although much can be learned by studying stellar nurseries and the fascinating process of stellar birth , we have much yet to learn in the field of stellar geriatrics .
stars that do not proceed to explosive ends , the low- and intermediate - mass stars , undergo a period of mass loss , often extreme , in which 50% or more of the star s initial mass is transferred back to the ism .
the rates of this mass loss vary widely from @xmath0 per year to as much as @xmath1 per year .    such prodigious mass loss and the large number of low- and intermediate mass stars results in the fact that most of the interstellar medium  perhaps as much as 80 to 90 percent  has been cycled through a star and ejected via this process .
flash - in - the - pan supernovae do have a significant impact , especially enriching the heavier metals in the ism , but the bulk of the material is provided by the aging process of common stars similar to the sun . understanding how the mass loss process proceeds and its implications on the chemical modification of the ism in our own galaxy has obvious implications for the study of more distant galaxies as well as being of interest itself .
the mass loss process proceeds from the formation of dust in the upper atmospheres of evolved stars , a few stellar radii from the optical photosphere .
this process has long been thought to be driven by the pulsations inherent in these kinds of stars , but it now appears likely that it is driven by dramatic temperature fluctuations caused by the formation of tio in the stellar atmosphere , which changes the physical conditions in the dust formation region @xcite .
although the details of dust formation remain an unknown factor , we know roughly that when the temperature and density conditions are appropriate , nucleation can occur , leading to the formation of dust .
this dust , exposed to the radiation field of the evolved star , absorbs outward momentum and begins to accelerate .
gas not incorporated into dust grains is carried along with the dust through momentum coupling .
as conditions allow , molecules can form from the gas that is carried along with the outward - moving dust . using existing centimeter and millimeter wave interferometers , studies of the molecules formed in these winds
have been completed showing more or less spherically symmetric mass loss @xcite with some interesting results such as rotation @xcite and perfect spherical symmetry of an apparently single ejection event @xcite .
certain molecules are capable of maser emission ( e.g. sio , h@xmath2o and oh ) .
when such masers are found in the winds of evolved o - rich stars , they are powerful probes of the mass loss kinematics .
some c - rich stars do exhibit hcn masers at high frequencies , but the o - dominated species are absent .
however , they can provide only rough information about the physical conditions of the wind itself , provided by the physical conditions required for maser emission .
using vlbi techniques , which provide resolutions as fine as 100 @xmath3arcseconds , the motions of masing gas can be tracked with high accuracy and the kinematics of the wind modelled . in practice , this has proven to be a challenging undertaking . the non - linear emission process and apparently complex distributions of the masers make modelling difficult . only rough models have yet been made placing the masers in ellipsoidal distributions undergoing a variety of kinematic motions .
the maser observations do indicate more - or - less spherically or elliptically symmetric mass loss with acceleration occurring to the outermost regions of the wind where acceleration ceases due to decoupling of the gas from the dust .
a mild controversy about the relative angular scales of the oh and h@xmath4o maser distributions ( e.g. the oh masers , although predicted to be at large radii , appear at about the same angular scale as the h@xmath4o masers ) is likely due to beaming effects .
water masers are preferentially tangentially beamed as they reside in an accelerating portion of the wind while the oh masers are radially beamed as they reside in a constant velocity region of the wind @xcite . as difficult as the physics and geometries are , our current understanding is limited due to lack of adequate modelling in my opinion .
other results indicate non - negligible rotation @xcite of the envelopes and the influence of magnetic fields on the shape of the shell @xcite .
we have yet to understand the dust formation process in these objects .
although infrared interferometric observations @xcite hint at a very clumpy and dynamic process , we have few tools available to probe this process in detail .
we have only a very rough picture of the structure of the extended photosphere and wind of evolved stars .
the role of magnetic fields in agb stars has not been explored in any detail , though they must impact the dust formation process , the wind itself and obviously provide information on the star itself .
although detailed studies have been made using millimeter interferometers of the chemical structure of the nearest and largest evolved stars , much of the chemical structure in these objects remains a mystery .
alma will help here but will miss the low - frequency line transitions .
a detailed understanding of the structure of these objects awaits the square kilometer array .
the ska , with its high resolution , sensitivity to a range of emission mechanisms and low - frequency observing capability will allow studies of evolved stars that have not been possible before and provide complementary observations to those provided by alma and other instruments .
i discuss the anticipated observations ska can provide in the sections below .
it has been shown @xcite that certain agb stars , the mira variables , undergo temperature changes of 30% and luminosity changes of a factor of two during their visual fluctuation period ( @xmath5 ) .
as shown in @xcite , these changes should result in stellar radius fluctuations of about 40% .
such dramatic fluctuations would lead to both dramatic shock waves that propagate from the star into its extended photosphere and also measurable changes in light curves at radio , infrared and optical wavelengths .
the visual light curve fluctuates dramatically ( extreme cases show fluctuations of 8 magnitudes ) while the infrared light curves rarely fluctuate by more than a magnitude and the radio light curves fluctuate only by a few percent at most .
observed light curves do not match those predicted by the radial fluctuations implied by the temperature and luminosity fluctuations @xcite .
figure [ reidmira ] shows the model from @xcite that ( to first order ) reproduces the radio , infrared and visual light curves .
the model predicts that tio is formed in the upper atmosphere as the star approaches minimum light and this additional opacity source can greatly decrease the observed light at visual wavelengths while having less impact at infrared wavelengths and almost no impact at radio wavelengths .
this new discovery shows that much remains to be learned about evolved stars .
after all , mira variables are one of the oldest astronomical phenomena studied and only now has an adequate first - order model been developed to explain their fluctuations
.        the ska will allow further testing of these models at far greater sensitivity .
observations of the flux from the photospheres of agb stars are exceedingly difficult .
typical fluxes are on the order of 200 microjy and require special calibration techniques with current interferometers .
the ska , with a sensitivity of about 0.1 microjy at 20 ghz will provide the most accurate agb star light curves across all wavelengths .
such measurements will allow improved modelling of the opacity source fluctuations in the star .
the discovery of particularly large extrasolar planets orbiting close to their host star opens up the possibility for the observation of eclipses using the ska , as has been observed in the star hd 209458 .
however , the eclipse type that is potentially observable would be an active radio - emitting planet similar to jupiter being eclipsed by its host star rather than the more typical eclipse . as pointed out in @xcite
, jupiter - like planets will produce detectable radio emission out to distances of 10 pc .
the passage of a planet of this type behind its host agb star would be detectable , since the emission from the planet would be of order 10 microjy , compared to the photospheric flux of 200 microjy .
the diameter of the radio photosphere of a typical agb star is of order 5 au . at 1kpc
, such a source would have a maximum angular diameter of 6 milliarcseconds . at 22 ghz and with 1000 km baselines
, the ska will have a resolution of roughly 3 milliarcseconds .
this resolution corresponds to linear resolution of 3 au at 1 kpc . for agb star diameters of 3 - 5 au
, they can be moderately resolved with ska .
thus , for only the nearest agb stars will any degree of imaging be possible .
the number of agb stars closer than 1kpc is limited . without a substantial increase in the highest frequency observed by the ska or the maximum baselines ,
imaging of only the nearest agb stars will be possible .
that said , some very interesting imaging projects can be undertaken for large agb stars not further than 1 kpc from the earth .
for example , the well - known and nearby ( 150 pc ) carbon star irc+10216 has a photospheric size of 35 milliarcseconds and an extended envelope diameter of nearly 1. with a resolution element of 3 mas , the surface of the star would be imaged well and the overall envelope , especially in spectral lines ( see below ) would be highly resolved .
the imaging design goal of 0.1 arcsecond resolution at 1.4 ghz over a 1 degree field ( and scaled with frequency ) is sufficient to provide high spatial dynamic range imaging at high sensitivity for objects of this type .
the science the ska will allow is the direct imaging of the dust formation process and connection with stellar pulsation for the nearest and largest agb stars .
maser emission from gas in the outflowing winds of agb stars is a common phenomenon in o - rich agb stars .
masers are regions of gas in the stellar wind that have sufficient velocity coherence to amplify background photons via amplified emission of radiation .
such amplification is possible due to a population inversion of the molecular species in question and a fortuitous alignment of molecular rotational , vibrational or ro - vibrational energy levels .
several species are found .
sio masers are located close to the star ( within a few stellar radii and below the dust formation zone ) .
masers are located at intermediate distances from a few tens of stellar radii to a few hundred .
the remote oh masers are located up to several thousand stellar radii from the host star .
in addition to knowing the location of the various maser species , we have a good understanding of the overall shell structure around these stars @xcite .
figure [ shell ] shows graphically our current understanding of the circumstellar region around an agb star .
the star itself is from between 1 and 5 au in size . above this surface
is a chromospheric region followed by a molecular photosphere ending between 1 and 2 au above the optical photosphere .
the radio photosphere ( about 0.5 to 1au in thickness ) is located near the sio maser formation region . beyond this zone ,
wind acceleration begins as dust forms in a region from roughly 5 au to 10 au ( depending on the properties of the star and pulsation phase ) .
the h@xmath4o and oh masers begin to appear at radii of 15 au or more and the oh masers are found further out from the water maser shell .
the exact sizes of the various regions , their exact locations and how they interact remain rough measurements .     , width=283 ]    masers are imaged using vlbi techniques and typically have resolved sizes of a milliarcsecond or so , but observations with merlin show that a weak diffuse emission can also be present @xcite . depending on the upper frequency cutoff for the ska , the oh ( 1.6 ghz ) , methanol ( 6.7 ghz ) and water masers ( 22 ghz ) could be observable . however , it is not the detection of maser emission with the ska that is of greatest interest ( though the sensitivity of the instrument would allow detection of extragalactic masers to a much greater distance than currently available ) .
it is the sensitivity to both the stellar photospheric emission and the dust continuum in the wind combined with the vlbi observations that will be of prime interest .
vlbi imaging techniques are sensitive only to very high brightness temperatures and the smallest angular sizes (   1 - 5 milliarcseconds ) and therefore only the maser spots themselves and not the environment in which they are located can be imaged . with the angular resolution of the ska at 1.4 ghz ( 0.1 `` ) , the thermal emission across a typical oh maser distribution 1''-2 " in diameter could be mapped with sufficient resolution and sensitivity to allow alignment of the vlbi maser observations with the overall dust distribution and star itself .
combined with infrared interferometric observations , which are now beginning to show the details of the dust distribution at high angular resolutions ( see figure [ monnierfigure ] ) @xcite ( @xmath6 milliarseconds , but over limited fields of view ) , the ska will play a critical role in providing information on the largest scales .
outstanding problems to be addressed include the details of dust formation , such as whether the process proceeds uniformly as a function of pulsation cycle or at particular times , the degree of clumpiness of the dust formation and the exact physical conditions that lead to dust formation .
the transition of agb stars from roughly spherically symmetric mass - losing objects to the asymmetric planetary nebulae has yet to be understood completely and the combination of the kinematic information provided by vlbi maser observations and the dust distribution will hopefully shed new light on this area .
in the frequency range of the ska are 634 molecular line transitions , many of which have not been well studied , only detected , and some of which have still not been identified @xcite . for convenience ,
these transitions are provided in table [ lovastable ] .
many of these species are expected to be present in the winds of evolved stars . as pointed out by zijlstra ( 2003 ) ,
both the dust and gas created in the stellar winds of agb stars survive in the ism .
the dust , as indicated by reddening and particles found in meteorites or as micrometeoroid particulates in our own upper atmosphere @xcite , survives in interstellar space .
the presence of the diffuse interstellar bands are the main piece of evidence for the existence of rather complex molecules in interstellar space . as yet , we do not know if the molecules were formed within an envelope of an agb star and survived ejection into interstellar space or if they were incorporated onto dust grains and later evaporated from their surfaces upon exposure to interstellar uv radiation . it is likely that the true situation will be a mixture of both of these cases .
a number of molecules with transitions in the frequency range of the ska are of particular interest for astrobiology .
these include the building block molecule for simple sugars such as ribose and deoxyribose , furan ( @xmath7 ; e.g. with a transition at 10.6 ghz ) @xcite . the same authors detected c - c@xmath4h@xmath8o , one of the few cyclic molecules in space .
they note that the presence of these molecular species in cold dark clouds suggests that rather complex organic molecules may have been present in the solar system before the planets formed , a first step toward explaining the origin of life on the early earth .
magnetic fields of agb stars are now thought to be fairly strong from observations of sio masers @xcite .
depending on the exact models used , the field strengths seem to be between 5 - 10 g at radii of 3 au or so .
such strong magnetic fields will have obvious impacts on both the molecular gas ( zeeman splitting for a number of species such as ccs and so ) and possibly produce circularly polarized radio emission from the star itself ( analogous to the emission observed from the sun ) .
although requiring careful instrumental polarization characterization , observations of these effects will provide confirmation of the magnetic field strength implied by the sio maser polarization observations and further constraints on agb stars themselves .
potential movies of regions of magnetic field enhancements on the surfaces of nearby agb stars could be tracked with time , testing maser observations of rotation .
9 j. h. bieging and rieu , n.q . , astronomical journal 112 , ( 1996 ) , 706 .
d. a. boboltz & k. b. marvel , astrophysical journal 545 , ( 2000 ) , 149 .
dickens , w. m. irvine , a. nummelin , h. mollendal , s. saito , s. thorwith , a. hjalmarsoni , m. ohishi , spectrochimica acta part a : molecular and biomolecular spectroscopy 57 , ( 2001 ) , 643 .
a. j. kemball & p.j .
diamond , astrophysical journal , 481l ( 1997 ) , 111 .
lovas , nist recommended rest frequencies for observed interstellar molecular microwave transitions : 2002 revision , ( 2002 ) .
s. messenger , l.p .
keller , f.j .
stadermann , r.m . walker and e. zinner ,
science 300 , ( 2003 ) , 105 .
monnier , r. millan - gabet , p.g .
tuthill , w.a .
traub , n.p .
carleton , v. coud du foresto , w. c. danchi , m.g .
lacasse , s. morel , g. perrin , i.l .
porro , f.p .
schloerb , c.h .
townes , astrophysical journal 605 , ( 2004 ) , 436 .
monnier , p.g .
tuthill , b. lopez , p. cruzalebes , w. c. danchi , c.a .
haniff , astrophysical journal 512 , ( 1999 ) , 351 .
k. murakawa , j.a .
yates , a.m.s .
richards , r.j .
cohen monthly notices of the royal astronomical society 344 , ( 2003 ) , 1 .
h. olofsson , p. bergman , r. lucas , k. eriksson , b. gustafsson and j.h .
bieging , astronomy and astrophysics 330 , ( 1998 ) , l1 .
e. petit and s. b. nicholson , astrophysical journal 78 , ( 1933 ) , 320 .
reid and k.m .
menten , astrophysical journal 456 , ( 1997 ) 327 .
reid and j.e .
goldston , astrophysical journal 568 , ( 2002 ) 931 .
reid in _ cosmic masers : from protostars to blackholes _
, astronomical society of the pacific , 2002 .
richards , j. a. yates and r. j. cohen , monthly notices of the royal astronomical society 306 , ( 1999 ) 954 .
richards , j. a. yates and r. j. cohen , monthly notices of the royal astronomical society 299 , ( 1998 ) 319 .
rieu and j.h .
bieging , astrophysical journal 359 , ( 1990 ) , 131 .
taylor and r. braun , _ science with the square kilometer array _ , 1999 .
zijlstra , the scientific promise of the ska : ska workshop oxford , 2003 , kramer & rawlings , eds .
web reference http://www.skatelescope.org/documents/workshop_oxford2002.pdf
lll|lll     + frequency ( mhz ) & formula & quantum numbers & frequency ( mhz ) & formula & quantum numbers + frequency ( mhz ) & formula & quantum numbers & frequency ( mhz ) & formula & quantum numbers +   + 701.679 & ch & 23/2 j=3/2 f=2 - 2 & 19418.796 & c - c@xmath9hd & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) f=1 - 0 + 704.175 & ch & 23/2 j=3/2 f=2 + -1- & 19426.679 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,1)-1(1,0 ) f=2 - 1 + 722.303 & ch & 23/2 j=3/2 f=1 + -2- & 19427.851 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,1)-1(1,0 ) f=3 - 2 + 724.791 & ch & 23/2 j=3/2 f=1 - 1 & 19429.098 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,1)-1(1,0 ) f=1 - 0 + 834.285 & ch@xmath9oh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) a-+ & 19430.85 & unidentified & + 1065.076 & ch@xmath9cho & 1(1,0 ) - 1(1,1 ) a-+ & 19609.78 & unidentified & + 1371.722 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=1 - 1 & 19682.50 & unidentified & + 1371.797 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=3 - 3 & 19692.50 & unidentified & + 1371.934 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=2 - 2 & 19755.111 & hc@xmath10n & 34 - 33 + 1538.108 & nh@xmath4cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 1 & 19757.538 & nh@xmath9 & 6(3)-6(3 ) + 1538.676 & nh@xmath4cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 2 & 19771.50 & unidentified & + 1539.264 & nh@xmath4cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 1 & 19780.800 & cccn & 2 - 1 j=5/2 - 3/2 f=5/2 - 3/2 + 1539.527 & nh@xmath4cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 0 & 19780.826 & cccn & 2 - 1 j=5/2 - 3/2 f=3/2 - 1/2 + 1539.832 & nh@xmath4cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 2 & 19781.094 & cccn & 2 - 1 j=5/2 - 3/2 f=7/2 - 5/2 + 1540.998 & nh@xmath4cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=0 - 1 & 19799.951 & cccn & 2 - 1 j=5/2 - 3/2 f=3/2 - 1/2 + 1570.805 & nh@xmath11cho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 2 & 19800.121 & cccn & 2 - 1 j=5/2 - 3/2 f=5/2 - 3/2 + 1584.274 & @xmath12oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=1 - 2 & 19838.346 & nh@xmath9 & 5(1)-5(1 ) + 1610.247 & ch@xmath9ocho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) a & 19871.344 & hccnc & 2 - 1 + 1610.900 & ch@xmath9ocho & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) e & 19967.396 & ch@xmath9oh & 2(1,1)-3(0,3 ) e + 1612.2310 & oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=1 - 2 & 19974.50 & unidentified & + 1624.518 & @xmath13oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f , f1=7/2,4 - 7/2,4 & 20064.21 & unidentified & + 1626.161 & @xmath13oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f , f1=9/2,4 - 9/2,4 & 20109.547 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 5/2 - 3/2 5/2 - 5/2 + 1637.564 & @xmath12oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=1 - 1 & 20115.77 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 1/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 5/2 - 5/2 + 1638.805 & hcooh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) & 20117.43 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2
5/2 - 3/2 3/2 - 1/2 + 1639.503 & @xmath12oh & 23/2 j-3/2 f=2 - 2 & 20118.014 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 5/2 - 3/2 5/2 - 3/2 + 1665.4018 & oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=1 - 1 & 20118.16 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 1/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 + 1667.3590 & oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=2 - 2 & 20119.606 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 5/3 - 3/2 7/2 - 5/2 + 1692.795 & @xmath12oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=2 - 1 & 20121.61 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 3/2 - 3/2 + 1720.5300 & oh & 23/2 j=3/2 f=2 - 1 & 20123.96 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 1/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 + 2661.61 & hc@xmath14n & 1 - 0 f=1 - 1 & 20124.22 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 1/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 1/2 + 2662.87 & hc@xmath14n & 1 - 0 f=2 - 1 & 20124.22 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 1/2 - 1/2 + 2664.76 & hc@xmath14n & 1 - 0 f=0 - 1 & 20124.45 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 + 3139.404 & h@xmath4cs & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) & 20124.49 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 1/2 - 1/2
3/2 - 3/2 5/2 - 3/2 + 3195.162 & ch@xmath9cho & 2(1,1 ) - 2(1,2 ) a-+ & 20126.031 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 3/2 - 1/2 + 3263.794 & ch & 21/2 j=1/2 f=0 - 1 & 20128.770 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 1/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 1/2 3/2 - 3/2 + 3335.481 & ch & 21/2 j=1/2 f=1 - 1 & 20139.76 & ch@xmath4cn & 1 - 0 1/2 - 1/2 1/2 - 3/2 3/2 - 5/2 + 3349.193 & ch & 21/2 j=1/2 f=1 - 0 & 20168.48 & unidentified & + 4388.7786 & h@xmath4c@xmath12o & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 0 & 20171.089 & ch@xmath9oh & 11(1,11)-10(2,8 ) a+ + 4388.7960 & h@xmath4c@xmath12o & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=0 - 1 & 20203.31 & unidentified & + 4388.7963 & h@xmath4c@xmath12o & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 2 & 20209.209 & ch@xmath15co & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) + 4388.8011 & h@xmath4c@xmath12o & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 1 & 20281.00 & unidentified & + 4388.8035 & h@xmath4c@xmath12o & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 2 & 20303.946 & hc@xmath16n & 18 - 17 + 4388.8084 & h@xmath4c@xmath12o & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 1 & 20336.135 & hc@xmath10n & 35 - 34 + 4592.9563 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,1/2 - 1/2,3/2 & 20357.226 & ch3c@xmath8h & 5(1)-4(1 ) + 4592.9738 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,1/2 - 3/2,3/2 & 20357.423 & ch3c@xmath8h & 5(0)-4(0 ) + 4592.9759 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,1/2 - 1/2,3/2 & 20371.45 & nh@xmath9 & 5(2)-5(2 ) + 4592.9857 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,1/2 - 5/2,3/2 & 20460.01 & hdo & 3(2,1)-4(1,4 ) + 4592.9934 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,1/2 - 3/2,3/2 & 20501.5 & unidentified & + 4593.0494 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,1/2 - 1/2,1/2 & 20533.235 & unidentified & + 4593.0690 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,1/2 - 1/2,1/2 & 20533.289 & c@xmath17h & 23/2 17.5 - 16.5 + 4593.0800 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,1/2 - 3/2,1/2 & 20723.5 & unidentified & + 4593.0812 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,3/2 - 1/2,3/2 & 20728.67 & unidentified & + 4593.0864 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,3/2 - 1/2,3/2 & 20735.452 & nh@xmath9 & 9(7)-9(7 ) + 4593.0865 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)5/2,3/2 - 5/2,3/2 & 20765.80 & unidentified & + 4593.0942 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)5/2,3/2 - 3/2,3/2 & 20790.00 & unidentified & + 4593.0961 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,3/2 - 5/2,3/2 & 20792.563 & h@xmath4ccc & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) + 4593.0985 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,3/2 - 3/2,3/2 & 20792.872 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=15/2 - 13/2 f=8 - 7
e + 4593.0994 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,1/2 - 3/2,1/2 & 20792.945 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=15/2 - 13/2 f=7 - 6 e + 4593.1039 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,3/2 - 3/2,3/2 & 20794.444 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=15/2 - 13/2 f=8 - 7 f + 4593.1741 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,3/2 - 1/2,1/2 & 20794.512 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=15/2 - 13/2 f=7 - 6 f + 4593.1795 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,3/2 - 1/2,1/2 & 20804.830 & nh@xmath9 & 7(5)-7(5 ) + 4593.2003 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)5/2,3/2 - 3/2,1/2 & 20838.20 & unidentified & + 4593.2046 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)1/2,3/2 - 3/2,1/2 & 20847.50 & unidentified & + 4593.2099 & h@xmath11co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1)3/2,3/2 - 3/2,1/2 & 20852.527 & nh@xmath9 & 10(8)-10(8 ) + 4617.121 & nh@xmath4cho & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=2 - 2 & 20878.00 & unidentified & + 4618.967 & nh@xmath4cho & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=3 - 3 & 20908.848 & ch@xmath9oh & 16(-4,13)-15(-5,10 ) e + 4619.993 & nh@xmath4cho & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=1 - 1 & 20917.157 & hc@xmath10n & 36 - 35 + 4660.242 & oh & 21/2 j=1/2 f=0 - 1 & 20970.658 & ch@xmath9oh & 10(1,10)-11(,9 ) a+ t=1 + 4750.656 & oh & 21/2 j=1/2 f=1 - 1 & 20994.617 & nh@xmath9 & 6(4)-6(4 ) + 4765.562 & oh & 21/2 j=1/2 f=1 - 0 & 20999.79 & unidentified & + 4829.6412 & h@xmath15co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 0 & 21070.739 & nh@xmath9 & 11(9)-11(9 ) + 4829.6587 & h@xmath15co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=0 - 1 & 21134.311 & nh@xmath9 & 4(1)-4(1 ) + 4829.6594 & h@xmath15co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 2 & 21143.18 & unidentified & + 4829.6639 & h@xmath15co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 1 & 21231.00 & unidentified & + 4829.6664 & h@xmath15co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 2 & 21285.275 & nh@xmath9 & 5(3)-5(3 ) + 4829.6710 & h@xmath15co & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 1 & 21301.261 & hc@xmath14n & 8 - 7 + 4916.312 & hcooh & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) & 21322.50 & unidentified & + 5005.3208 & ch@xmath9oh & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) a-+ & 21431.932 & hc@xmath16n & 19 - 18 + 5289.015 & ch@xmath4nh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=0 - 1 & 21447.8 & unidentified & + 5289.678 & ch@xmath4nh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 0 & 21453.93 & unidentified & + 5289.813 & ch@xmath4nh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 2 & 21470.4 & unidentified & + 5290.614 & ch@xmath4nh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=2 - 1 & 21480.809 & c@xmath14h & 21/2 j=9/2 - 7/2 f=5 - 4 e + 5290.879 & ch@xmath4nh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) f=1 - 2 & 21481.299 & c@xmath14h & 21/2 j=9/2 - 7/2 f=4 - 3 e + 5291.680 & ch@xmath4nh & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 )
f=1 - 1 & 21484.695 & c@xmath14h & 21/2 j=9/2 - 7/2 f=5 - 4 f + 5324.058 & hc@xmath14n & 2 - 1 f=2 - 2 & 21485.248 & c@xmath14h & 21/2 j=9/2 - 7/2 f=4 - 3 f + 5324.270 & hc@xmath14n & 2 - 1 f=1 - 0 & 21488.255 & h@xmath4cccccc & 8(1,8)-7(1,7 ) + 5325.330 & hc@xmath14n & 2 - 1 f=2 - 1 & 21498.182 & hc@xmath10n & 37 - 36 + 5325.421 & hc@xmath14n & 2 - 1 f=3 - 2 & 21546.94 & unidentified & + 5327.451 & hc@xmath14n & 2 - 1 f=1 - 1 & 21550.342 & ch@xmath9oh & 12(2,11)-11(1,11 ) a+ t=1 + 6016.746 & oh & 23/2 j=5/2 f=2 - 3 & 21569.5 & unidentified & + 6030.747 & oh & 23/2 j=5/2 f=2 - 2 & 21576.5 & unidentified & + 6035.092 & oh & 23/2 j-5/2 f=3 - 3 & 21582.6 & unidentified & + 6049.084 & oh & 23/2 j=5/2 f=3 - 2 & 21587.400 & c - c@xmath9h@xmath4 & 2(2,0)-2(1,1 ) + 6278.628 & h@xmath4cs & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) & 21592.1 & unidentified & + 6389.933 & ch@xmath9cho & 3(1,2 ) -
3(1,3 ) a-+ & 21595.8 & unidentified & + 6668.5192 & ch@xmath9oh & 5(1,6)-6(0,6 ) a++ & 21598.4 & unidentified & + 7761.747 & oh & 21/2 j=3/2 f=1 - 1 & 21606.30 & unidentified & + 7820.125 & oh & 21/2 j=3/2 f=2 - 2 & 21615.5 & unidentified & + 7895.989 & hc@xmath16n & 7 - 6 f=6 - 5 & 21703.3580 & nh@xmath9 & 4(2)-4(2 ) + 7896.010 & hc@xmath16n & 7 - 6 f=7 - 6 & 21715.8 & unidentified & + 7896.023 & hc@xmath16n & 7 - 6 f=8 - 7 & 21930.476 & cc34s & 2,1 - 1,0 + 7987.782 & hc@xmath14n & 3 - 2 f=2 - 1 & 21980.5453 & hnco & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) f=0 - 1 + 7987.994 & hc@xmath14n & 3 - 2 f=3 - 2 & 21981.4706 & hnco & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) f=2 - 1 + 7988.044 & hc@xmath14n & 3 - 2 f=4 - 3 & 21982.0854 & hnco & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) f=1 - 1 + 8135.870 & oh & 21/2 j=5/2 f=2 - 2 & 22079.204 & hc@xmath10n & 38 - 37 + 8189.587 & oh & 21/2 j=5/2 f=3 - 3 & 22235.044 & h@xmath4o & 6(1,6)-5(2,3 ) f=7 - 6 + 8775.088 & ch@xmath9nh@xmath4 & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=1 - 0 aa & 22235.077 & h@xmath4o & 6(1,6)-5(2,3 ) f=6 - 5 + 8777.442 & ch@xmath9nh@xmath4 & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=3 - 2 aa & 22235.120 & h@xmath4o & 6(1,6)-5(2,3 ) f=5 - 4 + 8778.200 & ch@xmath9nh@xmath4 & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=2 - 2 aa & 22235.253 & h@xmath4o & 6(1,6)-5(2,3 ) f=6 - 6 + 8778.260 & ch@xmath9nh@xmath4 & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=1 - 1 aa & 22235.298 & h@xmath4o & 6(1,6)-5(2,3 ) f=5 - 5 + 8779.496 & ch@xmath9nh@xmath4 & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=2 - 1 aa & 22258.173 & cco & 2,1 - 1,0 + 8815.814 & h@xmath19cccn & 1 - 0 f=1 - 1 & 22307.670 & hdo & 5(3,2)-5(3,3 ) + 8817.096 & h@xmath19cccn & 1 - 0 f=2 - 1 & 22344.030 & ccs & 2,1 - 1,0 + 8819.019 & h@xmath19cccn & 1 - 0 f=0 - 1 & 22471.180 & hcooh & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) + 9024.009 & hc@xmath16n & 8 - 7 & 22559.915 & hc@xmath16n & 20 - 19 + 9058.447 & hc@xmath19ccn & 1 - 0 f=1 - 1 & 22624.8892 & 15nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1.5,1 - 1.3,1 + 9059.318 & hcc@xmath19cn & 1 - 0 f=1 - 1 & 22624.9331 & 15nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1.5,1 - 0.8,1 + 9059.736 & hc@xmath19ccn & 1 - 0 f=2 - 1 & 22624.9410 & 15nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=0.5,1 - 0.8,1 + 9060.6080 & hcc@xmath19cn & 1 - 0 f=2 - 1 & 22624.9469 & 15nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1.5,2 - 1.5,2 + 9097.0346 & hcccn & 1 - 0 f=1 - 1 & 22639.3 & unidentified & + 9098.3321 & hcccn & 1 - 0 f=2 - 1 & 22644.3 & unidentified & + 9100.2727 & hcccn & 1 - 0 f=0 - 1 & 22649.843 & 15nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) + 9118.823 & ch@xmath9och@xmath9 & 2(0,2)-1(1,1 ) aa & 22653.022 & nh@xmath9 & 5(4)-5(4 ) + 9119.671 & ch@xmath9och@xmath9 & 2(0,2)-1(1,1 ) ee & 22660.225 & hc@xmath10n & 39 - 38 + 9120.509 & ch@xmath9och@xmath9 & 2(0,2)-1(1,1 ) ae & 22678.6 & unidentified & + 9120.527 & ch@xmath9och@xmath9 & 2(0,2)-1(1,1 ) ea & 22688.312 & nh@xmath9 & 4(3)-4(3 ) + 9235.119 & nh@xmath4cho & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) f=3 - 3 & 22732.429 & nh@xmath9 & 6(5)-6(5 ) + 9237.034 & nh@xmath4cho & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) f=4 - 4 & 22789.421 & 15nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) + 9237.704 & nh@xmath4cho & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) f=2 - 2 & 22827.741 & ch@xmath9ocho & 2(1,2)-1(1,1 ) e + 9486.71 & unidentified & & 22828.134 & ch@xmath9ocho & 2(1,2)-1(1,1 ) a + 9493.061 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 1/2 f=1 - 0 & 22834.1851 & nh@xmath9 & 3(2)-3(2 ) + 9496.4 & unidentified & & 22878.949 & dc5n & 9 - 8 + 9497.616 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 1/2 f=2 - 1 & 22924.940 & nh@xmath9 & 7(6)-7(6 ) + 9508.005 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 1/2 f=1 - 1 & 23046.0158 & 15nh@xmath9 & 4(4)-4(4 ) + 9547.953 & c@xmath8h & 1/2 - 1/2 f=1 - 0 & 23098.8190 & nh@xmath9 & 2(1)-2(1 ) + 9551.717 & c@xmath8h & 1/2 - 1/2 f=0 - 1 & 23121.024 & ch@xmath9oh & 9(2,7)-10(1,10 ) a+ + 9562.904 & c@xmath8h & 1/2 - 1/2 f=1 - 1 & 23122.983 & cccs & 4 - 3 + 9703.508 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=3.5 - 2.5 f=4 - 3 e & 23142.2 & unidentified & + 9703.600 & c@xmath18h & 23/2
j=3.5 - 2.5 f=3 - 2 e & 23228.0 & unidentified & + 9703.835 & c@xmath18h & 23/2
j=3.5 - 2.5 f=4 - 3 f & 23232.238 & nh@xmath9 & 8(7)-8(7 ) + 9703.936 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=3.5 - 2.5 f=3 - 2 f & 23241.246 & hc@xmath10n & 40 - 39 + 9877.606 & hc@xmath10n & 17 - 16 & 23421.9823 & 15nh@xmath9 & 5(5)-5(5 ) + 9885.89 & cccn & 1 - 0 j=3/2 - 1/2 f=5/2 - 3/2 & 23444.778 & ch@xmath9oh & 10(1,9)-9(2,8 ) a- + 9936.202 & ch@xmath9oh & 9(-1,9)-8(-2,7 ) e & 23565.160 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=17/2 - 15/2 f=9 - 8
e + 9978.686 & ch@xmath9oh & 4(3,2)-5(2,3 ) e & 23565.226 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=17/2 - 15/2 f=8 - 7 e + 10058.257 & ch@xmath9oh & 4(3,1)-5(2,4 ) e & 23567.169 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=17/2 - 15/2 f=9 - 8
f + 10152.008 & hc@xmath16n & 9 - 8 & 23567.238 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=17/2 - 15/2 f=8 - 7 f + 10278.246 & hdo & 2(2,0)-2(2,1 ) & 23600.242 & sic2 & 1(0,1)-0(0,0 ) + 10458.639 & hc@xmath10n & 18 - 17 & 23657.471 & nh@xmath9 & 9(8)-9(8 ) + 10463.962 & h@xmath4cs & 4(1,3)-4(1,4 ) & 23687.898 & hc@xmath16n & 21 - 20 + 10648.419 & ch@xmath9cho & 4(1,3 ) - 4(1,4 ) a-+ & 23692.9265 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1/2,1 - 1/2,0 + 10650.563 & hc@xmath14n & 4 - 3 f=3 - 2 & 23692.9688 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,1 - 1/2,0 + 10650.654 & hc@xmath14n & 4 - 3 f=4 - 3 & 23693.8722 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1/2,1 - 3/2,2 + 10650.686 & hc@xmath14n & 4 - 3 f=5 - 4 & 23693.9051 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,1 - 5/2,2 + 11119.445 & ccs & 1,0 - 0,1 & 23693.9145 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,1 - 3/2,2 + 11280.006 & hc@xmath16n & 10 - 9 & 23694.4591 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1/2,1 - 1/2,1 + 11561.513 & cccs & 2 - 1 & 23694.4700 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f ,
f1=1/2,1 - 3/2,1 + 12162.979 & ocs & 1 - 0 & 23694.4709 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,2 - 5/2,2 + 12178.593 & ch@xmath9oh & 2(0,2)-3(-1,3 ) e & 23694.4803 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,2 - 3/2,2 + 12408.003 & hc@xmath16n & 11 - 10 & 23694.5014 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,1 - 1/2,1 + 12782.769 & hc@xmath10n & 22 - 21 & 23694.5060 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=5/2,2 - 5/2,2 + 12848.48 & unidentified & & 23694.5123 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,1 - 3/2,1 + 12848.731 & hc@xmath20n & 38 - 37 & 23694.5153 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=5/2,2 - 3/2,2 + 13043.814 & so & 1(2)-1(1 ) & 23695.0672 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,2 - 3/2,1 + 13116.451 & unidentified & & 23695.0782 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=3/2,2 - 3/2,1 + 13116.569 & unidentified & & 23695.1132 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=5/2,2 - 3/2,1 + 13186.46 & unidentified & & 23696.0297 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1/2,0 - 1/2,1 + 13186.853 & hc@xmath20n & 39 - 38 & 23696.0406 & nh@xmath9 & 1(1)-1(1 ) f , f1=1/2,0 - 3/2,1 + 13186.98 & unidentified & & 23697.9 & unidentified & + 13313.312 & hc@xmath14n & 5 - 4 & 23718.325 & hc13ccccn & 9 - 8 + 13363.801 & hc@xmath10n & 23 - 22 & 23720.575 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=1 - 2 + 13434.596 & oh & 23/2 j=7/2 f=3 - 3 & 23721.336 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=3 - 2 + 13441.4173 & oh & 23/2 j=7/2 f=4 - 4 & 23722.6323 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=2 - 2 + 13535.998 & hc@xmath16n & 12 - 11 & 23722.6336 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=3 - 3 + 13778.804 & h@xmath11co & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) & 23722.6344 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=1 - 1 + 13880.54 & unidentified & & 23723.929 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=2 - 3 + 13944.832 & hc@xmath10n & 24 - 23 & 23724.691 & nh@xmath9 & 2(2)-2(2 ) f1=2 - 1 + 14488.4589 & h@xmath15co & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=1 - 1 & 23727.162 & hcccc13cn & 9 - 8 + 14488.4712 & h@xmath15co & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=1 - 2 & 23804.5 & unidentified & + 14488.4801 & h@xmath15co & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=3 - 3 & 23811.0 & unidentified & + 14488.4899 & h@xmath15co & 2(1,1)-2(1,2 ) f=2 - 2 & 23817.6153 & oh & 23/2 j=9/2 f=4 - 4 + 14525.862 & hc@xmath10n & 25 - 24 & 23822.265 & hc@xmath10n & 41 - 40 + 14663.993 & hc@xmath16n & 13 - 12 & 23826.6211 & oh & 23/2 j=9/2 f=5 - 5 + 14782.212 & 13ch@xmath9oh & 2(0,2)-3(-1,3 ) e & 23867.805 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=2 - 3 + 14812.002 & c - c@xmath9h & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) j=3/2 - 1/2 f=2 - 1 & 23868.450 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=4 - 3 + 14877.671 & c - c@xmath9h & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) j=3/2 - 3/2 f=2 - 1 & 23870.1279 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=3 - 3 + 14893.050 & c - c@xmath9h & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) j=3/2 - 3/2 f=2 - 2 & 23870.1296 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=4 - 4 + 14895.243 & c - c@xmath9h & 1(1,0)-1(1,1 ) j=3/2 - 3/2
f=1 - 1 & 23870.1302 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=2 - 2 + 15106.892 & hc@xmath10n & 26 - 25 & 23871.807 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=3 - 4 + 15248.225 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=11/2 - 9/2 f=6 - 5 f & 23872.453 & nh@xmath9 & 3(3)-3(3 ) f1=3 - 2 + 15248.359 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=11/2 - 9/2 f=5 - 4 f & 23922.3132 & 15nh@xmath9 & 6(6)-6(6 ) + 15249.064 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=11/2 - 9/2 f=6 - 5 e & 23939.089 & hcc13cccn & 9 - 8 + 15249.198 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=11/2 - 9/2 f=5 - 4 e & 23941.99 & hccc13ccn & 9 - 8 + 15687.921 & hc@xmath10n & 27 - 26 & 23959.5 & unidentified & + 15791.986 & hc@xmath16n & 14 - 13 & 23963.901 & hc@xmath14n & 9 - 8 + 15975.966 & hc@xmath14n & 6 - 5 & 23987.5 & unidentified & + 16268.950 & hc@xmath10n & 28 - 27 & 23990.2 & unidentified & + 16849.979 & hc@xmath10n & 29 - 28 & 23996.7 & unidentified & + 16886.312 & dcccn & 2 - 1 f=2 - 1 & 24004.5 & unidentified & + 16886.405 & dc@xmath9n & 2 - 1 f=3 - 2 & 24023.2 & unidentified & + 16919.979 & hc@xmath16n & 15 - 14 & 24037.1 & unidentified & + 17091.742 & ch@xmath9cch & 1(0)-0(0 ) & 24048.5 & unidentified & + 17342.256 & cccs & 3 - 2 & 24139.4169 & nh@xmath9 & 4(4)-4(4 ) + 17431.006 & hc@xmath10n & 30 - 59 & 24205.287 & nh@xmath9 & 10(9)-10(9 ) + 17632.685 & h@xmath19cccn & 2 - 1 f=2 - 2 & 24296.491 & ch@xmath9ocho & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) e + 17633.844 & h@xmath19cccn & 2 - 1 f=3 - 2 & 24298.481 & ch@xmath9ocho & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) a + 17647.479 & c@xmath8d & 5/2 - 3/2 f=5/2 - 3/2 & 24325.927 & ocs & 2 - 1 + 17647.526 & c@xmath8d & 5/2 - 3/2 f=3/2 - 1/2 & 24375.2 & unidentified & + 17647.716 & c@xmath8d & 5/2 - 3/2 f=7/2 - 5/2 & 24428.652 & ch3c@xmath8h & 6(1)-5(1 ) + 17666.995 & hccc15n & 2 - 1 & 24428.886 & ch3c@xmath8h & 6(0)-5(0 ) + 17683.961 & c@xmath8d & 3/2 - 1/2 f=5/2 - 3/2 & 24532.9887 & nh@xmath9 & 5(5)-5(5 ) + 17684.662 & c@xmath8d & 3/2 - 1/2 f=3/2 - 1/2 & 24788.541 & ch3cccn & 6(1)-5(1 ) + 17736.75 & unidentified & & 24788.780 & ch3cccn & 6(0)-5(0 ) + 17788.570 & h@xmath4cccc & 2(1,2)-1(1,1 ) & 24815.878 & hc@xmath16n & 22 - 21 + 17863.803 & h@xmath4cccc & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) & 24928.715 & ch@xmath9oh & 3(2,1)-3(1,2 ) e + 17937.956 & h@xmath4cccc & 2(1,1)-1(1,0 ) & 24933.468 & ch@xmath9oh & 4(2,2)-4(1,3 ) e + 17945.85 & unidentified & & 24934.382 & ch@xmath9oh & 2(2,0)-2(1,1 ) e + 17951.95 & unidentified & & 24959.079 & ch@xmath9oh & 5(2,3)-5(1,4 ) e + 17965.09 & unidentified & & 24984.302 & hc@xmath10n & 43 - 42 + 17974.01 & unidentified & & 24991.19 & sic2 & 8(2,6)-8(2,7 ) + 18012.033 & hc@xmath10n & 31 - 30 & 25018.123 & ch@xmath9oh & 6(2,4)-6(1,5 ) e + 18012.46 & unidentified & & 25023.792 & nh@xmath4d & 4(1,4)-4(0,4 ) + 18017.337 & nh@xmath9 & 7(3)-7(3 ) & 25056.025 & nh@xmath9 & 6(6)-6(6 ) + 18020.574 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=6.5 - 5.5 f=7 - 6 e & 25124.872 & ch@xmath9oh & 7(2,5)-7(1,6 ) e + 18020.644 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=6.5 - 5.5 f=6 - 5 e & 25249.938 & c5n & 21/2 n=9 - 8 j=9.5 - 8.5 + 18021.752 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=6.5 - 5.5 f=7 - 6 f & 25260.649 & c5n & 21/2 n=9 - 8 j=8.5 - 7.5 + 18021.818 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=6.5 - 5.5 f=6 - 5 f & 25294.417 & ch@xmath9oh & 8(2,6)-8(1,7 ) e + 18021.86 & unidentified & & 25329.441 & dc@xmath9n & 3 - 2 + 18047.969 & hc@xmath16n & 16 - 15 & 25421.036 & dc5n & 10 - 9 + 18119.029 & hc@xmath19ccn & 2 - 1 f=2 - 1 & 25541.398 & ch@xmath9oh & 9(2,7)-9(1,8 ) e + 18120.773 & hcc@xmath19cn & 2 - 1 f=2 - 1 & 25715.182 & nh@xmath9 & 7(7)-7(7 ) + 18120.865 & hcc@xmath19cn & 2 - 1 f=3 - 2 & 25878.266 & ch@xmath9oh & 10(2,8)-10(1,9 ) e + 18154.884 & sis & 1 - 0 & 25911.017 & ccs & 2,2 - 1,1 + 18186.652 & c@xmath17h & 23/2 15.5 - 15.5 e & 25943.855 & hc@xmath16n & 23 - 22 + 18186.782 & c@xmath17h & 23/2 15.5 - 15.5 f & 26337.414 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=19/2 - 17/2 f=10 - 9 f + 18194.9206 & hcccn & 2 - 1 f=2 - 2 & 26337.463 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=19/2 - 17/2 f=9 - 8
f + 18195.3176 & hcccn & 2 - 1 f=1 - 0 & 26339.924 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=19/2 - 17/2 f=10 - 9 e + 18196.2183 & hcccn & 2 - 1 f=2 - 1 & 26339.973 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=19/2 - 17/2 f=9 - 8
e + 18196.3119 & hcccn & 2 - 1 f=3 - 2 & 26363.491 & hcccc@xmath19cn & 10 - 9 + 18197.078 & hcccn & 2 - 1 f=1 - 2 & 26450.598 & h@xmath19cccn & 3 - 2 + 18198.3756 & hcccn & 2 - 1 f=1 - 1 & 26500.462 & hccc@xmath21n & 3 - 2 + 18222.65 & unidentified & & 26518.981 & nh@xmath9 & 8(8)-8(8 ) + 18285.434 & nh@xmath9 & 10(7)-10(7 ) & 26602.181 & hccc@xmath19ccn & 10 - 9 + 18294.20 & unidentified & & 26626.533 & hc@xmath14n & 10 - 9 + 18299.5 & unidentified & & 26682.814 & h@xmath4cccc & 3(1,3)-2(1,2 ) + 18306.3 & unidentified & & 26795.635 & h@xmath4cccc & 3(0,3)-2(0,2 ) + 18320.7 & unidentified & & 26847.205 & ch@xmath9oh & 12(2,10)-12(1,11 ) e + 18343.144 & c - c@xmath9h@xmath4 & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) & 26906.891 & h@xmath4cccc & 3(1,2)-2(1,1 ) + 18360.50 & unidentified & & 27071.824 & hc@xmath16n & 24 - 23 + 18363.045 & unidentified & & 27084.348 & c - c@xmath9h@xmath4 & 3(3,0)-3(2,1 ) + 18363.142 & unidentified & & 27178.511 & hc@xmath19ccn & 3 - 2 + 18363.306 & unidentified & & 27181.127 & hcc@xmath19cn & 3 - 2 + 18363.406 & unidentified & & 27292.903 & hcccn & 3 - 2 f=3 - 3 + 18368.0 & unidentified & & 27294.078 & hcccn & 3 - 2 f=2 - 1 + 18379.6 & unidentified & & 27294.295 & hcccn & 3 - 2 f=3 - 2 + 18383.3 & unidentified & & 27294.347 & hcccn & 3 - 2 f=4 - 3 + 18391.562 & nh@xmath9 & 6(1)-6(1 ) & 27296.235 & hcccn & 3 - 2 f=2 - 2 + 18396.7252 & ch@xmath9cn & 1(0)-0(0 ) f=1 - 1 & 27472.501 & ch@xmath9oh & 13(2,11)-13(1,12 ) e + 18397.9965 & ch@xmath9cn & 1(0)-0(0 ) f=2 - 1 & 27477.943 & nh@xmath9 & 9(9)-9(9 ) + 18399.8924 & ch@xmath9cn & 1(0)-0(0 ) f=0 - 1 & 28009.975 & hnccc & 3 - 2 + 18413.822 & c - h13ccch & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) & 28169.437 & ch@xmath9oh & 14(2,12)-14(1,13 ) e + 18422.00 & unidentified & & 28199.804 & hc@xmath16n & 25 - 24 + 18485.07 & unidentified & & 28199.805 & hc@xmath16n & 25 - 24 + 18494.1 & ch3sh & 18(2)-17(3 ) a+ & 28316.031 & ch@xmath9oh & 4(0,4)-3(1,2 ) e + 18499.390 & nh@xmath9 & 9(6)-9(6 ) & 28440.980 & ch@xmath4chcn & 3(0,3)-2(0,2 ) + 18513.316 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(1,2)-1(1,1 ) f=3 - 2 & 28470.391 & hc@xmath10n & 49 - 48 + 18586.06 & unidentified & & 28532.31 & c@xmath8h & 7/2 - 5/2 f=3 - 2 + 18593.060 & hc@xmath10n & 32 - 31 & 28532.46 & c@xmath8h & 7/2 - 5/2 f=4 - 3 + 18638.616 & hc@xmath14n & 7 - 6 & 28542.284 & c@xmath8h & j=5/2 - 5/2 f=3 - 3 + 18650.308 & hcccho & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) & 28571.37 & c@xmath8h & 5/2 - 3/2 f=3 - 2 + 18673.312 & hnccc & 2 - 1 & 28571.53 & c@xmath8h & 5/2 - 3/2 f=2 - 1 + 18698.16 & unidentified & & 28604.737 & nh@xmath9 & 10(10)-10(10 ) + 18729.12 & unidentified & & 28903.688 & cccs & 5 - 4 + 18793.92 & unidentified & & 28905.787 & ch@xmath9oh & 15(2,13)-12(1,14 ) e + 18802.235 & h@xmath4cccccc & 7(1,7)-6(1,6 ) & 28919.931 & ch@xmath9cccn & 7(1)-6(1 ) + 18807.888 & nh@xmath4d & 3(1,3)-3(0,3 ) & 28920.209 & ch@xmath9cccn & 7(0)-6(0 ) + 18808.507 & nh@xmath9 & 8(5)-8(5 ) & 28969.954 & ch@xmath9oh & 8(2,7)-9(1,8 ) a + 18817.66 & unidentified & & 28974.781 & h@xmath15co & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) f=2 - 2 + 18864.65 & unidentified & & 28974.804 & h@xmath15co & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) f=4 - 4 + 18884.695 & nh@xmath9 & 6(2)-6(2 ) & 28974.814 & h@xmath15co & 3(1,2)-3(1,3 ) f=3 - 3 + 18907.54 & unidentified & & 28999.814 & hcccc@xmath19cn & 11 - 10 + 18918.50 & unidentified & & 29051.403 & hc@xmath10n & 50 - 49 + 18961.79 & unidentified & & 29109.644 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 f=11 - 10 f + 18965.588 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=1 - 0 & 29109.66 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 f + 18966.535 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=2 - 1 & 29109.686 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 f=10 - 9 f + 18966.616 & ch@xmath4chcn & 2(0,2)-1(0,1 ) f=3 - 2 & 29112.709 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 f=11 - 10 f + 18968.48 & unidentified & & 29112.73 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 e + 18986.20 & unidentified & & 29112.750 & c@xmath18h & 23/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 f=10 - 9 f + 19014.7204 & c@xmath8h & 5/2 - 3/2 f=2 - 1 & 29138.877 & ch@xmath4chcn & 3(1,2)-2(1,1 ) f=3 - 2 + 19015.1435 & c@xmath8h & 5/2 - 3/2 f=3 - 2 & 29139.215 & ch@xmath4chcn & 3(1,2)-2(1,1 ) f=4 - 3 , 2 - 1 + 19025.107 & c@xmath8h & 5/2 - 3/2 f=2 - 2 & 29258.834 & hcc@xmath19cccn & 11 - 10 + 19039.50 & unidentified & & 29289.159 & hc@xmath14n & 11 - 10 + 19043.0 & unidentified & & 29304.09 & c@xmath18h & 21/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 e + 19044.760 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 1/2 f=1 - 1 & 29310.5 & unidentified & + 19054.4762 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 1/2 f=2 - 1 & 29327.776 & hc@xmath16n & 26 - 25 + 19055.9468 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 1/2 f=1 - 0 & 29332.45 & c@xmath18h & 21/2 j=21/2 - 19/2 f + 19099.656 & c@xmath8h & 3/2 - 3/2 f=1 - 1 & 29333.3 & unidentified & + 19119.764 & c@xmath8h & j=3/2 - 3/2 f=2 - 2 & 29337.57 & hc@xmath14n & 11 - 10 v11=1 = 1c + 19174.086 & hc@xmath10n & 33 - 32 & 29342.0 & unidentified & + 19175.958 & hc@xmath16n & 17 - 16 & 29353.8 & unidentified & + 19218.465 & nh@xmath9 & 7(4)-7(4 ) & 29363.15 & hc@xmath14n & 11 - 10 v11=1
= 1d + 19243.521 & ccco & 2 - 1 & 29365.0 & unidentified & + 19262.140 & ch@xmath9cho & 1(0,1 ) - 0(0,0 ) e & 29477.704 & ccs & 2,3 - 1,2 + 19265.137 & ch@xmath9cho & 1(0,1 ) - 0(0,0 ) a++ & 29632.406 & hc@xmath10n & 51 - 50 + 19316.70 & unidentified & & 29632.413 & hc@xmath10n & 51 - 50 + 19325.20 & unidentified & & 29636.920 & ch@xmath9oh & 16(2,14)-12(1,15 ) e + 19336.10 & unidentified & & 29676.14 & cccn & 3 - 2 j=7/2 - 5/2 f=7/2 - 5/2 + 19361.50 & unidentified & & 29676.28 & cccn & 3 - 2 j=7/2 - 5/2 f=9/2 - 7/2 + 19418.661 & c - c@xmath9hd & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) f=1 - 1 & 29678.882 & @xmath22  so & 1(0)-0(1 ) + 19418.686 & c - c@xmath9hd & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) f=2 - 1 & 29694.99 & cccn & 3 - 2 j=5/2 - 3/2 f=3/2 - 1/2 + 19418.712 & c - c@xmath9hd & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) f=1 - 2 & 29695.14 & cccn & 3 - 2 j=5/2
- 3/2 f=7/2 - 5/2 + 19418.724 & c - c@xmath9hd & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) f=0 - 1 & 29806.963 & hccnc & 3 - 2 + 19418.740 & c - c@xmath9hd & 1(1,0)-1(0,1 ) f=2 - 2 & 29914.486 & nh@xmath9 & 11(11)-11(11 ) +


the simultaneous treatment of disorder and interactions in strongly correlated electron systems has always formed a knotty challenge ; this is because of the dearth of manageable analytical techniques that can deal with disorder and interactions at the same time.@xcite the strongly correlated system of interest in this work is the two - dimensional electron gas ( 2deg ) in a perpendicular magnetic field at landau level filling factor @xmath0 , whose ground state is commonly known as the _ quantum hall ferromagnet_.    the quantum hall ferromagnet is the spin - polarized ground state of the 2deg at @xmath0 in which all electrons completely fill the lowest landau level with spin up polarization .
such configuration minimizes the coulomb energy for fermionic systems . in general , it is a competition between kinetic and coulomb energies , which determines the ground state . in the case of the quantum hall ferromagnet
having @xmath0 the kinetic energy is frozen and does not change with spin flip , thus , the ground state is ferromagnetic , even with zero zeeman splitting .
typically , the zeeman splitting in the gaas heterojunctions turns out to be roughly 70 times smaller than the spacing between landau levels and an order of magnitude smaller than the coulomb energy per particle .
the neutral elementary excitations are spin wave excitations , also called magnons .
the spin waves can be described by the action of the spin lowering operator @xmath1 , projected to the lowest landau level , on the ferromagnetic ground state .
it turns out , that the projected operator creates an exact excited eigenstate of the hamiltonian . in the regime of low momenta ,
the magnon s dispersion is quadratic and the coefficient of the quadratic term represents a phenomenological constant known as the _ spin stiffness_. the spin stiffness provides a measure of the free - energy increment associated with twisting the direction of the spins .
a significant spin stiffness indicates that the system lies in the ferromagnetic phase , while a paramagnetic state corresponds to a vanishing spin stiffness . the spin wave dispersion at very large momenta saturates at a constant value given by the sum of the coulomb and zeeman energies .
thus , at large momenta , the value corresponds to the energy of separate quasiparticle and quasihole excitations .
one approach that has successfully dealt with strongly correlated electron systems is the so - called _ bosonization _ procedure .
bosonization is a non - perturbative approximation scheme that essentially treats the electron - hole excitation , known as _ exciton _
, as a bosonic single - particle ; consequently , a fermionic hamiltonian can be recast into a bosonic one . in 1950 , tomonaga revealed , in a ground - breaking paper,@xcite that the application of the bosonization formalism to a one - dimensional electron gas ( 1deg ) yielded an exactly - solvable hamiltonian .
the reason is that the electron and the hole propagate with nearly the same group velocity in the low - energy region .
however , that is not the case in two dimensions . at a given momentum @xmath2 , the particle - hole pair excitation holds a continuous range of energies .
therefore , it is less straightforward to construct a coherently propagating bosonic entity in two dimensions .
the first attempt to extend the bosonization procedure for higher dimensions was done by luther @xcite and then revised by haldane.@xcite castro neto and fradkin,@xcite as well as houghton and marston,@xcite developed a bosonization technique for a fermi liquid in any number of dimensions . as regards the interacting 2deg subject to an external perpendicular magnetic field , westfahl jr . _ _ et al.__@xcite constructed a formalism that treated the elementary neutral excitations of the system , the _ magnons _ , in a bosonic framework such that the fermionic hamiltonian of the system was transmuted into a quadratic bosonic hamiltonian .
the drawback is that this method is valid in the limit of weak magnetic fields , which amounts to large landau level filling factors @xmath3 .
doretto _ _ et al.__@xcite extended the methodology of westfahl jr . _
_ et al.__@xcite to the case of the 2deg at @xmath0 ( i.e. for a very strong magnetic field ) .
given that the system is now restricted to one landau level , the task greatly simplifies , since the landau level quantum degree of freedom can then be disregarded . projecting the original fermionic interacting hamiltonian of the system into the lowest landau level , which is completely filled ( @xmath0 ) ,
allows one to expand it in magnon states.@xcite it then turns out remarkably that the dispersion relation of the free magnons coincides with the result derived by kallin and halperin@xcite within the fermionic description at the _ random phase approximation _
( rpa ) level and the quartic interacting part of the magnon hamiltonian might be related to the skyrmion - antiskyrmion neutral excitations of the hall ferromagnet.@xcite moreover , in the vicinity of the ground state , without magnon - magnon interactions , magnons behave like bosons .
this allows to treat magnons approximately as bosons in the so - called single - mode approximation .
@xcite here , we intend to calculate a quantum phase transition in the quantum hall ferromagnet driven by disorder , accounting for the coulomb interactions between electrons .
we will use the bosonization technique allied to the usual self - consistent born - approximation for the disorder averaging procedure .    before presenting the results obtained in this paper ,
it is worth getting acquainted with the current status of research related to the field . to begin with
, green @xcite propounded that the vanishing of the renormalized spin stiffness at a threshold value of the disorder strength signifies the occurrence of a depolarization transition from the ferromagnetic phase to a paramagnetic one .
his finding is based upon a previous result established by fogler and shklovskii , @xcite who proffered the same idea in the case of higher landau levels .
green established this proposition in the framework of non - linear sigma model , used as an effective low - energy theory in the regime of weak disorder .
the other quantity that green computed is the disorder contribution to the optical conductivity , which he found to be unmeasurably small .
finally , green established that the quantization of the hall conductivity is not affected by the presence of weak disorder in the system.@xcite    another work was carried out by sinova , macdonald and girvin,@xcite who established the occurrence of a phase transition from the paramagnetic state to the partially - polarized ferromagnetic one and then finally to the fully - polarized ferromagnetic one as the interaction strength increases relative to the disorder strength .
they determined this result by computing the average value of the spin polarization as a function of the interaction strength relative to the disorder strength .
et al.__@xcite did consider coulomb interactions within the framework of the hartree - fock approximation .
moreover , the transition from the paramagnetic phase to the ferromagnetic one was found to take place when the coulomb energy scale is about twice as large as the landau - level - broadening disorder energy scale . as a final point
, the authors inferred that no phase transition can take place in the strong disorder limit .
the last germane paper was published by rapsch , lee and chalker.@xcite they established the occurrence of a phase transition from the ferromagnetic state to the so - called spin glass phase .
this result was obtained by calculating the magnetization , the magnetic susceptibility and the spin stiffness as functions of the disorder strength .
they assumed the disorder potential to be gaussian distributed and described the system in terms of a _ semiclassical _ spin model . in their model , they took into account coulomb interactions within the hartree - fock approximation but modelled them as being short - ranged . like green,@xcite rapsch
_ _ et al.__@xcite computed the disorder contribution to the optical conductivity and found as well that it is undetectable . finally , they calculated the dielectric susceptibility of both the partially - polarized ferromagnetic phase and the spin glass one and they concluded that both regimes display an insulating behavior at low momenta and a metallic behavior at large momenta .
let us now put our work in perspective .
our objective is to establish the behavior of the renormalized spin stiffness as a function of the disorder strength in order to ascertain a potential quantum phase transition driven by disorder to a non - ferromagnetic state . indeed ,
if the spin stiffness vanishes for a critical value of the disorder strength , then this signals an instability in the ferromagnetic phase.@xcite on the other hand , the appearance of an imaginary component of the spin stiffness , which might be interpreted as a spin wave damping,@xcite at a certain disorder strength , might indicate the appearance of localized spin waves and a spin - glass phase transition .
another important characteristic is the pauli susceptibility , which diverges at the point of the phase transition from a non - ferromagnetic to a ferromagnetic state , indicating spontaneous magnetization .
we consider a fully _ quantum _ model , include a short - range weak disorder potential up to the @xmath4 order born approximation and treat the true _ long - range coulomb _
interactions up to the rpa level .
the method that we employ consists of five steps .
first of all , a bosonized expression of the total hamiltonian , which includes a contribution from disorder , is sought for .
the dispersion relation of the free bosons corresponds to the one computed by macdonald _
_ @xcite and more explicitly by doretto _ et al._,@xcite which entails interactions between electrons up to the rpa level .
the second step consists in obtaining the full green s function , and precisely its disorder self - average . in our case , because the impurities are randomly distributed throughout the system , the disorder self - average can also be taken by averaging over the impurity positions .
the third stage is then to determine the self - energy of that disorder self - averaged green s function through the use of the dyson s equation .
the self - energy is determined in the low - impurity density and weak disorder scattering approximations . as a result
, the self - energy corresponds to a single diagram with one propagator line and two disorder potential lines .
the propagator line is evaluated within two further possible approximations : the bare approximation , which consists in using the bare bosonic propagator , and the self - consistent approximation , which uses instead the full disorder self - averaged green s function .
one must bear in mind that both propagators take into account interactions between electrons up to the rpa level .
furthermore , the bare approximation is first taken in the long wavelength limit , which keeps the lowest order terms in momenta , and then in the general case , where all the momenta terms are taken into account .
the fourth step consists in obtaining the renormalized dispersion in these approximations : bare and self - consistent approximations .
the final stage is then to determine the spin stiffness in the approximations by taking the coefficient of the quadratic term in the renormalized dispersion .
it is found that a naive extrapolation of the bare approximation to the regime of finite disorder strength predicts vanishing of the renormalized spin stiffness at a certain disorder strength @xmath5 , indicating a paramagnetic phase transition .
a more realistic self - consistent approximation , however , predicts even faster decrease of the renormalized spin stiffness with growing disorder strength up to a certain critical value @xmath6 of the disorder . at this point
, the renormalized spin stiffness drastically changes its behavior : it becomes nonanalytic , acquires an imaginary part , and the real part saturates at a certain positive value without reaching zero . such nonanalytic behavior can not be accessed by any finite number of perturbative corrections .
in addition , our calculations show a strong indication that the pauli susceptibility also diverges at the same critical point @xmath6 , suggesting a phase transition , presumably to a spin glass phase .
the outline of this paper is the following : in section ii we present the model and in section iii we derive the expression for the self - energy .
then , we first solve the problem using the bare green s function in section iv .
we present our numerical and analytical results for the self - consistent solution of the dyson equations in section v and draw our conclusions in section vi .
the 2deg in the presence of both a perpendicular magnetic field ( @xmath7 ) at @xmath0 and disorder is described by the fermionic hamiltonian @xmath8 , with @xmath9 and @xmath10 here , @xmath11 and @xmath12 are , respectively , the fermionic creation and annihilation operators in coordinate space , @xmath13 denotes the effective mass of the electron , @xmath14 is the vector potential , @xmath15 stands for the effective land @xmath16-factor and @xmath17 is the bohr magneton .
in addition , @xmath18 denotes the coulomb potential , with @xmath19 being the dielectric constant of the host semiconductor , and @xmath20 stands for the impurity potential , with @xmath21 being the random position of an impurity .
the first step consists in obtaining a @xmath4 quantized version of the magnon hamiltonian of the system . in our model
we consider only single magnon processes , which allow us to use a bosonic description .
it was shown in ref .
[ ] that the bosonized hamiltonian of the system in the absence of disorder is ( neglecting a constant term ) @xmath22 where @xmath23 and @xmath24 are , respectively , the bosonic creation and annihilation operators in @xmath25 space and the bosonic dispersion relation is given by @xmath26.\ ] ] here , @xmath27 stands for the coulomb energy scale ( @xmath28 being the magnetic length ) , @xmath29 denotes the modified bessel function of the first kind , and @xmath30 .
it must be stressed that although the interaction between magnons is omitted from the discussion , the coulomb interaction between electrons up to rpa level is taken into account by the bosonic dispersion relation @xmath31.@xcite    we now focus on the impurity part of the hamiltonian .
we begin with the fermionic expression of the @xmath4 quantized impurity hamiltonian , @xmath32 here , @xmath33 denotes the fourier transformed density function @xmath34 for the impurities and @xmath35 and @xmath36 are , respectively , the fermionic creation and annihilation operators in @xmath25 space . in order to obtain the bosonic form of the above
, the fourier - transformed electronic density operator must be used .
it is given by @xmath37 the electronic field operators are related to the single - electron operators by @xmath38 where @xmath39 is the area of the system . substituting the above back into eq.([arshavin1 ] ) gives @xmath40 then , substituting eq .
( [ eq7 ] ) back into eq.([arshavin2 ] ) yields @xmath41 the bosonized version of the electron density operator reads @xcite @xmath42 where @xmath43 is the landau level degeneracy and @xmath44 .
the disorder hamiltonian then becomes @xmath45.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the constant term @xmath46 is now omitted since the quantity of interest is the green s function .
the bosonized impurity hamiltonian is then finally written as @xmath47 where @xmath48    labelling @xmath49 the full bosonized hamiltonian of the quantum hall ferromagnet in the presence of impurities is then expressed as @xmath50    let us now say a few words on the dimensions of the disorder potential .
there are two sources of disorder present in the system : impurities positioned at a certain distance away from the 2deg and impurities present in the 2deg . in the case of gaas heterostructures , @xcite most of the disorder potential
is spawned by the coulomb interaction between the electrons and the impurities located away from the 2deg .
these impurities correspond to ionized donor atoms situated in the @xmath51-type region , which itself is detached from the 2deg by an insulating layer of thickness @xmath52 . in the present calculations
, the disorder potential will be taken as an effective two - dimensional potential .
having obtained the bosonized hamiltonian in the presence of impurities , one is now able to determine the expression for the self - energy .
in the same spirit as ref [ ] , one first looks for the green s function , @xmath53 | 0 \rangle.\ ] ] here , @xmath54 stands for the bosonic vacuum state , which is none other than the quantum hall ferromagnet : i.e. @xmath55 .
thus , one has @xmath56b^{\dagger}_{\textbf{p } ' } ( 0 ) \right ] | 0 \rangle , \ ] ] where @xmath57 is the time ordering operator .
now , using eq.([arda1 ] ) , one easily finds that @xmath58 = \omega_{\textbf{p } } b_{\textbf{p } } ( t ) + \sum_{\textbf{q } } u^{e } ( \textbf{q } , \textbf{p } - \textbf{q } ) g_{\textbf{q } } b_{\textbf{p } - \textbf{q } } ( t),\ ] ] such that one obtains for the second term in eq.([arda2 ] ) @xmath59b^{\dagger}_{\textbf{p } ' } ( 0 ) \right ] | 0 \rangle = \omega_{\textbf{p } } g ( \textbf{p } ' , \textbf{p};t ) \\ & + \sum_{\textbf{q } } u^{e}(\textbf{q } , \textbf{p } - \textbf{q } ) g_{\textbf{q } } g ( \textbf{p } ' , \textbf{p } - \textbf{q};t).\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence , the equation of motion of @xmath60 is written as @xmath61    the zero - order approximation to the solution of eq.([arda2bis ] ) yields @xmath62 where @xmath63 stands for the bare bosonic green s function .
we now look for the expression for @xmath63 .
firstly , one needs to find the heisenberg bosonic operator in the absence of the disorder potential .
starting with @xmath64 = \omega_{\textbf{p } } b_{\textbf{p } } ( t ) $ ] , one then obtains @xmath65 . therefore , for the case @xmath66 , the free green s function is @xmath67 whereas for @xmath68 , it turns out to be @xmath69 this solution is indeed identical to the electronic one .
now , the cynosure is on the generic solution of the differential equation ( [ arda2bis ] ) . by coupling the latter with the boundary equation ( [ arda3 ] ) yields the integral equation @xmath70 by fourier - transforming the time in eq . to frequency and shifting @xmath71 one finds @xmath72 here , the bare green s function reads @xmath73 where @xmath74 and @xmath75 is given by eq .. in the same way as for fermions , the solution of eq.([arda5 ] ) is obtained by iteration .
one gets the so - called _ born series _ : @xmath76 where @xmath77 and for @xmath78 , @xmath79 expansion of eq.([saqibismyfriend1 ] ) then yields    @xmath80    due to disorder self - averaging in the limit of very large number of impurities @xmath81 , with constant density @xmath82 , the full bosonic one - particle green s function approaches its average value @xmath83 which is @xmath84 in the thermodynamic limit @xmath85 : @xmath86 moreover , one has @xmath87 substituting eqs . and eq.([firstorder ] ) into the expression for @xmath88 shows that the translational invariance is recovered after the averaging @xmath89 , where @xmath90 therefore , there is no @xmath91 order born scattering contribution to the bosonic self - energy .
moreover , it is possible to show that all odd order contributions to the self - energy vanish ( see appendix a ) .
this result is expressed diagrammatically in fig.[diaag9 ] .
it was shown@xcite that the disorder averaged green s function can also be expressed as @xmath92    hence , the self - energy must now be computed .
the low - density weak scattering approximation will be used throughout the calculations .
low density means that the number of disorder atoms present in the system is taken to be much lower than the number of electrons , while the weak - scattering approximation signifies that the scattering potential induced by a given impurity atom is weak , such that only the first and second - order born scatterings are accounted for .
the problem then reduces to solving the diagrammatic expression shown in fig.[diaag10 ] .
the self - energy can be evaluated in two different manners : 1 ) the bare approximation that uses the bare propagator @xmath93 and 2 ) the self - consistent approximation that uses the full disorder self - averaged green s function @xmath94 . therefore , for generality we will use the propagator @xmath95 , which is going to be specified further for each particular case .
this yields algebraically    @xmath96    where eq.([qzdr1 ] ) was substituted in the second line .    in this work , the impurity potential is assumed to be short - range , i.e. @xmath97 .
an uniform potential in momentum space is attained from a delta function interaction in real space , @xmath98 ( such that @xmath99 ) .
thus , this model assumes that the bosons ( and therefore the electrons ) collide directly with the impurity atoms that constitute the effective disorder potential ; in reality , most of the impurities are located away from the 2deg .
thus , one has @xmath100 g ( \textbf{q } , \omega ) \left [ 2 i e^{- |\ell ( \textbf{p } - \textbf{q})|^2 / 4 } \sin \left ( \frac{(\textbf{p } - \textbf{q } ) \wedge \textbf{q}}{2 } \right ) \right ] \\ & = 4 n_{\rm imp } \left ( \frac{u}{a } \right)^2   \sum_{\textbf{q } } e^{- |\ell ( \textbf{q } - \textbf{p})|^2 / 2 } \sin ^2 \left ( \frac{\textbf{q } \wedge \textbf{p}}{2 } \right ) g ( \textbf{q } , \omega ) .
\end{split}\label{fghw1}\ ] ] one then expands the argument of the exponential : @xmath101 here , @xmath102 denotes the angle between vectors @xmath25 and @xmath103 .
furthermore , the summation is transmuted into an integration through the use of the formula , @xmath104 the angle @xmath105 is taken arbitrarily on the plane containing the vector @xmath25 , therefore , one is free to set @xmath106 .
the sine squared term in eq.([fghw1 ] ) can be re - written as @xmath107 / 2 = [ 1 - \cos ( \ell^2 q p \sin \phi ) ] / 2 $ ] .
we also assume rotation invariance of the green s function @xmath108 .
hence , the self - energy is also rotation invariant and can be expressed as @xmath109,\ ] ] where @xmath110 stands for the impurity density . after a straightforward calculation ( see appendix b ) , we find @xmath111.\ ] ] rescaling the momenta by @xmath112 simplifies the self - energy to @xmath113 g ( q , \omega ) , \ ] ] where the various pre - factors , including the disorder potential strength and the impurity density , can be re - grouped into a single convenient parameter : @xmath114 which will be dubbed the _
disorder strength_. thus , @xmath115 is a dimensionless parameter that measures the disorder interaction strength relative to the coulomb interaction , @xmath116 .
the above self - energy expression will be evaluated in two different ways : i ) first order corrections in @xmath115 and ii ) self- consistently .      in the bare approximation
the self - energy ( [ fghw4 ] ) becomes @xmath117 g^0 ( q , \omega ) .\ ] ] after substituting eq.([berbatovatmanutd1 ] ) into the above , we obtain @xmath118 making use of the identity ( for @xmath74 ) , @xmath119 we find the real and imaginary parts of the self - energy @xmath120 \pi \delta ( \omega - \omega_{q } ) .
\label{saaidismybro2bisbis}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the above equations can be evaluated analytically in the long wavelength approximation , which is done in appendix c. here , one uses the complete bosonic dispersion relation given by eq .. as a result , one can only solve the imaginary self - energy numerically ; that task is not performed here .
we concentrate , instead , on the real part .
the renormalized energy of the bosons ( including the disorder contribution ) is obtained by looking at the poles of the full disorder self - averaged green s function in eq
. , @xmath121 , such that the renormalized dispersion relation is determined from eq.([saaidismybro2 ] ) : @xmath122   + \frac{u}{4 } \epsilon_b^2 e^{-p^2 / 2 } \mathcal{p } \int^{\infty}_0 { \mathrm{d}}q \ q e^{-q^2 / 2 } \frac{i_0 ( q p ) -1}{\omega - \left [ g + \epsilon_b \left ( 1 - e^{- q^2 / 4 } i_0 \left ( \frac{q^2}{4 } \right ) \right ) \right ] } .\ ] ] the corresponding plot is illustrated on fig.[scottmurray3](a ) .
one can notice that at not too large momenta ( i.e. near @xmath123 ) there exists already a substantial difference between the bare ( long wavelength ) and bare ( full @xmath2 ) approximations .
approximation ( blue ) , in units of the coulomb energy @xmath124 , contrasted with the one in the bare long wavelength approximation ( red ) , both as functions of the momentum @xmath125 and at @xmath126 .
( b ) renormalized spin stiffness in the bare full @xmath2 approximation ( blue ) and in the bare long wavelength approximation ( red ) .
notice that using the bare green s function @xmath127 we find a transition from a ferromagnetic to a paramagnetic phase , whereas using @xmath128 in the self - consistent approximation we find a transition into a spin glass phase ( see next section).,title="fig : " ]   approximation ( blue ) , in units of the coulomb energy @xmath124 , contrasted with the one in the bare long wavelength approximation ( red ) , both as functions of the momentum @xmath125 and at @xmath126 .
( b ) renormalized spin stiffness in the bare full @xmath2 approximation ( blue ) and in the bare long wavelength approximation ( red ) .
notice that using the bare green s function @xmath127 we find a transition from a ferromagnetic to a paramagnetic phase , whereas using @xmath128 in the self - consistent approximation we find a transition into a spin glass phase ( see next section).,title="fig : " ]    now , the renormalized spin stiffness is sought for . for the sake of convenience , one begins by introducing the variables @xmath129 and re - writing eq.([kirilishere1 ] ) as @xmath130 } .\ ] ] one then expands the above in powers of p , @xmath131 } , \end{split}\ ] ] and one takes only the @xmath132 terms , @xmath133 }   + \ldots \\ & = \frac{p^2}{4 } \left[1 - \frac{u}{4 } ( 5.72 ) \right ] + \dots \end{split}\ ] ] the renormalized spin stiffness then reads @xmath134 eq.([mainbare ] ) is the main result of this section .
the above expression was derived in the bare approximation , which takes into account only the lowest order corrections in @xmath115 .
such assumption is only true in the realm of weak - disorder scattering.@xcite it can be seen that the renormalized spin stiffness decreases linearly in this approximation .
a naive extrapolation of this dependence to the region of finite and strong disorder strength shows that there is a certain value @xmath135 , for which the renormalized spin stiffness vanishes ( in the long wavelength approximation @xmath136 ) , see fig.[scottmurray3](b ) .
green @xcite explains that a vanishing renormalized spin stiffness at a threshold disorder strength means that the 2deg at @xmath0 undergoes a quantum phase transition from a ferromagnetic state to a paramagnetic one .
thus , one can infer that the quantum hall ferromagnet undergoes a disorder - driven quantum phase transition to a paramagnetic state at critical disorder strength @xmath137 .
it is also interesting to remark that green established this general finding in the domain of the weak disorder limit ( though in the context of a different model ) .
the results obtained in this section can not be directly compared quantitatively with those of green @xcite , sinova _ et al .
_ @xcite and rapsch _ et al .
_ @xcite in addition to the fact that the model used in the studies of green is different , he does not complement his proposition on the vanishing of the renormalized spin stiffness with some quantitative results .
sinova _ _ et al.__@xcite use a disparate variable in the ratio of the interaction strength to the landau - level broadening disorder energy scale .
finally , rapsch _ _ et al.__@xcite perform their numerical calculations on a semiclassical spin model .    in the next section
we evaluate the self - energy using the so - called self - consistent approximation and show that the renormalized spin stiffness drastically changes its behavior , which leads to completely different conclusions about the phase transition .
the self - consistent approximation means that the self - energy is evaluated with the total disorder averaged green s function ( [ berabatamanutd4 ] ) instead of the bare one .
therefore , one has ( see eq.([fghw4 ] ) ) @xmath138 \langle g_u ( q , \omega ) \rangle_{\rm imp},\ ] ] now , by referring to the computations carried out in the previous section and substituting eq.([berabatamanutd4 ] ) , one gets @xmath139 using that @xmath140 one has @xmath141 thus , one can write @xmath142 with @xmath143 using such expansion allows one to promptly get a numerical solution by iterations ( see fig.[diaag11 ] ) .    the convergence of the iterative solution is rather good up to some value of the disorder concentration @xmath6 .
however , when @xmath144 , we find that @xmath145 .
therefore , it would be desirable to derive an analytical solution in the neighborhood of @xmath6 . for convenience , we omit the arguments of @xmath146 in our notation in the next part . in general , @xmath147 or equivalently
@xmath148    introducing for simplicity @xmath149
^ 2}\ ] ] one finds @xmath150 introducing a matrix notation @xmath151 eq . reads @xmath152 its solution is found by computing the inverse matrix to eq . and has the form @xmath153 substituting this result into @xmath154 yields @xmath155 where @xmath156 with @xmath157 and @xmath158 where @xmath159 ^ 3}.\ ] ] suppose that @xmath160 when @xmath161 . in this case
@xmath162 remains finite , as well as @xmath163 .
this suggests that @xmath164 when @xmath165 , since the other terms are finite . moreover , if @xmath163 is a smooth function around @xmath6 , such that @xmath166 for some @xmath167 from the neighborhood of @xmath6 , then according to eq .
there holds @xmath168=\sqrt{\kappa(u_c)(u_c - u)}+{\cal o}(u_c - u).\ ] ] it follows then from eq . that @xmath169 ^ 2/\kappa(u_0)$ ] as long as @xmath170
. however , the analysis of the infinite dimensional matrix @xmath171 and its determinant is quite complicated , which forces us to use an approximate solution , where we keep only the first @xmath172 terms in the expansion , thus reducing the dimension of the matrices to @xmath173 . in the absence of zeeman splitting ( @xmath174 ) ,
for @xmath175 , and @xmath176 one finds , setting @xmath177 , that @xmath178=0.0551776 $ ] and @xmath179 , which yields @xmath180 in excellent agreement with the numerical solution .
the approximation also allows to check the validity of eq . , which yields @xmath181 at the point @xmath176 ( here the prime stands for the partial derivative with respect to @xmath115 ) .
on the other hand , the numerical solution for the two points @xmath176 and @xmath182 yields @xmath183 , which agrees reasonably well with the previous result .
the main difference stems from the fact that @xmath176 is rather close to the critical point @xmath6 , where the derivative diverges , so the value @xmath184 is still rather large and , of course , computational errors and approximation with finite number of terms make the result not very precise .
furthermore , it follows from eq . that @xmath185 remains finite with @xmath165 .
thus , @xmath186\sigma'_n(u_0)}{\sqrt{\kappa(u_0)}}\int^{u}_{u_0 } { \mathrm{d}}v(u_c - v)^{-1/2},\end{aligned}\ ] ] which leads to @xmath187\frac{\det[b(u)]}{\det[b(u_0)]}\ ] ] after performing the integration , where @xmath188 . from this analytic solution
one may observe that @xmath146 and , consequently , @xmath189 acquires an imaginary part when @xmath190 .
in particular , considering @xmath191 , for the case at hand @xmath192 and @xmath193 . defining @xmath194}{\sqrt{\kappa(u)}},\ ] ] the value of @xmath195 can be evaluated without any fitting parameters directly from eqs . and , which yields @xmath196 .
it follows directly from the above that the renormalized spin stiffness now obeys @xmath197 where @xmath198 .
both numerical and analytic results for @xmath199 are plotted in fig.[scottmurray5 ] , which shows that the analytic solution remains in excellent agreement with the numerical one even for those values of @xmath115 , which are far from the critical point @xmath6 .
the whole behavior of the renormalized spin stiffness is very similar to the one obtained by chalker
_ et al._,@xcite describing a spin glass phase transition .
moreover , such dependence of the renormalized spin stiffness as a square root function of a control parameter was already observed previously by shender,@xcite as well as by avgin _
_ et al.__@xcite they considered the two- and tree- dimensional @xmath200 heisenberg spin glass model in a ferromagnetic ground state due to a strong external magnetic field .
they found that for a certain value of the control parameter , @xmath199 acquires an imaginary part .
the real part of @xmath199 is proportional to the spin wave stiffness , whereas the imaginary part is proportional to the damping of the spin wave excitations , thus signalling localization .
it was argued that when the frequency of the spin - wave excitation @xmath201 multiplied by its lifetime @xmath202 is @xmath203/{\rm im}[\rho_s(u)]<1 $ ] , then the spin waves are completely localized . as we can see from the fig.[scottmurray5 ] , the condition of localization is already satisfied for the values of the disorder strength starting from @xmath204 .
the calculations presented in the appendix d contain a strong indication that the pauli susceptibility diverge at the point @xmath205 , suggesting a phase transition from a ferromagnetic ground state to a spin glass state,@xcite since the spin waves become localized .
our discussion was mainly concerned with the static case @xmath175 .
however , our approach allows to find @xmath206 for any given @xmath201 .
the dispersion spectrum in the self - consistent approximation then satisfies @xmath207 .     as functions of the disorder strength @xmath115 .
( square - analytic solution , star - numerical ) ]
this paper accounts for the presence of both disorder and interactions in a 2deg at landau level filling factor @xmath0 , whose ground state constitutes the well - known quantum hall ferromagnet . the bosonization technique developed by doretto
@xcite was employed in order to facilitate the treatment of both disorder and interactions in this strongly correlated system .
the bosonization procedure consists in treating the spin wave ( magnon ) excitation as a boson such that the fermionic hamiltonian of the system can be approximately recast into a hamiltonian expressed in terms of bosonic operators . as a consequence
, the interaction between electrons up to rpa level was incorporated within the bare propagator that represents the free boson .
the intent was then to identify a disorder - driven quantum phase transition to a non - ferromagnetic state by analyzing the behavior of the renormalized spin stiffness as a function of the disorder strength , which itself corresponds to the ratio squared of the disorder energy scale to the coulomb energy one . to achieve this aim ,
firstly , we derived the bosonic expression for the hamiltonian of the system . in the second stage ,
the focus was on seeking out the disorder self - averaged green s function , which is the full bosonic green s function averaged over the impurity positions .
then , by using the dyson s equation , we obtained a diagrammatic representation of the self - energy .
the latter was subsequently computed within the framework of the low - density weak - scattering approximation .
low density means that the number of disorder atoms present in the system is taken to be much lower than the number of electrons , while the weak - scattering approximation signifies that the scattering potential induced by a given impurity atom is weak , such that only the first and second - order born scatterings are accounted for . as a result , the self - energy corresponded to a single diagram .
furthermore , the self - energy was evaluated in three different approximations : 1 ) the bare ( long wavelength ) approximation , which consists in using the bare bosonic propagator and keeping the lowest order terms in momenta , 2 ) the bare ( full @xmath2 ) approximation , which uses as well the bare bosonic propagator but with all the momenta terms kept in the calculation and , finally , 3 ) the self - consistent approximation , which uses the full disorder averaged green s function instead of the bare one in the self - energy diagram .
then , the renormalized spin stiffness was determined by extracting the coefficient of the quadratic term in the dispersion relation together with the contribution from the self - energy . in the case of the bare ( long wavelength ) approximation ,
the spin stiffness was found to vanish linearly at the disorder strength @xmath136 .
for the bare ( full @xmath2 ) scheme , the spin stiffness also vanished linearly , but at the disorder strength @xmath137 .
these results suggest the occurrence of a disorder - driven quantum phase transition from the ferromagnetic phase to a paramagnetic one at the critical value @xmath137 .
lastly , the self - consistent calculation revealed a completely different behavior : the real part of the renormalized spin stiffness also initially decreases with increasing the disorder strength @xmath115 , but then it saturates without reaching zero beyond a critical value @xmath6 , at which it ( and the self - energy ) acquires an imaginary component .
according to the shender criterium,@xcite the spin waves become completely localized when the imaginary part of the renormalized spin stiffness becomes larger than the real part , which occurs in our system for @xmath208 ( see fig.[scottmurray5 ] ) .
the physical mechanism behind a phase transition from the ferromagnetic ground state can be understood by considering electrons completely filling the lowest landau level ( @xmath0 ) in the presence of some inhomogeneous electrostatic background ( disorder ) .
then , for sufficiently strong impurity potential , by adjusting the electron density to the electrostatic background , the system would gain more energy than is needed to rearrange the spin configuration . in this case
the ferromagnetic state does not minimize the total energy of the system and a phase transition should take place . this quantum phase transition could be detected by calculating the behavior of the magnetic susceptibility as a function of the disorder strength .
a sharp peak is anticipated at the transition point .
in particular , if the energy cost for exciting a spin wave is less than the gain in the electrostatic energy , then the renormalized spin stiffness becomes negative and the system undergoes a phase transition to a paramagnetic state with zero local magnetization .
on the other hand , as it was argued by rapsch _
et al . _ , @xcite in the case of a smoothly varying impurity potential , keeping nonzero local magnetization is still energetically favorable and the electrostatic energy is lowered by screening the impurity potential due to the formation of spin textures . at strong disorder
such phase would correspond to a spin glass and the spin textures might be considered as the localized spin waves .
thus , the character of the phase transition might depend on the nature of the disorder .
the calculations performed within our model indicate that the pauli susceptibility diverges at the same critical point of the disorder strength @xmath6 , where an imaginary part of the renormalized spin stiffness appears , thus suggesting a phase transition to a spin glass phase .
our approach can be extended for the case of bilayer systems in the presence of disorder .
in fact , fertig and murthy @xcite have already considered such systems .
thus , it would be interesting to apply our formalism to the case of a bilayer system with the total filling factor @xmath209 and compare the results .
we acknowledge insightful discussions with t.  giamarchi and l.cugliandolo .
we also would like to thank r.  l.  doretto for proposing us this interesting problem .
this work was partially supported by the netherlands organization for scientific research ( nwo ) .
let us now evaluate the @xmath210 order diagram contribution to the self - energy .
its diagrammatic representation is shown in fig .
6.algebraically , we have @xmath211    [ diaag12 ]    here again , the impurity potential is short - range @xmath212 . by replacing all the functions defined previously , we find @xmath213 g ( \textbf{q } , \omega ) \\ & \qquad \times \left [ 2 i e^{- |\ell ( \textbf{q } ' - \textbf{q})|^2 / 4 } \sin \left ( \frac{(\textbf{q } ' - \textbf{q } ) \wedge \textbf{q}}{2 } \right ) \right ] g ( \textbf{q } ' , \omega ) \left [ 2 i e^{- |\ell ( \textbf{p } - \textbf{q}')|^2 / 4 } \sin \left ( \frac{(\textbf{p } - \textbf{q } ' ) \wedge \textbf{q}'}{2 } \right ) \right ] \\ & = n_{\rm imp } \sum_{\textbf{q } , \textbf{q } ' } \left ( \frac{u}{a } \right)^3   ( 2 i)^3 \underset{\textbf{term a}}{\underbrace { e^{-    \textbf{q}')|^2 / 4 } e^{- |\ell ( \textbf{q } ' - \textbf{q})|^2 / 4 } } } \underset{\textbf{term b}}{\underbrace{\sin \left ( \frac{\textbf{q }
\wedge \textbf{p}}{2 } \right )   \sin \left ( \frac{\textbf{p }
\wedge \textbf{q}'}{2 } \right ) } } \\ & \qquad \times \underset{\textbf{term c}}{\underbrace { \sin \left ( \frac{\textbf{q } ' \wedge \textbf{q}}{2 } \right ) } } g ( \textbf{q } , \omega ) g ( \textbf{q } ' , \omega ) .
\end{split}\ ] ] it is clear that terms a and b are symmetric under the interchange @xmath214 while term c is antisymmetric .
thus , one has @xmath215 this result holds true in both the full bare and self - consistent approximations .    as a matter of fact ,
due to the antisymmetric property of the wedge product within the sine term , it turns out that all odd order terms vanish .
we prove here the expressions and .
we begin with the expression of the self - energy given by eq.([fghw2 ] ) @xmath216 . \label{a1}\ ] ] one first deals with the polar integral , @xmath217 = \frac{1}{2 } \int^{2 \pi}_0 \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\phi } { 2 \pi } \
e^{\ell^2 q p \cos \phi } - \frac{1}{2 }   \int^{2 \pi}_0 \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\phi } { 2 \pi } \
e^{\ell^2 q p \cos \phi } \cos ( \ell^2 q p \sin \phi).\ ] ] the two terms are evaluated separately .
for the first term , one must note that @xcite @xmath218 such that @xmath219 the second term @xmath220= \frac{1}{2}\ ] ] substituting eqs.([ghigbigb1 ] ) and ( [ ghigbigb2 ] ) back into eq.([ghigbigb3 ] ) then yields the simpler expression , @xmath221 = \frac{1}{2 } [ i_0 ( \ell^2 q p)-1 ] .\ ] ] now , substituting the above back into eq.([a1 ] ) we find @xmath222.\ ] ]
to evaluate the self - energy within the long - wavelength approximation , we must return to eq.([fghw1 ] ) .
firstly , one remarks that the sine squared term in eq.([fghw1 ] ) greatly simplifies , @xmath223 ^ 2 = \frac{1}{4 } ( \ell^2 |\textbf{q } \times \textbf{p}|)^2 = \frac{1}{4 } \ell^4 |\textbf{q}|^2 |\textbf{p}|^2 \sin^2 \phi.\ ] ] then , substituting eq.([longsine ] ) into eq.([fghw1 ] ) yields : @xmath224    the polar integral then turns out to match @xcite @xmath225.\ ] ] the series expansion for eq.([intbessel ] ) gives ( @xmath226 ) @xmath227 - \left [ \frac{x^2 } { 8 } + \ldots \right ] \\ & = 1 + \frac{x^2}{8 } + \ldots \end{split}\ ] ] eq.([stefanos1 ] ) already holds a @xmath228 term and therefore a @xmath229 term is not needed in the long wavelength approximation .
thus , one assumes that @xmath230 moreover , the momenta are rescaled as @xmath231 . as a result , eq.([stefanos1 ] ) simplifies to @xmath232 where we replaced @xmath233 by its definition ( see eq . ) .
one can then make use of the identity @xcite @xmath119 where @xmath234 symbolizes the cauchy principal value of the integral .
consequently , one has @xmath235
let us first examine the real part of the self - energy , which actually denotes the physical self - energy .
it has been shown@xcite that in the long wavelength approximation the bosonic dispersion relation for @xmath25 can be written as @xmath236 the physical self - energy then becomes @xmath237 let us then work temporarily with the new quantities @xmath238 such that the self - energy is re - written as @xmath239 now , one performs a change of variable in the @xmath240 momentum : @xmath241 .
one must note that @xmath242 and that the integration limits are not altered .
consequently , one gets @xmath243 a further change of the integration variable is performed @xmath244 , leading to    @xmath245 . \end{aligned}\ ] ]    term a corresponds to the definition of the exponential integral function;@xcite @xmath246 whereas term b can be straightforwardly integrated , @xmath247 where the shift of variable @xmath248 was used in the first step .
thus , the physical self - energy becomes @xmath249 .
\end{split}\ ] ]    the renormalized energy of the bosons is obtained by looking at the poles of the full disorder self - averaged green s function , @xmath250 consequently , in the long wavelength approximation , the renormalized dispersion relation takes the form @xmath251 . \end{split}\ ] ] it is straightforward to notice that the renormalized spin stiffness , which corresponds to the coefficient of the @xmath132 term , is given by @xmath252    we now turn to the imaginary part of the self - energy given by eq .. in the long wavelength approximation , the dirac delta function becomes @xmath253 by performing a change of variable in the @xmath240 momentum , @xmath241 and replacing eq . into eq .
one gets @xmath254    finally , the scattering time , which amounts to the lifetime of the bosonic excitation , is given by @xmath255 it is clear that @xmath256 when @xmath257 , i.e. low energy quasiparticles are long - lived , with finite lifetime induced by disorder .
the pauli susceptibility in case of linear response is given by the kubo formula : @xmath258 using the fourier transformation @xmath259 the susceptibility can be written as @xmath260 on the other hand , the operators @xmath261 can be written in the bosonized form@xcite @xmath262 where @xmath263 . thus , after substitution @xmath264 evaluation of the expectation value yields @xmath265 using the notation defined earlier in eq.([greendoniach ] ) . expanding the green s function @xmath266 into the born series and performing the disorder averaging one recovers the translational invariance @xmath267 . moreover , performing the fourier transformation in the time variable @xmath268 and introducing @xmath269 the susceptibility is      in the self consistent approximation the function @xmath271 obeys@xcite @xmath272.\ ] ] we are interested mostly in the static susceptibility @xmath273 .
thus , in particular @xmath274.\ ] ] a spherically symmetric solution satisfies @xmath275.\ ] ] let us introduce a new function @xmath276 then eq.([pdef ] ) can be rewritten as @xmath277 or explicitly @xmath278 ^ 2 } h(q,\omega).\ ] ] notice that eq.([intgequ ] ) has the same form as eq.([selfderiv ] ) but with @xmath279 instead of @xmath280 , which is known to diverge @xmath281 when @xmath161 . in the next part
we will demonstrate that @xmath282 also diverges , @xmath283 when @xmath165 .
we are looking for a solution in the form @xmath284 substitution of eq.([solform ] ) into eq.([intgequ ] ) yields an expression , which looks similar to the equation previously obtained ( see eq.([matreq ] ) ) , @xmath285 where the function @xmath286 was defined earlier by eq.([fndef ] ) and @xmath287 ^ 2}.\ ] ] notice that @xmath288 and @xmath289 equivalently @xmath290 where @xmath291 was defined in eq.([matr ] ) .
the solution is found by computing the inverse matrix to eq . and has the form @xmath292    therefore , @xmath293 and @xmath294 if the integral is convergent .
otherwise , it has to be regularized , which we wo nt consider here .
this leads to @xmath295 which can be further simplified by means of some algebraic transformations , @xmath296    despite the simplifications , the above expression is difficult to evaluate analytically , as well as numerically .
however , since most of the terms there involve the inverse matrix , it is reasonable to suppose that if @xmath175 it diverges with @xmath297 as @xmath298^{-1}.\ ] ] on the other hand the susceptibility is given by @xmath299 thus , considering @xmath300 , we see that the integrand is divergent at @xmath175 with @xmath165 , which is definitely not enough to infer the divergence of the integral itself , but can be considered as an indication to such possibility .