1: % kbr.tex
2: %
3: % Fig.1: kbrscheme
4: % Fig.2: kbr_fig
5: % Fig.3: b_mtrx, ImnR
6: % Fig.4: pEall, gVSc
7: % Fig.5: Gspec, Gmeso
8: %
9: % \pacs{03.65.-w} %{Quantum mechanics}
10: % \pacs{05.45.Mt} %{Quantum chaos}
11: % \pacs{73.23.-b} %{Mesoscopic systems}
12:
13:
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: \documentclass{iopart}
16:
17: \usepackage{fleqn}
18:
19: % special
20: \usepackage{ifthen}
21: \usepackage{ifpdf}
22:
23: % fonts
24: \usepackage{latexsym}
25: %\usepackage{amsmath}
26: \usepackage{amssymb}
27: \usepackage{bm}
28:
29:
30: % figures
31: \ifpdf
32: \usepackage{graphicx}
33: \usepackage{epstopdf}
34: \else
35: \usepackage{graphicx}
36: \usepackage{epsfig}
37: \fi
38:
39: % math symbols I
40: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}
41: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}
42: \newcommand{\trc}{\mbox{trace}}
43: \newcommand{\intt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int }
44: \newcommand{\ointt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\circ\ }
45: \newcommand{\ar}{\mathsf r}
46: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}}
47: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}}
48:
49:
50: % math symbols II
51: \newcommand{\eexp}{\mbox{e}^}
52: \newcommand{\bra}{\left\langle}
53: \newcommand{\ket}{\right\rangle}
54: \newcommand{\mass}{\mathsf{m}}
55:
56:
57: % more math commands
58: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}
59: \newcommand{\bmsf}[1]{\bm{\mathsf{#1}}}
60: \newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\begin{matrix} #1 \end{matrix}}
61: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
62:
63:
64: % equations
65: \newcommand{\be}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\ifthenelse{#1=-1}{\nonumber}{\ifthenelse{#1=0}{}{\label{e#1}}}}
66: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
67:
68:
69: % graphics
70: \newcommand{\drawline}{\begin{picture}(500,1)\line(1,0){500}\end{picture}}
71: \newcommand{\hide}[1]{}
72: \newcommand{\Cn}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}}
73: \newcommand{\mpg}[2][\hsize]{\begin{minipage}[b]{#1}{#2}\end{minipage}}
74: \newcommand{\putgraph}[2][width=\hsize]{\includegraphics[#1]{#2}}
75:
76:
77: \begin{document}
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80:
81:
82: \title[Mesoscopic Conductance]
83: {Rate of energy absorption by a closed ballistic ring}
84:
85: \author{Doron Cohen$^{1}$, Tsampikos Kottos$^{2,3}$ and Holger Schanz$^{3,4}$}
86:
87: \address{
88: $^{1}${Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel} \\
89: $^{2}${Department of Physics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06459-0155, USA } \\
90: $^{3}${Max-Planck-Institut f\"or Dynamik und Selbstorganisation G\"ottingen, Germany} \\
91: $^{4}${Institut f\"ur Nichtlineare Dynamik, Universit\"at G\"ottingen, Germany}
92: }
93:
94:
95:
96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
97:
98: \begin{abstract}
99: We make a distinction between the spectroscopic and the mesoscopic
100: conductance of a closed ring. We show that the latter is not simply related
101: to the Landauer conductance of the corresponding open system.
102: A new ingredient in the theory is related to the non-universal structure
103: of the perturbation matrix which is generic for quantum chaotic systems.
104: These structures may created bottlenecks that suppress the diffusion
105: in energy space, and hence the rate of energy absorption.
106: The resulting effect is not merely quantitative:
107: For a ring-dot system we find that a smaller Landauer conductance
108: implies a smaller spectroscopic conductance,
109: while the mesoscopic conductance increases.
110: Our considerations open the way towards a realistic theory
111: of dissipation in closed mesoscopic ballistic devices.
112: \end{abstract}
113:
114:
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116: \section{Introduction}
117:
118:
119: When a physical system is subjected to an external perturbation
120: it can absorb energy from the driving source (Fig.~1).
121: The rate of this absorption depends crucially on the internal dynamics.
122: Here we are concerned with a mesoscopic electronic system.
123: Mesoscopic means that the electrons must be treated as quantum mechanical
124: particles whose wavelength is small compared to the classical dimensions.
125: In such circumstances, which assume long coherence time,
126: it is important whether or not the resulting electron
127: dynamics would be integrable or chaotic or diffusive
128: if approximated classically, and the {\em shape} of the device
129: becomes relevant. The fingerprints of such non-universal (semiclassical)
130: effects have been found in numerous experiments
131: with {\em open} mesoscopic systems. It is our objective to extend
132: this idea into the realm of {\em closed} mesoscopic systems,
133: in the context of (semi-linear) response theory\footnote
134: {The response of chaotic systems to weak driving
135: is ``linear" in the classical treatment.
136: We look for a quantum mechanical related departure
137: from linear response theory. This should be contrasted
138: with the traditional studies of ``quantum chaos" models
139: (such as the `quantum kicked rotator')
140: where in the absence of driving the system is integrable(!)
141: and consequently the response is manifestly non-linear
142: both classically and quantum mechanically.}. \\
143:
144:
145:
146: %%%%%%%%%%
147: {\bf Main observation:}
148: In this paper we expose a new ingredient in the
149: theory of energy absorption by closed mesoscopic
150: driven systems. The main idea is that there are
151: circumstance in which the rate of absorption depends
152: on the possibility to make {\em long sequences of transitions}.
153: The possibility to make a connected sequence
154: of transitions between energy levels is greatly affected
155: by structures in the energy landscape of the device.
156: These structures are the fingerprint of the ``shape" of the device, and more
157: generally they are implied by semiclassical considerations. In the quantum
158: chaos literature such structures are termed non-universal so as to distinguish
159: them from the universal fluctuations which are described by random matrix
160: theory. In the context of energy absorption the most important non-universal
161: effect is the presence of ``bottlenecks'' in energy space where the couplings
162: between levels are small. The rate of energy absorption can be greatly reduced
163: by the presence of such bottlenecks. In order to take the effect of these
164: structures into account we have to go beyond the conventional framework of
165: linear response theory (LRT). \\
166:
167:
168:
169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
170: %%%%%%%%% \subsection{Background and motivation}
171:
172: {\bf Main application:}
173: Closed mesoscopic rings are of great interest
174: \cite{rings,debye,IS,IS1,loc,G1,G2,kamenev,orsay}.
175: For such devices the relation between the conductance
176: and the internal dynamics is understood
177: much less~\cite{kbf} than for open systems.
178: This is not surprising if one realizes
179: that the theoretical analysis of $G$ relies
180: on completely different concepts in the {\em open}
181: and in the {\em closed} case.
182: %
183: For an open systems the Landauer formula expresses
184: the conductance $G_{L}$ in terms of the scattering matrix
185: of the device. This is a very convenient starting point
186: for a subsequent analysis since it is not necessary
187: to account for the dissipation of energy explicitly.
188: By contrast, for closed systems the mechanism for dissipation
189: is an issue. Conventionally one assumes a weak coupling
190: to an external bath
191: which leads to a steady state but preserves approximately
192: the main features of the internal dynamics.
193:
194:
195:
196: First measurements of the conductance of closed
197: mesoscopic rings have been reported more than
198: a decade ago~\cite{orsay}.
199: In a typical experiment a collection of mesoscopic rings
200: are driven by a time dependent magnetic flux $\Phi(t)$
201: which creates an electro-motive-force (EMF) ${-\dot{\Phi}}$
202: in each ring. Assuming that Ohm's law applies, the induced current
203: is ${I=-G\dot{\Phi} }$ and consequently the rate
204: of energy absorption is given by Joule's law as
205: %
206: \be{1000}
207: \dot{\mathcal{W}}
208: \ \ \equiv \ \ \mbox{Rate of energy absorption}
209: \ \ = \ \ G\,\dot{\Phi}^2
210: \ee
211: %
212: where $G$ is called the conductance\footnote
213: {The terminology of this paper, and in particular
214: our notion of ``conductance" are the same as in the
215: theoretical review \cite{kamenev} and in the experimental work \cite{orsay}.}.
216: One should be very careful with the terminology here.
217: We neither consider ``two terminal measurement"
218: of the conductance nor ``four terminal
219: measurement". One may say that closed ring
220: is a ``zero terminal" device (no leads).
221: So when we say ``conductance" we relate
222: to the coefficient $G$ in Eq.(\ref{e1000}).
223: In practice $G$ is deduced form
224: a measurement of the magnetic
225: susceptibility $\chi(\omega)$.
226: If we have a large collections of rings
227: then $G$ should be identified as
228: the $\omega\rightarrow0$ limit of
229: $\im[\chi(\omega)]/\omega$ divided
230: by the number of rings.
231: %
232: We are aware that some of the people
233: in the condensed matter community avoid
234: the use of the term ``conductance"
235: for a zero terminal device.
236: There are no leads attached, so a transport
237: measurement in the sense of the Landauer geometry
238: is not applicable. However, we are not aware
239: of a better name for $G$ of Eq.(\ref{e1000}).
240: We think that the terminology issue
241: is mainly a matter of taste.
242: Namely, if the ring were 1~meter in diameter,
243: rotating between the magnets of a commercial
244: generator, no one would be bothered by
245: calling $G$ ``conductance", so why not to adopt
246: the same terminology in the nano scale?
247:
248:
249: In {\em typical circumstances},
250: which we define more precisely later on,
251: the energy absorption process is dominated by
252: Fermi-Golden-Rule (FGR) transitions,
253: and the strong dynamical localization
254: effect~\cite{loc} is irrelevant.
255: {\em We shall always assume this FGR regime
256: and neglect other dissipation mechanisms}
257: such as Landau-Zener transitions \cite{wilk}
258: or Debye relaxation \cite{debye}.
259: %
260: The FGR picture with some extra assumptions
261: (that we would like to challenge) is the basis for LRT.
262: It leads to the Kubo formula,
263: which is a major tool in many fields
264: of theoretical physics and Chemistry.
265: Diagrammatic techniques of calculating conductance
266: are based on this formula. \\
267:
268:
269:
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271: {\bf Past works:}
272: In the case of {\em diffusive rings} the Kubo formula leads
273: to the Drude formula for $G$. A major challenge for past
274: studies was to calculate and to measure
275: weak localization corrections to the Drude result,
276: taking into account the level statistics
277: and the type of occupation. For a review see~\cite{kamenev}.
278: It should be clear that these corrections
279: do not change the leading order Kubo-Drude result. \\
280:
281:
282: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
283: {\bf Present work:}
284: In the case of {\em ballistic rings} we would like
285: to argue that even if the FGR picture of energy absorption
286: applies, still there are circumstance where the Kubo formula,
287: and hence also the Drude result, fail even as a rough approximation.
288: It should be clear that our theory is not in contradiction with LRT.
289: Rather it goes beyond LRT, and reduces to LRT in the appropriate limit.
290: The failure of the Kubo formula is related to non-universal
291: features of the energy landscape which are implied by having
292: a {\em mean free path larger than the size of the system}.
293: To some extent our theory is inspired by ideas from percolation theory:
294: but {\em the percolation is in energy space rather than in real space}. \\
295:
296:
297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
298: {\bf Scope:}
299: In this paper we analyze an example of a single mode device,
300: while in a follow-up work~\cite{bls} we analyze an example of
301: a multi-mode ring. The single mode example of this paper
302: (unlike the multi mode example of~\cite{bls}) possibly seems
303: somewhat artificial. Its advantage is its simplicity.
304: Our interest in this paper is to clarify the main idea of the
305: conductance calculation with one simple prototype example,
306: rather than exploring the full range of possibilities.
307: By now another non-trivial extension of the theory
308: has been worked out in Ref.~\cite{slr}, where the absorption of small
309: metallic grains is calculated. The latter reference has suggested
310: to describe the outcome of the theory as ``semilinear response". \\
311:
312:
313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
314: {\bf Outline of this paper:}
315: This paper consists of two parts.
316: In the first part (sections~2-9)
317: we present the general theoretical
318: consideration. In particular:
319: %
320: \begin{itemize}
321: %
322: \item We define
323: the notion of ``conductance"
324: in the context of closed systems.
325: This leads to our distinction
326: between mesoscopic and spectroscopic conductance.
327: %
328: \item We state our main results regarding
329: the conductance of a single mode ballistic device,
330: and discuss their experimental significance.
331: %
332: \item We review the FGR picture,
333: and explain the emergence of diffusion
334: in energy space, and the associated
335: dissipation effect.
336: %
337: \item We clarify the main ingredient
338: in our theory, which is the calculation
339: of the coarse grained diffusion
340: %
341: \item We derive a formula for the
342: mesoscopic conductance assuming
343: a modulated energy landscape.
344: %
345: \end{itemize}
346: %
347: %
348: In the second part we focus
349: on a specific example:
350: a single mode ring-dot model.
351: We express the spectroscopic
352: and the mesoscopic conductance as a function
353: of the averaged Landauer conductance
354: of the corresponding open system.
355: We explore the dependence of the result
356: on the level broadening $\Gamma$.
357: Finally we summarize some key observations
358: and point out again the limitations
359: on the validity of our results.
360:
361:
362:
363:
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368: \section{Mesoscopic versus Spectroscopic conductance}
369:
370:
371: For the understanding of this paper it is crucial
372: to make a distinction between the spectroscopic conductance
373: $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ and the mesoscopic conductance $G_{\tbox{meso}}$.
374: Both are defined as the dissipation coefficient
375: which appears in Eq.(\ref{e1000}), but they relate
376: to different circumstances. The bottom line is
377: that $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ is the measured value
378: of $G$ for small EMF, while $G_{\tbox{meso}}$ is
379: the measured value of $G$ for large EMF. In later
380: sections we shall explain that $G_{\tbox{spec}}$
381: can be calculated using the traditional version
382: of the Kubo formula, while $G_{\tbox{meso}}$
383: requires a different recipe. Thus it should
384: be clear that our theory does not contradict LRT
385: but rather covers a regime where LRT is no longer valid.
386:
387:
388:
389: In order to explain the physical picture of energy
390: absorption we refer to the block diagram
391: of Fig.~1. On the one hand the driving source
392: induce transitions between energy levels of the system,
393: leading to an absorption of energy with some
394: rate $\dot{\mathcal{W}}$.
395: On the other hand the system can release
396: energy to some bath (phonons or the surrounding),
397: which leads to a ``heat flow" with some
398: rate $\dot{\mathcal{Q}}$.
399: As the system heats up a steady state is reached
400: once $\dot{\mathcal{Q}}=\dot{\mathcal{W}}$.
401:
402:
403: It is essential to realize that the levels of the system
404: are effectively ``broadened" due to the non-adiabaticity
405: of the driving~\cite{pmc} or due to the interaction
406: with the noisy environment~\cite{IS}. Later we quantify
407: this effect by introducing the level broadening
408: parameter $\Gamma$. One should not make a confusion between
409: %
410: \be{-1}
411: \Gamma &=& \mbox{level broadening parameter in the theory}
412: \\ \nonumber
413: \gamma_{\tbox{rlx}} &=& \mbox{relaxation rate towards equilibrium}
414: \ee
415: %
416: The above distinction is somewhat analogous
417: to the notions of $1/T_2$ and $1/T_1$ in NMR studies.
418: %
419: The parameter $\Gamma$ is essential in order
420: to analyze the induced FGR transitions between
421: levels. Therefore it will appear explicitly
422: in the theoretical derivations. We are going to argue
423: that the rate of energy absorption $\dot{\mathcal{W}}$
424: is sensitive to $\Gamma$.
425: %
426: The relaxation parameter $\gamma_{\tbox{rlx}}$ plays
427: a different role: it is responsible for achieving
428: a steady state. Furthermore, as explained below
429: it is an essential input in order to predict
430: whether the value of the conductance
431: is $G=G_{\tbox{spec}}$ or $G=G_{\tbox{meso}}$.
432:
433:
434: {\bf Algebraic average:}
435: Let us assume that we have a large collection
436: of similar rings with possibly a broad thermal
437: population of the energy levels.
438: If the energy landscape is not
439: uniform, it is evident that some rings
440: are likely to absorb energy, while others
441: are not, depending on whether the initial
442: level is strongly coupled to its neighboring
443: levels or not. Accordingly the {\em initial} rate
444: of energy absorption (per ring)
445: is obtained by a simple {\em algebraic average}.
446: This algebraic average reflects the
447: statistical nature of the preparation and
448: has nothing to do with the nature of the dynamics.
449:
450:
451: {\bf Slow down:}
452: When we measure $G$ we are not interested
453: in the transient behavior but rather
454: in the long time behavior. The possible scenarios
455: are illustrated in Fig.~1. One possibility
456: is to have small $\gamma_{\tbox{rlx}}$.
457: In such case the rate of absorption slows down:
458: in the ``long run" the rate of energy absorption
459: is limited by the bottlenecks.
460: [The reader can easily make here an analogy
461: with the dynamics of traffic flow].
462: %
463: %
464: We would like to mention that the above scenario
465: is further discussed in the context
466: of a later work~\cite{slr}.
467: There the reader can find an actual numerical
468: simulation that demonstrates the transient
469: from an initial large rate of absorption
470: to a much slower long time rate of absorption.
471:
472:
473:
474: {\bf Mesoscopic circumstances:}
475: The above scenario features a crossover
476: from a large absorption rate to a slower
477: absorption rate.
478: The transient is characterized
479: by a time scale that we call $t_{\tbox{stbl}}$.
480: In a later section we shall determine
481: this time scale and its dependence
482: on the EMF: The larger $\dot{\Phi}$
483: the smaller $t_{\tbox{stbl}}$.
484: The condition for observing the
485: slow-down is obviously
486: %
487: \be{1001}
488: t_{\tbox{stbl}}(\dot{\Phi}) \ \ \ll \ \ \gamma_{\tbox{rlx}}^{-1}
489: \ee
490: %
491: The rate of absorption for $t \gg t_{\tbox{stbl}}$
492: depends on the possibility to make {\em long sequences of transitions}.
493: Hence the value of $G$ is smaller compared
494: with the initial anticipation.
495: This value is what we call~$G_{\tbox{meso}}$.
496:
497:
498: {\bf Spectroscopic circumstances:}
499: Thus the theory for $G_{\tbox{meso}}$ becomes
500: relevant whenever the relaxation process
501: is not efficient enough to mask the intrinsic dynamics
502: of the device. Optionally one may say that
503: the EMF should not be too small. What happens
504: if $\dot{\Phi}$ becomes small,
505: such that Eq.(\ref{e1001}) breaks down?
506: In such case the relaxation process
507: re-initiated the initial distribution
508: before the slow-down shows up. Consequently
509: the drop in the rate of absorption is avoided.
510: The value of $G$ in the latter circumstances
511: is what we call~$G_{\tbox{spec}}$.
512:
513:
514:
515:
516:
517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
519: \section{Description of the model system}
520:
521:
522: For sake of analysis we would like to define
523: the {\em simplest model} where our general idea can
524: be demonstrated. As explained in the introduction
525: there is a large class of systems, where the
526: perturbation matrix ($\mathcal{I}_{nm}$)
527: is {\em structured}. In particular this is the case
528: with ballistic devices. The simplest would
529: be to consider a one channel device driven by EMF,
530: hence $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$ are the matrix elements
531: of the current operator. In order
532: to have some weak scattering mechanism
533: we consider ring which is weakly connected
534: to a big dot region. A particle that moves
535: inside the ring has some small probability to
536: enter into the dot region, where its velocity
537: is randomized. We are going to argue that
538: the long-time energy absorption process
539: is not determined by a simple algebraic average
540: over~$|\mathcal{I}_{nm}|^2$, but rather
541: involves a non-trivial coarse graining procedure.
542: We would like to figure out what
543: is the conductance of such ring-dot device as
544: a function of the ring-dot coupling.
545:
546:
547:
548: To be specific we analyze the model
549: which is illustrated in Fig.~2a,
550: where the dot is modeled as a big chaotic network.
551: %
552: The ring states mix with the dense set of the dot
553: states, and resonances are formed. Large $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$
554: matrix elements are found only between states within resonances,
555: thus leading to a structured band profile (see Fig.~3b).
556: We assume DC driving: this means that the driving frequency
557: is much smaller compared with the energy scales
558: that characterize the structures of $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$.
559: We will show that the off-resonance regions form bottlenecks
560: for the long-time energy absorption.
561: As a result we get $G_{\tbox{meso}} \ll G_{\tbox{spec}}$.
562: It should be clear that if $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$ had no structure
563: we would get $G_{\tbox{meso}} = G_{\tbox{spec}}$.
564:
565:
566: In the presented analysis {\em dynamical localization}
567: effect is ignored. This mechanism also leads to
568: suppression of energy absorption, but it involves
569: much longer time scales. Moreover, it is extremely
570: sensitive to decoherence, and to any temporal
571: irregularity of the driving. Thus in
572: typical realistic experimental circumstances
573: the suppression of diffusion due to `bottlenecks'
574: is much more likely than the suppression of diffusion
575: due to a dynamical localization effect.
576:
577:
578:
579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581: \section{Main results and their experimental significance}
582:
583: Before we dive into the derivations, we would
584: like to give an overview of the main results,
585: and to discuss their experimental significance.
586: We also exploit the opportunity to comment on
587: the results of a follow-up work~\cite{bls}
588: where multi-mode chaotic rings have been analyzed.
589:
590:
591: If the device were opened as in Fig.~2c
592: we could have asked what is its the Landauer
593: conductance. It is convenient to {\em characterize}
594: the device by the energy averaged Landauer
595: conductance. The averaging is over the relevant
596: energy range around ${E \sim E_F}$. The energy
597: window of interest is assumed to be classically small
598: but quantum mechanically large (many levels):
599: %
600: \be{0}
601: g_{cl} = \overline{ g_L(E) }
602: \ee
603: %
604: We use $0<g<1$ rather than $G$ in order
605: to indicate that the conductance of the
606: is measured in units of $e^2/(2\pi\hbar)$.
607: The subscript of $g_{cl}$ further
608: imply that the energy averaged Landauer conductance
609: yields the {\em classical} transmission of the device.
610:
611:
612:
613: From a theoretical standpoint we can
614: ask what is the ``conductance"
615: of the same device if it is integrated
616: in a closed circuit as in Fig.~2b.
617: If we could (hypothetically) ignore the quantum
618: interference within the ring, then we would
619: get (section~9) the ``Drude" result
620: %
621: \be{0}
622: G_{\tbox{Drude}} =
623: \frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar}
624: \left[\frac{g_{cl}}{1-g_{cl}}\right]
625: \ee
626: %
627: which diverges in the ${g_{cl} \rightarrow 1}$ limit.
628: Indeed we are going to argue that a similar
629: result is obtained for the spectroscopic conductance.
630: We say ``similar" rather than "identical" because
631: quantum mechanics sets an upper bound to $G$.
632:
633:
634:
635: If the environmentally induced relaxation
636: is weak, we argue that the spectroscopic
637: result is wrong. Then we have to calculate
638: the mesoscopic conductance using
639: a recipe that we are going to develop
640: in sections~5-8. This leads to
641: %
642: \be{100}
643: G_{\tbox{meso}} = \frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar} \ (1-g_{cl})^2 g_{cl}
644: \ee
645: %
646: One observes that in the limit ${g_{cl} \rightarrow 1}$
647: (weak coupling of the ring with the dot)
648: the mesoscopic conductance goes to zero.
649: This should be contrasted with the behavior
650: of the Drude result.
651:
652:
653:
654: Measurements of the conductance of closed
655: mesoscopic rings have been performed already~10 years
656: ago~\cite{orsay}. In a practical experiment
657: a large array of rings is fabricated.
658: The conductance measurement can be achieved
659: via coupling to a highly sensitive electromagnetic
660: superconducting micro-resonator. In such setup the EMF
661: is realized by creating a current through
662: a ``wire" that spirals on top of the array,
663: and the conductance of the rings is determined via
664: their influence on the electrical circuit.
665: Another possibility is to extract the conductance
666: from the rate of Joule heating. The later can
667: be deduced from a temperature difference measurement
668: assuming that the thermal conductance is known.
669:
670:
671:
672: Ballistic devices are state-of-the-art in mesoscopic experiments.
673: Moreover we believe that molecular size devices with
674: closed ``ring geometry" are going to be of
675: great interest in the near future. It is likely that
676: the dynamics is such devices would be of ballistic nature.
677: Namely, it is likely that the mean free path in such
678: rings would be larger compared with their perimeter. \\
679:
680:
681:
682: {\bf Single-mode rings:}
683: The results in the present paper apply
684: to single mode devices with ring-dot geometry.
685: Such a device can be realized in practice.
686: Furthermore, by incorporating a gate, one can
687: control the ring-dot coupling. Hence such geometry
688: looks optimal for an experimental test of the theory:
689: The conductance can be measured as a function
690: of the coupling, and at least the qualitative
691: agreement with Eq.(\ref{e100}) can be tested. \\
692:
693:
694: {\bf Multi-mode rings:}
695: In a follow-up work~\cite{bls} we analyze
696: the mesoscopic conductance of multi-mode chaotic
697: rings. For example one can picture such a device
698: as a wide ring with a small gate-controlled deformation.
699: Thus it is possible to test the theory by
700: measuring~$G$ as a function of the gate voltage
701: determined $g_T$.
702: %
703: It is explained in~\cite{bls} that
704: also in the case of a multi mode ring
705: the eigenfunctions are {\em non-ergodic}
706: for $(1-g_T) \ll 1$. Consequently absorption is
707: suppressed due to not having {\em ''connected sequences
708: of transitions"}. It should be noted however that
709: in general there is no simple structure of resonances,
710: in contrast to the 1~mode case that we are going to analyze.
711: Therefore an accurate estimate of the mesoscopic
712: conductance requires a more elaborated resistor
713: network analogy.
714:
715:
716:
717:
718: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
720: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
722: \section{The Kubo-Einstein formula for the diffusion}
723:
724: The purpose of this section is to review
725: a well known expression for the diffusion
726: coefficient $D$. If we were talking about
727: diffusion in real space, then it is well known
728: from any statistical mechanics textbook
729: that $D$ is equal to the integral over
730: the velocity-velocity correlation function.
731: This is known as the Einstein formula.
732: Similarly, the diffusion coefficient in energy space
733: is related to the integral over the
734: current-current correlation function.
735: This is regarded by some authors~\cite{wilk}
736: as a particular version of the Kubo formula,
737: because with some extra assumptions it leads
738: to the ``popular" version of the
739: Kubo formula for the conductance~$G$.
740:
741:
742: We define the one-particle current operator $\mathcal{I}$
743: in the conventional way as the symmetrized version
744: of ${e\hat{v}\delta(\hat{x}-x_0)}$, with $\hat{v}=\hat{p}/\mathsf{m}$,
745: where $\mathsf{m}$ and $e$ are the mass and the charge of a spinless electron,
746: and $x=x_0$ is a section through which the current is measured.
747: %
748: %
749: In the later numerical analysis it was convenient
750: to re-define $\mathcal{I} := \int dx_0\, a(x_0) \mathcal{I}$
751: where $a(x_0)$ is a wide weight function whose integral
752: over the ring obeys $\oint a(x)dx = 1$.
753: %
754: %
755: %
756: The current-current correlation function
757: for an electron with energy $E$ is
758: %
759: \be{0}
760: C_E(\tau) = \langle \mathcal{I}(\tau) \mathcal{I}(0) \rangle
761: \ee
762: %
763: It is customary to symmetrize this function, but
764: this is not essential since we later use it
765: within a $d\tau$ integral that goes
766: from~$-\infty$ to~$\infty$.
767: %
768: %
769: %
770: The power spectrum of
771: the fluctuations is defined as the Fourier transform of the correlation
772: function $C_E(\tau)$. In the quantum case it is related to the matrix
773: elements of the current operator as follows~\cite{mario}:
774: %
775: \be{5}
776: \tilde{C}_E(\omega)
777: \ = \
778: \left[
779: \sum_{n (\ne m) }
780: |{\cal I}_{nm}|^2
781: \,\, 2\pi\delta_{\Gamma}\left(\omega-\frac{E_m{-}E_n}{\hbar}\right)
782: \right]_{E_m \sim E}
783: \ee
784: %
785: where the smoothing parameter $\Gamma$ is introduced
786: because it is required in a later stage.
787:
788:
789:
790: Having defined the current-current
791: correlation function, we can write
792: the Kubo-Einstein formula for
793: the EMF-induced diffusion in energy space:
794: %
795: \be{312}
796: D_E = \frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} C_E(\tau)d \tau
797: \times {\dot {\Phi}}^2
798: \ee
799: %
800: The units of $D_E$ are such
801: that $\delta E^2= 2D_E t$
802: for a local spreading of a wavepacket.
803: In appendix~A we summarize the
804: derivation of this formula and
805: also write the associated
806: diffusion equation that describes the
807: evolution of an arbitrary distribution $\rho(E)$.
808: %
809: %
810: %
811: An optional way to write the Kubo-Einstein formula is
812: %
813: \be{313}
814: D_E = \frac{1}{2} \tilde{C}_E(\omega{=}0) \times {\dot {\Phi}}^2
815: \ee
816: %
817: We immediately see that in the quantum
818: mechanical case the Kubo-Einstein formula
819: is ill-defined unless we specify the parameter $\Gamma$.
820: Note that for $\Gamma=0$ we get formally $D_E=0$.
821: The physics behind this formula becomes more transparent
822: if we adopt the Fermi-Golden rule
823: picture as discussed in the next section.
824:
825:
826:
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
829: \section{The Fermi Golden Rule Picture}
830:
831:
832: The Hamiltonian of the ring system
833: in the adiabatic basis is
834: %
835: \be{0}
836: \mathcal{H} \mapsto E_n\delta_{nm} + W_{nm}
837: \ee
838: %
839: where
840: %
841: \be{0}
842: W_{nm} = i\dot{\Phi} \frac{\hbar\mathcal{I}_{nm}}{E_n{-}E_m}
843: \ee
844: %
845: is the perturbation matrix. If the EMF is non-zero
846: then there are transitions between levels.
847: Both Linear Response Theory, and also our
848: extended theory of mesoscopic conductance
849: assume that the rate of transition
850: from an initial level ($m$)
851: to some other level ($n$) is determined
852: by Fermi Golden Rule (FGR):
853: %
854: \be{0}
855: w_{nm} \ \ = \ \ \frac{2\pi}{\hbar}
856: \delta_{\Gamma}(E_n-E_m) \ |W_{nm}|^2
857: \ee
858: %
859: Note that upon summation over all transitions
860: to all the levels~$n$, the delta function
861: is replaced by the smoothed density of states~$\varrho(E)$.
862:
863:
864:
865: In the {\em adiabatic regime}, the level
866: broadening $\Gamma$ is smaller compared
867: with the mean level spacing $\Delta$.
868: In such case the FGR mechanism
869: can be neglected ($w_{nm}\sim0$),
870: and the leading dissipation
871: mechanism, depending on the effectiveness
872: of the environmental relaxation process,
873: is either the Landau-Zener mechanism~\cite{wilk},
874: or the Debye relaxation mechanism~\cite{debye}.
875: %
876: %
877: In the present work we assume
878: that $\Gamma$ is much larger than $\Delta$,
879: but much smaller compared with any
880: other semiclassical energy scale.
881: This implies that FGR transitions
882: are the dominant mechanism for
883: diffusion in energy space.
884:
885:
886: Due to the FGR transitions there
887: is a diffusion in energy space.
888: The local diffusion rate is:
889: %
890: \be{314}
891: D_E
892: \ \ = \ \
893: \frac{1}{2} \sum_m (E_n-E_m)^2 \ w_{nm}
894: \ \ = \ \
895: \pi\hbar \varrho(E) \overline{|\mathcal{I}_{nm}|^2} \times {\dot {\Phi}}^2
896: \ee
897: %
898: The first expression in Eq.(\ref{e314})
899: is just as in the standard analysis
900: of a random walk problems.
901: Upon substitution of the FGR expression
902: it leads to Eq.(\ref{e313}).
903: The second expression in Eq.(\ref{e314})
904: is just a loose way to re-write Eq.(\ref{e313}).
905: The dependence on~$\Gamma$ is implicit.
906:
907:
908:
909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
911: \section{Coarse grained diffusion}
912:
913:
914: The probability distribution in energy
915: space obeys a diffusion equation (see appendix~A).
916: If we change form the variable $E$ to
917: the variable~$n$ the diffusion equation
918: takes a simpler form:
919: %
920: \be{201}
921: \frac{\partial \rho(n)}{\partial t} \ = \
922: \frac{\partial}{\partial n}
923: \left(D_n \frac{\partial}{\partial n}
924: \rho(n)\right)
925: \ee
926: %
927: where $D_n=\varrho^2D_E$.
928: Our main motivation to re-write the
929: diffusion equation in the~$n$ variable
930: is to suggest the analogy with the
931: familiar problem of random walk
932: on a lattice where~$n$ is re-interpreted
933: as a site index. In the standard
934: textbook discussion $D_n$ is uniform all
935: over space. {\em But what happens if $D_n$
936: has some microscopic modulation?}
937: We would like to argue that in such case
938: the coarse grained diffusion coefficient
939: is given by an harmonic
940: average over the local $D_n$. Namely,
941: %
942: \be{401}
943: D = \langle \langle D_n \rangle\rangle \ \ \equiv \ \
944: \left[ \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n}^{N}
945: D_n^{-1} \right]^{-1}
946: \ee
947: %
948: This is like calculating the
949: resistivity of a {\em random network}
950: of resistors in one dimension.
951: The summation can be re-interpreted
952: as the addition of resistors in series.
953: This analogy is further developed
954: in a subsequent work~\cite{slr}.
955: Below we derive this result using
956: the diffusion picture language.
957: %
958: It is important to realize that the validity
959: of the harmonic average recipe Eq.(\ref{e401})
960: is limited. It is assumed that $D_n$ has
961: a smooth modulation as a function of with~$n$.
962: Otherwise~$n$ cannot be treated as a continuous
963: variable, and one should use the more elaborated
964: ``random network" scheme of calculation.
965:
966:
967:
968:
969: In order to keep consistency of notations
970: we turn back to use~$E$ as the
971: diffusion space variable, as in appendix~A.
972: For simplicity we assume that locally
973: the smoothed density of states is
974: constant. Hence the diffusion equation
975: is Eq.(\ref{e201}) with $n$ replaced by $E$.
976: It can be regarded as a continuity equation
977: %
978: \be{0}
979: \frac{\partial \rho(E)}{\partial t} \ = \
980: -\frac{\partial}{\partial E}J_E
981: \ee
982: %
983: where the probability current (probability
984: transported per unit time) is given by Fick's law
985: %
986: \be{0}
987: J_E = - D_E \frac{d\rho(E)}{dE}
988: \ee
989: %
990: In order to determine the coarse
991: grained diffusion we assume a
992: steady state distribution $\rho(E)$
993: that supports a current $J_E=\const$.
994: It follows that
995: %
996: \be{0}
997: \rho(E_2)-\rho(E_1) = - \int_{E_1}^{E_2} (J_E/D_{E}) dE
998: \ee
999: %
1000: This implies that the coarse-grained
1001: diffusion coefficient is given by
1002: %
1003: \be{-1}
1004: D^{-1} = -\frac{1}{J_E} \frac{\rho(E_2){-}\rho(E_1)}{E_2-E_1}
1005: = \frac{1}{E_2{-}E_1} \int_{E_1}^{E_2} D_{E}^{-1} dE
1006: \ee
1007: %
1008: where $E_2-E_1$ is the coarse graining scale.
1009: Hence we get the desired result: the coarse
1010: grained diffusion coefficient~$D$ is obtained
1011: by harmonic average over the modulated~$D_E$.
1012: A concise way to write this result for
1013: the coarse grained diffusion is
1014: %
1015: \be{0}\label{cgdc}
1016: D = \langle\langle D_E \rangle\rangle
1017: = \left[ \overline{ 1/D_E } \right]^{-1}
1018: \ee
1019: %
1020: where the indicated average
1021: in the r.h.s. is over the energy $E$.
1022: This observation is going to be the corner
1023: stone in the analysis of the mesoscopic conductance.
1024: Needless to say that the harmonic average recipe
1025: implies vanishing $D$ if $D_E$ has bottlenecks.
1026:
1027:
1028: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1029: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1030: \section{The diffusion-dissipation relation}
1031:
1032:
1033: There is a simple relation between the diffusion
1034: and the rate of energy absorption. For a derivation
1035: of this relation see appendix~A. In the case
1036: of a low temperature Fermi occupation it takes
1037: the form
1038: %
1039: \be{1010}
1040: \dot{\mathcal{W}}
1041: \ \ = \ \
1042: \varrho(E_F) \langle\langle D_E \rangle\rangle
1043: \ee
1044: %
1045: where $E_F$ is the Fermi energy.
1046: By substitution of Eq.(\ref{e313})
1047: and comparing with Eq.(\ref{e1000})
1048: we deduce the following expression
1049: for the conductance:
1050: %
1051: \be{6}
1052: G \ = \ \varrho(E_F) \times \frac{1}{2}
1053: \langle \langle \tilde{C}_{E}(\omega{=}0) \rangle \rangle
1054: \ee
1055: %
1056: From the discussion in section~2 it is implied
1057: that in the case of the spectroscopic conductance $G_{\tbox{spec}}$,
1058: the energy averaging ${\langle \langle .. \rangle \rangle}$
1059: should be {\em algebraic}. In the case of diffusive rings
1060: it is customary to replace the (algebraic) energy averaging
1061: by disorder averaging.
1062: %
1063: In contrast to that from the discussion in section~7 it is implied
1064: that in the case of the mesoscopic conductance $G_{\tbox{meso}}$,
1065: the energy averaging ${\langle \langle .. \rangle \rangle}$
1066: should be {\em harmonic}. To be more precise, the harmonic
1067: average applies if $D_E$ has smooth modulation
1068: as a function of $E$. This is going to be the case
1069: with our simple example. In more complicated circumstances
1070: (e.g. multimode chaotic rings) the coarse graining
1071: should be done using a somewhat more elaborated resistor
1072: network analogy~\cite{slr,bls}.
1073:
1074:
1075:
1076: In the case of $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ calculation,
1077: Eq.(\ref{e6}) is just the conventional Kubo formula.
1078: If the energy landscape is uniform then the distinction
1079: between $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ and $G_{\tbox{meso}}$ is
1080: not important. But if $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$
1081: is sparse or structured then $G_{\tbox{meso}}$
1082: might be much smaller compared with $G_{\tbox{spec}}$.
1083:
1084:
1085: {\bf Sensitivity to level broadening:}
1086: The parameter $\Gamma$ is an implicit input
1087: for the calculation. As discussed in section~6
1088: we assume that there is effectively
1089: a quasi-continuum ($\Gamma\gg\Delta$).
1090: The spectroscopic conductance $G_{\tbox{spec}}$
1091: is not very sensitive to $\Gamma$.
1092: For example, in the case of diffusive rings
1093: the weak localization corrections are
1094: of order $(\Gamma/\Delta)^{-1}$.
1095: In contrast to that $G_{\tbox{meso}}$
1096: is extremely sensitive to $\Gamma$.
1097: By increasing $\Gamma$ we can enhance
1098: the diffusion by several orders
1099: of magnitudes. As common in the
1100: traditional LRT treatment \cite{kamenev}
1101: also here $\Gamma$ is going to be a free parameter in the theory.
1102:
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1108: \section{Semiclassical considerations}
1109:
1110:
1111: If the current-current correlation function
1112: is calculated classically, one observes
1113: a and very slow monotonic dependence on $E$.
1114: Since the practical interest is in a classically
1115: small energy window, this dependence can be ignored.
1116: For a one dimensional ring whose
1117: classical transmission is $g_{cl}$
1118: the correlation function $C_E(\tau)$
1119: decays exponentially. The intensity
1120: of the fluctuations $\tilde{C}_{E}(\omega{=}0)$
1121: that appears in Eq.(\ref{e6}) equals
1122: the area under this classical
1123: correlation function leading to~\cite{kbf}:
1124: %
1125: \begin{equation}
1126: \label{Gclas}
1127: G_{\tbox{Drude}}
1128: = \frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar} \left( \frac{g_{cl}}{1-g_{cl}} \right)
1129: \end{equation}
1130: %
1131: This is simply the Drude result being written
1132: in terms of $g_{cl}$ instead
1133: in terms of the mean free path $\ell \approx L_0/(1-g_{cl})$,
1134: where $L_0$ is the length of the ring.
1135: We note that if we had neglected the multiple reflections
1136: within the ring (which is formally justified in
1137: case of an open system) we would get $g_{cl}$ instead
1138: of $g_{cl}/(1-g_{cl})$ in agreement
1139: with the Landauer formula.
1140:
1141:
1142: The ``classical" result is obtained also within
1143: the framework of a semiclassical Green function
1144: calculation~\cite{pmt} that employs a diagonal approximation.
1145: Such calculation assumes an {\em algebraic average}
1146: over the energy or if applicable, over realizations of disorder.
1147: We recall that algebraic average is justified
1148: for the purpose of calculating the spectroscopic conductance.
1149: Still the spectroscopic conductance cannot diverge
1150: in the limit ${g_{cl}\rightarrow 1}$. We shall discuss
1151: the upper bound on $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ in section~12.
1152:
1153:
1154: As stated above in the classical analysis $C_E(\tau)$
1155: and hence $D_E$ are essentially independent of~$E$.
1156: But upon quantization $D_E$ might have a modulation
1157: on a classically small energy scale $\Delta_0\propto\hbar$
1158: which is still much larger compared with the mean
1159: level spacing $\Delta$. The energy scale $\Delta_0$
1160: reflects the appearance of a structured band profile
1161: and it is the new ingredient in our analysis.
1162: The time to explore this energy scale is
1163: %
1164: \be{0}
1165: t_{\tbox{stbl}}
1166: = \frac{\Delta_0^2}{\langle\langle D_E \rangle\rangle}
1167: \ \ \propto \ \ \dot{\Phi}^{-2}
1168: \ee
1169: %
1170: Assuming that $D_E$ has indeed a ``microscopic" dependence
1171: on $E$, and assuming that Eq.(\ref{e1001}) is satisfied,
1172: we have argued that the long time energy absorption is determined
1173: by the mesoscopic conductance, which involves an harmonic
1174: average. Consequently the mesoscopic conductance
1175: is typically smaller than the spectroscopic conductance,
1176: and does not correspond to the classical (Drude) result!
1177:
1178:
1179:
1180:
1181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% model system
1186:
1187:
1188: \section{Preliminary analysis of the model system}
1189:
1190: We turn now to a detailed description of our model (Fig.~2a).
1191: The dot region is modeled as a chaotic network which
1192: is weakly coupled to a ring. The network is attached
1193: with two ``legs" in order to destroy odd-even symmetries
1194: of the eigenstates. Each coupling vertex is described
1195: by a $3\times 3$ symmetric orthogonal matrix
1196: (the ``splitter" of Ref.\cite{splitter}):
1197: %
1198: \be{-1}
1199: \bm{S}=
1200: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1201: \frac{1}{2}(1-\sqrt{1-2c^{2}}) & \frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1-2c^{2}}) & c\\
1202: \frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1-2c^{2}}) & \frac{1}{2}(1-\sqrt{1-2c^{2}}) &-c\\
1203: c & -c & \sqrt{1-2c^{2}}
1204: \end{array}\right)
1205: \ee
1206: %
1207: where the coupling parameter is ${0<c<1}$.
1208: Once the chaotic network is integrated into the ring
1209: one can regard it as a ``black box" which is
1210: characterized by a $2\times 2$ scattering matrix.
1211: This $2\times 2$ scattering matrix is characterized
1212: by the average Landauer conductance $g_{cl}$.
1213: Hence the coupling between the network and the
1214: ring is quantified by the dimensionless
1215: parameter $1-g_{cl} \approx c^2$ (see Fig.~4b),
1216: which we assume to be much smaller than~1.
1217:
1218:
1219: The length of the ring is $L_0$ while
1220: the total length of all the bond is $L$.
1221: Resonances are formed because of the coupling
1222: of the ring states to the network states. Hence we have
1223: %
1224: \be{7}
1225: \Delta &=& \hbar v_E \frac{\pi}{L} = \mbox{mean level spacing}
1226: \\
1227: \Delta_0 &=& \hbar v_E \frac{\pi}{L_0} = \mbox{distance between resonances}
1228: \\
1229: \label{gamma0}
1230: \Gamma_0 &=& \frac{1}{2\pi} (1-g_{cl}) \Delta_0 = \mbox{width of resonances}
1231: \ee
1232: %
1233: where $v_E=(2E/\mathsf{m})^{1/2}$. Having defined the dimensionless parameters
1234: of the model system ($L/L_0$ and $g_{cl}$) as well as the relevant
1235: energy scales $(\Delta,\Delta_0,\Gamma_0)$, we are fully equipped to turn to
1236: the calculation of the conductance.
1237:
1238:
1239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1241: %%%%%%%%% q(E)
1242:
1243:
1244: A key object in the analysis is the weight $q(E_n)$ of each state in the ring
1245: region. We write the wavefunction on the ring
1246: as $\psi^n(x\in\mbox{ring}) = \mathsf{A}_n \sin(\varphi_n+k_nx)$ and define
1247: %
1248: \be{11}
1249: q(E_n) = \frac{L}{2}|\mathsf{A}_n|^2
1250: \approx \frac{L}{L_0} \sum_r
1251: |\langle r | n \rangle |^2
1252: \ee
1253: %
1254: where $r$ are the ring states in the absence
1255: of coupling ($c=0$). If we could assume
1256: ergodicity of the wavefunctions then $A_n=(2/L)^{1/2}$
1257: and we would get $q(E)=1$.
1258: But if the coupling becomes weak ($1-g_{cl} \ll 1$)
1259: then ergodicity does not hold (Fig.~4a) and we have $\overline{q}=1$
1260: only upon averaging over energy.
1261: Using perturbation theory we get
1262: as the simplest approximation that $q(E)$
1263: is a sum of Lorentzian:
1264: %
1265: \be{12}
1266: q(E) \ \approx \
1267: \frac{\Delta_0}{\pi} \sum_{r}
1268: \frac{(\Gamma_0/2)}{(\Gamma_0/2)^2+(E-\varepsilon_r)^2}
1269: \ee
1270: %
1271: where the resonance energies $\varepsilon_r$ have spacing $\Delta_0$.
1272: It is important to notice that the above expression
1273: does not reflect that
1274: %
1275: \be{13}
1276: \mbox{maximum}[q(E_n)] = \frac{L}{L_0} = \frac{\Delta_0}{\Delta}
1277: \ee
1278: %
1279: The maximum corresponds to the extreme case of having
1280: all the probability of the wavefunction inside the ring
1281: such that $A_n=(2/L_0)^{1/2}$. This situation is attained
1282: if we decrease the coupling so as to have no mixing
1283: of ring states with dot states ($\Gamma_0 \sim \Delta$).
1284: In the following discussion we assume that the latter
1285: (trivial possibility) is not the case.
1286: Hence we observe from Eq.(\ref{e12})
1287: that ${q(E) \approx (1-g_{cl})^{-1}}$
1288: on resonances (where $E\sim\varepsilon_r$),
1289: while ${q(E) \approx (1-g_{cl})}$
1290: off resonances (where $|E-\varepsilon_r| \sim \Delta_0 \gg \Gamma_0 $).
1291: The algebraic energy average over $q^2(E)$ is dominated
1292: by the peaks within resonance regions,
1293: whereas the harmonic average is dominated by the bottleneck
1294: off-resonance (valley) regions. The relative size
1295: of the resonance regions is $\Gamma_0/\Delta_0 \approx (1-g_{cl})$.
1296: Therefore we get
1297: %
1298: \be{14}
1299: \ \overline{q^2} &\approx& (1-g_{cl})^{-1}
1300: \\ \label{e15}
1301: \ [\overline{1/q^2}]^{-1} &\approx& (1-g_{cl})^2
1302: \ee
1303:
1304:
1305:
1306:
1307:
1308:
1309:
1310:
1311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1313: \section{Calculation of the conductance for the model system}
1314:
1315:
1316:
1317:
1318:
1319: %%%%%%%%%%% The matrix elements $I_{nm}$
1320:
1321: Given the eigenfunctions of the network
1322: the matrix elements of ${\cal I}$ are
1323: %
1324: \be{-1}
1325: {\cal I}_{nm} \approx
1326: -i\frac{ev_{\tbox{F}}}{2} \mathsf{A}_n\mathsf{A}_m
1327: \sin([\varphi_n-\varphi_m]+[k_n-k_m]x_0)\,.
1328: \ee
1329: %
1330: Without loss of generality we set $x_0=0$ and find
1331: %
1332: \be{16}
1333: \frac{2\pi\hbar}{\Delta}
1334: |I_{nm}|^2
1335: =
1336: e^2\frac{v_{\tbox{F}}}{L}
1337: \ q(E_n) \ q(E_m) \times g_{\varphi}
1338: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
1339: \mbox{for ${|E_n-E_m| \ll \Delta_0}$}
1340: \ee
1341: %
1342: where $0<g_{\varphi}<1$ is defined as the average value
1343: of $2|\sin(\varphi_n-\varphi_m)|^2$ for nearby levels
1344: %
1345: %
1346: If we change $x_0$ the correction to $g_{\varphi}$
1347: is at most of order $((E_n-E_m)/\Delta_0)^2$
1348: and hence can be neglected.
1349: %
1350: %
1351: %
1352: %
1353: Now we can get an explicit result
1354: for $\tilde{C}_E(\omega)$ via Eq.(\ref{e5})
1355: and hence for the conductance:
1356: %
1357: \be{17}
1358: G \ = \ \frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar}
1359: \langle\langle q(E)q_{\Gamma}(E+\hbar\omega)\rangle\rangle \times g_{\varphi}
1360: \ee
1361: %
1362: where $q_{\Gamma}(E)$ is a smoothed version
1363: of $q(E)$ as implied by Eq.(\ref{e5}).
1364: Note that in the numerical analysis one
1365: should be careful to use a smoothing kernel
1366: that excludes the center element, as implied by
1367: the restriction~${m \ne n}$.
1368:
1369:
1370:
1371:
1372: Using Eq.(\ref{e17}) with Eq.(\ref{e14})
1373: we get for the spectroscopic conductance
1374: %
1375: \be{0}
1376: G_{\tbox{spec}} = \left[\frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar}\right]
1377: \ (1-g_{cl})^{-1} \ g_{\varphi}
1378: \ee
1379: %
1380: Comparing this to Eq.~(\ref{Gclas})
1381: we deduce $g_{\varphi}=g_{cl}$.
1382: On the other hand using Eq.(\ref{e17})
1383: with Eq.(\ref{e15}) we get
1384: %
1385: \be{0}
1386: G_{\tbox{meso}} = \left[\frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar}\right]
1387: \ (1-g_{cl})^2 \ g_{\varphi}
1388: \ee
1389: %
1390: which leads to Eq.(\ref{e100})
1391: for the mesoscopic conductance.
1392: %
1393: %
1394: %
1395: %
1396: We can re-phrase the above procedure as follows:
1397: Given the well behaved ($\Gamma$~insensitive)
1398: spectroscopic conductance,
1399: the mesoscopic conductance is
1400: %
1401: \be{2}
1402: G_{\tbox{meso}} = [(\overline{1/q^2})^{-1}/\overline{q^2}] \times G_{\tbox{spec}}
1403: \ee
1404: %
1405: with $\Gamma$ implicit in the definition of $q$.
1406: Thus in order to calculate $G_{\tbox{meso}}$ we need
1407: to know both $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ and $q_{\Gamma}(E)$.
1408: For flat band ($q(E)=1$) and we get $G_{\tbox{meso}}=G_{\tbox{spec}}$,
1409: but in general $G_{\tbox{meso}} < G_{\tbox{spec}}$.
1410:
1411:
1412:
1413:
1414:
1415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1417: % numerics
1418:
1419: \section{Numerics}
1420:
1421: Numerical tests have been done for the model system of Fig.~2a.
1422: We have chosen a network containing $25$~bonds of length~$\sim1$
1423: such that $L \approx 25$. Our energy window was set around $k \sim 25000$.
1424: We computed $(k_n, \varphi_n, \mathsf{A}_n)$
1425: and with these data we have done the analysis
1426: described above. In particular we have obtained $q(E)$ for various values of
1427: the couplings (see Fig.~4a). Then we have calculated both the algebraic and
1428: the harmonic averages of $q^2(E)$. From the results which are presented in
1429: Fig.~4b we were able to deduce that the relation between these averages
1430: and $g_{cl}$ is as expected from the theoretical considerations.
1431:
1432:
1433: In Fig.~5 we show that the numerical result
1434: for $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ and $G_{\tbox{meso}}$
1435: is sensitive to the smoothing parameter $\Gamma$.
1436: Note that the displayed range $\Gamma$ exceeds
1437: the physically relevant region.
1438: In the adiabatic regime ($\Gamma \le \Delta$)
1439: the results are unstable numerically
1440: and of no significance. Also very large values
1441: of $\Gamma$ are not physically significant.
1442:
1443: We observe in Fig.~5 that $G_{\tbox{spec}}$ cannot
1444: exceed the quantum bound, and becomes saturated
1445: in the limit $g_{cl}\to 1$. This saturation is
1446: attained for $(1-g_{cl})^{-1}>L/L_0$
1447: as implied by the quantum border of Eq.(\ref{e13}):
1448: %
1449: \be{0}
1450: G_{\tbox{spec}} \Big|_{\tbox{maximum}}
1451: = \left[\frac{e^2}{2\pi\hbar}\right]
1452: \ \frac{L}{L_0}
1453: \ee
1454: %
1455: We have a second set of data (not displayed)
1456: for a similar network with $L/L_0$
1457: larger by a factor~$3.5$. We have verified that
1458: the saturation value of $G_{spec}$
1459: increases by the same factor.
1460:
1461:
1462:
1463: \newpage
1464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1468: % summary
1469:
1470: \section{Summary}
1471:
1472:
1473: The original motivation for this work was to study
1474: the simplest model of a closed device where the FGR picture
1475: of transitions and the notion of conductance are meaningful.
1476: %
1477: In order to construct such a model quantum chaos considerations
1478: are essential. A ring with a simple scatterer is not good enough:
1479: Energy diffusion cannot be justified
1480: due to adiabaticity or strong localization effect~\cite{loc}.
1481: %
1482: Therefore we have replaced the scatterer by a complicated
1483: network, which has allowed us to define circumstance such that
1484: the FGR picture would apply. Our initial inclination was to
1485: assume that in such circumstance we could use the Kubo formula
1486: in order to calculate the rate of energy absorption.
1487: But then we have realized that the applicability
1488: of the FGR picture is not enough in order to get Kubo.
1489: This turned out to be an example for a system where
1490: the conductance depends crucially
1491: on the non-universal {\em structure} of the perturbation matrix.
1492:
1493:
1494: In other systems with structured band profile
1495: a similar effect is expected,
1496: although not necessarily as dramatic
1497: as in our simple model. In particular we note
1498: a subsequent work~\cite{bls} where we calculate
1499: the conductance of multi mode ballistic rings.
1500: Thus {\em a feature that looked like an anomaly
1501: of a single mode device, has turned out to be
1502: a general theme in the theory of energy absorption}.
1503: A further non-trivial extension of the theory
1504: has allowed also to calculate the absorption
1505: of small metallic grains that are irradiated
1506: by a low frequency noise source~\cite{slr}.
1507:
1508: The model system that we have picked is of particular interest because it
1509: adds a twist to the old discussion of the Landauer formula \cite{imry}.
1510: For an open system the two terminal conductance of a one-channel system
1511: is less than unity. For a closed (zero terminal) device we have
1512: to distinguish between spectroscopic and mesoscopic conductance.
1513: The former equals $g_{cl}/(1-g_{cl})$ and can be very large
1514: in the limit of weak scattering, while the latter equals $(1-g_{cl})^2 g_{cl}$
1515: and goes to zero in this limit (disregarding higher-order corrections).
1516: %
1517: %
1518: More generally we can say
1519: that within the validity limits of our assumptions,
1520: $g_{cl}$ is the upper limit for
1521: the mesoscopic conductance of a single-mode system.
1522: There is a numerical indication~\cite{bls}, not yet conclusive,
1523: that also in the case of a multimode ring the mesoscopic conductance
1524: is limited by the number of open modes.
1525:
1526:
1527: The calculation of the conductance of closed devices
1528: is sensitive to the level broadening parameter $\Gamma$.
1529: Hence theoretical considerations that go well beyond
1530: the common Kubo formalism are essential.
1531: $\Gamma$ is determined by the non-adiabaticity
1532: of the driving~\cite{pmc} and/or by the
1533: surrounding environment~\cite{IS}.
1534: %
1535: We have assumed in the present paper
1536: that $\Delta \ll \Gamma \ll \Delta_0$.
1537: Our results do not apply to the adiabatic regime
1538: where other (rival) dissipation mechanisms apply
1539: (Landau-Zener~\cite{loc}, Debye~\cite{debye}).
1540: %
1541: On the other extreme, for very large driving rate (EMF)
1542: we may have a non-perturbative response~\cite{crs}
1543: that can invalidate the fluctuation-diffusion relation
1544: on which the calculation of $D_E$ has been based.
1545:
1546:
1547:
1548: \newpage
1549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1551: \appendix
1552: \section{The Kubo-Einstein and the diffusion-dissipation relations}
1553:
1554: In this appendix we review the derivation of
1555: the Kubo-Einstein formula and the diffusion-dissipation
1556: relation following \cite{wilk,frc}.
1557: The diffusion in energy space is deduced from
1558: the relation
1559: %
1560: \be{0}
1561: \frac{d{\cal H}}{dt}
1562: \ \ = \ \ \frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial t}
1563: \ \ = \ \ \dot{\Phi} \times \frac{\partial{\cal H}}{\partial \Phi}
1564: \ \ = \ \ - \dot{\Phi} \times \mathcal{I}
1565: \ee
1566: %
1567: This exact relation holds both classically
1568: and quantum mechanically. In the latter case
1569: we have to use Heisenberg picture. For simplicity of
1570: presentation we use a classical language and write
1571: %
1572: \be{0}
1573: E(t)-E(0) \ = \ - \dot{\Phi} \int_0^t {\cal I}(t') dt'
1574: \ee
1575: %
1576: averaging over an initial microcanonical preparation we get
1577: %
1578: \be{0}
1579: \langle (E(t)-E(0))^2 \rangle \ = \
1580: \dot{\Phi}^2 \int_0^t\int_0^t
1581: \langle {\cal I}(t') {\cal I}(t'') \rangle_E \ dt'dt''
1582: \ee
1583: %
1584: Thus
1585: %
1586: \be{0}
1587: \delta E^2(t) \ = \ 2D_E t
1588: \ee
1589: %
1590: where $D_E$ is given by Eq.(\ref{e312}).
1591: %
1592: %
1593: %
1594: %
1595: On long times one can argue \cite{jar} that the probability
1596: distribution $\rho(E)$ of the energy
1597: should satisfies the following diffusion equation:
1598: %
1599: \be{0}
1600: \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \ = \
1601: \frac{\partial}{\partial E}
1602: \left(\varrho(E)D_E \frac{\partial}{\partial E}
1603: \left(\frac{1}{\varrho(E)}\rho\right)\right)
1604: \ee
1605: %
1606: where $\varrho(E)$ is the density of states.
1607: The energy of the system is
1608: $\langle {\cal H} \rangle=\int E \rho(E)dE$.
1609: It follows that the rate of energy absorption is
1610: %
1611: \be{0}
1612: \dot{{\cal W}} \ = \
1613: \frac{d}{dt}\langle {\cal H} \rangle
1614: = - \int_0^{\infty} dE \ \varrho(E) \ D_E
1615: \ \frac{\partial}{\partial E}
1616: \left(\frac{\rho(E)}{\varrho(E)}\right)
1617: \ee
1618: %
1619: For a Fermi occupation $\rho(E)=\varrho(E)f(E)$
1620: where $f(E)$ is the occupation function.
1621: At zero temperature we get Eq.(\ref{e1010}).
1622:
1623:
1624:
1625: \newpage
1626: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1628:
1629: \ \\
1630:
1631: \ack
1632:
1633: DC thanks Michael Wilkinson, Bernhard Mehlig, Yuval Gefen
1634: and Shmuel Fishman for intriguing discussions.
1635: The preparation of the expanded version of this paper
1636: has been inspired by the helpful suggestions of Miriam Blaauboer,
1637: and we thank Boris Shapiro and Markus B\"{u}ttiker for their
1638: additional comments. The research was supported by
1639: the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02),
1640: and by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation
1641: for Scientific Research and Development.
1642:
1643:
1644:
1645:
1646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1648: \Bibliography{99}
1649:
1650:
1651: \bibitem{rings}
1652: M. B\"{u}ttiker, Y. Imry and R. Landauer,
1653: Phys. Lett. {\bf 96A}, 365 (1983).
1654:
1655: \bibitem{debye}
1656: The Debye relaxation mechanism is discussed by \\
1657: R. Landauer and M. B\"{u}ttiker,
1658: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 2049 (1985). \\
1659: M. B\"{u}ttiker, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 32}, 1846 (1985). \\
1660: M. B\"{u}ttiker, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 480, 194 (1986).
1661:
1662: \bibitem{IS}
1663: % The Kubo formula is applied to diffusive rings by
1664: Y. Imry and N.S. Shiren,
1665: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 7992 (1986).
1666:
1667: \bibitem{IS1}
1668: N. Trivedi and D. A. Browne, Phys. Rev. B 38, 9581 (1988).
1669:
1670:
1671:
1672: \bibitem{loc}
1673: Y. Gefen and D. J. Thouless,
1674: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 1752 (1987). \\
1675: M. Wilkinson, J. Phys. A {\bf 21} (1988) 4021. \\
1676: M. Wilkinson and E.J. Austin,
1677: J. Phys. A {\bf 23}, L957 (1990).
1678:
1679:
1680: \bibitem{G1}
1681: B. Reulet and H. Bouchiat, Phys. Rev. B 50, 2259 (1994).
1682:
1683: \bibitem{G2}
1684: A. Kamenev, B. Reulet, H. Bouchiat, and Y. Gefen, Europhys. Lett. 28, 391 (1994).
1685:
1686: \bibitem{kamenev}
1687: For a review see
1688: ``(Almost) everything you always wanted to know about
1689: the conductance of mesoscopic systems"
1690: by A. Kamenev and Y. Gefen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf B9}, 751 (1995).
1691:
1692: \bibitem{orsay}
1693: Measurements of conductance of closed
1694: diffusive rings are described by \\
1695: B. Reulet M. Ramin, H. Bouchiat and D. Mailly,
1696: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 124 (1995).
1697:
1698:
1699:
1700: \bibitem{kbf}
1701: D. Cohen and Y. Etzioni, J. Phys. A {\bf 38}, 9699 (2005).
1702:
1703:
1704:
1705: \bibitem{wilk}
1706: M. Wilkinson, J. Phys. A {\bf 21}, 4021, (1988).
1707:
1708:
1709:
1710: \bibitem{bls}
1711: S. Bandopadhyay, Y. Etzioni and D. Cohen,
1712: ``The conductance of a multi-mode ballistic ring:
1713: beyond Landauer and Kubo", {\bf cond-mat/0603484}.
1714:
1715: \bibitem{slr}
1716: M. Wilkinson, B. Mehlig and D. Cohen,
1717: Europhysics Letters {\bf 75}, 709 (2006).
1718:
1719:
1720: \bibitem{pmc}
1721: The $\Gamma$ issue is best discussed in Section~VIII of
1722: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 155303 (2003).
1723:
1724:
1725:
1726: \bibitem{mario}
1727: M. Feingold and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A 34, 591 (1986). \\
1728: Feingold, D. Leitner, and M. Wilkinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 986 (1991).
1729:
1730:
1731:
1732: \bibitem{pmt}
1733: D. Cohen, T. Kottos and H. Schanz,
1734: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 035202(R) (2005).
1735:
1736:
1737:
1738: \bibitem{splitter}
1739: M. B\"{u}ttiker, Y. Imry and M. Ya. Azbel,
1740: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 30}, 1982 (1984).
1741:
1742:
1743:
1744: \bibitem{crs}
1745: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4951 (1999). \\
1746: D. Cohen and T. Kottos, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4839 (2000).
1747:
1748:
1749: \bibitem{frc}
1750: D. Cohen, Annals of Physics {\bf 283}, 175 (2000).
1751:
1752:
1753: \bibitem{imry}
1754: Y. Imry, {\em Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics}
1755: (Oxford Univ. Press 1997), and references therein. \\
1756: Optionally see D. Stone and A. Szafer,
1757: \mbox{http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/323/ibmrd3203I.pdf}
1758:
1759:
1760: \bibitem{jar}
1761: C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 2937 (1995); \\
1762: Phys. Rev. {\bf E 48}, 4340 (1993).
1763:
1764:
1765: \bibitem{lds}
1766: D. Cohen and T. Kottos, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 36203 (2001).
1767:
1768:
1769: % \bibitem{fisher}
1770: % D.S. Fisher and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 23}, 6851 (1981). \
1771: % H.U. Baranger and A.D. Stone, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40}, 8169 (1989). \
1772: % D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 201303(R) (2003).
1773:
1774:
1775: \end{thebibliography}
1776:
1777:
1778:
1779: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1781: %%% FIGURES
1782:
1783:
1784: \newpage
1785:
1786:
1787: \mpg{
1788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1789: \putgraph[width=0.7\hsize]{kbrscheme}
1790:
1791: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.1}:
1792: The phenomenology of energy absorption.
1793: In the upper panel we present a block
1794: diagram. We highlight the rate of energy
1795: absorption $\dot{\mathcal{W}}$ which depends on the
1796: energy broadening parameter $\Gamma$.
1797: We also highlight the rate $\dot{\mathcal{Q}}$
1798: of ``heat flow" to the bath,
1799: which depends on the energy
1800: relaxation rate $\gamma_{\tbox{rlx}}$.
1801: In the lower panel we plot how $\dot{W}$
1802: depends on time. If $\gamma_{\tbox{rlx}}$
1803: is small than there is a transient to a slower
1804: absorption rate that depends on $\Gamma$.}
1805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1806: }
1807:
1808:
1809: \ \\ \ \\ \ \\
1810:
1811:
1812: \mpg{
1813: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1814: \putgraph[width=0.9\hsize]{kbr_fig}
1815:
1816: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.2}:
1817: (a) The ring-dot network model.
1818: (b) Schematic representation.
1819: (c) The corresponding open system.}
1820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1821: }
1822:
1823: \newpage
1824:
1825:
1826:
1827: \mpg{
1828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1829: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{b_mtrx}
1830: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{ImnR}
1831:
1832: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.3}:
1833: Writing the perturbation in the basis
1834: of the unperturbed Hamiltonian we get
1835: a structured matrix: On the left we
1836: display a representative result for
1837: a quantized hard chaos system (taken form Ref.~\cite{lds}).
1838: On the right we display the result
1839: for the ring-dot network model of this paper.}
1840: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1841: }
1842:
1843:
1844:
1845:
1846: \ \\
1847:
1848: \mpg{
1849: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1850: \putgraph[width=0.46\hsize]{pEall}
1851: \putgraph[width=0.46\hsize]{gVSc}
1852:
1853: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.4:}
1854: Left panel: Smoothed $q(E_n)$ for $0.005<c<0.5$.
1855: Right panel: The horizontal axis is $c$.
1856: The dotted red lines are $c^2$ and $c^4$.
1857: The averages $1/\overline{[1/q(E)^2]}$ (lower curve),
1858: and $\overline{[q(E)^2]}$ (upper curve),
1859: and $\overline{[q(E)]}$ (circles) are calculated.
1860: The coupling measure $1-g_{cl}$ (stars) is
1861: numerically obtained from the Landauer conductance.}
1862: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1863: }
1864:
1865:
1866: \ \\
1867:
1868:
1869: \mpg{
1870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1871: \putgraph[width=0.46\hsize]{Gspec}
1872: \putgraph[width=0.46\hsize]{Gmeso}
1873:
1874: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.5:}
1875: The spectroscopic and mesoscopic conductances
1876: as a function of $\Gamma/\Delta$
1877: for the various values of $c$.
1878: The former is resolved in the normal scale (left)
1879: while the latter is resolved in the log scale (right).
1880: The vertical dotted line indicates
1881: the $\Gamma$ value that has been assumed in Fig.~4b. }
1882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1883: }
1884:
1885:
1886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1888: \end{document}
1889:
1890:
1891: