1: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[twocolumn,aps]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title{\bf {Violation of general Friedel sum rule in mesoscopic systems}}
6: \author{P. Singha Deo\cite{eml}}
7: \address{S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector 3,
8: Salt Lake City, Calcutta 91, India.}
9: \maketitle
10: \begin{abstract}
11: In the wake of a new kind of phase generally occurring in mesoscopic
12: transport phenomena, we discuss the validity of Friedel sum rule
13: in the presence of this phase. We find that the general Friedel
14: sum rule may be violated.
15: \end{abstract}
16: \pacs{PACS numbers: 73.23.-b; 73.23.Ad; 72.10.-d}
17: \narrowtext
18:
19: With large scale research in Mesoscopic Physics over the last
20: few decades,
21: many of the well established notions of Condensed Matter Physics
22: has been found to be violated in mesoscopic samples. Breakdown
23: of Onsager reciprocity relation \cite{but}, violation of
24: Ohms law \cite{kum}, absence of
25: material specific quantities like resistivity \cite{sto}, violation of
26: Hund's rule \cite{kos} etc., are a
27: few such examples. The purpose of this work is to show
28: the violation of Friedel sum rule in mesoscopic systems.
29:
30: Friedel sum rule relates the density of states inside a
31: fixed potential scatterer
32: to the scattering phase shifts \cite{heg}.
33: A deduction of the sum rule
34: can be found in many text books \cite{boo1,boo2} and intuitively
35: it can be understood as follows. Consider for example a fixed
36: spherically symmetric potential scatterer. Now we enclose
37: it in a larger spherical volume. In an energy interval $dE$,
38: the number of states depend on the number of times the
39: specific boundary conditions can be fulfilled by the
40: wave function of the electron. So when the energy is changed,
41: it introduces a phase shift of the electron wave function
42: and so changes the number of times the specific boundary condition
43: can be satisfied. And hence the density of states $\rho '$ inside
44: the impurity is related to the scattering phase shift $\eta$ in
45: the following fashion \cite{boo1}.
46:
47: \begin{equation}
48: {\partial \eta \over \partial E}=\pi \rho '.
49: \end{equation}
50: This can be extended to the partial wave analysis of scattering states
51: and many important issues can be understood in terms of the Friedel
52: sum rule \cite{boo2}. In case of a non-spherical scatterer or non-spherical
53: Fermi surface,
54: the scattering matrix is in general an NxN matrix. For any
55: such general NxN scattering matrix $S$, the Friedel sum rule can be
56: written as \cite{lan}
57:
58: \begin{equation}
59: {\partial \theta/\partial E}=\pi \rho ',
60: \end{equation}
61: where $\theta=\Sigma_i^N \xi_i$, $exp[2i\xi_i]$ being the eigenvalues
62: of the scattering matrix $S$. This can be further written in a compact form
63: as
64:
65: \begin{equation}
66: {1 \over 2i}{\partial \over \partial E}(ln(det[S]))= \pi \rho '.
67: \end{equation}
68: For one-dimensional systems
69: where the scattering matrix is 2x2, the Friedel sum rule was thought to
70: be further simplified to give \cite{har}
71:
72: \begin{equation}
73: {\partial arg(t) \over \partial E}=\pi \rho ',
74: \end{equation}
75: where $t$ is the transmission amplitude but this is not true.
76:
77:
78:
79: Recently a new phase has been discussed in Ref. \cite{deo1} for
80: scattering by a stub where the scattering matrix is 2x2,
81: and it is believed \cite{the,deo2,lee,tan} that this phase is
82: also observed in mesoscopic systems experimentally \cite{sch}.
83: This phase is a general feature of transmission
84: zeroes that always occur in Fano resonances in
85: Quantum Wires and Dots, the stub structure being
86: the simplest example \cite{deo2,lee}.
87: It was shown in Ref. \cite{deo1}
88: that the phase slips is a new phase associated with the
89: violation of parity effect because it is different
90: from Aharonov-Bohm phase, statistical phase and phase due to
91: wave-like motion of electrons depending on their
92: wave vector or energy.
93: Had it not been different from the other three phases,
94: parity effect would not have been violated \cite{deo1}.
95: The specialty of this phase
96: is that it is discontinuous as a function of energy, i.e.,
97: the phase of the wavefunction changes by $\pi$ although its energy
98: does not change.
99: To be more precise this phase does not originate from change in
100: wave-vector due to change in energy. Hence in view of the
101: discussions before Eq. 1 one can question the validity
102: of Friedel sum rule in the presence of this phase \cite{deo2,lee,tan}.
103: We shall give a pictorial description of this phase later
104: (short-dashed and long-dashed curves in Fig.~1).
105:
106: The scattering matrix for the stub is
107:
108: \begin{equation}
109: S=\pmatrix {{r} & {t} \cr
110: {t} & {r} \cr}
111: \end{equation}
112: where $r$ and $t$ are reflection and transmission amplitudes across
113: the stub and are
114: \begin{equation}
115: r=cos[kL]/(-cos[kL] + 2i sin[kL])
116: \end{equation}
117: and
118: \begin{equation}
119: t=(-2i sin[kL])/(cos[kL] - 2i sin[kL]).
120: \end{equation}
121: The eigenvalues of the S matrix are
122: \begin{equation}
123: (cos[kL] + 2i sin[kL])/(-cos[kL] + 2i sin[kL]) \quad and \quad -1
124: \end{equation}
125: Hence as defined in Eq. 2
126: \begin{equation}
127: \theta={1 \over 2}
128: ArcTan[-4 cos[kL]sin[kL]/(-cos[kL]^2 + 4 sin[kL]^2)]
129: \end{equation}
130:
131: In Fig.~1 we plot $\theta$ (solid curve), $arg(t)$
132: (short-dashed curve) and $arg(r)$ (long-dashed curve)
133: (given in Eqs. 6, 7 and 9) versus $kL$.
134: It can be seen that $arg(t)$ and $arg(r)$ show discontinuous
135: jumps and drops by $\pi$ \cite{deo1}
136: but they cancel in such a way
137: that $\theta$ is continuous and monotonously increasing.
138: Hence one finds that the Friedel sum rule (Eqs. 2 and 3) is
139: not violated \cite{tan} although because of the discontinuous
140: slips in $arg(t)$ Eq. 4 is obviously violated
141: because density of states can never be
142: infinite while the LHS of Eq. 4 can be infinite.
143: And hence one can say that
144: so far no one has found a violation of
145: Friedel sum rule (Eqs. 2 and 3).
146: We shall show the violation of the
147: Friedel sum rule in the presence of this new phase.
148:
149: Transport across the stub structure has acquired a lot of importance
150: recently \cite{the,lee,tan,bay}.
151: All analysis so far are
152: based on calculations with a hard wall boundary condition
153: (an infinite step barrier potential or an infinite step well potential)
154: at the dead end of the stub (we refer to it as the hard walled
155: stub and for which Eqs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are
156: derived). An infinite potential well at the dead end of the stub
157: reflects an incident electron with unit probability.
158: Now a small perturbation from this would be a finite but very
159: deep potential well at the dead end of the stub (soft walled stub).
160: Electrons are almost entirely reflected from the
161: end of the stub and a negligible fraction escapes.
162: Dephasing can also give similar escape probability.
163: The scattering problem in this case is depicted in Fig.~2 and
164: also explained in the figure caption. It is solved
165: using the mode matching technique or Griffith's boundary
166: conditions \cite{jay1}, that give the continuity of wavefunction
167: and the conservation of currents at the junctions.
168: In this case the transmission zero in x-direction
169: is replaced by a minimum \cite{jay2}.
170: We first intend to understand
171: what happens to the discontinuous phase change that
172: occur due to transmission zeroes in this case.
173: So in Fig.~3 we plot transmission coefficient
174: $T=|t|^2$ (solid curve) and the argument of the transmission
175: amplitude $t$ (short-dashed curve) in x
176: direction, versus $kL$ for an almost hard walled stub.
177: The transmission coefficient shows very deep minima
178: and at the same points $arg(t)$ show
179: very sharp but continuous drops.
180: For the completely hard walled stub there is an
181: exact zero and associated with it a
182: discontinuous slip by $\pi$ as shown in Fig.~1.
183: In the same figure (Fig.~3)
184: we also plot transmission coefficient
185: in the x-direction
186: (dash-dotted curve) and the corresponding
187: argument of the transmission amplitude
188: (long-dashed curve) versus $kL$ for a very soft walled stub.
189: At the points where the solid curve show very deep minima,
190: dash-dotted curve show shallow minima. Also
191: the fast phase drops
192: change over to a slower decrease.
193:
194: Having understood the phase slips further we move on to
195: the three prong scatterer (Fig.~4) that is often encountered
196: in mesoscopic systems \cite{gan}
197: including the experimental set up of Ref. \cite{sch}
198: and many such similar experiments.
199: The scattering problem in this case is described in
200: the figure caption.
201: From the continuity of wavefunctions (first Griffith's boundary
202: condition) we get the following equations (variables
203: and parameters are defined in Fig.~4 and it's caption).
204: $$1+r=a\,exp[-iqL_1]+b\,exp[iqL_1]; \quad a+b=c+d; $$
205: $$a+b=f+g, \quad c\,exp[iqL_2]+d\,exp[-iqL_2]=e;$$
206: \begin{equation}
207: f\,exp[iqL_3]+g\,exp[-iqL_3]=h.
208: \end{equation}
209: And from the second Griffith's
210: boundary condition which is the conservation
211: of currents at the junctions ($\Sigma_i {d \psi_i \over dx_i}=0$,
212: that can be derived from current conservation, here $\psi_i$
213: is a wavefunction at a junction, $x_i$ is coordinate at that
214: junction, and the sum over $i$ stands for all such wavefunctions
215: incoming or outgoing at a junction, the convention followed is that
216: currents flowing into the junction is positive while
217: currents flowing out of the junction is negative)
218: we get the following equations.
219: $$k-kr-qa\,exp[-iqL_1]+qb\,exp[iqL_1]=0;$$
220: $$a-b-c+d-f+g=0;$$
221: $$qc\,exp[iqL_2]-qd\,exp[-iqL_2]-ke=0;$$
222: \begin{equation}
223: qf\,exp[iqL_3]-qg\,exp[-iqL_3]-kh=0.
224: \end{equation}
225: Thus we have 9 equations and exactly 9 unknown
226: quantities ($a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h$ and $r$) and so
227: the problem is completely defined. Once the unknowns are solved,
228: the wavefunction is known at all points exactly and so
229: the density of states as well as the scattering matrix
230: can be calculated exactly.
231: The scattering matrix in this case is
232: \begin{equation}
233: S=\pmatrix {{t_{11}} & {t_{12}} & {t_{13}} \cr
234: {t_{21}} & {t_{22}} & {t_{23}} \cr
235: {t_{31}} & {t_{32}} & {t_{33}} \cr}.
236: \end{equation}
237: Here $t_{11}$=$r$=transmission amplitude to the first
238: prong when the incident beam is from the first prong.
239: $t_{12}=e$ is the transmission amplitude to the second
240: prong when the incident beam is from the first prong.
241: $t_{13}=h$ is the transmission amplitude to the third
242: prong when the incident beam is from the first prong.
243: The other matrix elements are to be calculated when
244: similar incident beam of unit flux
245: is from the other two directions in Fig.~4.
246: For the case of Fig.~4, the partial density of states
247: is given by the following expression
248: $$\rho_1=\pi \rho_1 ' ={\pi \over hv} [
249: \int_{-L_1}^0|aexp[iqx]+bexp[-iqx]|^2 dx +$$
250: $$\int_{0}^{L_2}|cexp[iqy]+dexp[-iqy]|^2 dy +$$
251: \begin{equation}
252: \int_{0}^{L_3}|fexp[iqz]+gexp[-iqz]|^2 dz ],
253: \end{equation}
254: where $v=\hbar k/m$. $a,b,c,d,f$ and $g$ are determined
255: from Eqs. 10 and 11.
256: $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$ are to be evaluated similarly
257: when the incident beam is from the other two directions
258: in Fig.~4, and $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2+\rho_3$.
259: For the symmetric three prong scatterer ($L_1=L_2=L_3=L$),
260: the antiresonances
261: are almost cancelled by the resonances but still a violation of
262: Eq. 2 or 3 can be seen at low energy.
263: This cancelling effect of resonance and
264: antiresonance can be avoided by choosing incommensurate
265: values of ($L_1+L_3$) and $L_2$, i.e., for asymmetric
266: configurations.
267: We will now go to the asymmetric configuration and demonstrate
268: a large difference between $\tau=\partial \theta /\partial E
269: ={1 \over 2i}{\partial \over \partial E}[ln[Det[S]]$
270: and $\rho=\pi \rho'$ at large energies ($E \approx V$).
271: This is shown in Fig.~5. We want to emphasize that
272: at very high energy, compared to the
273: energy scale $V$ in the system,
274: when multiple scattering and the new phase
275: becomes insignificant, we recover Friedel sum rule perfectly.
276: But when this new phase is present at energies ($E<V$), there is
277: a large difference between $\tau$ and $\rho$ and hence
278: a complete violation of Friedel sum rule.
279: In Fig.~5, $\tau$ or $\partial \theta /\partial E$,
280: can become substantially negative, i.e., $\theta$
281: can undergo a drop like $arg(t)$ in Fig.~3.
282: The new phase need not always appear as a drop
283: but can also appear as a rise and then the LHS of
284: Eq. 3 can remain positive all the time while deviating
285: from the RHS of Eq. 3. This is shown in Fig 6.
286:
287: Thus our exact calculation of density of states and scattering matrix
288: elements show the deviation of ${1 \over 2i}
289: {\partial \over \partial E}ln[Det[s]]$ from $\pi \rho'$ in the
290: presence of phase slips. The phase slips are a general feature
291: of Quantum wires with defects \cite{deo2} and Quantum Dots and these
292: phase slips are at the origin of drops in $\theta$
293: and hence deviation
294: or violation of Friedel sum rule.
295: Only 2x2 S-matrix is a special case where as shown in Fig. 1
296: some scattering matrix elements undergo a phase jump
297: and some undergo a phase drop in such a manner that
298: they cancel and the phase slips
299: do not affect $ln[Det[S]]$ or $\theta$. The general feature is
300: that they do not cancel and Friedel sum
301: rule gets violated. The attractive potential in
302: the three prong scatterer offsets the
303: symmetry between the phase jumps and the phase drops
304: so that they do not cancel each other.
305:
306: The author acknowledges useful discussions with Prof. M. Manninen.
307:
308:
309: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
310: \bibitem[*]{eml} Electronic mail: deo@boson.bose.res.in
311: \bibitem{but} M. B{\"u}ttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 1761 (1986).
312: \bibitem{kum} N Kumar and A M Jayannavar Phys. Rev. B
313: {\bf 32}, 3345 (1985);
314: B. J. van Wees et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 848 (1988);
315: D. A. Wharam et al, J. Phys. C {\bf 21}, L209 (1988).
316: \bibitem{sto} A. D. Stone and A. Szaffer, IBM Journ. of Res. Development,
317: {\bf 32}, 384 (1988).
318: \bibitem{kos} M. Koskinen, M. Manninen and S. M. Reimann,
319: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} 1817 (1997).
320: \bibitem{heg} For charge neutral systems there is a one to
321: one correspondence between density of states and accumulated charge
322: in the field of a scatterer. In that case Friedel sum rule
323: also relates scattering phase shifts to the displaced charge
324: (see Ref. \cite{boo1}).
325: There can be situations when charge neutrality is violated
326: as in the case of R. Egger and H. Grabert,
327: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3463 (1997). However we will show a violation
328: of Friedel sum rule at a more fundamental level i.e.,
329: density of states itself starts deviating from that predicted
330: by Friedel sum rule.
331: \bibitem{boo1} J. M. Ziman, Principles of Solids, 2nd ed.,
332: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
333: \bibitem{boo2} W. Jones and N. H. March, Theoretical Solid State
334: Physics, Vol. 2, Dover Publications, Inc, New York, 1973.
335: \bibitem{lan} J. S. Langer and V. Ambegaokar, Phys. Rev. {\bf 121},
336: 1090 (1961).
337: \bibitem{har} W. A. Harrison, in {\it Solid State Theory} (Dover,
338: New York, 1979).
339: \bibitem{deo1} P. Singha Deo, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 15447 (1996);
340: P. A. Sreeram and P. Singha Deo, Physica B {\bf 228}, 345 (1996).
341: \bibitem{the} P.Singha Deo and A.M.Jayannavar, Mod. Phys. Lett. B {\bf 10},
342: 787 (1996);
343: C.M.Ryu et al, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 3572 (1998);
344: Hongki Xu et al, Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 57}, 11903 (1998);
345: \bibitem{deo2} P.Singha Deo, Solid St. Communication {\bf 107}, 69 (1998);
346: \bibitem{lee} H.-W.Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 82}, 2358 (1999).
347: \bibitem{tan} T. Taniguchi and M. B\"uttiker, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60},
348: 13814 (1999), and references therein.
349: \bibitem{sch} R. Schuster et al, Nature {\bf 385}, 417 (1997).
350: \bibitem{bay} B. F. Bayman and C. J. Mehoke, Am. Journ. of Phys.
351: {\bf 51} 875(1983); W. Porod, Z. Shao and C. S. Lent, Phys. Rev. B
352: {\bf 48}, 8495(1993) and references therein.
353: \bibitem{jay1} A. M. Jayannavar and
354: T.P.Pareek, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 6376 (1996) and references
355: therein.
356: \bibitem{jay2} A. M. Jayannavar, private communication (1994).
357: \bibitem{gan} A. Gangopadhyaya, A. Pagnamenta and U. Sukhatme,
358: Journ. of Phys. A {\bf 28}, 5331 (1995); M. B{\"u}ttiker, Y. Imry
359: and M. Ya Azbel, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 30}, 1982 (1984).
360: \end{thebibliography}
361:
362: \centerline{Figure captions}
363:
364: \noindent {\bf Fig.~1} Arg(r) (long-dashed curve), arg(t) (short-dashed
365: curve) and $\theta$ (solid curve) for the hard walled
366: stub. Length of the stub is $L$ and it is taken to be the
367: unit of length. We choose $\hbar=2m=1$.
368:
369: \noindent {\bf Fig.~2} A scattering problem with conventional notations
370: is depicted here. $k=\sqrt E$ is the wave vector in the thin regions
371: where the Quantum Mechanical potential is 0. $q=\sqrt{E+V}$ is
372: the wave vector in the thick regions where the Quantum Mechanical
373: potential is $-V$. x and y are coordinates and the origin
374: of coordinates is also depicted in the figure. t and c are
375: transmission amplitudes in x and y directions, respectively, while
376: r is the reflection amplitude. Distance between points
377: P and Q is L.
378:
379: \noindent {\bf Fig.~3} The solid curve is transmission coefficient T
380: =$|t|^2$ across the soft walled stub described in Fig.~2.
381: The short-dashed curve is the phase of the transmission amplitude
382: $t$ across the stub. We choose $VL^2=-10^6$ so that it is
383: in the hard wall limit, and $\hbar=2m=1$.
384: Next we make $VL^2$=-100 and plot the transmission coefficient T
385: in dash-dotted curve. The phase of the transmission amplitude t
386: is given by long-dashed curve.
387:
388: \noindent {\bf Fig.~4} A scattering problem with conventional notations
389: is depicted here. $k=\sqrt E$ is the wave vector in the thin regions
390: where the Quantum Mechanical potential is 0. $q=\sqrt{E+V}$ is
391: the wave vector in the thick regions where the Quantum Mechanical
392: potential is $-V$. x,y,z,u,v and w are coordinates and the origin
393: of coordinates is also depicted in the figure. e and h are
394: transmission amplitudes in respective directions, while
395: r is the reflection amplitude. Distance between (u=0) and
396: (x=0,y=0,z=0) is $L_1$.
397: Distance between (v=0) and
398: (x=0,y=0,z=0) is $L_2$.
399: Distance between (w=0) and
400: (x=0,y=0,z=0) is $L_3$.
401:
402: \noindent {\bf Fig.~5} $\rho$ (solid curve) and $\tau={d\theta \over dE}$
403: =LHS of Eq. 3
404: (dotted curve) versus $kL$ for the scattering problem
405: described in Fig.~4. We choose $VL^2=-100$, $L_1=L_3=L$, $L_2$=4$L$
406: and $\hbar=2m=1$.
407:
408: \noindent {\bf Fig.~6} $\rho$ (solid curve) and $\tau={d\theta \over dE}$
409: =LHS of Eq. 3
410: (dotted curve) versus $kL$ for the scattering problem
411: described in Fig.~4. We choose $VL^2=-100$, $L_1=L_3=L$, $L_2$=2.4$L$
412: and $\hbar=2m=1$.
413: \end{document}
414:
415: