Abstract
We review our recent contributions on shot noise for entangled electrons and spinpolarized currents in novel mesoscopic geometries. We first discuss some of our recent proposals for electron entanglers involving a superconductor coupled to a double dot in the Coulomb blockade regime, a superconductor tunnel-coupled to Luttinger-liquid leads, and a triple-dot setup coupled to Fermi leads. We briefly survey some of the available possibilities for spin-polarized sources. We use the scattering approach to calculate current and shot noise for spin-polarized currents and entangled/unentangled electron pairs in a novel beam-splitter geometry with a local Rashba spinorbit (s-o) interaction in the incoming leads. For single-moded incoming leads, we find continuous bunching and antibunching behaviors for the entangled pairs — triplet and singlet — as a function of the Rashba rotation angle. In addition, we find that unentangled triplets and the entangled one exhibit distinct shot noise; this should allow their identification via noise measurements. Shot noise for spin-polarized currents shows sizable oscillations as a function of the Rashba phase. This happens only for electrons injected perpendicular to the Rashba rotation axis; spin-polarized carriers along the Rashba axis are noiseless. The Rashba coupling constant α is directly related to the Fano factor and could be extracted via noise measurements. For incoming leads with s-o induced interbandcoupled channels, we find an additional spin rotation for electrons with energies near the crossing of the bands where interband coupling is relevant. This gives rise to an additional modulation of the noise for both electron pairs and spin-polarized currents. Finally, we briefly discuss shot noise for a double dot near the Kondo regime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
W. Schottky, Ann. Phys. 57 (1918) 541.
Ya. M. Blanter and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rep. 336, 1 (2000).
D. Loss and E.V. Sukhorukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1035 (2000), cond-mat/9907129.
G. Burkard, D. Loss, and E.V. Sukhorukov, Phys. Rev. B 61,R16303 (2000), condmat/9906071. For an early account see D. P. DiVincenzo and D. Loss, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. 200, 202 (1999), cond-mat/9901137.
W. D. Oliver et al., in Quantum Mesoscopic Phenomena and Mesoscopic Devices in Microelectronics, vol. 559 of NATO ASI Series C: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, eds. I. O. Kulik and R. Ellialtioglu (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000), pp. 457-466.
F. Taddei and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B 65, 075317 (2002).
J. C. Egues, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, to appear in the Journal of Superconductivity; condmat/0207392.
J. C. Egues, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 176401 (2002); cond-mat/0204639.
B. R. Bulka et al. Phys. Rev. B 60,12246 (1999).
F. G. Brito, J. F. Estanislau, and J. C. Egues, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. 226-230,457 (2001).
K.M. Souza, J. C. Egues, and A. P. Jauho, cond-mat/0209263.
J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, San Fu Tuan, Ed., (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1994); (Ch. 3, p. 223). See also J. I. Cirac, Nature 413, 375 (2001).
Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computation, Eds. D. D. Awschalom, D. Loss, and N. Samarth (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
P. Recher, E.V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 63,165314 (2001); cond-mat/0009452.
D. S. Saraga and D. Loss, cond-mat/0205553.
R. Fiederling et al., Nature 402, 787 (1999); Y. Ohno et al., Nature 402, 790 (1999).
See J. C. Egues Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4578 (1998) and J. C. Egues et al. Phys. Rev. B 64,195319 (2001) for ballistic spin filtering in semimagnetic heterostruc ures.
P. Recher, E. V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1962 (2000), condmat/0003089.
P. Recher and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 65, 165327 (2002), cond-mat/0112298.
V.N. Golovach and D. Loss, cond-mat/0109155.
R. C. Liu et al., Nature (London), 391,263 (1998).
M. Henny et al., Science 284,296 (1999); W. D. Oliver et al., Science 284, 299 (1999). See also M. Büttiker, Science 284, 275 (1999).
G. Fève et al. (cond-mat/0108021) also investigate transport in a beam splitter configuration. These authors assume a “global” s-o interaction and formulate the scattering approach using Rashba states in single-moded leads.
S. Datta and B. Das, Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 665 (1990).
L.P. Kouwenhoven, G. Schön, L.L. Sohn, Mesoscopic Electron Transport, NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences-Vol.345, 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998), cond-mat/9701055.
M.-S. Choi, C. Bruder, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 62, 13569 (2000); cond-mat/0001011.
C. Bena, S. Vishveshwara, L. Balents, and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 037901 (2002).
G.B. Lesovik, T. Martin, and G. Blatter, Eur. Phys. J. B 24, 287 (2001).
R. Mélin, cond-mat/0105073.
V. Bouchiat et al., cond-mat/0206005.
W.D. Oliver, F. Yamaguchi, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 037901 (2002).
S. Bose and D. Home, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 050401 (2002).
In principle, an entangler producing entangled triplets or orbital entanglement would also be desirable.
This condition reflects energy conservation in the Andreev tunnelling event from the SC to the two QDs.
This reduction factor of the current I 2 compared to the resonant current I 1 reflects the energy cost in the virtual states when two electrons tunnel via the same QD into the same Fermi lead and are given by U and/or Δ. Since the lifetime broadenings γ1 and γ2 of the two QDs 1 and 2 are small compared to U and Δ such processes are suppressed.
P. Recher and D. Loss, Journal of Superconductivity: Incorporating Novel Magnetism 15(1): 49–65, February 2002; cond-mat/0205484.
A.F. Volkov, P.H.C. Magne, B.J. van Wees, and T.M. Klapwijk, Physica C 242, 261 (1995).
M. Kociak, A.Yu. Kasumov, S. Guron, B. Reulet, I.I. Khodos, Yu.B. Gorbatov, V.T. Volkov, L. Vaccarini, and H. Bouchiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2416 (2001).
M. Bockrath et al., Nature 397, 598 (1999).
R. Egger and A. Gogolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5082 (1997); R. Egger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5547 (1999).
C. Kane, L. Balents, and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5086 (1997).
L. Balents and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. B, 64 035310 (2001).
For a review see e.g. HJ. Schulz, G. Cuniberti, and P. Pieri, cond-mat/9807366; or J. von Delft and H. Schoeller, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 4, 225-305 (1998).
The interaction dependent constants A b are of order one for not too strong interaction between electrons in the LL but are decreasing when interaction in the LL-leads is increased [19]. Therefore in the case of substantially strong interaction as it is present in metallic carbon nanotubes, the pre-factors A b can help in addition to suppress I 2
Since γp-> γP+, it is more probable that two electrons coming from the same Cooper pair travel in the same direction than into different directions when injected into the same LL-lead.
In order to have exclusively singlet states as an input for the beamsplitter setup, it is important that the LL-leads return to their spin ground-state after the injected electrons have tunnelled out again into the Fermi leads. For an infinite LL, spin excitations are gapless and therefore an arbitrary small bias voltage μ between the SC and the Fermi liquids gives rise to spin excitations in the LL. However, for a realistic finite size LL (e.g. a nanotube), spin excitations are gapped on an energy scale ∼ ħ VF/L, where L is the length of the LL. Therefore, if κBT,μ < ħVF/L only singlets can leave the LL again to the Fermi leads, since the total spin of the system has to be conserved. For metallic carbon nanotubes, the Fermi velocity is ∼ 106m/s, which gives an excitation gap of the order of a few meV for L ∼ μm; this is large enough for our regime of interest.
A singlet-triplet transition for the ground state of a quantum dot can be driven by a magnetic field; see S. Tarucha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,2485 (2000).
This symmetric setup of the charging energy U is obtained when the gate voltages are tuned such that the total Coulomb charging energies in D c are equal with zero or two electrons.
K. Blum, Density Matrix Theory and Applications (Plenum, New York, 1996).
T.H. Oosterkamp et al., Nature (London) 395,873 (1998); T. Fujisawa et al., Science 282,932 (1998).
J.M. Kikkawa and D.D. Awschalom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80,4313 (1998).
I. Malajovich, J. M. Kikkawa, D. D. Awschalom, J. J. Berry, and D. D. Awschalom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,1015 (2000); I. Malajovich, J. J. Berry, N. Samarth, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature 411,770 (2001).
M. Johnsson and R. H. Silsbee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55,1790 (1985); M. Johnsson and R. H. Silsbee, Phys. Rev. B 37, 5326 (1988); M. Johnsson and R. H. Silsbee, Phys. Rev. B 37, 5712 (1988).
F. J. Jedema, A. T. Filip, and B. J. van Wees, Nature 410, 345 (2001); F. J. Jedema, H. B. Heersche, J. J. A. Baselmans, and B. J. van Wees, Nature 416, 713 (2002).
In addition, for fully spin-polarized leads the device can act as a single spin memory with read-in and read-out capabilities if the dot is subjected to a ESR source.
This is true as long as the Zeeman splitting in the leads is much smaller than their Fermi energies.
H.-A. Engel and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 65, 195321 (2002), cond-mat/0109470.
S. Kawabata, J. Phy. Soc. Jpn. 70, 1210 (2001).
N.M. Chtchelkatchev, G. Blatter, G.B. Lesovik, and T. Martin, cond-mat/0112094.
M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B 46, 12485 (1992); Th. Martin and R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. B 45,1742 (1992). For a recent comprehensive review on shot noise, see Ref. [2].
Our noise definition here differs by a factor of two from that in the review article by Blanter and Büttiker (Ref. [2]); these authors define their power spectral density of the noise with a coefficient two in front (see definition following Eq. (49) and footnote 4 in Ref. [2]). We use a standard Fourier transform (no factor of two in front) to define the noise spectral density.
For a discrete energy spectrum we need to insert a density-of-states factor v in the current and noise definitions; see Ref. [4].
Note that the uncorrelated-beam case here refers to a beam splitter configuration with only one of the incoming leads “open”. This is an important point since a beam splitter is noiseless for (unpolarized) uncorrelated beams in both incoming leads.
G. Engels et al. Phys. Rev. B 55, R1958 (1997); J. Nitta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997); D. Grundler Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,6074 (2000); Y. sato et al. J. Appl. Phys. 89,8017 (2001).
A. V. Moroz and C. H. W. Barnes, Phys. Rev. B 60, 14272 (1999); F. Mireles and G. Kirczenow, ibid. 64,024426 (2001); M. Governale and U. Zülicke, Phys. Rev. B 66 073311 (2002).
G. Lommer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60,728 (1988), G. L. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. B 47, 4084 (R) (1993), E. A. de Andrada e Silva et al., Phys. Rev. B 50,8523 (1994), and F. G. Pikus and G. E. Pikus Phys. Rev. B 51,16928 (1995).
Yu. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, JETP Lett. 39,78 (1984).
L. W. Molenkamp et al., Phys. Rev. B 64, R121202 (2001); M. H. Larsen et al., ibid. 66,033304 (2002).
The Rashba-active region in lead 1 is (supposed to be) electrostatically induced. This implies that there is no band-gap mismatch between the Rashba region and the adjacent regions in lead 1 due to materials differences. There is, however, a small mismatch arising from the Rashba energy ∈r; this is the amount the Rashba bands are shifted down with respect to the bands in the absence of s-o orbit in the channel. Since typically ∈R ≪ εF, we find that the transmission is indeed very close to unity (see estimate in Ref. [8]).
Note that the velocity operator is not diagonal in the presence of the Rashba interaction.
J. C. Egues, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, cond-mat/0209692.
In the absence of the s-o interaction, we assume the wire has two sets of spin-degenerate parabolic bands for each κ vector. In the presence of s-o interaction but neglecting s-o induced interband coupling, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the parabolic bands with no spin orbit and the Rashba bands; hence they can both be labelled by the same indices.
N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Ch. 9. (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1976).
G. Schmidt, D. Ferrand, L. W. Molenkamp, A. T. Filip, and B. J. van Wees, Phys. Rev. B 62, R4790 (2000).
L. P. Kouwenhoven, private communication.
L. I. Glazman and M.E. Raikh, JETP Lett. 47, 452 (1988); T. K. Ng and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1768 (1988).
Y. Meir and A. Golub, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 116802 (2002).
F. Yamaguchi and K. Kawamura, Physica B 227, 116 (1996).
A. Schiller and S. Hershfield, Phys. Rev. B 58, 14978 (1998).
G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B 59, 2070 (1999), cond-mat/9808026.
W. Izumida and O. Sakai, Phys. Rev. B 62, 10260 (2000).
A. Georges and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3508 (1999).
T. Aono and M. Eto, Phys. Rev. B 63, 125327 (2001).
I. Affleck, A. W. W. Ludwig, and B. A. Jones, Phys. Rev. B 52, 9528 (1995).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Egues, J.C. et al. (2003). Shot Noise for Entangled and Spin-Polarized Electrons. In: Nazarov, Y.V. (eds) Quantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics. NATO Science Series, vol 97. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0089-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0089-5_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1240-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0089-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive