Unravelling the origin of cryogenic emission of electrons -

a challenging unsolved problem of condensed matter physics

Yatendra S Jain

Department of physics,
North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong-793022, India
Keywords: Photo multipliers; photo tubes and photo cathodes, Optoelectronic device charac-
terization, design, and modeling, Electron emission
PACS: 85.60.Ha, 85.60.Bt, 79.75.+g
c by author.

Retired Professor; Correspondence : profysjain@gmail.com

1
Abstract
Here we solve one of the challenging problems of condensed matter physics, viz., the
problem of unravelling the origin of cryogenic emission of electrons (CEE) from cold
metal cathode of photomultiplier tube. We presume that CEE rate R
cee
(T) N
o
(T) (the
number of conduction electrons (ces) in their ground state at a given temperature, T)
and use our recent theory of a system of interacting fermions (developed by using rst
quantization approach) to determine N
o
(T) and R
cee
(T). We not only nd why average
time duration of a burst (
L
) follows a power law (
L
L
1/2
) where L = size of the burst)
but also note that to some extent, CEE is similar to radioactive emission of particles
from atomic nucleus. Our account of CEE conrms Meyers opinion that a ces in a metal
at low temperatures (LTs) represent a kind of trapped particles.
While the observation of CEE provides unquestionable experimental evidence for the
accuracy of our rst quantization theory of a system of interacting fermions, at the same
time, it unequivocally questions the viability of conventional theories (based on second
quantization or alternative approach) of such systems for explaining the low temperature
properties of ces; these theories include BCS theory and similar theories of superconduc-
tivity/ superuidity.
2
1. Introduction
An intriguing phenomenon of spontaneous emission of conduction electrons (ces) from the
cathode of a photomultiplier (in the absence of light) at low temperatures (LTs) (known as
cryogenic emission of electrons (CEE)) was observed for the rst time by Rodman and Smith
[1] in 1963 and later by Gadsgen [2], Ankowski, et al. [3], Nikkel et al [4] and most recently
(2008/2010) by Meyer [5]. Meyer makes a comprehensive analysis [5] of his experimental data
added with those of others [3] and [4] to discover the following.
(i) CEE dominates other emissions of ces (e.g., thermionic emission) at LTs below 200K.
(ii) Time-averaged rate (R
cee
(T)) of CEE increases exponentially with decreasing T with a
highest value at lowest measured T(=4 K).
(iii) R
cee
(T) does not depend on the process (Cooling/ Heating) of evolution of T prior to its
measurement and remains unaected by the electric eld at the emitting surface.
(iv) While R
cee
(T) is to A (area of the emitting surface), it remains unaected from several
factors, viz, the parameters of dierent photo multipliers of same make or dierent make used
in [1-5] under dierent operating conditions.
(v) ces are emitted in a form of bursts which occur randomly. However, within a burst, events
are highly correlated; the mean separation of events increases steadily from about 3s to about
3ms as the burst evolves and this behaviour remains unchanged with the size of the burst (L).
(vi) While the increase in
L
(duration of a burst) with increase in L follows a power law
(
L
L
1/2
), the rate and size of bursts increases with decreasing T.
Introducing a heuristic model of CEE, Meyer [5] identies that the time distribution of
events follows a trap mechanism. However, we need to understand (i) the physical processes
responsible for the creation, lling and emptying of the traps, (ii) the causes of ionization and
recombination, and (iii) the mechanism which decides the distribution of L. Meyer [5] speculates
that the suggested traps have a connection to traps in semiconductors [6,7]. While he argues [5]
that a process which becomes more probable with decreasing T is very unusual, he indicates that
this kind of abnormal behavior has been ascribed to a decrease of the lattice energy upon cooling
of the emitting material [3], and alternatively to the defect-mediated quantum interference of
ces [8].
Meyers empirical model [5] attributes the said abnormal behavior due to a competition
between the emission of ces and a recombination process with a normal energy dependence.
However, he indicates that his model is just a hint which may or may not lead to an understand-
ing of CEE. Most signicantly, Meyer [5] underlines, (i) the properties of CEE are inconsistent
with any of the spontaneous emission processes known, such as thermal emission, eld emission,
radioactivity, or penetrating radiation, including cosmic rays, (ii) at this time, regrettably, a
quantitative explanation of the observed characteristics of CEE in terms of known physics is
still eluding us. As such unravelling the origin of CEE is one of the most challenging and
important problems of condensed matter physics [9].
3
In this paper, we discover the origin of CEE by assuming that the phenomenon is a property
of the number of ces (N
o
(T)) in their ground state (G-state) at a given T. To this eect we
are guided by the fact that the number of CEE events rises exponentially with the fall in T and
N
o
(T) is expected to have such a Tdependence. In what follows, we nd N
o
(T) by following
(i) conventional theories (CTs) [10] (based on plane wave representation of a quantum particle)
and (ii) our non-conventional theory (NCT) [11] of interacting fermions (based on macro-orbital
(MO, -a kind of pair wave function) representation of a quantum particle [11, 12 13]), since
this helps us to discover that only latter has the potential to explain CEE in close agreement
with experiments.
The paper is arranged as follows: We try to answer why and how only MO-representation
[11, 12, 13] is valid to describe ces in a metal at LTs in Section 2 by reproducing some
discussion on the topic from [11, 12, 13] and by adding certain discussion for its conceptual
clarity. Although, certain aspects of the G-state of ces, relevant to the present study, have
been known from [11], we rediscover them in Section 3 by using an alternative approach based
on experimental facts, scientic arguments with logic. We unearth the origin of CEE in Section
4 and summarise our eorts of solving other unsolved problems of condensed matter physics
(listed at [14]) by using MO representation of a quantum particle in Section 5. Finally we make
important concluding remarks in Section 6.
2. System of ces and MO representation
2.1 Hamiltonian
The Hamiltonian of N ces can be expressed, to a good approximation, as
H(N) =
h
2
2m
e
N

2
i
+

i<j
V (r
ij
) + V

(N), (1)
where m
e
is the mass of a ce, V (r
ij
) is the central force potential between ce-ce and V

(N) is
the sum of all remaining interactions such as ce-phonon, spin-spin, spin-lattice, etc. In writing
Eqn.1, we presume that +ve ions represent rigidly xed hard core spheres of nite size and
their attractive interaction with ces is responsible for a collective binding of each ce with rest
of the conductor (N1 ces plus +ve ions) with binding energy equal to what is known as work
function; while this interaction provides strong localization to heavy +ve ions, it fails to provide
no such localization to ces for their extremely small mass [15]. Since the remaining impact of
this attraction can be identied as ce-phonon interaction which forms a part of V

(N), it is
clear that H(N) is the net Hamiltonian of a uid of ces. We assume that dierent components
of V

(N), for their small strength, can be treated as perturbation on the states of
H
o
(N) = H(N) V

(N) (2)
and H
o
(N) can be identied as a universal component of H(N), -expected to describe the
basic properties of ces (including superconductivity [11]) in any conductor [independent of the
specic nature of a chosen conductor or a class of conductors distinguished by dierences in
V

(N)]. Now we aim to identify suitable approximation for V (r

ij
) to simplify the process of
nding the states of H
o
(N) in the following section.
4
2.2 ces as hard core particles
Followed from the common observation related to the dynamical behaviour of ces in a
metal, we consider V (r
ij
) as the sum of a short range strong repulsion V
R
(r
ij
) and an indirectly
induced weak attraction V
A
(r
ij
) of slightly longer range and approximate V
R
(r
ij
) with a hard
core (HC) potential (V
HC
(r) = V (r ) = and V (r > sigma) = 0, with being much
shorter than the distance d
c
between two nearest +ve ions or d between two ces (whichever is
shorter)). In addition, we emphasise that the main contribution of V
A
(r
ij
) is a constant ve
potential (say, V
o
) which is consistent with the facts that : (i) ces move freely through a
space between +ve ions and encounter ce-ion and ce-ce collisions during this motion, and (ii)
the range and strength of electrostatic repulsion among two ces is considerably reduced due to
electrostatic screening eect, which could predominantly be Thomas-Fermi screening and/or
quantum mechanical screening. As concluded in [11, 12], V
HC
(r) can be approximated further
to an innitely strong touch potential, A(r)(r) where A(r) tends to when r tends to zero
indicating that ces can be treated as innitely hard particles of size.
2.3 Plane wave representation of a ce is invalid at LTs
Since a ce is found to have free motion in a conductor, it can be described, to a good
approximation, by a plane wave,
u
p
i
(b
i
) = Aexp(ip
i
.b
i
). (3)
if it is far from the point of its collision [16] with other electrons or with rigidly xed +ve ions.
However, the situation changes when a ce is close to the point of the said collisions. In Eqn.3,
p
i
and b
i
, respectively, represent the momentum (in wave number) and position vectors of ith
ce with A being the normalization constant which would henceforth be considered to be unity.
It is important to note that CTs [10] using plane wave description for ces, indirectly use the
following as their basic premises.
(i) p of each ce remains a good quantum number of dierent states of electron-uid at all T.
(ii) p can have any value between 0 and .
However, we note that the plane wave description (Eqn.3) of a ce does not agree with
certain realities of the electron-uid at LTs at which thermal de Broglie wave length (
T
=
h/

2m
e
k
B
T) [h = Plancks constant, and k
B
= Boltzmanns constant] of ces becomes larger
than d (or d
c
whichever is larger). This is because, at this point, two nearby ces (say, e1 and
e2) have their wave superposition [16] described by

q,K
(r, R) =
1

2
[u
p
1
(b
1
)u
p
2
(b
2
) u
p
1
(b
2
)u
p
2
(b
1
)]. (4)
Using Eqn.3 in Eqn.4, we obtain

q,K
(r, R) = sin(k.r/2) exp(iK.R) (5)
where dierent notations, as claried in Fig.1(A), can be dened by,
k = p
2
p
1
= 2q and K = p
2
+p
1
, (6)
5
and
r = b
2
b
1
and R =
b
2
+b
1
2
. (7)
In these equations, while k = 2q and K, respectively, represent the relative and center of
mass (CM) momentum of e1 and e2, r and R represent their corresponding position vectors.
Analysing Eqns.5-7, we note:
(i) As evident from Eqn.6, e1 and e2 represent a pair of electrons moving with equal and
opposite momenta (q, -q) with respect to their CM which moves with momentum K in the
laboratory frame. Since sin(k.r/2) part of
q,K
(r, R) (Eqn.5), describing the relative motion
of e1 and e2, is a kind of standing matter wave (SMW), we identify (e1 and e2) pair as SMW
unbound pair. We nd that all ces assume a state of stable SMW bound pairs at T T
c
where
they exhibit superconductivity [11].
(ii) Since
q,K
(r, R) is not an eigen state of the momentum operator of either e1 or e2, p of no
ce remains a good quantum number of the LT states of electron-uid.
These observations, evidently, mean that the plane wave representation of a ce does not
remain valid in the LT states of an electron-uid in a conductor and this means that CTs
(including BCS and BCS type other theories of superconductivity are not consistent with the
LT realities of electron uid.
2.4 Macro-orbital description of a ce and its validity
Since the expectation value of V
HC
(r) = A(r)(r) between e1 and e2 with state represented
by
q,K
(r, R) has zero value (See Appendix-A of Ref. [17]), and (E
1
+ E
2
) [the sum of their
kinetic energy (KE)] remains unchanged under wave superposition, e1 and e2 retain free particle
identity even in the state of their wave superposition. This implies that each ce in
q,K
(r, R)
state is an independent particle, however, its state is not described by a plane wave (Eqn.1).
Wave superposition entangles e1 and e2 with certain degree of restrictions dened by
< r > /2 with = 2/q and 2 (8)
where is relative position of e1 and e2 on phase line and = 2/q is de Broglie wave
length related to relative motion. The sign of equality ts with their state when SMW nature
of
q,K
(r, R) becomes stable and this happens when the electrons occupy their G-state or the
superconducting state.
To understand the states of wave superposition state of e1 and e2 (represented by
q,K
(r, R)),
we depict two possible situations in Fig.1(B). In the rst possibility e1 and e2 (marked as 1 and 2
in the gure) approach each other and exchange their positions after their collision at their CM.
We identify this as a state of their mutual super position (MS) (pl. see Fig.1(B)-(i)). However,
in the second possibility where e1 and e2 return back to the sides of their pre-collision positions
(pl. see Fig.1(B)-(ii)), each electron (say ith electron and i being 1 or 2 in this example) is
seen to have its wave superposition with itself; we identify this as a state of self superposition
(SS) of each electron which can be expressed by

q
i
,K
i
(r
i
, R
i
) = [u
p

i
(b

i
)u
p

i
(b

i
) u
p

i
(b

i
)u
p

i
(b

i
) (9)
6
where two waves, u
p

i
(b

i
) and u
p

i
(b

i
) represent two states (pre and post collision) of the same
electron. Since u
p

i
(b

i
) and u
p

i
(b

i
) have notional dierence from u
p
1
(b
1
) and u
p
2
(b
2
), we conclude
that each electron (say ith) in the electron uid at a LT can be described by

q
i
,K
i
(r
i
, R
i
) = sin(q
i
.r
i
) exp(iK
i
.R
i
). (10)

q
i
,K
i
(r
i
, R
i
) is proposed to be known as macro-orbital (MO) because it helps in understanding
the role of wave nature at macroscopic scale [11,13, 17]. As depicted in Fig.1(C), a quantum
particle (say an electron) can be seen to have its SS, when it is close to the point of reection
from a potential surface, or is trapped between two parallel potential surfaces, or in a cylindrical
potential, or in a spherical potential shell, etc. The SS state becomes stable when = 2/q of
electron equals 2d
c
, -the size (diameter or width) of the connement or the channels through
which ces in a conductor move. In other words, a ce has its stable SS state when it occupies
its G-state in a potential trap (last three cases in Fig.1(C)).
2.5 Macro-orbital and two motions of a ce
When a ce assumes its SS state (Eqn.10) in a metal, it acquires two independent motions
(q and K motions) in agreement with the following relations
p
1
= q +
K
2
and p
2
= q +
K
2
(11)
which can be obtained by rearranging Eqn.6. The qmotion signies the relative motion of
momentum k = 2q and Kmotion signies the CM motion of a SMW pair represented by
the particle in question. Since the Kmotion represents the plane wave motion (exp(iK
i
.R
i
))
(Eqn.10) of a ce (say ith), K is expected to have any value between 0 and ; however, since
all ces are conned to a nite volume, Kvalues can be discrete with very small dierence
( /l, l = size of the conductor) between two consecutive Kvalues. On the other hand since
qmotion represents the relative motion (with k = 2q) which is governed by inter-particle
interactions (or its interaction with potential walls of its connements), allowed q are discrete
with a large dierence ( /d
c
N
1/3
/l) in its consecutive values.
Since electrons are fermions and each quantum state is expected to have only one fermion,
they prefer to occupy dierent states of Kmotion and a single quantum state of qmotion.
This choice not only helps the electron uid to have minimum possible KE under given physical
conditions, it is also consistent with the fact that fermionic nature is inapplicable with qmotion
[11, 12, 17]. To this eect it is important to note that the dierence in the energies of two close
by qlevels is about (l/d
c
)
2
10
16
times the corresponding dierence between two close by
Klevels; the typical structure of these levels is shown in Fig.2.
3. G-state a system of ces
As per our microscopic theory of a system of interacting fermions (SIF) [11], all ces in their
G-state (or T = 0 state) have identically equal value q = q
o
and dierent K ranging between 0
and K
F
as per Fermi distribution. However, in this section we not only conclude these results
by using universally known experimental facts, scientic arguments and logical analysis but also
reveal valuable information about the most preferred spatial locations of ces in the G-state;
this information is vital to understand important aspects of a CEE burst.
7
Particles in the G-state of a many body system are expected to have minimum possible
values, separately, of their kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE), since one depends
on their velocities and the other on their positions. Such a state can be determined by choosing
minimum possible values of their momenta and by selecting their space positions in such a
way that the system has minimum possible PE. To this eect we consider the entire system
in terms of pairs of particles because this helps in separating six independent motions of each
of the N(N 1)/2 pairs, that we can count in a system of N particles [18], in terms of: (i) 1
motion in which two particles move with equal and opposite momenta (q, -q) [where q || r], +
(ii) 2 motions in which two particles move with q, -q momenta [where q is to r] without any
change in PE since there is no change their r, + (iii) 3 components of Kmotion (kind of free
particle motion since it encounters no interaction). These motions are, respectively, equivalent
to: (i) 1 vibration, (ii) 2 rotations around two mutually perpendicular lines ( to molecular
axis) and (iii) 3 orthogonal translations of CM of a diatomic molecule (say, X
2
where X can
be any atom). Using this analogy and the well known fact that each X-atom in the G-state
of X
2
molecule has non-zero amount of zero-point energy corresponding to their zero-point
momentum q
o
, while rotations and translations have zero energy, each ce in the G-state of
electron uid is expected to have non-zero value of zero-point energy corresponding to q = q
o
of
its qmotion. However, since electrons are fermions, they also have minimum possible energy
for their Kmotions as per Fermi distribution; the two motions would not disturb each other
at least at T = 0 where both have minimum possible energies. Since the PE of ces in such a
state dominates in arranging them at certain locations, -obviously of lowest possible PE, it is
clear that each ce represents a particle trapped in a cavity located around these points; one
can visualise or carve such a cavity in the lattice of +ve ions and neighbouring ces. Each
ce falls in to a trap state, particularly, at LTs when their wave packet size equals the size
of such cavities. As discussed in the following paragraph, such ces can retain their mobility
under smallest perturbation if the sum of the ve potential at the centre of the cavity and the
Kmotion energy is +ve.
In order to understand the points of lowest PE for ces in Na metal (just for an example)
we compare it with NaF crystal by considering both as systems of +ve charge (Na
+
ions) and
ve charge (ces/F

ions). The fact that F

ions in NaF (cf., Fig.3(A)) occupy rigidly xed

positions even at a T much higher than room temperature certies that ve charges in the mist
of rigidly xed +ve charges nd deep potential wells (cf., Fig.3(B) which depict 2-D analogue
of the arrangement of +ve ions with potential traps (assumed to have parabolic shape under
harmonic approximation and atted for ces/ve ions of net +ve energy) for ve charges for
their localization and rigid positions. Naturally, ces in Na metal are also expected to nd
similar potential wells to have their localization in the structure of rigidly xed positions of
Na
+
ions. However, since an electron is about 35000 times lighter than F atom, it is expected
to have about 190 times more zero point energy in comparison to F

ion if the structure and

symmetry of Na
+
ion lattice has no dierence in the two cases; note that the zero point energy
of a particle in a parabolic potential trap changes with mass (m) of the particle as m
1/2
.
Assuming that said parabolic potential gets attened at level of such a high zero-point energy,
it is, evidently, clear that the excess zero point energy of ces in Na metal is the main reason
for which they remain mobile in spite of deep potential wells they nd at dierent points
commensurate with the structure of Na
+
lattice (cf., Fig.3(A)). Taking account of the fact that
Na
+
-Na
+
distance ( 2.9

A) in NaF is about 25% smaller than Na

+
-Na
+
distance ( 3.9

A) in
8
Na metal, it may be argued that the potential wells in Na metal may have smaller depth with
wider opening as depicted in Fig.3(C). This strengthens the above said reason further for a ce
to remain mobile in Na metal. As such, it is clear that: (i) all ces which occupy q = q
o
state
at T T
o
can move only in order of their locations since they cease to have relative motion in
this state as evident from the fact that expectation value of relative momentum operator for a
pair in sin(k.r)/2 has zero value, (ii) they would remain localized (at least at T = 0), since they
have only minimum possible KE for their Kmotions (with 0 K K
F
) at T = 0, and (iii)
this would be observed even if the said potential is represented, to a good approximation, by a
at potential (cf., Fig.3(D)) surface. In summary ces in T = 0 state of a metal have periodic
arrangement commensurate with the symmetry and structure of rigidly xed +ve ions.
4. Origin of CEE
4.1 Rate of CEE ces
In what follows from experiments, CEE is a property of ces in their G-state. Its rate
R
cee
(T) is expected to be directly proportional to N
o
(T) = NN

(T) at a given T with N

(T)
being the number of ces in excited states of their qmotions. Assuming that the process can
be explained, to a good approximation, by considering only two levels of q = q
o
and q = 2q
o
,
respectively, representing G-state and rst excited state of the qmotion of a ce), we have
R
cee
(T) = BN
o
(T) BN
1 exp (3T
o
/T)
1 + exp (3T
o
/T)
BN

1 exp

3T
o
T

(12)
where B is the constant of proportionality. In obtaining Eqn.12, we use the fact that the energy
dierence between q = q
o
and q = 2q
o
levels would be 3
o
3T
o
with
o
= h
2
/8m

e
d
2
c
T
o
being the G-state energy of a ce as a particle trapped in a spherical cavity of diameter d
c
available in the mist of surrounding +ve ions and neighbouring ces. A ce has this kind of
trapping because, since (as concluded in Section 3) it is not trapped in the parabolic potential
(Fig.3) seen by it as a ve charge in the structure of rigidly xed +ve ions; however, the said
parabolic potential is expected to aect the its inertia for its qmotion for which we used m

e
(in place of m
e
) in
o
== h
2
/8m

e
d
2
c
. It is obvious m

e
can be much higher than m
e
.
Our theoretical R
cee
(T) obtained by using Eqn.(12) (with T
o
= 23 and 25) are tabulated in
Table 1 for their comparison with experimental values reported in [5]. For a better perception,
these results are also compared in Figs. 4 and 5 which, respectively, depict R
cee
(T) vs. T plots
and log
10
R
cee
(T) vs T plots. Although, our approximation behind Eqn.12 greatly simplies
the reality, nevertheless a qualitative agreement of our results (Table 1 and Figs. 4 and 5) with
experimental ndings [5], described by
R
cee
(T) exp

T
T
r

with T
r
= 100 (13)
is greatly satisfying. Here we have two important points: (i) While R
cee
(T) (Eq.12) follows
from standard thermodynamical law of distribution of particles in their energy states, R
cee
(T)
(Eqn.13) is an empirical law which ts well with experimental observations, and (ii) R
cee
(T)
(Eqn.12) is a dierence of two terms with exponential term being a function of 1/T, while
experimental R
cee
(T) (Eqn.13) is a single exponential term and a function of T. We believe
9
that the two relations dier more for the approximation behind Eqn.12; their marginal dierence
at quantitative level can be set aside when Eqn.12 is corrected analytically for the number of
ces which occupy excited states other than q = 2q
o
. However, both relations (Eqns. 12 and
13) unequivocally establish that CEE is a property of ces in their G-state. Evidently, we have
been able to conclude the origin of CEE. We will try to nd the analytic relation for R
cee
(T)
that matches with Eqn.13 in a future course of our study.
Guided by the experimental results for CEE and their relation with N
o
(T), it appears that
decrease in N
o
(T) by dN
o
(T) with rise in T by dT follows a relation similar to radioactive decay
of atomic nuclei with time. Accordingly, we have

dN
o
(T)
dT
N
o
(T) = N
o
(T) (14)
which renders
N
o
(T) = N
o
(T = 0) exp(T) = N exp(T/T
r
) where = 1/T
r
(15)
where T
r
represents the T at which the number of ces in their G-state gets reduced to a value
N
o
(0)/e = N/e. Similarly, we can dene a T = T
1/2
at which the N/2 ces are pushed to higher
excited states. A simple mathematics reveals that
T
1/2
=
ln 2

= T
r
ln 2 (16)
It may be noted that combining Eqn.15 with R
cee
(T) N
o
(T) = DN exp(T/T
r
) renders a
relation which exactly matches with Eqn.13. In Section 4.2 we use dierent properties of ces
in their G-state to explain the structure of a CEE burst.
Using an argument similar to that used behind Eqn.12 in the framework of conventional
theories (CTs) of interacting fermions [10], we nd that (N

(T)) in states above Fermi level at

LTs (where T << T
F
and T
F
is Fermi temperature) is given by N

(T) CNT/T
F
(with C
being a constant). This renders N
o
(T) = N N

(T) = N(1 CT/T

F
) indicating that R
CT
cee
(T)
(rate of CEE as per CTs [10]) should be given by
R
CT
cee
(T) B

N
o
(T) = B

N(1 CT/T
F
) (17)
The fact, that R
CT
cee
(T), which increases linearly with decrease in T, does not agree with ex-
periments, unambiguously, establishes that CTs lack necessary basis to explain CEE. In other
words, CTs are not the right theories of ces for explaining their LT properties, at least; this,
obviously, holds true for BCS theory indicating why BCS theory failed to account for high T
superconductivity and the coexistence of superconductivity and ferroelectricity as concluded in
[19].
4.2 Structure of CEE bursts
As concluded in Section 3, ces in their G-state in a metal have a periodic arrangement
commensurate with the symmetry and structure of +ve ions and this aspect is not aected by
the fact that these electrons remain mobile even at T = 0 due to their Kmotion energy. All
ces retain identically equal amount of zero-point energy (
o
) corresponding to q = q
o
because
10
each one of them represents a particle trapped in a cavity left by the surrounding +ve ions and
nearest neighbour ces with a potential well at the cavity centre. We assume that : (i) ces,
emitted spontaneously in a burst, make a set of such electrons in q = q
o
state, (ii) depending on a
chance decided by statistical laws, these electrons move coherently in a direction perpendicular
(or so) to the surface of the cathode and come out as a burst whose emission is, obviously,
expected to be random in time, (iii) in principle, the said set may have any number N
ch
of
ces as observed experimentally in dierent bursts, and (iv) to a good approximation, the set
can be represented by a chain of ces as depicted Fig.6 for better perception and clarity of the
following discussion, although, in reality, the set may have ces distributed over a volume
3
where represents their coherence length.
Since ces in a burst are assumed to be in their ground state where they cease to have any
relative motion, they can move only in order of their locations with identically equal velocity;
such a motion is certainly a statistical possibility in a uid of macroscopically large number
number (N) of ces not only at non-zero T but even at T = 0 because these electrons retain
large amount of Kmotion energy for their fermionic nature. Obviously, when N
ch
of these
ces happen to move out of a metal spontaneously as a set of coherently moving particles, the
order of their locations in position space remain unchanged.
The way an orderly arranged set of particles (say a 1-D chain of interacting atoms) is known
to have collective motions (known as phonons or mass density waves), a chain of localised ces
as depicted in Fig.6 can be visualised to have charge density waves of dierent wave vector (Q)
due to their thermal motions. Since the T of the metal decides the Q of a charge density
wave having maximum probability for its excitation, N
ch
would depend on T. Larger is T,
larger would be the value of most probable Q, smaller would be N
ch
having coherent motion
(See Fig.6). Similarly, since the Qmodes which would inuence the structure of the bursts
at T 0 would fall close to Q 0, the average size and duration of bursts are expected to be
larger at a lower T than a higher Ts. For better perception of these inferences, we depict in
Fig.6 how the presence of electrons in excited states (red circles) makes the size of the set of
ces in their coherent states (blue circles) smaller; higher is T, higher is the density of excited
number of ces (red circle) and lower is the size of the set of coherently moving ces.
As reported in [20] we note that the eld energy of Nwaves representing Nphotons with
random distribution of their relative phase and of those having constant phase dierence varies,
respectively, in proportion to N and N
2
. Since ces too are represented by waves, these results
can also be related to their states having random phases and those having constant phase
dierence, respectively. In view of the fact that ces in the G-state have of ordered locations
with constant relative phase separation = 2n, it is obvious that every set of such electrons
behaves as a system of coherent photons. In this context we underline the fact that it is easier to
stop a ce if it is moving incoherently (e.g. in an ensemble of ces moving randomly in a normal
conductor), while it is almost impossible to stop the same in a stream of coherently moving ces
where motion of the rst ce is backed by N 1 other ces (as seen in superconductors) and
this perception is used understand why ces of super-currents do not lose their energy or why
super-currents persists for a very long time. It appears that ces in a coherent state move like
a single body (say like a train) with a net momentum N
ch
K

(say) indicating that the motion

of each ce is backed by a large number of N
ch
1 ces. Naturally, if any energy barrier tries to
stop the rst ce, it overcomes the barrier by sharing desired energy from N
ch
1 ces backing
11
it. In the process, the energy (

) with which it comes across the barrier can easily be assumed

to be proportional to N
ch
1 indicating that

= (N
ch
1) where is the contribution of
energy from each of the N
ch
1 ces. Since N
ch
>> 1, we have

N
ch
which can be more
than enough to overcome the barrier, even if is very small, because N
ch
is a large number. In
what follows when the set of N
ch
ces crosses the potential barrier each ce has an impact of a
kind of Push from the ces in the back and this adds an energy proportional to the number of
backing ces. Consequently, though the number of backing ces decreases one by one but the
average velocity of all electrons (v
ch
) coming out in a burst can be assumed to be proportional
to

N
ch
) or to

(L) since the length (L) of the burst is proportional to N

ch
. This
implies why average time duration (
L
) of the burst should be

L

L
v
ch

(L) (18)
which agrees with experiments.
5. MO based other theories
It is not for the rst time that MO representation of a quantum particle has been used to
explain a long awaited experimental observation (viz., the exponential increase in R
cee
(T) with
decrease in T), it has been used by us to solve several other unsolved challenging problems
of condensed matter physics [14]. We initiated our eorts to develop MO representation to
use rst quantization approach for solving many body problems when it became clear that
conventional theories of systems of interacting bosons (SIB) developed around Bogoliubovs
model [21] and theories of systems of interacting fermions (SIF) developed around BCS model
[22] failed to account for superuidity/ superconductivity at quantitative level. To this eect,
as concluded in [23], we discovered that the basic premises of these theories are inconsistent
with certain realities of systems like electron uid, liquids
4
He and
3
He at LTs; in what fol-
lows, these theories can not provide clear, complete and experimentally consistent microscopic
understanding of superconductivity and/or superuidity of dierent systems [23] in spite of
their mathematical accuracy. Interestingly, this is corroborated by the failure of BCS theory
to account for high T superconductivity and several experimental results such as de Heer eect
[19]. Similarly, as concluded in [24], CTs based around Bogoliubovs model developed after
sustained eorts of about 75 years, have failed to explain superuidity and related properties
of liquid
4
He type systems. On the other hand, we succeeded in meeting the challenge of using
rst quantization approach to many body systems against the common belief of conventional
many body physicists that this approach can not be used with these systems because they have
innitely large degrees of freedom to be separated. However, we could do so, by nding that
a particle in a many body system is better represented by a MO [11,12, 13, 17, 18] (a kind of
pair waveform, Eqn.10) and this has helped us in solving following major problems and related
questions.
(i) Common origin of superconductivity of widely dierent superconductors which can also be
applied to the superuidity of liquid
3
He [11].
(ii) Long awaited microscopic theory of superuidity of a system of interacting bosons (SIB)
[17],
12
(iii) Real nature Bose Einstein condensate (BEC) in a SIB [18].
In what follows, the MO representation of a particle [11, 12] has emerged as the most
relevant basis for developing the rst quantization theory of any many body system similar to
electron uid and liquids
4
He and
3
He. It is interesting that the potential of this representation
now gets credit to understand CEE.
6. Concluding Remarks
(i) CEE is a property of ces in their ground state. Its rate is expected to increase linearly
as N(1 BT/T
F
), if we follow CTs [10] of electron uid. Since this does not agree with
experimentally observed rate ( exp(T/T
r
)) of CEE [5], it is clear that CTs do not have
necessary potential to account for the phenomenon. Evidently, CTs are not the right theories
of a SIF to understand the LT properties of electron uid and this is true for BCS theory of
superconductivity. As concluded in [23], the basic premises of CTs (including BCS theory and
similar other theories of superconductivity) are not consistent with certain physical realities of
LT states of ces. This is corroborated by the fact that BCS theory not only failed to explain
high T superconductivity but also failed to account for several recent observations on metallic
superconductors (e.g., the co-existence of ferroelectricity with superconductivity [19]) for which
BCS theory has, always, been considered to be the most viable theory. In fact, as analysed in
[23], it is clear that CTs of widely dierent many body systems of interacting fermions/bosons
can-not provide clear, complete and experimentally consistent microscopic understanding of LT
properties of these systems, in spite of their mathematical accuracy.
(ii) Since the fact, that our theory of interacting fermions [11] provides necessary foundation to
CEE by concluding that our results (cf., Eqn.12 and Figs.4 and 5) closely agree with exponential
growth of CEE with decreasing T, as found by Meyer [5], meets the challenge of nding the
origin of CEE. Conversely, this fact provides desired experimental support to our theory [11]. It
establishes that each ce in a metal at LTs assumes its SS state like a quantum particle trapped
in a cavity located at dierent positions commensurate with the symmetry and structure of
+ve ions with a potential well for a negatively charged particle at its centre. All these ces have
two motions which are experimentally supported by the two uid behaviour of ces when they
assume superconducting state. The experimental existence of an electron in an electron bubble
[25, 26] (known to exist in He liquids) also demonstrates how a ce in a metal should assume a
SS state.
Similarly, free electrons on the surface of liquid He are also found to have an orderly arrange-
ment (like 2D-crystals) where they get localised with certain amount of zero-point energy and
corresponding q
o
[27]. The fact that electrons in this arrangement are also observed to move in
order of their location proves that ces in a metal at LTs too can have their orderly arrangement
with a possibility that they can move in order of their positions. Evidently, we can-not ignore
the macro-orbital representation of an electron if we wish to understand the LT properties of
ces in metals. How exactly, this representation helps in understanding superuidity of liquids
4
He and
3
He has been discussed in [11, 17].
(iii) As identied rightly by Meyer [5], the present study nds that CEE is undoubtedly related
to a state where each ce represents a quantum particle trapped in a cavity. The process of
trapping can be identied with the process in which an electron assumes its self superposition
13
and occupies its G-state in a self created spherical cavity (known as electron bubble) in liquid
He [25, 26]. While these electrons cease to have relative motion, they retain their mobility
in order of their positions because they retain excess KE with their Kmotions for their
fermionic nature and their net energy is +ve. In other words these electrons can move only
coherently with identically equal velocity. Such ces leave their trapped positions as set of their
large number. The process of emission of a burst is random like the emission of , and
particles in radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus; it depends on the chance that such a
group of ces exists in the metal in a ready to leave state. However, all ces, that come out
as a set, have their correlation (in position and phase spaces) because they assume ordered
positions with identically equal q = q
o
and they move out coherently with nearly same velocity.
Their spontaneous emission from metal leaves equal number of vacant cites (equivalent to +ve
charges) which are neutralized as soon as these electrons reach the rst dynode, obviously
because this closes the electrical circuit. These points seem to explain Meyers question about
the processes of ionization and recombination (or the processes of emptying a nd lling of the
cavities).
We also note that whether a trapping occurs in a semiconductor (as discussed in [6,7]) or
in a defect [6] in the lattice, the state of electron simply resembles with its SS state and it can
be represented by a macro-orbital (Eqn.12) with K = 0 if the electron stays at its location or
with K = 0 if the electron moves or drifts with non-zero velocity. Even the trapping of an
electron produced by the so called defect mediated quantum interference [[8] should not have
dierent meaning, since quantum interference does not dier from self interference (synonym
of self superposition) of an electron. Similarly, the suggestion that the trapping of electrons
occurs when ces and lattice lose their thermal energy [3], is consistent with our reason of self
superposition expected to occur at LTs [11]. Since our theory of interacting fermions [11],
available on the arXiv (since 2006) and scribd.com (since Oct, 2012), still awaits a recognition
it deserves, Meyer [5] is justied in stating that a quantitative explanation of CEE in terms
of known physics is still eluding. However, the situation should change since our theory [11]
meets the challenge of unravelling the origin of CEE as reported in this paper.
(iv) Particles in the G-state of every many body system (be it a molecule, or a solid) have
xed positions with certain amount of zero-point energy depending on the strength of inter-
particle interactions. When considered in terms pairs of its constituents, each pair ceases to
have relative and CM motions to keep the KE energy of the system at minimum. These laws
of nature are to be followed by all systems even if they remain liquid at T = 0 (as we really
nd with liquid
4
He [28], liquid
3
He and electron uid [19]). While the observation of CEE is
a clear proof for the validity of these laws with electron uid in a metal, experimentally found
well dened ferroelectric/ magnetic order in superuid phase of liquids
4
He, and
3
He as well as
superconducting phase of electron uid [19] render unequivocal proof for their general validity.
Unfortunately, people working on liquid
4
He, liquid
3
He and electron uid missed this fact from
the beginning of their eorts to develop their theories of superuidity or superconductivity;
naturally, it is not surprising that they did not succeed in their mission.
Acknowledgment : The author is thankful to Prof H.O. Meyer for sending a *.pdf le of his
paper and useful communication. He is also thankful G. Ortiz for valuable comments which
greatly helped him in improving the discussion. He is also thankful to Dr. Samrat Dey for his
critical reading and suggestions.
14
Table 1: Rate of CEE (all values scaled to 1000 at 0 K)
Tempature Experimental Theoretical
T Meyer[5] T
o
= 25 T
o
= 23
0. 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0
4. 961.0 999.0 999.0
10. 905.0 998.0 997.0
20. 819.0 954.0 938.0
30. 741.0 848.0 818.0
40. 670.0 734.0 697.0
50. 606.0 635.0 598.0
60. 549.0 554.0 519.0
70. 497.0 490.0 456.0
80. 449.0 437.0 406.0
90. 407.0 394.0 366.0
100. 368.0 358.0 332.0
110. 333.0 328.0 303.0
120. 301.0 303.0 280.0
130. 281.0 281.0 259.0
140. 247.0 261.0 242.0
150. 223.0 245.0 226.0
160. 202.0 230.0 212.0
170. 183.0 217.0 200.0
180. 165.0 205.0 189.0
190. 150.0 195.0 180.0
200. 135.0 185.0 170.0
.
15
References
[1] Rodman J. P. and Smith H. J., Appl. Opt., 2 (1963) 181.
[2] Gadsden M., Appl. Opt., 4 (1965) 1446.
[3] Ankowski A. et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods. A, 556 (2006) 146.
[4] Nikkel J. A., Lippincott W. H. and McKinsey D. N., J. Instrum., 2 (2007) 11004.
[5] (a) Meyer, H. O., Dark Rate of a Photomultiplier at Cryogenic Temperatures, arXive/cond-
mat/0805.0771.pdf
(b) Meyer, H. O., Euro. Phys. Lett., 89 (2010) 58001.
[6] Chen I. C., Holland S. and Hu C., J. Appl. Phys., 61 (1987) 4544.
[7] Aurel F. D. et al., Appl. Phys. Lett., 74 (1999) 407.
[8] Birge N. O., Golding B. and Haemmerle W. H., Phys. Rev. Lett., 62 (1989) 195.
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of unsolved problems in physics (NOTE: use underscore
between every two words in List...physics)
[10] Phillips, P. (2008). Advanced Solid State Physics. Perseus Books. p. 224.
[11] (a) Jain, Y.S., Basic foundations of the microscopic theory of super conductivity,
arXiv:cond-mat/0603784, (2006); a revised version of this paper is available at [11(b)]
(b) Jain, Y.S., http://www.scribd.com/doc/110681115/ First-Quantization-Theory-of-
Superconductivity (pp 1-43).
[12] Jain, Y.S., Cent. Euro. J. Phys. 2 (2004), 709-719.
[13] Jain, Y.S., Ind. J. Phys. 79 (2005), 1009-14; the factor |sin(k.r/2)| in Eqn.5 for in
this paper should be read as sin(|k.r|/2) and E
g
(T)/Nk
B
T in Eqn.25 should be read as
E
g
(T)/Nk
B
.
[14] For example, (1) Basic foundation of universal origin of superconductivity [11], (2) Nature
of Bose Einstein condensate in a system of interacting bosons [17, 18], (3) Microscopic
theory of superuidity of a system of interacting bosons [17] (Note that as concluded in
the most recent review [16] a viable theory of superuidity of liquid
4
He could not be
concluded by using convention approach even after sustained eorts by many prominent
physicists over a period of about 75 years. Similarly, several experimental results (e.g.,
[19]) reported in recent years have questioned the validity of BCS theory even for metallic
superconductors).
[15] See Section 3, last paragraph of this paper.
[16] While two quantum particles such as two ces (e1 and e2) are said to have their collision if
their wave packet size, /2 (where = 2/q is de Broglie wave length related to relative
momentum k = 2q) is smaller than their HC size, , they are said to have their wave
superposition in an otherwise situation of /2 > .
16
[17] Jain, Y.S., Amer. J. Conden. Phys. 2 (2012), 32-52.
[18] Jain, Y.S., International J. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (2012), 101-107
[19] (a) Jain, Y. S., On the origin of de Heer eect and the accuracy of microscopic theories of
superconductivity, http://www.scribd.com/doc/146390067/
(b) Jain, Y. S., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236869920
[20] (a) http://physics.usc.edu/ vongehr/lasertel(**)html/lasertel.html
[To reach this web page pl. replace (**) by underscore].
[21] Bogoliubov, N.N., J, Phys. (USSR) 11 (1947), 23; Reprinted in English in Z.M. Galasiewics,
Helium 4. Pergamon, Oxford (1971), pp 247-267.
[22] Bardeen, J., Cooper, L.N., and Schrieer, J.R., Phys. Rev. 108 (1957), 1175-1204.
[23] Jain, Y.S., http://www.scribd.com/doc/110441679/ Intrinsic-Problems-Superuid-
Theories (pp 1-8).
[24] Vilchynskyy, S.A., Yakimenko, A.I., Isaieva, K.O., and Chumachenko, A.V., Fiz. Nizk.
Temp. 39, 937-957 (September 2013), Low Temp Phys. 39(9), 724-741 (2013).
[25] (a) Rosenblit, M. and Jortner, J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), 4079-4082;
(b) Farnik, M., Henne, U., Samelin, B. and Toennies, J.P., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998),
3892-3895;
(c) Marris, H., and Balibar, S., Phys. To-day 53 (2000), 29-34.
[26] When a high energy electron enters a system such as liquid He, it loses its kinetic energy
(KE) through its collisions with He-atoms till its energy reaches a value as low as
h
2
/8m
e
d
2
which represents its ground state energy in a spherical cavity of size d whose
boundaries are He atoms in its immediate surrounding. However, at this point, the electron
exerts its zero-point force f
o
on neighbouring He-atoms and pushes them away until f
o
reaches its equilibrium with opposing forces (f
a
) emerging from He-He attraction and
external pressure. As a result of this process, the electron occupies a self created spherical
cavity (popularly known as electron bubble) of diameter as large as 38

Aand behaves like

a particle trapped in a spherical cavity; the state of this electron has no dierence with
SS state of any ce at LTs. If the electron bubble is stationary it corresponds to q = /D
and K = 0. However, if the bubble is made to drift it corresponds to q = /D and K = 0
where K corresponds to drift velocity.
[27] Peeters, F., Electron crystallites oating on superuid helium Physics 2 (2009), 4.
[28] Jain, Y.S., Chhangte, L., Chutia, S., and Dey, S., Current Science,101 (2011), 769-775.
17
l
2 l
2

l
2 l
2

(B)
[i)
Mutual Suerosition
[ii)
SelI Suerosition
(C)
ExampIes of
Situations of seIf superpositions
b2
K
q
-q
q
bl
(A)
p2
pl
r
-q
Fig.1 : (A) Graphic representation of relation between positions and momenta of two particles in
laboratory and center of mass coordinate systems, (B) depiction of mutual superposition (MS)
and self superposition (SS) of two particles, and (C) a particle close to a potential wall and
conned to potential trap such as two parallel potential walls, a cylindrical channel, a spherical
shell, etc., assumes a self superposition which is described by a macro-orbital (Eqn.10).
18
q- and K-IeveIs
qo
q- IeveIs K- IeveIs
qo
KF
0
Fig.2 : Typical representation of energy levels of dierent q and dierent K depicted separately
and together in upper and lower parts of the gure, respectively. A particle has two motions
in its macro-orbital (Eqn.10) representation.
19

Fig.3 : (A) Structure of NaF (Na-large size (red) sphere, F-small size (blue) sphere, (B), (C)
and (D) Typical representation of the locations of potential wells for ve charge in the 2-D
array of +ve charges indicating varying parameters of the possible potential traps; the fact
that the potential wells gets attened for net +ve energy of the electrons is missing from this
depiction.
20
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 50 100 150 200
R
a
t
e

o
f

C
E
E

(
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y

u
n
i
t
s
)
Temperature (K)
Fig.4 : A comparison of experimentally observed rate (R
cee
(T) exp(T/T
r
) [5]) of CEE
(solid line) with our theoretical results (Eqn.12) with T
o
= 23 (small dashed line) and with
T
o
= 25 (big dashed line). All the results are normalised to 1000 at T = 0K. In view of the fact
that simple relation (Eqn.12) for R
cee
(T) does not take into consideration some of the weaker
processes such as quantum uctuations, thermal uctuations, etc., the theoretical results are
in close agreement with experimental results.
21
100
1000
0 50 100 150 200
R
a
t
e

o
f

C
E
E

(
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y

u
n
i
t
s
)
Temperature (K)
Fig.5 : A comparison of experimentally observed rate, log
10
R
cee
(T) (representing R
cee
(T)
exp(T/T
r
) [5]) of CEE (solid line) with our theoretical results (Eqn.12, Table 1) with T
o
= 23
(small dashed line) and with T
o
= 25 (big dashed line). All the results are normalised to 1000
at T = 0K . In view of the fact that Eqn.12 (for R
cee
(T)) does not take into consideration some
of the weaker processes such as quantum uctuations, thermal uctuations, etc., the theoretical
results are in close agreement with experimental results.
22
Q = n/L
Q = 2n/L
Q = 4n/L
Q = 8n/L
Q = 3n/L
Q = 5n/L
Q = 6n/L
Fig.6 : Depiction of T = 0 arrangement of conduction electrons in a metal represented by their
chain (a 1-D analogue of real 3D arrangement) and possible charge density waves with varying
Q with L being the length of the chain. The fact that depending on the density of conduction
electrons, the chain may have an arrangement where their representative wave packets of two
neighbouring electrons touch each other is depicted in bottom of the gure; red circles in the
chain indicate the random location of electrons in dierent excited states of qmotions and
their increasing number with increasing T.
23