in their comment , @xcite delaney and greer ( dg ) claim that the unphysical result ( current @xmath2 ) presented by us in ref .
( hereafter , i ) as evidence against their variational approach @xcite is due to the fact ( i ) that our constraints ( electronic populations ) prevent a broken time - reversal symmetry , and ( ii ) that we used real orbitals , which concomitantly constrain incoming and outgoing electrons .
further , dg accept that our idea to constrain populations `` is an interesting alternative to the wigner function '' ( wf ) , but ( iii ) argue that to get @xmath3 it is essential to use complex orbitals , like those obtained by applying periodic boundary conditions ( pbcs ) for electrodes . by using the superscript @xmath4 and by referring to their work,@xcite which we amply criticized @xcite they aim to convey the false impression that they used such complex orbitals previously .
responding briefly , claim ( i ) is incorrect , claim ( ii ) has absolutely no real basis , while claim ( iii ) does not mender their variational approach ; the complex orbitals discussed by them solely represent a particular case of the general case of i and do not in the least change the unphysical linear response current @xmath2 .
dg argue that the unphysical result ( @xmath2 ) deduced in i is the consequence of our unsuitable choice of constraints , namely the particle number operators .
they ( incorrectly ) claim that constraining _
real _ particle number operators does not break time - reversal symmetry , and for this very reason the current vanishes even beyond the linear response limit examined in i.    we shall immediately show that this is not true : our constraints _ allow _ a broken time - reversal symmetry .
the fact that this symmetry is _ not _ broken is the _ result _ of the defective dg variational ansatz ( constrained energy minimization at zero temperature ) .
below , we shall only discuss the particular constraint @xmath5 mentioned in the comment .
let us consider a general many - body state , @xmath6 , expanded in terms of the complete set of the real eigenstates of the hamiltonian @xmath7 of the finite transport cluster without external bias ( @xmath8 ) , @xmath9 .
notice that this _ exact _ expansion is just in the spirit of the dg approach , which is based on a configuration interaction ( ci ) , albeit approximate expansion [ cf .
( 1 ) of ref .  ] .
the expansion coefficients @xmath10 _ are _ allowed to be complex . accepting the dg challenge
, we consider now the general response instead of the linear limit of i. we do no more single out the ground state @xmath11 , unlike e.  g. , eq .  ( 10 ) of i , and consider the general matrix elements of the relevant operators [ external bias hamiltonian , @xmath12 , and current operator at site @xmath13 , @xmath14 @xmath15 where @xmath16 is an arbitrary fixed site .
( unless otherwise specified , we use throughout the notations and definitions of i and ignore the spin for simplicity . )
notice that all the above calligraphic symbols denote real quantities . to determine the steady - state current
, the dg variational ansatz prescribes a constrained energy minimization @xmath17 = \min , \ ] ] where @xmath18 , @xmath19 , and @xmath20 are real lagrange multipliers .
the constraints are ( see i ) : @xmath21 the minimization with respect to @xmath10 and @xmath22 of eq .  ( [ eq - min ] ) yields @xmath23 = 0\ ] ] and @xmath24 = 0 , \ ] ] respectively .
notice the reversed sign of the last term in the square parentheses of eqs .
( [ eq - an ] ) and ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) .
it is due the antisymmetry expressed in eq .
( [ eq - j - q ] ) , which is related to the fact that the matrix elements the hermitian current operator are purely imaginary , i.  e. , @xmath25 are real . rephrasing , this reflects the fact that if the state @xmath26 corresponds to a current @xmath27 , @xmath28 corresponds to a current @xmath29 . to determine the expansion coefficients ( and the lagrange multipliers )
, one must solve eqs .
( [ eq - q - k ] )  ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) , and then the position - independent current can be computed @xmath30 as visible in eqs .
( [ eq - an ] ) and ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) , @xmath10 and @xmath22 obey _ different _ equations .
so , the @xmath10 s are _ allowed _ to be complex , hence @xmath31 is also _ allowed _ to be complex .
constraining populations , eq .
( [ eq - q - k ] ) , _ allows _ a broken time - reversal symmetry . to see whether the @xmath10 s _ are _ indeed complex ( thence whether a current @xmath32 , eq .
( [ eq - j ] ) , _ can _ indeed flow ) , one has to solve the set of eqs .
( [ eq - q - k ] )  ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) .
beyond linear response , eqs .
( [ eq - q - k ] )  ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) are coupled nonlinear equations , and the solution is _ not _ necessarily unique . in i , we do _ solve _ this problem for linear response , show that the solution _ is _ unique , and the unphysical result @xmath2 is the _ outcome _ of these calculations . throughout our critical analysis of the dg approach , @xcite to be on the safe side ,
we confined ourselves to the linear response limit , wherein the solution is _ unique _ and its lamentable failure can be unambiguously stated . it _ is _ possible that the dg current vanishes beyond the linear response limit,@xcite but we can not _ safely _ state this . but _ if _ this were the case , it would have nothing to do with the dg claim : as seen above , constraining populations does not prevent a broken time - reversal symmetry . whether the solution of the nonlinear problem corresponds to @xmath2 or not did and does not represent our concern once the linear response limit is incorrect .
this would be yet another unphysical dg prediction , as we already stated _ explicitly _ : see the last but one paragraph of sec .
vi in ref .  .
let us now see what is wrong with the dg argumentation yielding the `` conclusion '' that constraining populations is unphysical .
there are two reasons why their conclusion is incorrect : on one hand , the dg argumentation eliminates an important aspect and , on the other hand , it introduces an unjustified assumption .
dg seem to have realized that current conservation is a serious stumbling block for their argumentation ; noteworthy , the steps 16 listed in the beginning of the comment omit the current conservation .
they first discuss the minimization _ ignoring _ the current conservation .
this amounts to exclude the last term of the square parentheses of eqs .
( [ eq - min ] ) , ( [ eq - an ] ) , and ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) above .
this _ almost _ suffices to argue that eqs .
( [ eq - q - k ] )  ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) automatically imply real coefficients @xmath10 . ``
almost '' but not _ really _ , because the unknown @xmath10 can be complex ( @xmath33 ) despite the fact that all the other quantities entering these equations are real ( remember @xmath34 ) .
then , to more `` convincingly '' argue that our constraints do not break the time - reversal symmetry , dg supplement their argumentation with an _ unjustified _ supposition .
namely , they simply _ postulate _ that `` the variational approach assumes a unique solution @xmath35  '' the dg variational approach is a well - defined mathematical problem .
needless to say , whether a solution _ exists _ and is furthermore _
unique _ can not be `` assumed '' in any mathematical problem .
this should be _ demonstrated _ , an imperious requirement particularly in the case of such an approach , whose shortcomings are so amply documented .
@xcite in the last part of their argumentation , dg claim that their deduction that @xmath35 is real remains true if they impose current conservation .
as discussed above , this unjustified assertion is contradicted by our eqs .
( [ eq - an ] ) and ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) . as a matter of fact , it is just the opposite sign of the last term in the square parentheses of eqs .
( [ eq - an ] ) and ( [ eq - an - ast ] ) that is related to the broken time - reversal symmetry expressed by the transformation @xmath36 , @xmath37 ( @xmath38 in dg s notation ) noted above .
dg also mention this transformation but fail ( or avoid ) to correctly include the current conservation as a constraint in the energy minimzation that has to be done .    to summarize
, constraining populations is very possible and does not in the least exclude a broken time - reversal symmetry . were our choice to constrain electronic populations inadequate , which are used in the most well - established approaches for the uncorrelated and correlated transport [ like those based on boltzmann s equations , nonequilibrium green s functions ( negf ) , master equations , etc ] , all these approaches would fail , but this is not the case .
they all employ the fermi distributions ( fds ) @xmath39 to express open boundary conditions for incoming electrons .    before ending this section
, we still make the following remark .
most important for the invalidity of the variational dg approach demonstrated in i is that it leads ( even with the constraints most justifiable physically , namely @xmath40 ) to an _ unphysical _ result .
we paid and pay little attention to the fact that the deduced current vanishes . by chance ,
the current could have been nonvanishing , as could fortuitously ( but must not ) happen when using the dg variational ansatz with wigner constraints ( e.  g. , fig .  3 of ref .  ) .
there are certainly _ many _ possibilities to obtain nonvanishing currents by constraining ad hoc complex hermitian operators , since all these generally yield @xmath41 : see eqs .
( 18)(20 ) of i for @xmath42 ; one needs not be too `` careful '' for this , contrary to the impression which dg attempt to convey . essential to deduce results which are physically relevant is to be careful in selecting from the very broad class @xmath43 mentioned in the comment those hermitian operators which are associated to observables able to express the physical reality at the boundaries . and , according to the present community s wisdom , a choice better justifiable physically than the electronic momentum distributions ( fds ) is not known ; dg themselves have to admit that they represent `` an interesting alternative to the '' wf ( cf .
last paragraph of the comment ) .
attempting to give a physical basis to their criticism , dg switch to the single - particle description and claim that we can not constrain only incoming electrons , as appropriate for transport , because our single - particle wave functions ( orbitals ) are real , and outgoing electrons become concomitantly constrained .    in i ( as well as in sec .
[ sec - time - reversal ] ) we need not orbitals at all , nor constrain orbitals , so it is not true what dg write that we `` have decided to constrain the occupation of _ real _ states of the left electrodes of approximate form @xmath44 '' .
these ( approximate ) wave functions pertain to an _ isolated _ electrode ( i.  e. , uncoupled to a device ) with open boundary conditions ( obcs ) . here , _
open _ is meant not in the sense of transport theories ( of a system exchanging particles and energy with environment ) , but in that used , e.  g. , in numerical exact diagonalization or dmrg ( density matrix renormalization group ) studies , of a system with open ends whose wave function vanishes at the boundaries [ in dg s notation , @xmath45 . our boundary conditions ( bcs ) for the isolated electrodes [ cf .
( 6 ) of i ] are _ general _ ( see sec .
[ sec - complex ] ) .    nevertheless , to understand why the dg claim is incorrect
let us suppose in this section that we would have imposed obcs .
the dg s analysis related to the functions @xmath46 explains nothing but the trivial fact that a current can not flow in an isolated electrode .
how could a current flow in an electrode uncoupled to device ?
what we constrained is clearly visible in eq .
( 23 ) of i : that the populations of the incoming electrons in two _ many - body _ states ( @xmath47 for @xmath8 and @xmath48 for @xmath49 ) pertaining to the _ total _ system ( electrodes _ coupled _ to the device ) are equal .
we did not constrain noninteracting electrons confined within an isolated electrode described by the wave function denoted by dg by @xmath50 .
this would be meaningless physically . that our constraints refer to _
incoming _ electrons was already indicated in the step ( ii ) of sec .
ii of i. our erratum,@xcite which dg attempt to misinterpret to gain more credibility , merely emphasizes this fact ; it neither corrects an error nor retracts a statement .
in fact , as already noted above and discussed in detail below , our results apply to more general cases than that analyzed in the comment , but let us still remain in the latter framework .
dg calculations would also be possible by using single - electron wave functions @xmath51 to build all slater determinants needed to exhaus the total electrode - device hilbert space and express the general many - body state @xmath35 required for the prescribed minimization .
( notice that our demonstration of i is exact and does not rely upon any approximate ci expansion , contrary to ref .  ) .
the physical content of the orbitals @xmath52 with @xmath53 [ these are the dg s @xmath54 is that incoming ( @xmath55 ) and outgoing ( @xmath56 ) electrons move symmetrically in the isolated left electrode .
if we formulated in i the dg variational ansatz in terms of orbitals , the transport approach would have _ allowed _ a broken @xmath55(coming)-@xmath56(going)symmetry when the electrodes are coupled to a device [ @xmath57 for a nonvanishing bias @xmath49 .
a current @xmath32 can flow only through a device _ coupled _ to electrodes .
these @xmath51 s would have been used throughout to express all averages needed in i [ including the rhs of eq .
( 23 ) , that is , at @xmath8 for electrodes _ coupled _ to a device ] and _ determined _ self - consistently from the dg variational ansatz , just like our @xmath10 s of i or above in sec .
[ sec - time - reversal ] .
whether this symmetry , _ allowed _ to be broken , _ is _ indeed broken and a current indeed flows ( @xmath3 ) should be determined by performing calculations within the dg variational ansatz , and this is exactly what we did within the many - body formalism of i. _ if _ the dg variational ansatz were valid , the minimization would yield wave functions @xmath58 different from @xmath59 and @xmath41 , in the same way in which it would have led to im@xmath60 in i and in sec .
[ sec - time - reversal ] above .
of course , this cumbersome approach based on the first quantization is equivalent to the second quantization formalism employed in i , and what is important is the unphysical _ outcome _ ( @xmath2 ) .
it clearly demonstrates that the dg transport ansatz is invalid .
dg chose the obcs as a stumbling block for the demonstration of i , but , because that case turned out to be more subtle , ended becoming trapped themselves in this pitfall .
by contrast , the case of pbcs indicated by them as a way - out solution is really much easier to analyze and allows to easily understand the correctness of the result @xmath2 of i.    as already noted , our derivation of the unphysical result @xmath2 for the linear response limit in i is very general . to give a flavor on how general are the situations where the dg variational ansatz fails , we referred to a rather broad class of uncorrelated and correlated models , which are mostly used in nanotransport , although our demonstration applies well beyond that class . in i we gave a formal general analytical demonstration and needed not bother to do expensive numerical calculations for certain device models nor become involved by giving a particular type of the bcs for the isolated electrodes or explicitly indicating which labels @xmath61 refer to single - particle states of incoming electrons and which to outgoing electrons , although they can be obviously specified ( see below in this section and sec .
[ sec - el - h ] ) .    by inspecting the second and third lines of eq .  ( 6 ) of i , one can immediately realize that our isolated electrodes can be described by _
general _ boundary conditions . just for not to bother the reader with an unnecessary lengthy discussion of the bcs , we avoided , e.  g. , to specify the site indices at the ends of the electrodes opposite to the device , and wrote @xmath62 and @xmath63 in the second and third lines of eq .
( 6 ) of i. the message of our refs .   is unambiguous and leaves no hope : the dg approach is completely incorrect and can not be rescued .
having demonstrated this , we doubted and doubt on the usefulness or necessity of a too detailed analysis of an approach so incorrect .
the results of i apply for the aforementioned obcs ( sec .
[ sec - real - orbitals ] ) , but also for boundaries that are , e.  g. , periodic ( pbcs ) , anti - periodic ( moebius ) or general twisted ( see , e.  g. , ref .   and citations therein ) . to this , one should keep , e.  g. , @xmath64 sites in the right electrode and impose , e.  g. , that the annihilation operators satisfy @xmath65 , @xmath66 , or @xmath67 ( @xmath68 is a real constant phase ) , respectively .
the left and right electrodes can even be described by different types of boundaries .    in their comment , dg concede that our idea of constraining populations `` is an interesting alternative to the wigner function '' , but claim that it is essential to choose complex single - particle wave functions associated to pbcs . accepting also this dg s challenge now ,
let us explicitly work out in detail just this case where the pbcs are applied to the isolated electrodes and where the orbitals are complex , which dg suggest as a way out to rescue their variational ansatz . from now on , we shall always assume pbcs unless otherwise specified .
with pbcs , and assuming homogeneous hopping integrals @xmath69 in electrodes for simplicity , one can write down explicit analytical formulas instead of the general unspecified ones of i , because the transformation matrix @xmath70 which diagonalizes @xmath71 entering eq .
( 22 ) of i is nothing but the well - known fourier transformation @xmath72 throughout , we use @xmath73 ; @xmath74 ; @xmath75 ; @xmath76 , and assume even @xmath77 for specificity .
with eq .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) , the hamiltonians @xmath78 , @xmath79 , and @xmath80 of eq .
( 6 ) of i become ( @xmath81 , and @xmath82 ) @xmath83 \alpha_{k}^{\dagger } \alpha_{k } , \nonumber \\
h_{r } & = & \sum_{p }   \left[\mu_r - 2 \mathcal{t}_r \cos(2 \pi p / m_r ) \right ] \alpha_{p}^{\dagger } \alpha_{p } , \nonumber \\
h_{d , e } & = & - \tau_l m_l^{-1/2}\sum_{k }   \left(\alpha_{k}^{\dagger } a_{q_l } + a_{q_l}^{\dagger } \alpha_{k } \right ) \nonumber \\ & & - \tau_r m_r^{-1/2}\sum_{p }   \left(\alpha_{p}^{\dagger } a_{q_r } + a_{q_r}^{\dagger } \alpha_{p } \right ) .
\label{eq - h}\end{aligned}\ ] ] further operators affected by the transformation ( [ eq - fourier ] ) entering the relevant equations of i are @xmath84 representing the hamiltonian of the external bias @xmath12 and the current operators @xmath85 at the contacts , respectively .
the sites within the device @xmath86 are not affected by eq .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) , and the corresponding operators ( device s hamiltonian @xmath87 and the current within the device @xmath88 ) can be found in i.    by inspecting eq .
( [ eq - h ] ) , one can immediately see that , in spite of the fact that the single - particle wave functions @xmath89 and @xmath90 of eq .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) are complex and degenerate ( @xmath91 and @xmath92 correspond to the same energy ) , _ all _ the parameters of the hamiltonian @xmath93 are real .
consequently , _ all _ its many - body eigenstates @xmath94 are ( can be chosen ) real .
all the parameters entering @xmath12 are real , so the matrix elements @xmath95 [ eq .  ( 13 ) of ref .  ]
are again real . as in the general case of i ,
the matrix elements of the current operator are purely imaginary ( i.  e , real @xmath96 ) .
all the matrix elements of the particle number operators @xmath97 ( @xmath98 ) remain real @xmath99 ( @xmath100 ) .
( 24 ) and ( 25 ) of i remain unaltered . whether imposing current conservation ( as we did ) or not ( as dg incorrectly claim that one could do@xcite , as if their method were so good to automatically include current conservation @xcite ) , the completely unphysical result ( @xmath2 ) follows as the ineluctable conclusion of applying the dg variational ansatz . for these pbcs ,
the labels of the single - particle states of incoming _ electrons _ can be explicitly given ( see also sec .  [
sec - el - h ] ) : @xmath101 with @xmath102 and @xmath103 with @xmath104 .
one can now _ explicitly _ see that only these incoming electrons can and are to be constrained in eqs .
( 12 ) and ( 23 ) of i or in the present eq .
( [ eq - q - k ] ) . they do differ from the outgoing electrons , whose labels are @xmath105 and @xmath106 , and one can convince oneself _ explicitly _ that outgoing electrons ( can ) remain _ un_constrained .
so , these constraints correspond to fig .
7c of ref .   and not to fig .
7a and 7b , contrary to what the comment claims . by simple algebraic manipulations of eqs .
( 23)(25 ) and ( 15 ) of i one can easily _ deduce _ that the distributions of the outgoing and incoming electrons are equal , @xmath107 and @xmath108 .
( of course , this is not at all surprising in view of the unphysical result @xmath2 . )
one can now _ explicitly _ see that the equality of these distributions is the _ outcome _ of the calculations of the _ defective _ dg variational ansatz , and is by no means ( not even implicitly ) assumed from the very beginning through an inappropriate choice .
the constraints used by us within the calculations based on the dg variational ansatz _ allowed _ a broken symmetry between incoming and outgoing electrons . whether this symmetry is broken or not remained an _ open
_ result , which emerged from the dg transport calculations .
the _ result _ is that this symmetry is not broken , @xmath2 , demonstrating the _ incorrectness _ of the dg variational ansatz , and this also holds true for the pbcs , contrary to what the comment argues . from the above analysis of the pbcs it is also clear that the electrodes size @xmath77 can be arbitrary large ( which is impossible within the ab initio dg calculations @xcite )
. therefore one can also understand that the unphysical prediction @xmath2 is not limited to pbcs but holds for _ any _ other bcs as well , since otherwise , e.  g. , the entire philosophy of solid - state physics to apply pbcs would break down .
dg mention ( as we also did ) that , by constraining the wf , a nonzero current is possible . in refs .  , we discussed that , _ luckily _ , mathematically this may be possible
. why did dg constrain the wf ? only because in ref .
they claimed that the fds can not be used for correlated transport .
this claim does not at least apply for uncorrelated systems .
at least there , fd - constraints are possible , and our critique of the dg variational ansatz from i obviously applies .
in fact , in i we explained that open boundary conditions can also be formulated by means of fds even for correlated electronic devices , because they should be imposed in electrodes , wherein electrons are uncorrelated .
it is the fd which has a precise physical meaning , and not the wf , which has a physical content _ only _ when it is a good approximation for the fd .
according to the comment s original philosophy , a current flow is possible only to the extent to which the wf does differ from the fd .
the inappropriateness of the wigner constraints could not be immediately recognized only because , luckily , the matrix elements of the fano operator are generally complex .
they are generally complex no matter whether the single - electron functions are real or complex ( see refs .  ) ; this is not the result of any `` careful '' choice of certain complex functions , as incorrectly claimed by dg .
let us show that this is also the case when the comment s continuous space description is used instead of the discrete one of refs .  .
the fano operator reads @xmath109 where @xmath110 and @xmath111 the electron field creation and destruction operators .
its general matrix element for two arbitrary @xmath112-body states @xmath48 and @xmath113 corresponding to the multielectronic wave functions @xmath114
( @xmath115 is the vacuum ) and @xmath116 can be easily expressed as ( @xmath117 ) @xmath118 this matrix element is generally complex irrespective of whether the wave functions @xmath119 and @xmath120 entering eq .
( [ eq - fano - matrix ] ) are real or complex .
( [ eq - fano - matrix ] ) is general and holds whatever the employed single - particle wave functions ( which need _ not _ be specified there ) .
the complex exponential entering eq .
( [ eq - fano - matrix ] ) belongs to the definition of the fano operator , eq .
( [ eq - fano - general ] ) , and has nothing to do with the employed orbitals . whatever the latter , it can be artificially split as @xmath121 \times \exp[-i p ( x + r/2)]$ ] .
this trivial splitting and the notation @xmath122 for these factors is obviously done by dg in their eq .
( 7 ) merely for conveying the false impression that complex exponentials would represent a key point , which they would have `` carefully '' exploited in their work.@xcite    let us express the population constraints for the incoming electrons ( @xmath123 ) of the right electrode ( @xmath124 ) , eq .
( 23 ) of i , making use of the fano operator @xcite and eqs .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) @xmath125 instead of constraining the above sums ( integrals ) over @xmath126 of the fano operators ( populations ) , dg s discretionary constraint of a single term in either electrode ( namely , @xmath127)@xcite involves a quantity which does not possess a physical meaning .
emerging from such an _ ad hoc mathematical _ constraint , it is not at all surprising that the currents predicted by the original dg approach,@xcite whether they vanish or not , are completely unphysical , as demonstrated in refs .  .    to conclude , _ mathematically _ the wf - constraints used in conjunction with the dg variational ansatz ( can ) yield a nonvanishing @xmath32 ( without _ any _ physical relevance , cf
refs .  ) even when using real wave functions , in spite of the claimed `` warning bells '' that `` real wavefunctions carry no current''.@xcite
in sec .  [ sec - complex ] , to specify the labels of incoming and outgoing electrons , we have made the intuitive ( or , better , naive ) _ assumption _ that the single - particle states with positive ( negative ) wave numbers @xmath130 and @xmath129 correspond to right- ( left- ) motion .
however , they are related via eqs .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) to _ quasi_-momenta and not necessarily to physical momenta . especially for later purposes , it is important to _ demonstrate _ that their sign is indeed related to the direction of the motion in the _ real _ world .
let us consider the isolated left electrode .
its ground state ( not to be confounded with that of the coupled electrode - device system , @xmath47 , cf .
[ sec - real - orbitals ] ) is the fermi sea @xmath131 , where the fermi wave vector @xmath132 is determined by the number of electrons . using eq .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) one can straightfordwardly demonstrate that at any position @xmath133 within the ( left ) electrode , the average of the electron number current @xmath134 vanishes , @xmath135 .
[ notice the opposite signs of @xmath136 and the _ electric _ current @xmath137 of sec .  [ sec - time - reversal ] for electrons .
] let us also consider the states ( @xmath138 , @xmath139 ) @xmath140 they represent states with one extra electron ( @xmath141 ) and hole ( @xmath142 ) in the fermi sea , respectively .
straightforward calculations using eqs .
( [ eq-1p-1h ] ) and ( [ eq - fourier ] ) yield @xmath143 the sign of the @xmath136-average does _ express _ the real direction of electron quantum - mechanical motion .
therefore , eqs .
( [ eq - j-1p ] ) and ( [ eq - j-1h ] ) demonstrate that the sign of the wave vectors belonging to the brillouin zones of sec .
[ sec - complex ] ( symmetric around zero ) specifies the direction of electron motion , and that electrons and holes with a given wave vector move in opposite directions .
the latter result can also be seen by performing the general particle - hole transformation , @xmath144 ( charge conjugation ) and @xmath145 @xmath146 @xmath147 ( @xmath148 ) .
using eq .
( [ eq - fano - general ] ) , one easily gets @xmath149 in view of the aforementioned , one can conclude that incoming and outgoing _ electrons _ correspond to the wave vectors @xmath150 & &   \mbox{\hspace*{37ex } ( for electrons ) } \nonumber \\[-2ex ] \label{eq - el - out } & & -m_l/2 < k_{out } < 0 ; 0 < p_{out } < m_r/2 , \end{aligned}\ ] ] while for incoming and outgoing _ holes _ @xmath151 & &   \mbox{\hspace*{37ex } ( for holes ) } \nonumber \\[-2ex ] \label{eq - h - out } & & 0 < k_{out } < m_l/2 ; -m_r/2 < p_{out } < 0 .\end{aligned}\ ] ] the fact that the above electron and hole descriptions are equivalent is trivial in general , but not in the context of transport approaches , wherein incoming _
charge carriers _ are to be constrained.@xcite if the charge carriers are _ electrons _ ( @xmath128-type conduction ) , the constraints should be imposed to incoming electrons , eq .
( [ eq - el - in ] ) . in this case , the intuitive assumption of sec .
[ sec - complex ] is justified . however , if the charge carriers are _ holes _
( @xmath129-type conduction ) , one should constrain the incoming holes , eq .
( [ eq - h - in ] ) ; that is , the labels @xmath61 in the above eq .
( [ eq - q - k ] ) and in eqs .
( 12 ) and ( 23 ) of i are those given by eq .
( [ eq - h - in ] ) and not by eq .
( [ eq - el - in ] ) .    the analysis of this section and of secs .
[ sec - real - orbitals ] and [ sec - complex ] makes it now clear why we preferred to consider the general case in i and not to enter in unnecessary involved details : they are absolutely not necessary to understand the unphysical prediction @xmath2 of the dg variational approach , and hence its lamentable failure .
but because the incorrect dg claims in the comment brought us to enter such details , we can show another shortcoming of the original dg approach related to them , which we did not present so far .    in their work,@xcite dg
did not examine at all whether the molecule they considered , bdt ( benzenedithiolate ) , exhibits an @xmath128- or a @xmath129-type conduction .
uncritically , they merely constrained @xmath152 and @xmath153 .
even if their variational ansatz were correct , and even if these wfs were true distribution functions , these constraints would be appropriate only if the charge carriers were electrons [ conduction mediated by lumo ( lowest unoccupied molecular orbital ) ] . in reality , in bdt the majority charge carriers are holes ( @xmath129-type conduction ) , as clearly demonstrated by the recent , accurate experiment of ref .  .
by inspecting now eqs .
( [ eq - fano - h ] ) ( noting the reversed sign of @xmath0 in the lhs and rhs ) , ( [ eq - el - in ] ) , and ( [ eq - h - out ] ) , one is amazed to see that what dg constrained in ref .
are in fact the _ outgoing _ majority carriers , and _ not _ the incoming ones .
it is certainly too simplistic to describe the conduction through bdt merely as a process mediated by homo ( highest occupied molecular orbital ; @xmath129-type conduction ) instead of accounting for several / numerous ionization and electroaffinity levels , but the fact that the constraints of majority carriers ( holes ) are unphysical in ref .
is a clear demonstration that uncritically using wigner boundaries is completely unjustified . to conclude , even if all the other dg ingredients were correct ( what is obviously not the case @xcite )
, this very reason irrefutably demonstrates that the results of refs .
have absolutely no physical meaning .
what would be the appropriate constraints in the case of ambipolar conduction , where both electrons and holes contribute to the current , is an issue,@xcite which we do not discuss here .    in our first work @xcite that challenged the dg approach with wigner constraints,@xcite we considered uncorrelated and correlated quantum dots
modeled by a single level whose energy offset from the electrodes fermi level @xmath154 is @xmath155 .
the results of the dg calculations presented there ( e.  g. , in figs .
25 and 7 ) are for @xmath156 , that is , the dot s level plays the role of a lumo ( @xmath128-type conduction )
. the charge carriers are electrons , and our constraints [ corresponding to the above eq .
( [ eq - el - in ] ) ] refer to incoming electrons .
both the uncorrelated and the correlated models of ref .
are described by hamiltonians @xmath157 possessing a particle - hole ( or charge conjugation ) symmetry ( see , e.  g. , ref .   and citations therein ) around @xmath158 : @xmath159 .
that is , the zero - bias conductance @xmath160 ( as well as other relevant properties not considered in ref .
, e.  g. , the whole current - voltage characteristics ) should be identical irrespective whether the level is located above ( @xmath161 ) or below ( @xmath162 ) the electrodes fermi level @xmath163 .
noteworthy , the charge carriers are electrons for positive @xmath155 and holes for negative @xmath155 . as a test for numerical calculations
, we checked that dg calculations for the lumo case ( @xmath164 ) constraining the incoming electrons [ eq .  ( [ eq - el - in ] ) ] and for the homo case ( @xmath165 ) constraining the incoming holes [ eq .  ( [ eq - h - in ] ) ] yield the same , albeit completely unphysical linear conductance .
[ the electric current operator has the same sign both in the electron and the hole representation , cf .
( [ eq - j - h ] ) . ] as clearly demonstrated,@xcite
the dg - conductance computed in this way is completely unphysical , but
it is still positive , @xmath166 both for positive and negative @xmath155 .
that is , this ( modified ) dg approach can still `` predict '' that electrons flow from the lower potential to the higher potential , and holes flow from the higher potential to the lower potential .    if we drew the curves of figs .  3 , 5 , and 7 of ref .
also for @xmath165,@xcite by blindly computing the dg conductance using _ exactly _ the dg prescribed constraints,@xcite [ i.  e. , eq .
( [ eq - el - in ] ) ] we could have shown a funny `` prediction '' of the dg approach @xcite , namely , that the linear conductance can be negative , @xmath167 ! that is , holes should have to flow  from the lower potential to the higher potential .
this results from the fact that the blind constraints of @xmath168 and @xmath169 erroneously constrain in fact the outgoing carriers ; this situation corresponds to fig .  7d , and not to fig .
7c of ref .  .
indeed , these dg wigner constraints break the time - reversal symmetry and yield a nonvanishing current , but
what is the physical relevance ? as a matter of fact , it is just such an unphysical imbalance , which is shown in fig .  1 ( bottom ) of ref .   ( the counterpart of fig .
7d of ref .
and not of fig.7c , as incorrectly claimed in the comment ) , that breaks the time - reversal symmetry in ref .  . in ref
, we did not show this conductance @xmath170 because the demonstration of the severe failure of the dg approach with wigner constraints was sufficiently convincing even without mentioning this `` prediction '' , and we preferred to couch the discussion in terms as sober as possible .
however , we have noted it above , since , in spite of the clear evidence of refs .
, dg still continue to uncritically refer to their work @xcite in the comment .
in the comment , dg claim that we `` doubt the validity of using the wigner function constraints to apply open system boundary conditions '' .
as we repeatedly emphasized,@xcite we did not challenge in any of our works published so far @xcite the imposition of wigner constraints _ in general _ ; we irrefutably _ demonstrated _ that applying wigner constraints in the _ specific context of the dg variational approach _ yields completely incorrect results .
another inaccurate assertion of dg is that `` bldea and kppel accept that our _ [ i .
e. , dg s ] _ wigner constraints  have  non - zero linear response current . '' in reality , we demonstrated ( i ) that even if , _ by chance
_ , this is possible,@xcite the dg current is completely unphysical , and ( ii ) that the dg conductance vanishes _ just _ in on - resonance cases , where the exact conductance attains its maximum ( unitary limit).@xcite    to refute the false impression , which dg attempt to convey by using the superscript @xmath4 , we emphasize that they did never impose pbcs for the @xmath171-clusters , which mimic their electrodes of refs .  .
for this , it suffices to inspect eqs .
( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of ref .  .
still , let us emphasize for completeness that , even if they imposed such wigner pbcs , the results of the dg approach would have been incorrect : in sec .  v of ref .  , we demonstrated that the dg conductance computed with wigner constraints vanishes ( @xmath172 ) also with pbcs for electrodes , and this occurs just in a typical , well - known physical situation corresponding to the unitary limit , wherein the true conductance reaches the maximum value ( @xmath173 ) .
our ref .
is the only publication wherein the dg approach , as originally proposed ( i.  e. , with wf - constraints ) , was worked out using plane wave orbitals @xmath174 in electrodes with pbcs .
dg used nowhere the plane waves @xmath174 mentioned in the comment or other orbitals pertaining to electrodes with pbcs , which they denote by @xmath175 in the comment . or , more precisely , they should have denoted them so [ i.  e. , @xmath176 , because in fact their expressions , like @xmath177 in the last but one paragraph of the comment , do not comply with textbooks quantum mechanics . concerning the operators denoted by @xmath178 , they are useless : these operators are not defined at all .
most significantly , the comment contains equations and assertions , which defy more than eight decades of using the second quantization formalism .
e.  g. , dg incorrectly state that the action of the operator @xmath179 on a one - electron wave function @xmath180 is `` straight - forward '' .
this operator can not act at all on @xmath180 , not even on a many - electron wave function @xmath181 in the coordinate space , as expressed in their incorrect eqs .
( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , respectively .
it acts on many - body states @xmath182 belonging to the abstract fock vector space .
further , it is incorrect what they write that the operators @xmath183 and @xmath184 create and destroy the _ eigen_states of @xmath78 .
likewise , these operators act on _ any _ many - body fock states @xmath185 , wherein they create and destroy one electron in the single - particle state @xmath130 .
we thank dg for using the superscript @xmath186 in their notation @xmath183 and @xmath184 , but it is superfluous .
the creation and annihilation operators @xmath187 and @xmath188 used in i [ the same as those entering the present eqs .
( [ eq - fourier ] ) ] are already unequivocally defined in textbooks , and it is in this sense that we used them throughout .    in view of the aforementioned , the need to translate in the comment obvious results expressed in the second quantization in i into the first quantization language [ e.  g. , the attempt to `` demonstrate '' that the matrix element @xmath189 of eq .
( 4 ) in the comment is real ] is understandable .
but then it is not surprising that understanding what are the actual constraints of i or the generality of the demonstration of i is not obvious .
remarkably , although dg reproduce our expression of @xmath78 in the comment , they completely overlook the content of this expression : namely , the fact the bcs are general , and so are the pertaining orbitals , which are not necessarily real .
not coincidental is also the fact that dg indicate as a way - out solution just a particular case of i , wherein the incorrectness of the dg variational ansatz can be immediately understood ( cf .
[ sec - complex ] ) .
above , we preferred to respond to and rebut in detail all the issued raised by the comment .
in fact , this represents the main objective of our reply .
still , we note that this analysis of all the concrete aspects is actually not necessary . in sec .
vii of our recent work @xcite we pointed out more serious reasons why the dg variational approach fails .
this criticism also applies to the case discussed above ; it comprises fundamental aspects not confined to a certain type of bcs , let they be in terms of wfs , fds or others .
our criticism was presented in ref .   in sufficient detail and
will not be even summarized in this reply .
a further fundamental reason why the dg approach is incorrect will be presented in sec .
[ sec - isolated ] .
the incorrect claims of dg made us aware of a limitation of the usefulness of the wf for transport , which we could not find in the literature .
the wf ( @xmath190 ) is employed in many physical studies , including transport s , in spite of its physical limitations .
the limitation known from textbooks @xcite traces back to the heisenberg s uncertainty principle .
the wf can be negative and should be not interpreted as a probability distribution , but rather as `` one step in the calculation  never the last step , since '' is not measurable but `` is used to calculate other quantities that can be measured  the particle density and current '' and ``
no problems are encountered as long as one avoids interpreting @xmath190 as a probability density '' ( quotations from ch .
3.8 , p.  203 of ref .  ) .
as noted above , in transport it is helpful to distinguish between incoming and outgoing electrons . to this aim , it is necessary to use a physical property enabling to indubitably assess that electrons are , say , left- or right - moving .
the averages of the particle current operator @xmath191 used above or the _ physical _ momentum do represent such properties . to see whether the momentum `` variable '' @xmath0 of the wf @xmath192 justifies to speak of left- or right - moving electrons depending on the sign of @xmath0 ,
let us consider @xmath112 noninteracting electrons confined within a one - dimensional square well of width @xmath193 and infinite height .
( this could be the isolated electrode considered by dg . )
electrons occupy energy levels @xmath194 , whose single - electron wave functions @xmath195 $ ] ( @xmath196 , @xmath197 ) are just those that dg @xcite incorrectly claim we would have used in ref .  . in the ground state ,
the lowest @xmath112 levels are occupied up to the fermi `` momentum '' @xmath198 .
computing the wigner function of this system is straightforward : @xmath199 ( see , e.  g. , ref .  , ch .  3.7 , pp .  202 - 203 ) .
( color online ) wigner function for two sizes @xmath193 computed at two points @xmath126 indicated in the legend .
gold s fermi wave vector @xmath200nm@xmath201 is used.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    one might think that one could use the wf as if it were a distribution function in cases where its shape resembles a fermi distribution . let us inspect the curves for @xmath202 computed as indicated above and presented in fig .
[ fig : wf ] .
in fact , at smaller sizes ( close to the linear size of the dg s au@xmath203-clusters
@xcite ) the wf does not bear much resemblance to a fermi function ( the lower curves of fig .
[ fig : wf ] ) , at larger sizes ( much larger than those one could hope to tackle within ab initio calculations to correlated molecules , for which the dg approach @xcite was conceived ) the curves ( the upper part of fig .
[ fig : wf ] ) become more similar to a step function , and one may think that this is encouraging . in reality , the contrary is true : as visible in fig .
[ fig : wf ] , _ mathematically _ one can calculate the wf for positive and negative `` momentum '' variables @xmath0 _
separately_. however , this mathematical separation does not reflect a physical reality : for any single - particle eigenstate @xmath61 the electron momentum vanishes , @xmath204 ; left- and right - traveling waves are entangled with equal weight , and one can not speak of single - particle eigenstates representing left- or right - moving electrons only because wigner functions with positive or negative @xmath0-arguments can be computed .
this represents a further limitation of the usefulness of the wf , not related to the heisenberg s principle , which is particularly relevant for transport .
the current has a direction , and if one wants to unambiguously specify this direction , the wf @xmath202 is inappropriate ; a wf with negative ( positive ) `` momentum '' , @xmath205 ( @xmath206 ) , does not imply that left- and right - moving particles exist in the real physical world .
so , using @xmath168 and @xmath169 as if they were true momentum distributions of incoming electrons , as dg did,@xcite is not justified in quantum mechanics .
the above example demonstrates that , indeed , the textbook s warning mentioned in the beginning of this section is pertinent .
in the course of our extensive critical investigations @xcite of the dg approach @xcite we became aware of a series of difficulties , which not only the dg s but also other approaches to nanotransport are faced with , which we want to bring to the reader s attention .    to understand the problem , let us briefly consider the uncorrelated dot model of ref .   linked to semi - infinite electrodes ( @xmath207 ) .
exact transport calculations at arbitrary bias @xmath208 can be easily carried out within a multitude of approaches.@xcite besides the current @xmath32 and dot occupancy @xmath209,@xcite the occupancies of the sites in electrodes can also be computed.@xcite    in fig .
[ fig : ncluster ] , we present steady - state results for the electron number on the dot @xmath210 and that for nanoclusters @xmath211 centered on the dot and including several electrodes sites @xmath212 . as visible there , the changes in both @xmath208 ( source - drain voltage ) and @xmath155 ( gate potential ) yield variations in the dot occupancy @xmath210 .
( notice that there is no exchange of electrons with the gate . )
the total number @xmath211 of electrons in the nanoclusters also varies , it closely follows the change of @xmath210 ; the variations in the small difference @xmath213 could be hardly seen within the drawing accuracy of fig .
[ fig : ncluster ] , and therefore are not shown there .
the fact that @xmath213 is practically constant implies that the sites in electrodes remain practically unaffected by changes in @xmath208 and @xmath155 ; even the electrodes sites in the very close dot s vicinity are very little affected .
the dependence @xmath214 is most important in the context of a transport approach .
it demonstrates that , by varying @xmath208 and/or @xmath155 , a finite nanocluster exchanges electrons with the infinite electrodes linked to it , which act as reservoirs that can supply / withdraw electrons .
( color online ) dot charge @xmath209 and cluster excess charge @xmath215 for two gate potentials @xmath216 ( @xmath217 ) and @xmath218 ( @xmath219 ) . for both gate potentials , the employed cluster sizes @xmath212 given in parentheses increase upwards for , say , @xmath220 .
notice that for larger sizes the excess charge rapidly saturates and closely follows the dot charge , and this gives a flavor on how fast the convergence to charge neutrality within more distant parts of electrodes is ( see the main text ) .
energy unit is @xmath221 and @xmath222.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    in the light of the aforementioned , it becomes clear that it is _ strictly _ impossible to correctly describe the transport within a dg - like approach , which considers a small isolated cluster . within an approach like that initiated by dg @xcite and further scrutinized by us @xcite one attempts to describe the transport using such a cluster characterized by a many - electron wave function @xmath223 to be determined by a constrained minimization of cluster s energy for @xmath49 .
this wave function merely describes a nanocluster with a given number of electrons @xmath112 , which can not be varied by changing source - drain ( @xmath208 ) or gate ( @xmath155 ) voltages :    * _ whatever _ the property chosen to be constrained ( wf , electron momentum distribution or else ) , * _ whatever _ the boundary conditions ( obc , pbcs , moebius , general twisted or else ) which might be chosen for the finite `` electrodes '' included in the cluster ( the au@xmath203-clusters of ref .  ) , * let the many - electron wave function @xmath223 be determined within _ exact _ full ci expansions ( i.  e , using the whole hilbert space ) as done by us @xcite and not only approximately , by using a reduced number of configurations selected by monte - carlo sampling , as dg did.@xcite    even the most `` carefully '' chosen constraints can at most , e.  g. , acceptably account for the change the number of electrons in the device ( dot ) . but this change will inevitably modify the charge of the neighboring sites in electrodes .
it is easy to imagine how profound will be the impact on the transport , e.  g , in correlated or switchable devices .
it is hard to conceive that the transport could be reasonably described within this framework , even if the cluster would be very large ( what is obviously hard within the presently available ab initio quantum - chemical calculations for correlated systems ) : because it is by no way obvious / necessary that the local charge density be incorrectly described only at the remote ends of the finite `` electrodes '' , which would allow to suppose / hope that the electric field within the device will be little affected .
a further difficulty is , of course , the fact that the number of electrons @xmath224 of the coupled nanocluster is generally noninteger ( cf .  fig .
[ fig : ncluster ] ) , but we do not discuss this issue here.@xcite one may further ask whether a `` careful '' choice of a certain charge state of the dot ( molecule ) instead of the neutral species could help .
no , it does not . for the above model
, one can also compute the exact time - dependent dot population @xmath225 by suddenly coupling at @xmath226 a dot with population @xmath227 to infinite electrodes.@xcite the result for @xmath49 within the wide band limit ( @xmath228 , where @xmath229 , @xmath230 , and @xmath231 ) is @xcite @xmath232   \nonumber \\ & & - \frac{2\gamma}{\pi } e^{-\gamma t } \left ( \int_{-\infty}^{-\varepsilon_g - ev/2 } +   \int_{-\infty}^{-\varepsilon_g + ev/2 } \right ) d\,\varepsilon \
\frac{\cos(\varepsilon t)}{\varepsilon^2 + \gamma^2 } .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]     ( color online ) curves for the time - dependent dot charge @xmath233 showing that the asymptotic values do not keep track of the initial occupancy @xmath227 .
the values of the source - drain bias @xmath208 , energy offset @xmath155 , and hybridisation @xmath234 are given in the legend.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    as seen in fig .
[ fig : nd ] , which visualizes the result expressed by eq .
( [ eq - nd ] ) , the asymptotic value of the dot population @xmath235 , which corresponds to the steady state , does not `` remember '' the initial value @xmath236 ; it is determined by the applied voltages .
the foregoing analysis makes it also clear that not only a variational ansatz like the dg s is incorrect .
the above list ( a )  ( c ) can be enlarged by stating that , _
whatever _ the ansatz ( let it be a variational ansatz better than the dg s or based on e.  g. , liouville @xcite or schrdinger equations ) used to compute the wave function for a fixed @xmath112 , it will fail .
the aforementioned flaw is serious and can be unambiguously traced back to the use of a finite ( small ) isolated cluster .
electric transport can only occur in an open system , and allowing electron exchange with environment ( infinite electrodes ) is indispensable .
most commonly , this is done via the embedding self - energies within the keldysh - negf - approach,@xcite which enable the nanocluster to change the number of electrons it contains .
most important for the present reply , we have demonstrated above that the dg s claims of the comment are incorrect and our critique of i is untouched .
the unphysical current ( @xmath2 ) obtained in i is the _ result _ of the dg defective ansatz and by no means emerges from pretended unsuitable constraints of real orbitals , as dg incorrectly claim .
using complex orbitals does not in the least change the unphysical prediction of the dg variational ansatz ; furthermore , it confirms more directly its incorrectness .
in fact , the complex orbitals given by dg represents nothing but a _
particular _ case of the general case considered in i , for which our demonstration holds . for completeness
, we have worked out this case in detail to explicitly specify the labels of the incoming charge carriers ( not necessarily electrons ) , to demonstrate that they can be constrained without concomitantly constraining the outgoing carriers , and to show that the distribution of the outgoing carrieres represents the _ outcome _ of transport calculations .
of course , fully consistent with the unphysical prediction @xmath2 , the distribution of the outgoing carriers _ deduced _ within the defective dg ansatz is found equal to that of the incoming carriers .    to conclude , dg concede that our idea of constraining populations `` is an interesting alternative to the wigner function '' , but argue that it is essential for this to choose complex states .
we have shown above that the usage of the complex orbitals _ just _ of the form indicated by them as key point of a way - out solution does not mender the dg variational approach .
these are not only complex , they are _ just _ of the form @xmath237 , which dg give ( and _ incorrectly _ attempt to suggest that they used them in ref .  ) .
consequently , they must now accept that their variational ansatz for transport is incorrect .
the analysis done in conjunction with the issues raised by dg has led us to reveal two aspects of more general relevance for the transport theory .
first , we have presented an example illustrating a limitation of the wigner function @xmath192 important for transport , namely that the sign of @xmath0 is not necessarily related to the direction of motion in the real world .
second , we have presented an important physical reason why transport approaches , which , like the dg s , use information pertaining to a finite isolated cluster are inappropriate .
this enlarges the basis of our critique recently formulated in sec .
vii of ref .  , where two other fundamental reasons were exposed .    to summarize our detailed investigations on the dg
approach,@xcite we can state that this approach lamentably fails because virtually all its ingredients are incorrect :    * the dg approach imposes boundary conditions as if the wf were a true particle distribution , which is not justified quantum mechanically . replacing the wf - constraints by the boundary conditions most justified physically (
namely , the fermi distributions ) attempted in i does not remedy this approach . *
even if the wf were a true momentum distribution , by uncritically constraining @xmath168 and @xmath169 it is very possible to erroneously constrain the _ outgoing _ majority charge carriers and not _ incoming _ ones .
( this is _ just _ the case in refs .  .
) * the dg approach attempts to describe the transport by using a finite cluster within calculations based on a variational principle ( entropy maximization ) , which turned out to be problematic even if , unlike in the dg case , the limits of infinite time and infinite volume are taken in the correct order.@xcite * the dg approach aims at describing the transport by means of a wave function determined for a ( small ) isolated cluster , whose number of electrons is fixed , while a nanocluster in a real electric circuit does exchange electrons with the infinite electrodes to which it is connected .
the lamentable failure of the dg approach was demonstrated by explicit calculations for the simplest uncorrelated and correlated , discrete and continuous models.@xcite they contradict well - established experimental and theoretical results , and it would make little sense to more amply document the incorrectness in _ many _ other cases.@xcite by contrast , dg could not present even a single example where it is valid .    based on ingredients unfounded physically , it is not at all surprising that the currents predicted by the dg approach are completely unphysical and much poorly agreeing with experiment that more common approaches , contrary to the seemingly original success claimed in ref .  .
viii of ref .
, we clearly showed that a standard negf - dft calculation yields currents slightly larger by a factor @xmath238 , while dg s currents @xcite represent @xmath239% of the experimental currents of the recent accurate experiment of ref .  .
the financial support provided by the deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged .