1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: \documentclass[aps,prb,twocolumn,floats]{revtex4}

4: 

5: % special 

6: \usepackage{ifthen}

7: \usepackage{ifpdf}

8: %\usepackage{color}

9: 

10: 

11: % fonts

12: \usepackage{latexsym}

13: \usepackage{amsmath}

14: \usepackage{amssymb}

15: \usepackage{bm}

16: %\usepackage{wasysym}

17: 

18: 

19: \ifpdf

20: \usepackage{graphicx}

21: \usepackage{epstopdf}

22: \else

23: \usepackage{graphicx}

24: \usepackage{epsfig}

25: \fi

26: 

27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

28: 

29: % NEW 

30: %\definecolor{red}{rgb}{1.,0.,0.}

31: %\newcommand{\revision}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}

32: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}

33: \newcommand{\signC}{^{\!\!c}}

34: \newcommand{\signA}{^{\!\!a}}

35: \newcommand{\citeref}[1]{[\onlinecite{#1}]}

36: 

37: 

38: % math symbols I

39: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}

40: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}

41: \newcommand{\trc}{\mbox{trace}}

42: \newcommand{\intt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int }

43: \newcommand{\ointt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\circ\ }

44: \newcommand{\ar}{\mathsf r}

45: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}}

46: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}}

47: 

48: % math symbols II

49: \newcommand{\eexp}{\mbox{e}^}

50: \newcommand{\bra}{\left\langle}

51: \newcommand{\ket}{\right\rangle}

52: 

53: % Mass symbol

54: \newcommand{\mass}{\mathsf{m}} 

55: \newcommand{\Mass}{\mathsf{M}} 

56: 

57: % more math commands

58: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}

59: \newcommand{\bmsf}[1]{\bm{\mathsf{#1}}} 

60: %\newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\matrix{#1}} 

61: \newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\begin{matrix} #1 \end{matrix}} 

62: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

63: 

64: % equations

65: \newcommand{\be}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\ifthenelse{#1=-1}{\nonumber}{\ifthenelse{#1=0}{}{\label{e#1}}}}

66: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}} 

67: 

68: % arrangement

69: \newcommand{\hide}[1]{}

70: \newcommand{\drawline}{\begin{picture}(500,1)\line(1,0){500}\end{picture}}

71: \newcommand{\bitem}{$\bullet$ \ \ \ }

72: \newcommand{\Cn}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}}

73: \newcommand{\mpg}[2][1.0\hsize]{\begin{minipage}[b]{#1}{#2}\end{minipage}}

74: \newcommand{\mpgt}[2][1.0\hsize]{\begin{minipage}[t]{#1}{#2}\end{minipage}}

75: 

76: 

77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

79: 

80: \begin{document} 

81: 

82: \title[Transport in a double well system]

83: {Quantum dynamics and transport in a double well system} 

84: 

85: \author{Itamar Sela and Doron Cohen}

86: 

87: \affiliation{

88: Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84005, Israel}

89: 

90: \begin{abstract}

91: The simplest one-dimensional model for the studying 

92: of non-trivial geometrical effects is a ring shaped device 

93: which is formed by joining two arms. 

94: We explore the possibility to model such a system  

95: as a two level system (TLS). 

96: Of particular interest is the analysis of {\em quantum~stirring}, 

97: where it is not evident that the topology 

98: is properly reflected within the framework of the TLS modeling.

99: On the technical side we provide 

100: a practical ``neighboring level" approximation 

101: for the analysis of such quantum devices, 

102: which remains valid even if the TLS modeling does not apply.  

103: \end{abstract}

104: 

105: \maketitle

106: 

107: 

108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

110: \section{Introduction}

111: \label{S1}

112: 

113: In this paper we explore the possibility to model

114: a ring shaped device (Fig.1(a)) as a two level system (TLS) (Fig.1(b)).  

115: We shall see that both technical and conceptual

116: difficulties are involved.  

117: The model Hamiltonian is

118: %

119: \be{1}

120: {\cal H} = \frac{1}{2\mass}\hat{p}^2+

121: V_A(\hat{x}-x_A)+V_B(\hat{x}-x_B)

122: \ee

123: %

124: with periodic boundary conditions 

125: over $x\in[-L/2,L/2]$ so as to have a ring geometry,

126: as illustrated in Fig.1(a).

127: $V_A$ and $V_B$ represent high barriers, 

128: such that the ring is composed of two weakly coupled arms.

129: We assume that we have control over some geometrical parameters

130: of the model and in particular over the heights $X_A$ and $X_B$ 

131: of both barriers. 

132: %

133: Our main interest is in the current that 

134: flows in the system. The current through an arbitrary point $x_0$ is   

135: obtained as the expectation value of the operator

136: %

137: \be{2}

138: {\cal I} = \frac{1}{2\mass}

139: \left(

140: \hat{p} \, \delta(\hat{x}-x_0)+

141: \delta(\hat{x}-x_0) \, \hat{p}

142: \right)

143: \ee

144: 

145: 

146: Having defined the system and its observables 

147: we can consider various dynamical scenarios

148: such as coherent {\em Bloch~oscillations} between the two arms.

149: Then we can ask whether a TLS modeling

150: is meaningful.  Of particular interest for us is

151: the analysis of {\em quantum~stirring} \citeref{pmx}: 

152: this means to induce a circulating current by periodic modulation

153: of the potential. 

154: 

155: 

156: We note that transport due to periodic modulations 

157: of the potential~\citeref{Thouless} has been 

158: studied mainly in the context of quantum pumping~\citeref{bpt,BPT2,Avron}, 

159: where the current is induced between reservoirs.  

160: The notion of quantum stirring relates 

161: to closed geometry, where the emerging physical picture

162: is significantly different~\citeref{pMB,pms}.

163: 

164: 

165: The quantum stirring problem highlights

166: an obvious topological subtlety: one wonders whether

167: the non trivial topology of the ring is properly 

168: reflected in the effective TLS model.  

169: 

170: 

171: On the technical side we define the unperturbed

172: Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_0$ as the $X_A=X_B=\infty$ limit.

173: In this limit the

174: two arms are disconnected from each other,

175: and the diagonalization

176: gives a set of eigen-energies $E_i$ such that each eigenstate belongs

177: to only one of the two arms.  Then we make either $X_A$ or $X_B$ or both finite,

178: and we ask what is the perturbation matrix $W_{ij}$ in the reduced Hamiltonian

179: %

180: \be{3} 

181: {\cal H}_{ij} 

182: = \left(\amatrix{E_1 & 0 \cr 0 & E_2}\right)  

183: + \left(\amatrix{W_{11} & W_{12} \cr W_{21} & W_{22}}\right)

184: \ee

185: %

186: Obviously we would like to express the perturbation 

187: using the transmission coefficients of the barriers. 

188: 

189: 

190: 

191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

192: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

193: \section{Outline}

194: \label{S2}

195: 

196: In the first part of the paper (Sections~\ref{S3}-\ref{S5}) 

197: we establish the building blocks. 

198: We derive expressions for the perturbation matrix $W_{ij}$

199: and for the reduced current operator ${\cal I}_{ij}$,

200: %and for some other useful operators ${\cal F}_{ij}$,

201: and figure out how the topology is reflected

202: in the reduced description. 

203: 

204: 

205: In the second part of the paper (Sections~\ref{S6}-\ref{S7}) 

206: we turn to the applications. 

207: We begin with the simplest problems: 

208: The coherent Bloch oscillations of a particle

209: in a mirror symmetric device, 

210: and the Wigner decay of a particle 

211: from a short arm to a long arm. 

212: Then we continue with the quantum stirring problem, 

213: and show how one can derive expressions 

214: for the geometric conductance. 

215: 

216: 

217: In the third part of the paper (Sections~\ref{S8}-\ref{S11}) 

218: we address some non-trivial technical points 

219: that are associated with the analysis, 

220: thus exploring the limitations of the TLS modeling. 

221: We demonstrate that even if the TLS modeling 

222: does not apply, we still can use 

223: a {\em neighboring level approximation} 

224: in order to extract results for the geometric conductance.  

225: 

226: 

227: In the Summary (Section~\ref{S12}) we highlight the practical value 

228: of our findings for the purpose of design and analysis 

229: of quantum stirring devices, and we briefly 

230: relate to the experimental measurement issue.

231: 

232: 

233: 

234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

236: \section{The TLS modeling scheme}

237: \label{S3}

238: 

239: 

240: The unperturbed eigenstates $\psi^{i}(x)$ are labeled 

241: as ${i=1,2}$, corresponding to the two arms of the ring. 

242: The associated eigen-energies are ${E_i = k_i^2/(2\mass)}$. 

243: We have  

244: %

245: \be{4}

246: \psi^{(1)}(x) =  

247: \left\{\amatrix{ 

248: \sqrt{\frac{2}{L_1}}\sin(k_1x+\varphi_1) & \mbox{if $x \in 1$st arm} \cr 

249: 0  &  \mbox{if $x \in 2$nd arm}

250: } \right.  

251: \ee

252: %

253: and a similar expression for  $\psi^{(2)}(x)$,  

254: where $L_i$ is the length of the $i$th arm, 

255: and $|\varphi|<\pi/2$. 

256: Two representative eigenstates are illustrated in Fig.2.

257: Note that the wavenumber of the particle in the $i$th arm 

258: is $k_i=(\pi/L_i)\times\mbox{\small integer}$. 

259: %

260: Our interest is in a very small 

261: energy range ${E_1 \sim E_2 \sim E}$, 

262: where the wavenumbers are ${k_1 \sim k_2 \sim k_E}$, 

263: corresponding to the velocity ${v_E=(2E/\mass)^{1/2}}$. 

264: We would like to ignore all the other levels.  

265: Later we discuss the validity conditions 

266: for this TLS modeling scheme.  

267: 

268: 

269: Once we lower from infinity one barrier, say barrier A, 

270: the two states become coupled. In section \ref{S4} 

271: we consider a delta barrier and obtain the 

272: following expression for the perturbation matrix: 

273: %

274: \be{333}

275: W^A_{ij} = -\frac{v_E}{2\sqrt{L_iL_j}} \ \sqrt{g_A}

276: \ee

277: %

278: where $g_A$ is the transmission of the barrier.

279: For $i\neq j$ the minus sign is a convention 

280: that fixes the gauge (see Appendix~A). 

281: %

282: In section \ref{S5} we show that essentially the

283: same result applies to any other type of barrier, 

284: but the ${i=j}$ expression for the energy shift 

285: should be somewhat generalized.

286: 

287: 

288: If both barriers are finite the two associated 

289: perturbation terms should be added together, 

290: and one obtains for the energy difference 

291: %

292: \be{6}

293: \varepsilon = (E_1 + W_{11}^A + W_{11}^B )-(E_2 + W_{22}^A+W_{22}^B)

294: \ee

295: %

296: and for the coupling 

297: %

298: \be{7}

299: \frac{\kappa}{2} = W_{12}^A+W_{12}^B = -\frac{v_E}{2\sqrt{L_1L_2}} \left(\sqrt{g_A} \pm\signC \sqrt{g_B}\right)

300: \ee

301: %

302: The latter expression involves a relative sign $\pm\signC$ 

303: that cannot be gauged away (see Appendix~A).

304: If we had magnetic flux penetrating 

305: through the ring we could have, instead 

306: of the $\pm\signC$, an arbitrary phase factor. 

307:   

308: Using the Pauli matrices we can write the TLS Hamiltonian as 

309: %

310: \be{0}

311: \mathcal{H}_{ij} \ \ = \ \ 

312: \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \bm{\sigma}_z + \frac{\kappa}{2} \bm{\sigma}_x  

313: \ \ \equiv \ \ 

314: \frac{\bm{\Omega}}{2} \cdot \bf{\sigma} 

315: \ee

316: %

317: Defining $\theta$ as the angle between

318: $\Omega$ and the "z" axis, with the convention $0<\theta<\pi$, 

319: the eigenstates ${n_0}$ and ${m_0}$ of this Hamiltonian are:

320: %

321: \be{9}

322: |n_0\rangle

323: =

324: \left( \begin{array}{c} 

325: \mp\sin{(\theta/2)} \\ \cos{(\theta/2)}

326: \end{array} \right),

327: \ \ \ \  

328: |m_0\rangle

329: =

330: \left( \begin{array}{c} 

331: \cos{(\theta/2)} \\ \pm\sin{(\theta/2)}

332: \end{array} \right) 

333: \ee

334: %

335: where the ${\pm}$ indicates the sign of $\kappa$.

336: The energy difference between these eigenstates is 

337: %

338: \be{0}

339: \Omega \ \ = \ \ \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + \kappa^2}

340: \ee

341: % 

342: If we have a symmetric well then the effective coupling 

343: between odd and even levels vanishes (${\kappa=0}$), 

344: and then we can get a degeneracy provided we tune appropriately

345: the energy level difference~$\varepsilon$.    

346:   

347: The TLS description is valid if $W_{12}$ 

348: is much smaller compared with the level spacing, namely

349: %

350: \be{11}

351: \mbox{max}\{g_A, \ g_B\} \ \ \ll \ \ L_2/L_1

352: \ee

353: %

354: where without loss of generality we assume $L_1>L_2$.

355: 

356: In section \ref{S9} we are going to derive expressions 

357: for the current $\mathcal{I}^A$ through barrier~A, 

358: as defined by Eq.(\ref{e2}) with ${x_0=x_A}$.  

359: One observes that the matrix elements of this

360: operator in the ``standard basis" of Eq.(\ref{e4}) vanish,  

361: because the unperturbed wavefunctions are zero 

362: at the barriers. The more careful treatment 

363: reveals that the reduced operator that gives 

364: the net current from the first arm to the second arm is 

365: %

366: \be{10}

367: \mathcal{I}_{ij} \ \ = \ \ \frac{\kappa}{2} \, \bm{\sigma}_y  

368: \ee

369: %

370: and it turns out that $\mathcal{I}_{ij}^A=\lambda_A\mathcal{I}_{ij}$,  

371: and $\mathcal{I}_{ij}^B=\lambda_B\mathcal{I}_{ij}$, 

372: where the splitting ratio is defined as 

373: %

374: \be{12}

375: \lambda_A=\frac{W_{12}^A}{W_{12}^A+ W_{12}^B}=

376: \frac{\sqrt{g_A}}{\sqrt{g_A}\pm\signC\sqrt{g_B}}

377: \ee

378: %

379: with a similar definition for $\lambda_B$.

380: We have ${\lambda_A+\lambda_B=1}$, but contrary 

381: to the naive point of view ${0<\lambda_A<1}$ is not implied.

382: Rather, if the two states have opposite parity, 

383: then one~$\lambda$ is larger than $100\%$, 

384: while the other~$\lambda$ is negative. 

385: We shall see later in Section \ref{S12} that the physical 

386: interpretation of the ``splitting ratio" 

387: requires recognition in the existence of induced 

388: circulating current in the system.

389: Thus the multiple path topology of the system 

390: is reflected in the TLS modeling via~$\lambda$. 

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

396: \section{The expression for $W_{ij}$ for a delta barrier}

397: \label{S4}

398: 

399: Let us assume that barrier~B is infinitely high, 

400: while barrier~A is modeled as a delta function. 

401: In other words: we consider the simplest possibility 

402: of having an infinite well [${(-L/2)<x<(L/2)}$] 

403: which is divided at ${x=x_A}$ by a delta function:

404: %

405: \be{0}

406: V_A(x-x_A) \ \ = \ \ X_A\delta(x-x_A)

407: \ee

408: %

409: The total perturbation is obtained from  

410: a sequence of infinitesimal variations 

411: of the barrier height

412: %

413: \be{13}

414: {\cal H}(X_A) 

415: \ \ &=& \ \ 

416: {\cal H}(\infty)-\int^\infty_{X_A}

417: \frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial X} \ \mbox{d}X 

418: \\

419: \ \ &\equiv& \ \ {\cal H}(\infty)+W^A

420: \ee

421: %

422: For any value of $X$ the Hilbert space of the system 

423: is spanned by a set of (real) eigenfunction labeled by~$n$. 

424: The matrix elements for an infinitesimal variation 

425: of the barrier height is 

426: %

427: \be{0}

428: \left(\frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial X}\right)_{nm}

429: \ \ = \ \ \psi^{(n)}(x_A) \,\, \psi^{(m)}(x_A)

430: \ee

431: %

432: Using the matching conditions for a delta potential 

433: at ${x=x_A}$ we can express the wave function by its

434: derivative:

435: %

436: \be{0}

437: \psi^{(n)}(x_A) 

438: = \frac{1}{2\mass X_A} \left[\partial\psi^{(n)}(x_A{+}0)-\partial\psi^{(n)}(x_A{-}0)\right]

439: \ee

440: %

441: A more elegant way of writing this relation is  

442: %

443: \be{16}

444: \psi^{(n)}(x_A) 

445: = \frac{1}{2\mass X_A} \sum_{a=1,2} \partial_a\psi^{(n)}(x_A)

446: \ee

447: %

448: where $\partial_a$ is defined as the {\em radial} derivative 

449: in the direction of the $a$th arms that stretch out 

450: of the junction at ${x=x_A}$. Defining the total 

451: radial derivative as ${\partial=\partial_1+\partial_2}$

452: we get 

453: %

454: \be{0}

455: \left(\frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial X}\right)_{nm}

456: =

457: \frac{1}{(2\mass X_A)^2}

458: \,\,

459: \partial\psi^{(n)}(x_A)

460: \,\,

461: \partial\psi^{(m)}(x_A)

462: \ee

463: %

464: %

465: %

466: For a large barrier with small transmission 

467: %

468: \be{18}

469: g_A \ \ \approx \ \ \left(\frac{v_E}{X_A}\right)^2 \ \ \ll \ \ 1 

470: \ee

471: %

472: the $n$th and $m$th states remain similar 

473: to some unperturbed $i$th and $j$th states. 

474: Accordingly, upon integration we get 

475: from Eq.(\ref{e13}) the result 

476: %

477: \be{20}

478: W^A_{ij} = -\frac{1}{4\mass^2 X_A}

479: \Big[\partial\psi^{(i)}(x_A)\Big]

480: \,\,

481: \Big[\partial\psi^{(j)}(x_A)\Big] 

482: \ee

483: %

484: Note that in the last equation the contribution to the 

485: total derivative $\partial$ comes from one term only, 

486: because each unperturbed wavefunction $\psi^{(i)}(x)$ is non-zero 

487: only in one box. Using  Eq.(\ref{e18}) we get Eq.(\ref{e333}).

488: 

489: 

490: 

491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

493: \section{The expression for $W_{ij}$ for a general barrier} 

494: \label{S5}

495: 

496: It is possible to deduce an expression for $W_{ij}$

497: without assuming a specific form of potential barrier.

498: For the purpose of this calculation we describe the barrier 

499: at ${x=x_A}$ by a general scattering matrix 

500: %

501: \be{0}

502: S &=& \eexp{i\gamma}

503: \left(

504: \begin{array}{cc}

505: i\sqrt{1-g} \ \eexp{i\alpha} & -\sqrt{g} \\

506: -\sqrt{g} & i\sqrt{1-g} \ \eexp{-i\alpha}

507: \end{array}

508: \right)

509: \ee

510: %

511: Regarding the barrier as a {\em junction} it can be 

512: embedded either in a {\em closed} ring geometry with the two {\em arms} attached,  

513: or in an {\em open} one-dimensional geometry with two infinite {\em leads} attached.

514: In both cases the differential representation 

515: of $W$ should be the {\em same}, because $W$ is local in space. 

516: In other words $W^A_{ij}$ should come out the same 

517: for the wavefunctions $\psi^{(i)}(x)$ and $\psi^{(j)}(x)$

518: of the ring, if in the vicinity of ${x=x_A}$ 

519: they are identical with $\Psi^{(i)}(x)$ and $\Psi^{(j)}(x)$  

520: of the scattering geometry. 

521: 

522: 

523: In the scattering geometry it is conventional 

524: to label the two leads by ${a=1,2}$ 

525: and to define a radial coordinate $r=|x-x_A|$.

526: The flux normalized scattering states 

527: of the junction (assuming outgoing waves) 

528: are $\Psi^{(i+)}$. By definition we have   

529: %

530: \be{0}

531: \Psi^{(1+)} = 

532: \left\{\amatrix{ 

533: \frac{1}{\sqrt{v_E}} [\eexp{-ik_E r} - S_{11}\eexp{ik_E r}] & \mbox{if $r \in 1$st lead} \cr 

534: \frac{1}{\sqrt{v_E}} [-S_{21}\eexp{ik_E r}] &  \mbox{if $r \in 2$nd lead}

535: } \right.  

536: \ee

537: % 

538: A similar expression holds for $\Psi^{(2+)}$.

539: If the leads are not coupled, the scattering 

540: matrix becomes $S_0$ with ${g=0}$.  

541: In the vicinity of ${x=x_A}$ the unperturbed scattering states  

542: coincide with those of Eq.(\ref{e4}) up to normalization. 

543: Namely, in the vicinity of ${x=x_A}$ we have the relation  

544: %

545: \be{4444}

546: \Psi^{(i)}(x) = -i\left(\frac{2L_i}{v_E}\right)^{1/2} 

547: \eexp{i\varphi_i} 

548: \,\, \psi^{(i)}(x)

549: \ee

550: %

551: where 

552: %

553: \be{0}

554: \varphi_i = \frac{1}{2} \left( \gamma_0 + \frac{\pi}{2} \pm \alpha_0 \right)

555: \ee

556: %

557: with $\pm$ sign for $i=1,2$ respectively.

558: 

559: 

560: The relation between the scattering matrix

561: and the perturbation matrix~$W$ can be 

562: deduced via the $T$~matrix formalism. 

563: The $S$ matrix is related to the $T$ matrix 

564: through ${S = (1-iT)S_0}$, or more explicitly  

565: %

566: \be{0}

567: [SS_0^{-1}]_{ij} = \delta_{ij} - i\langle \Psi^{(i)} | T | \Psi^{(j)} \rangle

568: \ee

569: %

570: In leading order $T$ equals $W$ so we have  

571: %

572: \be{0}

573: \langle \Psi^{(i)} | W | \Psi^{(j)} \rangle \ \ \approx \ \ i (S-S_0) \ S_0^{-1}

574: \ee

575: %

576: where

577: %

578: \be{0}

579: S-S_0 =

580: \eexp{i\gamma_0}

581: \left(

582: \begin{array}{cc}

583: \eexp{i\alpha_0}(\delta\gamma+\delta\alpha) & \sqrt{g} \\

584: \sqrt{g} & \eexp{-i\alpha_0}(\delta\gamma-\delta\alpha)

585: \end{array}

586: \right)

587: \ee

588: %

589: Thus

590: %

591: \be{0}

592: \langle \Psi^{(i)} | W | \Psi^{(j)} \rangle  = 

593: -\left(

594: \begin{array}{cc}

595: \delta\gamma+\delta\alpha & \sqrt{g} \ \eexp{i\alpha_0} \\

596: \sqrt{g} \ \eexp{-i\alpha_0} & \delta\gamma-\delta\alpha

597: \end{array}

598: \right)

599: \ee

600: %

601: Using Eq.(\ref{e4444}) we deduce that each 

602: element of ${\langle \psi^{(i)} | W | \psi^{(j)} \rangle}$ 

603: involves multiplication by ${v_E/(4 L_i L_j)^{1/2}}$, 

604: while the $\alpha_0$ is canceled out. 

605: This leads to Eq.(\ref{e333}) for the ${i \ne j}$ coupling, 

606: and a generalized expression for the energy level shifts. 

607:  

608: 

609: 

610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

612: \section{Wigner decay and Bloch oscillations}

613: \label{S6}

614: 

615: 

616: If the two arms of the ring have exactly the same length ${L_1=L_2=L/2}$,

617: then the coherent Bloch oscillations of a wavepacket 

618: in such a symmetric double well are characterized by the frequency

619: %

620: \be{0}

621: \Omega_{\tbox{Bloch}} = 2|W_{12}| = \frac{v_E}{L_1}\left|\sqrt{g_A}+\sqrt{g_B}\right|

622: \ee

623: 

624: 

625: If one arm of the ring ($L_1$) is very long,  

626: and the other arm ($L_2$) is short,

627: then a particle placed initially at the short arm

628: will decay into the quasi continuum of the long arm.

629: The decay rate is given by the Fermi golden rule

630: %

631: \be{27}

632: \Gamma = \frac{2\pi}{\Delta}|W_{12}|^2

633: \ee

634: %

635: where $\Delta=(\pi/L)v_E$ is the mean level spacing. 

636: If the arms are coupled through barrier~A,  

637: while barrier~B is infinitely high, 

638: then the decay rate is

639: %

640: \be{0}

641: \Gamma &=& \frac{v_E}{2L_2} \ g_A 

642: \ee

643: %

644: This result agrees with the well known Gamow formula: 

645: the decay rate is given by the attempt

646: frequency multiplied by the probability 

647: to cross the barrier.

648: 

649: If both barriers are finite, it is important to notice that 

650: the quasi-continuum of the long arm is composed of odd and even states.

651: The state of the short arm, which is either even or odd, is coupled to states of

652: the same parity with a plus sign in the expression of Eq.(\ref{e7}) 

653: and to states of the opposite parity with a minus sign.

654: Accordingly, the decay rate is the sum of the decay rate to states of

655: the same parity and the decay rate to states of the opposite parity

656: %

657: \be{0}

658: \Gamma 

659: \ \ &=& \ \ 

660: \sum_{\pm}

661: \frac{2\pi}{\Delta_{\pm}}

662: \left|

663: \frac{v_E}{2\sqrt{L_1L_2}}

664: \left(\sqrt{g_A} \pm\signC \sqrt{g_B}\right)

665: \right|^2

666: \nonumber\\

667: \ \ &=& \ \

668: \frac{v_E}{2L_2}\left(g_A+g_B\right)

669: \ee

670: %

671: where $\Delta_{\pm}=2\Delta$ is the mean level spacing 

672: for states with the same parity. So inspite of the parity 

673: considerations we still get the naive result that agree 

674: with Gamow formula. 

675: 

676: 

677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

679: \section{Quantum stirring}

680: \label{S7}

681: 

682: We assume that we have control over geometrical parameters

683: of the device, such as the potential floor in each arm, 

684: the barriers heights, their location, or any other gate controlled 

685: feature of the potential landscape. With a control parameter~$X$ 

686: we associate a generalized force operator 

687: %

688: \be{21}

689: {\cal F} = -\frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial X}

690: \ee

691: %

692: Quantum stirring means to induce 

693: a circulating current by changing 

694: the parameter~$X$. We assume that the parametric variation is 

695: adiabatic so we have a linear relation $\langle I \rangle = - G \dot{X}$,

696: where $G$ is know as the geometric conductance \citeref{pmc}.

697: The Kubo formalism implies that $G$ equals to the Berry curvature \citeref{berry1,avron2,berry2}:

698: %

699: \be{22}

700: G = \sum_{m(\neq n)}\frac{2 \ \im[{\cal I}_{nm}]{\cal F}_{mn}}{(E_m-E_n)^2}

701: \ee

702: %

703: where $n$ is the level in which the particle is prepared, 

704: and $m$ are the other levels.

705: 

706: 

707: 

708: 

709: Within the framework of the TLS modeling the sum in Eq.(\ref{e22}) 

710: contains only one term which involves the states $n_0$ and $m_0$ 

711: of Eq.(\ref{e9}). For the matrix element of the current operator we get

712: %

713: \be{34}

714: {\cal I}_{n_0m_0} 

715: = \left[\lambda\frac{\kappa}{2}\bm{\sigma}_y\right]_{n_0m_0}  

716: = i\lambda \, \frac{\kappa}{2} 

717: \ee

718: %

719: where $\lambda$ is the appropriate splitting ratio. 

720: The matrix element of the generalized force 

721: operator is calculated using Eqs.(\ref{e9}) and (\ref{e21}) 

722: %

723: \be{35}

724: {\cal F}_{m_0n_0} 

725: &=& 

726: -\frac{1}{2} 

727: \left[

728: \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial X}\bm{\sigma}_z 

729: + \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial X} \bm{\sigma}_x

730: \right]_{m_0n_0} 

731: \\

732: &=& 

733: \pm \ \frac{1}{2}\sin(\theta) \ \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial X} 

734: -\frac{1}{2}\cos(\theta) \ \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial X} 

735: \\

736: &=& 

737: \frac{1}{2\Omega}

738: \left(

739: \kappa \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial X} 

740: - \varepsilon \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial X} 

741: \right)

742: \ee

743: %

744: where we used ${\pm\sin(\theta)=\kappa/\Omega}$

745: and ${\cos(\theta)=\varepsilon/\Omega}$. 

746: This leads for the following result for the 

747: geometric conductance: 

748: %

749: \be{36}

750: G =   

751: \frac{\lambda\kappa}{2\Omega^3} 

752: \left[ 

753: \kappa \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial X} 

754: - \varepsilon \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial X} 

755: \right]

756: \ee

757: %

758: In the analysis of the operation of a stirring device 

759: we typically have a well defined region  

760: where the potential is being varied. We may call 

761: this segment ``the pump". It is convenient to measure 

762: the current elsewhere, where the potential is fixed.  

763: If barrier~A is not part of the ``pump"

764: then we can measure the current at $x_0=x_A$. 

765: Then it follows from the definitions of $\lambda$ 

766: and $\kappa$ that the product $\lambda\kappa$ 

767: does not change with time, even if barrier~B is modulated.

768: Then we can rewrite the above formula as 

769: %

770: \be{0}

771: G =   

772: \frac{\lambda_0\kappa_0}{2\Omega^3} 

773: \left[ 

774: \kappa \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial X} 

775: - \varepsilon \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial X} 

776: \right]

777: \ee

778: %

779: where $\lambda_0$ and $\kappa_0$ are that values at 

780: some arbitrary moment of time.  

781: Typically the variation of $X$ leads to a sequence 

782: of level crossings if $\kappa$ is disregarded.

783: These become avoided crossings if $\kappa$ 

784: is taken into account.

785: At the vicinity of a crossing we typically 

786: can use a linear approximation:

787: %

788: \be{0} 

789: \varepsilon 

790: \ \ &=& \ \ \dot{\varepsilon}  \times (X-X_0)

791: \\

792: \kappa 

793: \ \ &=& \ \ \kappa_0 + \dot{\kappa} \times  (X-X_0)

794: \ee

795: %

796: The amount of probability $dQ=Idt$ which is being 

797: transported equals ${-GdX}$. For an individual crossing  

798: the $dX$ integration over $G$ can be performed using 

799: %

800: \be{0}

801: &&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{a(b+cx) \ \mbox{d}x}

802: {\left(a^2x^2+(b+cx)^2\right)^{3/2}}=\frac{2a}{b\sqrt{a^2+c^2}}\\

803: &&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{c \, ax \ \mbox{d}x}

804: {\left(a^2x^2+(b+cx)^2\right)^{3/2}}=-\frac{2c^2}{ab\sqrt{a^2+c^2}}

805: \ee

806: % 

807: Then we get the result

808: %

809: \be{44}

810: Q \ \ = \ \ \pm \lambda_0 \sqrt{1+\left({\dot{\kappa}}/{\dot{\varepsilon}}\right)^2}

811: \ee

812: %

813: where the $\pm$ is determined according to the sign 

814: of~$\dot{\varepsilon}$. We observed that in order to get 

815: the ``quantized" value ${Q=1}$ there should be neither topological  

816: splitting (${\lambda=1}$) nor barrier modulation (${\dot{\kappa}=0}$) 

817: during the transition. 

818: 

819: 

820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

822: \section{The neighboring level approximation scheme}

823: \label{S8}

824: 

825: A major interest is in systems with zero temperature Fermi occupation. 

826: In such a case Eq.(\ref{e22}) has to be summed over $n$ up to 

827: the Fermi energy. It turns out \citeref{pmx} that the result is dominated 

828: by the contribution that come from the coupling between the last 

829: occupied level and its neighboring empty level. This suggests 

830: to adopt a neighboring level approximation scheme that holds 

831: irrespective of the validity of the TLS modeling, and coincides  

832: with it if the condition of Eq.(\ref{e11}) is satisfied. 

833: The key idea is to characterize each eigenstate by a mixing parameter 

834: %   

835: \be{0}

836: \Theta \ \ \equiv \ \ 2\arctan\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mbox{Prob}(x\in2)}{\mbox{Prob}(x\in1)}}\right) 

837: \ee

838: %

839: such that $\Theta=0$ for states that belong to the first arm 

840: and $\Theta=\pi$ for states that belong to the second arm.

841: Numerical examples are presented in Figs.~3-4. 

842: If we are given $\Theta$ then we can construct the eigenstate 

843: using a procedure that we describe below. If the TLS modeling 

844: applies then $\Theta$ becomes essentially the same as $\theta$.  

845: 

846: 

847: Let us see how we construct the wavefunction given the 

848: energy ${E=E_n}$, the mixing parameter ${\Theta=\Theta_n}$, 

849: and the parity $\pm\signA$ with respect to (say) barrier~A,

850: as defined in Appendix~A. Consequently it is convenient 

851: to set the origin such that ${x_A=0}$, 

852: and write the $n$th eigenstate of the ring as 

853: %

854: \be{37}

855: \psi^{(n)}(x) =  

856: \left\{\amatrix{ 

857: \pm\signA C_1\sin(k_1x+\varphi_1) & \mbox{if $x \in 1$st arm} \cr 

858: C_2\sin(k_2x+\varphi_2) & \mbox{if $x \in 2$nd arm}

859: } \right.  

860: \ee

861: %

862: where $C_i>0$, and $|\varphi|<\pi/2$. 

863: Assuming $k_EL\gg1$, the amplitudes satisfy the normalization condition 

864: %

865: \be{0}

866: \frac{1}{2}L_1{C_1}^2+\frac{1}{2}L_2{C_2}^2 \approx 1

867: \ee

868: %

869: It follows that 

870: %

871: \be{40}

872: C_1 &\approx& \sqrt{\frac{2}{L_1}} \ \cos\left(\frac{\Theta}{2}\right)\\

873: \label{e41}

874: C_2 &\approx& \sqrt{\frac{2}{L_2}} \ \sin\left(\frac{\Theta}{2}\right)

875: \ee

876: %

877: We still have to say what are 

878: the wavenumbers $k_1$ and $k_2$,   

879: and the phase shifts $\varphi$. 

880: Let us see first how they are determined 

881: within the framework of the TLS modeling, 

882: and then how they can be found irrespective 

883: of the TLS modeling.

884: 

885: 

886: Naively the $|n_0\rangle$ and $|m_0\rangle$ eigenstates, 

887: within the framework of the TLS modeling, 

888: are the superposition of the basis states 

889: of Eq.(\ref{e4}) and accordingly  

890: %

891: \be{42}

892: \Theta &=& \theta, \, \pi{-}\theta \\

893: \label{e443}

894: k_1 &=& \mbox{corresponds to the unperturbed $E_{1}$} \\

895: \label{e444}

896: k_2 &=& \mbox{corresponds to the unperturbed $E_{2}$} \\

897: \varphi_1 &=& \mbox{same as the unperturbed}  \\

898: \varphi_2 &=& \mbox{same as the unperturbed} 

899: \ee

900: %

901: while the true eigenstates are with (see Fig.2)

902: %

903: \be{47}

904: \Theta &\approx& \theta, \, \pi{-}\theta \\

905: k_1 &=& \mbox{corresponds to $E_n$} \\

906: k_2 &=& \mbox{corresponds to $E_n$} \\

907: \varphi_1 &=& \mbox{shifted}  \\

908: \varphi_2 &=& \mbox{shifted}

909: \ee

910: %

911: To be more specific, we have $\Theta^{(m_0)} \approx \theta$

912: and $\Theta^{(n_0)} \approx \pi-\theta$ 

913: and hence ${\Theta^{(m_0)}{+}\Theta^{(n_0)}\approx \pi}$ 

914: if the TLS modeling is valid (see Fig.~4). 

915: We note that from Eq.(\ref{e40}-\ref{e41}) it follows 

916: that within the framework of the TLS approximation we have   

917: %

918: \be{52}

919: C_i^{(m_0)}C_i^{(n_0)} \ \ \approx \ \ \frac{1}{L_i} \sin(\theta) 

920: \ee

921: %

922: This will be used later on in order to obtain 

923: simplified expressions for the matrix elements 

924: of various operators.

925: 

926: 

927: 

928: Whether $k_1$ and $k_2$ in Eqs.(\ref{e443}-\ref{e444}) correspond to the 

929: same energy or not, is not a big difference 

930: for us because we assume ${k_1 \sim k_2 \sim k_E}$ 

931: in any case. The main problem with the naive version 

932: is related to the phase shifts, as demonstrated in Fig.~2.

933: The variation of the phase shift as 

934: the barriers are lowered reflect that there 

935: is a non-zero probability to find the particle 

936: in the region of the barriers.  

937: In particular if the phases $\varphi_i$ remained 

938: the same it would imply that all the matrix 

939: elements of $I^A$ and $I^B$ would be zero.  

940: It is essential to take the variation of  $\varphi$

941: into account in order to get a non-zero result 

942: for the geometrical conductance. 

943: We shall discuss the calculation of the matrix 

944: elements $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{nm}$     

945: in the next sections. First we would like to discuss 

946: how the required information on the variation 

947: of the phases~$\varphi$ can be extracted. 

948:  

949: 

950: 

951: In order to express $\varphi$ by $\Theta$,

952: we write the wave function of Eq.(\ref{e37})

953: as ingoing and outgoing waves and set the origin $x=0$ at

954: either one of the barriers, for example barrier A.

955: We match the wave functions of the two bonds by

956: the barrier scattering matrix

957: %

958: \be{58}

959: %

960: \left(

961: \begin{array}{c}

962: {\pm\signA} C_1 \ \eexp{+i\varphi_1} \\

963: C_2 \ \eexp{+i\varphi_2}

964: \end{array}

965: \right)

966: %

967:  &=& {\bm S}_A

968: %

969: \left(

970: \begin{array}{c}

971: {\pm\signA} C_1 \ \eexp{-i\varphi_1} \\

972: C_2 \ \eexp{-i\varphi_2}

973: \end{array}

974: \right)

975: %

976: \ee

977: %

978: and get closed equations for the phase shifts

979: %

980: \be{48}

981: \sqrt{1-g} \sin(2\varphi_1-\alpha-\gamma) {=}

982: 1-\frac{g}{2}\left(1+\left(\frac{C_2}{C_1}\right)^2\right)\\

983: \sqrt{1-g} \sin(2\varphi_2+\alpha-\gamma) {=}

984: 1-\frac{g}{2}\left(1+\left(\frac{C_1}{C_2}\right)^2\right)

985: \ee

986: 

987: 

988: 

989: 

990: 

991: So far everything is exact. So once we have $\Theta$

992: we can find the phases and construct the wavefunction.

993: We would like to focus in the rest of this section 

994: in the regime where the TLS modeling applies. 

995: Assuming that $\Theta$ is determined by $\theta$ 

996: we want to find what are $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$, 

997: so as to construct a proper wavefunction. 

998: Neglecting terms of order $g$ and expanding $\arcsin(1{-}x)$ 

999: as $\pi/2\pm\sqrt{2x}$ we obtain  

1000: %

1001: \be{49}

1002: \varphi_1 &\approx& \frac{\gamma+\alpha}{2}+\frac{\pi}{4}

1003: \pm\signA\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2} \ \sqrt{\frac{L_1}{L_2}} \ 

1004: \tan\left(\frac{\Theta}{2}\right)

1005: \ee

1006: % 

1007: where the $\pm\signA$ sign should be the same as in Eq.(\ref{e58}), 

1008: which can be established by direct substitution. 

1009: A similar expression can be obtained for $\varphi_2$.

1010: We note that within the framework of this TLS approximation we have

1011: %

1012: \be{53}

1013: \varphi_1^{(m_0)}-\varphi_1^{(n_0)} =

1014: \pm\sqrt{g_A} \left(\frac{L_1}{L_2}\right)^{1/2} \frac{1}{\sin(\theta)}

1015: \ee

1016: %

1017: where the sign is the same as that of $\kappa$.

1018: We now have all the building blocks needed

1019: for the calculation of the matrix elements. 

1020: 

1021: 

1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1023: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1024: \section{The expression for $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$}

1025: \label{S9}

1026: 

1027: If we adopt the TLS point of view,

1028: we can postulate a self-consistent definition 

1029: of the current operator based on the continuity equation. 

1030: For this purpose we define the occupation operator ${\cal N}$ 

1031: for one of the arms as

1032: %

1033: \be{0}

1034: {\cal N} 

1035: \ \ = \ \ 

1036: \left(

1037: \begin{array}{cc}

1038: 1 & 0   \\

1039: 0 & 0

1040: \end{array}

1041: \right)

1042: \ee

1043: %

1044: and deduce the definition of the current operator from 

1045: %

1046: \be{0}

1047: \frac{d}{dt}{\cal N} 

1048: \ \ = \ \  

1049: i[\mathcal{H},\mathcal{N}]  

1050: \ \ \equiv \ \ {\cal I}

1051: \ee

1052: %

1053: where ${\cal I}$ is given by Eq.(\ref{e10}).

1054: If we turn off the coupling at barrier~A 

1055: we get the same expression multiplied by $\lambda_B$, 

1056: while if we turn off the coupling at barrier~B 

1057: we get the same expression multiplied by $\lambda_A$.  

1058: 

1059: The above reasoning bypass the confrontation which is 

1060: involved in carrying out a direct calculation, 

1061: and hence contains an uncontrolled error 

1062: which is associated with the assumption that a TLS  

1063: description of Hilbert space is valid. 

1064: %

1065: If we revert to the original definition of Eq.(\ref{e2}),

1066: then the matrix elements are given by

1067: %

1068: \be{0}

1069: {\cal I}_{nm} = i\frac{1}{2\mass}\left(

1070: \partial\psi^{(n)} \ \psi^{(m)}-\psi^{(n)} \ \partial\psi^{(m)}\right)

1071: \Big|_{x=x_0}

1072: \ee

1073: % 

1074: For the calculation of ${\cal I}^A_{nm}$ we set $x_0=x_A=0$.

1075: As was already pointed out, in order to get a non-trivial 

1076: result, we have to take into account the phase shifts $\varphi$

1077: which was calculated in the previous section.

1078: Substituting the wave function of Eq.(\ref{e37}) we get

1079: %

1080: \be{61}

1081: {\cal I}^A_{nm} &=& 

1082: -i\frac{1}{2\mass}C_1^{(m)}C_1^{(n)}\left[

1083: \frac{k_{m}+k_{n}}{2} \ \sin(\varphi_1^{(m)}-\varphi_1^{(n)})

1084: \right.\nonumber\\

1085: &&+ \left.\frac{k_{n}-k_{m}}{2} \ \sin(\varphi_1^{(m)}+\varphi_1^{(n)})

1086: \right]

1087: \ee

1088: %

1089: Whenever the TLS modeling applies we can substitute

1090: Eqs.(\ref{e52}) and (\ref{e53}) into Eq.(\ref{e61}). 

1091: Neglecting the second term we get

1092: %

1093: \be{70}

1094: {\cal I}^A_{n_0m_0} \approx {\mp}i\frac{v_{\tbox{E}}}{2\sqrt{L_1L_2}}\sqrt{g_A}

1095: \ee

1096: %

1097: where the sign is the same as that of $-\kappa$.

1098: One notices that the expression for ${\cal I}^A_{n_0m_0}$ 

1099: can be written as Eq.(\ref{e34}) where $\kappa$ 

1100: and $\lambda$ are given by Eq.(\ref{e7}) and Eq.(\ref{e12}).

1101:  

1102: 

1103: 

1104: 

1105: 

1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1108: \section{Stirring by barrier modulation}

1109: \label{S11}

1110: 

1111: 

1112: In this section we calculate the geometric conductance 

1113: as determined by the matrix elements of the generalized force 

1114: that is associated with modulation

1115: of a delta barrier.  

1116: The motivation is to verify the results of the reduced 

1117: description against the direct full Hilbert space calculation. 

1118: The potential barrier is given by

1119: %

1120: \be{0}

1121: V_B(\hat{x}) = X_B\delta(\hat{x}-x_B)

1122: \ee

1123: %

1124: The stirring is induced by variation of the barrier

1125: height $X_B$. The associated generalized force is 

1126: %

1127: \be{0}

1128: {\cal F} = -\frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial X_B} 

1129: \ \ = \ \ -\delta(\hat{x}-x_B)

1130: \ee

1131: %

1132: with the matrix elements 

1133: %

1134: \be{0}

1135: {\cal F}_{mn} \ \ = \ \ -\psi^{(n)}\psi^{(m)}

1136: \ee

1137: %

1138: For the wavefunctions amplitudes we use Eq.(\ref{e52})

1139: and for the phase shifts Eq.(\ref{e49}).

1140: We also substitute the scattering matrix parameters

1141: that describe a delta barrier

1142: %

1143: \be{0}

1144: \gamma_B &\approx& -\pi/2+\sqrt{g_B}\\

1145: \alpha_B &=& 0

1146: \ee 

1147: %

1148: where the approximation is valid for $g_B\ll1$ and

1149: the relation of $g_B$ and $X_B$ is given in Eq.(\ref{e18}).

1150: With the above approximations we get 

1151: %

1152: \be{0}

1153: {\cal F}_{m_0n_0} \approx g_B\frac{L_2-L_1}{4L_1L_2}\sin(\theta) \ {\mp} \

1154: \frac{g_B}{2\sqrt{L_1L_2}}\cos(\theta)

1155: \ee 

1156: %

1157: where the sign should be the same as that of $\mp\signC\kappa$. 

1158: In order to verify the consistency with the TLS expression, 

1159: we differentiate Eq.(\ref{e6}) and Eq.(\ref{e7}): 

1160: %

1161: \be{0}

1162: \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial X_B} &=&

1163: g_B\frac{L_2-L_1}{2L_1L_2}\\  

1164: \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial X_B} &=&

1165: \pm\signC\frac{g_B}{\sqrt{L_1L_2}}

1166: \ee

1167: %

1168: and substitute into Eq.(\ref{e35}).

1169: Indeed we obtain the same result 

1170: for ${\cal F}_{m_0n_0}$ as above.

1171: 

1172: 

1173: The geometric conductance of Eq.(\ref{e22}) involves

1174: the multiplication of ${\cal F}_{m_0n_0}$ with ${\cal I}_{n_0m_0}$, leading to

1175: %

1176: \be{0}

1177: G &=& \frac{1}{4} \ v_{E}^2 \frac{L_2-L_1}

1178: {\left(L_1L_2\right)^2} \ \frac{g_A \ g_B\pm\signC{g_A}^{1/2}{g_B}^{3/2}}{\Omega^3}

1179: \nonumber\\

1180: &\mp\signC& \frac{1}{4} \ v_{E}^2 \frac{L_2+L_1}

1181: {\left(L_1L_2\right)^2} \ \frac{g_A \ g_B+{g_A}^{1/2}{g_B}^{3/2}}{\Omega^3}

1182: \ee 

1183: %

1184: The calculation of the transport proceeds as in Section~\ref{S7}. 

1185: 

1186: 

1187: 

1188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1190: \section{Stirring by barrier translation}

1191: \label{S10}

1192: 

1193: 

1194: In complete analogy with the previous section we  

1195: would like to calculate the geometric conductance

1196: as determined by the matrix elements  

1197: of the generalized force which is associated 

1198: with the translation of the barrier: 

1199: %

1200: \be{0}

1201: {\cal F} = -\frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial x_B} \ = \

1202: X_B\delta'(\hat{x}-x_B)

1203: \ee

1204: %

1205: One obtains 

1206: %

1207: \be{0}

1208: {\cal F}_{mn} = 

1209: -X_B\left(\overline{\partial\psi^{(n)}} \ \psi^{(m)}+

1210: \overline{\partial\psi^{(m)}} \ \psi^{(n)}\right)

1211: \ee

1212: %

1213: where $\overline{\partial\psi}$ is the

1214: average derivative on both sides of the barrier.

1215: We simplify this expression by using Eq.(\ref{e16}):

1216: %

1217: \be{0}

1218: {\cal F}_{mn}=\frac{1}{2\mass}

1219: \left[\partial\psi_1^{(n)}\partial\psi_1^{(m)}-

1220: \partial\psi_2^{(n)}\partial\psi_2^{(m)}

1221: \right]_{x=x_B}

1222: \ee

1223: %

1224: Assuming high barriers we get in leading order 

1225: %

1226: \be{0}

1227: {\cal F}_{mn} \approx -\frac{1}{2}\mass v_{E}^2\left( C_1^{(m)}C_1^{(n)} + C_2^{(m)}C_2^{(n)}\right)

1228: \ee

1229: %

1230: which together with Eq.(\ref{e52}) leads to 

1231: %

1232: \be{0}

1233: {\cal F}_{m_0n_0} \approx -\frac{1}{2}\mass v_{E}^2 \ \frac{L_1+L_2}{L_1L_2} \ \sin(\theta)

1234: \ee 

1235: %

1236: In order to compare the above result for ${\cal F}_{m_0n_0}$ 

1237: with the TLS result of Eq.\ref{e35}

1238: we calculate the variation of the potential floor

1239: by taking in Eq.(\ref{e6}) the energies of infinite wells

1240: with $L_1=x_B$ and $L_2=L-x_B$. We get

1241: %

1242: \be{0}

1243: \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial x_B} &=& -\mass v_E^2

1244: \ \frac{L_1+L_2}{L_1L_2} +\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{g})\\

1245: \frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial x_B} &=& v_E

1246: \ \frac{L_2-L_1}{\left(L_1L_2\right)^{3/2}}

1247: \left(\sqrt{g_A}\pm\signC\sqrt{g_B}\right)

1248: \ee

1249: % 

1250: Substitute into Eq.(\ref{e35}) indeed leads 

1251: to the same result for ${\cal F}_{m_0n_0}$ as above.

1252: Note that in this case (unlike the previous section) 

1253: the second term in Eq.(\ref{e35}) which involves 

1254: the variation of $\kappa$ is of higher order in $g_B$

1255: and therefore should be excluded. 

1256: 

1257: 

1258: The geometric conductance of Eq.(\ref{e22}) involves

1259: the multiplication of ${\cal F}_{m_0n_0}$ with ${\cal I}_{n_0m_0}$, leading to

1260: %

1261: \be{0}

1262: G \ \ = \ \  -\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g_{A}} \ \mass v_{E}^4 \

1263: \frac{L_1+L_2}{\left(L_1L_2\right)^2} \ \frac{\sqrt{g_A}\pm\signC\sqrt{g_B}}{\Omega^3}

1264: \ee 

1265: %

1266: The calculation of the transport proceeds as in Section~\ref{S7}.  

1267: One realizes that a translation of the barrier 

1268: is effectively equivalent to the variation of the potential floor difference,   

1269: as long as it does not involve modulation of its transmission 

1270: (which is assumed to be small).

1271:  

1272: 

1273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1275: \section{Error estimates and limitations}

1276: \label{S13}

1277: 

1278: If we vary a parameter $X$ then the energy levels $E_n(X)$ form 

1279: a ``spaghetti" which is characterized by a mean level spacing~$\Delta$ 

1280: and possibly by narrow avoided crossings with splitting~$\Delta_0$. 

1281: For the ring system that we are considering 

1282: it follows from the estimate of $\kappa$ that

1283: %

1284: \be{0}

1285: \frac{\Delta_0}{\Delta} \ \ \sim \ \ \mbox{min}\{1, \sqrt{bg}\}

1286: \ee 

1287: %

1288: where $b=L_1/L_2$ and $g=\mbox{max}\{g_A,g_B\}$.

1289: The condition Eq.(\ref{e11}) for the applicability 

1290: of the TLS modeling ensures $\Delta_0\ll\Delta$.

1291: In such circumstances Eq.(\ref{e22}) for the geometric 

1292: conductance, which in essence is a sum 

1293: of the type ${\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (\Delta_0+ n\Delta)^{-2}}$, 

1294: implies that the error that is involved 

1295: in the neighboring level approximation is 

1296: %

1297: \be{0}

1298: \frac{\mbox{error}(G)}{G} 

1299: \ \ \sim  \ \  \left( \frac{\Delta_0}{\Delta} \right)^2  

1300: \ \  \sim  \ \ bg \ \  \ll 1

1301: \ee 

1302: %

1303: Once the TLS modeling fails the error becomes of order unity. 

1304: This sounds bad, but in fact it is not so bad. 

1305: The good news is that the far levels contribute to~$G$

1306: a correction which is of the same order as the leading term. 

1307: Therefore with the neighboring level approximation 

1308: we can still get a realistic estimate disregarding numerical  

1309: prefactors of order unity.

1310: 

1311: 

1312: Having $b\gg1$ is very interesting, because then we have 

1313: a non-trivial intermediate regime ${1/b \ll g \ll 1}$  

1314: where neither 1st order perturbation theory with respect 

1315: to ``zero" height barriers, nor 1st order perturbation 

1316: theory with respect to ``infinite" barriers applies. 

1317: This is the regime where each level of the small arm 

1318: forms a distinct Wigner resonance with the 

1319: quasi-continuum states of the long arm. 

1320: Obviously the TLS modeling is not applicable in this regime,  

1321: but the neighboring level approximation still provides 

1322: a decent starting  point for a calculation. We shall  

1323: explore this Wigner regime in a future work. 

1324: 

1325:    

1326: One may also wonder whether the specific results that we have 

1327: obtained for stirring using a {\em delta} barrier applies also 

1328: for a {\em thick} barrier. On physical grounds it is quite 

1329: obvious that the induced current is determined by  

1330: the scattering matrix of the modulated barrier.  

1331: Consequently if the $S(E)$ of the modulated barrier is $E$~independent 

1332: within the energy range of interest, it can be regarded 

1333: as representing a delta function, and the results should come out the same. 

1334: 

1335: 

1336: Finally one may wonder about the implications of finite 

1337: temperature or non-adiabatic driving. These aspects are 

1338: complementary to the theme of the present paper.

1339: Namely, as discussed in \citeref{pmx}, at finite temperatures 

1340: the statistics of the occupation should be taken into account. 

1341: So we have to average (so to say) over the level that we have  

1342: labeled as~$n_0$ with an appropriate weight as implied by 

1343: the Fermi function. On the other hand the non-adiabatic effects 

1344: require to introduce in the denominator of the 

1345: Kubo formula Eq.(\ref{e22}) a term that represents 

1346: the ``width" of the Fermi-golden-rule transitions.    

1347: Then the weight of the neighboring level in the sum becomes smaller 

1348: compared with the total weight of the far levels. 

1349: 

1350: 

1351: 

1352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1354: \section{Summary}

1355: \label{S12}

1356: 

1357: We have developed a practical procedure for the 

1358: analysis of a one dimensional double well system, 

1359: which is both powerful and illuminating. 

1360: The procedure assumes that we have a way to find 

1361: the eign-energies $E_n$ of the device, 

1362: and the mixing ratio $\Theta_n$ of each of them.  

1363: Given the transmissions of the barriers  

1364: we further characterize the device by 

1365: the splitting ratio $\lambda$. With these ingredients 

1366: in hand we can analyze any stirring process

1367: and obtain explicit expressions for the geometric 

1368: conductance~$G$. The calculation simplifies 

1369: if the TLS modeling applies, because then the 

1370: mixing ratio can be determined form 

1371: the diagonalization of a $2\times 2$ matrix. 

1372: 

1373: 

1374: In particular we obtain explicit expressions 

1375: for~$G$ due to either barrier translation

1376: (generalizing a result that has been obtained in~\citeref{pmx}),    

1377: or barrier modulation 

1378: (generalizing a result that has been obtained in~\citeref{pms}),   

1379: and verify that they agree 

1380: with the naive self-consistent TLS calculation. 

1381: We see that whenever the TLS modeling applies 

1382: the proper calculation in the full Hilbert space  

1383: gives the same result as the naive calculation 

1384: in the TLS Hilbert space.

1385: 

1386: 

1387: As a by product of the TLS analysis we find that 

1388: the pumped ``charge" during an avoided crossing 

1389: is not quantized (see Eq.(\ref{e44})), 

1390: not only because of the topological splitting effect, 

1391: but also due to a dynamical effect 

1392: that arises if the barrier is modulated.

1393: 

1394: 

1395: 

1396: The practical importance of the TLS modeling 

1397: in condense matter physics is obvious.

1398: On the other hand the specific application to 

1399: the study of quantum stirring deserves 

1400: a few words regarding the measurement procedure 

1401: and the experimental relevance. As explained  

1402: in \citeref{pmx} it should be clear that the measurement  

1403: of current in a closed circuit requires special 

1404: techniques \citeref{orsay,expr1,expr2}. 

1405: %

1406: These techniques are typically used in order 

1407: to probe persistent currents, 

1408: which are zero order (conservative) effect, 

1409: while in the present paper we were discussing driven 

1410: currents, which are a first-order (geometric) effect. 

1411: It is of course also possible to measure the dissipative 

1412: conductance (as in~\citeref{orsay}).  

1413: %

1414: During the measurement the coupling to the system 

1415: should be small. These are so called {\em weak measurement} 

1416: conditions. More ambitious would be to measure 

1417: the counting statistics, i.e. also the second moment 

1418: of $Q$ as discussed in \citeref{cnb,cnz}  which is 

1419: completely analogous to the discussion of noise measurements 

1420: in open systems \citeref{levitov,nazarov}.

1421: %

1422: Finally it should be pointed out that the formalism 

1423: above, and hence the results, might apply to 

1424: experiments with superconducting circuits (see \citeref{JJ}).

1425: 

1426: 

1427: 

1428: 

1429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1430: \appendix

1431: \section{Conventions and notations}

1432: 

1433: Consider two segments that are connected 

1434: at points that are labeled as $x_A$ and $x_B$.

1435: In the absence of coupling each segment is 

1436: regarded as a one dimensional box. 

1437: The unperturbed eigenstates are labeled by~$i$ 

1438: (or optionally by~$j$). In the TLS scheme ${i=1,2}$.

1439: If the coupling is non-zero the exact eigenstates 

1440: are labeled by~$n$ (or optionally by $m$).

1441: Within the framework of the neighboring level 

1442: approximation scheme we focus on two levels 

1443: that we label as ${n=n_0}$ and ${m=m_0}$. 

1444: If the TLS modeling applies then the states $n_0$ and $m_0$ 

1445: are regarded as linear combinations of ${i=1,2}$. 

1446: 

1447: The unperturbed states ${i=1,2}$ are characterized 

1448: by their parities $\pm^{\!\!1}$ and $\pm^{\!\!2}$ respectively. 

1449: The relative sign $\pm\signC$ in Eq.(\ref{e7}) 

1450: equals the product of $\pm^{\!\!1}$ and $\pm^{\!\!2}$.

1451: %

1452: Inverting the arbitrary gauge sign 

1453: of either $\psi^{(1)}(x)$ or $\psi^{(2)}(x)$ 

1454: would multiply the expression in Eq.(\ref{e333})  

1455: by a global minus sign, while the relative 

1456: sign $\pm\signC$ remains unchanged. 

1457: The gauge invariant relative sign is due to the fact that 

1458: the unperturbed states are either odd or even:

1459: we have plus sign if both states have the

1460: same parity and minus sign if they have opposite parity.

1461: 

1462: 

1463: Each exact eigenfunction~$n$, as written as in Eq.(\ref{e37}),  

1464: is characterized by what we call the parity $\pm\signA$ 

1465: with respect to barrier~A. Positive parity means that 

1466: the radial derivatives as defined in Eq.(\ref{e16}) 

1467: have both the same sign. Optionally we can define $\pm^{\!\!b}$

1468: as the parity with respect to barrier~B.

1469: %

1470: This parity $\pm\signA$ is not a symmetry related quantum number,  

1471: but it is merely required in order to define the wavefunction of Eq.(\ref{e37}) 

1472: in a unique way given the energy and the mixing ratio.

1473: If the TLS modeling applies then for positive (negative) $\kappa$ 

1474: the state $n_0$ of Eq.(\ref{e9}) has negative (positive) parity, 

1475: while the $m_0$ state has positive (negative) parity.   

1476: Within this framework the parity $\pm^{\!\!b}$ with respect 

1477: to barrier~B is $\pm\signA$ multiplied by $\pm\signC$.

1478: 

1479: We have verified that the various $\pm$ signs through the 

1480: paper are consistent, which is not always evident in a superficial look.

1481:   

1482: 

1483: 

1484: 

1485: 

1486: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1488: 

1489: \acknowledgments

1490: 

1491: This research was supported by grants from 

1492: the USA-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), 

1493: and from the Deutsch-Israelische Projektkooperation (DIP).

1494: 

1495: 

1496: 

1497: 

1498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1500: \newpage

1501: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1502: 

1503: 

1504: %%Quantum stirring

1505: 

1506: \bibitem{pmx}

1507: The most recent publication in this line of study is:    

1508: I. Sela and D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 77}, 245440 (2008).

1509: For older references see there. 

1510: 

1511: 

1512: %%Quantum pumping

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{Thouless}

1515: D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 6083 (1983).

1516: 

1517: \bibitem{bpt} 

1518: M. Buttiker, H. Thomas and A. Pretre, Z. Phys. B {\bf 94}, 133 (1994).

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{BPT2}

1521: P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 10135 (1998). 

1522: 

1523: \bibitem{Avron}

1524: J. E. Avron, A. Elgart, G. M. Graf and L. Sadun,  Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 10618 (2000).

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{pMB}

1527: M.~Moskalets and M.~B{\"u}ttiker, 

1528: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 161311 (2003).

1529: 

1530: \bibitem{pms} 

1531: I. Sela and D. Cohen, J. Phys. A {\bf 39}, 3575 (2006). 

1532: 

1533: 

1534: 

1535: %%Kubo

1536: 

1537: \bibitem{pmc}

1538: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 155303 (2003).

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{berry1}

1541: M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 392}, 45 (1984). 

1542: 

1543: \bibitem{avron2}

1544: J. E. Avron, A. Raveh and B. Zur, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 60}, 873 (1988). 

1545: 

1546: \bibitem{berry2}

1547: M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 442}, 659 (1993).

1548: 

1549: 

1550: 

1551: 

1552: % measurement

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{orsay} 

1555: Measurements of currents in arrays 

1556: of closed rings are described by:  \

1557: B. Reulet M. Ramin, H. Bouchiat and D. Mailly, 

1558: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 124 (1995). 

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{expr1} 

1561: Measurements of currents in individual closed rings 

1562: using SQUID is described in: \

1563: N.C. Koshnick, H. Bluhm, M.E. Huber, K.A. Moler, Science 318, 1440 (2007).

1564: 

1565: \bibitem{expr2} 

1566: A new micromechanical cantilevers technique for measuring currents 

1567: in closed rings is described in:  

1568: A.C. Bleszynski-Jayich, W.E. Shanks, R. Ilic, J.G.E. Harris, arXiv:0710.5259,

1569: Journal of Vacuum Science \& Technology B {\bf 26}, 1412 (2008).

1570: 

1571: 

1572: %measure

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{cnb}

1575: M. Chuchem and D. Cohen, J. Phys. A {\bf 41}, 075302  (2008).

1576: 

1577: \bibitem{cnz}

1578: M. Chuchem and D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 77}, 012109 (2008).

1579: 

1580: \bibitem{levitov}

1581: L.S. Levitov and G.B. Lesovik, JETP Letters {\bf 58}, 230 (1993).

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{nazarov}

1584: Y.V. Nazarov and M. Kindermann, European Physical Journal B {\bf 35}, 413 (2003).

1585: 

1586: \bibitem{JJ}

1587: M. Mottonen, J. P. Pekola, J. J. Vartiainen,

1588: V. Brosco and F. W. J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 214523 (2006).

1589: 

1590: 

1591: 

1592: \end{thebibliography}

1593: 

1594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1596: 

1597: \clearpage

1598: 

1599: 

1600: \begin{figure}[h]

1601: 

1602: \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{pmdring}

1603: 

1604: \caption{

1605: {\em Panel~(a)}: Illustration of a ring shaped device 

1606: that is divided by the barriers~$V_A$ and~$V_B$ 

1607: into two arms of length $L_1$ and $L_2$.

1608: The current is measured through the dashed section 

1609: near barrier~A.  In the quantum stirring scenario 

1610: it is assumed that there is a gate control 

1611: over the potential floor of each arm, 

1612: or over the height or the location of barrier~B. 

1613: {\em Panel~(b)}: 

1614: Within the framework of the TLS modeling, the 

1615: reduced Hilbert space contains two levels.

1616: The perturbation $W_{ij}$ is due to having finite 

1617: rather than infinite barriers, so it corresponds 

1618: to the difference ${\mathcal{H}-\mathcal{H}(\infty)}$ 

1619: and not to ${V = \mathcal{H}-\mathcal{H}(0)}$. 

1620: See the text for further details.}

1621: \end{figure}

1622: 

1623: 

1624: 

1625: 

1626: \begin{figure}[h]

1627: 

1628: \includegraphics[width=0.6\hsize]{pmd_Fig3b}

1629: \includegraphics[width=0.6\hsize]{pmd_Fig3a}

1630: 

1631: \caption{

1632: {\em Upper panel:} Two nearly degenerate eigenfunctions $\psi(x)$ of a 

1633: particle in a ring with arms of length ${L_1=1}$ and ${L_2=2.23}$.

1634: These are the two unperturbed states of Eq.(\ref{e4}).

1635: {\em Lower panel:} The exact eigenfunctions 

1636: assuming that the barriers are finite (${g_A\approx0.28}$ and ${g_B\approx0.06}$). 

1637: These do not vanish at the barriers,  

1638: and therefore cannot be written as a superposition of 

1639: the unperturbed states. Still we explain in the text 

1640: how a decent approximation for the former can be obtained 

1641: using the neighboring levels approximation scheme.}

1642: \end{figure}

1643: 

1644: 

1645: 

1646: 

1647: 

1648: \begin{figure}[h]

1649: 

1650: \includegraphics[width=0.7\hsize]{pmd_Fig6_a}

1651: \includegraphics[width=0.7\hsize]{pmd_Fig6_b}

1652: 

1653: \caption{

1654: We consider a particle of mass ${\mass=1}$ in a ring 

1655: of length $L=151.43$.  The position of barrier~B is $X$, 

1656: so we have ${L_1=X}$ and ${L_2=L-X}$. 

1657: We calculate numerically $k_n$ and $\Theta^{(n)}$ for two 

1658: neighboring levels (solid and dashed lines). 

1659: The sum $\Theta^{(m)}{+}\Theta^{(n)}$ is plotted as a dash-dotted line.

1660: We have high barriers with ${g_A\sim10^{-2}}$ and ${g_B\sim10^{-5}}$.   

1661: Accordingly we expect TLS modeling to be valid:

1662: The dotted lines indicate the values ${\Theta=\pi/2}$ (expected crossing point) 

1663: and ${\Theta=\pi}$ (expected sum). For sake of comparison 

1664: there is a third dotted line that indicates 

1665: the value of $\Theta$ that corresponds to equal amplitudes ${C_1=C_2}$.

1666: }

1667: \end{figure}

1668: 

1669: 

1670: \begin{figure}[h]

1671: 

1672: \includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{pmd_Fig6_c}

1673: \includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{pmd_Fig6_e}

1674: \\

1675: \includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{pmd_Fig6_d}

1676: \includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{pmd_Fig6_f}

1677: 

1678: \caption{

1679: The same as the previous figure, but here 

1680: the TLS modeling does not apply. 

1681: In the left panels 

1682: one barrier is high (${g_A\sim10^{-2}}$) 

1683: and one barrier is low (${g_B\sim0.9}$), 

1684: while in the right panels 

1685: both barrier are low (${g_A\sim g_B\sim0.9}$).

1686: }

1687: \end{figure}

1688: 

1689: 

1690: 

1691: \clearpage

1692: 

1693: 

1694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1696: \end{document}

1697: