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

2: %%%  (March 2003 - July 2003) closed systems

3: %%%  pmp_fig, pmp_delta + pmp_levels,  pmp_bfield_en

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: 

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

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: \usepackage{bm}

9: 

10: \begin{document}

11: 

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

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

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

15: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}

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

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

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

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

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

21: \newcommand{\mbf}[1]{#1}

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

23: \newcommand{\fullG}{G}

24: \newcommand{\symG}{\eta}

25: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}

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

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

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

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

30: 

31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

32: 

33: \title{

34: Quantum pumping in closed systems, adiabatic transport, and the Kubo formula

35: }

36: 

37: \author{Doron Cohen}

38: 

39: \affiliation{

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

41: }

42: 

43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

44: 

45: \begin{abstract}

46: Quantum pumping in closed systems is considered.

47: We explain that the Kubo formula contains all

48: the physically relevant ingredients for the calculation

49: of the pumped charge ($Q$) within the framework

50: of linear response theory. The relation to

51: the common formulations of adiabatic transport

52: and ``geometric magnetism" is clarified.

53: We distinguish between adiabatic and dissipative

54: contributions to~$Q$.

55: On the one hand we observe that adiabatic pumping does

56: not have to be quantized. On the other hand we

57: define circumstances in which quantized adiabatic pumping

58: holds as an approximation. The deviation from

59: exact quantization is related to the Thouless conductance.

60: As an application we discuss the following examples:

61: classical dissipative pumping by conductance control,

62: classical adiabatic (non dissipative) pumping by translation,

63: and quantum pumping in the double barrier model.

64: In the latter context we analyze a 3~site lattice Hamiltonian,

65: which represents the simplest pumping device.

66: We remark on the connection with the popular $S$ matrix formalism

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

68: \end{abstract}

69: 

70: \maketitle

71: 

72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

74: \section{Introduction}

75: 

76: 

77: Linear response theory (LRT) \cite{landau,imry,datta}

78: is the leading formalism to

79: deal with driven systems. Such systems are described

80: by a Hamiltonian ${\cal H}(\bm{x})$ where $\bm{x}(t)$ is a set

81: of time dependent classical parameters ("fields").

82: The Kubo formula is the corner stone of LRT.

83: It allows the calculation of the response coefficients,

84: and in particular the {\em conductance matrix} ($\bmsf{G}$)

85: of the system. If we know $\bmsf{G}$, we can calculate

86: the charge ($Q$) which is transported through the

87: system during one cycle of a periodic driving.

88: This is called {\em pumping}.

89: 

90: 

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

92: and molecular size devices is regarded as a major

93: issue in the realization of future quantum circuits

94: or quantum gates, possibly for the purpose of

95: quantum computing.

96: 

97: 

98: %%%%

99: \subsection{Model system}

100: 

101: In order to explain the motivation for the present work,

102: and its relation to the published literature,

103: we have to give a better definition of the problem.

104: For presentation purpose we focus on

105: a model system with a ring geometry (Fig.1).

106: The shape of the ring is controlled

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

108: These parameters can be gate voltages that determine

109: the location of some boundaries, or the height of some barriers.

110: The third parameter is the flux through the ring:

111: %

112: \begin{eqnarray}

113: x_3 \ = \ \Phi \ \equiv \ (\hbar/e) \phi

114: \end{eqnarray}

115: %

116: We shall use units such that the

117: elementary charge is \mbox{$e=1$}.

118: Note that the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}(x_1(t),x_2(t),x_3(t))$

119: has gauge invariance for $\phi \mapsto \phi+2\pi$.

120: %

121: %

122: Another system with a ring topology is presents in Fig.~1b,

123: and its abstraction is represented in Fig.~2c.

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

125: that depends on $x_1$ and $x_2$.

126: In Fig.~1d also the flux $x_3$ is regarded as a parameter of the dot.

127: If we cut the wire in Fig.1d we get the open two lead geometry

128: of Fig.1e. Finally we can put many such units in series (no flux),

129: hence getting the periodic system of Fig.1f.

130: In the latter case the Hamiltonian is invariant for

131: unit translations, and therefore the quasi momentum $\phi$

132: is a constant of motion. It follows that the mathematical

133: treatment of  a driven periodic structure reduces to

134: an analysis of a driven ring system with flux.

135: 

136: 

137: 

138: %%%%

139: \subsection{Classification of pumps}

140: 

141: {\em ``Pumping"} means that net charge (or maybe better

142: to say ``net integrated probability current")  is transported

143: through the ring per cycle of a periodic driving.

144: Using the common jargon of electrical engineering

145: this can be described as AC-DC conversion.

146: We distinguish between \\

147: %

148: \begin{minipage}{\hsize}

149: \vspace*{0.1cm}

150: \begin{itemize}

151: \setlength{\itemsep}{0cm}

152: \item

153: pumping in open systems (such as in Fig.~1e).

154: \item

155: pumping in closed systems (such as in Fig.~1d)

156: \item

157: pumping in periodic systems (such as in Fig.~1f)

158: \end{itemize}

159: \vspace*{0.0cm}

160: \end{minipage}

161: %

162: For a reason that was explained at the end of the previous subsection

163: we regard the last category \cite{thouless} as mathematically equivalent

164: to the second category. We also regard the first

165: category \cite{BPT,aleiner,barriers,ora}

166: as a special (subtle) limit of the second category:

167: in a follow up paper \cite{pmo} we demonstrate

168: that in the limit of open geometry the Kubo formula

169: reduces to the $S$-matrix formula

170: of B\"{u}ttiker Pr\'{e}tre and Thomas \cite{BPT}.

171: 

172: 

173: 

174: There are works in the literature regarding

175: ``rectification" and ``ratchets" \cite{ratch}.

176: These can be regarded as studies of

177: pumping in periodic systems 

178: with the connotation of having  {\em damped}

179: non-Hamiltonian dynamics. These

180: type of systems are beyond the scope

181: of the present Paper.

182: %

183: There is also a recent interest in Hamiltonian Ratchets\cite{ratchets},

184: which is again a synonym for pumping in periodic systems,

185: but with the connotation of having a {\em non-linear}

186: pumping mechanism.

187: We are going to clarify what are the conditions for having

188: a {\em linear} pumping mechanism. Only in case of linear pumping mechanism

189: the Kubo formula can be used, which should be distinguished

190: from the non-linear mechanism of Ref.\cite{ratchets}.

191: 

192: 

193: 

194: %%%%%%%%%%%%

195: \subsection{Objectives}

196: 

197: The purpose of this Paper is to explain and demonstrate

198: that the Kubo formula contains all

199: the physically relevant ingredients for

200: the calculation of the charge ($Q$) which is pumped

201: during one cycle of a periodic driving.

202: %

203: %

204: In the limit of a very slow time variation (small $\dot{x}$),

205: the emerging picture coincides with

206: the adiabatic picture of Refs.\cite{berry,thouless,avron,robbins}.

207: In this limit the response of the system

208: is commonly described as a non-dissipative

209: ``geometric magnetism"  \cite{robbins} effect,

210: or as adiabatic transport.

211: 

212: 

213: A major objective of this Paper is to bridge between

214: the adiabatic picture  and the more general LRT / Kubo picture,

215: and to explain how {\em dissipation} emerges

216: in the quantum mechanical treatment.

217: %

218: For one-parameter driving a unifying picture that bridges between

219: the quantum mechanical adiabatic picture and LRT has been presented

220: in \cite{vrn,dsp,crs,frc}. A previous attempt \cite{wilk} had ended

221: in some confusion regarding the identification of the linear

222: response regime, while \cite{robbins} had avoided the analysis of

223: the mechanism that leads to dissipation in the quantum mechanical case.

224: 

225: 

226: The presented (Kubo based) formulation of the pumping problem

227: has few advantages:

228: It is not restricted  to the adiabatic regime;

229: It allows a clear distinction between {\em dissipative} and {\em adiabatic} contributions to the pumping;

230: The classical limit is manifest in the formulation;

231: It gives a level by level understanding of the pumping process;

232: It allows the consideration of any type of occupation (not necessarily Fermi occupation);

233: It allows future incorporation of external environmental influences such as that of noise;

234: It regards the voltage over the pump as electro motive force,

235: rather than adopting the conceptually more complicated view \cite{ora}

236: of having a chemical potential difference.

237: 

238: 

239: Of particular interest is the possibility to realize

240: a pumping cycle that transfers {\em exactly} one unit of charge

241: per cycle. In open systems \cite{aleiner,barriers}

242: this ``quantization" holds only approximately,

243: and  it has been argued \cite{aleiner} that the deviation from

244: exact quantization is due to the dissipative effect.

245: Furthermore it has been claimed \cite{aleiner}

246: that exact quantization would hold in the strict adiabatic limit,

247: if the system were {\em closed}.

248: %

249: In this Paper we would like to show that the correct picture is quite different.

250: We shall demonstrate  that the deviation from exact quantization is in fact

251: of adiabatic nature. This deviation is related

252: to the so-called ``Thouless conductance" of the device.

253: 

254: 

255: 

256: 

257: %%%%%%%%%

258: \subsection{Examples}

259: 

260: We give several examples for the application

261: of the Kubo formula to the calculation of

262: the pumped charge~$Q$: \\

263: %

264: \begin{minipage}{\hsize}

265: \vspace*{0.1cm}

266: \begin{itemize}

267: \setlength{\itemsep}{0cm}

268: \item

269: classical dissipative pumping

270: \item

271: classical adiabatic pumping (by translation)

272: \item

273: quantum pumping in the double barrier model

274: \end{itemize}

275: \vspace*{0.0cm}

276: \end{minipage}

277: %

278: The last example is the main one.

279: In the context of open geometry it is known

280: as ``pumping around a resonance" \cite{barriers}.

281: We explain that this is in fact

282: an diabatic transfer scheme,

283: and we analyze a particular version

284: of this model which is represented

285: by a 3~site lattice Hamiltonian.

286: This is definitely the simplest pump circuit

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

288: as a molecular size device.

289: It also can be regarded as an approximation

290: for the closed geometry version of the

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

292: 

293: 

294: 

295: 

296: %%%%%%%%%

297: \subsection{Outline}

298: 

299: In Section~2  we define the main object of the study,

300: which is the conductance matrix $\bmsf{G}$ of Eq.(\ref{e_8}).

301: The conductance matrix can be written as the sum

302: of a symmetric ($\bm{\eta}$) and an anti-symmetric ($\bmsf{B}$)

303: matrices, which are later identified as the dissipative and

304: the adiabatic contributions respectively.

305: 

306: In the first part of the paper (Sections~2-8)

307: we analyze the adiabatic equation (Section~3),

308: and illuminate the distinction

309: between its zero order solution (Section~4),

310: its stationary first order solution (Section~5),

311: and its non-stationary solution (Section~6).

312: %

313: %

314: The outcome of the analysis in Section~5 is Eq.(\ref{e_30})

315: for the conductance matrix $\bmsf{G}$.

316: This expression is purely adiabatic, and does

317: not give any dissipation. In order to get dissipation

318: we have to look for a non-stationary solution.

319: 

320: The standard textbook derivation of the Kubo formula (Eq.(\ref{e_33}))

321: for the conductance matrix $\bmsf{G}$ {\em implicitly} assumes

322: a non-stationary solution. We show how to get from it

323: Eq.(\ref{e_34}) for $\bm{\eta}$ and Eq.(\ref{e_35}) for $\bmsf{B}$.

324: The latter is shown to be identical with the adiabatic result (Eq.(\ref{e_30})).

325: In Section~7 we further simplify the expression for $\bm{\eta}$

326: leading to the fluctuation-dissipation relation (Eq.(\ref{e43})).

327: 

328: 

329: The disadvantages of the standard textbook derivation

330: of Kubo formula make it is essential to introduce a different

331: route toward  Eq.(\ref{e43})  for $\bm{\eta}$.

332: This route, which is discusssed in Section~8,

333: {\em explicitly} distinguishes the dissipative effect from the adiabatic effect,

334: and allows to determine the conditions for the validity

335: of either the adiabatic picture or LRT.

336: In particular it is explained that LRT is based,

337: as strange as it sounds, on perturbation theory to infinite order.

338: 

339: 

340: In Section~9 we clarify the general scheme of

341: the pumping calculation (Eq.(\ref{e6})).

342: Section~10 and Section~11 give two simple classical examples.

343: In Section~12 we turn to discuss quantum pumping,

344: where the cycle is around a chain of degeneracies.

345: The general discussion is followed by presentation

346: of the double barrier model (Section~13).

347: In order to get a quantitative estimate for the pumped charge

348: we consider a 3~site lattice Hamiltonian (Section~14).

349: 

350: The summary (Section~15) gives some larger perspective on the subject,

351: pointing out the relation to the $S$-matrix formalism,

352: and to the Born-Oppenheimer picture.

353: In the appendices we give some more details regarding the

354: derivations, so as to have a self-contained presentation.

355: 

356: 

357: 

358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

359: \section{The conductance matrix}

360: 

361: Consider the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}(\bm{x}(t))$, where $\bm{x}(t)$

362: is a set of time dependent parameters ("fields").

363: For presentation, as well as for practical reasons,

364: we assume later a set of three time dependent parameters

365: \mbox{$\bm{x}(t)=(x_1(t),x_2(t),x_3(t))$}.

366: We define generalized forces in the conventional way as

367: %

368: \begin{eqnarray}

369: F^k \ \ = \ \ -\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial x_k}

370: \end{eqnarray}

371: %

372: Note that if $x_1$ is the location of a

373: wall element, then $F^1$ is the force in the

374: Newtonian sense. If $x_2$ is an electric field,

375: then $F^2$ is the polarization.

376: If $x_3$ is the magnetic field or the flux through a ring,

377: then $F^3$ is the magnetization or the current through the ring.

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: In linear response theory (LRT) the response of the system

382: is described by a causal response kernel, namely

383: %

384: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_3}

385: \langle F^k \rangle_t \ = \ \sum_j \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \alpha^{kj}(t-t') \ x_j(t')dt'

386: \end{eqnarray}

387: %

388: where $\alpha^{kj}(\tau)=0$ for $\tau<0$.

389: The Fourier transform of  $\alpha^{kj}(\tau)$

390: is the generalized susceptibility $\chi^{kj}(\omega)$.

391: %

392: The conductance matrix is defined as:

393: %

394: \begin{eqnarray}

395: \fullG^{kj} \ = \ \lim_{\omega\rightarrow 0}

396: \frac{\im[\chi^{kj}(\omega)]}{\omega}

397: \ = \ \int_0^{\infty} \alpha^{kj}(\tau) \tau d\tau

398: \end{eqnarray}

399: %

400: Consequently, as explained further in Appendix~B,

401: the response in the ``DC limit" ($\omega\rightarrow0$)

402: can be written as

403: %

404: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_8}

405: \langle F^k \rangle =

406: -\sum_{j} \fullG^{kj} \ \dot{x}_j

407: \end{eqnarray}

408: %

409: As an example for the applicability of this formula

410: note the following standard examples for one parameter driving:

411: Let $x=$ wall or piston displacement, then $\dot{x}=$ wall or piston velocity,

412: $G=$ friction coefficient, and $F=-G \dot{x}$ is the friction force.

413: Another standard example is $x=$ magnetic flux,

414: $-\dot{x}=$ electro motive force, $G=$ electrical conductance,

415: and hence $F=-G \dot{x}$ is Ohm law.

416: 

417: 

418: 

419: 

420: It is convenient to write the conductance matrix

421: as  $\fullG^{kj} \equiv \ \symG^{kj} + \mbf{B}^{kj}$,

422: where $\symG^{kj}=\symG^{jk}$ is the symmetric part

423: of the conductance matrix,

424: while $\mbf{B}^{kj}=-\mbf{B}^{jk}$ is the antisymmetric part.

425: In case of having three parameters we can arrange the

426: elements of the antisymmetric part

427: as a vector \mbox{$\vec{\bm{B}}=(B^{23},B^{31},B^{12})$}.

428: %

429: Consequently Eq.(\ref{e_8}) can be written in abstract notation as

430: %

431: \begin{eqnarray}

432: \langle \bm{F} \rangle \ = \ -\bm{\symG} \cdot \dot{\bm{x}} \ - \ \bmsf{B}\wedge \dot{\bm{x}}

433: \end{eqnarray}

434: %

435: where the dot product should be interpreted as matrix-vector

436: multiplication, which involves summation over the index~$j$.

437: The wedge-product also can be regarded as a matrix-vector

438: multiplication.  It reduces to the more familiar cross-product

439: in case that we consider $3$ parameters.

440: The dissipation, which is defined as the rate in which energy

441: is absorbed into the system, is given by

442: %

443: \begin{eqnarray}

444: \dot{{\cal W}}  = \frac{d}{dt}\langle {\cal H} \rangle

445: \ = \  -\langle \bm{F} \rangle \cdot \dot{\bm{x}} \ = \

446: \sum_{kj} \symG^{kj} \ \dot{x}_k\dot{x}_j

447: \end{eqnarray}

448: %

449: Only the symmetric part contributes

450: to the the dissipation. The contribution

451: of the antisymmetric part is identically zero.

452: 

453: 

454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

455: \section{The adiabatic equation}

456: 

457: The adiabatic equation is conventionally obtained from the

458: Schrodinger equation by expanding the wavefunction

459: in the $x$-dependent adiabatic basis:

460: %

461: \begin{eqnarray}

462: \frac{d}{dt}|\psi\rangle \ \ &=&

463: \  -\frac{i}{\hbar} {\cal H}(\bm{x}(t)) \ |\psi\rangle

464: \\

465: |\psi\rangle \ \ &=& \ \ \sum_n a_n(t) \ |n(\bm{x}(t))\rangle

466: \\

467: \frac{da_n}{dt} &=& -\frac{i}{\hbar} E_n a_n

468: +\frac{i}{\hbar} \sum_m \sum_j

469: \dot{x}_j \mbf{A}^{j}_{nm} a_m

470: \end{eqnarray}

471: %

472: where following \cite{berry}  we define

473: %

474: \begin{eqnarray}

475: \mbf{A}^{j}_{nm}(\bm{x}) =

476: i\hbar \left\langle n(\bm{x}) \Big|

477: \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} m(\bm{x})\right\rangle

478: \end{eqnarray}

479: %

480: Differentiation by parts of

481: $\partial_j \langle n(\bm{x})|m(\bm{x}) \rangle  = 0$

482: leads to the conclusion that $\mbf{A}^{j}_{nm}$

483: is a hermitian matrix.

484: Note that the effect of gauge transformation is

485: %

486: \begin{eqnarray}

487: |n(\bm{x})\rangle \ & \ \mapsto \ & \ \eexp{-i\frac{\Lambda_n(\bm{x})}{\hbar}} \ |n(\bm{x})\rangle \\

488: \mbf{A}^{j}_{nm} \ & \ \mapsto \ & \

489: \eexp{i\frac{\Lambda_n{-}\Lambda_m}{\hbar}} \mbf{A}^{j}_{nm}

490: + (\partial_j \Lambda_n)\delta_{nm}

491: \end{eqnarray}

492: %

493: Note that the diagonal elements $\mbf{A}^{j}_{n} \equiv\mbf{A}^{j}_{nn}$

494: are real, and transform as

495: $\mbf{A}^{j}_{n} \mapsto \mbf{A}^{j}_{n} + \partial_j \Lambda_n$.

496: 

497: 

498: 

499: Associated with $\bm{A}_n(\bm{x})$

500: is the gauge invariant 2-form, which is defined as:

501: %

502: \begin{eqnarray}

503: \mbf{B}^{ij}_{n} &=&

504: \partial_i \mbf{A}^{j}_{n} - \partial_j \mbf{A}^{i}_{n} \\

505: &=& -2\hbar \im\langle\partial_i n|\partial_j n\rangle  \\

506: &=& -\frac{2}{\hbar}\im\sum_{m}

507: \mbf{A}^{i}_{nm}\mbf{A}^{j}_{mn}

508: \end{eqnarray}

509: %

510: This can be written in an abstract notation as $\bmsf{B}=\nabla\wedge\bm{A}$.

511: %

512: %

513: Using standard manipulations, namely via

514: differentiation by parts of

515: $\partial_j \langle n(\bm{x})|{\cal H}|m(\bm{x}) \rangle  = 0$,

516: we get for $n\ne m$ the expressions:

517: %

518: \begin{eqnarray}

519: \mbf{A}^{j}_{nm}(\bm{x}) = \frac{i\hbar}{E_m{-}E_n}

520: \left\langle n \left|\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial x_j}\right|m\right\rangle

521: \equiv-\frac{i\hbar F^j_{nm}}{E_m{-}E_n}

522: \end{eqnarray}

523: %

524: and hence

525: %

526: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e29}

527: \mbf{B}^{ij}_{n} = 2\hbar \sum_{m(\ne n)}

528: \frac{\im\left[

529: F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\right]}

530: {(E_m-E_n)^2}

531: \end{eqnarray}

532: 

533: 

534: 

535: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

537: \section{The strictly adiabatic solution, and the Berry phase}

538: 

539: We define the perturbation matrix as

540: %

541: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_23}

542: \mbf{W}_{nm}=-\sum_j\dot{x}_j\mbf{A}^j_{nm}

543: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for $n\ne m$}

544: \end{eqnarray}

545: %

546: and $\mbf{W}^{j}_{nm}=0$ for $n=m$.

547: Then the adiabatic equation can be re-written

548: as follows:

549: %

550: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_24}

551: \frac{da_n}{dt} = -\frac{i}{\hbar} (E_n{-}\dot{x}A_n) a_n

552: -\frac{i}{\hbar} \sum_m

553: \mbf{W}_{nm} a_m

554: \end{eqnarray}

555: %

556: If we neglect the perturbation $W$,

557: then we get the strict adiabatic solution:

558: %

559: \begin{eqnarray}

560: \eexp{

561: -\frac{i}{\hbar} \left(

562: \int_0^t E_n(\bm{x}(t'))dt'

563: -\int_{\bm{x}(0)}^{\bm{x}(t)} \mbf{A}_n(\bm{x})\cdot d\bm{x}

564: \right)

565: }

566: \ |n(\bm{x}(t))\rangle

567: \end{eqnarray}

568: %

569: Due to $\bm{A}_n(\bm{x})$, we have the so called geometric phase.

570: This can be gauged away unless we consider a closed

571: cycle. For a closed cycle, the gauge invariant

572: phase $(1/\hbar) \oint \bm{A}\cdot \vec{d\bm{x}}$ is called Berry phase.

573: 

574: 

575: With the above zero-order solution

576: we can obtain the following result:

577: %

578: \begin{eqnarray}

579: \langle F^k \rangle &=&

580: \left\langle  n(\bm{x})   \left|-\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial x_k}  \right|  n(\bm{x})  \right\rangle

581: \\ &=&

582: -\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}

583: \left\langle n(\bm{x})|\ {\cal H}(\bm{x}) \ |n(\bm{x})\right\rangle

584: \end{eqnarray}

585: %

586: In case of the standard examples that were mentioned previously

587: this corresponds to conservative force or to persistent current.

588: From now on we ignore this

589: trivial contribution to $\langle F^k \rangle$ ,

590: and look for the a first order contribution.

591: 

592: 

593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

595: \section{The stationary adiabatic solution: Adiabatic Transport or ``Geometric Magnetism"}

596: 

597: For linear driving (unlike the case of a cycle) the

598: $\bm{A}_n(\bm{x})$ field can be gauged away.

599: Assuming further that the adiabatic equation

600: can be treated as parameter independent

601: (that means disregarding the parametric dependence

602: of $E_n$ and ${W}$ on $\bm{x}$) one realizes

603: that Eq.(\ref{e_24}) possesses stationary solutions.

604: To first order these are:

605: %

606: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_28}

607: | \psi \rangle \ = \

608: |n\rangle +

609: \sum_{m(\ne n)}

610: \frac{\mbf{W}_{mn}}

611: {E_n-E_m} |m\rangle

612: \end{eqnarray}

613: %

614: Note that in a {\em fixed-basis representation}

615: the above stationary solution is in fact time-dependent.

616: Hence the notations $|n(\bm{x}(t))\rangle$,  $|m(\bm{x}(t))\rangle$

617: and  $| \psi(t) \rangle$ are possibly more appropriate.

618: 

619: 

620: With the above solution

621: we can write $\langle F^k \rangle$ as a sum of

622: zero order and first order contributions.

623: From now on we ignore the

624: zero order contribution,

625: and go on with the first order contribution:

626: %

627: \begin{eqnarray}

628: \langle F^k \rangle &=&

629: -\sum_{m(\ne n)}

630: \frac{\mbf{W}_{mn}}{E_n-E_m}

631: \left\langle n \Big|

632: \frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial x_k}

633: \Big| m \right\rangle + \mbox{CC}

634: \nonumber \\

635: &=& \sum_j \left(i\sum_{m}

636: \mbf{A}^k_{nm} \mbf{A}^{j}_{mn} + \mbox{CC}\right) \ \dot{x}_j

637: \nonumber \\

638: &=& -\sum_j \mbf{B}_n^{kj} \ \dot{x}_j

639: \end{eqnarray}

640: %

641: %

642: For a general {\em stationary} preparation,

643: either pure or mixed, one obtains Eq.(\ref{e_8}) with

644: %

645: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_30}

646: \fullG^{kj} \ = \ \sum_n f(E_n) \ \mbf{B}_n^{kj}

647: \end{eqnarray}

648: %

649: where  $f(E_n)$ are weighting factors,

650: with the normalization $\sum_n f(E_n)=1$.

651: For a pure state preparation $f(E_n)$ distinguishes

652: only one state $n$, while for canonical

653: preparation $f(E_n)\propto\exp(-E_n/T)$,

654: where $T$ is the temperature.

655: For a many-body system of non-interacting Fermions

656: $f(E_n)$ can be re-interpreted as

657: the Fermi occupation function,

658: so that $\sum_n f(E_n)$ is the total

659: number of particles.

660: 

661: 

662: Thus we see that the assumption of a stationary

663: first-order solution leads to a non-dissipative (antisymmetric)

664: conductance matrix This is know as either

665: Adiabatic Transport \cite{thouless,avron}

666: or ``Geometric Magnetism" \cite{berry}.

667: In the later sections we shall discuss

668: the limitations of the above result.

669: 

670: 

671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

672: \section{The non-stationary solution: The Kubo formula}

673: 

674: 

675: The Kubo formula is an expression for the linear response

676: of a driven system that goes beyond the stationary

677: adiabatic solution of the previous section.

678: The Kubo formula has many type of derivations. 

679: One possibility is to use the same procedure 

680: as in Section~5 starting with

681: %

682: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

683: | \psi(t) \rangle \ &=& \

684: \eexp{-iE_nt}|n\rangle \\ \nonumber

685: &+& \sum_{m(\ne n)}

686: \left[-i\mbf{W}_{mn}\int_0^t\eexp{i(E_n{-}E_m)t'}dt'\right]

687: \eexp{-iE_mt} |m\rangle

688: \end{eqnarray}

689: %

690: For completeness we also give in Appendix~A  

691: a simple version of the standard derivation, which is based

692: on a conventional fixed-basis first-order-treatment

693: of the perturbation. The disadvantages are: \\

694: %

695: \begin{minipage}{\hsize}

696: \vspace*{0.1cm}

697: \begin{itemize}

698: \setlength{\itemsep}{0cm}

699: \item

700: The standard derivation does not illuminate the underlaying

701: physical mechanisms of the response.

702: \item

703: The stationary adiabatic limit is not manifest.

704: \item

705: The fluctuation-dissipation relation is vague.

706: \item

707: The validity conditions of the derivation are not clear:

708: no identification of the {\em regimes}.

709: \end{itemize}

710: \vspace*{0.0cm}

711: \end{minipage}

712: %

713: For now we go on with the conventional approach,

714: but in a later section we refer to the more illuminating

715: approach of \cite{wilk} and \cite{vrn,dsp,crs,frc}.

716: Then we clarify what is the regime (range of $\dot{x}$)

717: were the Kubo formula can be trusted \cite{crs,frc},

718: and what is the sub-regime where the response can be

719: described as non-dissipative adiabatic transport.

720: 

721: 

722: In order to express the Kubo formula one

723: introduces the following definition:

724: %

725: \begin{eqnarray}

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

727: \end{eqnarray}

728: %

729: We use the common interaction picture notation

730: \mbox{$F^k(\tau)= \eexp{i{\cal H}t} F^k \eexp{-i{\cal H}t}$},

731: where ${\cal H}={\cal H}(\bm{x})$ with $x=\mbox{const}$.

732: %

733: The expectation value assumes that

734: the system is prepared in a {\em stationary} state

735: (see previous section).

736: It is also implicitly assumed that the result is

737: not sensitive to the exact value of $x$.

738: %

739: Note that $K^{ij}(\tau)$ has

740: a well defined classical limit.

741: Its Fourier transform will be denoted

742: $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$.

743: 

744: 

745: 

746: 

747: The expectation value $\langle F^{k} \rangle$

748: is related to the driving $\bm{x}(t)$ by

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

750: The Kubo expression for this response kernel,

751: as derived in Appendix~A, is

752: %

753: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_kubo}

754: \alpha^{ij}(\tau) \ \ = \ \

755: \Theta(\tau) \ K^{ij}(\tau)

756: \end{eqnarray}

757: %

758: where the step function  $\Theta(\tau)$ cares

759: for the upper cutoff of the integration in Eq.(\ref{e_3}).

760: The Fourier transform of  $\alpha^{ij}(\tau)$

761: is the generalized susceptibility $\chi^{ij}(\omega)$.

762: The conductance matrix is defined as:

763: %

764: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_33}

765: \fullG^{ij} \ = \ \lim_{\omega\rightarrow 0}

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

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

768: \end{eqnarray}

769: %

770: This can be split into symmetric

771: and anti-symmetric components

772: (see derivation in Appendix~C)

773: as follows:

774: %

775: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_34}

776: \symG^{ij} = \half(\fullG^{ij}{+}\fullG^{ji}) &=&

777: \frac{1}{2}\lim_{\omega\rightarrow 0}

778: \frac{\im[\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega}

779: \\ \label{e_35}

780: \mbf{B}^{ij} = \half(\fullG^{ij}{-}\fullG^{ji}) &=&

781: {-}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

782: \frac{\re[\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega^2}

783: \end{eqnarray}

784: %

785: The antisymmetric part is identified \cite{robbins} (Appendix~C)

786: as corresponding to the stationary solution Eq.(\ref{e_30})

787: of the adiabatic equation.

788: 

789: 

790: 

791: 

792: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

793: \section{The emergence of dissipative response, and the fluctuation-dissipation relation}

794: 

795: 

796: The Kubo formula for the symmetric part of the

797: conductance matrix ($\symG^{ij}$) can be further simplified.

798: If we take Eq.(\ref{e_34}) literally, then $\symG^{ij}=0$ due to

799: the simple fact that we have finite spacing between

800: energy levels (see \cite{ophir} for a statistical point of view).

801: But if we assume that the energy levels

802: have some finite width $\Gamma$, then the smoothed

803: version of $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$ should

804: be considered. In common textbooks the introduction

805: of $\Gamma$ is ``justified" by assuming

806: some weak coupling to an environment,

807: or by taking the limit of infinite volume.

808: But we are dealing with a strictly isolated finite

809: system, and therefore the meaning of $\Gamma$

810: requires serious consideration.

811: We postpone the discussion of this issue

812: to the next section.

813: 

814: 

815: If the smoothed version of $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$

816: should be used in Eq.(\ref{e_34}), then it is possible to obtain

817: $\symG^{ij}$ from power spectrum  $\tilde{C}^{ij}(\omega)$

818: of the fluctuations. This is called the Fluctuation-Dissipation relation.

819: The spectral function $\tilde{C}^{ij}(\omega)$

820: is defined as the Fourier transform of the

821: symmetrized correlation function

822: %

823: \begin{eqnarray}

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

825: \end{eqnarray}

826: %

827: We use again the interaction picture,

828: as in the definition of $K^{ij}(\tau)$.

829: Also this function has a well defined classical limit.

830: 

831: 

832: 

833: There are several versions for the

834: Fluctuation-Dissipation relation.

835: The microcanonical version \cite{robbins}

836: has been derived using classical considerations,

837: leading to

838: %

839: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e43}

840: \symG^{ij}|_E \ = \

841: \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{g(E)}

842: \frac{d}{dE}\left[g(E) \ \tilde{C}_E^{ij}(\omega\rightarrow0)\right]

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: %

845: In Appendix~C we introduce its quantum mechanical derivation.

846: The subscript emphasizes that we assume

847: a microcanonical state with energy $E$,

848: and $g(E)$ is the density of states.

849: %

850: The traditional version of the Fluctuation-Dissipation relation

851: assumes a canonical state. It can be obtained

852: by canonical averaging over the microcanonical version leading to:

853: %

854: \begin{eqnarray}

855: \symG^{ij}|_T \ = \

856: \frac{1}{2T}\tilde{C}_T^{ij}(\omega\rightarrow0)

857: \end{eqnarray}

858: 

859: 

860: 

861: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

862: \section{The validity of linear response theory and beyond}

863: 

864: 

865: The standard derivation of the dissipative part of the Kubo formula,

866: leading to the Fluctuation-Dissipation relation Eq.(\ref{e43}),

867: is not very illuminating physically.

868: More troubling is the realization that one cannot tell

869: from the standard  derivation what are the conditions for its validity.

870: An alternate, physically appealing derivation \cite{vrn,dsp,crs,frc},

871: is based on the observation that energy absorption is related

872: to having diffusion in energy space \cite{wilk}.

873: In Appendix~E we outline the main ingredients of this approach.

874: 

875: 

876: It should be clear that the diffusion picture of Appendix~E

877: holds only in case of {\em chaotic systems}. If this diffusion picture

878: does not hold, then also the Kubo formula for $\symG^{ij}$ does not hold!

879: Driven one-dimensional systems are the obvious example

880: for the failure of linear response theory (LRT).

881: As in the case of the kicked rotator (standard map) \cite{qkr}

882: there is a complicated route to chaos and stochasticity:

883: By increasing  the driving amplitude the phase space

884: structure is changed. If the amplitude is smaller than

885: a threshold value, then the diffusion is blocked by Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser curves,

886: and consequently there is not dissipation.

887: Therefore the Kubo formula is not applicable in such cases.

888: 

889: 

890: The following discussion of {\em dissipative response}

891: assumes that we deal with a quantized chaotic system.

892: We would like to discuss the reason and the consequences

893: of having an energy scale $\Gamma$. In the standard derivation

894: the assumption of having level broadening as if comes out of the blue.

895: As we already noted it is customary in textbooks to argue

896: that either a continuum limit, or some small coupling to an environment

897: is essential in order to provide $\Gamma$. But this is of course

898: just a way to avoid confrontation with the physical  problem

899: of having a driven {\em  isolated finite mesoscopic system}.

900: In fact the energy scale $\Gamma$ is related to the rate ($\dot{x}$)

901: of the driving:

902: %

903: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_42}

904: \Gamma \ \ = \ \

905: \left(\frac{\hbar\sigma}{\Delta^2}|\dot{x}|\right)^{2/3} \times \Delta

906: \end{eqnarray}

907: %

908: where for simplicity of presentation we assume

909: one parameter driving. We use $\Delta$ to denote the

910: mean level spacing, and $\sigma$ is the root mean

911: square value of the matrix element $F_{nm}$

912: between neighboring levels.

913: %

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

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

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

917: %

918: The purpose of the present section is to give an optional

919: "pedestrian derivation" for $\Gamma$, and to discuss

920: the physical consequences.

921: 

922: 

923: 

924: Looking at the first order solution Eq.(\ref{e_28}) of Section~5

925: one realizes that it makes sense provided $|\mbf{W}_{mn}| \ll \Delta$.

926: This leads to the adiabaticity condition

927: %

928: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e91}

929: |\dot{x}| \ \ \ll \ \ \frac{\Delta^2}{\hbar\sigma}

930: \end{eqnarray}

931: %

932: If this condition is not satisfied one should

933: go beyond first order perturbation theory (FOPT),

934: in a sense to be explained below.

935: Note that this adiabaticity condition can be

936: written as $\Gamma\ll\Delta$.

937: 

938: 

939: The adiabaticity condition Eq.(\ref{e91}) can be explained

940: in a more illuminating way as follows:

941: Let us assume that we prepare the system at time $t=0$

942: at the level $|n\rangle$.

943: Using {\em time dependent} FOPT we find out that

944: a stationary-like solution is reached after

945: the Heisenberg time $t_{\tbox{H}}=2\pi\hbar/\Delta$.

946: This is of course a valid description

947: provided we do not have by then a breakdown

948: of FOPT. The condition for this is

949: easily found to be $\dot{x}t_{\tbox{H}} \ll \delta x_c$,

950: where $\delta x_c=\Delta/\sigma$. This

951: leads again to the adiabaticity condition Eq.(\ref{e91}).

952: 

953: 

954: 

955: Another assumption in the derivation of

956: Section~5 was that we can

957: ignore the parametric dependence

958: of $E_n$ and ${W}$ on $\bm{x}$.

959: The adiabaticity condition

960: $t_{\tbox{H}} \ll \delta x_c/\dot{x}$

961: manifestly justify such an assumption:

962: We should think of $t_{\tbox{H}}$ as

963: the transient time for getting

964: a stationary-like state, and we

965: should regard $\delta x_c$ as the parametric

966: correlation scale.

967: 

968: 

969: 

970: As strange as it sounds, in order to

971: have dissipation, it is essential to have

972: a breakdown of FOPT. In the language

973: of perturbation theory this implies

974: a required summation of diagrams to {\em infinite order},

975: leading to an effective broadening of the energy levels.

976: By iterating FOPT, neglecting interference terms,

977: we get a {\em Markovian approximation}

978: for the energy spreading process.

979: This leads to the diffusion equation of Appendix~E.

980: This diffusion can be regarded as arising

981: from Fermi-golden-rule transitions between

982: energy levels.

983: %

984: A simple ad-hoc way to determine the

985: energy level broadening  is to introduce  $\Gamma$

986: as a lower cutoff in the energy distribution

987: which is implied by Eq.(\ref{e_28}):

988: %

989: \begin{eqnarray}

990: |\langle n | \psi \rangle|^2 \ = \

991: \frac{|\hbar \dot{x} \mbf{F}_{mn}|^2}

992: {(E_n-E_m)^4 + (\Gamma)^4}

993: \end{eqnarray}

994: %

995: This constitutes a generalization of the well known

996: procedure used by Wigner in order to obtain

997: the local density of states \cite{vrn,dsp}.

998: However, in the present context we do not get a Lorentzian.

999: The width parameter $\Gamma$ is determined

1000: self consistently from normalization,

1001: leading to Eq.(\ref{e_42})  [disregarding numerical prefactor].

1002: 

1003: 

1004: We can summarize the above reasoning by saying

1005: that there is a {\em perturbative regime}

1006: that includes an adiabatic (FOPT) sub-regime.

1007: Outside of the adiabatic sub-regime we need {\em all orders}

1008: of perturbation theory leading to Fermi-golden-rule

1009: transitions, diffusion in energy space,  and hence dissipation.

1010: %

1011: Thus the dissipative part of Kubo formula

1012: emerges only in the regime $\Gamma>\Delta$,

1013: which is just the opposite of the adiabaticity condition.

1014: %

1015: The next obvious step is to determine

1016: the boundary of the perturbative regime.

1017: Following \cite{crs,frc} we argue

1018: that the required condition is $\Gamma\ll\Delta_b$.

1019: The bandwidth $\Delta_b\propto\hbar$

1020: is defined as the energy width

1021: $|E_n-E_m|$ were the matrix

1022: elements $F_{nm}$ are not vanishingly small.

1023: If the condition $\Gamma\ll\Delta_b$

1024: is violated we find ourselves

1025: in the non-perturbative regime 

1026: where the Kubo formula cannot be trusted \cite{crs,frc}.

1027: 

1028: 

1029: 

1030: We still have to illuminate why we can

1031: get in the perturbative regime

1032: a dissipative {\em linear} response 

1033: in spite of the breakdown of FOPT.

1034: The reason is having a separation of scales

1035: ($\Delta \ll \Gamma\ll\Delta_b$).

1036: The non-perturbative mixing on

1037: the small energy scale $\Gamma$ does not

1038: affect the rate of first-order

1039: transitions between distant levels

1040: \mbox{($\Gamma \ll |E_n-E_m| \ll \Delta_b$)}.

1041: Therefore Fermi golden rule picture

1042: applies to the description

1043: of the coarse grained energy spreading,

1044: and we get linear response.

1045: 

1046: 

1047: 

1048: The existence of the adiabatic regime is obviously

1049: a quantum mechanical effect. If we take

1050: the formal limit $\hbar\rightarrow 0$

1051: the adiabaticity condition  $\Gamma \ll \Delta$  breaks down.

1052: In fact the {\em proper} classical limit

1053: is {\em non-perturbative},

1054: because also the weaker condition

1055: $\Gamma \ll \Delta_b$ does not survive

1056: the $\hbar\rightarrow 0$ limit.

1057: For further details see \cite{vrn,dsp,crs,frc}.

1058: In the non-perturbative regime the

1059: quantum mechanical derivation of Kubo formula

1060: is not valid. Indeed we have demonstrated \cite{crs}

1061: the failure of Kubo formula in case of

1062: random-matrix models. But if the system

1063: has a classical limit, then Kubo formula

1064: still holds in the non-perturbative regime

1065: due to {\em semiclassical} (rather than quantum-mechanical)  reasons.

1066: 

1067: 

1068: 

1069: The discussion of {\em dissipation} assumes

1070: a generic situation such that

1071: the Schrodinger equation does not have

1072: a stationary solution. This means that

1073: driven one-dimensional systems are automatically

1074: excluded. Another non-generic possibility

1075: is to consider a special driving scheme,

1076: such as translation, rotation or dilation \cite{dil}.

1077: In such case the time dependent Hamiltonian

1078: ${\cal H}(\bm{x}(t))$  possesses a stationary solution

1079: (provided the ``velocity" $\dot{x}$

1080: is kept constant). Consequently we do

1081: not have a dissipation effect.

1082: In Section~11 we discuss the simplest

1083: example of pumping by translation, where

1084: the stationary adiabatic solution of Section~5

1085: is in fact exact, and no dissipation arises.

1086: 

1087: 

1088: 

1089: 

1090: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1092: \section{Application to pumping}

1093: 

1094: 

1095: So far we have discussed the response for driving in a very

1096: general way. From now on we focus on a system with a ring

1097: geometry as described in the Introduction, and illustrated

1098: in Fig.~1.  The shape of the ring is controlled by some

1099: parameters $x_1$ and $x_2$, and $x_3$ is the magnetic flux.

1100: The generalized force $F^3$ which is conjugate

1101: to the flux is the current. The time integral over the

1102: current is the transported charge:

1103: %

1104: \begin{eqnarray}

1105: Q \ \ = \ \ \oint \langle F^{3} \rangle dt

1106: \end{eqnarray}

1107: %

1108: In fact a less misleading terminology is to talk

1109: about ``probability current" and

1110: "integrated probability current".

1111: From a purely mathematical point of view

1112: it is not important whether the transported

1113: particle has an electrical charge.

1114: 

1115: 

1116: 

1117: Disregarding a possible  persistent current contribution,

1118: the expression for the pumped charge is:

1119: %

1120: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e6}

1121: Q \ = \  -\left[ \oint \bmsf{G} \cdot d\bm{x} + \oint \bmsf{B} \wedge d\bm{x} \right]_{k=3}

1122: \end{eqnarray}

1123: %

1124: If we neglect the first term, which is associated

1125: with the dissipation effect, and average the second

1126: ("adiabatic") term over the flux, then we get

1127: %

1128: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e7}

1129: \overline{Q|_{\tbox{adiabatic}}} \ = \

1130: -\frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\intt \bmsf{B} \cdot \vec{d\bm{x}} \wedge \vec{d\bm{x}}

1131: \end{eqnarray}

1132: %

1133: The integration should be taken over

1134: a cylinder of vertical height $2\pi\hbar$,

1135: and whose basis is determined by the projection of

1136: the pumping cycle onto the $(x_1,x_2)$ plane.

1137: 

1138: 

1139: We already pointed out that the Berry phase

1140: $(1/\hbar)\oint  \bm{A}_n\cdot \vec{d\bm{x}}$

1141: is gauge invariant. Therefore from Stokes law it follows that

1142: $(1/\hbar)\intt \bmsf{B}  \cdot \vec{d\bm{x}} \wedge \vec{d\bm{x}}$

1143: is independent of the surface, and therefore

1144: $(1/\hbar){\ointt} \bmsf{B}  \cdot \vec{d\bm{x}} \wedge \vec{d\bm{x}} $

1145: with closed surface should be $2\pi\times$integer.

1146: Integrating over a cylinder, as in Eq.(\ref{e7}),

1147: is effectively like integrating over a closed surface

1148: (because of the $2\pi$~periodicity in the vertical

1149: direction). This means that the flux averaged $Q$

1150: of Eq.(\ref{e7}) has to be an integer.

1151: 

1152: 

1153: 

1154: 

1155: The common interest is in pumping cycles

1156: in the $\Phi=0$ plane. This means  that the

1157: zero order conservative  contribution to~$Q$,

1158: due to  a persistent current, does not exist.

1159: Furthermore, from the reciprocity relations

1160: (see Appendix~B)  it follows that

1161: $\fullG^{31}=- \fullG^{13}$,

1162: and $\fullG^{32}=- \fullG^{23}$,

1163: which should be contrasted with

1164:  $\fullG^{12}=\fullG^{21}$.

1165: This means that a pumping cycle in the

1166: $\Phi=0$ plane is purely adiabatic:

1167: there is no dissipative contribution to~$Q$.

1168: Only the $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field   (second term in Eq.(\ref{e6}))

1169: is relevant to the calculation of the pumped charge,

1170: and its vertical component ${B}^{12}$

1171: vanishes due to the time reversal symmetry.

1172: 

1173: 

1174: 

1175: The absence of dissipative contribution for

1176: a cycle in the $\Phi=0$ plane, does not

1177: imply that dissipation is not an issue.

1178: The symmetric part of the conductance

1179: matrix $\symG^{ij}$ is in general non-zero,

1180: leading to an energy absorption

1181: rate which is proportional to $\dot{x}^2$.

1182: This implies that the energy absorption per cycle

1183: is proportional to $|\dot{x}|$. Therefore we

1184: are able to minimize the dissipation effect by making

1185: the pumping cycle very slow. Furthermore,

1186: if we get into the quantum-mechanical adiabatic regime,

1187: then $\symG^{ij}$ becomes extremely small, and then

1188: we can neglect the dissipation effect as long as

1189: quantum-mechanical adiabaticity can be trusted.

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: Whenever the dissipation effect cannot be neglected,

1194: one should specify whether or how a {\em stationary operation} is achieved.

1195: In case of pumping in open system the stationary

1196: operation is implicitly guaranteed by having equilibrated reservoirs,

1197: where the extra energy is dissipated to infinity.

1198: In case of pumping in closed system the issue of stationary

1199: operation is more subtle:

1200: %

1201: In the adiabatic regime, to the extend that adiabaticity

1202: can be trusted, we have a stationary solution to the transport problem,

1203: as defined in Section~5.

1204: But outside of the adiabatic regime

1205: we have diffusion in energy space (Appendix~E)

1206: leading to a slow energy absorption (dissipation).

1207: %

1208: Thus a driven system  is heated up gradually

1209: (though possibly very slowly).  Strictly speaking

1210: a stationary operation is not achieved,

1211: unless the system is in (weak)  thermal contact

1212: with some large bath.

1213: %

1214: Another way to reach a stationary operation,

1215: that does not involve an external bath, 

1216: is by having an effectively bounded phase space.

1217: This is the case with the mixed phase space example

1218: which is discussed in Ref.\cite{ratchets}.

1219: There the stochastic-like motion takes place

1220: in a bounded chaotic region in phase space.

1221: 

1222: 

1223: 

1224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1225: \section{classical dissipative pumping}

1226: 

1227: Before we discuss the quantum mechanical pumping,

1228: it is instructive to bring simple examples for

1229: {\em classical} pumping. In the following we consider

1230: one particle  ($\bm{r}$)

1231: in a two dimensional ring as in Fig.1a.

1232: 

1233: The first example is for classical {\em dissipative} pumping.

1234: The conductance $G=\fullG^{33}$

1235: can be calculated for this system \cite{wlf}

1236: leading to a mesoscopic variation of the Drude formula.

1237: The current is given by Ohm law $I=-G\times\dot{\Phi}$, where $-\dot{\Phi}$

1238: is the electro-motive-force.

1239: 

1240: Consider now the following pumping cycle:

1241: Change the flux from $\Phi_1$ to $\Phi_2$,

1242: hence pumping charge \mbox{$Q = -G(1)\times (\Phi_2-\Phi_1)$}.

1243: Change the conductance from $G(1)$ to $G(2)$

1244: by modifying the shape of the ring.

1245: Change the flux from $\Phi_2$ back to $\Phi_1$,

1246: hence pumping charge \mbox{$Q(2) = -G(2) \times (\Phi_1-\Phi_2)$}.

1247: Consequently the net pumping is

1248: %

1249: \begin{eqnarray}

1250: Q \ = \ (G(2)-G(1)) \times (\Phi_2-\Phi_1)

1251: \end{eqnarray}

1252: %

1253: Thus we have used the dissipative part of the conductance

1254: matrix (first term in Eq.(\ref{e6})) in order to pump charge.

1255: %

1256: In the quantum mechanical  version of this example

1257: extra care should be taken with respect to the

1258: zero order contribution of the persistent current.

1259: 

1260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1261: \section{classical adiabatic pumping}

1262: 

1263: 

1264: The second example is for classical {\em adiabatic} pumping.

1265: The idea is to trap the particle

1266: inside the ring by a potential well,

1267: and then to make a translation

1268: of the trap along a circle. The result of such a cycle

1269: is evidently $Q=1$. We would like to see

1270: how this trivial result emerges form the Kubo formula.

1271: 

1272: 

1273: Let $(\bm{r},\bm{p})$ be the canonical coordinate of the particle in the ring,

1274: while $(x_1,x_2)$ are the center coordinate of a trapping potential.

1275: The Hamiltonian is:

1276: %

1277: \begin{eqnarray}

1278: {\cal H}(\bm{r},\bm{p};\bm{x}(t))  &=&

1279: \frac{1}{2\mathsf{m}}

1280: \left[

1281: \mbf{p}_{\perp}^2 +

1282: \left(\mbf{p}_{\parallel}-\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2}}\Phi(t)\right)

1283: \right] \nonumber \\ &+&

1284: U_{\tbox{trap}}(\mbf{r}_1{-}x_1(t),\mbf{r}_2{-}x_2(t))

1285: \end{eqnarray}

1286: %

1287: where $\mbf{p}_{\parallel}$ and $\mbf{p}_{\perp}$ are the components

1288: of the momentum along the ring and in the perpendicular (transverse) directions.

1289: The pumping is done simply by cycling the position of the trap.

1290: The translation of the trap is assumed to be along an inside circle

1291: of radius $R$,

1292: %

1293: \begin{eqnarray}

1294: \bm{x}(t) = (R\cos(\Omega t),R\sin(\Omega t),\Phi{=}\const)

1295: \end{eqnarray}

1296: 

1297: 

1298: 

1299: In this problem the stationary solution of Section~5

1300: is an exact solution. Namely

1301: %

1302: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_psit}

1303: |\psi(t)\rangle \ = \eexp{i\mathsf{m}\dot{\bm{x}}\cdot\bm{r}} \ |n(\bm{x}(t))\rangle

1304: \end{eqnarray}

1305: %

1306: where $|n(\bm{x})\rangle\mapsto \psi^{(n)}(\bm{r}-\bm{x})$ are

1307: the eigenfunctions of a particle in the trap.

1308: Eq.(\ref{e_psit}) is just Galilei transformation from

1309: the moving (trap) frame to the Laboratory frame.

1310: 

1311: 

1312: It is a-priori clear that in this

1313: problem the pumped charge per cycle is $Q=1$,

1314: irrespective of $\Phi$. Therefore the $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field

1315: must be

1316: %

1317: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_52}

1318: \vec{\bm{B}} = -\frac{(x_1,x_2,0)}{2\pi (x_1^2+x_2^2)}

1319: \end{eqnarray}

1320: %

1321: This can be verified by calculation via Eq.(\ref{e29}).

1322: The singularity along the $x_3$ axis

1323: is not of quantum mechanical origin:

1324: It is not due to degeneracies, but rather

1325: due to the diverging current operator

1326: ($\partial {\cal H}/\partial x_3\propto 1/\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2}$).

1327: 

1328: 

1329: 

1330: 

1331: 

1332: 

1333: 

1334: 

1335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1337: \section{quantum pumping}

1338: 

1339: 

1340: We turn now to the quantum mechanical case.

1341: Consider an adiabatic cycle that

1342: involves a particular energy level $n$.

1343: This level is assumed to have a degeneracy

1344: point at $(x_1^{(0)},x_2^{(0)},\Phi^{(0)})$.

1345: It follows that in fact there is

1346: a vertical chain of degeneracy points:

1347: %

1348: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_chain}

1349: \mbox{chain} \ = \ (x_1^{(0)},x_2^{(0)},\Phi^{(0)}+2\pi\hbar\times\mbox{\small integer})

1350: \end{eqnarray}

1351: %

1352: These degeneracy points are important for the geometrical

1353: understanding of the $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field, as implied by Eq.(\ref{e29}).

1354: Every degeneracy point is like a monopole charge.

1355: The total flux that emerges from each monopole

1356: must be  $2\pi\hbar\times$integer for a reason that was

1357: explained after Eq.(\ref{e7}).

1358: Thus the monopoles are quantized in units of~$\hbar/2$.

1359: %

1360: The $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field which is created (so to say)

1361: by a vertical chain of monopoles may have a different {\em near field}

1362: and {\em far field} behavior, which we discuss below.

1363: 

1364: 

1365: 

1366: The far field region exists if the chains are

1367: well isolated.  Later we explain that ``far"

1368: means $g_T \ll 1$, where $g_T$ is the Thouless conductance.

1369: The far field  is obtained by regarding the chain as a smooth line.

1370: This leads {\em qualitatively} to the same field as in Eq.(\ref{e_52}).

1371: Consequently, for a ``large radius" pumping cycle

1372: in the $\Phi=0$ plane, we get $|Q|\approx1$.

1373: In the following we are interested in

1374: the deviation from exact quantization:

1375: If $\phi^{(0)}=0$ we expect to have

1376: $|Q| \ge 1$, while if $\phi^{(0)}=\pi$ we expect $|Q|\le 1$.

1377: Only for the $\phi$ averaged $Q$ of Eq.(\ref{e7})

1378: we get {\em exact quantization}.

1379: 

1380: 

1381: 

1382: The deviation from $|Q|\approx 1$ is extremely large

1383: if we consider a tight pumping cycle around

1384: a $\phi^{(0)}=0$ degeneracy.

1385: After linear transformation of the shape parameters,

1386: the energy splitting $\Delta=E_n-E_m$ of the energy level~$n$

1387: from its neighboring (nearly degenerated) level~$m$

1388: can be written as

1389: %

1390: \begin{eqnarray}

1391: \Delta=

1392: ((x_1{-}x_1^{(0)})^2+(x_2{-}x_2^{(0)})^2+

1393: c^2(\phi{-}\phi^{(0)})^2)^{1/2}

1394: \end{eqnarray}

1395: %

1396: where $c$ is a constant. The monopole field is accordingly

1397: %

1398: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e9}

1399: \vec{\bm{B}} = \pm\frac{c}{2} \

1400: \frac{( x_1{-}x_1^{(0)},  x_2{-}x_2^{(0)},   x_3{-}x_3^{(0)}) }

1401: {((x_1{-}x_1^{(0)})^2+(x_2{-}x_2^{(0)})^2+

1402: (\frac{c}{\hbar})^2(x_3{-}x_3^{(0)})^2)^{3/2}}

1403: \end{eqnarray}

1404: %

1405: where the prefactor is determined by the requirement

1406: of having a single ($\hbar/2$) monopole charge.

1407: Assuming a pumping cycle of radius $R$ in the $\Phi=0$ plane

1408: we get from the second term of Eq.(\ref{e6})

1409: %

1410: \begin{eqnarray}

1411: Q \ = \  -\left[\oint \bmsf{B} \wedge d\bm{x} \right]_3

1412: \ = \  \mp \pi \sqrt{g_T}

1413: \end{eqnarray}

1414: %

1415: where

1416: %

1417: \begin{eqnarray}

1418: g_T \ = \

1419: \frac{1}{\Delta}

1420: \frac{\partial^2\Delta}{\partial\phi^2} \ = \

1421: \frac{c^2}{R^2}

1422: \end{eqnarray}

1423: %

1424: is a practical definition for the Thouless conductance

1425: in this context. It is used here simply as a measure

1426: for the sensitivity of an energy level to the magnetic flux $\Phi$.

1427: 

1428: What we want to do in the next sections is to interpolate

1429: between the near field result, which is  $Q={\cal O}(\sqrt{g_T})$,

1430: and the far field  result, which is $Q={\cal O}(1)$.

1431: For this purpose it is convenient to consider

1432: a particular model that can be solved exactly.

1433: 

1434: 

1435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1436: \section{The double barrier model}

1437: 

1438: 

1439: A simple example for quantum pumping is the double barrier model.

1440: An open geometry version of this model has been

1441: analyzed in \cite{barriers} using the $S$~matrix approach.

1442: The analogous closed geometry version is obtained

1443: by considering a one-dimensional  ring with two delta barriers.

1444: As we are going to explain below,

1445: the pumping process in this model can be regarded

1446: as a particular example of an adiabatic transfer scheme:

1447: The electrons are adiabatically transfered from

1448: state to state one by one as in ``musical chair game".

1449: 

1450: 

1451: The two delta barriers version of the double barrier model

1452: is illustrated in Fig.2. The length of the ring is $L$,

1453: with periodic boundary conditions on $-(L/2)<r<(L/2)$.

1454: A dot region $|Q|<a/2$ is defined by the potential

1455: %

1456: \begin{eqnarray}

1457: U(r;c_1,c_2) =

1458: \frac{1}{c_1}\delta\left(r+\frac{a}{2}\right) +

1459: \frac{1}{c_2}\delta\left(r-\frac{a}{2}\right)

1460: \end{eqnarray}

1461: %

1462: It is assumed that $c_1$ and $c_2$ are small enough

1463: so one can classify the ring eigenstates into two

1464: categories: wire states, and dot states. The

1465: latter are those states that are localized in the

1466: dot region $|Q|<a/2$ in the limit of infinitely

1467: high barriers. We define the Fermi energy as

1468: the energy of the last occupied wire

1469: level in the limit of infinitely high barriers.

1470: 

1471: 

1472: The three parameters that we can control

1473: are the flux $x_3 = \Phi = \hbar\phi$,

1474: the bias $x_1=c_1-c_2$,

1475: and the dot potential $x_2=E_{\tbox{dot}}$

1476: which is related to  $c_1+c_2$.

1477: The energy $E_{\tbox{dot}}$ correspond

1478: to the dot state which is closest to the Fermi

1479: energy $E_F$ from above.

1480: We assume that the other dot levels

1481: are much further away from the Fermi energy,

1482: and can be ignored. Note that another possible

1483: way to control the dot potential, is simply

1484: by changing a gate voltage: That means to

1485: assume that there is a control over the

1486: potential floor in the region $|Q|<a/2$.

1487: 

1488: 

1489: 

1490: {\em The pumping cycle is assumed to be in the

1491: $\Phi=0$ plane, so there is no issue

1492: of conservative persistent current contribution}.

1493: The pumping cycle is defined as follows:

1494: We start with a positive bias ($x_1>0$)

1495: and lower the dot potential from a large $x_2>E_F$

1496: value to a small $x_2<E_F$ value.

1497: As a result, one electron is

1498: transfered via the {\em left} barrier into the

1499: dot region. Then we invert the bias

1500: ($x_1<0$) and raise back $x_2$. As a result

1501: the electron is transfered back into

1502: the wire via the {\em right} barrier.

1503: 

1504: 

1505: 

1506: A closer look at the above scenario (Fig.2b)

1507: reveals the following:

1508: As we lower the dot potential across a wire

1509: level, an electron is adiabatically transfered

1510: once from left to right and then from right

1511: to left. As long as the bias is

1512: positive ($x_1>0$) the net charge being pumped

1513: is very small ($|Q| \ll 1$). Only the lowest wire

1514: level that participate in the pumping cycle

1515: carries $Q={\cal O}(1)$ net charge:

1516: It takes an electron from the left side,

1517: and after the bias reversal it emits it

1518: into the right side.

1519: %

1520: %

1521: %

1522: Thus the pumping process in this model can be regarded

1523: as a particular example \cite{avron} of an {\em adiabatic transfer scheme}:

1524: The electrons are adiabatically transfered from

1525: state to state, one by one, as in ``musical chair game".

1526: 

1527: 

1528: 

1529: For a single occupied level the net $Q$ is the

1530: sum of charge transfer events that take place in

1531: four avoided crossings (two avoided crossings

1532: in case of the lowest level).

1533: For many particle occupation

1534: the total $Q$ is the sum over the net $Q$s

1535: which are carried by individual levels.

1536: For a dense zero temperature Fermi occupation

1537: the summation over all the net $Q$s is a telescopic sum,

1538: leaving non-canceling contributions only from the

1539: first and the last adiabatic crossings. The latter

1540: involve the last occupied level at the Fermi energy.

1541: 

1542: 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1546: \section{The three site lattice Hamiltonian}

1547: 

1548: 

1549: Rather than analyzing the two-delta-barriers version

1550: of the double barrier model, we consider below

1551: a simplified version that still contains the {\em same} essential

1552: ingredients. This is obtained by considering a three site lattice Hamiltonian.

1553: The advantage is obviously the possibility to make an exact analytical

1554: treatment that does not involve approximations.

1555: 

1556: 

1557: The middle site in the three site lattice Hamiltonian

1558: supports a single dot state,

1559: while the two other sites support

1560: two wire states. The Hamiltonian is

1561: %

1562: \begin{eqnarray}

1563: {\cal H} \mapsto \left(

1564: \matrix{

1565: 0 & c_1 & \eexp{i\phi} \cr

1566: c_1 & u & c_2 \cr

1567: \eexp{-i\phi} & c_2 & 0} \right)

1568: \end{eqnarray}

1569: %

1570: The three parameters are

1571: the bias $x_1=c_1-c_2$,

1572: the dot energy $x_2=u$,

1573: and the flux $x_3 = \Phi = \hbar\phi$.

1574: For presentation purpose we assume

1575: that \mbox{$0 < c_1,c_2 \ll 1$},

1576: and characterize the wire-dot coupling

1577: by the parameter $c=\sqrt{c_1c_2}$.

1578: 

1579: 

1580: 

1581: The eigenstates are $E_n$.

1582: Disregarding the interaction

1583: with the dot ($c=0$) we have two

1584: wire states with  \mbox{$E=\pm1$}.

1585: This implies degeneracies

1586: for $x_2=u=\mp1$.

1587: Once we switch on the coupling ($c>0$),

1588: the only possible degeneracies are between

1589: the even dot state and the odd wire state

1590: of the mirror symmetric Hamiltonian ($x_1=0$).

1591: The flux should be either integer

1592: (for degeneracy of the dot level with the lower wire level),

1593: or half integer

1594: (for degeneracy of the dot level with the upper wire level).

1595: Thus we have two vertical chains of degeneracies:

1596: %

1597: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1598: \mbox{The negative chain}

1599: \ &=& \  (0,-1{+}c^2,2\pi\hbar\times\mbox{\small integer})

1600: \\ \nonumber

1601: \mbox{The positive chain}

1602: \ &=& \ (0,+1{-}c^2,\pi+2\pi\hbar\times\mbox{\small integer})

1603: \end{eqnarray}

1604: 

1605: 

1606: 

1607: 

1608: 

1609: In order to calculate the $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field and pumped

1610: charge $Q$, we have to find the eigenvalues

1611: and the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian matrix.

1612: The secular equation for the eigenvalues is

1613: %

1614: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1615: E^3 - u E^2 - (1+c_1^2+c_2^2)E

1616: + u - 2 c_1 c_2 \cos(\phi) = 0

1617: \end{eqnarray}

1618: %

1619: Using the notations

1620: %

1621: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1622: {\cal Q} &=&  \frac{1}{9}u^2 +  \frac{1}{3}(1+c_1^2+c_2^2)

1623: \\ \nonumber

1624: {\cal R} &=&  \frac{1}{27}u^3

1625: + \frac{1}{6}(1+c_1^2+c_2^2)u - \frac{1}{2}u

1626: + c_1c_2 \cos(\phi)

1627: \\ \nonumber

1628: & & \cos(\theta)=\frac{{\cal R}}{\sqrt{{\cal Q}^3}}

1629: \end{eqnarray}

1630: %

1631: the roots of the above cubic equation are:

1632: %

1633: \begin{eqnarray}

1634: E_n = \frac{1}{3}u + 2\sqrt{{\cal Q}}\cos\left(\frac{1}{3} \theta  + n\frac{2\pi}{3} \right)

1635: \end{eqnarray}

1636: %

1637: where $n=0,\pm1$.

1638: The corresponding eigenstates are:

1639: %

1640: \begin{eqnarray}

1641: |n(\bm{x})\rangle \mapsto

1642: \frac{1}{\sqrt{S}}

1643: \left(

1644: \matrix{

1645: c_2 \eexp{i\phi} + c_1 E_n \cr

1646: 1 - E_n^2 \cr

1647: c_1\eexp{-i\phi} + c_2 E_n} \right)

1648: \end{eqnarray}

1649: %

1650: where $S$ is the normalization, namely

1651: %

1652: \begin{eqnarray}

1653: S =  (1 {-} E_n^2)^2

1654: + (c_1 {+} c_2 E_n)^2

1655: + (c_2 {+} c_1 E_n)^2

1656: \end{eqnarray}

1657: %

1658: For the calculation of the

1659: pumped charge in the next paragraph

1660: it is useful to notice that for $E=\pm 1$

1661: the normalization is $S=2(c_1 \pm c_2)^2$,

1662: while for $E=0$ the normalization is $S\approx 1$.

1663: 

1664: 

1665: 

1666: 

1667: After some algebra we find that

1668: the first component of the

1669: $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field in the

1670: $\Phi=0$ plane is

1671: %

1672: \begin{eqnarray}

1673: {\mbf{B}}^1 &=&

1674: -2\Im\left.\left\langle\frac{\partial}{\partial u} n(\bm{x}) \right|

1675: \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} n(\bm{x}) \right\rangle

1676: \\ \ &=&

1677: -(c_1^2-c_2^2)

1678: \frac{1}{S^2}

1679: \frac{\partial S}{\partial u}

1680: \end{eqnarray}

1681: %

1682: Which is illustrated in Fig.3.

1683: From here it follow that if we

1684: keep constant bias, and change

1685: only $x_2=u$, then the pumped charge is:

1686: %

1687: \begin{eqnarray}

1688: Q = -\int {\mbf{B}}^1 dx_2 =

1689: \left.

1690: - (c_1^2-c_2^2)\frac{1}{S}

1691: \right|_{\tbox{initial}}^{\tbox{final}}

1692: \end{eqnarray}

1693: %

1694: For a planar ($\Phi=0$) pumping cycle around

1695: the negative vertical chain the main contribution

1696: to $Q$ comes from the two crossings

1697: of the $x_2 \approx -1$ line.

1698: Hence we get

1699: %

1700: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_Qmodel}

1701: Q = \frac{c_1+c_2}{c_1-c_2} =

1702: \sqrt{1+2g_T}

1703: \end{eqnarray}

1704: %

1705: where the Thouless conductance

1706: in this context refers to the

1707: avoided crossing, and is defined as

1708: %

1709: \begin{eqnarray}

1710: g_T \equiv \left.\frac{1}{\Delta}

1711: \frac{\partial^2\Delta}

1712: {\partial\phi^2}\right|_{\phi=0}

1713: = \frac{2c_1c_2}{(c_1-c_2)^2}

1714: \end{eqnarray}

1715: %

1716: %

1717: %

1718: %

1719: %

1720: A similar calculation of the pumped charge for

1721: a planar cycle around the positive chain leads to

1722: %

1723: \begin{eqnarray}

1724: Q = -\frac{c_1-c_2}{c_1+c_2} =

1725: -\sqrt{1-2g_T}

1726: \end{eqnarray}

1727: %

1728: with $g_T = {2c_1c_2}/{(c_1 + c_2)^2}$.

1729: In both cases we have approximate quantization

1730: $Q=\pm 1 + {\cal O}(g_T)$ for $g_T \ll 1$,

1731: while for a tight cycle either $Q \rightarrow \infty$

1732: or $Q \rightarrow 0$ depending on which

1733: line of degeneracies is being encircled.

1734: If the pumping cycle encircles both chains then

1735: we get $Q = {4c_1c_2}/{(c_1^2-c_2^2)}$.

1736: In the latter case $Q={\cal O}(g_T)$ for $g_T \ll 1$,

1737: with no indication for quantization.

1738: 

1739: 

1740: 

1741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1744: \section{Summary and Discussion}

1745: 

1746: We have shown how the Kubo formalism can

1747: be used in order to derive both classical and quantum

1748: mechanical results for the pumped charge $Q$ in

1749: a closed system. In this formulation the distinction

1750: between dissipative and non-dissipative contributions is manifest.

1751: 

1752: 

1753: 

1754: Within the framework of the Kubo formalism (disregarding non-linear corrections)

1755: we have made a distinction between the following levels of treatment: \\

1756: %

1757: \begin{minipage}{\hsize}

1758: \vspace*{0.1cm}

1759: \begin{itemize}

1760: \setlength{\itemsep}{0cm}

1761: \item

1762: Strict adiabaticity \\ (outcome of zero order treatment)

1763: \item

1764: Adiabatic transport \\ (outcome of stationary first order treatment)

1765: \item

1766: Dissipation \\ (the result of first order transitions)

1767: \end{itemize}

1768: \vspace*{0.0cm}

1769: \end{minipage}

1770: %

1771: In the adiabatic regime one can assume

1772: a {\em stationary} solution to the adiabatic equation,

1773: which implies no dissipation effect.

1774: This leads to the picture of adiabatic transport,

1775: where the Berry phase is the outcome of a zero order treatment,

1776: while the ``geometric magnetism" of Eq.(\ref{e_30})  is the outcome

1777: of a first order treatment of the inter-level couplings.

1778: 

1779: 

1780: 

1781: In some very special cases

1782: (translations, rotations and dilations)

1783: this assumption (of having a stationary solution)

1784: is in fact exact, but in generic circumstance this

1785: assumption is an approximation.

1786: Outside of the adiabatic regime the stationary solution

1787: cannot be trusted.

1788: 

1789: 

1790: 

1791: Assuming quantized {\em chaotic dynamics} one

1792: argues that Fermi-golden-rule transitions

1793: between levels lead to (slow) diffusion

1794: in energy (Eq.(\ref{eD1})). This leads to the emergence

1795: of the dissipative part in the Kubo formula.

1796: %

1797: We have obtained an expression (Eq.(\ref{e_42}))

1798: for the energy scale $\Gamma \propto |\dot{x}|^{2/3}$

1799: that controls the dissipative effect.

1800: We have explained that the dissipative contribution

1801: to the Kubo formula is valid only in the regime

1802: $\Delta < \Gamma \ll \Delta_b$. Otherwise the dynamics

1803: is either of adiabatic nature ($\Gamma \ll \Delta$) or

1804: non-perturbative ($\Gamma>\Delta$).

1805: 

1806: 

1807: 

1808: %%%%

1809: 

1810: 

1811: In order to calculate the pumped charge~$Q$ we have

1812: to perform a closed line integral over the conductance (Eq.(\ref{e6})).

1813: This may have in general both adiabatic and dissipative

1814: contributions. For the common pumping cycle in the

1815: $\Phi=0$ plane, only the adiabatic contribution exists.

1816: This follows from the reciprocity relations (Section~9).

1817: Still we have emphasized (without any contradiction)

1818: that in the same circumstances a dissipation effect

1819: typically accompanies the pumping process.

1820: 

1821: 

1822: 

1823: The quantum adiabatic contribution

1824: to the pumping is determined

1825: by a line integral over a $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field

1826: which is created by {\em monopoles}.

1827: The monopoles, which are related

1828: to the degeneracies of the Hamiltonian,

1829: are located along vertical chains in $x$~space (Eq.(\ref{e_chain})).

1830: The 3~site model provides the simplest

1831: example for such vertical chains:

1832: By calculating the $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field which

1833: is created (so to say) by these chains,

1834: we were able to determine the charge

1835: which is pumped during a cycle (e.g. Eq.(\ref{e_Qmodel})).

1836: 

1837: 

1838: 

1839: The (monopoles of the) vertical chains

1840: have {\em near field} regions (Eq.(\ref{e9})).

1841: If the chains  are well isolated in $x$ space,

1842: then there are also {\em far field} regions.

1843: The far field regions are defined as those where

1844: the Thouless conductance is very small ($g_T \ll 1$).

1845: Pumping cycles that are contained in the

1846: far field region of a given chain lead to

1847: an approximately quantized pumping

1848: \mbox{$Q = \mbox{\small integer}+{\cal O}(g_T)$}.

1849: %

1850: %

1851: It is important to realize that the existence

1852: of far field regions in $x$~space is associated with having

1853: a low dimensional system far away from the classical limit.

1854: In a quantized chaotic system it is unlikely

1855: to have $g_T \ll 1$ along a pumping cycle.

1856: As we take the $\hbar\rightarrow0$ limit the

1857: vertical chains become very dense,

1858: and the far field regions disappear.

1859: 

1860: 

1861: 

1862: 

1863: 

1864: In the subtle limiting case of open geometry

1865: we expect to get agreement with the

1866: $S$-matrix formula of B\"{u}ttiker Pr\'{e}tre

1867: and Thomas (BPT) \cite{BPT}.

1868: Using the notations of the present Paper

1869: the BPT formula for the current

1870: that comes out of (say) the right lead

1871: can be written as:

1872: %

1873: \begin{eqnarray}

1874: \fullG^{3j} = \frac{e}{2\pi i}

1875: \trc\left(P\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_j}

1876: S^{\dag}\right)

1877: \end{eqnarray}

1878: %

1879: where $P$ is the projector on the right lead channels.

1880: For $G^{33}$ the above reduces to the Landauer formula.

1881: The details regarding the relation between

1882: the Kubo formula and the BPT formula will be

1883: published in a separate paper \cite{pmo}. Here we just note that

1884: the derivation is based on a generalization

1885: of the Fisher-Lee approach \cite{datta,fisher,stone}.

1886: 

1887: 

1888: 

1889: Finally it is important to remember that the theory of

1890: driven systems is the corner stone for the analysis

1891: of interaction between ``slow" and ``fast" degrees of freedom.

1892: Assume that that the $x_j$ are in fact dynamical variable,

1893: and that the conjugate momenta are $p_j$.

1894: The standard textbook example is the study

1895: of diatomic molecules. In such case $x_j$ are the locations of the nuclei.

1896: The total Hamiltonian is assumed to be of the general form

1897: %

1898: \begin{eqnarray}

1899: {\cal H}_{\tbox{total}}=\frac{1}{2M}\sum_j p_j^2 \ + \  {\cal H}(\bm{x})

1900: \end{eqnarray}

1901: %

1902: where ${\cal H}$ is the Hamiltonian of the

1903: "fast" degrees of freedom (in the context

1904: of molecular physics these are the electrons).

1905: Rather than using the standard basis,

1906: one can use the Born-Oppenheimer basis

1907: $|x,n(\bm{x})\rangle = |x\rangle \otimes |n(\bm{x})\rangle$.

1908: Then the Hamiltonian can be written as

1909: %

1910: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1911: {\cal H}_{\tbox{total}}=

1912: \frac{1}{2M}\sum_j(p_j-\mbf{A}^j_{nm}(\bm{x}))^2

1913: \ + \  \delta_{nm}E_n(\bm{x})

1914: \end{eqnarray}

1915: %

1916: where the interaction term is consistent with Eq.(\ref{e_23}).

1917: Thus it is evident that the theory of driven systems

1918: is a special limit of this problem,

1919: which is obtained if we treat the $x_j$ as classical variables.

1920: 

1921: 

1922: %\newpage

1923: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1925: 

1926: \ \\ \ \\ 

1927: {\bf Acknowledgments:}

1928: It is my pleasure to thank Yshai Avishai (Ben-Gurion University), Yosi Avron (Technion),

1929: Thomas Dittrich (Colombia), Shmuel Fishman (Technion), Tsampikos Kottos (Gottingen),

1930: and Holger Schantz (Gottingen) for useful discussions.

1931: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02),

1932: and by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific

1933: Research and Development.

1934: 

1935: 

1936: 

1937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1940: \appendix

1941: 

1942: 

1943: \clearpage

1944: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1945: \section{The Kubo formula: Standard Derivation}

1946: 

1947: In this Appendix we present an elementary textbook-style

1948: derivation of the Kubo formula. For notational simplicity

1949: we write the Hamiltonian as \mbox{${\cal H}=\bmsf{H}_0-f(t)\bmsf{V}$}.

1950: %

1951: It is assumed that the system, in the absence

1952: of driving, is prepared in a stationary state $\rho_0$.

1953: In the presence of driving we look for a first order solution

1954: $\rho(t) = \rho_0 +\tilde{\rho}(t)$.

1955: The equation for $\tilde{\rho}(t)$ is:

1956: %

1957: \begin{eqnarray}

1958: \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}(t)}{\partial t} \approx

1959: -i[\bmsf{H}_0, \tilde{\rho}(t)] + if(t)[\bmsf{V},\rho_0]

1960: \end{eqnarray}

1961: %

1962: This equation can be re-written as

1963: %

1964: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1965: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}

1966: (\bmsf{U}_0(t)^{-1} \tilde{\rho}(t) \bmsf{U}_0(t))

1967: \approx

1968: if(t)[  \bmsf{U}_0(t)^{-1}\bmsf{V}\bmsf{U}_0(t),\rho_0]

1969: \end{eqnarray}

1970: %

1971: where $\bmsf{U}_0(t)$ is the evolution operator

1972: which is generated by $\bmsf{H}_0$.

1973: The solution of the latter equation is

1974: %

1975: \begin{eqnarray}

1976: \tilde{\rho}(t)

1977: \ \approx \

1978: \int^{t}   i [\bmsf{V}(-(t{-}t')), \rho_0]  \ f(t')dt'

1979: \end{eqnarray}

1980: %

1981: where we use the usual definition

1982: of the ``interaction picture" operator

1983: $\bmsf{V}(\tau)=\bmsf{U}_0(\tau)^{-1}\bmsf{V}\bmsf{U}_0(\tau)$.

1984: 

1985: 

1986: 

1987: 

1988: Consider now the time dependence of the expectation value

1989: \mbox{$\langle \bmsf{F} \rangle_t = \trc(\bmsf{F}\rho(t))$}

1990: of an observable. Disregarding the zero order contribution,

1991: the first order expression is

1992: %

1993: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1994: \langle \bmsf{F} \rangle_t

1995: \ &\approx& \

1996: \int^{t}  i \trc\left(\bmsf{F} [\bmsf{V}(-(t{-}t')), \rho_0]\right)  \ f(t')dt'

1997: \\ \nonumber

1998: &=& \

1999: \int^{t}   \alpha(t-t')  \ f(t')dt'

2000: \end{eqnarray}

2001: %

2002: where the response kernel $\alpha(\tau)$ is

2003: defined for $\tau>0$ as

2004: %

2005: \begin{eqnarray}

2006: \alpha(\tau) &=& i\ \trc\left(\bmsf{F} [\bmsf{V}(-\tau), \rho_0]\right)

2007: \nonumber \\

2008: \ &=& i\ \trc\left([\bmsf{F}, \bmsf{V}(-\tau)] \rho_0\right)

2009: \nonumber \\

2010: \ &=& i \langle [\bmsf{F}, \bmsf{V}(-\tau)] \rangle

2011: \nonumber \\

2012: \ &=& i \langle [\bmsf{F}(\tau), \bmsf{V}] \rangle

2013: \end{eqnarray}

2014: %

2015: We have used above the cyclic property of the trace operation;

2016: the stationarity $\bmsf{U}_0\rho_0\bmsf{U}_0^{-1}=\rho_0$ of

2017: the unperturbed state; and the definition

2018: $\bmsf{F}(\tau)=\bmsf{U}_0(\tau)^{-1}\bmsf{F}\bmsf{U}_0(\tau)$.

2019: 

2020: 

2021: 

2022: 

2023: 

2024: \newpage

2025: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2026: \section{Remarks regarding the generalized susceptibility}

2027: 

2028: In this appendix we would like to further illuminate the relation

2029: between the generalized susceptibility and the conductance matrix.

2030: %

2031: The generalized susceptibility $\chi^{kj}(\omega)$ is

2032: the Fourier transform of the causal response kernel $\alpha^{kj}(\tau)$.

2033: Therefore it is an analytic function in the upper

2034: half of the complex $\omega$ plan, whose real and imaginary

2035: parts are related by Hilbert transforms (Kramers-Kronig relations):

2036: %

2037: \begin{eqnarray}

2038: \chi_0^{kj}(\omega)  \equiv  \re [\chi^{kj}(\omega)] =

2039: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\im[\chi^{kj}(\omega')]}{\omega'-\omega} \ \frac{d\omega'}{\pi}

2040: \end{eqnarray}

2041: %

2042: The imaginary part of $\chi^{kj}(\omega)$

2043: is the sine transforms of $\alpha^{kj}(\tau)$,

2044: and therefore it is proportional to $\omega$

2045: for small frequencies.

2046: Consequently it is convenient to write the

2047: Fourier transformed version of Eq.(\ref{e_3}) as

2048: %

2049: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e3}

2050: [\langle F^k \rangle]_{\omega} \ = \ \sum_j

2051: \chi_0^{kj}(\omega) [x_j]_{\omega}

2052: -\mu^{kj}(\omega) [\dot{x}_j]_{\omega}

2053: \end{eqnarray}

2054: %

2055: where the dissipation coefficient is defined as

2056: %

2057: \begin{eqnarray}

2058: \mu^{kj}(\omega)  =

2059: \frac{\im[\chi^{kj}(\omega)]}{\omega} =

2060: \int_0^{\infty} \alpha^{kj}(\tau) \frac{\sin(\omega\tau)}{\omega}d\tau

2061: \end{eqnarray}

2062: %

2063: In this paper we ignore the first term in Eq.(\ref{e3})

2064: which signify the non-dissipative in-phase response.

2065: Rather we put the emphasis on the ``DC limit" ($\omega\rightarrow 0$)

2066: of the second term. Thus the conductance

2067: matrix \mbox{$\fullG^{kj}=\mu^{kj}(\omega \rightarrow 0)$}

2068: is just a synonym for the term ``dissipation coefficient".

2069: However, ``conductance" is a better (less misleading) terminology:

2070: it does not have the (wrong) connotation

2071: of being  specifically  associated with dissipation,

2072: and consequently it is less confusing to say that

2073: it contains a (non-dissipative) adiabatic component.

2074: 

2075: 

2076: 

2077: For systems where time reversal symmetry is broken

2078: due to the presence of a magnetic field ${\cal B}$,

2079: the response kernel, and consequently the generalized susceptibility

2080: and the conductance matrix satisfies the Onsager reciprocity relations

2081: %

2082: \begin{eqnarray}

2083: \alpha^{ij}(\tau, -{\cal B}) \ &=& \ [\pm] \ \alpha^{ji}(\tau, {\cal B}) \\

2084: \chi^{ij}(\omega, -{\cal B}) \ &=& \ [\pm] \ \chi^{ji}(\omega, {\cal B}) \\

2085: \fullG^{ij} (-{\cal B}) \  &=& \    [\pm]   \ \fullG^{ji}({\cal B})

2086: \end{eqnarray}

2087: %

2088: where the plus (minus)  applies if the signs of $F^i$ and $F^j$

2089: transform (not) in the same way under time reversal.

2090: These reciprocity relations follow from

2091: the Kubo formula (Eq.(\ref{e_kubo}),

2092: using

2093: $K^{ij}(-\tau,-{\cal B}) = - [\pm] K^{ij}(\tau,{\cal B}) $,

2094: together with the trivial identity

2095: $K^{ij}(-\tau,{\cal B}) = - K^{ji}(\tau,{\cal B}) $.

2096: In Section.~9 we discuss the implications of the reciprocity relations

2097: in the context of pumping.

2098: 

2099: 

2100: 

2101: \clearpage

2102: \onecolumngrid

2103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2105: \section{Expressions for $\bmsf{B}$ and $\fullG$}

2106: 

2107: 

2108: The functions $C^{ij}(\tau)$  and $K^{ij}(\tau)$ are

2109: the expectation values of hermitian operators.

2110: Therefore they are real functions. It follows that the

2111: real part of their Fourier transform

2112: is a symmetric function with respect to $\omega$,

2113: while the imaginary part of their Fourier transform

2114: is anti symmetric with respect to $\omega$.

2115: By definition they satisfy $C^{ij}(\tau)  = C^{ji}(-\tau)$

2116: and $K^{ij}(\tau)  = -K^{ji}(-\tau) $.

2117: %

2118: It is convenient to regard them as the real and imaginary parts

2119: of one complex function $\Phi^{ij}(\tau)$. Namely,

2120: %

2121: \begin{eqnarray}

2122: \Phi^{ij}(\tau) &=& \langle F^i(\tau)F^j(0)\rangle \ \ = \ \ C^{ij}(\tau)-i\frac{\hbar}{2}K^{ij}(\tau) \\

2123: C^{ij}(\tau) &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(\Phi^{ij}(\tau) + \Phi^{ji}(-\tau)\right) \\

2124: K^{ij}(\tau) &=& \frac{i}{\hbar} \left(\Phi^{ij}(\tau) - \Phi^{ji}(-\tau)\right)

2125: \end{eqnarray}

2126: 

2127: 

2128: 

2129: 

2130: 

2131: It is possible to express the decomposition $\fullG^{ij}=\symG^{ij}+\mbf{B}^{ij} $

2132: in terms of $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$. Using the definition Eq.(\ref{e_33}) we get:

2133: %

2134: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eB4}

2135: \fullG^{ij}

2136: \ \ = \ \

2137: \int_0^{\infty}K^{ij}(\tau)\tau d\tau

2138: \ \ = \ \

2139: {-}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\re[\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega^2}

2140: \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} +

2141: \left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\im[\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega}\right]_{\omega{=}0}

2142: \end{eqnarray}

2143: %

2144: %

2145: %

2146: %

2147: The first term is antisymmetric with respect to its indexes,

2148: and is identified as $\mbf{B}^{ij}$.

2149: The second term is symmetric with respect to its indexes,

2150: and is identified as $\symG^{ij}$.

2151: The last step in the above derivation involves

2152: the following identity that hold for any real function $f(\tau)$

2153: %

2154: \begin{eqnarray}

2155: \int_0^{\infty}f(\tau)\tau d\tau

2156: =

2157: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\tilde{f}(\omega)

2158: \int_0^{\infty}\eexp{-i\omega\tau}\tau d\tau

2159: =

2160: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

2161: \tilde{f}(\omega)

2162: \left(-\frac{1}{\omega^2}+i\pi\delta'(\omega)\right)

2163: =

2164: \nonumber \\

2165: =

2166: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

2167: \left(-\frac{\re[\tilde{f}(\omega)]}{\omega^2}

2168: -\pi\im[\tilde{f}(\omega)]\delta'(\omega)\right)

2169: =

2170: {-}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\re[\tilde{f}(\omega)]}{\omega^2}

2171: \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} +

2172: \left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\im[\tilde{f}(\omega)]}{\omega}\right]_{\omega{=}0}

2173: \end{eqnarray}

2174: %

2175: Note that $\im[\tilde{f}(\omega)]$ is the sine transform of $f(\tau)$,

2176: and therefore it is proportional to $\omega$ is the limit of small frequencies.

2177: 

2178: 

2179: 

2180: It is of practical value to re-derive Eq.(\ref{eB4})

2181: by writing $\Phi^{ij}(\tau)$ using the energies $E_n$

2182: and  the matrix elements~$F^i_{nm}$.

2183: Then we can get from it straightforwardly (using the definitions)

2184: all the other expressions. Namely:

2185: %

2186: \begin{eqnarray}

2187: \Phi^{ij}(\tau) \ &=& \

2188: \sum_n f(E_n) \sum_{m} F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}

2189: \exp\left(-i\frac{E_m{-}E_n}{\hbar}t \right)

2190: \\

2191: \tilde{\Phi}^{ij}(\omega)  \ &=& \

2192: \sum_n f(E_n) \sum_{m} F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}

2193: \ 2\pi\delta\left(\omega-\frac{E_m{-}E_n}{\hbar} \right)

2194: \\

2195: \chi^{ij}(\omega) \ &=& \ \sum_{n,m} f(E_n)\left(

2196: \frac{-F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}}{\hbar\omega{-}(E_m{-}E_n){+}i0}

2197: +\frac{F^j_{nm}F^i_{mn}}{\hbar\omega{+}(E_m{-}E_n){+}i0}\right)

2198: \\

2199: \symG^{ij} \ &=& \ -2\pi\hbar  \sum_n f(E_n) \sum_{m(\ne n)}

2200: \re\left[F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\right]

2201: \ \delta'(E_m-E_n)

2202: \\ \label{eB10}

2203: \mbf{B}^{ij} \ &=& \ 2\hbar  \sum_n f(E_n) \sum_{m(\ne n)}

2204: \frac{\im\left[

2205: F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\right]}

2206: {(E_m-E_n)^2}

2207: \end{eqnarray}

2208: %

2209: %

2210: One observes that the expression for $\mbf{B}^{ij}$ coincides

2211: with the adiabatic transport result Eq.(\ref{e_30}).

2212: Alternatively this identification can be obtained by expressing

2213: the sum in Eq.(\ref{eB10}) as an integral, getting form it

2214: the first term in Eq.(\ref{eB4}):

2215: %

2216: \begin{eqnarray}

2217: \mbf{B}^{ij} \ \  = \ \

2218: \frac{2}{\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

2219: \frac{\im[\tilde{\Phi}^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega^2}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

2220: \ \ = \ \

2221: \frac{2}{\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

2222: \frac{\im[\tilde{C}^{ij}(\omega)]-\frac{\hbar}{2}\re[ \tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega) ]}

2223: {\omega^2}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

2224: \ \ = \ \

2225: -\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

2226: \frac{\re[\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)]}{\omega^2}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

2227: \end{eqnarray}

2228: 

2229: 

2230: 

2231: \clearpage

2232: \onecolumngrid

2233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2234: \section{Expressing $\tilde{K}(\omega)$ using  $\tilde{C}(\omega)$}

2235: 

2236: We can use the following manipulation in order

2237: to relate  $\tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)$ to $\tilde{C}^{ij}(\omega)$,

2238: %

2239: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eC1}

2240: \tilde{K}^{ij}(\omega)&=& \sum_n f(E_n) \ \tilde{K}^{ij}_n(\omega)

2241: \\ \nonumber &=&

2242: \frac{i}{\hbar} 2\pi \sum_{nm}f(E_n)

2243: (F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\delta(\omega+\omega_{nm})-F^j_{nm}F^i_{mn}\delta(\omega-\omega_{nm}))

2244: \\ \nonumber  &=&

2245: \frac{i}{\hbar} 2\pi \sum_{nm}f(E_m)

2246: (-F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\delta(\omega+\omega_{nm})+F^j_{nm}F^i_{mn}\delta(\omega-\omega_{nm}))

2247: \\ \nonumber  &=&

2248: \frac{i}{\hbar} 2\pi \sum_{nm} \frac{f(E_n)-f(E_m)}{2}

2249: (F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\delta(\omega+\omega_{nm})-F^j_{nm}F^i_{mn}\delta(\omega-\omega_{nm}))

2250: \\ \nonumber  &=&

2251: -i \omega \pi \sum_{nm}\frac{f(E_n)-f(E_m)}{E_n-E_m}

2252: (F^i_{nm}F^j_{mn}\delta(\omega+\omega_{nm})+F^j_{nm}F^i_{mn}\delta(\omega-\omega_{nm}))

2253: \\ \nonumber &=&

2254: -i\omega\sum_{n} f'(E_n) \ C^{ij}_n(\omega)

2255: \end{eqnarray}

2256: %

2257: where we use the notation $\omega_{nm}=(E_n-E_m)/\hbar$.

2258: The third line differs from the second line by permutation of the dummy

2259: summation indexes, while the fourth line is the sum of the second

2260: and the third lines divided by 2. In the last equality we assume small $\omega$.

2261: If the levels are very dense, then we can replace the summation by integration,

2262: leading to the relation:

2263: %

2264: \begin{eqnarray}

2265: \int g(E)dE \ f(E) \ \tilde{K}^{ij}_{E}(\omega)

2266: \ \ = \ \

2267: -i \omega \int g(E)dE \ f'(E) \ \tilde{C}^{ij}_{E}(\omega)

2268: \end{eqnarray}

2269: %

2270: where $\tilde{K}^{ij}_{E}(\omega)$ and $\tilde{C}^{ij}_{E}(\omega)$

2271: are microcanonically smoothed functions.

2272: Since this equality hold for any smoothed $f(E)$, it follows

2273: that the following relation holds (in the limit $\omega\rightarrow0$):

2274: %

2275: \begin{eqnarray}

2276: \tilde{K}^{ij}_E(\omega)

2277: \  = \

2278: i\omega \frac{1}{g(E)}\frac{d}{dE}\left[g(E)C^{ij}_E(\omega)\right]

2279: \end{eqnarray}

2280: %

2281: If we do not assume small $\omega$, but instead assume canonical state,

2282: then a variation on the last steps in Eq.(\ref{eC1}),

2283: using the fact that $(f(E_n){-}f(E_m))/ (f(E_n){+}f(E_m))= \tanh((E_n{-}E_m)/(2T))$

2284: is an odd function, leads to the relation

2285: %

2286: \begin{eqnarray}

2287: \tilde{K}^{ij}_T(\omega)  \ = \  i\omega \times

2288: \frac{1}{\hbar\omega}\tanh\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{2T}\right)  \  C^{ij}_T(\omega)

2289: \end{eqnarray}

2290: %

2291: Upon substitution of the above expressions in the Kubo formula for $\symG^{ij}$,

2292: one obtains the Fluctuation-Dissipation relation.

2293: 

2294: 

2295: 

2296: %\clearpage

2297: 

2298: \ \\ \ \\

2299: \line(1,0){490}

2300: \ \\ \ \\

2301: 

2302: \twocolumngrid

2303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2305: \section{The Kubo formula and the diffusion in energy space}

2306: 

2307: The illuminating derivation of Eq.(\ref{e43}) is based on

2308: the observation that energy absorption is related to

2309: having diffusion in energy space. Let us assume that

2310: the probability distribution $\rho(E)=g(E)f(E)$ of the energy

2311: satisfies the following diffusion equation:

2312: %

2313: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eD1}

2314: \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \ = \

2315: \frac{\partial}{\partial E}

2316: \left(g(E)D_E \frac{\partial}{\partial E}

2317: \left(\frac{1}{g(E)}\rho\right)\right)

2318: \end{eqnarray}

2319: %

2320: The energy of the system is

2321: $\langle {\cal H} \rangle=\int E \rho(E)dE$.

2322: It follows that the rate of energy absorption is

2323: %

2324: \begin{eqnarray}

2325: \frac{d}{dt}\langle {\cal H} \rangle

2326: = - \int_0^{\infty} dE \ g(E) \ D_E

2327: \ \frac{\partial}{\partial E}

2328: \left(\frac{\rho(E)}{g(E)}\right)

2329: \end{eqnarray}

2330: %

2331: For a microcanonical preparation we get

2332: %

2333: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e48}

2334: \frac{d}{dt}\langle {\cal H} \rangle

2335: \ = \

2336: \frac{1}{g(E)}

2337: \frac{d}{dE}\left[g(E) \ D_E \right]

2338: \end{eqnarray}

2339: %

2340: This diffusion-dissipation relation reduces

2341: immediately to the fluctuation-dissipation relation

2342: if we assume that the diffusion in energy

2343: space due to the driving is given by

2344: %

2345: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e49}

2346: D_E \ = \

2347: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}

2348: \tilde{C}^{ij}_E(\omega{\rightarrow}0)

2349: \ \dot{x}_i \dot{x}_j

2350: \end{eqnarray}

2351: %

2352: Thus it is clear that a theory for linear response

2353: should establish that there is a diffusion process in energy

2354: space due to the driving, and that the diffusion

2355: coefficient is given by Eq.(\ref{e49}).

2356: More importantly, this approach also allows

2357: treating cases where the expression

2358: for $D_E$ is non-perturbative,

2359: while the diffusion-dissipation relation Eq.(\ref{e48}) still holds!

2360: 

2361: 

2362: A full exposition (and further  reference) for this route

2363: of derivation can be found in \cite{vrn,dsp,crs,frc}.

2364: Here we shall give just the classical derivation of Eq.(\ref{e49}),

2365: which is extremely simple. We start with the identity

2366: %

2367: \begin{eqnarray}

2368: \frac{d}{dt}\langle {\cal H} \rangle

2369: \ = \ \left\langle  \frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial t} \right\rangle \ =

2370: \ -\sum_k    \dot{x}_k   F^k(t)

2371: \end{eqnarray}

2372: %

2373: Assuming (for presentation purpose) that

2374: the rates $\dot{x}_k$ are constant numbers,

2375: it follows that energy changes are related

2376: to the fluctuating $F^k(t)$ as follows:

2377: %

2378: \begin{eqnarray}

2379: \delta E \ = \ \langle {\cal H} \rangle_t - \langle {\cal H} \rangle_0 \ =

2380: \ -\sum_k    \dot{x}_k \int_0^t F^k(t')dt'

2381: \end{eqnarray}

2382: %

2383: Squaring this expression, and performing

2384: microcanonical averaging over initial conditions we obtain:

2385: %

2386: \begin{eqnarray}

2387: \delta E^2(t) \ = \  \sum_{ij} \dot{x}_i\dot{x}_j \int_0^t\int_0^t

2388: C^{ij}_E(t''-t') dt' dt''

2389: \end{eqnarray}

2390: %

2391: where $C^{ij}_E(t''-t')= \langle F^i(t')  F^j(t'') \rangle$ is the

2392: correlation function. For very short times this equation

2393: implies ``ballistic'' spreading ($\delta E^2 \propto t^2$)

2394: while on {\em intermediate time scales} it leads

2395: to diffusive spreading \mbox{$\delta E^2(t) =2D_E t$}, where

2396: %

2397: \begin{eqnarray}

2398: D_E \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} \dot{x}_i\dot{x}_j \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

2399: C^{ij}_E(\tau) d\tau

2400: \end{eqnarray}

2401: %

2402: The latter result assumes a short correlation time.

2403: This is also the reason that the integration

2404: over $\tau$ can be extended form

2405: $-\infty$ to $+\infty$. Hence we get Eq.(\ref{e49}).

2406: We note that for long times the systems deviates

2407: significantly from the initial microcanonical preparation.

2408: Hence, for long times, one should justify the

2409: use of the diffusion equation (\ref{eD1}).

2410: This leads to the classical slowness condition

2411: which is discussed in Ref.\cite{frc}.

2412: 

2413: 

2414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2418: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2419: 

2420: 

2421: % general

2422: 

2423: \bibitem{landau}

2424: L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz,

2425: {\em Statistical physics}, (Buttrworth Heinemann 2000).

2426: 

2427: \bibitem{imry}

2428: Y. Imry, {\em Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics}

2429: (Oxford Univ. Press 1997), and references therein.

2430: 

2431: \bibitem{datta}

2432: S. Datta, {\em Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems}

2433: (Cambridge University Press 1995).

2434: 

2435: \bibitem{marcus_rev}

2436: L.P. Kouwenhoven et al,

2437: Proc. of Advanced Study Inst. on Mesoscopic

2438: Electron Transport, edited by L.L. Sohn,

2439: L.P. Kouwenhoven and G. Schon (Kluwer 1997).

2440: 

2441: 

2442: % pumping

2443: 

2444: \bibitem{thouless}

2445: D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. {\bf B27}, 6083 (1983).

2446: 

2447: \bibitem{BPT}

2448: M. B\"{u}ttiker et al, Z. Phys. {\bf B94}, 133 (1994). \

2449: P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. {\bf B58}, R10135 (1998). \

2450: J. E. Avron et al, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, R10 618 (2000).

2451: 

2452: \bibitem{aleiner}

2453: T. A. Shutenko, I. L. Aleiner and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. {\bf B61}, 10366 (2000).

2454: 

2455: \bibitem{barriers}

2456: Y. Levinson, O. Entin-Wohlman, and P. Wolfle, cond-mat/0010494. \

2457: M. Blaauboer and E.J. Heller, Phys. Rev. B 64, 241301(R) (2001).

2458: 

2459: \bibitem{ora}

2460: O. Entin-Wohlman, A. Aharony, and Y. Levinson Phys. Rev. B 65, 195411 (2002).

2461: 

2462: \bibitem{pmo}

2463: D. Cohen, cond-mat/0304678.

2464: 

2465: \bibitem{ratch} P.Reimann, Phys. Rep. {\bf 361}, 57 (2002). \

2466: Special issue, Appl. Phys. A {\bf 75} (2002). \

2467: P.Reimann, M. Grifoni, and P.Hanggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 10 (1997).

2468: 

2469: \bibitem{ratchets}

2470: H. Schanz, M.F. Otto, R. Ketzmerick, and T. Dittrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 070601 (2001).

2471: 

2472: 

2473: 

2474: % adiabatic equation

2475: 

2476: \bibitem{berry}

2477: M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 392}, 45 (1984).

2478: 

2479: 

2480: \bibitem{avron}

2481: J. E. Avron and L. Sadun, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 3082 (1989). \

2482: J. E. Avron and L. Sadun,  Ann. Phys. {\bf 206}, 440 (1991). \

2483: J.E. Avron, A. Raveh, and B. Zur  Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 60}, 873  (1988).

2484: 

2485: \bibitem{robbins}

2486: J.M. Robbins and M.V. Berry, J. Phys. A {\bf 25}, L961 (1992). \

2487: M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 442}, 659 (1993). \

2488: M.V. Berry and E.C. Sinclair, J. Phys. A {\bf 30}, 2853 (1997).

2489: 

2490: 

2491: 

2492: % regimes, dissipation

2493: 

2494: \bibitem{vrn}

2495: D. Cohen in {\em New directions in quantum chaos},

2496: Proceedings of the International School of Physics ``Enrico Fermi", Course CXLIII,

2497: Edited by G. Casati, I. Guarneri and U. Smilansky,

2498: (IOS Press, Amsterdam 2000).

2499: 

2500: \bibitem{dsp}

2501: D. Cohen in {\em Dynamics of Dissipation},

2502: Proceedings of the 38th Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics,

2503: Edited by P. Garbaczewski and R. Olkiewicz,

2504: (Springer, 2002)

2505: 

2506: \bibitem{crs}

2507: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4951 (1999). \

2508: D. Cohen and T. Kottos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4839 (2000).

2509: 

2510: \bibitem{frc}

2511: D. Cohen, Annals of Physics 283, 175 (2000).

2512: 

2513: \bibitem{wilk}

2514: M. Wilkinson, J. Phys. A {\bf 21}, 4021 (1988). \

2515: M. Wilkinson and E.J. Austin, J. Phys. A {\bf 28}, 2277 (1995).

2516: 

2517: 

2518: 

2519: % relevant

2520: 

2521: \bibitem{ophir}

2522: O.M. Auslaender and S. Fishman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 1886 (2000). \

2523: O.M. Auslaender and S. Fishman,  J. Phys. A {\bf 33}, 1957 (2000).

2524: 

2525: \bibitem{qkr}

2526: S. Fishman in {em Quantum Chaos},

2527: Proceedings of the International School

2528: of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Course CXIX,

2529: Ed. G. Casati, I. Guarneri and U. Smilansky

2530: (North Holland 1991).

2531: 

2532: \bibitem{dil}

2533: A. Barnett, D. Cohen and E.J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1412 (2000).

2534: 

2535: \bibitem{wlf}

2536: A. Barnett, D. Cohen and E.J. Heller, J. Phys. A {\bf 34}, 413 (2001).

2537: 

2538: \bibitem{fisher}

2539: D.S. Fisher and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 23}, 6851 (1981).

2540: 

2541: \bibitem{stone}

2542: H.U. Baranger and A.D. Stone, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 8169 (1989).

2543: 

2544: \end{thebibliography}

2545: 

2546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2548: 

2549: 

2550: 

2551: 

2552: \clearpage

2553: \onecolumngrid

2554: 

2555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2557: %begin{figure}

2558: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=pmp_fig,width=0.55\hsize}}

2559: %caption{

2560: {\footnotesize FIG1.

2561: Illustration of a ring system (a).

2562: The shape of the ring is controlled

2563: by some parameters $x_1$ and $x_2$.

2564: The flux through the ring is $x_3=\Phi$.

2565: A system with equivalent topology,

2566: and abstraction of the model are

2567: presented in (b) and (c).

2568: The ``dot" can be represented by an $S$ matrix

2569: that depends on $x_1$ and $x_2$. In (d) also the

2570: flux $x_3$ is regarded as a parameter of the dot.

2571: If we cut the wire in (d) we get the open

2572: two lead geometry of (e). If we put many such

2573: units in series we get the period system in (f).

2574: }

2575: %end{figure}

2576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2578: 

2579: \ \\

2580: 

2581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2583: %begin{figure}[h]

2584: \centerline{

2585: \epsfig{figure=pmp_delta,height=0.2\hsize}

2586: \epsfig{figure=pmp_levels,height=0.2\hsize}

2587: }

2588: %caption{

2589: {\footnotesize FIG2.

2590: Schematic illustration of quantum pumping

2591: in a closed wire-dot system. The net charge via the third

2592: level (thick solid line on the right) is vanishingly

2593: small: As the dot potential is lowered an electron

2594: is taken from the left side (first avoided crossing),

2595: and then emitted back to the left side

2596: (second avoided crossing).

2597: Assuming that the bias is inverted before the

2598: dot potential is raised back, only the second level

2599: carry a net charge $Q={\cal O}(1)$.}

2600: %end{figure}

2601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2603: 

2604: 

2605: \ \\

2606: 

2607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2609: %begin{figure}[h]

2610: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=pmp_bfield_en,width=0.5\hsize}}

2611: \

2612: %caption{

2613: {\footnotesize FIG3.

2614: The first component of the $\vec{\bm{B}}$ field

2615: for a particle in the middle level of

2616: the 3~site lattice model. It is plotted

2617: as a function of the dot potential $x_2=u$.

2618: The other parameters are $\phi=0$, and $c_1=0.1$,

2619: while $c_2=0.04$ for the thick line and

2620: $c_2=0.02$ for the thin line.

2621: In the limit $c_2 \rightarrow 0$,

2622: all the charge that is transfered from the

2623: left side into the dot during the first avoided crossing,

2624: is emitted back into the left side during the second

2625: avoided crossing.

2626: Inset: The eigenenergies $E_n(\bm{x})$ for

2627: the $c_2=0.04$ calculation.}

2628: %end{figure}

2629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2631: 

2632: 

2633: 

2634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2636: \end{document}

2637: