1:
2:
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%555
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prb,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
6: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities\begin{normalsize}
7: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
8: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
9: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
10:
11: \usepackage{graphicx,graphics}% Include figure files
12: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
13: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
14: \usepackage{epsfig}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18:
19:
20: \title{
21: Fine structure of the local pseudogap and Fano effect\\
22: for superconducting electrons near a zigzag graphene edge
23: }
24:
25: \author{Grigory Tkachov}
26: \affiliation{
27: Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, 01187 Dresden, Germany
28: }
29:
30: %\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
31: % but any date may be explicitly specified
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: Motivated by recent scanning tunneling experiments
35: on zigzag-terminated graphene
36: this paper investigates an interplay of evanescent
37: and extended quasiparticle states in
38: the local density of states (LDOS) near a zigzag edge
39: using the Green's function of the Dirac equation.
40: A model system is considered where the local electronic structure
41: near the edge influences transport of both normal
42: and superconducting electrons via a Fano resonance.
43: In particular, the temperature enhancement of the
44: critical Josephson current and $0-\pi$ transitions are predicted.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \pacs{73.23.Ad,74.50.+r,74.78.Na}
48:
49: \maketitle
50:
51:
52: {\bf Introduction.}-
53: Experimental evidence~\cite{Kostja05,Zhang05}
54: for massless Dirac-like quasiparticles in graphene -
55: a carbon monolayer with the hexagonal structure -
56: has stimulated vigorous interest in electronic properties
57: of this system
58: (e.g. Refs.~\onlinecite{Gusynin05,Peres06,Brey06,McCann06,Nomura06,
59: Aleiner06,Tworzydlo06,Beenakker06,Cheianov07}).
60: The unit cell of graphene contains two atoms
61: each belonging to a triangular sublattice,
62: and the low-energy states are described by a two-dimensional Dirac equation
63: where the role of spin is assumed
64: by the sublattice degree of freedom (pseudospin)~\cite{DiVincenzo84,Ando05}.
65: Similar to relativistic spin-half particles in two dimensions,
66: the graphene bulk density of states has a linear pseudogap~\cite{Kostja05}
67: around zero energy $E=0$.
68: Natural boundaries can however give rise
69: to additional spectral branches
70: such as the low-energy edge states~\cite{Fujita96,Wakabayashi99}.
71: They are localized near a zigzag-shaped edge,
72: whose outermost sites all belong to the same sublattice [Fig.~\ref{LDOSfig}(a)],
73: and originate from the effective pseudospin "polarization"
74: due to vanishing of one of the pseudospinor components as required by
75: particle conservation~\cite{Brey06}.
76: Recent scanning tunneling experiments~\cite{Koba05,Niimi06}
77: report a singular enhancement of the LDOS near zigzag boundaries
78: attributed to the edge states.
79:
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83: \begin{figure}[b]
84: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize
85: \epsffile{LDOS.eps}
86: \caption{(Color online)
87: (a) Schematic view of a zigzag graphene ribbon
88: terminated by atomic lines belonging to different sublattices,
89: conventionally denoted as A and B.
90: (b)
91: LDOS vs. energy at different distances from the edge:
92: (A) $d=4a$, (B) $d=10a$, (C) $d=30a$, (D) $d=10000a$;
93: where $a=0.246\, {\rm nm}$ is graphene's lattice constant,
94: $\nu_a=1/8\pi\hbar va$ and $E_a=\hbar v/2a$.
95: (c)
96: LDOS vs. distance from the edge for different energies:
97: (A) $E=0.15E_a$, (B) $E=0.3E_a$, (C) $E=0.5E_a$.
98: The delta function in Eq.~(\ref{LDOS}) is approximated
99: by a Lorenzian $o/\pi(E^2+o^2)$ with $o=0.03E_a$.}
100: \label{LDOSfig}
101: \end{figure}
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104:
105: The measurements~\cite{Koba05,Niimi06} also revealed
106: another peculiarity of the energy dependence of the LDOS -
107: a fine oscillatory structure superimposed on the pseudogap
108: with the amplitude enhanced at larger energies~\cite{Niimi06}.
109: The origin of this behavior is still unaccounted for,
110: although subsequent publications have studied the graphene LDOS,
111: e.g. numerical simulations of Ref.~\onlinecite{Koba06}
112: found damped spatial oscillations of the LDOS.
113: The present study indends to show that both findings are
114: consistent with the picture of interfering Dirac electron waves near a zigzag edge.
115: To demonstrate this point, the one-particle Green's function
116: of the Dirac equation was calculated for clean graphene with a zigzag edge described
117: by the boundary condition of Ref.~\onlinecite{Brey06}.
118: Then, the following expression for the LDOS
119: $\nu(E,d)$, as a function of energy $E$ and distance $d$ from the edge,
120: was obtained
121: \!
122: \begin{equation}
123: \nu(E,d)=|E|\frac{1+J_0\left(\frac{2Ed}{\hbar v}\right)}{\pi (2\hbar v)^2}-
124: \frac{ J_1\left(\left|\frac{2Ed}{\hbar v}\right|\right) }{ 4\pi\hbar v d }
125: +\frac{\delta(E)}{4\pi
126: d^2}.
127: \label{LDOS}
128: \end{equation}
129: %
130: Here the delta-functional term results from the dispersionless zero-energy edge state
131: whereas the oscillating components given by the Bessel functions $J_0(2Ed/\hbar v)$
132: and $J_1(2|E|d/\hbar v)$ are due to interfering waves formed of the states
133: belonging to the Dirac spectrum
134: ($v$ and $\hbar$ are the electron velocity and Planck's constant).
135: For $2|E|d/\hbar v\gg 1$ the amplitude of the oscillations is
136: proportional to $\sqrt{|E|/d}$ [see also Figs.~\ref{LDOSfig}(b) and (c)],
137: which qualitatively agrees with both the experiment~\cite{Niimi06}
138: and numerical simulations~\cite{Koba06}.
139:
140: Another issue this study focuses on is the
141: connection between the local electronic structure
142: of zigzag-terminated graphene and Fano scattering~\cite{Fano}.
143: Unlike earlier works [e.g. Ref.~\onlinecite{Waka00}] where
144: the Fano effect was due to resonant flux states in finite-size ribbons,
145: here the Fano resonance is studied in a nanowire side-coupled
146: to half-infinite graphene, by analogy with similar quantum-dot structures~\cite{Kobayashi02,Johnson04,Fuhrer06,Miriam07},
147: and originates from a single dispersionless edge state.
148: Also, unlike Ref.~\onlinecite{Waka00}, the main focus here is on
149: the transport of correlated electrons in Josephson nanowires.
150: The Fano effect is predicted to cause quite unusual behaviors
151: of the critical current such as enhancement by temperature
152: and, under certain conditions, $0-\pi$ transitions
153: similar to those in ferromagnetic Josephson junctions~\cite{Buzdin82,Ryazanov01,Kontos01,Bauer04,Golubov04,Buzdin05}.
154: In the context of the Josephson effect in graphene nanostructures
155: (e.g. Refs.~\onlinecite{Titov06,Zareyan06})
156: these issues have not yet been addressed.
157:
158:
159: {\bf Green's function of a zigzag ribbon.}-
160: Assuming no scattering between the two valleys, $K$
161: and $K^\prime$, of graphene's Brillouin zone~\cite{Ando05},
162: one only needs to calculate the Green's function in one of them,
163: e.g. $K$, where the Dirac equation reads
164: $
165: [\sigma_0E + i\hbar v(\sigma_x\partial_x+\sigma_y\partial_y)]G=
166: \sigma_0\delta(x-x^\prime)\delta(y-y^\prime).
167: $
168: %
169: Here the (retarded) Green's function matrix
170: $G_{jk}$ with $j,k=A,B$,
171: Pauli $\sigma_{x,y}$ and unity $\sigma_0$ matrices all act in pseudospin space.
172: It suffices to solve the pair of equations for $G_{AA}$ and $G_{BA}$.
173: After expanding in plane waves ${\rm e}^{ikx}$,
174: the equations for the Fourier components are
175: $
176: G_{BA|k}=(\hbar v/E)(k+\partial_y)G_{AA|k}$
177: and
178: $
179: [\partial^2_y-q^2]G_{AA|k}=(E/\hbar^2 v^2)\delta(y-y^\prime)$
180: with $\quad q^2=k^2-(E/\hbar v)^2$.
181: The solution can be sought in the form
182: $G_{AA|k}(y,y^\prime)=a(y^\prime){\rm e}^{-qy}+b(y^\prime){\rm e}^{qy}
183: -E{\rm e}^{ -q|y-y^\prime| }/2\hbar^2 v^2q$,
184: where the last term is the Green's function of an unbounded system,
185: and the coefficients $a(y^\prime)$ and $b(y^\prime)$ are to be found from the
186: boundary conditions~\cite{Brey06}
187: $G_{BA|k}|_{y=0}=(k+\partial_y)G_{AA|k}|_{y=0}=0$ and $G_{AA|k}|_{y=w}=0$.
188: This yields the following result
189: \!
190: \begin{eqnarray}
191: &&
192: G_{AA|k}(y,y^\prime)=E/2\hbar^2 v^2q
193: \times
194: \nonumber\\
195: &&
196: \times\left\{
197: \frac{k[ \cosh q(w-|y-y^\prime|)-\cosh q(w-y-y^\prime) ]}{q\cosh qw
198: -k\sinh qw}-\right.
199: \nonumber\\
200: &&
201: \left.
202: -\frac{q[ \sinh q(w-|y-y^\prime|)+\sinh q(w-y-y^\prime) ]}{q\cosh qw
203: -k\sinh qw}
204: \right\}.
205: \label{G_k}
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: %
208: The poles of $G_{AA|k}$, given by the equation $q=k\tanh qw$
209: (cf. Ref.~\onlinecite{Brey06}), determine the excitation spectrum.
210: As known~\cite{Fujita96,Wakabayashi99},
211: it has an almost flat branch merging with the Fermi level $E=0$
212: corresponding to a state exponentially decaying from the edge into the interior.
213: This can be easily seen from Eq.~(\ref{G_k}) in the limit $w\to\infty$:
214: \!
215: \begin{equation}
216: G_{AA|k}(y,y^\prime)=-\frac{E{\rm e}^{-q|y-y^\prime|}}{2\hbar^2 v^2q}
217: +\frac{(q+k)^2{\rm e}^{-q(y+y^\prime)}}{2qE}.
218: \label{G_k_inf}
219: \end{equation}
220: %
221: The pole $E=0$ describes a dispersionless edge state existing for $k>0$.
222: From Eq.~(\ref{G_k_inf}) an exact position representation for
223: the Green's function
224: $G_{AA}(xy,xy^\prime)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dkG_{AA|k}(y,y^\prime)/(2\pi)$
225: can be obtained as
226: \!
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: &&
229: G_{AA}(xy,xy^\prime)=
230: \frac{EY_0(k_E|y-y^\prime|)-i|E|J_0(k_E|y-y^\prime|)}{(2\hbar v)^2}
231: \nonumber\\
232: &&
233: +\frac{EY_0(k_E(y+y^\prime))-i|E|J_0(k_E(y+y^\prime))}{(2\hbar v)^2}
234: \nonumber\\
235: &&
236: -\frac{2EY_1(k_E(y+y^\prime))-2i|E|J_1(k_E(y+y^\prime))}{(2\hbar
237: v)^2k_E(y+y^\prime)},
238: \label{G}
239: \end{eqnarray}
240: %
241: where $J_n(z)$ and $Y_n(z)$ ($n=0,1$) are, respectively, the Bessel and
242: Neumann functions, and $k_E=\sqrt{ E^2 }/\hbar v$.
243: The LDOS [Eq.~(\ref{LDOS})] is obtained via
244: $\nu(E,d)=-(1/\pi){\rm Im}G_{AA}(xy, xy^\prime)|_{y=y^\prime=d}$,
245: taking into account the pole of the function $Y_1$.
246: We note that the interference of the waves
247: incident at and reflected from the edge with small momenta $|k|\leq|E|/\hbar v$
248: produces spatial oscillations of the LDOS with the period much bigger than
249: the lattice constant $a$ [Fig.~\ref{LDOSfig}(c)], i.e.
250: well within the scanning tunneling microscop resolution.
251: It is also instructive to examine Eq.~(\ref{G})
252: near the edge where it assumes a universal form,
253: \!
254: \begin{equation}
255: G_{AA}(xy,xy^\prime)\approx 1/\pi E (y+y^\prime)^2, \qquad y,y^\prime\to 0,
256: \label{G1}
257: \end{equation}
258: %
259: independent of material parameters.
260: To regulate the divergence at $y=y^\prime=0$,
261: due to the effective continuum description,
262: it is convenient to introduce the cutoff
263: $G_{AA}(x0,x0)\approx 1/4\pi E d^2_c$ with $d_c\sim a$.
264:
265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
268: \begin{figure}[t]
269: %\begin{center}
270: \epsfxsize=1\hsize
271: \epsffile{Geo.eps}
272: %\end{center}
273: \caption{
274: (a) Schematic view of a zigzag-edge graphene ribbon with
275: a side tunnel contact to a nanowire
276: connecting electron reservoirs 1 and 2.
277: The contact is assumed point-like, i.e.
278: its size is much bigger than the interatomic distances,
279: but smaller than the electronic mean free paths in both wire and graphene.
280: (b) Zero-temperature conductance $g$ (in units of $e^2/\pi\hbar$) vs.
281: bias voltage $V$ for spin-degenerate ($h=0$) and spin-split
282: ($h=3\Gamma$) edge state in graphene.
283: }
284: \label{Geo}
285: \end{figure}
286: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
288:
289: {\bf Fano scattering off a zigzag edge.}-
290: The behavior of the Green's function near the edge
291: can have a direct impact on charge transport.
292: Let us consider a quasi-one-dimensional wire
293: (with conventional quasiparticle spectrum) coupled in parallel
294: to a zigzag graphene edge via
295: a point-like tunnel barrier [Fig.~\ref{Geo}(a)].
296: The contact is modelled by a real-space tunneling Hamiltonian of the form
297: $H_T=\psi^\dagger_w(0)({\cal T}\psi_A({\bf r}_0)
298: +{\cal T}^\prime\psi^\prime_A({\bf r}_0))+{\rm h.c.},\,
299: {\bf r}_0=(0,0),$
300: where the electron operator in the wire $\psi^\dagger_w(0)$
301: at the contact point $x=0$ is coupled to those in graphene on sublattice A in
302: both valleys $K$, $\psi_A({\bf r}_0)$ and $K^\prime$, $\psi^\prime_A({\bf r}_0)$
303: with the matrix elements ${\cal T}$ and ${\cal T}^\prime$.
304: To describe electron scattering caused by the contact,
305: I use the equations-of-motion method and calculate
306: the retarded Green's function in the wire
307: \!
308: \begin{equation}
309: G_w(x,x^\prime)=G_w^{(0)}( x,x^\prime )+
310: \frac{G_w^{(0)}(x,0) \Sigma\, G_w^{(0)}(0,x^\prime)}
311: {1-G_w^{(0)}(0,0)\Sigma}.
312: \label{Gw}
313: \end{equation}
314: %
315: Here
316: $G_w^{(0)}(x,x^\prime)={\rm e}^{ik_w|x-x^\prime|}/i\hbar v_F$
317: is the Green's function in the absence of tunneling
318: ($k_w\approx k_F + E/\hbar v_F$ with $v_F$ and $k_F$
319: being the Fermi velocity and wave number in the channel),
320: $\Sigma =|{\cal T}|^2G_{AA}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}_0)
321: +|{\cal T}^\prime|^2G^\prime_{AA}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}_0)$
322: is the tunneling self-energy, and
323: $G^\prime_{AA}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}_0)$ is the Green's function
324: in valley $K^\prime$ coinciding with $G_{AA}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}_0)$ [Eq.~(\ref{G1})].
325: The transmission amplitude~\cite{Fisher81} between the reservoirs is
326: $t=i\hbar v_F G_w\left(\frac{L}{2},-\frac{L}{2}\right)={\rm e}^{ik_wL}E/(E+i\Gamma)$,
327: where $\Gamma =(|{\cal T}|^2+|{\cal T}^\prime|^2)/4\pi d_c^2\hbar v_F$
328: determines the tunneling rate $\Gamma/\hbar$ between the systems.
329: The Fano-like transmission antiresonance at $E=0$
330: manifests complete backscattering of an electron wave incoming
331: from one of the reservoirs.
332: It is due to destructive interference
333: between the electron wave directly transmitted through the wire
334: (without tunneling) and the wave transmitted
335: via tunneling through the graphene edge state whose energy
336: is pinned to the Fermi level in the wire.
337: It is straightforward to generalize the analysis
338: to a spin-split edge state with energies
339: $\mp h$ for spin projections $\alpha=\pm 1/2$.
340: In this case, we have
341: \!
342: \begin{equation}
343: t_\alpha(E)={\rm e}^{ik_wL}(E+2\alpha h)/(E+2\alpha h +i\Gamma).
344: \label{t}
345: \end{equation}
346: %
347: Figure~\ref{Geo}(b) shows the voltage dependence of the zero-temperature
348: Landauer conductance
349: $g(V)=e^2/(2\pi\hbar)\sum_{\alpha=\pm 1/2}|t_\alpha(eV)|^2$.
350: For $h\not =0$ the conductance dip is split due to
351: the spin-filtering effect discussed earlier~\cite{Torio04,Lee06}
352: in the context of possible applications in spintronics~\cite{Fabian04}.
353:
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357: \begin{figure}[t]
358: %\begin{center}
359: \epsfxsize=0.6\hsize
360: \epsffile{IcT.eps}
361: %\end{center}
362: \caption{
363: Critical current vs. temperature for a spin-degenerate edge state:
364: $h=0$, $\gamma=0.1E_L$, $\Delta=10E_L$.
365: The current is normalized to the value $I_c(T_{min})$
366: where $T_{min}=0.05E_L/k_B$ is the lowest temperature for which
367: the condition $\gamma\leq\pi k_BT\ll \Delta$ of weak proximity effect still holds.}
368: \label{IcT}
369: \end{figure}
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
372:
373: {\bf Fano effect in a Josephson junction.}-
374: Let us finally discuss the case of superconducting reservoirs
375: supporting an equilibrium Josephson current.
376: The Josephson coupling is maintained
377: due to the Andreev process~\cite{Andreev}
378: whereby an electron is retro-reflected as a Fermi-sea hole
379: from one of the superconductors with the subsequent hole-to-electron
380: conversion in the other one.
381: Such an Andreev reflection circle facilitates a Cooper pair transfer
382: between the superconductors.
383: Since both electron and hole also experience normal scattering inside the junction,
384: the transmission antiresonance is expected
385: to strongly influence the Josephson current.
386: It is convenient to use the approach of Refs.~\onlinecite{Beenakker,Brouwer}
387: relating the supercurrent to the scattering amplitudes
388: via a sum over the Matsubara frequencies $\omega_n=(2n+1)\pi k_BT$ as follows
389: \begin{equation}
390: I_c=-4ek_BT/\hbar\sum_{n\geq 0,\alpha}
391: {\rm a}^2_{\alpha}(E)t_{\alpha}(E)t^*_{-\alpha}(-E)|_{E=i\omega_n},
392: \label{Ic}
393: \end{equation}
394: where $t^*_{-\alpha}(-E)$ is the hole transmission amplitude
395: corresponding to the time-reversed counterpart of the electron
396: Hamiltonian~\cite{deGennes,Beenakker},
397: and ${\rm a}_{\alpha}(E)$ is the Andreev reflection amplitude at the
398: point contacts to superconductors 1 and 2.
399: Equation~(\ref{Ic}) is applicable for arbitrary $t_{\alpha}(E)$
400: as long as ${\rm a}^2_{\alpha}$ is small enough so that
401: one can neglect higher order Andreev processes.
402: In this case the Josephson current-phase relation is sinusoidal
403: with $I_c$ [Eq.~(\ref{Ic})] being the critical value of the current.
404:
405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: \begin{figure}[t]
409: %\begin{center}
410: \epsfxsize=0.5\hsize
411: \epsffile{IcH.eps}
412: %\end{center}
413: \caption{
414: Critical current vs. spin-splitting energy:
415: $T=0.1E_L/k_B$, $\gamma=0.1E_L$, $\Delta=10E_L$.}
416: \label{IcH}
417: \end{figure}
418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420:
421: In contacts to conventional Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BSC) superconductors,
422: the Andreev process is well described by the scattering model of Ref.~\onlinecite{Blonder82}.
423: However, in many practical cases superconducting contacts to low-dimensional
424: systems can hardly be regarded as BCS-like ones.
425: Proximity-effect contacts to
426: semiconductor nanowires~\cite{vanDam,Tinkham}
427: and carbon nanotubes~\cite{Jorgensen,Tsuneta}
428: are important examples of such a situation.
429: In this case a thin normal-metal layer is inserted between the superconductor and
430: the wire to ensure a good electrical contact.
431: In proximity-effect point contacts the Andreev scattering amplitude can be expressed
432: in terms of the quasiclassical condensate ${\cal F}_{\alpha}(\omega_n)$
433: and quasiparticle ${\cal G}_{\alpha}(\omega_n)$
434: Green's functions of the normal layer as~\cite{GolKup,Volkov}
435: ${\rm a}_{\alpha}(\omega_n)=i{\cal F}_{\alpha}/(1+{\cal G}_{\alpha})$.
436: I will adopt this approach and make use of McMillan's expressions~\cite{McMillan,McGolubov}
437: for the Green's functions:
438: ${\cal F}_{\alpha}=\Delta_n/\sqrt{\omega_n^2+\Delta_n^2}$,
439: ${\cal G}_{\alpha}=(\omega_n/\Delta_n){\cal F}_{\alpha}$,
440: and
441: $\Delta_n=\gamma\Delta/(\gamma+\sqrt{\omega_n^2+\Delta^2})$,
442: where $\Delta$ is the superconductor's pairing energy and $\gamma$
443: is McMillan's parameter controlling the strength
444: of the proximity effect in the normal layer and, hence, the Andreev
445: reflection amplitude
446: ${\rm a}_{\alpha}(\omega_n)=i\Delta_n/( \omega_n
447: +\sqrt{\omega^2_n + \Delta^2_n} )$.
448: For a weak proximity effect with $\gamma\leq\pi k_BT\ll\Delta$,
449: the amplitude ${\rm a}^2_{\alpha}$ is small~\cite{Tkachov07}
450: and equation~(\ref{Ic}) assumes the form
451: \!
452: \begin{equation}
453: I_c=\frac{8ek_BT}{\hbar}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}
454: \frac{\Delta^2_n{\rm e}^{-\omega_n/E_L}}
455: {[\omega_n +\sqrt{\omega^2_n + \Delta^2_n} ]^2}
456: {\rm Re}\frac{( h+i\omega_n )^2}{[ h+i(\omega_n +\Gamma) ]^2},
457: \nonumber
458: \end{equation}
459: %
460: where the exponential factor results from the dynamical phase $2EL/\hbar v_F$
461: accumulated in the Andreev circle, introducing the Thouless energy
462: $E_L=\hbar v_F/2L$.
463:
464:
465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
468: \begin{figure}[t]
469: %\begin{center}
470: \epsfxsize=0.7\hsize
471: \epsffile{IcT_H.eps}
472: %\end{center}
473: \caption{
474: Critical current vs. temperature
475: for a spin-polarized edge state:
476: $h=0.5E_L$, $\gamma=0.1E_L$, $\Delta=10E_L$.
477: }
478: \label{IcH_T}
479: \end{figure}
480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482:
483: Figure~\ref{IcT} shows the temperature dependence of $I_c$
484: for the spin-degenerate case ($h=0$).
485: In the absence of tunneling ($\Gamma=0$) it is just a monotonic
486: exponential decrease. However, for $\Gamma\not=0$ the interplay
487: of the transmission antiresonance and the exponential suppression
488: gives rise to a maximum at finite $T$.
489: Spin splitting of the graphene edge state lifts
490: the Fano resonance condition $E=0$ for both electron
491: and Andreev reflected hole.
492: Therefore, for relatively weak tunneling coupling,
493: when $\pi k_BT\leq\Gamma<E_L$,
494: the critical current increases with $h$ [Fig.~\ref{IcH}],
495: a behavior quite unusual for Josephson junctions.
496: Surprisingly, for stronger tunneling coupling ($\Gamma>E_L$)
497: the function $I_c(h)$ becomes nonmonotonic with a rather broad region
498: $h_1\leq |h|\leq h_2\approx \Gamma$
499: where $I_c$ is negative.
500: The lower boundary $h_1\approx \pi k_BT$ is set by the temperature
501: and is much smaller than all $E_L$, $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$.
502: The supercurrent reversal is a consequence of the spin-dependent phases
503: acquired by both electron and hole due to scattering
504: off the spin-polarized graphene edge, with
505: negative values of $I_c$ implying a built-in $\pi$-phase difference
506: in the ground state of a Josephson junction~\cite{Bulaevskii77}
507: as opposed to $0$-phase difference for $I_c>0$.
508: The $0-\pi$ transition can be driven by temperature as shown in Fig.~\ref{IcH_T}.
509: Such a $\pi$ state is known to occur
510: in ferromagnetic junctions
511: where the condensate function oscillates
512: in space~\cite{Buzdin82,Ryazanov01,Kontos01,Bauer04}
513: (see, also recent reviews~\onlinecite{Golubov04,Buzdin05}).
514: The author is not aware of any earlier work predicting $0-\pi$ transitions
515: due to spin-dependent Fano scattering.
516: The main condition for this mechanism to work, i.e. $|h|>\pi k_BT$,
517: can be met in the millikelvin region at modest external magnetic fields.
518:
519: The author thanks G. Cuniberti, M. Hentschel and C. Strunk for discussions.
520: This work was partially funded by the European Union grant CARDEQ
521: under Contract No. FP6-IST-021285-2.
522:
523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
524: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: \bibitem{Kostja05}
527: K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson,
528: I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Nature (London)
529: {\bf 438}, 197 (2005).
530:
531: \bibitem{Zhang05}
532: Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, {\em ibid.} {\bf
533: 438}, 201 (2005).
534:
535: \bibitem{Gusynin05}
536: V. P. Gusynin and S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 146801 (2005).
537:
538: \bibitem{Peres06}
539: N. M. R. Peres, F. Guinea, and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 125411 (2006).
540:
541: \bibitem{Brey06}
542: L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, {\em ibid.} {\bf 73}, 235411 (2006).
543:
544:
545: \bibitem{McCann06}
546: E. McCann and V. I. Falko, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 086805 (2006).
547:
548: \bibitem{Nomura06}
549: K. Nomura and A. H. MacDonald, {\em ibid.} {\bf 96}, 256602 (2006).
550:
551: \bibitem{Aleiner06}
552: I. L. Aleiner and K. B. Efetov, {\em ibid.} {\bf 97}, 236801
553: (2006).
554:
555: \bibitem{Tworzydlo06}
556: J. Tworzydlo, B. Trauzettel, M. Titov, A. Rycerz,
557: and C. W. J. Beenakker,
558: {\em ibid.} {\bf 96}, 246802 (2006).
559:
560: \bibitem{Beenakker06}
561: C. W. J. Beenakker, {\em ibid.} 97, 067007 (2006).
562:
563: \bibitem{Cheianov07}
564: V.V. Cheianov, V. Fal'ko, B. L. Altshuler, Science {\bf 315}, 1252 (2007).
565:
566:
567: \bibitem{DiVincenzo84}
568: D. P. DiVincenzo and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 29}, 1685 (1984).
569:
570: \bibitem{Ando05}
571: T. Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 74}, 777 (2005).
572:
573: \bibitem{Fujita96}
574: M. Fujita, K. Wakabayashi, K. Nakada, and K. Kusakabe,
575: {\em ibid.} {\bf 65}, 1920 (1996);
576: K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus,
577: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 17954 (1996).
578:
579: \bibitem{Wakabayashi99}
580: K. Wakabayashi, M. Fujita, H. Ajiki, and M. Sigrist, {\em ibid.} {\bf 59}, 8271 (1999).
581:
582: \bibitem{Koba05}
583: Y. Kobayashi, K. I. Fukui, T. Enoki, K. Kusakabe, and Y. Kaburagi,
584: {\em ibid.} {\bf 71}, 193406 (2005).
585:
586: \bibitem{Niimi06}
587: Y. Niimi, T. Matsui, H. Kambara, K. Tagami, M. Tsukada, and H.
588: Fukuyama, {\em ibid.} {\bf 73}, 085421 (2006).
589:
590: \bibitem{Koba06}
591: Y. Kobayashi, K. I. Fukui, T. Enoki, and K. Kusakabe, {\em ibid.} {\bf 73}, 125415 (2006).
592:
593: \bibitem{Fano}
594: U. Fano, Phys. Rev. {\bf 124}, 1866 (1961).
595:
596: \bibitem{Waka00}
597: K. Wakabayashi and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3390 (2000).
598:
599: \bibitem{Kobayashi02}
600: K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, {\em ibid.} {\bf 88}, 256806 (2002).
601:
602: \bibitem{Johnson04}
603: A. C. Johnson, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, {\em ibid.} {\bf 93}, 106803 (2004).
604:
605: \bibitem{Fuhrer06}
606: A. Fuhrer, P. Brusheim, T. Ihn, M. Sigrist, K. Ensslin, W. Wegscheider, and M. Bichler,
607: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 205326 (2006).
608:
609: \bibitem{Miriam07}
610: M. del Valle, R. Gutierrez, C. Tejedor, and G. Cuniberti,
611: Nature Nanotechnology {\bf 2}, 176 (2007).
612:
613:
614: \bibitem{Buzdin82}
615: A. I. Buzdin, L. N. Bulaevskii, and S. V. Panyukov,
616: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 35}, 147 (1982) [JETP Lett. {\bf 35}, 178 (1982)].
617:
618: \bibitem{Ryazanov01}
619: V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. Yu. Rusanov, A. V. Veretennikov, A. A. Golubov, and J. Aarts,
620: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2427 (2001).
621:
622: \bibitem{Kontos01}
623: T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, and X. Grison, {\em ibid.} {\bf 86}, 304 (2001).
624:
625: \bibitem{Bauer04}
626: A. Bauer, J. Bentner, M. Aprili, M. L. Della Rocca, M. Reinwald, W. Wegscheider, and C. Strunk,
627: {\em ibid.} {\bf 92}, 217001 (2004).
628:
629: \bibitem{Golubov04}
630: A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, and E. Il'ichev, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 76}, 411 (2004).
631:
632: \bibitem{Buzdin05}
633: A. I. Buzdin, {\em ibid.} {\bf 77}, 935 (2005).
634:
635: \bibitem{Titov06}
636: M. Titov and C. W. J. Beenakker,
637: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 74}, 041401(R) (2006).
638:
639: \bibitem{Zareyan06}
640: Ali G. Moghaddam and Malek Zareyan, {\em ibid.} {\bf 74}, 241403(R) (2006).
641:
642:
643: \bibitem{Fisher81}
644: D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee, {\em ibid.} {\bf 23}, 6851 (1981).
645:
646: \bibitem{Torio04}
647: M. E. Torio, K. Hallberg, S. Flach, A. E. Miroshnichenko, and M. Titov, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 37}, 399 (2004).
648:
649: \bibitem{Lee06}
650: M. Lee and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 085315 (2006).
651:
652: \bibitem{Fabian04}
653: I. \u{Z}uti\'{c}, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 76}, 323 (2004).
654:
655:
656:
657: \bibitem{Andreev}
658: A.F. Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 46}, 1823 (1964)
659: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 19}, 1228 (1964)].
660:
661: \bibitem{Beenakker}
662: C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67}, 3836 (1991);
663: in {\em Transport Phenomena in Mesoscopic Systems},
664: edited by H. Fukuyama and T. Ando, p. 235 (Springer, Berlin 1992).
665:
666: \bibitem{Brouwer}
667: P.W. Brouwer and C.W.J. Beenakker,
668: Chaos, Solitons and Fractals {\bf 8}, 1249 (1997).
669:
670: \bibitem{deGennes}
671: P.G. de Gennes, Rev. Mod. Phys {\bf 36}, 225 (1964).
672:
673: \bibitem{Blonder82}
674: G.E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T.M. Klapwijk,
675: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 25}, 4515 (1982).
676:
677:
678: \bibitem{vanDam}
679: J. A. van Dam, Y. V. Nazarov, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, S. De Franceschi, L.
680: P. Kouwenhoven, Nature {\bf 442}, 667 (2006).
681:
682: \bibitem{Tinkham}
683: Jie Xiang, A. Vidan, M. Tinkham, R. M. Westervelt
684: and Charles M. Lieber, Nature Nanotechnology {\bf 1}, 208 (2006).
685:
686: \bibitem{Jorgensen}
687: H.I. Jorgensen, K. Grove-Rasmussen, T. Novotny, K. Flensberg,
688: and P.E. Lindelof, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 207003 (2006).
689:
690: \bibitem{Tsuneta}
691: T. Tsuneta, L. Lechner, and P. J. Hakonen, {\em ibid.} {\bf 98},
692: 087002 (2007).
693:
694:
695: \bibitem{GolKup}
696: A.A. Golubov and M.Yu. Kupriyanov, Physica C {\bf 259}, 27 (1996).
697:
698: \bibitem{Volkov}
699: A. F. Volkov and A. V. Zaitsev, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 9267 (1996).
700:
701: \bibitem{McMillan}
702: W. L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. {\bf 175}, 537 (1968).
703:
704: \bibitem{McGolubov}
705: A. A. Golubov, E. P. Houwman, J. G. Gijsbertsen, V. M. Krasnov, J.
706: Flokstra, H. Rogalla, and M. Yu. Kupriyanov,
707: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 1073 (1995).
708:
709: \bibitem{Tkachov07}
710: G. Tkachov and K. Richter, {\em ibid.} {\bf 75}, 134517 (2007),
711: discusses magnetic pair breaking as
712: a means of controlling the Andreev amplitude in quantum dot Josephson junctions.
713:
714: \bibitem{Bulaevskii77}
715: L. N. Bulaevskii, V. V. Kuzii, and A. A. Sobyanin,
716: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 25}, 314 (1977)
717: [JETP Lett. {\bf 25}, 290 (1977)].
718:
719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
720: \end{thebibliography}
721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
722:
723:
724:
725:
726: \end{document}
727:
728:
729: % ****** End of file apssamp.tex ******
730:
731:
732:
733:
734:
735:
736:
737:
738:
739:
740:
741:
742:
743:
744: