12.

4 fractional Quantum Hall Effect 703

1). This is confirmed by a detailed argument [398]. For example, for

Q = 11/7 there are seven subbands, and o y z / ( e 2 / h )goes through the
plateau values 2,4, -1,1, -4, -2,O [117]. oyz may jump wildly even
upon a slight change of v. Interestingly, some of the plateau values are
negative, indicating that the Bragg reflection from the crystal potential
causes the electrons to behave as hole-like carriers. Sign reversal in the
sequence of IQHE states is thought to be a characteristic lattice effect.
At the time of the discovery of the butterfly [171], the experimental
realization of Q of the order of 0.1 seemed impossible. However, rapid
progress in manufacturing heterostructures with a superlattice poten-
tial has yielded samples with interesting magnetotransport phenomena
which have been the subject of intense study [325]. Furthermore, we
call attention to the finding that (TMTSF)zPFs under pressure goes
through a series of Integer Quantum Hall states, and manifests the phe-
nomenon of sign reversal [36].

12.4 Fractional Quantum Hall Effect

We have got the apparently impeccable gauge argument to show that
the Hall conductivity is quantized in integer multiples of e2/h. But
stated in this way, the result is simply not true: we know that there
exist also fractional quantum Hall plateaus, the most robust being at

1 e2
(12.98)
CYz
3'-
=- h'
What has gone wrong? Should we discard the gauge argument? That
would be a cowardly thing to do; if we really believe in the profundity
of the argument, we should stick to it through thick and thin, and see
what it leads to, however strange the outcome may seem. So, once
again: when 40 is added to c$,,~, a particle is transferred from one edge
to the other. Since it cannot be an electron (that would lead to predict-
ing integer quantization), let us assume that it is an as yet unknown
quasiparticle of charge e*. Repeating the previous derivation, e has to
be replaced by e* in (12.86), but not in (12.87), because that came from
the fundamental electromagnetic interaction. Instead of (12.88), we find