1: %\documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,floatfix,amsmath,eqsecnum,galley]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,floatfix,amsmath,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[prb,preprint,showpacs,floatfix,amsmath,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \title{Conductance anomalies and the 

9: extended Anderson model\\ for nearly perfect quantum wires}

10: 

11: \author{T. Rejec$^1$ and A. Ram\v sak$^{1,2}$}

12: \affiliation{$^1$J. Stefan Institute, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia\\

13: $^{2}$ Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of

14: Ljubljana, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia }

15: \author{J.H. Jefferson}

16: \affiliation{QinetiQ, Sensors and Electronic Division,

17: St. Andrews Road, Great Malvern,\\

18: Worcestershire WR14 3PS, England}

19: 

20:   

21: \date{\today}

22:             

23: \begin{abstract}

24: Anomalies near the conductance threshold of nearly perfect

25: semiconductor quantum wires are explained in terms of singlet and

26: triplet resonances of conduction electrons with a single weakly-bound

27: electron in the wire. This is shown to be a universal effect for a

28: wide range of situations in which the effective single-electron

29: confinement is weak. The robustness of this generic behavior is

30: investigated numerically for a wide range of shapes and sizes of

31: cylindrical wires with a bulge. The dependence on gate voltage,

32: source-drain voltage and magnetic field is discussed within the

33: framework of an extended Hubbard model. This model is mapped onto an

34: extended Anderson model, which in the limit of low temperatures is

35: expected to lead to Kondo resonance physics and pronounced many-body

36: effects.

37: \end{abstract}   

38: 

39: \pacs{

40: %1996 PACS:

41: 73.23.-b, %Mesoscopic systems

42: 85.30.Vw, %Low-dimensional quantum devices(quantum dots,quantum wires,etc.)

43: 73.23.Ad, %Ballistic transport

44: 72.10.-d  %Theory of electronic transport; scattering mechanisms

45: }

46: %]

47: 

48: \maketitle

49:   

50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

51: 

52: \section{Introduction}

53: Semiconductor quantum wires can be fabricated with effective wire

54: widths down to a few nanometers; for example, by heteroepitaxial

55: growth on `v'-groove surfaces \cite{walther92} and ridges

56: \cite{ramvall97}, cleaved edge over-growth \cite{yacoby96}, etched

57: wires with gating \cite{kristensen98}, and gated two-dimensional

58: electron gas (2DEG) structures \cite{wees88,wharam88}. More recently,

59: there has been considerable interest in carbon nanotubes for which the

60: quantum wire cross section can approach atomic dimensions. Such

61: structures have potential for opto-electronic applications, such as

62: light-emitting diodes, low-threshold lasers, single-electron devices

63: and quantum information processing.

64: 

65: Conductance steps in various types of quantum point contacts and

66: quantum wires were found more than a decade ago

67: \cite{wees88,wharam88}. These first experiments are broadly consistent

68: with a simple non-interacting picture\cite{houten92}. However, there

69: are certain anomalies, some of which are believed to be related to

70: electron-electron interactions and appear to be spin-dependent. In

71: particular, a structure is seen in the rising edge of the conductance

72: curve, starting at around $0.7(2e^{2}/h)$ and merging with the first

73: conductance plateau with increasing energy \cite{thomas96}. This

74: structure, already visible in the early experiments \cite{wees88}, can

75: survive to temperatures of a few degrees and also persists under

76: increasing source-drain bias, even when the conductance plateau has

77: disappeared. Under increasing in-plane magnetic field, the structure

78: moves down, eventually merging with the $e^{2}/h$ conductance plateau

79: at very high fields and is not a transmission effect through a

80: ballistic channel \cite{liang}.  A structure is seen also in high

81: quality quantum wires \cite{pyshkin}. In some experiments, an anomaly

82: is seen at lower energy with conductance around $0.3(2e^{2}/h)$

83: \cite{kaufman99,ramvall97}. This can also survive to a few degrees,

84: though is less robust than the 0.7 anomaly and is more readily

85: suppressed by a magnetic field \cite{ramvall97}. Recently the anomaly

86: was confirmed also in back-gated \cite{nuttinck}, in shallow-etched

87: \cite{kristensen00} point contacts and in a ballistic quantum

88: wire\cite{liang00}. At low temperatures the anomaly exhibits a

89: puzzling similarity with Kondo resonance behavior \cite{kondo2002},

90: as do thermopower measurements\cite{appleyard00}.

91: 

92: Theoretical work has attempted to explain these observations in various

93: ways, including conductance suppression in a Luttinger liquid with

94: repulsive interaction and disorder \cite{maslov95}, local

95: spin-polarized density-functional theory \cite{wang98} and

96: spin-polarized sub-bands \cite{fasol94}. Near the conduction

97: threshold, there is a 'Coulomb blockade' and we have shown that this

98: gives rise to spin-dependent resonances, for wires of both rectangular

99: \cite{rejec002d} and cylindrical \cite{rejec003d} cross-section, with

100: related anomalies in thermoelectric transport coefficients

101: \cite{rejec02}. A similar singlet-triplet scenario was presented in 

102: Ref.~\onlinecite{flambaum00} and a phenomenological approach is presented in

103: Ref.~\onlinecite{landau}. Recent studies have investigated the

104: 0.7 anomaly in quantum point

105: contacts within the Hartree-Fock approximation \cite{sushkov1},

106: spin-fluctuation backscattering \cite{tokura} and in the framework of the 

107: Anderson model with related Kondo resonance behavior \cite{meir2002}.

108: 

109: In Refs.~\onlinecite{rejec002d,rejec003d,rejec02} we suggested that these 

110: anomalies are related to weakly bound

111: states and resonant bound states within the wire. These would arise, for

112: example, from a small fluctuation in thickness of the wire in some

113: region giving rise to a weak bulge. If this bulge is very weak then only a

114: single electron will be bound. We may thus regard this system as an `open'

115: quantum dot in which the bound electron inhibits the transport of conduction

116: electrons via the Coulomb interaction. Near the conduction threshold, there

117: will be a Coulomb blockade and we show below that this also gives rise to a

118: resonance, analogous to that which occurs in the single-electron transistor 

119: \cite{meirav91}. This is a generic effect arising from an electron bound in

120: some region of the wire and such binding may arise from a number of sources,

121: which we do not consider explicitly. For example, in addition to a weak

122: thickness fluctuation, a smooth variation in confining potential due to

123: remote gates, contacts and depletion regions could contribute to electron

124: confinement along the wire or gated 2DEG. A significant contribution to the 

125: single-electron confinement could also arise from its electronic polarization

126: of the lattice or image charge.

127: 

128: In this paper we extend our previous study of a particular geometry of

129: the quantum wire with a comprehensive analysis of a wide range of

130: shapes and sizes of wire in order to demonstrate the generic and wide

131: applicability of the phenomena. We study in particular the threshold

132: of the conductivity of nearly perfect wires for which a single

133: electron is bound. We express the conductance in terms of the

134: two-electron scattering matrix. In order to extend the exact

135: two-electron analysis into the true many-electron domain, we construct

136: an extended Anderson model and analyze the influence of the

137: corresponding momentum dependent coupling matrix elements.

138: 

139: The model is introduced in the next section and the special case of a

140: cylindrical GaAs wire is derived in Appendix A.  In Section III a

141: detailed analysis of the two-electron problem is presented in which

142: one electron is weakly bound in the wire, giving rise to

143: spin-dependent scattering of the other. Exact singlet and triplet

144: scattering states are computed near the conductance threshold.  In

145: Section IV we then show how the solutions of the scattering problem

146: may be used to determine conductance by an extension of the

147: Landauer-B\"{u}ttiker formula. This gives excellent agreement with a

148: number of experiments on different kinds of quantum wire. The effect

149: of finite magnetic field on the anomalies is presented and it is shown

150: how they are related to the spin-split steps in perfect quantum wires. In

151: the last Section we also examine the dependence of the anomalies on

152: asymmetry introduced by finite source-drain voltage and

153: summarize. Additional appendices are devoted to technical details

154: on the solution of the two-electron wave function in an external

155: potential, and the Hartree-Fock analysis.

156: 

157: \section{Basic model}

158: 

159: In previous work\cite{rejec002d,rejec003d,rejec02}, we have considered

160: a straight quantum wire with a small fluctuation in

161: thickness giving rise to a weak `bulge'. 

162: The precise details of the bulge are largely

163: unimportant for what follows, the main requirement being that the

164: change in the width of the wire is sufficiently gradual that

165: inter-channel mixing of the transverse modes is negligible and that

166: only one electron may be bound in the bulge region. The latter is

167: always the case for a weak symmetric bulge, which has at least one

168: bound state which can only sustain one electron due to Coulomb

169: repulsion. The problem reduces to electrons moving in an effective

170: weak potential well if we confine ourselves (by choice of gate

171: voltage) to the Fermi energies for which no more than one transverse

172: mode is occupied, i.e. the conductance threshold and the first

173: conductance step.  A typical effective potential well for such a bulge

174: is shown in

175: Fig.~\ref{land1}. Such a potential well may arise in other ways, such as

176: an actual potential fluctuation due to a nearby unscreened charged

177: impurity, or even some self-consistent effect due

178: to the electrons themselves through electronic polarization and image

179: charge in a remote gate.  We shall not consider

180: the possible cause of this weak potential further but emphasize that

181: because it may arise in many ways, the weak potential well model is

182: very general with widespread applicability.

183:    

184: 

185: \begin{figure}[htb]

186: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

187: {\includegraphics{Fig1.eps}}} \par}

188: \caption{\label{land1} Effective one-dimensional well caused by

189: thickness fluctuation, impurity charge, gate image charge, self-polarization

190: due to single electron or some combination of these.}

191: \end{figure}

192: 

193: 

194: Consider now the motion of electrons in the wire near the conductance

195: threshold. A single electron will be bound in the potential well

196: region and the remaining electrons will undergo scattering from the

197: localized electron via the Coulomb interaction as they propagate from

198: source to drain. At sufficiently low Fermi energy, the electrons in

199: the source contact will be totally reflected by the bound electron due

200: to Coulomb repulsion and there will be no current from source to drain

201: at $T=0$. As the Fermi energy is raised, the energy of the electrons

202: in the source contact will be sufficiently high for them to overcome

203: the Coulomb repulsion of the bound electron and a current will

204: flow. In calculating this current we will make the approximation that

205: the electrons flowing from source to drain only interact with the

206: bound electron via a screened Coulomb interaction. This is a

207: reasonable approximation provided that the electron density is not too

208: low in the region of interest, i.e. the rising edge to the first

209: conductance plateau. More precisely, the mean density of electrons in

210: the wire (number per unit length) should be at least of order the

211: inverse effective Bohr radius of the material. We return to this point

212: again in the final section.  Within this approximation, the

213: many-electron problem is reduced to an effective two-electron problem

214: in which one electron is bound and the other is a representative

215: electron at the Fermi energy in the leads. We show below that by

216: solving this two-electron problem exactly and summing over all

217: electrons near the Fermi energy we may compute the conductance.

218: 

219: \subsection{Extended Hubbard and Anderson model}

220: 

221: The Hamiltonian corresponding to interacting electrons in the wire

222: with a small geometric or potential inhomogeneity and close to the

223: threshold of conduction is, within the effective-mass

224: approximation an extended Hubbard Hamiltonian on a

225: finite-difference lattice \cite{rejecand},

226: \begin{equation}

227: \label{hamdis1d}

228: H=\sum _{\sigma }H_{1\sigma }+\frac{1}{2}\sum _{i\neq

229: j}U_{ij}n_{i}n_{j}+

230: \sum _{i}U_{ii}n_{i\uparrow }n_{i\downarrow }.

231: \end{equation}

232: Here  \( H_{1\sigma } \) is the single-particle 

233: Hamiltonian:

234: \begin{equation}

235: \label{ham1dis1d}

236: H_{1\sigma }=-t\sum _{i}\left( c_{i+1\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{i\sigma

237: }+c_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }

238: c_{i+1\sigma }\right) +\sum _{i}\epsilon _{i}n_{i\sigma ,}

239: \end{equation}

240: where \( c_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }, c_{i\sigma } \) are electron creation, 

241: annihilation operators,

242: \( n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{i\sigma } \), and

243: \( n_{i}=\sum _{\sigma }n_{i\sigma } \). Model parameters are 

244: hopping  $t$,  local potential at site \( i \),

245: $\epsilon _{i}$,

246: and screened electron-electron interaction at sites  \( i \) and \( j \),

247: $U_{ij}$. 

248: This Hamiltonian is derived and justified in Appendix A.

249: 

250: In order to study the many-electron problem, it is also convenient to

251: express the Hubbard Hamiltonian, Eq.~(\ref{hamdis1d}), in a basis

252: which distinguishes bound and unbound states

253: explicitly. Single-electron solutions corresponding to the

254: tight-binding Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{ham1dis1d}), follow from the

255: single-particle Schr\"odinger equation

256: %

257: \begin{equation}

258: H_{1}\left| \varphi \right\rangle =E_{1}\left| \varphi \right\rangle, \label{sin}

259: \end{equation}

260: and (with omitted spin index $\sigma$),

261: $\left| \varphi \right\rangle =\sum _{j}\varphi _{j}c_{j}^{\dagger

262: }\left| 0\right\rangle$. For large \( \left| j\right|  \) the potential 

263: \( \epsilon _{j} \) is

264: constant, therefore the solutions are asymptotically plane waves.

265: We thus diagonalize this

266: single-electron part of the Hamiltonian using the transformation

267: $c_{q\sigma }^\dagger=\sum_{j}c_{j\sigma }^\dagger \phi _{j}^{q}$,

268: where $\phi _{j}^{q}=\langle j| q \rangle \sim \exp ({i q j})$ asymptotically

269: for unbound states, with eigenenergies

270: $\varepsilon _{q}$. In this basis the Hamiltonian becomes,

271: \begin{equation}

272: H=\sum_{q}\epsilon _{q}n_{q}+\frac{1}{2}\!\!\!\!\!\sum\limits_{\scriptstyle q_1

273: q_2 q_3 q_4 \scriptstyle \sigma \sigma^\prime}\!\!\!\!{{\cal

274: U}(q_{1}q_{2}q_{3}q_{4})c_{q_{1}\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{q_{3}\sigma

275: ^{\prime }}^{\dagger }c_{q_{4}\sigma ^{\prime }}c_{q_{2}\sigma }},

276: \label{Rejec_h2q}

277: \end{equation}

278: where 

279: \begin{equation}

280: {\cal U}(q_{1}q_{2}q_{3}q_{4})=\sum_{ij}U_{ij}(\phi

281: _{i}^{q_{1}})^{\ast }\phi _{i}^{q_{2}}(\phi _{j}^{q_{3}})^{\ast }\phi

282: _{j}^{q_{4}}.\label{uqq}

283: \end{equation}

284: We further denote the lowest bound state with

285: energy $\epsilon _{q}<0$ by $d_{\sigma }\equiv c_{q\sigma

286: },$ with $n_{d}=\sum_{\sigma }d_{\sigma }^{\dagger }d_{\sigma }$

287: and, similarly, the scattering states with positive $\epsilon _{q}$ are

288: distinguished by $q\rightarrow k$. There are two independent unbound states

289: corresponding to each $k$ and these are chosen to be plane waves

290: asymptotically, i.e. $\phi _{j}^{k}\rightarrow e^{ikj}$ as $j\rightarrow \pm

291: \infty $ and $\epsilon _{k}=\frac{\hbar ^{2}k^{2}}{2m^{\ast }}.$ Retaining

292: only those Coulomb matrix elements which involve both localized and

293: scattered electrons, omitting all terms which would give rise to states in

294: which the localized state is unoccupied, we arrive at an Anderson-type

295: Hamiltonian\cite{anderson61,rejecand},

296: \begin{eqnarray}

297: H &=&\sum_{k}\epsilon _{k}n_{k}+\epsilon _{d}n_{d}+ \sum_{k\sigma

298: }(V_{k}n_{d\bar{\sigma}}c_{k\sigma }^{\dagger }d_{\sigma }+

299: \mathrm{h.c.})+\\\nonumber

300: &+&Un_{d\uparrow }n_{d\downarrow } +\sum_{kk^{\prime

301: }\sigma }M_{kk^{\prime }}n_{d}c_{k\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{k^{\prime

302: }\sigma }+\sum_{kk^{\prime } }J_{kk^{\prime }}{\bf S }_{\bf d}\cdot

303: {\bf s}_{\bf kk^{\prime }}.

304: \label{Rejec_k} 

305: \end{eqnarray}

306: Here $U={\cal U}(dddd)$ is the Hubbard repulsion,

307: $V_{k}={\cal U} (dddk) $ is mixing term, $M_{kk^{\prime

308: }}={\cal U}(ddkk^{\prime })-\frac{

309: 1}{2}{\cal U}(dkk^{\prime }d)$ corresponds to scattering of

310: electrons and the direct exchange coupling is $J_{kk^{\prime

311: }}=2\,{\cal U}(dkk^{\prime }d)$. Spin operators in

312: Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}) are defined as ${\bf S}_{\bf d}=\frac{1

313: }{2}\sum_{\sigma \sigma ^{\prime }}d_{\sigma }^{\dagger }{

314: \hbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}_{\sigma \sigma ^{\prime }}d_{\sigma

315: ^{\prime }}$ and ${\bf s}_{\bf kk^{\prime

316: }}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma \sigma ^{\prime }}c_{k\sigma

317: }^{\dagger }{\hbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}_{\sigma \sigma ^{\prime

318: }}c_{k^{\prime }\sigma ^{\prime }}$, where the components of

319: ${\hbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}$ are the

320: usual Pauli matrices. A similar model has been proposed recently in

321: Ref.~\onlinecite{meir2002}.

322: Although the Hamiltonian, Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}), is

323: similar to the usual Anderson Hamiltonian~\cite{anderson61}, we stress

324: the important difference that the $kd$-hybridization term above

325: arises solely from the Coulomb interaction, whereas in the usual

326: Anderson case it comes primarily from one-electron interactions.

327: These have been completely eliminated above by solving the

328: one-electron problem exactly. The resulting hybridization term

329: contains the factor $n_{d\bar{\sigma}}$, and hence disappears when the

330: localized orbital is unoccupied. This reflects the fact that an

331: effective double-barrier structure and resonant bound state

332: occurs via Coulomb repulsion only because of the presence of a

333: localized electron.

334: 

335: To be specific, we consider in this paper a cylindrically symmetric

336: quantum wire with symmetry axis $z$ and lateral coordinates $r$

337: and $\varphi$

338: \cite{rejec003d}. Such a geometry corresponds to narrow 'v'-groove

339: $z$-dependent quantum

340: wires investigated recently, e.g. in Ref.~\onlinecite{kaufman99}. The diameter of the

341: wire is  \( a\left( z\right) \), with zero potential within the wire and

342: constant \(V_{0}>0 \) outside, i.e.,

343: %

344: \begin{equation}

345: \label{pot3d}

346: V\left( r,z\right) =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

347: 0, & r<\frac{1}{2}a\left( z\right) \\

348: V_{0}, & r>\frac{1}{2}a\left( z\right) 

349: \end{array}.\right.

350: \end{equation}

351: %

352: For the wire width, two generic shapes are taken, shown in

353: Fig.~\ref{oblika} with

354: 

355: \begin{subequations}

356: \begin{eqnarray}

357: a\left( z\right)  & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

358: a_{0}\left( 1-\xi \sin ^{2}\pi \frac{z}{a_{1}}\right) , & \left| z\right| <a_{1}\\

359: a_{0}, & \left| z\right| >a_{1}

360: \end{array}\right. ,\label{oblika2} \\

361: a\left( z\right)  & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

362: a_{0}\left( 1+\xi \cos ^{2}\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{z}{a_{1}}\right) , & 

363: \left| z\right| <a_{1}\\

364: a_{0}, & \left| z\right| >a_{1}

365: \end{array}\right. .\label{oblika1} 

366: \end{eqnarray}

367: \end{subequations}

368: 

369: \begin{figure}[htb]

370: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

371: {\includegraphics{Fig2.eps}}} \par}

372: \caption{\label{oblika} The geometry of the 'open quantum dot' for

373: the parameterization (a) Eq.~(\ref{oblika2}) and (b) Eq.~(\ref{oblika1}).}

374: \end{figure}

375: The region of interest is around \( z=0 \) and for large \( \left|

376: z\right| > a_1 \) the diameter is constant $a_0$.  Single particle

377: solutions corresponding to this geometry as well as the derivation and

378: calculation of parameters of the corresponding Hubbard Hamiltonian are

379: presented in Appendix A.

380: 

381: \section{Two-electron solutions}

382: 

383: \subsection{Bound states}

384: 

385: In order to calculate conductance though the system we first solve

386: the two interacting electron problem for the present geometry using the

387: extended Hubbard Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{hamdis1d}).

388: Solutions for bound states are determined

389: by numerical diagonalization of the system of 

390: equations presented in Appendix B,

391: Eq.~(\ref{sistem2el}). In Fig.~\ref{2dens} is shown the result 

392: of the two body electron density as 

393: a function of $z/a_0$ for various shapes of the bulge [Fig. \ref{oblika}(b)]. 

394: A general tendency is that long/narrow bulges correspond to stronger

395: interaction resulting in formation of a double peak in density, as

396: known from other studies of one-dimensional quantum dots \cite{jauregui}. As

397: long as the two peaks are not well separated, the

398: approximate methods mentioned

399: below are excellent, becoming

400: gradually less reliable with increasing separation between 

401: the peaks.

402: 

403: %

404: \begin{figure}[htb]

405: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

406: {\includegraphics{Fig3.eps}}} \par}

407: \caption{\label{2dens}Two-electron density for various bulge parameters.}

408: \end{figure}

409: 

410: In Fig.~\ref{1_24} we present typical examples of the energy of two

411: bound (singlet) electrons ($E<0$) where $\gamma$ is the electron-electron

412: coupling

413: strength, defined by replacement  $U\to

414: \gamma U$. Exact results are represented by the solid line, 

415: with other lines

416: representing results obtained with the

417: Hartree-Fock approximation, derived in Appendix C. At $E>0$ the lines

418: correspond to the position of the singlet resonance, calculated with

419: different methods and discussed below. In Fig.~\ref{1_06} the bulge is

420: longer and narrower, therefore both singlet and triplet bound states

421: exist for small $\gamma$, while for stronger coupling the triplet is

422: first pushed into continuum and finally, for $\gamma \sim 0.7$, both

423: states become resonances. Here approximate solutions are less

424: accurate, because the bulge is much larger than in the previous case

425: and therefore the problem is closer to the strong interaction limit,

426: as is seen also in Fig.~\ref{2dens}, dashed-dotted line, where the

427: dip in the electron density signals the strong interaction

428: regime. The Hartree-Fock approximation gives too large energies here,

429: which are, however, qualitatively correct.

430: 

431: \begin{figure}[htb]

432: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

433: {\includegraphics{Fig4.eps}}} \par}

434: \caption{\label{1_24} Position of bound states ($E<0$) and resonances

435: ($E>0$) vs. coupling $\gamma$, calculated exactly and within the

436: Hartree-Fock approximation. Wire

437: shape corresponds to Eq.~(\ref{oblika1}) with parameters: 

438: \protect\( a_{0}=a_{1}=10\textrm{ nm}\protect \), \protect\( \xi =0.24\protect \),

439: \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \) and \protect\( \kappa =50\textrm{ nm}

440: \protect \).}

441: \end{figure}

442:   

443: \begin{figure}[htb]

444: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

445: {\includegraphics{Fig5.eps}}} \par}

446: \caption{\label{1_06} As in Fig.~\ref{1_24} but with parameters:

447: \protect\( a_{0}=10\textrm{ nm}\protect \), \protect\( a_{1}=4a_{0}\protect \),

448: \protect\( \xi =0.06\protect \), \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \)

449: and \protect\( \kappa =50\textrm{ nm}\protect \).}

450: \end{figure}

451:    

452: 

453: \subsection{Scattering states}

454: 

455: Here we consider the scattering of an asymptotically free electron on

456: a bound electron within the bulge.  Such a system may be regarded as

457: an ``open quantum dot'' in which one electron is bound and inhibits

458: the transport of conduction electrons via Coulomb repulsion.  The

459: problem is analogous to treating the collision of an electron with a

460: hydrogen atom as, e.g., described in Ref.~\onlinecite{landauQM} and

461: studied by J.R. Oppenheimer and N.F. Mott\cite{oppenheimer28}.  We

462: only consider here cases in which the energy of the scattered electron

463: is smaller than the binding energy of the bound electron. This ensures

464: that only elastic scattering is possible. Asymptotically the two-body

465: wave function is a properly symmetrized product of a single particle

466: bound state, \(\left|\varphi\right>\), and scattered state, \( \left|

467: \chi \left( E\right) \right\rangle \).

468: 

469: For two electrons, the antisymmetrized wavefunction can be written as a

470: product of a spin-part and an orbital part. We write the orbital part as

471: \begin{equation}

472: \widetilde{\psi}_{ij}=\frac{\psi_{ij}+\left(-1\right)^{S}\psi_{ji}}{\sqrt{2}},

473: \end{equation}

474: ensuring that this is symmetric for singlets $(S=0)$ and antisymmetric for

475: triplets $(S=1)$ (see Appendix B).

476: For some large $N\gg1$, $\psi_{ij}$ takes the form

477: \begin{equation}

478: \label{nastavek}

479: \psi_{ij}=

480: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}\chi_{i}\left(E\right)\varphi_{j}

481: +r^{\left(S\right)}\chi_{i}^{\ast}\left(E\right)\varphi_{j},

482: & i<-N\\ t^{\left( S\right)}\chi _{i}\left(E\right)\varphi_{j}, & i>N

483: \end{array}\right. .

484: \end{equation}

485: 

486: Asymptotic solutions for the unbound electron are obtained from the

487: single-electron Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{ham1dis1d}) with the potential

488: \begin{equation}

489: \label{asimppot}

490: \tilde{\epsilon }_{j}=\epsilon _{j}+\sum _{k}U_{jk}\left| \varphi _{k}\right| ^{2}

491: \end{equation}

492: for large $|j|$. Here \( \left| \varphi \right\rangle \) is the

493: single-particle bound state in the potential \( \epsilon _{j} \).

494: Solutions with forward and backward currents have the following

495: asymptotic form $(j \to \infty)$

496: \begin{equation}

497: \label{asimpinf}

498: \chi _{j}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

499: e^{\pm ikj} & \kappa <\infty \\

500: e^{\pm i\left( kj-\eta(k) \ln 2kj\right) } & \kappa =\infty 

501: \end{array}\right. ,

502: \end{equation}

503: for finite and infinite screening length $\kappa$, respectively (see

504: Appendix A). With no screening $(\kappa =\infty)$ $\chi _{j}$ are the

505: Coulomb functions \cite{abramovitz}.

506: 

507: Numerically exact solutions are obtained by solving a set of linear

508: equations for the \( \left( 2N+1\right) ^{2} \) variables \(

509: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij} \) and transmission and reflection amplitudes.

510: 

511: \section{Conductance}

512: 

513: \subsection{Single-electron solutions}

514: 

515: From the solution of the scattering problem, the conductance at zero

516: temperature is calculated using the usual Landauer-B\"{u}ttiker

517: formalism \cite{landauer57},

518: %

519: \begin{equation}

520: G=G_0 {\cal T}(E), \label{landauer}

521: \end{equation}

522: where $G_{0}=2e^{2}/h$, $E$ is the Fermi energy (in this case $E=E_1$) 

523: and ${\cal T}(E)$ is the 

524: total transmission probability. 

525: 

526: For an open bulge of shape Eq.~(\ref{oblika2}), Fig.~\ref{oblika}(a),

527: there are no bound states and only single-electron

528: solutions\cite{ramsak98} are relevant.  

529: In Fig.~\ref{exact} we present $G$ as a function of

530: electron energy for wires with shape Eq.~(\ref{oblika2}) and three different

531: widths. The main effect is a change of energy scale, according to

532: scaling rule Eq.~(\ref{transform}), and the magnitude of the conductance at 

533: the resonance energy, $G_0$. 

534: In Fig.~\ref{exactb} the conductance through the bulge of the 

535: shape from Eq.~(\ref{oblika1}) is presented. In contrast to the previous figure,

536: a bound state can exist here, indicated by the dashed vertical line.

537: Further lines ($n=1,2$) indicate bound

538: states of {\it individual channels} for the special case when channel

539: mixing terms in Eq.~(\ref{schrodkvazi1d}) are set to zero. Dips in the

540: conductivity in the second plateau ($G\sim 3 G_0$) correspond to Fano

541: resonances caused by interchannel mixing terms. 

542: %

543: \begin{figure}[htb]

544: {\par\centering\resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Fig6.eps}} \par}

545: \caption{\label{exact} $G$ for a wire with shape  Eq.~(\ref{oblika2}) and

546: \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \), \protect\( \xi =0.8\protect \),

547: \protect\( a_{1}=a_{0}\protect \) and in particular (a)  \protect\(

548: a_{0}=7\textrm{ nm}\protect \), (b) \protect\( a_{0}=10\textrm{

549: nm}\protect \), and (c) \protect\( a_{0}=15\protect \)

550: nm.}

551: \end{figure}

552: 

553: \begin{figure}[htb]

554: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Fig7.eps}} \par}

555: \caption{\label{exactb}

556: $G$ for wire shape    Eq.~(\ref{oblika1}) and

557: \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\protect \) eV, \protect\( \xi =0.5\protect \),

558: \protect\( a_{0}=a_{1}=10\textrm{ nm}\protect \). Vertical lines

559: indicate positions of bound states for the lowest channels.}

560: \end{figure}   

561: 

562: In Fig.~\ref{2ch}(a) we again show the result of Fig.~\ref{exactb}

563: comparing it with the one-channel approximation. In this paper we

564: are interested in the rising edge of the conductance at the

565: threshold, but with Coulomb interactions between bound and

566: scattered electron included. Near threshold the

567: one-channel approximation is

568: excellent and therefore in the following we neglect higher channels.

569: In Fig.~\ref{2ch}(b) is presented the influence of discretization

570: parameter \protect\( \Delta \protect \), as introduced in Appendix A,

571: on the conductivity. The position of the bound state is not strongly

572: dependent on \protect\( \Delta \protect \) (inset in enlarged energy

573: scale) and for $\Delta < a_1/5$ the results obtained on the lattice

574: agree with the continuum calculation within a percent, which

575: justifies the use of the discretized Hamiltonian, Eq.~(\ref{hamdis1d}).

576:   

577: \begin{figure}[htb]

578: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

579: {\includegraphics{Fig8.eps}}} \par}

580: \caption{\label{2ch}(a) Conductance from Fig.~\ref{exactb} in

581: comparison with the result obtained in the one channel

582: approximation. (b) Conductance calculated with different \protect\(

583: \Delta \protect \) for wire parameters as in (a).  Bound states are

584: presented in the inset with enlarged energy scale.}

585: \end{figure}

586: 

587: 

588: \subsection{\label{nepel}Interacting electrons}

589: 

590: We may extend the formula Eq.~(\ref{landauer}) to the case described in the

591: previous section in which one electron is bound in the wire and the remaining

592: electrons are transmitted with energy-dependent probability.

593: Let $P_{\sigma }$ be the probability that the bound electron has

594: spin $\sigma $. It follows directly that the conductance due to all spin-up

595: electrons in the leads is given by the extended Landauer B\"{u}ttiker

596: formula: 

597: \begin{equation}

598: G_{\uparrow }=\frac{e^{2}}{h} \left[ P_{\uparrow }{\cal T}_{\uparrow

599: \uparrow }(E )+P_{\downarrow }{\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow

600: }(E )\right],   \label{aa}

601: \end{equation}

602: where ${\cal T}_{\uparrow \uparrow }$ is the transmission probability when

603: the bound electron is spin up,  ${\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow }$\ is the

604: transmission probability when the bound electron is spin down and $E$ is the

605: Fermi energy. We have a

606: similar expression for spin-down electrons in the leads and hence the total

607: conductance is 

608: \begin{equation}

609: G(E)=\frac{e^{2}}{h} \left[ P_{\uparrow }{\cal T}_{\uparrow \uparrow

610: }(E )+P_{\downarrow }{\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow }(E

611: )+P_{\uparrow }{\cal T}_{\downarrow \uparrow }(E )+P_{\downarrow }%

612: {\cal T}_{\downarrow \downarrow }(E )\right] .

613: \label{bb}

614: \end{equation}

615: The transition probabilities ${\cal T}_{\uparrow \uparrow }$ and ${\cal T}%

616: _{\uparrow \downarrow }$ are different since in the former case the

617: conduction and bound electrons both have the same spin (up) before and after

618: scattering whereas in the latter case there are two possible final states,

619: with or without spin-flip, i.e. 

620: \begin{equation}

621: {\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow }(E)=

622: \left| t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\uparrow\downarrow}\right|

623: ^{2}+\left| t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\downarrow\uparrow}\right|

624: ^{2}, \label{tud}

625: \end{equation}

626: where the scattering amplitudes are defined by

627: \begin{eqnarray}

628: \langle i \uparrow j \downarrow | \psi_{\uparrow \downarrow}\rangle &\rightarrow&

629: t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\uparrow\downarrow} \chi_i \varphi_j \\ \nonumber

630: \langle i \downarrow j \uparrow | \psi_{\uparrow \downarrow}\rangle &\rightarrow&

631: t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\downarrow\uparrow} \chi_i \varphi_j 

632: \label{ijud}

633: \end{eqnarray}

634: as $i\to \infty$. $| \psi_{\uparrow \downarrow}\rangle$ is the exact 

635: scattering wavefunction and $|i \sigma j \sigma'\rangle=c^\dagger_{i 

636: \sigma} c^\dagger_{j \sigma'}  

637: |0 \rangle $. $\varphi_j=\langle j | \varphi \rangle$ is the bound-state one-electron 

638: wavefunction and $\chi_j=\langle j | \chi \rangle$ is a forward propagating one-electron

639: wavefunction at large $j$, as discussed in Section III.

640: 

641: In zero magnetic field it is clear that $P_\uparrow=P_\downarrow=\frac{1}{2}$ in

642: Eq.~(\ref{bb}). We can express $G(E)$ in a simpler form since the 

643: ${\cal T}_{\sigma \sigma'}(E)$ are not all independent. Transforming to singlet 

644: and triplet base states (with $S_z=0$),

645: \begin{eqnarray}

646: |s,i,j\rangle &=&\frac{|i\uparrow ,j\downarrow \rangle -|i\downarrow ,j\uparrow

647: \rangle }{\sqrt{2}},\\ \nonumber

648: |t,i,j\rangle &=&\frac{|i\uparrow ,j\downarrow \rangle

649: +|i\downarrow ,j\uparrow \rangle }{\sqrt{2}},

650: \label{stij}

651: \end{eqnarray}

652: we get

653: \begin{eqnarray}

654: \langle s,i,j| \psi_{\uparrow \downarrow}\rangle &\rightarrow&

655: \frac{t^{(0)}}{\sqrt{2}} \chi_i \varphi_j \\ \nonumber

656: \langle t,i,j | \psi_{\uparrow \downarrow}\rangle &\rightarrow&

657: \frac{t^{(1)}}{\sqrt{2}} \chi_i \varphi_j, 

658: \label{stud}

659: \end{eqnarray}

660: where

661: \begin{equation}

662: \label{tupdown}

663: \begin{array}{rcl}

664: t^{(0) } &=&

665: t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\uparrow\downarrow

666: }+t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\downarrow\uparrow }  \\ 

667:  t^{(1) }&=&

668: t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\uparrow\downarrow

669: }-t_{\uparrow\downarrow\rightarrow\downarrow\uparrow }

670: \end{array}.

671: \end{equation}

672: Hence, Eq.~(\ref{aa}) becomes\cite{landauQM} 

673: \begin{equation}

674: G=G_0\left(\frac{1}{4}\left| t^{\left( 0\right) }\right|

675: ^{2}+\frac{3}{4} \left| t^{\left( 1\right) }\right| ^{2}\right).

676: \end{equation}

677: 

678: 

679: \subsection{Results of numerical analysis}

680: 

681: In Fig.~\ref{final1} we present the result of a comprehensive study

682: of conductance for a variety of shapes of bulge. In

683: Fig.~\ref{final1}(a) the bulge is wide and so short that only a singlet

684: resonance is developed. The conductance therefore exhibits a structure

685: similar to the 0.3 anomaly found in experiment \cite{patel91}. In

686: Figs.~\ref{final1}(b,c) both singlet and triplet resonances are visible

687: with a tendency for the resonances to sharpen as the bulge becomes weaker

688: ($\xi \to 0$). 

689: 

690: \begin{figure}[htb] {\par\centering

691: \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics{Fig9.eps}}}

692: \par}

693: \caption{\label{final1} Conductance for different shapes of the

694: bulge. Each line is labeled with the parameter

695: \protect\(a_{1}/a_{0}\protect \). Other wire parameters:

696: \protect\( a_{0}=10\textrm{ nm}\protect \),

697: \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \) and \protect\( \kappa

698: =50\textrm{ nm}\protect \).}

699: \end{figure}

700: In Fig.~\ref{final2} the wire width is fixed at $10$nm of the wire and

701: positions of singlet (full lines) and triplet (dashed lines)

702: resonances (or the corresponding bound states for $E<0$) are plotted

703: for various lengths and widths of bulge, represented by $a_1/a_0$ and

704: $\xi$. We see that the resonances survive for a wide range of

705: parameters. In Fig.~\ref{final3} is shown the position of singlet and

706: triplet resonance energies vs. the width of the wire, $a_0$, with

707: fixed shape of the bulge. The insets show the energy dependence of

708: singlet and triplet transmission probabilities for selected special

709: cases.  Note that we have scaled the energy by a factor $a_0^2

710: E$. This would produce identical curves for non-interacting electrons

711: [Eq.~(\ref{transform})].

712: 

713: After performing calculations for a wide range of parameters, we 

714: conclude that a singlet resonance is always lower in energy than 

715: its corresponding

716: triplet, in accordance with Lieb-Mattis theorem, which however, is

717: strictly valid only for ground states \cite{lieb62}.

718: 

719: \begin{figure}[htb]

720: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}

721: {\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics{Fig10.eps}}} \par}

722: \caption{\label{final2} Energies of singlet (full lines) and triplet

723: (dashed lines) resonances and bound states for wire Eq.~(\ref{oblika1}) as

724: a function of \protect\( a_{1}/a_0\protect \) for different  \protect\( \xi \protect \).

725: Other parameters are as in Fig.~\ref{final1}. 

726: Full circles represent the energy, where

727: the resonance energy is above the 'ionization' energy and the underlying

728: wave function form is not valid anymore.}

729: \end{figure}

730: 

731: \begin{figure}[htb]

732: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

733: {\includegraphics{Fig11.eps}}} \par}

734: \caption{\label{final3}The position of singlet (full line) and triplet

735: (dashed line) resonances as a function of the width of the wire,

736: $a_0$. Note that the energy of the resonances is presented in a scaled

737: form. $a_1=50\mathrm{~nm}$, $\xi=0.11$ and other parameters are as in

738: Fig.~\ref{final1}.}

739: \end{figure}

740: 

741: \subsection{Magnetic field along the symmetry axis}

742: 

743: The nature of conductance anomalies studied here can be further

744: illuminated with experiments done in a strong magnetic

745: field\cite{patel91}. The effect of the magnetic field

746: is, in our treatment, taken into account via the usual Zeeman

747: splitting of channel energies. The incoming electron with Fermi

748: energy \( E \) and spin component \( S_{z}=\pm\frac{1}{2} \) then has

749: kinetic energy

750: \begin{equation}

751: E_{\textrm{k}}\equiv E_\mp =E\mp E_{\textrm{B}},

752: \end{equation}

753: where $E_{\rm B}=\frac{1}{2}g^\ast\mu_{\rm B} B$. $g^\ast$ is the effective gyromagnetic ratio and \( \mu

754: _{\textrm{B}} \) is Bohr magneton.

755: 

756: Near the conductance threshold we assume that the current is sufficiently low

757: that the localized electron is in its ground-state with spin $\downarrow$ before 

758: each scattering event with a conduction electron. Hence $P_\downarrow=1$ and

759: $P_\uparrow=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{aa}) which becomes

760: \begin{equation}

761: G_\uparrow(E,B)=\frac{e^{2}}{h} {\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow}(E,B).

762: \end{equation}

763: In this case $G_\downarrow \neq G_\uparrow$ but, rather,

764: \begin{equation}

765: G_\downarrow(E,B)=\frac{e^{2}}{h} {\cal T}_{\downarrow \downarrow}(E,B).

766: \end{equation}

767: Since ${\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow}(E,B)={\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow}(E_-,0)$ and

768: ${\cal T}_{\downarrow \downarrow}(E,B)={\cal T}_{\downarrow \downarrow}(E_+,0)$,

769: then the conductance is

770: \begin{eqnarray}

771: G&=&G_{\uparrow}+G_{\downarrow}\\ \nonumber

772: &=&\frac{e^{2}}{h}[

773: {\cal T}_{\uparrow \downarrow}(E_-,0)+

774: {\cal T}_{\downarrow \downarrow}(E_+,0)] \\ \nonumber

775: &=& \frac{e^2}{h}[

776: {\cal T}_{t}(E_+,0)+

777: \frac{1}{2}{\cal T}_{t}(E_-,0)+

778: \frac{1}{2}{\cal T}_{s}(E_-,0)],\label{gb}

779: \end{eqnarray}

780: where ${\cal T}_{s}$ and  ${\cal T}_{t}$ are the same functions 

781: as in zero magnetic field.

782: 

783: In Fig.~\ref{magnet}(a) are plotted  individual transmission probabilities for

784: different spin configurations. Note that the spin-flip term

785: is in general dominant at higher energies. In Fig.~\ref{magnet}(b) the

786: corresponding results for conductance in the presence of a magnetic 

787: field is shown. The full line corresponds to $B=0$, and other curves to $B$ in 

788: increments $\Delta B=10$T. 

789: %

790: \begin{figure}[htb]

791: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{-0}

792: {\includegraphics{Fig12.eps}}} \par}

793: \caption{\label{magnet} (a) Transmission probabilities for relevant

794: spin configurations. (b) Conductance for $B=0$ (full line) and other

795: lines for $B$ in increments $\Delta B=10$~T. Parameters of the wire:

796: \protect\( a_{0}=10 \textrm{ nm}\protect \), \protect\(

797: a_{1}=2.5a_{0}\protect \), \protect\( \xi =1.11\protect \), \protect\(

798: V_{0}=0.4 \textrm{ eV}\protect \) and \protect\( \kappa

799: =50\textrm{ nm}\protect \).}

800: \end{figure}

801: 

802: \subsection{Results for the Anderson model}

803: 

804: As shown in Section II, the Hubbard model studied above can be

805: mapped onto an extended Anderson model, Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}). 

806: Conductance through a quantum dot described by a standard Anderson model

807: is basically described by a peak or several peaks and at higher energies the

808: conductance approaches zero \cite{anddot}. In the case of an 

809: open quantum dot, studied here, 

810: at higher energies the conductance tends toward unity, as a consequence of

811: additional coupling parameters in the extended 

812: model. Here we analyze these terms individually

813: and show their relative importance.

814: 

815: The coupling parameters are momentum dependent and in 

816: Fig.~\ref{Rejec_Fig1} the couplings $V_{k}$, $M_{kk^\prime}$ and

817: $J_{kk^\prime}$ are shown. Note that $M_{kk^\prime}$ at higher

818: energies tends to a constant, while other parameters approach zero,

819: ensuring the correct behavior at high-energy with unit

820: transmission.

821: \begin{figure}[tbh]

822: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.7\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

823: {\includegraphics{Fig13.eps}}} \par}

824: \caption{$k$-dependence of matrix elements of the extended Anderson

825: model. The wire is parameterized with $ a_{0}=10$~nm, $\protect\xi

826: =0.24$, $a_{1}/a_{0}=2$, $V_{0}=0.4$~eV, $\protect \kappa=50$~nm and

827: $\protect\gamma =1$. (a) Mixing coupling $V_{k}$. The energy

828: $\epsilon_d + U$ is indicated with an arrow. (b, c) Scattering

829: couplings $M_{kk'}$ and $J_{kk'}$. $L$ is the length of the wire, where the wave

830: functions are normalized.}

831: \label{Rejec_Fig1}

832: \end{figure}

833: The scattering solutions of the Hamiltonian Eq. (\ref{Rejec_k}) are then

834: obtained exactly for two electrons with the boundary condition

835: that for $z\rightarrow \infty $, one electron occupies the lowest

836: bound state, whilst the other is in a forward propagating plane

837: wave state, $\phi _{k}(z)\sim e^{ikz}.$ From these solutions we

838: compute the conductance again using the Landauer-B\"{u}ttiker formula.

839: 

840: In Figs.~\ref{Rejec_Fig2}(a,b,c) we compare the results of

841: ${\cal T}_{ \mathrm{s}}$,

842: ${\cal T}_{\mathrm{t}}$ and conductance $G$ for a wire with the bulge

843: as in Fig.~\ref{1_24}.

844: The thin lines are the exact scattering result for two electrons. The

845: solid lines show the exact scattering solutions for the Anderson-type

846: Hamiltonian, for which the matrix elements, and their energy

847: dependence are calculated explicitly. The solution of this

848: Anderson-type model for two electrons, in which the localized level

849: always contains at least one electron, reproduce the main features of

850: the exact scattering solutions of the original model. The energy

851: dependence of the matrix elements is essential to get this good

852: agreement. Figs.~\ref{Rejec_Fig2}(d,e,f) show the corresponding results for

853: a longer bulge from Fig.~\ref{1_06}. Also shown in  Fig.~\ref{Rejec_Fig2}, dashed

854: lines, are results with the direct exchange term omitted in 

855: Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}). This term can have a significant quantitative effect,

856: but does not qualitatively change the conductance curves.

857: 

858: We have also solved a similar model in which plane waves,

859: rather than exact scattering states of the non-interacting problem,

860: were used. However, this gave poor agreement with the exact results.

861: We conclude that an Anderson-type model is adequate for a near-perfect

862: quantum wire provided that a suitable basis set is used and the

863: energy-dependence of the matrix elements is accurately

864: determined. Future work will focus on the many-electron properties of

865: this effective Hamiltonian, including `Kondo' and `mixed valence'

866: regimes.

867: 

868: \begin{figure}[tbh]

869: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

870: {\includegraphics{Fig14.eps}}} \par}

871: \caption{Singlet (a, d) and triplet (b, e) transmission probabilities and

872: corresponding conductances (c, f). Parameters for the left set are as in

873: Fig.~\ref{Rejec_Fig1}, for the right set: $a_{0}=10$~nm, $\protect\xi =0.15$,

874: $a_{1}/a_{0}=4$, $V_{0}=0.4$~eV, $\protect\kappa=100$~nm and

875: $\protect\gamma =0.9$.  Thin lines represent exact results from

876: Eq.~(\ref{hamdis1d}), thick lines are results from

877: Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}). Dashed lines show results where the exchange

878: term in Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}) is neglected.} \label{Rejec_Fig2}

879: \end{figure}

880: 

881: 

882: \subsection{Approximate methods}

883: 

884: It is not easy to get sufficiently accurate numerical solutions

885: for the case of more

886: than two electrons. Therefore it would be extremely useful if an

887: accurate

888: approximative method could be applied. The simplest approximation

889: (presented here for the case of two electrons) is be the first iteration in

890: solving the Hartree-Fock equations, as we presented in Section III for 

891: the case of bound

892: states.

893: 

894: We assume the two-body wave functions consist of a single particle

895: state \( \left| \varphi ^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle \) and

896: scattering state $ | \chi \rangle$ with energy \( E \). The

897: two-electron wavefunction has then the form (see Appendix C),

898: \begin{equation}

899: \label{psi_approx_2}

900: \left| \psi \right\rangle =\sum _{ij}\varphi _{i}\chi _{j}c_{ij}^{

901: \left( S,S_{z}\right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle .

902: \end{equation}

903: The coefficients \( \varphi _{i} \) are known, therefore 

904: only coefficients  \( \chi _{i} \) must be

905: determined. For the singlet state the simplest approximation is

906: obtained if we perform the first iteration of the Hartree-Fock method

907: subject to additional condition that the electron has energy $E$

908: (``restricted Hartree-Fock'' approximation): 

909: %

910: \begin{equation}

911: \label{rest_sing_tr}

912: \left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \chi \right\rangle +\sum

913: _{j}U_{ij}

914: \left| \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}\chi _{i}=E\chi _{i},

915: \end{equation}

916: where, using Eq.~(\ref{ham1dis1d}), 

917: $\left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \chi \right\rangle=

918: -t(\chi_{i-1}+\chi_{i+1})+\epsilon_i \chi_i$. This is just the tight binding

919: results for a single electron moving in an effective potential

920: $\epsilon _{i}+\sum _{j}U_{ij}\left| 

921: \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}$.

922: 

923: For the triplet state, the result is:

924: \begin{equation}

925: \label{trip_tr}

926: \left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \chi \right\rangle +

927: \sum _{j}U_{ij}\left| \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}\chi _{i}-\sum _{j}

928: U_{ij}\varphi _{j}^{\ast }\varphi _{i}\chi _{j}=E\chi _{j}.

929: \end{equation}

930: %

931: A better approximation for the singlet case starts from the unrestricted

932: Hartree-Fock approximation, where the energy is  

933: %

934: \begin{eqnarray}

935: &&\left\langle \psi \left|H\right| \psi \right\rangle  =

936:  \left\langle \varphi \left| H_{1}\right| \varphi 

937: \right\rangle \left\langle \chi |\chi \right\rangle 

938: +

939: \left\langle \chi \left| H_{1}\right| \chi \right\rangle 

940: \left\langle \varphi |\varphi \right\rangle+ \nonumber \\

941: &&\quad\quad+\left( -1\right) ^{S}

942: \left( \left\langle \varphi \left| H_{1}\right| \chi \right\rangle 

943: \left\langle \chi |\varphi \right\rangle +\left\langle \chi \left| 

944: H_{1}\right| \varphi \right\rangle \left\langle \varphi |

945: \chi \right\rangle \right)+ \nonumber \\

946: &&\quad\quad+\frac{1}{2}\sum _{ij}U_{ij}\left| \varphi _{i}\chi _{j}+

947: \chi _{i}\varphi _{j}\right| ^{2},

948: \end{eqnarray}

949: and the norm is given with

950: \begin{equation}

951: \left\langle \psi |\psi \right\rangle =\sum _{i}\left| \chi _{i}

952: \right| ^{2}+\left| \sum _{i}\varphi _{i}^{\left( 1\right) \ast }\chi _{i}\right| ^{2}.

953: \end{equation}

954: The 

955: coefficients $\chi_i$ are calculated from the Hartree-Fock

956: equations based on the variation principle (``unrestricted

957: Hartree-Fock'' approximation),

958: \begin{eqnarray}

959: \label{unrest_sing_tr}

960: &&\left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \chi \right\rangle +

961: \sum _{j}U_{ij}\left| \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}\chi _{i}+

962: \sum _{j}U_{ij}\varphi _{j}^{\ast }\varphi _{i}\chi _{j}+ \nonumber \\

963: &&\quad\quad+

964: \left( E-E^{\left( 1\right) }_{1}\right) \sum _{j}\varphi _{j}^{\ast }

965: \varphi _{i}\chi _{j}=E\chi _{i}.

966: \end{eqnarray}

967:     

968: In Fig.~\ref{efpot} the effective one

969: dimensional potential in Eq.~(\ref{rest_sing_tr}) is plotted for

970: $\gamma=0, 0.5$ and $1$. The shaded region

971: represents the position and the width of single particle resonance in

972: this effective potential. This resonance corresponds to the singlet

973: resonance presented in Fig.~\ref{approx}(a) (dashed line), for wire

974: parameters given in Fig.~\ref{1_24} together

975: with exact result, full line, and calculated from

976: Eq.~(\ref{rest_sing_tr}).  

977: 

978: We also show in Fig.~\ref{approx}(a) the exact result and the corresponding

979: result for an unrestricted Hartree-Fock scheme for which the wavefunctions

980: of up and down spin electrons are different. As expected, the unrestricted method

981: gives a more accurate result though both methods reproduce the main features,

982: the main discrepancy being an overall energy shift. Similarly in 

983: Fig.~\ref{approx}(b) we 

984: present the corresponding triplet resonance curve for parameters

985: from Fig.~\ref{1_06}. Again, the overall agreement with the exact result 

986: is good apart from an overall energy shift.

987: 

988: \begin{figure}[htb]

989: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

990: {\includegraphics{Fig15.eps}}} \par}

991: \caption{\label{efpot} Effective potential from

992: Eq.~(\ref{rest_sing_tr}) and for the wire with parameters as in Fig.~\ref{1_24}.}

993: \end{figure}

994:   

995: \begin{figure}[htb]

996: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

997: {\includegraphics{Fig16.eps}}} \par}

998: \caption{\label{approx}(a) Singlet resonance (parameters from

999: Fig.~\ref{1_24}). Exact result and approximations of

1000: Eqns.~(\ref{rest_sing_tr}) and (\ref{unrest_sing_tr}) are shown. (b)

1001: Triplet resonance (parameters from Fig.~\ref{1_06}). Exact result and

1002: approximation of Eqn.~(\ref{trip_tr}) are shown.}

1003: \end{figure}

1004: 

1005: 

1006: \section{Summary and conclusions}

1007: 

1008: We have shown that quantum wires with weak longitudinal

1009: confinement, or open quantum dots, can give rise to spin-dependent, Coulomb

1010: blockade resonances when a single electron is bound in the confined region.

1011: This is a universal effect in one-dimensional systems with very weak

1012: longitudinal confinement. The emergence of a specific structure at $G(E)\sim 

1013: \frac{1}{4}\frac{2e^{2}}{h}$ and $G\sim \frac{3}{4}\frac{2e^{2}}{h}$ is a

1014: consequence of the singlet and triplet nature of the resonances and the

1015: probability ratio 1:3 for singlet and triplet scattering and as such is a

1016: universal effect. A comprehensive numerical investigation of open quantum

1017: dots using a wide range of parameters shows that singlet resonances are

1018: always at lower energies than the triplets, in accordance with the

1019: corresponding theorem for bound states \cite{lieb62}. With increasing

1020: in-plane magnetic field, the resonances shift their position and eventually

1021: merge in the conductance plateau at $G\sim e^{2}/h$. With increasing

1022: source-drain bias we have shown why the higher triplet resonance weakens at

1023: the expense of the singlet, with the latter surviving to the point where the

1024: conductance steps themselves disappear.

1025: 

1026: The existence of the conductance anomalies is a direct

1027: consequence of an effective double-barrier potential seen by the conduction

1028: electrons propagating from source to drain contacts under the influence of a

1029: bound electron. For a symmetric one-electron confining potential, the

1030: existence of a bound state is guaranteed but this is not necessarily the

1031: case when the confinement is asymmetric. Such asymmetry in the confining

1032: potential may be easily achieved under a finite source drain bias and

1033: indeed, this was reported in some of the experiments on gated quantum wires 

1034: \cite{thomas96,patel91}. These experiments show that as the source-drain

1035: bias is increased from zero, an anomaly appears at\ $G\sim

1036: 0.25(2e^{2}/h)$, coexisting with the $0.7(2e^{2}/h)$ anomaly.  

1037: Eventually, at larger bias, the remaining

1038: anomaly also disappears but only when the conductance steps themselves are

1039: on the point of disappearing, showing that the singlet anomaly is extremely

1040: robust. This behaviour is consistent with our model since under bias the

1041: triplet resonant bound-state will eventually disappear because the confining

1042: potential in the $x$-direction will only accommodate a single one-electron

1043: bound state, giving rise to a singlet resonance only. This is shown

1044: schematically in Fig.~\ref{land6} where we also indicate the surviving singlet

1045: becoming broader with increasing bias resulting in a more pronounced step, as

1046: observed.

1047: \begin{figure}[htb]

1048: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

1049: {\includegraphics{Fig17.eps}}} \par}

1050: \caption{\label{land6}Effective double barrier showing singlet and triplet

1051: resonance with very small source-drain bias (a) and large source-drain 

1052: bias (b).}

1053: \end{figure}

1054: 

1055: Finally, we speculate on the exciting possibility that these anomalies

1056: in conduction are themselves a signature for a new kind of conducting

1057: state in ultra clean wires close to the conduction threshold. Indeed,

1058: there is some experimental evidence for this in that the anomalies

1059: discussed above merge into a conductance step at $e^{2}/h$ under quite

1060: moderate magnetic fields and in the cleanest samples this behaviour is

1061: sometimes even seen in zero magnetic field. This suggests that there

1062: may be an underlying spin polarized state associated with the

1063: propagating electrons in the quasi 1D region. Such a spin-polarized

1064: state would appear to violate the Lieb-Mattis theorem

1065: \cite{lieb62} and

1066: would also need to be made consistent with our above explanation in

1067: terms of singlet and triplet resonances. In this respect we emphasize

1068: that the above theory must break down at very low electron density in

1069: the wire such that the mean separation between electrons in the wire

1070: is somewhat greater than the effective Bohr radius, the so-called

1071: strong correlation regime. In practical situations it is very

1072: difficult to avoid some kind of weak potential fluctuation which traps

1073: one electron. Indeed this may ultimately be impossible since even in a

1074: nominally perfect wire, the presence of a single electron will

1075: polarise its environment leading to a potential well which will bind

1076: the electron giving rise to a Coulomb blockade for the remaining

1077: electrons, though the energy scale (temperature) for this may be very low making

1078: it susceptible to masking the other effects.

1079: 

1080: The main question is whether or not this confinement is

1081: sufficiently large for the electron density to exceed to the inverse

1082: Bohr radius when the wire begins to conduct. If the density remains

1083: low at this conductance threshold then we cannot ignore the mutual

1084: interaction between all electrons in the wire region, or even treat

1085: them self-consistently. In this situation, a more appropriate picture

1086: would be one in which the Coulomb repulsion dominates and maintains

1087: roughly equal separation between the electrons as in a Wigner

1088: chain. On the other hand, if the mean electron density is of order,

1089: or greater,than the inverse Bohr radius, then an open quantum dot

1090: picture with effective resonance levels for the propagating electron is

1091: more appropriate, as discussed in this paper.

1092: 

1093: At low temperatures strong many-body effects are indicated from the

1094: activation-like behaviour of the conductance \cite{thomas96,

1095: kondo2002} and the thermopower coeficient \cite{appleyard00}. As

1096: discused in our recend thermopower analysis, Ref.~\onlinecite{rejec02}, the

1097: anomaly at low-temperatures may well be a many-body Kondo-like effect

1098: contained within our extended Anderson model,

1099: Eq.~(\ref{Rejec_k}), and studied recently in Ref.~\onlinecite{meir2002}, but

1100: not within the two-electron approximation we have used here and in

1101: some our earlier papers. It may well be that the two-electron

1102: approximation breaks down at low temperatures.  The model presented

1103: here differs from the standard Anderson model in that the

1104: hybridisation term contains the factor $n_{-\sigma }$, and hence

1105: disappears when the localized orbital is unoccupied. This reflects the

1106: fact that an effective double-barrier structure and resonant bound

1107: state occurs via Coulomb repulsion only because of the presence of a

1108: localized electron. The standard results for the single impurity

1109: problem \cite{hewsonbook} 

1110: thus cannot be applied directly to this effective model,

1111: and are a subject of current reaserch \cite{rejecram}.  However, a

1112: Kondo-like resonance is expected \cite{boese01,meir2002}, for which

1113: many-body effects would dominate with a breakdown of our two electron

1114: approximation.

1115: 

1116: \appendix

1117: 

1118: \section{Cylindrical wire}

1119: 

1120: \subsection{Single electron basis}

1121: 

1122: A single electron in the wire considered here is described with the wave function 

1123: \( \Psi (r,\varphi ,z) \), which is a solution of

1124: the Schr\"{o}dinger equation

1125: 

1126: \begin{equation}

1127: \label{schrod3d}

1128: -\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m^{\ast }}\nabla ^{2}\Psi \left( r,\varphi

1129: ,z\right) 

1130: +V\left( r,z\right) \Psi \left( r,\varphi ,z\right) =E\Psi \left(

1131: r,\varphi 

1132: ,z\right) ,

1133: \end{equation}

1134: where the effects of nonparabolicity are neglected and the effective

1135: mass is taken constant, $m^{\ast } = 0.067m_{\rm elec}$

1136: with dielectric constant 12.5, appropriate

1137: for GaAs \cite{ramsak98}.

1138: 

1139: At fixed \( z \) the wave function \( \Psi (r,\varphi ,z) \) is

1140: expanded in a two-dimensional basis \( \Phi _{mn}\left( r,\varphi

1141: ;z\right) \) for the corresponding potential \( V\left( r;z\right) \)

1142: , Eq.~(\ref{pot3d}). The coefficients in such an expansion over {\it

1143: channels} are \( \psi _{mn}\left( z\right) \)

1144: \begin{equation}

1145: \Psi (r,\varphi ,z)=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }\sum ^{n}_{m=-n}\psi

1146: _{mn}\left( z\right) 

1147: \Phi _{mn}\left( r,\varphi ;z\right) .\label{a2}

1148: \end{equation}

1149: The transverse wavefunftions, $\Phi _{mn}\left( r,\varphi ;z\right)$, depend

1150: only parametrically on $z$ and take the form:

1151: 

1152: \begin{subequations}

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \Phi _{mn}\left( r,\varphi ;z\right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

1155: A_{mn}\left( z\right) J_{m}\left( k_{mn}\left( z\right) r\right) e^{im\varphi } & 

1156: r<\frac{a(z)}{2} \\

1157: \begin{array}{l}

1158: \left[B_{mn}\left( z\right) B_{m}^{(1)}\left( \kappa _{mn}\left(

1159: z\right) r\right)+\right.\\

1160: \left.+C_{mn}\left( z\right) B_{m}^{(2)}\left( \kappa

1161: _{mn}\left( z\right) r\right)\right]e^{im\varphi }

1162: \end{array}& r>\frac{a(z)}{2}

1163: \end{array}\right.,

1164: \end{equation}

1165: \begin{equation}

1166: k_{mn}\left( z\right)  = \sqrt{\frac{2m^{\ast }\epsilon _{mn}\left( z\right) }

1167: {\hbar ^{2}}},

1168: \end{equation}

1169: \begin{equation}

1170: \kappa _{mn}\left( z\right)  = \sqrt{\frac{2m^{\ast }\left|

1171: \epsilon _{mn}\left( z\right) 

1172: -V_{0}\right| }{\hbar ^{2}}}.

1173: \end{equation}

1174: \end{subequations} 

1175: Here 

1176: \( B_{m}^{(1)}=I_{m} \)

1177: and \( B_{m}^{(2)}= K_{m} \) are appropriate Bessel eigenfunctions \cite{abramovitz}

1178: for $\epsilon_{mn} \leq V_0$ with

1179: \( B_{m}^{(1)}=J_{m} \)

1180: and \( B_{m}^{(2)}= Y_{m} \), for $\epsilon_{mn} > V_0$ . The

1181: coefficients \( A_{mn} \), \( B_{mn} \),

1182: \( C_{mn} \) and energies \( \epsilon _{mn} \) are determined from the

1183: boundary conditions and the normalization of wave functions.

1184: 

1185: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{a2}) into Eq.~(\ref{schrod3d}) and integrating over

1186: $r$ and $\varphi$ leads to following coupled ordinary differential

1187: equations for $\psi_{mn}$,

1188: \begin{eqnarray}

1189: \label{schrodkvazi1d}

1190: \psi ^{\prime \prime }_{mn}&+&\left[ k^{2}-k_{mn}^{2}\left( z\right)

1191: +a_{mnn}\left( z\right) \right] 

1192: \psi _{mn}+ \\ \nonumber

1193: &+&\sum _{n\neq n^{\prime }}b_{mnn^{\prime }}(z)\psi ^{\prime

1194: }_{mn^{\prime }}+

1195: \sum _{n\neq n^{\prime }}a_{mnn^{\prime }}\left( z\right) \psi _{mn^{\prime }}=0,

1196: \end{eqnarray}

1197: where the coupling coefficients are

1198: 

1199: \begin{subequations}

1200: \begin{equation}

1201: a_{mnn^{\prime }}\left( z\right) = 2\pi \int _{0}^{R}\Phi

1202: _{mn}^{\ast }\left( r,\varphi ;z\right) 

1203: \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial z^{2}}\Phi _{mn^{\prime }}\left(

1204: r,\varphi ;z\right) 

1205: r\textrm{d}r,\label{amnn}

1206: \end{equation}

1207: \begin{equation}

1208: b_{mnn^{\prime }}\left( z\right)  = 4\pi \int _{0}^{R}\Phi

1209: _{mn}^{\ast }\left( r,\varphi ;z\right) 

1210: \frac{\partial }{\partial z}\Phi _{mn^{\prime }}\left( r,\varphi ;z\right) r

1211: \textrm{d}r.\label{bmnn} 

1212: \end{equation}

1213: \end{subequations}

1214: The coefficients coupling channels with different \( m \) are 

1215: zero due to the orthogonality of \( e^{im\varphi } \) for different

1216: \( m \).

1217: 

1218: Note that the Schr\"{o}dinger equation, Eq.~(\ref{schrod3d}), is invariant under the

1219: transformation

1220: 

1221: \begin{eqnarray}

1222: \bf {r} & \rightarrow  & \Lambda\bf {r},\label{invar} \\

1223: E,V & \rightarrow  & \Lambda^{-2}E,\Lambda^{-2}V.\label{transform}

1224: \end{eqnarray}

1225: 

1226: \subsection{Extended Hubbard Hamiltonian}

1227: 

1228: We consider here the case when

1229: the variation  in wire width is small, resulting in small derivatives of the

1230: coefficients in Eqs.~\ref{amnn},

1231: \ref{bmnn}. We consider only electrons with energy below the 

1232: second channel and hence Eq.~(\ref{schrodkvazi1d}) reduces to a single equation for

1233: motion in  $z$ direction, with the potential

1234: 

1235: \begin{equation}

1236: \label{pot1d}

1237: \epsilon \left( z\right) =\epsilon _{00}\left( a\left(z\right)\right) +a^{\prime

1238: 2}\left( z\right) 

1239: \tilde{\epsilon }_{00}\left( a\left(z\right)\right) .

1240: \end{equation}

1241: 

1242: The first term is the energy of the first channel and the second is

1243: related to \( a_{000} ( z ) \) from

1244: Eq.~(\ref{schrodkvazi1d}). $a^{\prime}(z)$ is the derivative of the

1245: wire diameter with respect to $z$. The second term in Eq.~(\ref{pot1d})

1246: is always positive since

1247:  

1248: \begin{equation}

1249: \tilde{\epsilon }_{00}\left( a\right) =\frac{\hbar ^{2}\pi }{m^{\ast

1250: }}\int _{0}^{R}\left( \frac{\partial \Phi _{00}\left( r,\varphi

1251: \right) }{\partial a}\right) ^{2}r\textrm{d}r .

1252: \end{equation}

1253: The potential Eq.~(\ref{pot1d}) is  constant for large \( \left| z\right|  \)

1254: and  set to zero for convenience, i.e.

1255: 

1256: \begin{equation}

1257: \epsilon \left( z\right) \rightarrow \epsilon \left( z\right) -\epsilon 

1258: \left( \infty \right).

1259: \end{equation}

1260:  

1261: \noindent In Fig.~\ref{epsil}(a) $\epsilon_{00}(a)$ and

1262: $\tilde{\epsilon}_{00}(a)$ are presented as a function of wire

1263: diameter. Figs.~\ref{epsil}(b) and (c) show the variation of

1264: one-dimensional potential $\epsilon(z)$ along the wire.

1265: 

1266: \begin{figure}[htb]

1267: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.7\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

1268: {\includegraphics{Fig18.eps}}} \par}

1269: 

1270: \caption{\label{epsil}(a) Dependence of \protect\( \epsilon _{00}\protect \) and

1271:  \protect\( \tilde{\epsilon }_{00}\protect \)

1272: in Eq.~(\ref{pot1d}) on wire diameter for  

1273: \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \).

1274: (b) One dimensional potential Eq.~(\ref{pot1d}) for the wire shape

1275: Eq.~(\ref{oblika2}) and

1276: various values of  \protect\( \xi \protect \). Dashed lines

1277: correspond to the contribution  \protect\( \epsilon _{00}\protect

1278: \). (c) The same as in (b) but for wire shape Eq.~(\ref{oblika1}).}

1279: \end{figure}

1280: The single-electron Hamiltonian in the single channel approximation then becomes

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: H_1=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^\ast}\frac{\textrm{d}^{2}}{\textrm{d}z^{2}} +\epsilon(z).

1283: \label{h1kont}

1284: \end{equation}

1285: This is readily generalized to many electrons,

1286: \begin{eqnarray}

1287: &&H = \sum _{\sigma }\int \psi _{\sigma }^{\dagger }\left( z\right)

1288: \left[ 

1289: -\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m^\ast}\frac{\textrm{d}^{2}}{\textrm{d}z^{2}} \right] \psi _{\sigma

1290: }\left( z\right) 

1291: \textrm{d}z+\\ \nonumber

1292: && +\frac{1}{2}\sum _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{\prime }}\int\!\!\! \int \psi

1293: _{\sigma }^{\dagger }\left( z\right) 

1294: \psi _{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\dagger }\left( z^{\prime }\right) U\left(

1295: z,z^{\prime }\right) 

1296: \psi _{\sigma ^{\prime }}\left( z^{\prime }\right) \psi _{\sigma

1297: }\left( z\right) 

1298: \textrm{d}z\textrm{d}z^{\prime },\label{hamcont1d} 

1299: \end{eqnarray}

1300: where

1301: \( \psi _{\sigma }^{\dagger }\left( z\right)  \) creates an electron with 

1302: spin \( \sigma  \) at coordinate \( z \) and 

1303: %

1304: \begin{equation}

1305: \label{uab}

1306: U(z_i,z_j)=\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon \epsilon _{0}d\left( z_{i},z_{j}\right) }

1307: \end{equation}

1308: with

1309: %

1310: \begin{equation}

1311: \label{averdist}

1312: \frac{1}{d\left( z_{i},z_{j}\right) }=\int \textrm{d}{\bf r}

1313: _{i}\textrm{d}

1314: {\bf r} _{j}\frac{\left| \Phi _{00}\left( {\bf r} _{i};z_{i}\right) 

1315: \right| ^{2}\left| \Phi _{00}\left( {\bf r} _{j};z_{j}\right) 

1316: \right| ^{2}}{\sqrt[]{\left( z_{i}-z_{j}\right) ^{2}+

1317: \left| {\bf r} _{i}-{\bf r} _{j}\right| ^{2}}}.

1318: \end{equation}

1319: %

1320: The Hamiltonian is further

1321: discretized at points  \( z_{j}=j\Delta  \), new creation operators

1322: are defined as

1323: 

1324: \begin{equation}

1325: c_{j\sigma }^{\dagger }=\sqrt{\Delta }\psi _{\sigma }^{\dagger }\left( z_{j}\right) .

1326: \end{equation}

1327: For sufficiently small 

1328: \( \Delta \) the difference formula is justified,

1329: 

1330: \begin{equation}

1331: \left[ \frac{\textrm{d}^{2}}{\textrm{d}z^{2}}\psi _{\sigma }\left(

1332: z\right) 

1333: \right] _{z=z_{i}}\approx \frac{\psi _{\sigma }\left( z_{i-1}\right) -

1334: 2\psi _{\sigma }\left( z_{i}\right) +\psi _{\sigma }\left( z_{i+1}\right) }

1335: {2\Delta ^{2}},

1336: \end{equation}

1337: and Eq.~(\ref{hamcont1d}) becomes the

1338: discretized extended Hubbard Hamiltonian,

1339: \begin{equation}

1340: \label{hamdis1d1}

1341: H=\sum _{\sigma }H_{1\sigma }+\frac{1}{2}\sum _{i\neq

1342: j}U_{ij}n_{i}n_{j}+

1343: \sum _{i}U_{ij}n_{i\uparrow }n_{j\downarrow },

1344: \end{equation}

1345: where  \( H_{1\sigma } \) is single-particle contribution for spin $\sigma$,

1346: \begin{equation}

1347: \label{ham1dis1d1}

1348: H_{1\sigma }=-t\sum _{i}\left( c_{i+1\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{i\sigma

1349: }+c_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }

1350: c_{i+1\sigma }\right) +\sum _{i}\epsilon _{i}n_{i\sigma ,}

1351: \end{equation}

1352: with \( n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }c_{i\sigma } \), 

1353: \( n_{i}=\sum _{\sigma }n_{i\sigma } \), 

1354: hoping parameter, 

1355: \begin{equation}

1356: \label{diskr_t}

1357: t=\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m^{\ast }\Delta ^{2}},

1358: \end{equation}

1359: and $\epsilon _{i}=2t+\epsilon 

1360: \left( z_{i}\right) $.

1361: The effective distance between electrons at $z_i$ and $z_j$ is after

1362: integrating Eq.~(\ref{uab}) over angular variables,

1363: %

1364: \begin{eqnarray}

1365: &&\frac{1}{d\left( z_{i},z_{j}\right) }=8\pi \int _{0}^{R}r_{i}

1366: \textrm{d}r_{i}\int _{0}^{R}r_{j}\textrm{d}r_{j}\left| \Phi _{00}

1367: \left( r_{i};z_{i}\right) \right| ^{2}\times \nonumber\\

1368: &&\quad\quad\times

1369: \left| \Phi \left( r_{j};z_{j}

1370: \right) \right| ^{2}\frac{\textrm{K}\left( -\frac{4r_{i}r_{j}}

1371: {\left( z_{i}-z_{j}\right) ^{2}+\left( r_{i}-r_{j}\right) ^{2}}\right)}

1372: {\sqrt[]{\left( z_{i}-z_{j}\right) ^{2}+\left( r_{i}-r_{j}\right) ^{2}}},

1373: \end{eqnarray}

1374: where $\rm K$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. \( d\left(

1375: z_{i},z_{j}\right)  \) can be decomposed into distance

1376: along the wire and effective distance in the lateral direction, \(

1377: \lambda \left( z_{i},z_{j}\right) a_{0} \), i.e. 

1378: 

1379: \begin{equation}

1380: \frac{1}{d\left( z_{i},z_{j}\right) }=\frac{1}{\sqrt[]{\left(

1381: z_{i}-z_{j}\right)^{2}+

1382: \left[ \lambda \left( z_{i},z_{j}\right) a_{0}\right] ^{2}}}.

1383: \end{equation}

1384: The distance \( \lambda \left( z_{i},z_{j}\right)  \) is invariant under

1385: the transformation Eq.~(\ref{invar}), and hence the potential,

1386: Eq.~(\ref{uab}), transforms as

1387: %

1388: \begin{equation}

1389: \label{invar_u}

1390: U\rightarrow \Lambda^{-1}U.

1391: \end{equation}

1392: For convenience we also take into account possible screening with

1393: screening length \( \kappa  \), i.e.

1394: %

1395: \begin{equation}

1396: U_{ij}\rightarrow U_{ij}e^{-\frac{\left| z_{i}-z_{j}\right| }{\kappa }}.

1397: \end{equation}

1398: Under the transformation Eq.~(\ref{invar_u}) the screening length should be 

1399: multiplied by \( \Lambda \). In Fig.~\ref{lambde} the

1400: parameter $\lambda$ is plotted for some typical cases, showing its dependence

1401: on wire width.

1402: 

1403: \begin{figure}[htb]

1404: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.7\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

1405: {\includegraphics{Fig19.eps}}} \par}

1406: 

1407:   

1408: \caption{\label{lambde}

1409: (a) Lateral distance vs. separation along the wire. (b)

1410: Electron - electron interaction as a function of longitudinal

1411: separation. In both cases is  \protect\( a_{0}=10\textrm{ nm}\protect

1412: \) and \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \) and $a=$const. (c)

1413: Lateral distance at fixed  \protect\( z\protect \) vs. wire diameter

1414: at  \protect\( V_{0}=0.4\textrm{ eV}\protect \).}

1415: \end{figure}

1416:    

1417: 

1418: 

1419: \section{Two-electron wave functions}

1420: 

1421: 

1422: Wave function for the case of two electrons

1423: are expressed in terms of a set of operators 

1424: \( c_{ij}^{\left( S,S_{z}\right) \dagger } \) creating an electron pair 

1425: at sites  \( i \) and \( j \) with spin 

1426: \( S \) and $z$-component \( S_{z} \), i.e.

1427: \begin{equation}

1428: \label{psi2el}

1429: \left| \psi \right\rangle =\sum _{ij}\psi _{ij}c_{ij}^{\left(

1430: S,S_{z}\right) 

1431: \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle .

1432: \end{equation}

1433: The base states

1434: \begin{subequations}

1435: 

1436: \begin{eqnarray}

1437: c_{ij}^{\left( 0,0\right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle  & = & 

1438: \frac{c_{i\uparrow }^{\dagger }c_{j\downarrow }^{\dagger

1439: }-c_{i\downarrow }^{\dagger }

1440: c_{j\uparrow }^{\dagger }}{\sqrt{2}}\left| 0\right\rangle ,\\

1441: c_{ij}^{\left( 1,1\right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle  & = 

1442: & c_{i\uparrow }^{\dagger }c_{j\uparrow }^{\dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle ,\\

1443: c_{ij}^{\left( 1,0\right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle  & = & 

1444: \frac{c_{i\uparrow }^{\dagger }c_{j\downarrow }^{\dagger }+

1445: c_{i\downarrow }^{\dagger }c_{j\uparrow }^{\dagger }}{\sqrt{2}}\left| 0\right\rangle ,\\

1446: c_{ij}^{\left( 1,-1\right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle  & = 

1447: & c_{i\downarrow }^{\dagger }c_{j\downarrow }^{\dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle .

1448: \end{eqnarray}

1449: \end{subequations}

1450: form a complete set.

1451: 

1452: If $\left| \psi \right\rangle$ is a solution of  Schr\"odinger equation

1453: \begin{equation}

1454: H\left| \psi \right\rangle =E\left| \psi \right\rangle ,

1455: \end{equation}

1456: then the coefficients \( \widetilde{\psi} _{ij} \) solve the system of 

1457: linear equations

1458: \begin{eqnarray}

1459: \label{sistem2el}

1460: &&t\left( \widetilde{\psi }_{i-1j}+\widetilde{\psi

1461: }_{i+1j}+\widetilde{\psi }_{ij-1}+

1462: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij+1}\right) 

1463: =\nonumber\\&&\quad\quad=\left( \epsilon _{i}+\epsilon

1464: _{j}+U_{ij}-E\right) 

1465: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij},

1466: \end{eqnarray}

1467: where we use compact notation

1468: \begin{equation}

1469: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \psi _{ij}+(-1)^{S}\psi _{ji}\right) .

1470: \end{equation}

1471: In the basis Eq.~(\ref{psi2el}) the number of electrons on site $i$ is

1472: \begin{equation}

1473: \label{density}

1474: \left\langle \psi \left| n_{i}\right| \psi \right\rangle =2\sum

1475: _{j}\left| 

1476: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij}\right| ^{2},

1477: \end{equation}

1478: the current for sites  \( i \) and \( i+1 \) is

1479: \begin{equation}

1480: \left\langle \psi \left| j^{i,i+1}\right| \psi \right\rangle =

1481: -\frac{4t\Delta }{\hbar }\textrm{Im}\sum _{j}\widetilde{\psi }_{ij}^{\ast }

1482: \widetilde{\psi }_{i+1j},

1483: \end{equation}

1484: the energy is

1485: \begin{eqnarray}

1486: &&\left\langle \psi \left| H\right| \psi \right\rangle =\nonumber\\

1487: &&\quad\quad-t\sum_{ij} \widetilde{\psi }_{ij}^{\ast }

1488: \left( \widetilde{\psi }_{i+1j}+\widetilde{\psi }_

1489: {i-1j}

1490: +

1491: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij+1}+\widetilde{\psi }_{ij-1}

1492: \right)+\nonumber\\

1493: &&\quad\quad+\sum _{ij}\left( \epsilon _{i}+\epsilon _{j}+

1494: U_{ij}\right) \left| \widetilde{\psi }_{ij}\right| ^{2},

1495: \end{eqnarray}

1496: and the norm of the wave function Eq.~(\ref{psi2el}) is given with

1497: \begin{equation}

1498: \left\langle \psi |\psi \right\rangle =\sum _{ij}\left| 

1499: \widetilde{\psi }_{ij}\right| ^{2}.

1500: \end{equation}

1501: 

1502: We consider quantum wires which are almost perfect but for which there

1503: is a very weak effective potential, giving rise to bound states.  

1504: The cross-sections of these wires are sufficiently small that

1505: the lowest transverse channel approximation is adequate for the energy

1506: range of interest. The smooth variation in

1507: cross-section also guarantees that inter-channel mixing is

1508: negligible. We study here only wires with one weak bulge around \( z=0

1509: \). There should exist single particle bound states of the system and  \(

1510: E_{1}^{\left( \alpha \right) } \) is the energy of the state \( \alpha

1511: \). The energy of two electron states is shifted and 

1512: defined to be zero, if one electron is

1513: bound and the other at the bottom of the single electron band, i.e.

1514: \begin{equation}

1515: \label{e2dogovor}

1516: E\rightarrow E-E_{1}^{\left( 1\right) }.

1517: \end{equation}

1518: With this definition, the energy of two bound electrons is  negative

1519: whereas it is positive when only one electron is bound.

1520: 

1521: \section{Hartree-Fock approximation}

1522: 

1523: Here we neglect the Coulomb interaction between electrons

1524: ($\gamma=0$). In the ground state both electrons are in 

1525: the same state \( \left| \varphi \right\rangle  \) and

1526: the singlet wavefunction is

1527: %

1528: \begin{equation}

1529: \left| \psi \right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum _{ij}

1530: \varphi _{i}\varphi _{j}c_{ij}^{\left( 0,0\right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle 

1531: .\label{HFwv}

1532: \end{equation}

1533: For finite $\gamma$ the best one-electron wavefunctions, \( \varphi _{i} \), are  

1534: determined by minimizing the energy,

1535: \begin{equation}

1536: \frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi ^{\ast }_{i}}\frac{\left\langle \psi 

1537: \left| H\right| \psi \right\rangle }{\left\langle \psi |\psi

1538: \right\rangle }=0.\label{HFmin}

1539: \end{equation}

1540: Which leads to the equation

1541: %

1542: \begin{equation}

1543: \label{varprinc}

1544: \frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi ^{\ast }_{i}}\left\langle 

1545: \psi \left| H\right| \psi \right\rangle -\left( E+E_{1}^{\left( 

1546: 1\right) }\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi ^{\ast }_{i}}

1547: \left\langle \psi |\psi \right\rangle =0,

1548: \end{equation}

1549: where we have set

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: \frac{\left\langle \psi 

1552: \left| H\right| \psi \right\rangle }{\left\langle \psi |\psi

1553: \right\rangle }=E+E^{(1)}_1,\label{php}

1554: \end{equation}

1555: taking into account the energy shift Eq.~(\ref{e2dogovor}).

1556: The expectation value of energy and the norm is 

1557: \begin{equation}

1558: \left\langle \psi \left| H\right| \psi \right\rangle =

1559: 2\left\langle \varphi \left| H_{1}\right| \varphi 

1560: \right\rangle \left\langle \varphi |\varphi \right

1561: \rangle +\sum _{ij}U_{ij}\left| \varphi _{i}\right| ^{2}\left| \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2},

1562: \end{equation}

1563: and

1564: \begin{equation}

1565: \left\langle \psi |\psi \right\rangle =\left\langle \varphi |\varphi \right\rangle ^{2}.

1566: \end{equation}

1567: From Eq.~(\ref{varprinc}) follows a system of equations for coefficients \( \varphi _{i} \)

1568: \begin{equation}

1569: \left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \varphi \right\rangle +\sum

1570: _{j}U_{ij}\left| 

1571: \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}\varphi _{i}=E_{\textrm{hf}}\varphi _{i},

1572: \end{equation}

1573: where

1574: $\left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \varphi \right\rangle=

1575: -t(\varphi_{i-1}+\varphi_{i+i})+\epsilon_i \varphi$ is a one-electron tight-binding

1576: Hamiltonian, $\sum _{j}U_{ij}\left| 

1577: \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}$ is a Hartree potential and 

1578: \begin{equation}

1579: E_{\textrm{hf}}=E+E_{1}^{\left( 1\right) }-\frac{\left\langle \varphi 

1580: \left| H_{1}\right| \varphi \right\rangle }{\left\langle \varphi |\varphi \right\rangle }

1581: \end{equation}

1582: is the so-called Hartree-Fock energy.

1583: The energy of a bound state is then given by

1584: \begin{equation}

1585: E=2E_{\textrm{hf}}-\sum _{ij}U_{ij}\left| \varphi _{i}\right|

1586: ^{2}\left| 

1587: \varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}-E_{1}^{\left( 1\right) },

1588: \end{equation}

1589: where, due to double-counting of the interactions in single electron energies,

1590: \( E_{\textrm{hf}} \) is subtracted.

1591: In Fig.~\ref{dens1} electron density for singlet states with different \protect\(

1592: \gamma \protect \) is presented for a shorter bulge with parameters as in Fig.~\ref{1_24}.

1593: 

1594: \begin{figure}[htb]

1595: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.4\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Fig20.eps}} \par}

1596: \caption{\label{dens1} Electron density for singlet states with different \protect\(

1597: \gamma \protect \). Full line corresponds to exact results and dashed line to 

1598: the Hartree-Fock

1599: approximation. Parameters as in Fig.~\ref{1_24}.}

1600: \end{figure}

1601: 

1602: In the case of triplet two-electron states, 

1603: the single electron states are different, \( \left|

1604: \varphi \right\rangle  \) and \( \left| \bar{\varphi }\right\rangle

1605: \). Choosing these to be orthogonal, we get

1606: 

1607: \begin{equation}

1608: \left| \psi \right\rangle =\sum _{ij}\varphi _{i}

1609: \bar{\varphi }_{j}c_{ij}^{\left( 1,1 \right) \dagger }\left| 0\right\rangle .

1610: \end{equation}

1611: The energy is now

1612: 

1613: \begin{eqnarray}

1614: \left\langle \psi \left| H\right| \psi \right\rangle &=&

1615: \left\langle \varphi \left| H_{1}\right| \varphi 

1616: \right\rangle \left\langle \bar{\varphi }|\bar{\varphi }\right\rangle

1617: \\ \nonumber

1618: &+&

1619: \left\langle \bar{\varphi }\left| H_{1}\right| \bar{\varphi

1620: }\right\rangle 

1621: \left\langle \varphi |\varphi \right\rangle 

1622: +\frac{1}{2}\sum

1623: _{ij}U_{ij}

1624: \left| \varphi _{i}\bar{\varphi }_{j}-\bar{\varphi }_{i}\varphi _{j}\right| ^{2},

1625: \end{eqnarray}

1626: and the norm is

1627: \begin{equation}

1628: \left\langle \psi |\psi \right\rangle =\left\langle \varphi 

1629: |\varphi \right\rangle \left\langle \bar{\varphi }|\bar{\varphi }\right\rangle ,

1630: \end{equation}

1631: The system of equations for the coefficients \( \varphi _{i} \) (and

1632: equivalent for \( \bar{\varphi }_{i} \)) is

1633: \begin{equation}

1634: \left\langle 0\left| c_{i}H_{1}\right| \varphi _{i}\right\rangle +

1635: \sum _{j}U_{ij}\left| \bar{\varphi }_{j}\right| ^{2}\varphi _{i}-

1636: \sum _{j}U_{ij}\bar{\varphi }_{j}^{\ast }\bar{\varphi }_{i}\varphi _{j}=

1637: E_{\textrm{hf}}\varphi _{i},\label{d13}

1638: \end{equation}

1639: where

1640: \begin{equation}

1641: E_{\textrm{hf}}=E+E_{1}^{\left( 1\right) }-\frac{\left\langle 

1642: \bar{\varphi }\left| H_{1}\right| \bar{\varphi }\right\rangle }

1643: {\left\langle \bar{\varphi }|\bar{\varphi }\right\rangle },

1644: \end{equation}

1645: Eq.~(\ref{d13})

1646: is a single-particle tight-binding Sch\" odinger equation with Hamiltonian

1647: 

1648: \begin{equation}

1649: \tilde{H}_{1}=-\sum _{i}\tilde{t}_{ij}\left( 

1650: c_{i}^{\dagger }c_{j}+c_{j}^{\dagger }c_{i}\right) +\sum _{i}\tilde{\epsilon }_

1651: {i}c_{i}^{\dagger }c_{i}

1652: \end{equation}

1653: with  potential

1654: \begin{equation}

1655: \tilde{\epsilon }_{i}=\epsilon _{i}+\sum _{j}U_{ij}\left| \bar{\varphi }_{j}\right| ^{2}

1656: \end{equation}

1657: and renormalized hoping parameters

1658: \begin{equation}

1659: \tilde{t}_{ij}=t\delta _{j,i\pm 1}+\sum _{j}U_{ij}\bar{\varphi }_{j}^{\ast }

1660: \bar{\varphi }_{i}.

1661: \end{equation}

1662: The energy of the triplet bound state is then

1663: \begin{equation}

1664: E=E_{\textrm{hf}}+\bar{E}_{\textrm{hf}}-\frac{1}{2}\sum

1665: _{ij}U_{ij}\left| 

1666: \varphi _{i}\bar{\varphi }_{j}-\bar{\varphi }_{i}\varphi _{j}\right| ^{2}-E_{1}^{

1667: \left( 1\right) }.

1668: \end{equation}

1669: 

1670: In Fig.~\ref{dens2} the electron density for singlet (a) and 

1671: for triplet (b) states are shown for different

1672: \protect\(\gamma \protect \). Other parameters are taken as in the case 

1673: of the longer bulge, Fig.~\ref{1_06}.  As discussed in the text relating to

1674: Fig.~\ref{1_06}, Hartree-Fock approximation for the singlet is less reliable since the

1675: Coulomb repulsion is stronger due to both electrons being in the same state. Indeed,

1676: for  $\gamma ~ \sim 0.7$ the Hartree-Fock approximation does not yield the bound state 

1677: found in the exact result.

1678: 

1679: 

1680: \begin{figure}[htb]

1681: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{0}

1682: {\includegraphics{Fig21.eps}}} \par}

1683: \caption{\label{dens2}

1684: Electron singlet (a) and triplet (b) state density for various \protect\( \gamma

1685: \protect \). Parameters are as in Fig.~\ref{1_06}. }

1686: \end{figure}

1687: 

1688: 

1689: \acknowledgments

1690: The authors wish to acknowledge N.J. Appleyard,  A.V. Khaetskii,  C.J. 

1691: Lambert, M. Pepper and K.J. Thomas for helpful discussions. This work was 

1692: supported by the EU and the MoD. 

1693:  

1694: \begin{references} 

1695: 

1696: % 1

1697: \bibitem{walther92} {M. Walther, E. Kapon, D.M. Hwang, E. Colas, and

1698: L. Nunes, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 6333 (1992); M. Grundmann {\em et

1699: al.}, Semicond. Sci. Tech. {\bf 9}, 1939 (1994); R. Rinaldi {\em et

1700: al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 2899 (1994).}

1701: 

1702: % 2

1703: \bibitem{ramvall97} {P. Ramvall {\em et al.}, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf

1704: 71}, 918 (1997).}

1705: 

1706: % 3

1707: \bibitem{yacoby96} {A. Yacoby {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77},

1708: 4612 (1996).}

1709: 

1710: % 4

1711: \bibitem{kristensen98} {A. Kristensen {\em et al.}, Contributed paper

1712: for ICPS24, Jerusalem, August 2-7, 1998.}

1713: 

1714: % 5

1715: \bibitem{wees88} {B.J. van Wees {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1716: 60}, 848 (1998).}

1717: 

1718: % 6

1719: \bibitem{wharam88} {D.A. Wharam {\em et al.}, J. Phys. C: Solid state

1720: Phys. {\bf 21}, L209 (1988).}

1721: 

1722: % 7

1723: \bibitem{houten92} {H. van Houten, C.W.J. Beenakker, and B.J. van

1724: Wees, in {\it Semiconductors and Semimetals}, Vol. {\bf 35}, edited by

1725: M.A. Reed (Academic Press, New York, 1992).}

1726: 

1727: % 8

1728: \bibitem{thomas96} {K.J. Thomas {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1729: 77}, 135 (1996); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 4846 (1998); Phys. Rev. B {\bf

1730: 59}, 12252 (1999).}

1731: 

1732: % 9

1733: \bibitem{liang} {C.-T. Liang {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 10687

1734: (1999).}

1735: 

1736: % 10

1737: \bibitem{pyshkin} {K.S. Pyshkin {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 15842

1738: (2000).}

1739: 

1740: % 11

1741: \bibitem{kaufman99} {D. Kaufman {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59},

1742: R10433 (1999).}

1743: 

1744: % 13

1745: \bibitem{nuttinck} {S. Nuttinck {\em et al.}, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 39},

1746: 655 (2000); K. Hashimoto {\em at al.}, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 40},

1747: 3000 (2001).}

1748: 

1749: % 14

1750: \bibitem{kristensen00} {A. Kristensen {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62},

1751: 10950 (2000).}

1752: 

1753: % 15

1754: \bibitem{liang00} {C.-T. Liang {\em et al.},  Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 9952

1755: (2000).}

1756: 

1757: % 12

1758: \bibitem{kondo2002} {C.M. Cronenwett {\em et al.},

1759: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 226805 (2002)}

1760: 

1761: % 16

1762: \bibitem{appleyard00} {N.J. Appleyard {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf

1763: 62}, R16275 (2000).}

1764: 

1765: % 17

1766: \bibitem{maslov95} {D.L. Maslov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, R14368,

1767: 1995}.

1768: 

1769: % 18

1770: \bibitem{wang98} {Chuan-Kui Wang and K.-F. Berggren, Phys. Rev. B {\bf

1771: 57}, 4552 (1998).}

1772: 

1773: % 19

1774: \bibitem{fasol94} {G. Fasol and H. Sakaki, Jpn. J. Appl.  Phys. {\bf

1775: 33}, 879 (1994).}

1776: 

1777: % 20

1778: \bibitem{rejec002d} {T. Rejec, A. Ram\v sak, and J.H. Jefferson,

1779: J. Phys., Condens. Matter {\bf 12}, L233 (2000).}

1780: 

1781: % 21

1782: \bibitem{rejec003d} {T. Rejec, A. Ram\v sak, and J.H. Jefferson,

1783: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 12985 (2000).}

1784: 

1785: % 22

1786: \bibitem{rejec02} {T. Rejec, A. Ram\v sak, and J.H. Jefferson,

1787: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 235301 (2002).}

1788: 

1789: % 23

1790: \bibitem{flambaum00} {V.V. Flambaum and M.Yu. Kuchiev, Phys. Rev. B

1791: {\bf 61}, R7869 (2000).}

1792: 

1793: % 24

1794: \bibitem{landau} {H. Bruus, V. Cheianov, and K. Flensberg, Physica E

1795: {\bf 10}, 97 (2001).}

1796: 

1797: % 25

1798: \bibitem{sushkov1} {O.P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 155319

1799: (2001)}

1800: 

1801: % 26

1802: \bibitem{tokura} {Y. Tokura and A. Khaetskii, Physica E {\bf 12}, 711 (2002).}

1803: 

1804: % 27

1805: \bibitem{meir2002} {Y. Meir, K. Hirose, and N.S. Wingreen, \\cond-mat/0207044.}

1806: 

1807: % 28

1808: \bibitem{meirav91} {U. Meirav {\em et al.}, Z. Phys. B {\bf 85}, 357

1809: (1991).}

1810: 

1811: % 29

1812: \bibitem{rejecand} {T. Rejec, A. Ram\v sak, and J.H. Jefferson, in

1813: {\it Kondo Effect and Dephasing in Low-Dimensional Metallic Systems},

1814: edited by V. Chandrasekhar, C. Van Haesendonck, and A. Zawadowski,

1815: NATO ARW, Ser. II, Vol. {\bf 50} (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001).}

1816: 

1817: % 30

1818: \bibitem{anderson61} {P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 124}, 41 (1961); 

1819: G.D. Mahan, {\it Many-Particle Physics}, Plenum

1820: Press, New York (1990).} 

1821: 

1822: % 31

1823: \bibitem{jauregui} {K. Jauregui, W. H\" ausler, and B. Kramer, Euriphys.

1824: Lett. {\bf 24} 581 (1993); D.L.J. Tipton, PhD Thesis, King's College London (2001).} 

1825: 

1826: % 32

1827: \bibitem{landauQM} {L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, {\it Quantum

1828: Mechanics} (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977).}

1829: 

1830: % 33

1831: \bibitem{oppenheimer28} {J.R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev. {\bf 32}, 361

1832: (1928); N.F. Mott, Proc. Roy. Soc. A {\bf 126}, 259 (1930).}

1833: 

1834: % 34

1835: \bibitem{abramovitz} {M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of

1836: mathematical functions, (Dover publications, Inc., New York).}

1837: 

1838: % 35

1839: \bibitem{landauer57} {R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. {\bf 1}, 223

1840: (1957); {\bf 32}, 306 (1988); M. B\"{u}ttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1841: 57}, 1761 (1986).}

1842: 

1843: % 36

1844: \bibitem{ramsak98} {A. Ram\v sak, T. Rejec, and J.H. Jefferson,

1845: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 4014 (1998).}

1846: 

1847: % 37

1848: \bibitem{patel91} {N.K. Patel {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44},

1849: 13549 (1991); K.J. Thomas {\em et al.}, Phil. Mag. B {\bf 77}, 1213

1850: (1998).}

1851: 

1852: % 38

1853: \bibitem{lieb62} {E. Lieb and D. Mattis, Phys. Rev. {\bf 125}, 164

1854: (1962).}

1855: 

1856: % 39

1857: \bibitem{anddot} {L.I. Glazman and M.E. Raikh, JETP Lett. {\bf 47},

1858: 452 (1988); T.K. Ng and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 61}, 1768 (1988).}

1859: 

1860: % 40

1861: \bibitem{jeff} {C.E. Creffield, J.H. Jefferson, Sarben Sarkar, and

1862: D.L.J. Tipton, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 7249 (2000).}

1863: 

1864: % 41

1865: \bibitem{hewsonbook} {see, e.g., A.C. Hewson, {\it The Kondo problem

1866: to heavy fermions}, (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 1997).}

1867: 

1868: % 42

1869: \bibitem{rejecram} {T. Rejec and A. Ram\v sak, unpublished.}

1870: 

1871: % 43

1872: \bibitem{boese01} {D. Boese and R. Fazio, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 56},

1873: 576 (2001).}

1874: 

1875: \end{references} 

1876:  

1877: \end{document}

1878: