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

2: %%%  Cohen (March 2003)

3: %%%  Figures:

4: %%%  Fig.1: pmp_fig_ae.eps

5: %%%  Fig.2: pmp_delta.eps;  pmp_levels.eps

6: %%%  Fig.3: pmp_bfield_en.eps

7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: 

9: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,floats]{revtex4}

10: \usepackage{epsfig}

11: \usepackage{bm}

12: 

13: %\documentclass[bm]{iopart}

14: %\usepackage{epsfig}

15: 

16: \begin{document}

17: 

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

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

20: \newcommand{\half}{\mbox{\small $\frac{1}{2}$}}

21: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}

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

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

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

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

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

27: \newcommand{\mbf}[1]{{\mathbf #1}}

28: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}

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

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

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

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

33: 

34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

35: 

36: \title{Classical and quantum pumping in closed systems}

37: 

38: \author{Doron Cohen}

39: 

40: %\address{

41: \affiliation{

42: Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel

43: }

44: 

45: \date{Aug 2002, long published version \cite{pmp}, follow up \cite{pmo}} 

46: 

47: %\pacs{03.65.-w}{Quantum mechanics}

48: %\pacs{03.65.Vf}{Geometric phases etc}

49: %\pacs{73.23.-b}{Mesoscopics/transport}

50: %\pacs{05.45.Mt}{Quantum chaos}

51: 

52: 

53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

54: 

55: \begin{abstract}

56: Pumping of charge ($Q$) in a closed ring geometry is not

57: quantized even in the strict adiabatic limit. The deviation form

58: exact quantization can be related to the Thouless conductance.

59: We use the Kubo formalism as a starting point for the calculation

60: of both the dissipative and the adiabatic contributions to $Q$.

61: As an application we bring examples for classical dissipative

62: pumping, classical adiabatic pumping, and in particular we

63: make an explicit calculation for quantum pumping in case of the

64: simplest pumping device, which is a 3~site lattice model.

65: We make a connection with the popular $S$ matrix formalism

66: which has been used to calculate pumping in open systems.

67: \end{abstract}

68: 

69: \maketitle

70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

71: 

72: Pumping of charge in mesoscopic \cite{marcus_rev}

73: and molecular size devices is regarded as a major

74: issue in the realization of future "quantum circuits"

75: or "quantum gates", possibly for the purpose of

76: "quantum computing".  Of particular interest is

77: the possibility to realize a pumping cycle that transfers

78: {\em exactly} one unit of charge per cycle

79: \cite{thouless,avronI,aleiner,barriers}.

80: In open systems this "quantization" holds only

81: approximately. But it has been argued \cite{aleiner}

82: that the deviation from quantization is due to

83: "dissipative" effect, and that exact quantization

84: would hold in the strict adiabatic limit, if the

85: system were {\em closed}.

86: %

87: In this Letter we would like to show that the

88: correct picture is quite different.

89: In particular we would like to make

90: a proper distinction between "dissipative" and

91: "adiabatic" contributions to the pumping, and

92: to calculate the deviation from exact quantization

93: in the latter case. As a starting point we adopt

94: the traditional Kubo formula \cite{landau},

95: but we also point out the relation

96: to the "adiabatic" \cite{berry,robbins}

97: and to the "$S$-matrix" \cite{BPT} formulations.

98: %

99: The present formulation of the pumping problem

100: has few advantages: It is not restricted  to the

101: adiabatic regime; It give a "level by level"

102: understanding of the pumping process;

103: It allows the consideration of any type of

104: occupation (not necessarily Fermi occupation);

105: It allows future incorporation of external

106: environmental influences such as that of noise;

107: It regards the "voltage" over the pump

108: as "electro motive force", rather than adopting

109: the conceptually complicated view \cite{ora}

110: of having a "chemical potential difference".

111: %

112: Finally, on the practical level, we give

113: a solution for the pumping

114: in a 3~site lattice model.

115: This is definitely the simplest pump circuit

116: possible, and we believe that it can be realized

117: as a molecular size device.

118: It also can be regarded as an approximation

119: for the closed geometry version of the

120: two delta potential pump \cite{barriers}.

121: 

122: 

123: The structure of this Letter is as follows:

124: We show how to get from the Kubo formalism

125: an expression for the pumped charge $Q$,

126: and explain the distinction between

127: "dissipative" and the "adiabatic" contributions.

128: Then we give illuminating examples

129: for classical dissipative pumping

130: and for classical adiabatic pumping.

131: Next we discuss the case of

132: quantum pumping, where the cycle is around

133: a chain of degeneracies. We show that

134: this can be understood as a special

135: case of "adiabatic transfer" scheme.

136: In order to get a quantitative estimate

137: for the pumped charge we consider

138: a 3~site lattice model. We get expressions

139: for $Q$, and express them in terms of the Thouless

140: conductance. We conclude by a short discussion

141: of the relation between the Kubo formalism,

142: the adiabatic formalism, and the $S$-matrix

143: formalism.

144: 

145: 

146: 

147: %%%%%%%%%%

148: %%%%%%%%%%

149: %%%%%%%%%%

150: %%%%%%%%%%

151: 

152: 

153: 

154: 

155: Consider a system that has a ring geometry (Fig.1a).

156: The Hamiltonian is ${\cal H}(x_1(t),x_2(t),x_3(t))$,

157: where $x_1$ and $x_2$ are parameters that control

158: the shape of the ring, or the height of some barriers,

159: while $x_3{=}\Phi{=}\hbar \phi$ is the magnetic flux.

160: We use units such that the elementary charge is unity.

161: The "generalized forces" are conventionally defined as

162: $F^k \equiv -{\partial {\cal H}}/{\partial x_k}$.

163: In particular $\langle F^{3} \rangle$ is the current $I$ through

164: the ring (see remark \cite{rmrk}).

165: Consider for a moment the time independent Hamiltonian

166: ${\cal H}(x)$, with $x=\mbox{const}$,

167: and assume that the system is prepared in a

168: {\em stationary} state (either pure or mixed).

169: The expectation value $\langle F^k \rangle$

170: of a generalized force is known as the

171: "conservative force" or (in case of $k{=}3$)

172: as the "persistent current". The "fluctuations" of the

173: generalized forces are conventionally characterized

174: by the real functions:

175: %

176: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e1}

177: C^{ij}(\tau) &=& \langle \half (F^i(\tau)F^j(0)+F^j(0)F^i(\tau)) \rangle  \\

178: K^{ij}(\tau) &=& \frac{i}{\hbar} \langle [F^i(\tau),F^j(0)]\rangle

179: \end{eqnarray}

180: %

181: Note that both functions have a well defined classical limit.

182: Their Fourier transform will be denoted by $\tilde{C}^{ij}(\omega)$

183: and $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$ respectively.

184: 

185: 

186: 

187: 

188: 

189: Our interest in the following is in a {\em driving~cycle},

190: where $x=x(t)$ forms a loop in the 3~dimensional parameter space.

191: %

192: In linear response theory \cite{landau}

193: the non-conservative contribution to $\langle F^{k} \rangle$

194: is related to $x(t)$ by a causal

195: response kernel \mbox{$\alpha^{ij}(t-t')$}.

196: The Kubo expression for this response kernel is

197: $\alpha^{ij}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau) \ K^{ij}(\tau)$.

198: Its Fourier transform is the generalized

199: susceptibility $\chi^{ij}(\omega)$.

200: From here we can derive the expression

201: $\langle F^k \rangle =

202: -\sum_{j} \mbf{G}^{kj} \ \dot{x}_j$,

203: where $\mbf{G}^{kj}$ is the generalized

204: conductance matrix:

205: %

206: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e3}

207: \mbf{G}^{ij} \ = \ \lim_{\omega\rightarrow 0}

208: \frac{\im[\chi^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega} \ = \

209: \int_0^{\infty} K^{ij}(\tau)\tau d\tau

210: \end{eqnarray}

211: %

212: Following Berry and Robbins \cite{robbins} we split

213: the conductance matrix

214: into symmetric and anti-symmetric parts.

215: Namely $\mbf{G}^{ij} = \bm{\eta}^{ij} + \mbf{B}^{ij}$.

216: The antisymmetric part $\mbf{B}$ can be regarded as a vector

217: $\vec{\mbf{B}}=(\mbf{B}^{23},\mbf{B}^{31},\mbf{B}^{12})$,

218: and the expression for the current can be written

219: in an abstract way as

220: $\langle F \rangle = -\bm{\eta} \cdot \dot{x} - \mbf{B}\wedge \dot{x}$.

221: 

222: 

223: 

224: 

225: 

226: 

227: The rate of dissipation, which is defined as the rate

228: in which energy is absorbed into the system, is given by

229: $\dot{{\cal W}} = -\langle F \rangle \cdot \dot{x} =

230: \sum_{kj} \bm{\eta}^{ij} \dot{x}_i\dot{x}_j$.

231: Only the symmetric part of $\mbf{G}^{ij}$

232: is responsible for dissipation of energy.

233: %

234: %

235: The adiabatic regime is defined by the condition

236: $|\dot{x}|  \ll  {\Delta^2}/{\hbar\sigma}$,

237: where $\Delta$ is the typical level spacing,

238: and $\sigma$ is the root mean square value of

239: the matrix element $(\partial{\cal H}/\partial x)_{nm}$

240: between neighboring levels.

241: %

242: %

243: In the adiabatic regime $\bm{\eta}^{ij}$ vanishes because

244: of the discreteness of the energy spectrum \cite{robbins}.

245: But outside of the adiabatic regime the levels

246: acquires an effective width

247: \mbox{$\Gamma/\Delta=(({\hbar\sigma}/{\Delta^2})V)^{2/3}>1$}

248: and therefore the smoothed version of $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$

249: should be considered. Consequently one can obtain

250: the fluctuation-dissipation (FD) relation:

251: $\bm{\eta}^{ij} \sim \tilde{C}^{ij}(\omega=0)$.

252: %

253: The formulation of the exact FD relation

254: depends on the assumptions regarding the

255: occupation $f(E_n)$ of the energy levels. See \cite{frc,wlf}.

256: Commonly one assumes a zero temperature Fermi

257: occupation, but this is not essential for the following analysis.

258: %

259: In order to derive the above expression for $\Gamma$

260: we have used the result of \cite{frc} (Sec.17) for the "core width"

261: at the breaktime $t=t_{\tbox{prt}}$ of perturbation theory.

262: Note that in the semiclassical limit (small $\hbar$) the

263: adiabaticity condition always breaks down.

264: 

265: 

266: 

267: The antisymmetric part $\mbf{B}$ of $\mbf{G}^{ij}$

268: does not have to vanish in the adiabatic limit. It can be

269: obtained from the adiabatic equation by looking

270: for a first-order stationary-like solution

271: \cite{thouless,avronI,robbins}, but we prefer to regard it

272: as a term in the (full) Kubo expression Eq.(\ref{e3}).

273: In \cite{berry,robbins} it has been demonstrated that it can be written as

274: %

275: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

276: \mbf{B}^{ij} &=& -2\hbar\sum_n f(E_n) \

277: \im\left.\left\langle\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} n(x) \right|

278: \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} n(x) \right\rangle

279: \\ \label{e4}

280: &=&

281: 2\hbar \sum_{m \ne n} f(E_n)

282: \frac{\im\left[

283: \left(\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial x_i}\right)_{nm}

284: \left(\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial x_j}\right)_{mn}\right]}

285: {(E_m-E_n)^2}

286: \end{eqnarray}

287: %

288: Note that the "vertical" component of $\vec{\mbf{B}}$ vanishes

289: in the "horizontal" $x_3{=}0$ plane due to time reversal symmetry.

290: 

291: 

292: 

293: 

294: Disregarding a possible  persistent current contribution

295: (that does not exist in the case of a planar $\Phi{=}0$~cycle),

296: the expression for the pumped charge is:

297: %

298: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e6}

299: Q \ = \ \oint  I  dt \ = \

300: -\left[ \oint \bm{\eta} \cdot dx + \oint \mbf{B} \wedge dx \right]_{k=3}

301: \end{eqnarray}

302: %

303: If we neglect the first term, which is associated

304: with the dissipation effect, and average the second

305: ("adiabatic") term over the flux, then we get

306: %

307: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e7}

308: \overline{Q|_{\tbox{adiabatic}}} \ = \

309: -\frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\intt \mbf{B} \cdot \vec{dx} \wedge \vec{dx}

310: \ = \ \mbox{integer}

311: \end{eqnarray}

312: %

313: The integration should be taken over

314: a cylinder of vertical height $2\pi\hbar$,

315: and whose basis is determined by the projection of

316: the pumping cycle onto the $(x_1,x_2)$ plane.

317: %

318: The last equality is argued as follows:

319: The flux \mbox{$(1/\hbar)\intt \mbf{B}  \cdot  {dx}  \wedge  {dx}$}

320: through a surface that is enclosed by a cycle is the Berry phase \cite{berry}.

321: The result should be independent of the surface.

322: Therefore the flux through a {\em closed} surface

323: should equal $2\pi\times$integer.

324: Integrating over a cylinder, as in Eq.(\ref{e7}),

325: is effectively like integrating over a closed surface

326: (because of the $2\pi$~periodicity in the vertical

327: direction). This means that the flux averaged $Q$

328: of Eq.(\ref{e7}) has to be an integer.

329: 

330: 

331: %%%%%%%

332: %%%%%%%

333: 

334: 

335: 

336: 

337: Before we discuss the quantum mechanical pumping,

338: it is instructive to bring two simple examples for

339: {\em classical} pumping. In the following we consider

340: one particle  ($\mbf{r}$)

341: in a two dimensional ring as in Fig.1a.

342: 

343: 

344: 

345: The first example is for classical {\em dissipative} pumping.

346: The conductance $G=\mbf{G}^{33}$

347: can be calculated for this system \cite{wlf}

348: leading to a mesoscopic variation of the Drude formula.

349: The current is $I=-G\times\dot{\Phi}$, where $-\dot{\Phi}$

350: is the electro-motive-force.

351: %

352: Consider now the following pumping cycle:

353: Change the flux from $\Phi_1$ to $\Phi_2$,

354: hence pumping charge $Q = -G(1)\times (\Phi_2-\Phi_1)$.

355: Change the conductance from $G(1)$ to $G(2)$

356: by modifying the shape of the ring.

357: Change the flux from $\Phi_2$ back to $\Phi_1$,

358: hence pumping charge $Q(2) = -G(2) \times (\Phi_1-\Phi_2)$.

359: Consequently the net pumping

360: is $Q = (G(2)-G(1))\times(\Phi_2-\Phi_1)$.

361: 

362: 

363: 

364: 

365: The second example is for classical {\em adiabatic} pumping.

366: The idea is to trap the particle

367: inside the ring by a potential well

368: $U_{\tbox{trap}}(\mbf{r}_1{-}x_1(t),\mbf{r}_2{-}x_2(t))$.

369: Then make a translation of the trap along

370: a circle of radius $R$, namely

371: $x(t) = (R\cos(\Omega t),R\sin(\Omega t),\Phi{=}\const)$.

372: It is a-priori clear that in this

373: example the pumped charge per cycle is $Q=1$, irrespective

374: of $\Phi$. Therefore the $\vec{\mbf{B}}$ field must be

375: %

376: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e8}

377: \vec{\mbf{B}} = -\frac{(x_1,x_2,0)}{2\pi (x_1^2+x_2^2)}

378: \end{eqnarray}

379: %

380: This can be verified by calculation via Eq.(\ref{e4}).

381: The singularity along the $x_3$ axis

382: is not of quantum mechanical origin:

383: It is not due to degeneracies, but rather

384: due to the diverging current operator

385: ($\partial {\cal H}/\partial x_3\propto 1/\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2}$).

386: 

387: 

388: 

389: 

390: %%%%%%%%%%

391: %%%%%%%%%%

392: 

393: 

394: 

395: 

396: We turn now to the quantum mechanical case.

397: Consider an adiabatic cycle that

398: involves a particular energy level $n$.

399: This level is assumed to have a degeneracy

400: point at $(x_1^{(0)},x_2^{(0)},\Phi^{(0)})$.

401: It follows that in fact there is

402: a vertical "chain" of degeneracy points

403: that are located at

404: \mbox{$(x_1^{(0)},x_2^{(0)},\Phi^{(0)}+2\pi\hbar\times\mbox{\small integer})$}.

405: These degeneracy points are important for the geometrical

406: understanding of the $\mbf{B}$ field, as implied by Eq.(\ref{e4}).

407: Every degeneracy point is like a monopole charge.

408: The total flux that emerges from each monopole

409: must be  $2\pi\hbar\times$integer for a reason that was

410: explained after Eq.(\ref{e7}).

411: Thus the monopoles are quantized in units of~$\hbar/2$.

412: 

413: 

414: The $\mbf{B}$ field which is created (so to say)

415: by a vertical chain of monopoles may have a different ``near field"

416: and ``far field" behavior, which we discuss below.

417: (Later we further explain that "near field"  means regions in $x$ space,

418: in the vicinity of degeneracy points, where $g_T \gg 1$,

419: while "far field" means regions where $g_T \ll 1$).

420: The far field regions exist if the chains are well isolated.

421: The far field region of a given chain is obtained by regarding the

422: chain as a smooth line.

423: This leads {\em qualitatively} to the same field as in Eq.(\ref{e8}).

424: Consequently, for a "large radius" pumping cycle

425: in the $\Phi=0$ plane, we get $|Q|\approx1$.

426: In the following we are interested in

427: the deviation from "exact" quantization:

428: If $\phi^{(0)}=0$ we expect to have

429: $|Q| \ge 1$, while if $\phi^{(0)}=\pi$ we expect $|Q|\le 1$.

430: Only for the $\phi$ averaged $Q$ of Eq.(\ref{e7})

431: we get {\em exact quantization}.

432: 

433: 

434: 

435: The deviation from $|Q|\approx 1$ is extremely large

436: if we consider a tight pumping cycle around

437: a $\phi^{(0)}=0$ degeneracy.

438: After linear transformation of the shape parameters,

439: the energy splitting $\Delta=E_n-E_m$ of the energy level~$n$

440: from its neighboring (nearly degenerated) level~$m$

441: can be written as

442: %

443: $\Delta=

444: ((x_1{-}x_1^{(0)})^2+(x_2{-}x_2^{(0)})^2+

445: c^2(\phi{-}\phi^{(0)})^2)^{1/2}$

446: %

447: where $c$ is a constant. The monopole field is accordingly

448: %

449: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e9}

450: \vec{\mbf{B}} = \pm\frac{c}{2} \

451: \frac{( x_1{-}x_1^{(0)},  x_2{-}x_2^{(0)},   x_3{-}x_3^{(0)}) }

452: {((x_1{-}x_1^{(0)})^2+(x_2{-}x_2^{(0)})^2+

453: (\frac{c}{\hbar})^2(x_3{-}x_3^{(0)})^2)^{3/2}}

454: \end{eqnarray}

455: %

456: where the prefactor is determined by the requirement

457: of having a single ($\hbar/2$) monopole charge.

458: Assuming a pumping cycle of radius $R$ in the $\Phi=0$ plane

459: we get from the second term of Eq.(\ref{e6}) that

460: the pumped charge is $Q = \mp \pi \sqrt{g_T}$,

461: where $g_T=({\partial^2\Delta}/{\partial\phi^2})/\Delta={c^2}/{R^2}$

462: is a practical definition for the Thouless conductance

463: in this context. It is used here simply as a measure

464: for the sensitivity of an energy level to the magnetic flux $\Phi$.

465: 

466: 

467: What we want to do in the following is to "interpolate"

468: between the "near field" result, which is  $Q={\cal O}(\sqrt{g_T})$,

469: and the "far field"  result, which is $Q={\cal O}(1)$.

470: For this purpose it is convenient to consider

471: a particular model that can be solved exactly.

472: %

473: %

474: We consider a ring with two barriers.

475: The model is illustrated in Fig.2.

476: A version of this model, where the two barriers

477: are modeled as "delta functions", has been analyzed

478: in \cite{barriers} in case of {\em open} geometry.

479: Below we are going to analyze a different version

480: of the two barrier model, that allows an exact

481: solution for {\em closed} geometry.

482: 

483: 

484: 

485: We can classify the eigenstates of the {\em closed} ring

486: into two categories: wire states, and dot states (Fig.2a).

487: The latter are those states that are localized in the

488: "dot region" in the limit of infinitely

489: high barriers. In case of zero temperature Fermi

490: occupation we define $E_F$ as the energy of the last

491: occupied wire level in the limit of infinitely high barriers.

492: %

493: %

494: The two  "shape" parameters are the the bias $x_1$,

495: and the dot potential $x_2$.

496: The bias determines whether the dot tends

497: to exchange particles via the {\em left}

498: or via the {\em right} barrier.

499: The dot potential is loosely defined

500: as the energy of the dot level (Fig.2a).

501: A model specific definition of these

502: parameters in the context of the

503: 3-site lattice Hamiltonian will be given later.

504: 

505: 

506: 

507: 

508: {\em The pumping cycle is assumed to be in the

509: $\Phi=0$ plane, so there is no issue

510: of "conservative" persistent current contribution}.

511: We start with a positive bias ($x_1>0$)

512: and lower the dot potential from a large $x_2>E_F$

513: value to a small $x_2<E_F$ value.

514: As a result, one electron is

515: transfered via the {\em left} barrier into the

516: dot region. Then we invert the bias

517: ($x_1<0$) and raise back $x_2$. As a result

518: the electron is transfered back into

519: the wire via the {\em right} barrier.

520: %

521: %

522: %

523: A closer look at the above scenario (Fig.2b)

524: reveals the following:

525: As we lower the dot potential across a wire

526: level, an electron is adiabatically transfered

527: once from left to right and then from right

528: to left. As long as the bias is

529: positive ($x_1>0$) the net charge being pumped

530: is very small ($|Q| \ll 1$). Only the lowest wire

531: level that participate in the pumping cycle

532: carries $Q={\cal O}(1)$ net charge:

533: It takes an electron from the left side,

534: and after the bias reversal it emits it

535: into the right side.

536: %

537: %

538: %

539: Thus the pumping process in this model can be regarded

540: as a particular example \cite{avronI} of an {\em adiabatic transfer scheme}:

541: The electrons are adiabatically transfered from

542: state to state, one by one, as in "musical chair game".

543: 

544: 

545: 

546: For a single occupied level the net $Q$ is the

547: sum of charge transfer events that take place in

548: few avoided crossings. For many particle occupation

549: the total $Q$ is the sum over the net $Q$s

550: which are carried by individual levels.

551: For a dense zero temperature Fermi occupation

552: the summation over all the net $Q$s is a telescopic sum,

553: leaving non-canceling contributions only from the

554: first and the last adiabatic crossings. The latter

555: involve the last occupied level at the Fermi energy.

556: 

557: 

558: 

559: In order to get a quantitative estimate

560: for the $Q$ in a given avoided crossing,

561: we consider the simplest version

562: of the "two barrier model" that still

563: contains all the essential ingredients:

564: This is a three site lattice system.

565: %

566: The middle site supports a single "dot state",

567: while the two other sites support

568: two "wire states". The Hamiltonian is

569: %

570: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e10}

571: {\cal H} \mapsto \left(

572: \matrix{

573: 0 & c_1 & \eexp{i\phi} \cr

574: c_1 & u & c_2 \cr

575: \eexp{-i\phi} & c_2 & 0} \right)

576: \end{eqnarray}

577: %

578: The three parameters are

579: the bias $x_1=c_1-c_2$,

580: the dot potential $x_2=u$,

581: and the flux $x_3 = \Phi = \hbar\phi$.

582: For presentation purpose we assume

583: that \mbox{$0 < c_1,c_2 \ll 1$}.

584: %

585: %

586: %

587: The eigenstates are $E_n$.

588: Disregarding the coupling between

589: the "wires" and the "dot" we have

590: two wire states with $E = \pm 1$,

591: and a dot state with $E = u$.

592: Taking into account the wire-dot

593: coupling we find that

594: there are two vertical chains

595: of degeneracies. The $u\approx-1$ chain is

596: \mbox{$(0,-1{+}c_1^2,2\pi\hbar\times\mbox{\small integer})$}

597: and the $u\approx1$ chain is

598: \mbox{$(0,+1{+}c_1^2,\pi+2\pi\hbar\times\mbox{\small integer})$}.

599: 

600: 

601: 

602: 

603: The eigenvalues $E_n$ are the solutions

604: of a cubic equation. Rather than

605: writing the (lengthy) analytical expressions

606: for them we give a numerical example for

607: their dependence on $u$ in the inset of Fig.3.

608: The eigenstates are

609: %

610: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e11}

611: |n(x)\rangle \mapsto

612: \frac{1}{\sqrt{S}}

613: \left(

614: \matrix{

615: c_2 \eexp{i\phi} + c_1 E_n \cr

616: 1 - E_n^2 \cr

617: c_1\eexp{-i\phi} + c_2 E_n} \right)

618: \end{eqnarray}

619: %

620: where $S$ is the normalization.

621: Note that for $E=\pm 1$ we have

622: $S=2(c_1 \pm c_2)^2$, while

623: for $E=0$ we have $S\approx 1$.

624: %

625: %

626: %

627: After some algebra we find that

628: the first component of the

629: $\vec{\mbf{B}}$ field in the

630: $\Phi=0$ plane is

631: %

632: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

633: {\mbf{B}}^1 =

634: -2\im\left.\left\langle\frac{\partial}{\partial u} n(x) \right|

635: \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} n(x) \right\rangle =

636: -(c_1^2-c_2^2)

637: \frac{1}{S^2}

638: \frac{\partial S}{\partial u}

639: \end{eqnarray}

640: %

641: Which is illustrated in Fig.3.

642: For a pumping cycle around

643: the \mbox{$u\approx \mp 1$} vertical "chain"

644: the main contribution to $Q$ comes from

645: crossing the $u\approx \mp 1$ line.

646: Hence we get

647: %

648: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e13}

649: Q = \pm \frac{c_1 \pm c_2}{c_1 \mp c_2} =

650: \pm\sqrt{1 \pm 2g_T}

651: \end{eqnarray}

652: %

653: where the Thouless conductance in this context

654: is defined as

655: $g_T = {2c_1c_2}/{(c_1 \mp c_2)^2}$.

656: In both cases we have approximate quantization

657: $Q=\pm 1 + {\cal O}(g_T)$ for $g_T \ll 1$,

658: while for a tight cycle either $Q \rightarrow \infty$

659: or $Q \rightarrow 0$ depending on which

660: line of degeneracies is being encircled.

661: If the pumping cycle encircles both "chains" then

662: we get $Q = {4c_1c_2}/{(c_1^2-c_2^2)}$.

663: In the latter case $Q={\cal O}(g_T)$ for $g_T \ll 1$,

664: with no indication for quantization.

665: 

666: 

667: 

668: %%%%%%%%%%%

669: 

670: 

671: For a pumping in a dot-wire system (see illustration in Fig.1b), 

672: in the limit of a very long wire (many sites) we express the Kubo 

673: formula for the conductance matrix using the $S$ matrix 

674: of the dot region. The derivation assumes ``quantum chaos", 

675: and leads to 

676: %

677: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e14}

678: \mbf{G}^{3j} = \frac{1}{2\pi i}

679: \trc\left(P\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_j}

680: S^{\dag}\right)

681: \end{eqnarray}

682: %

683: This is easily identified as the B\"{u}ttiker-Pr\'{e}tre-Thomas formula~\cite{BPT},

684: which has been derived for quantum pumping in open systems (Fig.1e).

685: In particular we get 

686: \mbox{$G^{33}=(1/(2\pi\hbar))\trc(PS(1{-}P)S^{\dag})$},

687: which is just the Landauer formula \cite{datta,fisher,stone}.

688: 

689: 

690: 

691: In summary we have shown how the Kubo formalism can

692: be used in order to derive both classical and quantum

693: mechanical results for the pumped charge $Q$ in

694: a closed system. In this formulation the distinction

695: between dissipative and non-dissipative contributions is manifest.

696: %

697: The dissipative contribution to the pumping

698: can be neglected in the adiabatic regime.

699: However, if the adiabaticity condition is violated

700: it does not mean automatically that we have

701: a dissipative effect. Classical pumping by translation

702: is an obvious example.

703: %

704: For the derivation of the

705: dissipative part of the Kubo formula it is essential

706: to realize that in generic circumstances

707: (unlike the case of translations)

708: the adiabatic equation does not possess

709: a stationary solution.

710: 

711: 

712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

713: 

714: {\bf Acknowledgments:}

715: I thank Y. Avishai (Ben-Gurion University), Y. Avron (Technion)

716: and S. Fishman (Technion) for useful discussions.

717: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02).

718: 

719: 

720: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

722: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

723: 

724: \bibitem{pmp}

725: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 155303 (2003).

726: 

727: \bibitem{pmo}

728: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 201303(R) (2003).

729: 

730: \bibitem{marcus_rev}

731: L.P. Kouwenhoven et al,

732: Proc. of Advanced Study Inst. on Mesoscopic

733: Electron Transport, edited by L.L. Sohn,

734: L.P. Kouwenhoven and G. Schon (Kluwer 1997).

735: 

736: \bibitem{thouless}

737: D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. {\bf B27}, 6083 (1983).

738: 

739: \bibitem{avronI}

740: J. E. Avron and L. Sadun,

741: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 3082 (1989);

742: \ Ann. Phys. {\bf 206}, 440 (1991).

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

744: 

745: \bibitem{aleiner}

746: T. A. Shutenko, I. L. Aleiner and B. L. Altshuler,

747: Phys. Rev. {\bf B61}, 10366 (2000).

748: 

749: \bibitem{barriers}

750: Y. Levinson et al, cond-mat/0010494. \\

751: M. Blaauboer and E.J. Heller, cond-mat/0110366.

752: 

753: \bibitem{landau}

754: L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz,

755: {\em Statistical physics}, (Buttrworth Heinemann 2000).

756: 

757: \bibitem{berry}

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

759: 

760: \bibitem{robbins}

761: M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins,

762: Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 442}, 659 (1993).

763: 

764: \bibitem{BPT}

765: M. B\"{u}ttiker et al, Z. Phys. {\bf B94}, 133 (1994). \\

766: P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. {\bf B58}, R10135 (1998). \\

767: J. E. Avron et al, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, R10 618 (2000).

768: 

769: \bibitem{ora}

770: O. Entin-Wohlman et al, cond-mat/0201073.

771: 

772: \bibitem{frc}

773: D. Cohen, Annals of Physics 283, 175 (2000).

774: 

775: \bibitem{wlf}

776: A. Barnett et al, J. Phys. A {\bf 34}, 413 (2001).

777: 

778: 

779: \bibitem{datta}

780: S. Datta, {\em Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Sytems}

781: (Cambridge University Press 1995).

782: 

783: \bibitem{fisher}

784: D.S. Fisher and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 23}, 6851 (1981).

785: 

786: \bibitem{stone}

787: H.U. Baranger and A.D. Stone,

788: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 8169 (1989).

789: 

790: \bibitem{rmrk}

791: There is some freedom in the

792: definition of the current operator.

793: For example one may define the current

794: through a given section. However,

795: the pumped charge of Eq.(\ref{e6}) comes

796: out the same due to the continuity equation.

797: 

798: \end{thebibliography}

799: 

800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

802: 

803: 

804: \clearpage

805: \onecolumngrid

806: 

807: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

808: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

809: %begin{figure}

810: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=pmp_fig_ae,width=0.55\hsize}}

811: %caption{

812: {\footnotesize FIG1.

813: Illustration of a ring system (a).

814: The shape of the ring is controlled

815: by some parameters $x_1$ and $x_2$.

816: The flux through the ring is $x_3=\Phi$.

817: A system with equivalent topology,

818: and abstraction of the model are

819: presented in (b) and (c).

820: The "dot" can be represented by an $S$ matrix

821: that depends on $x_1$ and $x_2$. In (d) also the

822: flux $x_3$ is regarded as a parameter of the dot.

823: If we "cut" the wire in (d) we get the open

824: two lead geometry of (e).}

825: %end{figure}

826: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

828: 

829: \ \\ \ \\ \ \\

830: 

831: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

833: %begin{figure}[h]

834: \centerline{

835: \epsfig{figure=pmp_delta,height=0.2\hsize}

836: \epsfig{figure=pmp_levels,height=0.2\hsize}

837: }

838: %caption{

839: {\footnotesize FIG2.

840: Schematic illustration of quantum pumping

841: in a closed wire-dot system. The net charge via the third

842: level (thick solid line on the right) is vanishingly

843: small: As the dot potential is lowered an electron

844: is taken from the left side (first avoided crossing),

845: and then emitted back to the left side

846: (second avoided crossing).

847: Assuming that the bias is inverted before the

848: dot potential is raised back, only the second level

849: carry a net charge $Q={\cal O}(1)$.}

850: %end{figure}

851: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

853: 

854: 

855: \ \\ \ \\  

856: 

857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

858: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

859: %begin{figure}[h]

860: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=pmp_bfield_en,width=0.5\hsize}}

861: \

862: %caption{

863: {\footnotesize FIG3.

864: The first component of the $\mbf{B}$ field

865: for a particle in the middle level of

866: the 3~site lattice model. It is plotted

867: as a function of the dot potential $x_2=u$.

868: The other parameters are $\phi=0$, and $c_1=0.1$,

869: while $c_2=0.04$ for the thick line and

870: $c_2=0.02$ for the thin line.

871: In the limit $c_2 \rightarrow 0$,

872: all the charge that is transfered from the

873: left side into the dot during the first avoided crossing,

874: is emitted back into the left side during the second

875: avoided crossing.

876: Inset: The eigenenergies $E_n(x)$ for

877: the $c_2=0.04$ calculation.}

878: %end{figure}

879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

881: 

882: 

883: 

884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

886: \end{document}

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: 

891: 

892: 

893: 

894: 

895: 

896: 

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: