# Difference between insulating and conducting states

## 1 Preface

This article had published in 1991 (E.K.Kudinov, Fisika Tverdogo Tela 33, 2306 (1991); \[in English: Sov.Phys. Solid State 33, 1299 (1991)\]). It have considered a distinction between insulating and conducting states which based on the first principles. In the last time a whole series of the articles, which considered the same problem (see, for example: Resta R., Sorella S. cond-mat/ 9808151.) without mentoining of the aforesaid article was appeared. For that reason author belives, that a submission this manuscript in cond-mat were be resonably.

## 

The band model has been able to represent both conducting and insulating states of a crystal in terms of band occupations for the system of the noninterating electrons. As early as 1937, however, it was noted  that this model does not describe several insulating crystals. A large number of such materials are now known. They are compounds of metals with parity filled $`d`$ or $`f`$ shells, and the corresponding bands are only partly occupied . Since the end of the 1950s, they have been much studied on account of their particular features: magnetic and structural transitions, insulator–conductor transitions, intermediate valence, ”heavy” fermion effects, and so on. In particular, the high-temperature superconductors belong to this class.

Mott  has given a qualitive explanation of the insulating nature of such materials. If the $`d`$ or $`f`$ orbital overlap is small, the electrons should be described by (atomic type) functions localized at sites; the Coulomb repulsion then causes an effective attraction of a localized electron and hole, which can form an electrically neutral bond state and carry no current. The formation of current exitations is due to the ionisation of such a state (finite activation energy), which is also responsible for the insulating state (Mott insulator).The electron interaction evidently has a decisive role in this pictures, and the question naturally arises of how to formulate a criterion to differentiate an insulator from a conductor in the general case, without using a model.

The model proposed in 1964 by Hubbard , which took into account only one-site Coulomb repulsion, gave rise to an enormous number of papers, such as Refs. , since it appeared that the simplicity of the Hubbard Hamiltonian would allow a description not only of the insulating and conducting states, but also of the Mott transition between them. It was found, however, that the results obtained are not easly interpreted, mainly for lack of a general insulator–conductor criterion (for which inadequately justified assertion have often been substituted).

The criterion must evidently reflect the specific of the ground state of the system ($`T=0`$). Those so far proposed fall into two classes: 1) the presence of a gap in the current exitation spectrum (the band gap in the band theory, the positive twin–hole pair exitation energy in a Mott insulator), 2) based on the Kubo expression for the complex polarisability $`\kappa (\omega )`$, a conductor having  a singularity of $`\kappa (\omega )`$ as $`\omega 0`$. Class 1 based on the properties of the exitation spectrum and can be used only with a specific and fairly clear model. The disadvantage of class 2 is that the necessary properties of the ground state are determined by the reaction to an external perturbation, so that a higher-rank problem, the kinetic one, has to be contemplated. The present paper proposed a criterion based entirely on the static properties of the ground state.

## 2 Qualitative treatment

Our approachis based on the substancial difference between the linear responses of an insulator and a conductor (at sufficiently iow temperatures) to a static homogeneous electric field $`𝐄`$. For an insulator with a finite volume $`V`$, the field inside the body is nonzero and induces a dipole moment $`𝐏=\kappa _0𝐄`$ per unit volume, the polarizability $`\kappa _0`$ per unit volume being finite and independent of $`V`$. In a conductor, there is a redistribution of charge, and equilibrium corresponds to a spatially inhomogeneous charge distribution, which reduce to zero the field acting within the volume (field effect). This inhomogeneity has to be taken into account from the start when formulating the problem of the response.

The response can, however, be formally calculated in either case on the assumption that the final state is a homogeneous one (homogeneous linear response). For an insulator, this is true, and a reasonable value of $`\kappa _0`$ is obtained. The corresponding calculation for a conductor is bound to show that the problem is incorrectly formulated, by giving an ”anomalous” expression for $`\kappa _0`$. For an ideal charged Fermi gas, one easly finds

$$\kappa _0=\frac{e^2}{V}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}{}\left|x_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\right|^2\frac{n_𝐤n_𝐤^{}}{\epsilon _𝐤\epsilon _𝐤^{}},$$
(1)   
where $`x_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ are the matrix elements of the coordinate $`x`$ between states with the wave vectors $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ ($`x_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}}=0`$, corresponding to neutrality of the system as a whole), $`\epsilon _𝐤=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, and $`n_𝐤`$ is the Fermi distribution. A simple calculation gives, for $`T=0`$,

$$\kappa _0=\frac{1}{10\pi ^2}\left(\frac{3}{4\pi }\right)^{2/3}\frac{k_c}{r_B}V^{2/3}+\frac{1}{k_cr_B}O(V^0),$$
(2)   
where $`r_B=\mathrm{}^2/me^2`$, $`k_c`$ is the Fermi momentum, and $`(r_B/k_c)^{1/2}`$ is the Thomas–Fermi screening distance. The anomaly is that $`\kappa _0`$ depends on the volume: $`\kappa _0\mathrm{}`$ as $`V\mathrm{}`$; a similar anomaly, as $`V^{2/3}`$, is found for a superconductor in the BCS model. The corresponding expression for a band insulator at $`T=0`$ gives $`\kappa _0`$ independent of $`V`$; there is no field effect (at $`T>0`$, an anomalous term occurs as in Eq. (2), proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(E_g/kT)`$, where $`E_g`$ is the gap width).

Since the polarizability is expressed in terms of the dipole moment correlation function $`<d(t)d>(dd_x)`$ one can expect that the anomaly will occur also in the corresponding static quantity, the mean square fluctuation $`<d^2>`$ of the dipole moment (it is postulated that there is no ferroelectric ordering, and so $`<d>=0`$); $`<d^2>V`$ for an insulator, but $`<d^2>V^{1+\gamma }`$ with $`\gamma >0`$ for a conductor.

In the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$ it is resonable to put all materials in two classes according to the nature of the homogeneous linear response: 1) $`\kappa _0`$ is finite (insulator), 2) $`\kappa _0`$ is infinite (conductor); that is, the classification is based on the absence or presence of the field effect. This is in agreement with the presence of a pole at $`\omega =0`$ of the complex polarisability of a conductor . In accordance with the casuality condition, the pole term in $`\kappa (\omega )`$ must have the form

$$\mathrm{const}\frac{i}{\omega +i\delta }=\mathrm{const}\left(\pi \delta (\omega )+i\frac{𝒫}{\omega }\right),$$

where $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value; thus, formally, $`\kappa _0=\kappa ^{}(0)=\mathrm{}`$ (note: $`\kappa ^{}(0)`$, not $`\kappa ^{}(\omega )|_{\omega 0}`$). We can suppose that class 1 has a finite value of $`lim_V\mathrm{}(<D^2>V^1)`$ as $`T0`$, but class 2 has an infinite one; that is, $`d`$ has normal fluctuations in case 1 and anomalous ones in case 2. It will be proved that this hypothesis follows from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.

## 3 Relationship between the static homogeneous response and the static fluctuations of the dipole moment

Since the difference between an insulator and a conductor depends on the specific nature of the ground states, we will everywhere consider temperatures so low that the contribution from the ”gap” modes $`e^{E/kT}`$ with $`E>0`$ is negligible.

The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, in the form of the Callen–Welton relationship for $`\kappa (\omega )`$,  is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}=\left(\frac{1}{V}\underset{mn}{}e^{E_n/kT}|d_{nm}|^2[\delta (\omega \omega _{nm})+\delta (\omega +\omega _{nm})]\right)|_V\mathrm{},$$
(3)   
$$\omega _{nm}=\frac{E_nE_m}{\mathrm{}},$$

where $`E_n`$ is the energy of steady state number $`n`$ of the system. (Since the theorem assumes the energy spectrum of the system to be continuous, we suppose that the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$ has be taken.) Integration of the right-hand side of Eq. (3) over $`\omega `$ from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ gives

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \left(\frac{1}{V}e^{E_n/kT}|d_{nm}|^2[\delta (\omega \omega _{nm})+\delta (\omega +\omega _{nm})]\right)|_V\mathrm{}$$

$$=\left(\frac{1}{V}e^{E_n/kT}|d_{nm}|^2\right)|_V\mathrm{}=\underset{V\mathrm{}}{lim}(<d^2>V^1).$$
(4)   
Thus, if $`d`$ has normal fluctuations, the integral $`_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the left-hand side of Eq. (3) converges; if anomalous fluctuations, then it diverges. This is valid for infinitesimal $`T`$ values. The only possible singularity of $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ is $`\omega =0`$, and so the convergence of the integral depends on the behavior of $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ as $`\omega 0`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1As $`\omega \mathrm{},\kappa ^{\prime \prime }`$ must decrease as $`\omega ^2`$, and there is convergence at the upper limit.. Let us first take the two limiting cases.

a) A normal insulator (in which we include an intrisinc semiconductor) has $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ an analytic function of $`\omega `$. The integral

$$J(T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}d\omega $$

is convergent, and as $`T0`$ it tends to a finite limit $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }𝑑\omega `$. Hence thoroughout the temperature range concerned, $`d`$ has normal fluctuations. The static polarizability is then finite, since the integral converges in the Kramers – Kronig relationships

$$\kappa ^{}(0)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\zeta )\frac{𝒫}{\zeta }𝑑\zeta .$$
(5)   
b) A normal metal. Here, $`\kappa (\omega )`$ has a pole term:

$$\kappa (\omega )=\overline{\kappa }(\omega )+\frac{i\sigma _0}{\omega +i\delta },(\delta >0,\delta 0),$$
(6)   
$`\overline{\kappa }`$ has no singularity; $`\sigma _0`$ is the static conductivity. (It is assumed that $`\sigma _0`$ is independend of $`T`$.) The integral $`J(T)`$ diverges for all $`T`$, including $`T=0`$. Hence $`d`$ has anomalous fluctuations. It follows from Eq. (6) that $`\kappa ^{}(\omega )`$ then has a singular term $`\phi \sigma _0\delta (\omega )`$; thus, the homogeneous linear response is anomalous, $`\kappa ^{}(0)=\mathrm{}`$.

A smooth insulator–metal transition can be formally represented by writing $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ in the form $`\overline{\kappa }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )+\kappa _c^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$

$$\kappa _c^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=a\frac{\omega }{|\omega |}|\omega |^\alpha ,1\alpha 1$$
(7)   
($`a>0`$) and $`\alpha =1`$ for an insulator, $`\alpha =1`$ for a metal. The integral of the lefthand side of Eq. (3) is written as

$$J(T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}1\right)𝑑\omega +_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }𝑑\omega .$$
(8)   
We assume that $`a`$ and $`\alpha `$ are independent of $`T`$. Then, as $`T0`$,

$$J=a_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega ^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2kT}1\right)𝑑\omega +_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }𝑑\omega $$

$$=a\left(\frac{2kT}{\mathrm{}}\right)^{1+\alpha }_0^{\mathrm{}}x^\alpha (\mathrm{coth}x1)𝑑x+_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }𝑑\omega .$$
(9)   
1) When $`\alpha >0,J(T0)`$ tends to the finite limit $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\kappa ^{\prime \prime }𝑑\omega `$;   
$`(<d^2>/V)_{\mathrm{}}`$, and, by Eq. (7), $`\kappa _0=\kappa ^{}(0)`$ are finite, even for $`T=0`$.

2) When $`0>\alpha >1,J`$ is infinite for all nonzero $`T`$ in the range considered, the fluctuations of $`d`$ are anomalous when $`T0,\kappa _0=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`T`$ including $`T=0`$, and $`\sigma _0=0`$ in this range of $`\alpha `$ values. We thus see that when $`\alpha >0`$ the homogeneous linear response is that of an insulator ($`\kappa _0`$ finite), and $`(<d^2>/V)_{\mathrm{}}`$ also is finite. When $`\alpha <0`$, the homogeneous linear response corresponds to $`\kappa _0=\mathrm{}`$ (field effect) and $`(<d^2>/V)_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$ for nonzero $`T`$ (and also for $`T=0`$ when $`\alpha =1`$)<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2When $`1<\alpha <0`$, there is an expression $`T^{1+\alpha }\mathrm{}`$ on the right of Eq. (9), and it has not been possibile to find a correct passage to $`T=0`$ so as to determine $`(<d^2>/V)_{T=0}`$.. This is the justification for the hypotesis advanced at the end of Sec. 1, that the static insulator reaction $`\kappa _0`$ and the fluctuations of $`d`$ are in one-to-one correspondence as regards their nature. The kinetic nature of $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ acts only as an intermediate link between these two static characteristics.

This argument justifies the division of substances into two classes (Sec. 1). Classes 1 and 2 correspond to $`\alpha >0`$ and $`1<\alpha <0`$ respectively; the nature of the insulator reaction $`\kappa _0`$ is in one-to-one relationship with the behavior of $`<d^2>/V`$ as $`V\mathrm{}`$. The physical interpretation of class 1 is that the electrons have a finite motion and so there is no field effect. In class 2, their motion is infinite, they can go to macroscopic distances, and the field effect can occur<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3When $`\alpha >1,\sigma _0=0`$, but this means only that the random walk is not Marcovian.. The range of $`\alpha `$ values between 1 and -1 can apparently occur only near an insulator–conductor transition; such a transition by the occurence of a branch point is probably the ”smootest” such transition. The basic criterion (the nature of the static fluctuations) then retains its meaning even for ideal nonergodic modeles such as those where the particles do not interact.

## 4 Static fluctuations of the dipole moment

The expression for $`<d^2>`$ can be put in a clear form. For simplicity, let us consider a homogeneous electron gas in a finite volume $`V`$. The dipole moment operator $`\widehat{d}=\widehat{d}_x`$ is

$$\widehat{d}=_Vx\widehat{n}(𝐫)𝑑𝐫,\widehat{n}(𝐫)=\underset{\sigma }{}\psi _\sigma ^+(𝐫)\psi _\sigma (𝐫),$$
(10)   
where $`\psi _\sigma ^+`$ and $`\psi _\sigma `$ are the Fermi field operators and $`\sigma `$ is the spin component. The coordinates are chosen so that $`_Vx𝑑𝐫=0`$ (neutrality condition; the origin is taken at the point where the dipole moment of the positive charges is zero). Then,

$$\frac{1}{V}<d^2>=\frac{1}{V}_V<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{},$$
(11)   
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)=\widehat{n}(𝐫)n,n=<\widehat{n}(𝐫)>.$$

It is known  that the density correlation function $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>`$ has a delta-function singularity.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4To make a correct allowance for this, the field operators must always be put in the normal order. This can be separated by writing

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>=n\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})+\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}<\psi _\sigma ^+(𝐫)\psi _\sigma ^{}^+(𝐫^{})\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})\psi _\sigma (𝐫)>n^2.$$
(12)   
We set

$$K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})=<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>=n\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})$$

$$+\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}<\psi _\sigma ^+(𝐫)\psi _\sigma ^{}^+(𝐫^{})\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫^{})\psi _\sigma (𝐫)>.$$
(13)   
This $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ tends to zero as $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|\mathrm{}`$, and $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})=K(𝐫^{}𝐫)`$. Then

$$\frac{1}{V}<\widehat{d}^2>=n\frac{1}{V}_Vx^2𝑑𝐫+\frac{1}{V}_Vxx^{}K(𝐫𝐫^{})𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}.$$
(14)   
We substitute here $`xx^{}=(1/2)(xx^{})^2+(1/2)(x^2+x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$:

$$\frac{<d^2>}{V}=\frac{n}{V}_Vx^2𝑑𝐫+\frac{1}{2V}_V(x^2+x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}$$

$$\frac{1}{2V}_V(xx^{})^2K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{},$$
(15)   
and $`_VK(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})𝑑𝐫^{}`$ is

$$_VK(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})𝑑𝐫^{}=\underset{\sigma }{}<\psi _\sigma ^+(𝐫)\widehat{N}\psi _\sigma (𝐫)>Vn^2.$$
(16)   
Here, $`\widehat{N}=_\sigma _V\psi _\sigma ^+\psi _\sigma 𝑑𝐫`$ is the total particle number operator in the volume $`V`$:

$$_VK(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})𝑑𝐫^{}=<\widehat{n}(𝐫)\widehat{N}>nVn^2.$$
(17)   
Since the system is homogeneous, $`<\widehat{n}(𝐫)\widehat{n}>`$ is independent of $`𝐫`$, and therefore

$$<\widehat{n}(𝐫)\widehat{n}>=\frac{1}{V}<\widehat{N}^2>.$$
(18)   
The final result is

$$\frac{<d^2>}{V}=\frac{<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>}{V}_Vx^2𝑑𝐫\frac{1}{2V}_V(xx^{})^2K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{},$$
(19)   
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}=\widehat{N}N,N=<\widehat{N}>.$$

The first term on the right here is of order of $`V^{2/3}`$, on the assumption that $`\widehat{N}`$ has normal fluctuations (that is, far from any first-order transition point). Its significance is straightforward: these are dipole moment fluctuations of the charged particle system, on the assumption that the small macroscopic volumes are statistically independent; and it follows from elementary arguments. The second term is anomalous if the correlation function $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ does not decrease sufficiently rapidly as $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|\mathrm{}`$.

There is reason to suppose that always $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>=0`$ in a normal system at $`T=0`$; that is, the first term in Eq. (19) is zero for $`T=0`$. A ”normal” system is described by a Gibbs distribution, i.e., by a density matrix $`\rho =\mathrm{const}\mathrm{exp}[(\widehat{H}\mu N)/kT]`$. At $`T=0`$, the system is in a state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of the operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\widehat{H}\mu \widehat{N}`$ for a given $`\mu `$. Since $`\widehat{N}`$ is an integral of the motion, the number of particles is a good quantum number: all eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, including $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, are states with a given number of particles. Hence, in each such state, including $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, the dispersion of the particle number is zero, $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>=0`$, and a nonzero $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>`$ can occur only by a spread over different quantum numbers. When $`T=0`$, however, the system is in the ground state only, and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>_{T=0}=0`$.

When there is long-range order, the Gibbs distribution no longer describes the state of the system; the true distribution function is found by including infinitesimal terms in the Hamiltonian, and these break the original symmetry. The fluctuations at $`T=0`$ are determined by the specific nature of the broken-symmetry state.

The representation of $`<d^2>/V`$ in the form (19) can be derived also for a spatially periodic system (more precisly, it is the form of the terms in $`<d^2>`$ that are responsible for the presence of anomalous fluctuations), and for a disordered system under certain plausible assumptions. It reduces the problem of the $`d`$ fluctuations to that of finding $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>`$ and determining the behavior of the correlation function $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$.

## 5 Examples

### a) Ideal charged Fermi gas

Here,

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>=kTn^2\left(\frac{V}{P}\right).$$

Since the compressibility is finite, the first term in Eq. (19) is zero for $`T=0`$. The function $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ is known ; its leading term for $`T=0`$ is

$$K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})=K(𝐫𝐫^{})=\frac{3n}{2\pi ^2k_c}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2k_c|𝐫𝐫^{}|}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}.$$
(20)   
Note that $`K<0`$. It is seen that, for $`T=0`$, $`d`$ has anomalous fluctuations:

$$\frac{<d^2>}{V}V^{1/3}.$$
(21)   
As $`T`$ increases, the decrease of $`K`$ becomes exponential, but the $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>`$ terms begins to be effective, giving a $`V^{2/3}`$ anomaly. The reason for the power law (20) is the Fermi step singularity. The repulsive interaction maintains this singularity, and therefore does not affect the nature of the singularity at $`T=0`$. When the temperature is not zero, this singularity is blurred, causing an exponential decrease of $`K(𝐫𝐫^{})`$.

### b) Band insulator

Here again, $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>=0`$ at $`T=0`$, in accordance with the discussion at the end of Sec. 3. At a nonzero temperature, $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>\mathrm{exp}(E_g/kT)`$, and so this term is to be neglected in the temperature range considered. The correlation function $`K(𝐫𝐫^{})`$ at $`T=0`$ decreases exponentially, as follows from the absence of any singularity within the Brillouin zone on account of the uniform band occupation. Hence, $`d`$ has normal fluctuations even at $`T=0`$.

### c) Superconductor

The ordering specific to a superconductor (ODLRO) needs fluctuations of $`\widehat{N}`$ in the ground state<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5In a Bogolubov Bose gas at $`T=0,<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>0`$ also.. This is in contrast to the ”normal” systems a) and b), where the fluctuations of $`\widehat{N}`$ are thermodynamic, whereasin a superconductor they are quantum effects and not zero in the ground state. For the BCS model

$$\frac{<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{N}^2>}{V}|_{t=0}=\frac{4}{V}\underset{𝐤}{}u_𝐤^2v_𝐤^2=\frac{1}{V}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\epsilon _𝐤\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(22)   
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap. In accordance with Eq. (19), for $`T=0`$ we have $`<\widehat{d}^2>/VV^{2/3}`$. It is easy to see that the correlation function decrease exponentially, since the denominators such as $`[(\epsilon _𝐤\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2]^{1/2}`$ which depend on $`𝐤`$ are analytic for real $`𝐤`$ and are nowhere zero. We accentuate, that the anomalous character of the dipole moment fluctuations $`<d^2>`$, which ensures a field effect in a superconductor, is realized in view of a fluctuation of $`N`$ in the ground state of the superconductor, but no a slow diminshing of the $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ as it occurs in a dielectric.

The straightforward models are thus in agreement with the insulator – conductor criterion proposed here.

## 6 Hubbard model

The Hubbard model provides a nontrivial example of using the criterion formulated here in order to distinguish between insulators and conductors.

The Hubbard Hamiltonian for nondegenerate orbital states is

$$H=\underset{\mathrm{𝐦𝐦}^{}\sigma }{}J(𝐦𝐦^{})a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }+U\sigma _𝐦\widehat{n}_𝐦n_𝐦W+H_0,$$
(23)   
with $`U>0`$. Let us suppose that the number of electrons is equal to the number $`N`$ of sites. The site lattice is assumed centrosymmetric. The form (23) of the Hamiltonian presupposes a certain choice of Fermi field operators, $`\psi _\sigma (𝐫)=_𝐦\phi _𝐦(𝐫)a_{𝐦\sigma }`$, where $`\{\phi _𝐦(𝐫)\}`$ is a set of $`N`$ ortonormalized orbitals, each localized at a lattice site $`𝐦`$<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6We assume that, as $`|𝐫𝐦|\mathrm{},\phi _𝐦(𝐫)`$ falls exponentially.. Here, $`J`$ and $`U`$ are unambiguously defined. The density operator $`\widehat{n}(𝐫)`$ is

$$\widehat{n}(𝐫)=\underset{\sigma }{}\psi _\sigma ^+(𝐫)\psi _\sigma (𝐫)=\underset{\mathrm{𝐦𝐦}^{}\sigma }{}\phi _𝐦(𝐫)\phi _𝐦^{}(𝐫)a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma },$$
(24)   
and the density correlation function is

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>=$$

$$\phi _{𝐦_1}(𝐫)\phi _{𝐦_2}(𝐫)\phi _{𝐦_3}(𝐫^{})\phi _{𝐦_4}(𝐫^{})<a_{𝐦_1\sigma }^+a_{𝐦_2\sigma }a_{𝐦_3\sigma ^{}}^+a_{𝐦_4\sigma ^{}}>n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{}),$$
(25)   
$$n(𝐫)=<\widehat{n}(𝐫)>=\phi _𝐦\phi _𝐦^{}<a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }>.$$

We will take into account only the nearest neighbors $`J(𝐦𝐦^{})=J,𝐦𝐦^{}=𝐠;𝐠`$ is the vector between nearest-neighbor sites. The overlap is assumed small $`(J/U1)`$, and the temperature range $`J^2/UkTU`$ is considered. We can then neglected the spin ordering and the formation of actual twins and holes (gap excitations). In this range, the state of the system can be represented to order $`(J/U)^2`$ by the wave function<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7Strictly, one should use the density matrix $`\rho _0`$ corresponding to $`\phi _0`$, but taking into account the equal probabilities of the spin configurations.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\widehat{S}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\left(1+i\widehat{S}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}^2\right),$$
(26)   
where

$$\widehat{S}=i\underset{\mathrm{𝐦𝐦}^{}\sigma }{}\frac{J(𝐦𝐦^{})}{U}(\widehat{n}_{𝐦\sigma }\widehat{n}_{𝐦^{}\sigma })a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma },$$
(27)   
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the homopolar state function $`(_\sigma \widehat{n}_{𝐦\sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ with an arbitrary spin configuration, and $`e^{i\widehat{S}}`$ is a unitary operator that eliminates from Eq.(23) the term of the first order in $`J/U`$. We can find the correlation function (25) as far as $`(J/U)^2`$. The operator $`a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }`$ there is transformed by means of Eq. (27):

$$a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }+i[\widehat{S}a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }]\frac{1}{2}[\widehat{S}[\widehat{S}a_{𝐦\sigma }^+a_{𝐦^{}\sigma }]].$$
(28)   
The quantity (25) can then be calculated with the transformed operator (28) by averaging over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and then over all $`2^N`$ spin configurations. The result is

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>=\underset{𝐦}{}\phi _𝐦^2(𝐫)\phi _𝐦^2(𝐫^{})\underset{𝐠}{}\frac{J^2(𝐠)}{U^2}$$

$$\underset{\mathrm{𝐦𝐦}^{}}{}\phi _𝐦^2(𝐫)\phi _𝐦^{}^2(𝐫^{})\underset{𝐠}{}\frac{J^2(𝐠)}{U^2}\delta _{mm^{},g}+\mathrm{}$$
(29)   
the dots represent terms arising from $`n(𝐫)𝐧(𝐫^{})`$, which are even in $`𝐫,𝐫^{}`$ and make no contribution to $`<d^2>`$. Since, in the absence of ferroelectric ordering, $`\phi _{𝐦=0}^2(𝐫)=\phi _{𝐦=0}^2(𝐫)`$,

$$<\widehat{d}^2>=e^2xx^{}<\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}(𝐫^{})>𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}=\underset{𝐦}{}m_x^2\underset{𝐠}{}\frac{J^2}{U^2}$$

$$\underset{\mathrm{𝐦𝐠}}{}m_x(𝐦+𝐠)_x\frac{J^2}{U^2}=\underset{\mathrm{𝐦𝐠}}{}m_xg_x\frac{J^2}{U^2}.$$
(30)   
The right-hand side is zero because $`_𝐦𝐦=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (neutrality condition). Similarly, $`<N^2>=0`$. The allowance for the temperature would give hole-twin states in density matrix $`\rho _0`$, accompanied by the gap factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E/kT),EU`$. The state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is thus, to within $`(J/U)^2`$, an insulating state according to our view. This becomes clearer if one considers the structure of the state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, Eq. (26). The state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is homopolar; $`\widehat{S}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ contains one twin and one hole, $`\widehat{S}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ not more than two of each. However, it is phisically obvious that in the ground state of a conductor the number of polar excitations, independend of $`N`$, as in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, does not make the state conducting. Hence, in any order of perturbation theory of the type (26), the state remains insulating <sup>8</sup><sup>8</sup>8In the calculations, we neglected in Eq. (30) the surface contribution, assuming that for all the sites over which the summation is taken there is the same number $`z=_𝐠`$ of nearest neighbors. In contrast to this, the fluctuations in a Fermi gas, proportional to $`V^{1/3}`$, are volume fluctuations; according to the meaning of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, which involves the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$, these fluctuation are the important ones..

The insulating state may therefore contain an admixture of polar states, expressed by a nonzero $`<\widehat{n}_𝐦\widehat{n}_𝐦>`$; in our approximation, $`<\widehat{n}_{}\widehat{n}_{}>=(z/2)(J/U)^2`$. Attempts to link the transition to the conducting state with the loss of homopolarity have been made in , for example. However, it is evident from the above that the admixture of polar states does not at all imply the presence of the charges capable of infinite motion.

## 7 Discussion of results

The proposed criterion to differentiate an insulator from a conductor depends the behavior of the mean square dipole moment fluctuation, a purely static quantity. For an insulator, the dipole moment is additive, since its mean square is  proportional to $`V`$. This may be regarded as a manifestation of electron localisation relative to the ions at lattice sites. Anomalious behavior, $`<d^2>V^{1+\gamma }`$ with $`\gamma >0`$, corresponds to delocalisation of electrons. That is, the particular behavior of $`(<d^2>/V)_V\mathrm{}`$ gives a precise meaning to the intuitive idea of localized or delocalized electron states (finite or infinite electron motion). The nature of the delocalisation is substantially different for a normal conductor, the anomaly of $`<d^2>_{T=0}`$ is due to the slow decrease of the correlation function at large distances; in a superconductor, to the presence of density fluctuations at $`T=0`$. This will be more fully discussed elsewhere.

The fluctuation-dissipation theorem makes possible a definite association between the localization or delocalization and other static quantity, the reaction $`\kappa _0`$ to a homogeneous static electric field (homogeneous linear response), which is fundamentally different for conductors and insulators<sup>9</sup><sup>9</sup>9An attempt to use the Callen-Welton relationship for the conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ would not lead to the classification sought, since the current correlation function $`<J^2>`$, unlike $`<d^2>`$, is always ”normal”. . The kinetic quantity $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ does not appear in the final result. It should be emphased that the conducting state is characterized e contrario: the quantities $`\kappa _0`$ and $`<d^2>/V,V\mathrm{}`$ are finite for an insulator, are infinite for a conductor, and so have no meaning.

The transition from an insulator to a normal conductor amounts to a change in the asymptotic form of $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ as $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|\mathrm{}(T=0)`$. It is not accompanied by ”strong” fluctuations, and therefore cannot be represented by any order parameter, even conventionally as in a gas-liquid transition. There is, however, a parallel with transitions at $`T0`$ in two-dimentional systems .

We have in the foregoing extended our treatment to ideal non-ergodic systems, on the assumption that, if the ”kinetic” terms in the Hamiltonian, responsible for ergodicity, are small, then neglecting them does not affect on the classification of the system as insulator or conductor. For a conductor, the omission of these terms simply emphasizes the singularities ( for example, $`\sigma _0`$ becomes infinite); for an insulator, it does not cause a field effect. However, including them is important near an insulator- conductor transition and also in low-dimensional disorder systems, where an exponential decrease of $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ can occur even with infinitesimal disorder.

The problem of classifying insulators and conductors is thus reduced to an investigation of static properties: the mean square fluctuation $`<\mathrm{\Delta }N^2>`$ of the number of electrons, and the correlation function $`K(\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{})`$ near $`T=0`$. This allows also a clear formulation of the insulator-normal conductor transition problem.