1: %% LyX 1.2 created this file. For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
3: \documentclass[twoside,twocolumn,english,aps,prl,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
5: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7:
8: \makeatletter
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.
11: \providecommand{\LyX}{L\kern-.1667em\lower.25em\hbox{Y}\kern-.125emX\@}
12: %% Bold symbol macro for standard LaTeX users
13: \newcommand{\boldsymbol}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
14:
15:
16: \usepackage{babel}
17: \makeatother
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \newcommand{\pd}{\hat{\psi }^{\dagger }}
21:
22: \newcommand{\ps}{\hat{\psi }}
23:
24: \newcommand{\ph}{\hat{\phi }}
25:
26:
27:
28: \newcommand{\kt}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle }
29:
30:
31:
32: \title{Influence of dephasing on shot noise in an electronic Mach-Zehnder
33: interferometer}
34:
35:
36: \author{Florian Marquardt and C. Bruder}
37:
38:
39: \affiliation{Departement Physik und Astronomie, Universität Basel, Klingelbergstr.
40: 82, 4056 Basel, Switzerland}
41:
42:
43: \date{17.6.2003}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: We present a general analysis of shot noise in an electronic Mach-Zehnder
47: interferometer, of the type investigated experimentally {[}Yang Ji
48: \emph{et al.}, Nature 422, 415 (2003){]}, under the influence of dephasing
49: produced by fluctuations of a classical field. We show how the usual
50: partition noise expression $\mathcal{T}(1-\mathcal{T})$ is modified
51: by dephasing, depending on the power spectrum of the environmental
52: fluctuations.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \pacs{73.23.-b, 72.70.+m, 03.65.Yz}
56:
57: \maketitle
58:
59: \newcommand{\p}{\varphi }
60:
61:
62: A large part of mesoscopic physics is concerned with quantum interference
63: effects in micrometer-size electronic circuits. Therefore, it is important
64: to understand how interference is suppressed by the action of a fluctuating
65: environment (such as phonons or other electrons), a phenomenon known
66: as dephasing (or decoherence). In recent years, many experimental
67: studies have been performed to learn more about the mechanisms of
68: dephasing and its dependence on parameters such as temperature \cite{key-11,key-15,key-13,hansen,key-12,key-25,key-28}.
69:
70: A delicate issue \cite{hansen} in the analysis of interference effects
71: other than weak localization is the fact that the {}``visibility''
72: of the interference pattern can also be diminished by phase averaging:
73: This takes place when electrons with a spread of wavelengths (determined
74: by voltage or temperature) contribute to the current, or when some
75: experimental parameter (such as path length) fluctuates slowly from
76: run to run. Recently, a remarkable interference experiment has been
77: performed using a Mach-Zehnder setup fabricated from the edge channels
78: of a two-dimensional electron gas in the integer quantum hall effect
79: regime \cite{heiblum}. Besides measuring the current as a function
80: of the phase difference between the paths, the authors also measured
81: the shot noise to distinguish between phase averaging and {}``real''
82: dephasing. The basic idea is that both phenomena suppress the interference
83: term in the current, but they may affect differently the partition
84: noise which is nonlinear in the transmission probability. The idea
85: of using shot noise to learn more about dephasing is promising, connecting
86: two fundamental issues in mesoscopic physics.
87:
88: %
89: \begin{figure}
90: \includegraphics[ width=3in,
91: keepaspectratio]{MZsetup.eps}
92:
93:
94: \caption{\label{cap:fig1}The Mach-Zehnder interferometer setup analyzed in
95: the text. In the case shown here, the fluctuations of the environment
96: are fast compared with the temporal extent of the wave packet (determined
97: by temperature or voltage, see text). The probability density of the
98: incoming wave packet and its two outgoing parts is shown.}
99: \end{figure}
100:
101:
102: Most theoretical works on dephasing in mesoscopic interference setups
103: are concerned with its influence on the average current only (see
104: Refs.~\onlinecite{aleiner,levinson,seelig,marquardt,marquardtDDD,seelig2}
105: and references therein), although there have been studies of shot
106: noise in this context \cite{qheshotnoise}. In this paper, we present
107: the first analysis of shot noise for an electronic one-channel Mach-Zehnder
108: interferometer under the influence of dephasing. We will consider
109: dephasing produced by fluctuations of a classical potential, which
110: describe either true nonequilibrium radiation impinging on the system
111: or the thermal part of the environmental noise. This approach has
112: been employed quite often in the past \cite{classnoise,seelig}, is
113: exact in the first case, and should be a reliable approximation for
114: $T\gg eV$ in the second case. In particular, we are interested in
115: the influence of the power spectrum of the environmental fluctuations
116: on the shot-noise result, a question that goes beyond the phenomenological
117: dephasing terminal model \cite{buettinelastic,key-9,deJongBeen,vanlangen,qheshotnoise}.
118:
119: \emph{Model and general results. -} We consider non-interacting, spin-polarized
120: electrons. By solving the Heisenberg equation of motion for the electron
121: field $\hat{\Psi }$ moving at constant velocity $v_{F}$ (linearized
122: dispersion relation) and under the action of a fluctuating potential
123: $V(x,t)$ (without backscattering), we obtain
124:
125: \begin{equation}
126: \hat{\Psi }(x,\tau )=\int \frac{dk}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{-i\epsilon _{k}\tau }\sum _{\alpha =1}^{3}t_{\alpha }(k,\tau )\hat{a}_{\alpha }(k)e^{s_{\alpha }ik_{F}x}\label{eq:psi}\end{equation}
127: for the electron operator at the output port $3$. We have $t_{3}=1$,
128: $s_{1,2}=1,\, s_{3}=-1$, the reservoir operators obey $\left\langle \hat{a}_{\alpha }^{\dagger }(k)\hat{a}_{\beta }(k')\right\rangle =\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta (k-k')f_{\alpha }(k)$,
129: and the integration is over $k>0$ only. The amplitudes $t_{1},\, t_{2}$
130: for an electron to go from terminal $1$ or $2$ to the output terminal
131: $3$ are time-dependent:
132:
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: t_{1}(k,\tau ) & = & t_{A}t_{B}e^{i\varphi _{R}(\tau )}+r_{A}r_{B}e^{i\varphi _{L}(\tau )}e^{i(\phi +k\delta x)}\label{eq:t1}\\
135: t_{2}(k,\tau ) & = & t_{A}r_{B}e^{i\varphi _{L}(\tau )}e^{i(\phi +k\delta x)}+r_{A}t_{B}e^{i\varphi _{R}(\tau )}\label{eq:t2}
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: Here $t_{A/B}$ and $r_{A/B}$ are energy-independent transmission
138: and reflection amplitudes at the two beamsplitters ($t_{j}^{*}r_{j}=-t_{j}r_{j}^{*}$),
139: $\delta x$ is a possible path-length difference, and $\phi $ the
140: Aharonov-Bohm phase due to the flux through the interferometer. The
141: electron accumulates fluctuating phases while moving along the left
142: or right arm: $\varphi _{L,R}(\tau )=-\int _{-\tau _{L,R}}^{0}dt'\, V(x_{L,R}(t'),\tau +t')$,
143: where $\tau $ is the time when the electron leaves the second beamsplitter
144: after traveling for a time $\tau _{L,R}$ along $x_{L,R}$. Note that
145: in our model the total traversal times $\tau _{L,R}$ enter only at
146: this point.
147:
148: The output current following from (\ref{eq:psi}) has to be averaged
149: over the fluctuating phases, i.e. it depends on phase-averaged transmission
150: probabilities $T_{1}=\left|t_{1}\right|^{2}$ and $T_{2}=1-T_{1}$:
151:
152: \begin{equation}
153: \left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi }=T_{A}T_{B}+R_{A}R_{B}+2z\left(r_{A}r_{B}\right)^{*}t_{A}t_{B}\cos (\phi +k\delta x),\label{eq:prob}\end{equation}
154: The interference term is suppressed by $z\equiv \left\langle e^{i\delta \varphi }\right\rangle _{\varphi }$
155: (with $\delta \varphi =\varphi _{L}-\varphi _{R}$), which is $\exp (-\left\langle \delta \varphi ^{2}\right\rangle /2)$
156: for Gaussian $\delta \varphi $. This decreases the visibility of
157: the interference pattern observed in $I(\phi )$. However, such a
158: suppression can also be brought about by the $k$-integration, if
159: $\delta x\neq 0$ (thermal smearing).
160:
161: Our main goal is to calculate the shot noise power $S$ at zero frequency.
162: It can be split into two parts:
163:
164: \begin{eqnarray}
165: S=\int d\tau \, \left\langle \left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\hat{I}(0)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{\varphi }-\left\langle \left\langle \hat{I}(0)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{\varphi }^{2}= & & \nonumber \\
166: \int d\tau \, \left\langle \left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\right\rangle \, \left\langle \hat{I}(0)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{\varphi }-\left\langle \left\langle \hat{I}(0)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{\varphi }^{2}+ & & \nonumber \\
167: \int d\tau \, \left\langle \left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\hat{I}(0)\right\rangle -\left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\right\rangle \left\langle \hat{I}(0)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{\varphi } & &
168: \end{eqnarray}
169: The first integral on the r.h.s. describes shot noise due to the temporal
170: fluctuations of the conductance, i.e. fluctuations of a classical
171: current $I(\tau )=\left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\right\rangle $ depending
172: on time-dependent transmission probabilities. We denote its noise
173: power as $S_{\textrm{cl}}$. It rises quadratically with the total
174: current, as is known from $1/f$-noise in mesoscopic conductors \cite{kogan}.
175:
176: The second integral is evaluated by inserting (\ref{eq:psi}) and
177: applying Wick's theorem:
178:
179: \begin{widetext}
180:
181: \begin{equation}
182: \left\langle \left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\hat{I}(0)\right\rangle -\left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\right\rangle \left\langle \hat{I}(0)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{\varphi }=\left(\frac{ev_{F}}{2\pi }\right)^{2}\int dkdk'\, \sum _{\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3}f_{\alpha }(k)(1-f_{\beta }(k'))\, K_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )e^{i(\epsilon _{k'}-\epsilon _{k})\tau }.\label{eq:wideformula}\end{equation}
183: \end{widetext}Here $K_{\alpha \beta }$ is a correlator of four transmission
184: amplitudes: We have $K_{33}=1$, $K_{3\alpha }=K_{\alpha 3}=0$, and
185:
186: \begin{equation}
187: K_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )\equiv \left\langle t_{\alpha }^{*}(k,\tau )t_{\beta }(k',\tau )t_{\alpha }(k,0)t_{\beta }(k',0)^{*}\right\rangle _{\varphi }\, ,\label{eq:AmplCorr}\end{equation}
188: for $\alpha ,\beta =1,2$.
189:
190: In order to obtain two limiting forms of this expression, we note
191: that the $\tau $-range of the oscillating exponential factor under
192: the integral in (\ref{eq:wideformula}) is determined by the Fermi
193: functions, i.e. by voltage and temperature. This has to be compared
194: with the correlation time $\tau _{c}$ of the environment (the typical
195: decay time of the phase correlator $\left\langle \delta \varphi (\tau )\delta \varphi (0)\right\rangle $).
196: For $eV\tau _{c}\ll 1$ and $T\tau _{c}\ll 1$ ({}``fast environment''),
197: the major contribution of the integration comes from $|\tau |\gg \tau _{c}$,
198: where $K_{\alpha \beta }$ factorizes into
199:
200: \begin{equation}
201: K_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )\approx K_{\alpha \beta }(\infty )\equiv \left|\left\langle t_{\alpha }^{*}(k,0)t_{\beta }(k',0)\right\rangle _{\varphi }\right|^{2}\, .\label{eq:Klimit}\end{equation}
202:
203:
204: This yields the noise power
205:
206: \begin{equation}
207: \frac{S_{\textrm{fast}}}{e^{2}v_{F}/2\pi }=\int dk\, \sum _{\alpha ,\beta =1,2}f_{\alpha }(1-f_{\beta })\left|\left\langle t_{\alpha }^{*}t_{\beta }\right\rangle _{\varphi }\right|^{2}\, ,\label{eq:Sfast}\end{equation}
208: where we have set $f_{\alpha ,\beta }=f_{\alpha ,\beta }(k)$ and
209: $t_{\alpha ,\beta }=t_{\alpha ,\beta }(k,0)$. We conclude that the
210: shot noise for a {}``fast'' environment is \emph{not} given by a
211: simple expression of the form $\left\langle \mathcal{T}\right\rangle _{\varphi }(1-\left\langle \mathcal{T}\right\rangle _{\varphi })$,
212: since we have
213:
214: \begin{equation}
215: \left|\left\langle t_{1}^{*}t_{2}\right\rangle _{\varphi }\right|^{2}-\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi }(1-\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi })=(z^{2}-1)R_{B}T_{B}\, .\end{equation}
216:
217:
218: The remainder of the noise power from Eq. (\ref{eq:wideformula})
219: (with $K_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )-K_{\alpha \beta }(\infty )$ inserted
220: in Eq. (\ref{eq:wideformula})) will be denoted $S_{\textrm{fluct}}$.
221: It yields a contribution to the Nyquist noise $S_{V=0}$, but apart
222: from that it becomes important only at larger $V,\, T$. With this
223: definition, the full noise power can be written as
224:
225: \begin{equation}
226: S=S_{\textrm{fast}}+S_{\textrm{fluct}}+S_{\textrm{cl}}\, ,\label{eq:S}\end{equation}
227: which is valid over the entire parameter space.
228:
229: In the other limiting case, when the $\tau $-integration is dominated
230: by $|\tau |\ll \tau _{c}$ ({}``slow environment''), we can use
231: $K_{\alpha \beta }(\tau )\approx K_{\alpha \beta }(0)$, which yields
232:
233: \begin{equation}
234: \frac{S_{\textrm{slow}}}{e^{2}v_{F}/2\pi }=\int dk\, \left\langle (f_{1}T_{1}+f_{2}T_{2})(1-(f_{1}T_{1}+f_{2}T_{2}))\right\rangle _{\varphi }\, ,\label{eq:Sslow}\end{equation}
235: i.e. the phase-average of the usual shot noise expression (at $T=0$
236: the integrand is $\left\langle T_{1}(1-T_{1})\right\rangle _{\varphi }$).
237:
238: %
239: \begin{figure}
240: \includegraphics[ width=3in,
241: keepaspectratio]{noiseVnew.eps}
242:
243:
244: \caption{\label{cap:fignoiseV}Typical behaviour of the full current noise
245: $S$ as a function of $eV\tau _{c}$. At higher voltages, the dependence
246: on $V$ is quadratic, due to $S_{\textrm{cl}}$. When $S_{\textrm{cl}}$
247: is subtracted, the slope at large $eV\tau _{c}$ is determined by
248: $S_{\textrm{slow}}$ (i.e. $\left\langle T_{1}(1-T_{1})\right\rangle _{\varphi }$),
249: while that at low voltages is always determined by $S_{\textrm{fast}}$
250: (i.e. $\left|\left\langle t_{1}^{*}t_{2}\right\rangle _{\varphi }\right|^{2}$).
251: Parameters: $T=0$, $\delta x=0$, $\phi =0$, $T_{A}=1/2$, $z=1/e$,
252: $T_{B}=0.4$.}
253: \end{figure}
254: \emph{Discussion. -} We are able to evaluate the phase-averages if
255: the potential $V(x,t)$ (and therefore $\delta \varphi $) is assumed
256: to be a Gaussian random field of zero mean. In the following, we present
257: explicit expressions for the case $T=0$, $\delta xeV/v_{F}\ll 1$,
258: where the visibility is decreased purely by dephasing. We can express
259: the results by the following Fourier transforms that depend on the
260: power spectrum of the fluctuations and are nonperturbative in the
261: fluctuating field ($\lambda =\pm $):
262:
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: \hat{g}_{\lambda }(\omega ) & \equiv & \int d\tau \, e^{i\omega \tau }[e^{\lambda \left\langle \delta \varphi (\tau )\delta \varphi (0)\right\rangle }-1],\\
265: I_{\lambda }(V) & \equiv & \int _{0}^{eV}d\omega \, (1-\frac{\omega }{eV})\hat{g}_{\lambda }(\omega )\label{eq:Idef}
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: The shot noise becomes ($\tilde{\phi }=\phi +k_{F}\delta x$):
268:
269: \begin{eqnarray}
270: \frac{S-S_{V=0}}{e^{3}V/2\pi } & = & \frac{eV}{\pi }\, z^{2}R_{A}R_{B}T_{A}T_{B}(\cos (2\tilde{\phi })\hat{g}_{-}(0)+\hat{g}_{+}(0))\nonumber \\
271: & & +\left|\left\langle t_{1}^{*}t_{2}\right\rangle _{\varphi }\right|^{2}\nonumber \\
272: & & +\frac{1}{\pi }\, z^{2}R_{B}T_{B}\left\{ -2\cos (2\tilde{\phi })R_{A}T_{A}\, I_{-}(V)\right.\nonumber \\
273: & & \left.+(R_{A}^{2}+T_{A}^{2})\, I_{+}(V)\right\} \label{eq:shotnoiseT0}
274: \end{eqnarray}
275: The first line corresponds to $S_{\textrm{cl}}$, the second to $S_{\textrm{fast}}$,
276: and the rest to $S_{\textrm{fluct}}-S_{V=0}$. At $V\rightarrow 0$,
277: the integrals $I_{\pm }(V)$ vanish and $S_{\textrm{fast}}$ dominates.
278: At large $eV\tau _{c}\gg 1$ we can use the sum-rule $I_{\lambda }(V)\rightarrow \pi \left[z^{-2\lambda }-1\right]$
279: and find the last three lines to combine to $\left\langle T_{1}(1-T_{1})\right\rangle _{\varphi }$,
280: i.e. $S_{\textrm{slow}}$. The Nyquist noise is $\phi $-independent:
281:
282: \begin{equation}
283: S_{V=0}=\frac{e^{2}}{2\pi ^{2}}z^{2}R_{B}T_{B}\int _{0}^{\infty }d\omega \, \omega \hat{g}_{+}(\omega )\, .\label{eq:nyquist}\end{equation}
284:
285:
286: The results are illustrated in Figs. \ref{cap:fignoiseV} and \ref{figSNze4},
287: where the evolution of $S$ with increasing voltage $V$ shows the
288: cross-over between a {}``fast'' and a {}``slow'' environment.
289: Although $S_{\textrm{fast}}$ can become zero, the total current noise
290: $S$ does not vanish, due to the Nyquist contribution. The plots have
291: been produced by assuming 50\% transparency of the first beamsplitter
292: ($T_{A}=1/2$) and using a simple Gaussian form for the phase correlator:
293:
294: \begin{equation}
295: \left\langle \delta \varphi (\tau )\delta \varphi (0)\right\rangle =\left\langle \delta \varphi ^{2}\right\rangle e^{-(\tau /\tau _{c})^{2}}\, .\end{equation}
296: %
297: \begin{figure}
298: \includegraphics[ width=3in]{SNTBreallynew.eps}
299:
300:
301: \caption{\label{figSNze4}Normalized shot noise $(S-S_{V=0})/(e^{3}V/2\pi )$
302: as a function of the transmission $T_{B}$ of the second beamsplitter
303: for small visibility ($z=1/e$). The different curves show the succession
304: from a {}``fast'' environment to a {}``slow'' one (bottom to top
305: : $eV\tau _{c}=0,\, 2,\, 4,\, \ldots ,\, 20$). In the right panel,
306: the contribution from $S_{cl}$ (first line of (\ref{eq:shotnoiseT0}))
307: has been dropped, to demonstrate the convergence against the result
308: for a slow bath, $\left\langle T_{1}(1-T_{1})\right\rangle _{\varphi }$
309: (topmost curve). Other parameters as in Fig.~\ref{cap:fignoiseV}.}
310: \end{figure}
311: An application of the general theory presented here to specific situations
312: includes the calculation of the phase-correlator, starting from the
313: correlator describing the potential fluctuations $V(x,t)$ (cf. \cite{seelig}
314: for an example).
315:
316: If shot noise is to be used as a tool to distinguish phase averaging
317: from 'genuine dephasing', it is important to inquire about the form
318: of shot noise for a situation in which both effects are present. In
319: particular, for a large path-length difference $\delta x\gg v_{F}/eV$
320: (relevant for the experiment of Ref.~\cite{heiblum}), or $\delta x\gg v_{F}/T$,
321: the interference term is already suppressed completely due to wavelength
322: averaging. Then $S_{\textrm{cl}}$ vanishes, since $\left\langle \hat{I}(\tau )\right\rangle $
323: is independent of the fluctuating phase. In addition, we find (at
324: $T=0$):
325:
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \frac{S-S_{V=0}}{e^{3}V/2\pi } & = & T_{A}R_{A}(T_{B}-R_{B})^{2}+\label{eq:largedx1}\nonumber \\
328: & & z^{2}T_{B}R_{B}(T_{A}^{2}+R_{A}^{2})[1+\frac{I_{+}(V)}{\pi }]\, .\label{eq:largedx}
329: \end{eqnarray}
330: For a {}``fast'' environment, we have $I_{+}(V)\rightarrow 0$,
331: such that Eq. (\ref{eq:largedx}) becomes $\left[(T_{B}-R_{B})^{2}+2z^{2}R_{B}T_{B}\right]/4$,
332: which turns into $(T_{B}-R_{B})^{2}/4$ for $z\rightarrow 0$. This
333: could be distinguished from the $k$-averaging result, but it corresponds
334: to the case of large energy transfers from and to the environment
335: (as opposed to {}``pure dephasing''). On the other hand, in the
336: limit of large voltages ({}``slow environment'', $eV\tau _{c}\gg 1$),
337: we have $I_{+}(V)\rightarrow \pi \left[z^{-2}-1\right]$, and Eq.
338: (\ref{eq:largedx}) turns into $(T_{B}^{2}+R_{B}^{2})/4$, which is
339: equal to the result obtained for pure $k$-averaging (without any
340: additional dephasing).
341:
342: We have pointed out already that neither $S_{\textrm{fast}}$ nor
343: $S_{\textrm{slow}}$ lead to the simple result $\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi }(1-\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi })$.
344: However, this form does indeed apply if we consider injecting only
345: a {}``narrow beam'' of electrons into terminal $1$ (i.e. $f_{\alpha }(k)=0$
346: except for $f_{1}(k)=1$ within $[k_{F},k_{F}+eV/v_{F}]$), which
347: is not equivalent to the previous situation regarding shot noise (cf.
348: \cite{gavish} in this respect). We get for $eV\tau _{c}\ll 1$:
349:
350: \begin{equation}
351: S-S_{\textrm{cl}}=\frac{e^{3}V}{2\pi }\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi }(1-\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi })\, ,\label{eq:snbeam}\end{equation}
352: while the case $eV\tau _{c}\gg 1$ is described by $S_{\textrm{slow}}$.
353:
354: \emph{Comparison with other models.} - Finally, we compare our results
355: in the fully incoherent limit ($z=0$) with two other models, namely
356: the phenomenological dephasing terminal \cite{deJongBeen,vanlangen,qheshotnoise},
357: and a simple model of a stream of regularly injected electrons \cite{key-24}
358: that reach the output port with a probability calculated according
359: to classical rules. We focus on $T=0$ and the case $T_{A}=1/2$.
360: At small path-length difference $eV\delta x/v_{F}\ll 1$ (no $k$-averaging),
361: we obtain $\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi }(1-\left\langle T_{1}\right\rangle _{\varphi })=1/4$
362: both for the classical model and the narrow beam of electrons, $(T_{B}-R_{B})^{2}/4$
363: for our shot-noise expression in the {}``fast'' case, and $(T_{B}^{2}+R_{B}^{2})/4$
364: both for the {}``slow'' case and from the dephasing terminal \cite{note}.
365: In the opposite limit of large $\delta x$ only the result for the
366: classical model changes, coinciding with the {}``slow'' case $(T_{B}^{2}+R_{B}^{2})/4$,
367: which is also obtained without any dephasing. Therefore, in this regime
368: a shot noise measurement most likely will not be able to reveal the
369: additional presence of dephasing.
370:
371: In conclusion, we have derived shot-noise expressions for an experimentally
372: relevant model of an electronic Mach-Zehnder interferometer under
373: the influence of dephasing by a classical fluctuating potential. The
374: dependence of the shot noise on the power spectrum of the fluctuations
375: has been analyzed, demonstrating a cross-over between two regimes.
376: We have pointed out that a shot-noise measurement cannot reveal the
377: presence of dephasing on top of thermal averaging, for environmental
378: fluctuations slower than the inverse voltage or temperature. The present
379: theory may be applied to other interferometer geometries as well,
380: even in the presence of backscattering at junctions.
381:
382: We thank M. Heiblum for useful comments and for sending us a preprint
383: of Ref.~\onlinecite{heiblum}. Useful discussions with W. Belzig,
384: C. Egues, M. Büttiker and E. Sukhorukov are gratefully acknowledged.
385: This work is supported by the Swiss NSF and the NCCR nanoscience.
386:
387: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
388: \bibitem{key-11}P. Mohanty, E.~M.~Q. Jariwala, and R.~A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett.
389: \textbf{78}, 3366 (1997).
390: \bibitem{key-15}E. Buks, R. Schuster, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and H. Shtrikman, Nature
391: \textbf{391}, 871 (1998).
392: \bibitem{key-13}D. P. Pivin, A. Andresen, J. P. Bird, and D. K. Ferry, Phys. Rev.
393: Lett. \textbf{82}, 4687 (1999).
394: \bibitem{hansen}A. E. Hansen, A. Kristensen, S. Pedersen, C. B. Sørensen, and P. E.
395: Lindelof, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 045327 (2001).
396: \bibitem{key-12}D. Natelson, R. L. Willett, K. W. West, and L. N. Pfeiffer, Phys.
397: Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 1821 (2001).
398: \bibitem{key-25}K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.
399: \textbf{71}, L2094 (2002).
400: \bibitem{key-28}F. Pierre and N. O. Birge, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 206804 (2002).
401: \bibitem{heiblum}Y. Ji, Y. Chung, D. Sprinzak, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and H. Shtrikman,
402: Nature \textbf{422}, 415 (2003).
403: \bibitem{aleiner}I. L. Aleiner, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{79},
404: 3740 (1997).
405: \bibitem{levinson}Y. Levinson, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{39}, 299 (1997).
406: \bibitem{seelig}G. Seelig and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{64}, 245313 (2001).
407: \bibitem{marquardt}F. Marquardt and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 125315 (2002).
408: \bibitem{marquardtDDD}F. Marquardt and C. Bruder, cond-mat/0303397 (2003).
409: \bibitem{seelig2}G. Seelig, S. Pilgram, A. N. Jordan, and M. Büttiker, cond-mat/0304022
410: (2003).
411: \bibitem{qheshotnoise}C. Texier and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{62}, 7454 (2000).
412: \bibitem{classnoise}B.~L. Altshuler, A.~G. Aronov, and D.~E. Khmelnitsky, J. Phys.
413: C Solid State \textbf{15}, 7367 (1982); S. Chakravarty and A. Schmid,
414: Phys. Rep. \textbf{140}, 195 (1986). A. Stern, Y. Aharonov, and Y.
415: Imry, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{41}, 3436 (1990).
416: \bibitem{buettinelastic}M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{33}, 3020 (1986).
417: \bibitem{key-9}M. J. M. de Jong and C. W. J. Beenakker, in \emph{Mesoscopic Electron
418: Transport}, ed. by L. P. Kouwenhoven, L. L. Sohn, and G. Schön, NATO
419: ASI Series Vol. 345 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1997).
420: \bibitem{deJongBeen}M.J.M. de Jong and C. W. J. Beenakker, Physica A \textbf{230}, 219
421: (1996).
422: \bibitem{vanlangen}S. A. van Langen and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{56}, R1680
423: (1997).
424: \bibitem{kogan}Sh. Kogan: {}``\emph{Electronic noise and fluctuations in solids}''
425: (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1996).
426: \bibitem{gavish}U. Gavish, Y. Levinson, and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87},
427: 216807 (2001).
428: \bibitem{key-24}Ya. M. Blanter and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rep. \textbf{336}, 1 (2000).
429: \bibitem{note}There are indications \cite{prepare} that the ansatz used for calculating
430: shot noise in the dephasing terminal underestimates shot noise in
431: the limit of small $\delta x$. Obtaining the proper result for the
432: classical model at large $\delta x$ requires taking into account
433: both the anticorrelations of inputs and exchange scattering effects
434: at the second beam splitter (both of which reduce shot noise at intermediate
435: $T_{B}$).\bibitem{prepare}F. Marquardt and C. Bruder, in preparation.
436: \end{thebibliography}
437:
438: \end{document}
439: