation. Describing the states of the system in terms of the Excitonic Representation which means the transition from electron annihilation and creation operators to the excitonic ones $`Q_{ab𝐪}`$ and $`Q_{ab𝐪}^+`$ (see Refs. \[7-10\]), we should therefore study the transition between electron states $`|i=Q_{ab𝐪}^+|0`$ and $`f|=0|`$ ($`0|`$ is the ground state). The relevant matrix element calculation

$$_{ab𝐪}=0|_{e,ph}|Q_{ab𝐪}^+|0$$
$`(3)`$   
assumes the Excitonic Representation for Hamiltonian of electron-phonon interaction,

$$_{e,ph}=\frac{1}{L}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{L_z}\right)^{1/2}\underset{𝐤}{}\stackrel{~}{U}_{opt}^{}(𝐤)H_{e,ph}(𝐪),$$
$`(4)`$   
where $`L\times L\times L_z`$ are the sample sizes, $`𝐤=(𝐪,k_z)`$ is the phonon wave-vector, $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{opt}(𝐤)=\gamma (k_z)U_s(𝐤)`$ is the renormalized Fröhlich vertex ($`\gamma `$ is the size-quantised form-factor ), namely: $`|U_{opt}|^2=2\pi e^2\omega _{LO}/\overline{\kappa }k^2`$ (the standard notation for the reduced dielectric constant $`\overline{\kappa }^1=\kappa _{\mathrm{}}^1\kappa _0^1`$ is used). The relevant representation for $`H_{e,ph}`$ operating on the electron states can be obtained similar to the case of exciton-acoustic-phonon interaction :

$$H_{e,ph}=\frac{L}{l_B\sqrt{2\pi }}\left[h_{n_an_b}(𝐪)Q_{ab𝐪}+h_{n_an_b}^{}(𝐪)Q_{ab𝐪}^+\right].$$
$`(5)`$   
Here $`n_bn_a`$, and

$$h_{n_an_b}(𝐪)=(n_a!/n_b!)^{1/2}(q_+l_B)^{n_bn_a}e^{q^2l_B^2/4}L_{n_a}^{n_bn_a}(q^2l_B^2/2),$$
$`(6)`$   
where $`L_n^j`$ is Laguerre polynomial, $`q_\pm =i2^{1/2}(q_x\pm iq_y)`$. Now exploiting the relevant commutaion rules for the excitonic operators (see Refs.  and ) we can find the matrix element (3) appropriate in our case,

$$_{01𝐪}=(\mathrm{}/2\pi L_z)^{1/2}U_{opt}^{}(𝐤)h_{01}(𝐪)/l_B,$$
$`(7)`$   
and then the MPR rate

$$R_{ph}=\underset{𝐪^{},k_z}{}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}|_{01𝐪^{}}|^2\delta (ϵ_{01}\mathrm{}\omega _{LO})=\frac{e^2L^2\omega _{LO}}{4\overline{\kappa }|d_{01}/dq|}q^2e^{q^2l_B^2/2}\overline{n}(q).$$
$`(8)`$   
In the last expression $`q`$ is the root of equation $`ϵ_{01}(q)=\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}`$, and $`\overline{n}(𝒒)`$ is the occupation number of 01MPs.

Formally the result (8) becomes infinite when $`q=q_0`$. However, the real magnitude of $`R_{ph}`$ in the vicinity of $`q_0`$ can be found from the analysis of the homogeneity breakdown due random impurity potential $`U(𝐫)`$. Assuming $`U(𝐫)`$ to be smooth (its correlation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }l_B`$) one can find that the energy correction for any $`ab`$MP is in the dipole approximation $`\delta =\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_d`$, where $`𝐯_d=(\widehat{z}\times U(𝐫))l_B^2/\mathrm{}`$ is the drift velocity (see Refs.  and ). This energy is an inhomogeneous broadening of the MP energy and has to be added to $`_{ab}`$. The random potential correction plays no significant role if $`|d_{ab}/dq|l_B^2\left|U\right|`$, which means that the electron-hole Coulomb interaction is stronger than the force the electron and the hole are subjected to in the random potential. In other words, the derivative $`|d_{ab}/dq|`$ in Eq. (8) is limited from below by $`l_B^2\left|U\right|l_B^2\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the random potential amplitude. Thus we obtain the rate near $`q_0`$ per unit area:

$$\left[R_{ph}/L^2\right]_{\text{max}}\frac{e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _{LO}}{4\overline{\kappa }l_B^2\mathrm{\Delta }}q_0^2e^{q_0^2l_B^2/2}\overline{n}(q_0).$$
$`(9)`$   
The roton minima broadening due to inhomogeneity is $`|𝐪𝐪_0|(2M\delta )^{1/2}`$. Estimating magnetoroton density as $`N\overline{n}q_0(2M\delta )^{1/2}`$ and setting $`dN/dt`$ equal to decay rate (9) we find the characteristic relaxation time $`\tau _{ph}=\overline{n}dt/d\overline{n}`$ which turns out to be of the order of

$$\tau _{ph}4\mathrm{exp}(q_0^2l_B^2/2)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{2M}{q_0}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\overline{\kappa }l_B^3}{e^2\omega _{LO}}0.1÷0.01\text{ps}.$$
$`(10)`$   
(we assume that $`B=10`$T, $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$meV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }50`$nm).

B. Naturally, the above results should be compared with the analogous ones in the case when emission of LO-phonons is suppressed off the resonance conditions. Generally, the MPR mechanism seems to be determined by many-phonon emission. However, a certain additional relaxation channel exists precisely for the considered magnetorotons. A coalescence of two of them with their conversion into a single MP of the “two-cyclotron” plasmon mode (with $`n_a=0`$, $`n_b=2`$) turns out to be energetically allowed because “by chance” the difference $`\delta =_{02}(0)2\epsilon _0`$ is numerically very small. Namely, in the strict 2D limit $`\delta 0.019E_C3÷4`$ K for $`B=10÷20`$T. This coalescence leads to an Auger-like MPR process because as a result the total number of excited electrons decreases as well as the total number of MP excitations. The dependence $`_{02}(q)`$ is nonmonotonous, but in the range $`0<ql_B<2.5`$ does not change by more than $`0.07E_c`$. Nevertheless, it would be preferable observe the generated “two-cyclotron” MP in the state with small 2D wave-vector, because in this case the generated MP could be detected by anti-Stokes Raman scattering similar to the experiments of Refs. \[4-5\].

We calculate the decay rate due to such an Auger-like process,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐪_1,𝐪_2}{}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}\left|(𝐪_1,𝐪_2)\right|^2\overline{n}(𝐪_1)\overline{n}(𝐪_2)\delta \left[_{01}(𝐪_1)+_{01}(𝐪_2)_{02}(𝐪_1+𝐪_2)\right],$$
$`(11)`$   
where the required matrix element of the considered conversion is

$$(𝐪_1,𝐪_2)=0|Q_{02𝐪_1+𝐪_2}\left|H_{int}\right|Q_{01𝐪_1}^+Q_{01𝐪_2}^+|0.$$
$`(12)`$   
Here bra and ket states are orthogonal, and $`H_{int}`$ is the Coulomb interaction Hamiltonian of 2DEG. Rewriting $`H_{int}`$ in the Excitonic Representation we should take into account that within the framework of the exploited high magnetic field approximation it is sufficient to keep in $`H_{int}`$ only the terms which commute with the Hamiltonian of noninteracting electrons and therefore conserve cyclotron part of the 2DEG energy. When so doing we find that the only term which gives the contribution to the matrix element (12) is

$$H_{int}^{}=\frac{1}{2\pi l_B^2}\underset{𝐪}{}V(q)h_{10}(𝐪)h_{21}^{}(𝐪)Q_{12𝐪}^+Q_{01𝐪},$$
$`(13)`$   
where $`V(q)`$ is the 2D Fourier component of the Coulomb potential averaged with the wave function in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction (so that in the strict 2D limit: $`V(q)=2\pi l_BE_C/q`$). Substituting the operator (13) for $`H_{int}`$ into Eq. (12) and employing the special commutation rules for the excitonic operators ( see Refs.  and ) one can calculate the matrix element (12) for arbitrary $`𝐪_1`$ and $`𝐪_2`$. We will later need this quantity only when $`𝐪_1𝐪_2`$ and $`q_1q_2q_0`$. In this case $`(𝐪_0,𝐪_0)=2(2\pi )^{1/2}\mu l_B/L`$, where in the strict 2D limit $`\mu 0.062E_C`$.

To calculate the depopulation rate of 01MPs (11) one has additionally to know the $`\overline{n}(𝐪_1)`$ distribution and the appropriate phase area $`A`$ for the relevant final wave-vectors of 02MPs $`𝐪=𝐪_1+𝐪_2`$. When this area is sufficiently small, namely if $`\pi q^2A4\pi ^3M\delta `$, the result is

$$/L^2=\frac{\overline{n}^2(q_0)\mu ^2l_B^2q_0}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\left(\frac{M}{\delta }\right)^{1/2}A.$$
$`(14)`$   
This is just the case for the rate (11) when 02MP creation occurs in the phase area relevant for anti-Stokes inelastic backscattering. Then the role of the random potential in determining the value of $`A`$ is crucial. Indeed, if $`ql_B<1`$, one can get an estimate $`d_{02}/dqE_Cq^2l_B^3`$ (see Ref. ), and the uncertainty in $`q`$ due to disorder turns out to be $`\stackrel{~}{q}(\mathrm{\Delta }/E_c)^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }l_B)^{1/2}`$ (for the adopted numerical parameters we find $`\stackrel{~}{q}10^5`$cm<sup>-1</sup>). The quantity $`\pi \stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ should be substituted into Eq. (14) for $`A`$.

If we wish to obtain the total rate of the Auger-like MP relaxation, then with the help of Eq. (11) a more complicated summation has to be fulfilled. Nevertheless, in this case Eq. (15) may be also employed for the approximate estimation if we substitute there $`A\pi l_B^2`$. Then estimating the 01MP density near their roton minima as $`N\overline{n}(q_0)q_0(2M\delta )^{1/2}`$ and setting $`dN/dt`$ equal to the relevant total rate of the coalescing 01MPs we find

$$\tau _{Aug}=\overline{n}dt/d\overline{n}\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\overline{n}\mu ^2}\left(\frac{2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }l_B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{1/2}1/\overline{n}\text{ps}.$$
$`(15)`$   
This time is by about a factor of 100 is longer than that given by Eq. (10). On the other hand, the considered Auger-like process is certainly the dominant relaxation channel in the case of 01-magnetorotons, if the magneto-phonon resonant conditions are not met.

It is very important that the studied type of MP relaxation can reveal an additional possibility for the indirect experimental detection of the magnetorotons. Indeed, if one somehow excites 01MPs near their roton minima, then one could simultaneously observe the 02MPs (and therefore electrons at the 2-nd LL). It seems such an observation might be performed by means of anti-Stokes Raman scattering or by means of hot luminescence from the 2-nd LL. Note also that if the 1-st LL turns out in the vicinity of the LO-phonon energy, one might observe the decrease of the hot luminescence signal from the 2-nd LL in the field $`B`$ corresponding to the magnetoroton-phonon resonance studied above. This correlation between the 1-st LL excitations and the 2-nd LL hot luminescence would be an evidence of the Auger-like process and therefore of the magnetoroton existence.

Finally, note that the deviation of the filling from 1 should nevertheless qualitatively retain the same picture of the considered MPR as long as this deviation does not reach the point where the 2DEG excitation spectrum is drastically renormalized (i.e. the fractional quantum Hall effect conditions arise).

The work is supported by the MINERVA Foundation and by the Russian Fund for Basic Research.

References

1. Yu. A. Bychkov, S. V. Iordanskii, and G. M. Éliashberg, JETP Lett. 33, 143 (1981).

2. C. Kallin, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 30, 5655 (1984).

3. C. Kallin, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 31, 3635 (1985).

4. A. Pinczuk, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3623 (1992); ibid. 70, 3983 (1993).

5. A. Pinczuk, et al., Semicond. Sci. Technol. 9, 1865 (1994).

6. We restrict ourselves to the bulk optic-phonon modes in GaAs. In this case only the longitudinal phonons interact with of the conduction band electrons.

7. A. B. Dzyubenko, and Yu. E. Lozovik, Sov. Phys. Solid State 26, 938 (1984).

8. S. Dickmann, and S. V. Iordanskii, JETP 83, 128 (1996).

9. S. Dickmann, Physica B 263-264, 202 (1999).

10. S. Dickmann, and Y. Levinson, Phys. Rev. B ??, (1996).