You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


---
abstract: 'Spatially nonhomogeneously spin polarized nuclei are proposed as a new mechanism to monitor electron states in a nanostructure, or as a means to createn and, if necessary, reshape such nanostructures in the course of the experiment. We found that a polarization of nulear spins may lift the spin polarization of the electron states in a nanostructure and, if sufficiently strong, leads to a polarization of the electron spins. Polarized nuclear spins may form an energy landscape capable of binding electrons with energy up to several meV and the localization radius $ >$ 100Å.'
author:
- |
    V. Fleurov$^{1}$, V.A. Ivanov$^{2,3}$, F.M. Peeters$^2$, and I.D. Vagner$^{4,5}$\
    $^1$Beverly and Raymond Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University Tel, Aviv 69978, Israel.\
    $^2$Departement Natuurkunde, Universiteit Antwerpen (UIA), Universiteitplein 1, B-2610, Antwerpen, Belgium\
    $^3$N.S. Kurnakov Institute of General and Inorganic Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninskii prospect 31, 117907, Moscow, Russia\
    $^4$Grenoble High Magnetic Field Laboratory (MPI/FKF & CNRS), BP166X, F-38042, Grenoble Cedex 9, France\
    $^5$Department of Communication Engineering, Holon Academic Institute of Technology, POB 305, Holon 58102 Israel.
title: 'Spin-engineered quantum dots'
---

PACS numbers; 85.30.V, 31.30.G, 33.35

Introduction
============

Progress in microelectronics depends crucially on a deep understanding of the electronic properties of low dimensional semiconductors and nanostructures. Typical examples are heterojunctions, quantum wells, and fabricated out of them, 1D quantum wires and 0D quantum dots.

Characteristics of nanostructure devices are mainly determined by the shape of the potential landscape and can be monitored by applying a gate voltage and/or an external magnetic field. A possible role of polarized nuclear spins is generally overlooked in this context. The technique of interband optical pumping, developed in the 60th [@l68] (see also [@plss77]) opened up a way to reach nuclear spin polarization approaching 50%. This results in an effective magnetic field (called Overhauser field) acting on the electron spins which may reach a few Tesla, or equivalently, several meV energy. This energy is comparable to the electron energies in typical nanostructure devices.

As a consequence, one may expect that through a controlled polarization or depolarization of nuclear spins one may monitor the characteristics of a nanodevice. The Overhauser field leads to an effective Zeeman splitting of the electron states and subsequently to their shifts. If this effect is sufficiently strong, it may lead to a polarization of the electrons in the dot.

Since, at low temperature, the characteristic time of nuclear spin relaxation is extremely long, one may think about creating a potential landscape for the electrons by a spatially inhomogeneous polarization of the nuclei. By polarizing nuclei in a small region one can create a local potential, attractive for electrons with one spin orientation and repulsive for electrons with the opposite spin orientation. This may open up a new way of spin-engineering of quantum dots or geometrically more complex nanodevices, whose shapes can be manipulated in real time.

All semiconductor materials consist of more than one stable elemental isotope with non zero nuclear spin $I$; for example $^{69}$Ga (natural abundance 60.4%), $^{71}$Ga (31.6%), $^{75}$As (100%), all have nuclear spin $I =
\frac{3}{2}$, while $^{27}$Al has $I = \frac{5}{2}$. A lithographically prepared GaAs/Al$_{1-x}$Ga$_x$As heterostructure of dimensions 10nm$\times$10nm comprises a huge number of active nuclear spins $\sim
10^4$. In (Al)GaAs the amount of active nuclei is of the order of the total number of atoms in that volume. In Si/Si$_{1-x}$Ge$_x$ heterojunctions the active nuclear spins have substantially lower concentration because the natural abundances of the Ge and Si isotopes with nonzero nuclear spins are rather small (7.6% for $^{73}$Ge with $I = \frac{9}{2}$ and 4.7% for $^{29}$Si with $I = \frac{1}{2}$). However, recent progress in nanotechnology and growth of isotopically controlled bulk Si [@tioso99] and Ge [@mimmush00], superlattices of, e.g., $^{70}$Ge/$^{74}$Ge [@ih01] will allow one to fabricate low dimensional semiconductor structures with controlled abundances of spin active and neutron transmuted nuclei.

Nuclear spin diffusion decreases with the dimensionality [@mbh01] of the system. Earlier estimates [@pbs57] show that nuclear spin relaxation times in conventional pure semiconductors are very long. At helium temperature they are at least of the order 10$^2$ to 10$^3$ s and can reach up to a few hours. As a comparison, the electron spin relaxation times are about 10$^{-7}$s. It means that any time variation of the nuclear polarization occurs adiabatically slow as compared to the time scales of the electron dynamics. Therefore, one may consider any potential created by the polarized nuclei for the electron subsystem as quasi-static. Vagner etal [@vrwz98] proposed a new type of Aharonov - Bohm effect caused by spin polarized nuclei in the absence of any magnetic field, which was observed very recently [@bbgikmrs01]. Ref. [@bfv98] discusses an anomalous Hall effect caused by the hyperfine interaction of polarized nuclei and electrons. In a recent paper [@enf01] it was shown that a rather small nuclear spin polarization can contribute to the electron relaxation in a quantum dot.

Due to the enormous difference of nuclear, $m_n$, and electron, $m$, masses, the Zeeman splitting is substantially smaller for nuclei as compared to that for electrons. It makes polarization of nuclei by an external magnetic field much more difficult. Nevertheless, various optical techniques [@l68; @plss77; @ka00] for polarizing nuclear spins via creating nonequilibrium spin polarized electrons, which transfer their polarization to the nuclear subsystem in the course of thermal equilibration of electrons, lead to much better results. These techniques are much more efficient than the direct magnetization by an external magnetic field and result in much higher nuclear spin polarizations.

Overhauser [@o53; @o54] has described the hyperfine interaction of the electron and the nuclear spins in a solid through the Fermi-like contact potential $$\label{1}
H_{hf} = A{\bf S}\sum_i {\bf I_i}\delta({\bf r} - {\bf r_i}) \equiv g\mu_B
\hat {\bf B}_n\cdot{\bf S}$$ where the summation in (\[1\]) is over the spin active nuclei, $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton, and $g$ is the electron $g$-factor. $A$ is the coefficient of the hyperfine interaction, which is specific for each particular type of nucleus. The operator $\hat{\bf B}_n$ averaged over the nuclei and the electon wave functions results in the hyperfine Overhauser field, ${\bf B}_n$, which acts on the electron spin. In GaAs the hyperfine coefficient $A$ is negative and the Overhauser field tends to polarize the electron spins parallel to the nuclear spins. This field may be large [@s90; @dp84; @bgk90; @wkm94; @bdpwt95] depending on the type of nuclei and the degree of their polarization. For example, for naturally abundaned isotopes in GaAs it reaches the value $B_n = 5.3$T in the limit that all nuclear spins are completely polarized. The value $B_n =1.7$T has been achieved experimentally [@plss77], which corresponds to 32% nuclear polarization. Thus electrons may be strongly influenced by the Overhauser field in a nano-device with polarized nuclear spins, although this field does not manifest itself magnetically due to the smallness of the nuclear magnetic moments.

Quantum dot with polarized nuclear spins.
=========================================

The aim of this section is to estimate the influence of the Overhauser field, created by a spatially nonhomogeneous nuclear polarization, on the electrons in a quantum dot. We assume that a local Gaussian distribution of nuclear polarization along the $z$ axis was created, $$\label{2}
I_i = I_m\exp\left(-\frac{\rho_i^2}{2a^2} \right) \exp \left(-
\frac{z_i^2}{2b^2} \right),$$ where $\{\rho_i,z_i\}$ are the cylindrical coordinate of the $i$-th nucleus. A quantum dot (QD) with spin polarized nuclei is described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{3}
H = \left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta + \frac{m\omega^2r^2}{2}\right)
\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'} + H_{hf},$$ where for simplicity we assumed a 3D parabolic confined quantum dot with confinement frequency $\omega$. The QD part in (\[3\]) is diagonal with respect to the spin projections $\sigma$ whereas $H_{hf}$ is defined by Eq. (\[1\]) with the nuclear polarization distribution (\[2\]). Here we shall disregard the spin flip processes and consider only the longitudinal part of the hyperfine interaction, i.e., we assume that ${\bf S}\cdot {\bf
I_i} = I_i\sigma_z$.

The eigenenergies and eigenfunctions of the three dimensional harmonic oscillator representing the quantum dot in the absense of nuclear spin polarization is well known: $$\label{4}
E_{n_x,n_y,n_z} = \hbar\omega \left(n_x + n_y + n_z + \frac{3}{2}\right),$$ $$\label{5}
\Psi_{n_x,n_y,n_z}({\bf r}) = \frac{\xi^{3/2}}{(2^{n_x + n_y +
n_z}n_x!n_y!n_z! \sqrt{\pi})^{1/2}} \exp(-\frac{\xi^2(\rho^2 + z^2)}{2})
H_{n_x}(x\xi)) H_{n_y}(y\xi) H_{n_z}(z\xi)$$ where $H_n(...)$ is the Hermite polynomials, and $\xi = \sqrt{m\omega/\hbar}$ determines the inverse size of the dot.

Now we calculate the first order perturbation correction to the ground state energy $$\label{6}
E^{(1)}_{0\sigma} = \frac{\sigma A}{\Omega} I_m \frac{2\sqrt{2}a^2b\xi^3}{[1 +
2a^2\xi^2] \sqrt{1 + 2 b^2 \xi^2}}$$ where $\Omega$ is the volume per nuclear spin, and $\sigma = \pm 1$ is the direction of the electron spin.

The second order correction is due to virtual excitations to even states of the oscillator for the chosen spatial distribution of the nuclear spin polarization. The contribution of the lowest 3-fold degenerate state with the energy $E_{200} = E_{020} = E_{020} = \frac{7}{2}\hbar\omega$ is $$\label{7}
E_0^{(2)} = -\frac{2A^2I_m^2}{\hbar\omega\Omega^2} \frac{a^4b^2\xi^6}{[1 +
2a^2\xi^2]^2 [1 + 2 b^2 \xi^2]}\left\{\frac{2}{[1 + 2 a^2 \xi^2]^2} +
\frac{1}{[1 + 2 b^2 \xi^2]^2}\right\}.$$ The energy of the ground state second order perturbation theory becomes $$\label{8}
E_{0\sigma} = \frac{3}{2} \hbar \omega + E^{(1)}_{0\sigma} + E_0^{(2)}.$$ If the nuclei are polarized in a region, exceeding the size of the dot (i.e., $a\xi,b\xi > 1$) then this energy becomes $$\label{9}
E_{0\sigma} = \frac{3}{2} \hbar \omega + \sigma\frac{AI_m}{\Omega} -
\frac{A^2I_m^2}{16\Omega^2\hbar\omega} \frac{1}{\xi^4} \left(\frac{2}{a^4} +
\frac{1}{b^4} \right)$$ We see that that the principal effect of the Overhauser field on the electron levels is the Zeeman-like lift of the spin degeneracy. It holds also for a homogeneous polarization of the nuclear spins, when $a,b\to \infty$. A nonhomogeneous polarization may shift the electron levels. The ground state (\[9\]) is shifted downward regardless of the $\sigma$ value. However, one should keep in mind, that accounting for the nuclear spin contribution, the potential at the bottom of the well becomes now negative, $- \frac{AI_m}{2\Omega}$, meaning that the distance of the ground state from the bottom of the well may, in fact, increase.

According to the estimates, presented above, the Zeeman-like splitting caused by the first order correction (\[6\]) linearly depends on the nuclear spin polarization and may become substantial. The condition $\frac{AI_m}{\Omega} > \hbar\omega$ can be easily achieved. Although under this condition one cannot restrict oneself to the lowest order terms of perturbation theory, nevertheles the general pattern is qualitatively clear, which is illustrated in Fig.1. As an example we consider a quantum dot occupied by six electrons. It is well known that the Pauli principle makes the total spin of a dot with an even number of electrons equal to zero, when the nuclear polarization is zero and the spin degeneracy is not lifted, as is situation shown in Fig. 1(a). At relatively small $\frac{AI_m}{\Omega} <
\hbar\omega$ polarization the spin degeneracy is lifted but the spin configuration of the electrons in the dot does not change, Fig. 1(b). There are still three spin up electrons and three spin down electrons, so that the net spin of the dot remains zero. However, at larger nuclear polarizations, $\frac{AI_m}{\Omega} > \hbar\omega$, the Zeeman-like splitting becomes larger than the energy distance between the levels, which results in a new spin configuration of the electrons in the dot. One can see from Fig. 1(c) that the level $n=3$ for spin up electrons moves below the $n=2$ level for the spin down electrons. As a result one electron flips its spin. We now have four spin up electrons and only two spin down electrons, which results in a net electron spin of the dot equal to 1.

=10

Potential created by polarized nuclear spins
============================================

Having considered the role played by spin polarized nuclei in a conventional quantum dot, we address now the problem of engineering potential landscapes by means of polarized nuclei. This may be achieved by creating a spatially inhomogeneous nculear spin polarization. For $A < 0$ the resulting potential (\[1\]) is attractive for spin up electrons (parallel to the nuclear spin polarization) and repulsive for the spin down electrons (antiparallel to the nuclear spin polarzation). One may create a nuclear spin polarization $I_m$ in a region with a size $a$, thus forming an attractive (for spin up electrons) potential $U_{hf}= \frac{AI_m}{\Omega}$. Then a simple reasoning based the uncertaintly principle leads us to the conclusion such a potential may bind an electron if the condition $$\label{10}
a > \hbar\sqrt{\frac{\Omega}{2m^*|A|I_m}}$$ is fulfilled.

An estimate can be made for the case of GaAs. Creating a 30% nuclear spin polarization results in a potential $U_{hf} \sim 3$meV which is capable of binding an electron in a well of typical size $a > 100$Å.

Conclusions
===========

We discussed the possible influence of the hyperfine interaction between spin polarized nuclei and electrons and its influence on the electron subsystem with a special emphasis to confined regions in semiconductors, e.g., quantum dots. An effective Overhauser magnetic field of the polarized nuclei lifts the spin degeneracy and is therefore, capable of polarizing electrons in a quantum dot. Long lived nonhomogeneously spin polarized nuclei may create a local potential, attractive for electrons with one spin direction and repulsive for the electrons with the opposite spin directions. Such a potential can form, e.g., a quantum well, a quantum dot or any other nanostructure, depending on the spatial engineering of the polarized nuclei. The interesting feature of such potential landscapes is that they can be created and reshaped, if necessary, in real time by polarizing and/or depolarizing nuclear spins. We believe that this sort of technique, being developed experimentally, may open a new promising venue in nanotechnologywhich we call spin - engineering.

[**Acknowledgement**]{} The authors are indebted to Max Planck Institute for Complex Systems, Dresden, for hospitality. VAI and FMP are supported by the Flemish Science Foundation (FWO-Vl), the Belgium Interuniversity Attraction Poles (IUAP) and the Flemish Concerted Action (EOA) programme.

[99]{}

G. Lampel, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**20**]{} (1968) 491

P. Paget, G. Lampel, B. Sapoval, and V.I.Safarov, Phys. Rev. B[**15**]{} (1977) 5780.

K. Takyu, K.M. Itoh, K. Oka, N. Saito, and V.I. Ozhogin, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., [**38**]{}, (1999) L1493.

K. Morita, K.M. Itoh, J. Muto, K. Mizoguchi, N. Usami, Y. Shiraki, and E.E. Haller, Thin Solid Films [**369**]{} (2000) 405

K.M. Itoh, and E.E. Haller, Physica E[**10**]{} (2001) 463.

A. Malinovsky, M.A. Brand, and R.T. Harley, Physica E[**10**]{} (2001) 13.

D. Pines, J. Bardeen, C.P. Slichter, Phys. Rev. [**106**]{} (1957) 489.

I.D. Vagner, A.S. Rozhavsky, P. Wyder, A.Yu. Zyuzin, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**80**]{} (1998) 2417.

N.T. Bagraev, A.D. Bouravleuv, W. Gehlhoff, V.K. Ivanov, L.E. Klyachkin, A.M. Malyarenko, S.A. Rykov, and I.A. Shelykh, in the proc. of MSS-10 (to appear in Physica E).

H. Bednarski, V. Fleurov and I.D. Vagner, Physica B: Condensed Matter, [**256-258**]{} (1998) 641.

S.I. Erlingsson, Y.V. Nazarov, V. Falko, Proceedings of the 14th Intenational Conference on the Electronic Properties of Two-Dimensional Sytsems. Part II, Prague, 2001, p.843.

J.M. Kikkawa, D.D. Awshalom, Science, [**287**]{} (2000) 473.

A. Overhauser, Phys. Rev., [**92**]{} (1953) 411.

A. Overhauser, Phys. Rev., [**94**]{} (1954) 768.

C.P. Slichter [*Principles of Magnetic Resonance*]{}, 3d ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990).

M.I. Dyakonov, V.I. Perel in: F. Meier. B.P. Zakharchenya (eds.) [*Modern Problems in Condensed Matter Science*]{}, Vol.8, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984, p.11.

A. Berg, R.R. Gerhards, and K.v. Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**64**]{} (1990) 2563.

K.R. Wald, L.P. Kouwenhoven, and P.L. McEuen, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**73**]{} (1994) 1011.

S.E. Barrett, G. Dabbagh, L.N. Pfeiffer, K.W. West, and R. Tycko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 5112.