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

2: %%% (Oct 2004)

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: % pme.tex

5: % physeauth.cls

6: % elsart.cls

7: % FIG1: pmp_models

8: % FIG2: pmo_fig

9: % FIG3: pmp_cyc; pmp_cyc_plan

10: % FIG4: pmt_fig

11: % FIG5: pme_2delta; pmp_levels; DiracChains

12: % FIG6: pmt_fig2

13: 

14: 

15: \documentclass{physeauth}

16: % both phyeauth.cls and elsart.cls are required

17: \usepackage{graphicx}

18: \usepackage{amsmath}

19: \usepackage{amssymb}

20: \usepackage{epsfig}

21: \usepackage{bm}

22: \usepackage{latexsym}

23: 

24: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,floats]{revtex4}

25: %\documentclass{elsart}

26: %\begin{document}

27: 

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

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

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

31: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}

32: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

39: \newcommand{\EPS} {\mbox{\LARGE $\epsilon$}}

40: \newcommand{\ttimes} {\mbox{\tiny \ $^{\times}$ \ }}

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

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

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

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

45: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}

46: 

47: \newcommand{\Cn}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}} 

48: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

49: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}} 

50: 

51: \begin{document}

52: 

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

54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

55: 

56: \begin{frontmatter}

57: 

58: \title{Quantum pumping and dissipation in closed systems}

59: 

60: \author{Doron Cohen}

61: 

62: \address{Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, 

63: Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel}

64: 

65: 

66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

67: 

68: \begin{abstract}

69: Current can be pumped through a closed system

70: by changing parameters (or fields) in time.

71: Linear response theory (the Kubo formula)

72: allows to analyze both the charge transport

73: and the associated dissipation effect.

74: We make a distinction between adiabatic

75: and non-adiabatic regimes, and explain the

76: subtle limit of an infinite system.

77: %

78: As an example we discuss the following question:

79: What is the amount of charge which is pushed

80: by a moving scatterer?

81: In the low frequency (DC) limit we can

82: write $dQ = -G dX$, where $dX$ is the displacement

83: of the scatterer. Thus the issue is to calculate

84: the generalized conductance $G$.

85: \end{abstract}

86: 

87: 

88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

89: 

90: \begin{keyword}

91: 

92: mesoscopics \sep quantum chaos \sep 

93: linear response \sep quantum pumping 

94: 

95: \thanks{Lecture notes for the {\em Physica~E} proceedings of the conference

96: "Frontiers of Quantum and Mesoscopic Thermodynamics" [Prague, July 2004].}

97: 

98: %\thanks[thank1]{E-mail: dcohen@bgu.ac.il}

99: 

100: 

101: \PACS 03.65.-w 

102: \sep 73.23.-b 

103: \sep 05.45.Mt

104: \sep 03.65.Vf

105: 

106: \end{keyword}

107:  

108: \end{frontmatter}

109:  

110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112:  

113: \section{Introduction}

114:  

115: The analogy between electric current and the flow of water

116: is in fact older than the discovery of the electrons.

117: There are essentially two ways to move "water" (charge) between

118: two ``pools" (reservoirs): One possibility is to exploit

119: potential difference between the two reservoirs so as to

120: make the ``water" flow through a ``pipe" (wire). The other

121: possibility is to operate a device (pump) at some location along

122: the pipe (the ``scattering region"). This possibility of

123: moving charge without creating a potential difference is

124: called pumping. This description assumes ``open" geometry as

125: in Fig.1c. But what about a ``closed" system as in Fig.1b?

126: If we operate the same pump, do we get the same

127: circulating current as in the ``open" geometry?

128: 

129: 

130: \begin{figure}[h]

131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

132: % billiard models

133: \Cn{\epsfig{figure=pmp_models,width=0.86\hsize}}

134: %\epsfig{figure=pmp_scat_reg,width=0.45\hsize}

135: %\epsfig{figure=pmp_scat,width=0.45\hsize}

136: %

137: \caption{   %{\bf Fig.1:} 

138: (a) Upper left: A chaotic ring that has 

139: the shape of a Sinai billiard, with Aharonov-Bohm flux. 

140: (b) Upper right: The dot-wire geometry with the same 

141: topology as in the case of the Sinai billiard. 

142: (c) Lower: The wire is cut into two leads that are attached 

143: to reservoirs. The latter is what we call ``open geometry".} 

144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

145: \end{figure}

146: 

147:  

148: The analysis of ``quantum pumping" in closed systems

149: should take into account several issues that go beyond

150: the water analogy:

151: {\bf (i)} Kirchhoff law is not satisfied in the mesoscopic

152: reality because charge can accumulate;

153: {\bf (ii)} There are quantized energy levels,

154: consequently one has to distinguish between

155: adiabatic and non-adiabatic dynamics;

156: {\bf (iii)} Interference is important,

157: implying that the result of the calculation

158: is of statistical nature (universal conductance fluctuations).

159: On top we may have to take into account the effect

160: of having an external environment (decoherence).

161:  

162:  

163: Quantum pumping is a special issue in the study 

164: of ``driven systems". We are going to emphasize 

165: the significance of ``quantum chaos" in the analysis. 

166: This in fact provides the foundations for

167: linear response theory (LRT) 

168: \cite{landau,dsp,wilk,crs,frc,pmc}. 

169: We shall explain how to apply 

170: the Kubo formalism in order to analyze the dynamics 

171: in the low frequency (DC) regime. Within the Kubo 

172: formalism the problem boils down to the calculation 

173: of the generalized (DC) conductance matrix.

174:  

175:  

176: To avoid miss-understanding we emphasize that 

177: the dynamics in the low frequency (DC) regime 

178: is in general non-adiabatic: 

179: The DC conductance has both a dissipative 

180: and a non-dissipative parts. In the adiabatic 

181: limit (extremely small rate of driving) 

182: the dissipative part vanishes, while the 

183: non-dissipative part reduces to ``adiabatic transport" 

184: (also called ``geometric magnetism") 

185: \cite{berry,thouless,AvronNet,BeRo}. 

186: The ``adiabatic regime", 

187: where the dissipative effect can be ignored, 

188: is in fact a tiny sub-domain 

189: of the relatively vast ``DC regime".

190: 

191: 

192: The dot-wire geometry of Fig.1b is of particular

193: interest. We are going to discuss the special limit

194: of taking the length of the wire ($L$) to be infinite.

195: In this limit the adiabatic regime vanishes,

196: but still we are left with a vast "DC regime" where

197: the pumping is described by a "DC conductance".

198: In this limit we get results \cite{pmo} 

199: that are in agreement

200: with the well known analysis of quantum pumping 

201: \cite{BPT,brouwer} in an open geometry (Fig.1c).

202: 

203: 

204: 

205: 

206: \begin{figure}[b]

207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

208: % dot wire geometry

209: \Cn{\epsfig{figure=pmo_fig,width=0.7\hsize}}

210: \caption{   %{\bf Fig.2:} 

211: Detailed illustration of the dot-wire system.

212: The dot potential is controlled

213: by gate voltages $X_1$ and $X_2$.

214: The flux through the loop is $X_3{=}\Phi$.

215: The scattering region ($r{<}0$)

216: is represented by an $S$~matrix. 

217: Later we assume that the length ($L$) 

218: of the wire is very large.}

219: 

220: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

221: \end{figure}

222: 

223: 

224: 

225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

227: \section{Driven systems}

228: 

229: Consider a Fermi sea of non interacting ``spinless" electrons. 

230: The electrons are bounded by some potential. To be specific 

231: we assume a ring topology as in Fig.1a. Of particular 

232: interest is the dot-wire geometry of Fig.1b, or its more 

233: elaborated version Fig.2. It has the same 

234: topology but we can distinguish between a ``wire region" and 

235: a ``dot region" (or ``scattering region"). 

236: In particular we can consider a dot-wire system such 

237: that the length of the wire is very very long. 

238: If we cut the wire in the middle, and attach each lead 

239: to a reservoir, then we get the open geometry of Fig.1c.

240: 

241: 

242: We assume that we have some control over 

243: the potential that holds the electrons. 

244: Specifically, and without loss of generality, 

245: we assume that there are control parameters $X_1$ and $X_2$ 

246: that represent e.g. some gate voltages (see Fig.2) 

247: with which we can control the potential 

248: in the scattering region.

249: Namely, with these parameters we can change the 

250: dot potential floor, or the height of some 

251: barrier, or the location of a ``wall" element, 

252: or the position of a scatterer inside the dot.

253: We call $X_1$ and $X_2$ shape parameters. 

254: 

255: 

256: 

257: We also assume that it is possible to have 

258: an Aharonov-Bohm flux $X_3$ through the ring. 

259: Thus our notations are:

260: %

261: \be

262: & & X_1, X_2 \ = \ \mbox{shape parameters} \\

263: & & X_3 \ = \ \Phi \ = \ (\hbar/e)\phi \ = \ \mbox{magnetic flux}

264: \ee

265: %

266: and the motion of each electron is described 

267: by a one particle Hamiltonian 

268: %

269: \be

270: \mathcal{H} \ = \ \mathcal{H}(\bm{r},\bm{p};\ X_1(t),X_2(t),X_3(t))

271: \ee

272: 

273: 

274: 

275:  

276: To drive a system means to change 

277: some parameters (fields) in time.

278: No driving means that $X_1$ and $X_2$ are 

279: kept constant, and also let us assume for simplicity 

280: that there is no magnetic field and that $X_3=0$. 

281: In the absence of driving we assume 

282: that the motion of the electrons inside 

283: the system is classically chaotic. 

284: For example this is the case with the 

285: so-called Sinai billiard of Fig.1a. 

286: In such circumstances the energy of the system 

287: is a constant of the motion, and the net circulating 

288: current is zero due to ergodicity. 

289: 

290: 

291: The simplest way to create a current $\mathcal{I}$ 

292: in an open system (Fig.1c) is to impose bias 

293: by having a different chemical potential in each reservoir.

294: Another possibility is to create 

295: an electro-motive-force (EMF) in the dot region. 

296: In linear response theory it can be proved 

297: that it does not matter what is the assumed 

298: distribution of the voltage along the ``resistor". 

299: The EMF is by Faraday law $-\dot{\Phi}$. 

300: Assuming DC driving (constant EMF), 

301: and the applicability of LRT, we get the ``Ohm law" 

302: $\mathcal{I} = \bm{G}^{33} \times (-\dot{\Phi})$ 

303: and hence the transported charge is 

304: $dQ = - \bm{G}^{33} \ dX_3$. 

305: We call $\bm{G}^{33}$ the Ohmic (DC) conductance.

306: If we have a low frequency AC driving rather 

307: than a DC driving, still the impedance (AC conductance) 

308: is expected to be well approximated by the DC conductance 

309: within a frequency range that we call the DC regime. 

310:  

311: 

312: Yet another possibility is to induce current by 

313: changing shape parameter in time, 

314: while keeping either the bias or $X_3$ equal to zero.

315: Say that we change $X_1$, then in complete 

316: analogy with Ohm law we can write 

317: $dQ = - \bm{G}^{31} \ dX_1$. More generally 

318: we can write 

319: %

320: \be

321: dQ \ = \ - \sum_j \bm{G}^{3j} \ dX_j

322: \ee

323: % 

324: Obviously this type of formula makes sense 

325: only in the ``DC regime" where the current 

326: at each moment of time depends only on the 

327: rates $\dot{X}_j$. 

328: 

329: 

330: 

331: 

332: 

333: \begin{figure}[b]

334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

335: % pumping cycle

336: \Cn{

337: \epsfig{figure=pmp_cyc,height=0.35\hsize} 

338: \ \ \ \ 

339: \epsfig{figure=pmp_cyc_plan,height=0.35\hsize}

340: }

341: \caption{   %{\bf Fig.3:} 

342: (a) Left: A driving cycle in $X$ space. In order to have non-zero 

343: area enclosed we have to change (without loss of generality)  

344: two parameters. (b) Right: In particular we consider pumping cycle 

345: in the $X_3=0$ plane (no magnetic field). }

346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

347: \end{figure}

348: 

349: 

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

354: \section{pumping cycles}

355: 

356: 

357: In practice the interest is a time periodic (AC) driving. 

358: This means that the driving cycle can be represented 

359: by a closed contour at the $(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ space

360: as in Fig.3a. In fact we assume that the contour is 

361: lying in the $(X_1,X_2)$ plan as in Fig.3b.

362: We ask what is the amount of charge which is transported 

363: via a section of the ring per cycle. 

364: Assuming the applicability of LRT we get in the DC regime 

365: %

366: \be \label{e5}

367: Q \ = \ \oint \mathcal{I} dt \ = \ \oint \bm{G} \cdot dX

368: \ee 

369: %

370: where $X=(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ and 

371: $\bm{G} = (\bm{G}^{31},\bm{G}^{32},\bm{G}^{33})$. 

372: Later we shall define a more general object $\bm{G}^{kj}$

373: with $k,j=1,2,3$ that we call {\em generalized conductance matrix}. 

374: In the above formula only the $k=3$ 

375: row enters into the calculation.

376: 

377: 

378: 

379: Getting $Q\ne 0$ means that the 

380: current has a non-zero DC component. 

381: So we can define ``pumping" as 

382: getting DC current form AC driving. 

383: From the above it is clear that 

384: within the DC regime we have to vary  

385: at least two parameters to 

386: achieve a non-zero result. 

387: In a closed (in contrast to open) 

388: system this conclusion remains 

389: valid also outside of the DC regime, 

390: due to time reversal symmetry.

391: In order to get DC current from one parameter 

392: AC driving, in a closed system, 

393: it is essential to have a non-linear response.

394: {\em Ratchets} are non-linear devices 

395: that use ``mixed" \cite{ratchH}   

396: or ``damped" \cite{ratchD} dynamics 

397: in order to pump with only one parameter.

398: We are {\em not} discussing such devices below. 

399: 

400: 

401: 

402: 

403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

404: 

405: \section{What is the problem?}

406: 

407: Most of the studies of quantum pumping were (so far)

408: about open systems. Inspired by Landauer who pointed out 

409: that $\bm{G}^{33}$ is essentially the transmission of the device,

410: B{\"u}ttiker, Pretre and Thomas (BPT) have

411: developed a formula that allows the calculation of $\bm{G}^{3j}$ 

412: using the $S$ matrix of the scattering region \cite{BPT,brouwer}.

413: It turns out that the non-trivial extension of this approach

414: to closed systems involves quite restrictive assumptions \cite{MoBu}.

415: Thus the case of pumping in closed systems has been left un-explored,

416: except to some past works on adiabatic transport \cite{AvronNet,BeRo}.

417: Yet another approach to quantum pumping is to use

418: the powerful {\em Kubo~formalism} \cite{pmc,pmo,pmt}.

419: 

420: 

421: The Kubo formula, which we discuss later, 

422: gives a way to calculate the 

423: generalized conductance matrix $\bm{G}^{kj}$. 

424: It is a well know formula \cite{landau}, 

425: so one can ask: what is the issue here? 

426: The answer is that both the validity conditions, 

427: and also the way to use the Kubo formula, 

428: are in fact open problems in physics.

429: 

430: 

431: The Van Kampen controversy regarding the 

432: validity of the Kubo formula in the classical 

433: framework is well known, and by now has 

434: been resolved. For a systematic classical derivation 

435: of the Kubo formula with all the validity 

436: conditions see Ref.\cite{frc} and references therein. 

437: The assumption of chaos is essential 

438: in the classical derivation. 

439: If this assumption is not satisfied 

440: (as in the trivial case of a driven 1D ring) 

441: then the Kubo formula becomes non-applicable.

442: 

443: 

444: What about the Quantum Mechanical derivation? 

445: The problem has been raised in Ref.\cite{wilk} 

446: but has been answered only later 

447: in Refs.\cite{crs,frc} and follow up works.

448: It is important to realize that the quantum 

449: mechanical derivation of the Kubo formula 

450: requires perturbation theory to infinite order, 

451: not just 1st order perturbation theory. 

452: We shall discuss later the non-trivial 

453: self consistency condition of the quantum mechanical 

454: derivation. 

455: 

456: 

457: We note that the standard textbook derivation 

458: of the Kubo formula assumes that the 

459: energy spectrum is essentially a continuum. 

460: A common practice is to assume some weak 

461: coupling to some external bath \cite{imryK}. 

462: However, this procedure avoids the question 

463: at stake, and in fact fails to take into 

464: consideration important ingredients that 

465: have to do with {\em quantum chaos physics}.

466: In this lecture the primary interest 

467: is in the physics of a closed {\em isolated} system.  

468: Only in a later stage we look for the effects 

469: that are associated with having a weak coupling 

470: to an external bath.

471: 

472: 

473: Why do we say that it is not clear how 

474: to use the Kubo formula? We are going to explain 

475: that the quantum mechanical derivation of the 

476: Kubo formula introduces an energy scale 

477: that we call $\Gamma$. It plays an analogous 

478: role to the level broadening parameter 

479: which is introduced in case of a coupling to a bath. 

480: Our $\Gamma$ depends on the rate $\dot{X}$ 

481: of the driving in a non-trivial way.

482: One may say that $\Gamma$ in case of an isolated 

483: system is due to the non-adiabaticity of the driving.

484: Our $\Gamma$ affects both the dissipative 

485: and the non-dissipative (geometric) part 

486: of the response. Without a theory for 

487: $\Gamma$ the quantum mechanical Kubo formula 

488: is ill defined.

489: 

490: 

491: 

492: 

493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

495: \section{Generalized forces and currents}

496: 

497: Given a Hamiltonian we define generalized forces 

498: in the conventional way:

499: %

500: \be

501: \mathcal{F}^k \ = \ -\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial X_k}

502: \ee

503: %

504: one obvious reasoning that motivates this definition 

505: follows from writing the following (exact) expression for 

506: the change in the energy $E=\langle \mathcal{H} \rangle$ 

507: of the system:

508: %

509: \be

510: E_{\tbox{final}}-E_{\tbox{initial}} \ = \ 

511: - \int \langle \mathcal{F}(t) \rangle \cdot dX

512: \ee

513: %

514: In particular we note that $\mathcal{F}^3$ should be 

515: identified as the current $\mathcal{I}$. 

516: This identification can be explained as follows: 

517: If we make a change $d\Phi$ of the flux during a time $dt$, 

518: then the EMF is $-d\Phi/dt$, leading to a current $\mathcal{I}$. 

519: The energy increase is the EMF times the charge, 

520: namely $dE=(-d\Phi/dt)\times(\mathcal{I}dt)=-\mathcal{I}d\Phi$.

521: Hence $\mathcal{I}$ is conjugate to $\Phi$.

522: 

523: 

524: As an example we consider \cite{pmt}  

525: a network model \cite{kottos}.  

526: See the illustration of Fig.4d. 

527: The Hamiltonian is 

528: %

529: \be

530: \mathcal{H} \ \ = \ \ \mbox{\small network} 

531: \ \ + \ \ X_2 \ \delta(x-X_1)

532: \ee

533: %

534: We assume control over the position $X_1$ 

535: of the delta scatterer, 

536: and also over the ``height" $X_2$ 

537: of the scatterer. By the definition we get:

538: %

539: \be

540: \mathcal{F}^1 \ &=& \  X_2 \delta'(x-X_1)

541: \\ 

542: \mathcal{F}^2 \ &=& \  -\delta(x-X_1)

543: \ee

544: %

545: Note that $\mathcal{F}^1$ is the ordinary Newtonian force 

546: which is associated with translations. Its operation on 

547: the wavefunction can be realized by the differential operator  

548: %

549: \be

550: \mathcal{F}^1 \ \ \mapsto \ \ -X_2 

551: \left( \overrightarrow{\partial} + \overleftarrow{\partial} 

552: - \frac{2\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2} X_2 \right)_{x=X_1+0}

553: \ee

554: %

555: where we have used the matching condition across the delta 

556: function and $\mathsf{m}$ is the mass of the particle. 

557: 

558: 

559: 

560: What about the current operator? For its definition we have 

561: to introduce a vector potential $\mathcal{A}(x) = \Phi a(x)$  

562: into the Hamiltonian such that 

563: %

564: \be

565: \oint \vect{\mathcal{A}} \cdot \vect{dr} \ = \ \Phi

566: \ee 

567: %

568: Thus we have to specify $a(x)$, which describes how 

569: the vector potential varies along the loop.   

570: This is not merely a gauge freedom because the 

571: electric field $-\dot{\Phi} a(x)$ is a measurable 

572: quantity. Moreover, a different $a(x)$ implies 

573: a different current operator. In particular we can 

574: choose $a(x)$ to be a delta function across 

575: a section $x=x_0$. Then we get:

576: %

577: \be

578: \mathcal{I} \ \ = \ \ \frac{e}{2\mathsf{m}} 

579: \left( \delta(x-x_0)p + p\delta(x-x_0) \right)

580: \ee

581: %

582: Note that the operation of this operator 

583: can be realized by the differential operator

584: %

585: \be

586: \mathcal{I} \ \ \mapsto \ \ -i \frac{e\hbar}{2\mathsf{m}} 

587: \Big(\overrightarrow{\partial}-\overleftarrow{\partial}\Big)_{x=x_0} 

588: \ee

589: %

590: A few words are in order regarding the continuity of the charge flow.

591: It should be clear that in any moment the current through 

592: different sections of a wire does not have to be the same, 

593: because charge can accumulate. Kirchhoff law is not satisfied. 

594: For example if we block the left entrance to the dot in Fig.2, 

595: and raise the dot potential, then current is pushed out of 

596: the right lead, while the current in the blocked side is zero. 

597: Still if we make a full pumping cycle, such that the charge 

598: comes back to its original distribution at the end of each cycle, 

599: then the result for $Q$ should be independent of the section 

600: through which the current is measured.

601: 

602:    

603: 

604: 

605: \begin{figure}[b]

606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

607: % network models

608: \epsfig{figure=pmt_fig,width=\hsize}

609: %\epsfig{figure=pmt_fig_lec,width=0.45\hsize}

610: %\epsfig{figure=pmt_pumps,width=0.45\hsize}

611: \caption{   %{\bf Fig.4:} 

612: A scatterer (represented by a black circle) is 

613: translated through a system that has a Fermi occupation 

614: of spinless non-interacting electrons. 

615: In (a) the system is a simple ring. 

616: In (b) it is a chaotic ring (Sinai billiard). 

617: In (c) and in (d) we have network systems that 

618: are of the same type of (a) and (b) respectively. 

619: In the network, the scatterer (``piston") 

620: is a delta function (represented as a big circle) located at $x=X_1$. 

621: The current is measured through $x=x_0$ (dotted vertical line).

622: In (e) we have an open geometry with left and right leads that 

623: are attached to reservoirs that have the same chemical potential.} 

624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

625: \end{figure}

626: 

627: 

628: 

629: 

630: 

631: 

632: 

633: 

634: 

635: 

636: 

637: 

638: 

639: 

640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

641: \section{Linear response theory}

642: 

643: 

644: Assume that $X(t)=X^{(0)} + \delta X(t)$, 

645: and look for a quasi-stationary solution.

646: To have linear response means that the generalized 

647: forces are related to the driving as follows: 

648: %

649: \be \label{e15}

650: \langle \mathcal{F}(t) \rangle \ = \ 

651: \langle \mathcal{F} \rangle_0  \ + \ 

652: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

653: \bm{\alpha}(t-t') \cdot \delta X(t') \ dt' 

654: \ee 

655: %

656: where $\langle ... \rangle_0$ denote the expectation 

657: value with respect to the unperturbed $X(t)=X^{(0)}$ 

658: stationary state. From now on we disregard the zero 

659: order term (the ``conservative force"), and focus 

660: on the linear term. 

661: The generalized susceptibility $\chi^{kj}(\omega)$ 

662: is the Fourier transform of the (causal) response 

663: kernel $\alpha^{kj}(\tau)$, while the generalized 

664: conductance matrix is defined as 

665: %

666: \be

667: \bm{G}^{kj} \ = \ \left. 

668: \frac{\mbox{Im}[\chi^{kj}(\omega)]}{\omega} 

669: \ \right|_{\omega\sim0} \ = \ \bm{\eta}^{kj} + \bm{B}^{kj}

670: \ee

671: %

672: The last equality defines the symmetric 

673: and the anti-symmetric matrices $\bm{\eta}^{kj}$ and $\bm{B}^{kj}$. 

674: Thus in the DC limit Eq.(\ref{e15}) reduces to a generalized Ohm law: 

675: %

676: \be

677: \langle \mathcal{F}^k \rangle \ \ = \ \

678: -\sum_{j} \bm{G}^{kj} \ \dot{X}_j

679: \ee

680: %

681: which can be written in fancy notations as 

682: %

683: \be

684: \langle F \rangle \ \ = \ \ -\bm{G}\cdot \dot{X} \ \ = \ \ 

685: -\bm{\eta} \cdot \dot{X} \ - \ \bm{B}\wedge \dot{X}

686: \ee

687: %

688: Note that the rate of dissipation is 

689: %

690: \be

691: \dot{\mathcal{W}} \ \ = \ \ -\langle F \rangle \cdot \dot{X} \ \ = \ \

692: \sum_{kj} \bm{\eta}^{kj} \ \dot{X}_k \ \dot{X}_j

693: \ee

694: 

695: 

696: 

697: We would like to focus not on the dissipation issue,  

698: but rather on the transport issue. From Eq.(\ref{e5}) we get 

699: %

700: \be

701: Q \ \ = \ \ 

702: \Big[ \ -\oint \bm{\eta} \cdot dX \ \ - \oint \bm{B} \wedge dX \ \ \Big]_{k=3}

703: \ee

704: %

705: From now on we consider a planar $(X_1,X_2)$ pumping cycle, 

706: and assume that there is no magnetic field. 

707: Then it follows from time reversal symmetry [Onsager] that 

708: $\bm{\eta}^{31} = \bm{\eta}^{32} = 0$, and consequently 

709: %

710: \be \label{e21}

711: Q \ = \ -\oint \vect{\bm{B}} \cdot \ \vect{ds} 

712: \ee

713: %

714: where $\vect{\bm{B}}=(\bm{B}^{23},\bm{B}^{31},\bm{B}^{12})$, 

715: with $\bm{B}^{12} = 0$, and $\vect{ds}=(dX_2,-dX_1,0)$ 

716: is a normal vector in the pumping plane as in Fig.3b.

717: 

718: 

719: 

720: 

721: 

722: 

723: 

724: 

725: 

726: 

727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

728: \newpage

729: 

730: The various objects that have been defined  

731: in this section are summarized by the following diagram:

732: 

733: \ \\

734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

736: %%%%% lrt_diagrm:

737: {

738: \setlength{\unitlength}{2000sp}

739: \begin{picture}(4725,5767)(751,-7112)

740: \put(1501,-1861){\vector( 0,-1){375}}

741: \put(1501,-3061){\vector(-2,-3){242.308}}

742: \put(1801,-3061){\vector( 4,-1){1641.177}}

743: \put(4801,-4261){\vector( 0,-1){525}}

744: \put(4951,-5611){\vector( 1,-1){375}}

745: \put(4651,-5611){\vector(-1,-1){375}}

746: \put(1126,-1561){$\alpha^{kj}(t-t')$}

747: \put(1201,-2761){$\chi^{kj}(\omega)$}

748: \put(751,-3886){$\mbox{Re}[\chi^{kj}(\omega)]$}

749: \put(3301,-3886){$(1/\omega) \ttimes \mbox{Im}[\chi^{kj}(\omega)]$}

750: \put(3676,-6511){$\bm{\eta}^{kj}$}

751: \put(5326,-6511){$\bm{B}^{kj}$}

752: \put(5476,-7036){(non-dissipative)}

753: \put(4576,-5386){$\bm{G}^{kj}$}

754: \put(3001,-7036){(dissipative)}

755: \end{picture}

756: }

757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

758: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

759: \ \\

760: 

761: 

762: 

763: 

764: 

765: 

766: 

767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

769: \section{The Kubo formula}

770: 

771: The Kubo formula for the response kernel is 

772: %

773: \be

774: \alpha^{kj}(\tau) \ = \ \Theta(\tau) \times 

775: \frac{i}{\hbar} \langle [\mathcal{F}^k(\tau),\mathcal{F}^j(0)]\rangle_0

776: \ee

777: %

778: where the expression on the right hand side 

779: assumes a zero order $X=X^{0}$ stationary state 

780: (the so called ``interaction picture"), 

781: and $\Theta(\tau)$ is the step function.

782: 

783: 

784: 

785: Using the definitions of the previous section, 

786: and assuming a Fermi sea of non-interacting fermions  

787: with occupation function $f(E)$,  

788: we get the following expressions:

789: %

790: \be \nonumber 

791: \bm{\eta}^{kj} &=& 

792: -\pi\hbar\sum_{n,m}

793: \frac{f(E_n){-}f(E_m)}{E_n{-}E_m}

794: \mathcal{F}^k_{nm}\mathcal{F}^j_{mn}

795: \ \delta_{\Gamma}(E_m{-}E_n)

796: \\ \label{e23}

797: \bm{B}^{kj} &=& 

798: 2\hbar \sum_n f(E_n)

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

800: \frac{\im\left[\mathcal{F}^k_{nm}\mathcal{F}^j_{mn}\right]}

801: {(E_m{-}E_n)^2+(\Gamma/2)^2}

802: \ee

803: %

804: We have incorporated in these expression 

805: a broadening parameter $\Gamma$ which is absent 

806: in the ``literal" Kubo formula. If we set 

807: $\Gamma=0$ we get no dissipation 

808: ($\bm{\eta}=0$). We also see that $\Gamma$ affects 

809: the non-dissipative part of the response. 

810: Thus we see that without having a theory 

811: for $\Gamma$ the Kubo formula is an ill defined expression. 

812: 

813: 

814: 

815: 

816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

817: \section{Adiabatic transport (Geometric magnetism)}

818: 

819: 

820: The ``literal" Kubo formula (i.e. with $\Gamma=0$) 

821: has been considered in Refs.(\cite{AvronNet,BeRo}). 

822: In this limit we have no dissipation ($\bm{\eta}=0$). 

823: But we may still have a non-vanishing $\bm{B}$.

824: By Eq.(\ref{e23}) the total $\bm{B}$ is a sum 

825: over the occupied levels. The contribution of 

826: a given occupied level $n$ is:

827: %

828: \be

829: \bm{B}^{kj}_n \ \ = \ \

830: 2\hbar 

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

832: \frac{\im\left[

833: \mathcal{F}^k_{nm}\mathcal{F}^j_{mn}\right]}

834: {(E_m-E_n)^2+(\Gamma/2)^2}

835: \ee

836: %

837: with $\Gamma=0$. This is identified as the 

838: geometric magnetism of Ref.\cite{BeRo}.

839: 

840: 

841: We can get some intuition for $\vect{\bm{B}}$  

842: from the theory of adiabatic processes. 

843: The Berry phase is given as a line integral 

844: $ (1/\hbar)\oint \vect{\bm{A}} \cdot dX $ over ``vector potential" 

845: in $X$ space. By stokes law it can be converted 

846: to an integral  $(1/\hbar)\intt \vect{\bm{B}} \cdot dS$   

847: over a surface that is bounded by the driving cycle.  

848: The $\vect{\bm{B}}$ field is divergence-less, but 

849: it may have singularities at $X$ points where 

850: the level $n$ has a degeneracy with a nearby level.  

851: We can regard these points as the location of 

852: magnetic charges.  The result of the surface integral 

853: should be independent of the choice of the surface modulo $2\pi$, 

854: else Berry phase would be ill defined. Therefore 

855: the net flux via a closed surface (which we can regard as 

856: formed of two Stokes surfaces) should be zero modulo $2\pi$.

857: Thus, if we have a charge within a closed 

858: surface it follows by Gauss law that it should 

859: be quantized in units of $(\hbar/2)$. These are the 

860: so called ``Dirac monopoles".  In our setting $X_3$ 

861: is the Aharonov-Bohm flux. Therefore we have 

862: vertical ``Dirac chains"

863: %

864: \be

865: \mbox{chain} \ = \ \left(X_1^{(0)}, \ \ X_2^{(0)}, \ \ 

866: \Phi^{(0)}+2\pi\frac{e}{\hbar}\times\mbox{\small integer}\right)

867: \ee

868: %

869: In the absence of any other magnetic field we have 

870: time-reversal symmetry for either integer or half integer flux.

871: It follows that there are two types of Dirac chains: 

872: those that have a monopole in the plane of the

873: pumping cycle, and those that have their monopoles 

874: half unit away from the pumping plane.

875: 

876: 

877: In the next section we shall see how these observations 

878: help to analyze the pumping process. We shall also illuminate 

879: the effect of having $\Gamma \ne 0$. 

880: Later we shall discuss the ``physics" behind $\Gamma$.

881: 

882: 

883:   

884: 

885: 

886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

887: \section{Quantized pumping?}

888: 

889: The issue of quantized pumping is best illustrated 

890: by the popular two delta barrier model, 

891: which is illustrated in Fig.5.  

892: The ``dot region" $|Q|<a/2$ is described by the potential

893: %

894: \begin{eqnarray}

895: U(r;X_1,X_2) =

896: X_1\delta\left(x+\frac{a}{2}\right) +

897: X_2\delta\left(x-\frac{a}{2}\right)

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: %

900: The pumping cycle is described in Fig.5c.

901: In the 1st half of the cycle an electron 

902: is taken from the wire into the dot region 

903: via the left barrier,  while in the second 

904: half of the cycle an electron is transfered 

905: from the dot region to the wire 

906: via the right barrier. 

907: So it seems that one electron is pumped 

908: through the device per cycle. 

909: The question is whether it is exactly 

910: one electron ($Q=e$) or not?  

911: 

912: 

913: 

914: \begin{figure}[b]

915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

916: % 2 delta model

917: \epsfig{figure=pme_2delta,width=0.45\hsize}

918: \ \ \ \

919: \epsfig{figure=pmp_levels,width=0.45\hsize} \\

920: \Cn{\epsfig{figure=DiracChains,width=0.90\hsize}}

921: \caption{   %{\bf Fig.5:} 

922: (a) Upper left: The energy levels of a ring 

923: with two barriers, at the beginning of the pumping cycle. 

924: It is assumed that the three lower levels are occupied. 

925: (b) Upper right: The adiabatic levels as a function 

926: of time during the pumping cycle. 

927: (c) Lower Left: The $(X_1,X_2)$ locations of 

928: the Dirac chains of the $3$ occupied levels. 

929: Filled (hollow) circles imply that there 

930: is (no) monopole in the pumping plane. 

931: Note that for sake of illustration overlapping 

932: chains are displaced from each other.

933: The pumping cycle encircles $2+1$ Dirac chains 

934: that are associated with the 3rd and 2nd levels respectively.   

935: (d) Lower right: The $2$ Dirac chains 

936: that are associated with the 3rd level.}

937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

938: \end{figure}

939: 

940: 

941: 

942: 

943: In the case of an open geometry the answer is known 

944: \cite{SAA,barriers}.

945: Let us denote by $g_0$ the average transmission 

946: of the dot region for $X$ values along the pumping 

947: cycle. In the limit $g_0 \rightarrow 0$, which 

948: is a pump with no leakage, indeed one gets $Q=e$. 

949: Otherwise one gets $Q=(1-g)e$. 

950: 

951: 

952: What about a {\em closed} (ring) geometry? 

953: Do we have a similar result?   

954: It has been argued \cite{SAA} 

955: that if the the pumping process is strictly adiabatic 

956: then we get exactly $Q=e$. We are going to explain 

957: below that this is in fact not correct:  

958: We can get either $Q<1$ or $Q>1$ or even $Q \gg 1$. 

959: 

960: 

961: Recall that by Eq.(\ref{e21}) the pumped charge $Q$ 

962: equals the projected flux of the $\vect{\bm{B}}$ field 

963: through the pumping cycle (Fig.3b). 

964: If the charge of the monopoles 

965: were uniformly distributed along the chains, it would 

966: follow that $Q$ is exactly quantized. 

967: But this is not the case, 

968: and therefore $Q$ can be either 

969: smaller or larger than $1$ depending 

970: on the type of chain(s) being encircled.  

971: In particular, in case of a tight cycle 

972: around a monopole we get $Q\gg e$ which 

973: is somewhat counter-intuitive, while if 

974: the monopole is off-plane $Q < e$.  

975: 

976: 

977: What is the effect of $\Gamma$ on this result? 

978: It is quite clear that $\Gamma$ diminishes 

979: the contribution of the singular term. 

980: Consequently it makes $Q$ less than one. 

981: This gives us a hint that the introduction of 

982: $\Gamma$ might lead to a result which is 

983: in agreement with that obtained for an open geometry. 

984: We shall discuss this issue in the next sections.

985: 

986: 

987: 

988: 

989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

990: \section{The Kubo Formula and ``quantum chaos"}

991: 

992: We turn now to discuss $\Gamma$. Any generic 

993: quantum chaos system is characterized by some 

994: short correlation time $\tau_{cl}$, 

995: by some mean level spacing $\Delta$, 

996: and by a semiclassical energy scale 

997: that we denote as $\Delta_b$. Namely:

998: %

999: \be 

1000: \Delta \ & \propto& \ \hbar^{d}/\mbox{\small volume} \ = 

1001: \ \mbox{\small mean level spacing} \\

1002: \Delta_b \ & \sim & \ \hbar/\tau_{\tbox{cl}} \ = 

1003: \ \mbox{\small bandwidth}

1004: \ee

1005: %

1006: The term bandwidth requires clarification. 

1007: If we change a parameter $X$ in the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$, 

1008: then the perturbation matrix $\mathcal{F}_{nm}$ 

1009: has non-vanishing matrix elements within 

1010: a band $|E_n-E_m|<\Delta_b$. These matrix elements 

1011: are characterized by some root-mean-square magnitude $\sigma$, 

1012: while outside of the band the matrix elements are very small. 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: If the system is driven slowly in a rate $\dot{X}$

1016: then levels are mixed non-perturbatively. 

1017: Using a quite subtle reasoning \cite{crs,frc,pmc,dsp} 

1018: the relevant energy range for the non-perturbative 

1019: mixing of levels is found to be 

1020: %

1021: \be \label{e29}

1022: \Gamma \ \ = \ \

1023: \left(\frac{\hbar\sigma}{\Delta^2}|\dot{X}|\right)^{2/3} \!\times \Delta 

1024: \ \ \ \ \propto \ \ \ \ 

1025: \left(L \frac{}{} |\dot{X}|\right)^{2/3} \frac{1}{L} 

1026: \ee

1027: %

1028: The latter equality assumes dot-wire geometry as in 

1029: Fig.1b, where $L$ is the length of the wire.

1030: Now we can distinguish between three $\dot{X}$ regimes: 

1031: %

1032: \be

1033: \Gamma \ll \Delta & \ &  \ \ \ \mbox{adiabatic regime} \\

1034: \Delta <  \Gamma  < \Delta_b & \ & \ \ \ \mbox{non-adiabatic regime} \\

1035: \mbox{\em otherwise} & \ & \ \ \ \mbox{non-perturbative regime}

1036: \ee

1037: %

1038: In the adiabatic regime levels are not mixed by the driving, 

1039: which means that the system (so to say) follows the same level 

1040: all the time. In the perturbative regime there is 

1041: a non-perturbative mixing on small energy scales, but 

1042: on the large scale we have Fermi-Golden-Rule (FGR) transitions.

1043: If the self consistency condition ($\Gamma \ll \Delta_b$) 

1044: breaks down, then the FGR picture becomes non-applicable, 

1045: and consequently $\Gamma$ becomes a meaningless parameter.

1046: 

1047: 

1048: In the non-perturbative regime we expect semiclassical methods 

1049: to be effective, provided the system has a classical limit 

1050: (which is not the case with random matrix models \cite{rsp}).

1051: In general one can argue that in the limit of infinite volume 

1052: (or small $\hbar$) perturbation theory always breaks down, 

1053: leading to a semiclassical behavior. But in the dot-wire geometry 

1054: this is not the case if we take the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$, 

1055: keeping the width of the wire fixed. With such limiting procedure 

1056: Eq.(\ref{e29}) implies that the self-consistency condition 

1057: $\Gamma \ll \Delta_b$ is better and better satisfied! 

1058: This means that the Kubo formula can be trusted. 

1059: Furthermore, with the same limiting procedure 

1060: the $L\rightarrow\infty$ is a {\em non-adiabatic} limit 

1061: because the adiabaticity condition $\Gamma \ll \Delta$ breaks down. 

1062: 

1063: 

1064: 

1065: 

1066: 

1067: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1068: \section{Kubo formula using an FD relation}

1069: 

1070: The Fluctuation-dissipation (FD) relation 

1071: allows us to calculate the conductance $\bm{G}^{kj}$ 

1072: from the correlation function $C^{kj}(\tau)$ 

1073: of the generalized forces.  

1074: In what follows we use the notations:

1075: %

1076: \be

1077: K^{kj}(\tau) \ &=& \ 

1078: \frac{i}{\hbar} \langle [\mathcal{F}^k(\tau),\mathcal{F}^j(0)]\rangle_0 

1079: \\

1080: C^{kj}(\tau) \ &=& \

1081: \frac{1}{2} 

1082: \left( \langle \mathcal{F}^k(\tau)\mathcal{F}^j(0) \rangle_0 + cc\right) 

1083: \ee

1084: %

1085: Their Fourier transforms are denoted 

1086: $\tilde{K}^{kj}(\omega)$ and $\tilde{C}^{kj}(\omega)$. 

1087: The expectation value above assumes a zero order 

1088: stationary preparation. 

1089: We shall use subscript $|_F$ to indicate many-body Fermi occupation. 

1090: We shall use  the subscript $|_T$ or the subscript $|_E$ 

1091: to denote one-particle canonical or microcanonical preparation. 

1092: %

1093: At high temperatures the Boltzmann approximation applies 

1094: and we can use the exact relation 

1095: $f(E_n){-}f(E_m) = \tanh((E_n{-}E_m)/(2T)) \times (f(E_n){+}f(E_m))$

1096: so as to get

1097: %

1098: \be

1099: \tilde{K}^{kj}_F(\omega) = i\omega \times

1100: \frac{2}{\hbar\omega}\tanh\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{2T}\right)  \  C^{kj}_T(\omega)

1101: \ee

1102: %

1103: At low temperatures we can use the approximation  

1104: $f(E){-}f(E') \approx -\frac{1}{2}[\delta_T(E{-}E_F)+\delta_T(E'{-}E_F)] \times (E{-}E')$

1105: with $\delta_T(E{-}E_F)=-f'(E)$ so as to get 

1106: %

1107: \be

1108: \tilde{K}^{kj}_F(\omega) & \approx & 

1109: i \omega \times g(E) \ \tilde{C}^{kj}_{E_F}(\omega)

1110: \ee

1111: %

1112: The application of this approximation 

1113: is ``legal" if we assume temperature $T\gg \Delta_b$. 

1114: This is a very ``bad" condition because for (e.g.) ballistic 

1115: dot $\Delta_b$ is the relatively large 

1116: Thouless energy. However, we can regard the 

1117: large $T$ result as an  $E_F$~averaged  

1118: zero temperature calculation. Then it can 

1119: be argued that for a quantum chaos system with 

1120: a generic bandprofile the average is in fact 

1121: the ``representative" result (see discussion 

1122: of ``universal conductance fluctuation" in later sections). 

1123: 

1124: 

1125: 

1126: Substituting the Kubo formula 

1127: $\alpha^{kj}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau) \ K^{kj}(\tau)$

1128: in the definition of $\bm{G}^{kj}$, 

1129: and using the latter relation 

1130: between $K^{kj}(\tau)$ and  $C^{kj}(\tau)$

1131: we get after some straightforward algebra   

1132: the following expression for the conductance:

1133: %

1134: \be \label{e37}

1135: \bm{G}^{kj} =

1136: \int_0^{\infty} K_F^{kj}(\tau)\tau d\tau

1137: \ \approx \ 

1138: \mathsf{g}(E_F) \int_0^{\infty}C_{E_F}^{kj}(\tau)d\tau 

1139: \ee

1140: %

1141: where $\mathsf{g}(E_F)$ is the density of the one-particle states.

1142: If we want to incorporate $\Gamma$ the recipe is simply:

1143: %

1144: \be \label{e38}

1145: C(\tau) \ \ \mapsto \ \ 

1146: C(\tau) \ \eexp{-\frac{1}{2}(\Gamma/\hbar) |\tau|} 

1147: \ee

1148: 

1149: 

1150: The expression of $\bm{G}^{kj}$ using $C^{kj}(\tau)$

1151: is a generalized FD relation. It reduces to the 

1152: standard FD relation if we consider the dissipative part: 

1153: %

1154: \be

1155: \bm{\eta}^{kj} \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \mathsf{g}(E_F) \tilde{C}_{E_F}^{kj}(\omega \sim 0) 

1156: \ee

1157: %

1158: whereas the non-dissipative part requires integration 

1159: over all the frequencies (see next section). 

1160: 

1161: 

1162: 

1163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1164: \section{Kubo via Green functions or $S$ matrix}

1165: 

1166: Now we would like to express $\bm{G}^{kj}$ using Green functions, 

1167: and eventually we would like to express it using the $S$ matrix 

1168: of the scattering region. The first step is to rewrite  

1169: the FD relation as follows:

1170: %

1171: \be

1172: \bm{G}^{kj} \ \ &=& \ \ 

1173: \hbar \mathsf{g}(E_F) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

1174: \frac{-i\tilde{C}_{E_F}^{kj}(\omega)}{\hbar\omega-i(\Gamma/2)} 

1175: \ \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

1176: \ee

1177: %

1178: The second step is to write

1179: %

1180: \be

1181: C^{kj}_E(\omega) = \frac{\hbar}{2\mathsf{g}(E)}

1182: \left[ C^{kj}(E{+}\hbar\omega,E) + C^{jk}(E{-}\hbar\omega,E) \right]

1183: \ee

1184: %

1185: where

1186: %

1187: \be

1188: C^{kj}(E',E) &=& 

1189: 2\pi \sum_{nm} 

1190: \mathcal{F}^k_{nm} \delta(E'-E_m) 

1191: \mathcal{F}^j_{mn} \delta(E-E_n) 

1192: \\

1193: &=&

1194: \frac{2}{\pi} 

1195: \ \trc\left[ 

1196: \mathcal{F}^k  \ \im[\mathsf{G}(E')] \ \mathcal{F}^j \ \im[\mathsf{G}(E)] 

1197: \right]

1198: \ee

1199: %

1200: We use the standard notations 

1201: $\mathsf{G}(z)=1/(z-\mathcal{H})$,  

1202: and $\mathsf{G}^{\pm}(E)=G(E{\pm}i0)$, 

1203: and $\im[\mathsf{G}]=-i(\mathsf{G}^{+}{-}\mathsf{G}^{-})/2=-\pi \delta (E{-}\mathcal{H})$.

1204: %

1205: After some straightforward algebra we get:

1206: %

1207: \be\nonumber

1208: \bm{G}^{kj} = 

1209: i\frac{\hbar}{2\pi}\trc

1210: \left[

1211: \mathcal{F}^k

1212: \mathsf{G}(E_F{-}i\Gamma/2)

1213: \mathcal{F}^j

1214: \im[\mathsf{G}(E_F)]

1215: \right.

1216: \\ -

1217: \left.

1218: \mathcal{F}^k

1219: \im[\mathsf{G}(E_F)]

1220: \mathcal{F}^j

1221: \mathsf{G}(E_F{+}i\Gamma/2)

1222: \right]

1223: \ee

1224: 

1225: 

1226: 

1227: 

1228: For the dot-wire geometry in the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$ 

1229: we can treat the $i\Gamma$ as if it were the infinitesimal $i0$. 

1230: Some more non-trivial steps allow us to reduce the trace 

1231: operation to the boundary ($r=0$) of the scattering region (Fig.2), 

1232: and then to express the result using the $S$ matrix.  

1233: Disregarding insignificant interference term that 

1234: has to do with having ``standing wave" the result is:

1235: %

1236: \be

1237: \bm{G}^{3j} \ = \ \frac{e}{2\pi i}

1238: \trc\left(P_{\tbox{A}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial X_j}

1239: S^{\dag}\right)

1240: \ee

1241: %

1242: This formula, which we derive here using ``quantum chaos" assumptions  

1243: is the same as the BPT formula that has been derived for an open 

1244: geometry. It is important to remember that the 

1245: limit $L\rightarrow\infty$ is a non-adiabatic limit ($\Gamma\gg\Delta$). 

1246: Still it is a ``DC limit". Therefore what we get here is 

1247: ``DC conductance" rather than ``adiabatic pumping". 

1248: The latter term is unfortunately widely used in the existing literature.   

1249: 

1250: 

1251: 

1252: 

1253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1254: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1256: \section{The prototype pumping problem}

1257: 

1258: 

1259: What is the current which is created by translating 

1260: a scatterer (``piston")? This is a ``pumping" question. 

1261: Various versions of the assumed geometry 

1262: are illustrated in Fig.4.  

1263: Though it sounds simple this questions contains   

1264: (without loss of generality) all the ingredients 

1265: of a typical pumping problem. Below we address 

1266: this question first within a classical framework, 

1267: and then within quantum mechanics.

1268: 

1269: 

1270: The simplest case is to translate a scatterer 

1271: in 1D ring (Fig.4a). 

1272: Assuming that there is no other scattering mechanism 

1273: it is obvious that the steady state solution of 

1274: the problem is:

1275: %

1276: \be

1277: dQ = 1 \times \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}} \times dX

1278: \ee

1279: %

1280: We assume here Fermi occupation, but otherwise 

1281: this result is completely classical.

1282: This result holds for any nonzero "size" of scatterer, 

1283: though it is clear that in the case of a tiny scatterer  

1284: it would take a much longer time to attain the steady state. 

1285: Also note that there is no dissipation in this problem.

1286: The steady state solution is an {\em exact} solution 

1287: of the problem. 

1288: 

1289: 

1290: 

1291: The picture completely changes if we translate 

1292: a scatterer inside a chaotic ring (Fig.4b). 

1293: In such case the problem 

1294: does not possess a steady state solution. 

1295: Still there is a quasi steady state solution.

1296: This means that at any moment the state is 

1297: quasi-ergodic: If we follow the evolution for 

1298: some time we see that there is slow diffusion 

1299: to other energy surfaces (we use here phase space 

1300: language). This diffusion leads to dissipation 

1301: as explained in \cite{frc} (and more Refs therein).

1302: However, we are interested here mainly in the 

1303: transport issue. As the scatterer pushes its way 

1304: through the ergodizing distribution, it creates 

1305: a current. Obviously the size of the scatterer 

1306: {\em do matter} in this case. Using classical       

1307: stochastic picture we can derive the following result:      

1308: %

1309: \be \label{e47}

1310: dQ = 

1311: \left[ \frac{g_T}{1{-}g_T}\right]

1312: \left[ \frac{1{-}g_0}{g_0}\right]

1313: \times

1314: \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}} 

1315: \times dX

1316: \ee

1317: %

1318: where $g_0$ is the transmission or the relative size 

1319: of the moving scatterer, while $g_T$ is the overall 

1320: transmission of the ring. 

1321: 

1322: 

1323: What about the quantum mechanical analysis? 

1324: We shall show that the same result is obtained 

1325: {\em on the average}. This means that the 

1326: classical expression still holds, but only 

1327: in a statistical sense. This is in close analogy 

1328: with the idea of ``universal conductance fluctuations". 

1329: We shall discuss the effect of $\Gamma$ on the

1330: distribution of~$\bm{G}$.

1331: 

1332: 

1333: It should be noticed that our quantum chaos network 

1334: model (Fig.4d)  essentially generalizes the two barrier model.  

1335: Namely, one delta function is the ``scatterer" and 

1336: the other delta functions is replaced by a complicated ``black box". 

1337: Let us use the term ``leads" in order to refer to the two bonds 

1338: that connect the ``black box" to the scatterer. 

1339: Now we can ask what happens (given $\dot{X_1}$) if we take 

1340: the length of the leads to be very very long. 

1341: As discussed previously this is a non-adiabatic limit. 

1342: We shall explain that in this limit we expect to 

1343: get the same result as in the case of an open geometry.  

1344: For the latter the expected result is \cite{AvronSnow}:  

1345: %  

1346: \be \label{e48}

1347: dQ = (1{-}g_0) \times \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}} \times dX

1348: \ee

1349: %

1350: We shall explain how Eq.(\ref{e47}) reduces to Eq.(\ref{e48}).    

1351: The latter is analogous to the Landauer formula $\bm{G}^{33}=(e^2/2\pi\hbar)g_0$.

1352: The charge transport mechanism which is represented 

1353: by Eq.(\ref{e48}) has a very simple heuristic explanation, 

1354: which is reflected in the term ``snow plow dynamics" \cite{AvronSnow}. 

1355: 

1356: 

1357: 

1358: \begin{figure}[b]

1359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1360: % pmt numerics

1361: \epsfig{figure=pmt_fig2,height=\hsize,angle=-90,clip}

1362: \caption{   %{\bf Fig.6:} 

1363: The average conductance $\bm{G}^{31}$ for 

1364: the network of Fig.4d. The average is 

1365: taken over more than 20000 levels 

1366: around $E_F$, while the calculation 

1367: (for each Fermi level) was performed 

1368: in an interval of 32000 levels. 

1369: The transmission of the ``piston" 

1370: is $g_{0} \approx 0.1$.  

1371: The perpendicular dotted line indicates the border of 

1372: the regime where the Kubo calculation is valid. 

1373: We also plot the standard deviation,  

1374: while the inset displays the distribution 

1375: for $\Gamma=0.0001\Delta$. }

1376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1377: \end{figure}

1378: 

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \newpage

1382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1383: \section{Analysis of the network model}

1384: 

1385: 

1386: One way to calculate $\bm{G}^{31}$ for the network model 

1387: of Fig.4d is obviously to do it numerically using Eq.(\ref{e23}). 

1388: For this purpose we find the eigenstates of the network, 

1389: and in particular the wavefunctions $\psi^n=A_n\sin(k_nx+\varphi_n)$  

1390: at (say) the right lead. Then we calculate the matrix elements 

1391: %

1392: \be

1393: \mathcal{I}_{nm} &=& -i \frac{e\hbar}{2\mathsf{m}} 

1394: \left(\psi^n\partial\psi^m - \partial\psi^n\psi^m\right)_{x{=}x_0} 

1395: \\

1396: \mathcal{F}_{nm} &=& 

1397: -\lambda\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mathsf{m}}

1398: \left(\psi^n\partial\psi^m + \partial\psi^n\psi^m

1399: -\lambda \psi^n\psi^m \right)_{x=X_1+0}

1400: \ee

1401: %

1402: and substitute into Eq.(\ref{e23}). The distribution 

1403: that we get for $\bm{G}^{31}$, as well as the 

1404: dependence of average and the variance on $\Gamma$ 

1405: are presented in Fig.6. We see that $\Gamma$ 

1406: reduces the fluctuations. If we are deep 

1407: in the regime $\Delta \ll \Gamma \ll \Delta_b$ 

1408: the variance becomes very small and consequently 

1409: the average value becomes an actual estimate for $\bm{G}^{31}$.

1410: This average value coincides with the ``classical" 

1411: (stochastic) result Eq.(\ref{e47}) as expected on the 

1412: basis of the derivation below.    

1413: 

1414: 

1415: In order to get an expression for $\bm{G}^{31}$ 

1416: it is most convenient to use the FD expression Eq.(\ref{e37}).

1417: For this purpose we have to calculate the 

1418: cross correlation function of $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{F}^1$

1419: which we denote simply as $C(\tau)$. If we describe 

1420: the dynamics using a stochastic picture \cite{pmt} we get 

1421: that $C(\tau)$ is a sum of delta spikes:

1422: %

1423: \be

1424: C(\tau) \ = \ 

1425: e\frac{v_{\tbox{F}}}{2L} 2\mathsf{m}v_{\tbox{F}}

1426: \left[(1-g_0) \sum_{\pm} \pm \delta(\tau\pm\tau_1) \right]

1427: + {....} 

1428: \ee

1429: %

1430: where $\tau_1 = (x_0-X_1) / v_{\tbox{F}}$ is the time 

1431: to go from $X_1$ to $x_1$ with the Fermi velocity $v_{\tbox{F}}$, 

1432: and the dots stand for more terms due to additional reflections.

1433: %

1434: If we integrate only over the short correlation 

1435: then we get  

1436: %

1437: \be

1438: \int_0^{\mbox{short}} C(\tau) d\tau \ \ = \ \ 

1439: -e \frac{\mathsf{m}v_{\tbox{F}}^2}{L} 

1440: \left[ 1-g_0 \right]

1441: \ee

1442: %

1443: while if we include all the multiple reflections 

1444: we get a geometric sum that leads to \cite{pmt}:

1445: %

1446: \be

1447: \int_0^{\infty} C(\tau) d\tau \ \ = \ \ 

1448: -e \frac{\mathsf{m}v_{\tbox{F}}^2}{L} 

1449: \left[ \frac{1-g_0}{g_0}\right]

1450: \left[ \frac{g_T}{1-g_T}\right]

1451: \ee

1452: %

1453: This leads to the result that was already mentioned 

1454: in the previous section:

1455: %

1456: \be \label{e54}

1457: \bm{G}^{31} = -

1458: \left[ \frac{1-g_0}{g_0}\right]

1459: \left[ \frac{g_T}{1-g_T}\right]

1460: \times \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}} 

1461: \ee

1462: % 

1463: We also observe that if the scattering in the outer 

1464: region results in ``loss of memory",  then by Eq.(\ref{e38})

1465: only the short correlation survives, and we get    

1466: %

1467: \be 

1468: \bm{G}^{31} =  - (1-g_0) \times \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}}

1469: \ee

1470: %

1471: Technically this is a special case of Eq.(\ref{e54}) 

1472: with the substitution of the serial resistance 

1473: $(1{-}g_T)/g_T = (1{-}g_0)/g_0 + (1{-}0.5)/0.5$.

1474: 

1475: 

1476: The stochastic result can be derived also using 

1477: a proper quantum mechanical calculation \cite{pmt}. 

1478: The starting point is the following (exact) 

1479: expression for the Green function: 

1480: %

1481: \be

1482: \langle x | \mathsf{G}(E) | x_0 \rangle \ \ = \ \ 

1483: - \frac{i}{\hbar v_F}\sum_p A_p \eexp{ik_E L_p}

1484: \ee

1485: %

1486: The sum is over all the possible trajectories 

1487: that connect $x_0$ and $x$. More details on 

1488: this expression the the subsequent calculation 

1489: can be found in Ref.\cite{pmt}. The final result 

1490: for the {\em average} conductance coincides 

1491: with the classical stochastic result.

1492: 

1493: 

1494: 

1495: 

1496: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1499: \section{Summary}

1500: 

1501: Linear response theory is the major tool for study of 

1502: driven systems. It allows to explore the crossover 

1503: from the strictly adiabatic ``geometric magnetism" regime 

1504: to the non-adiabatic regime. Hence it provides 

1505: a unified framework for the theory of pumping. 

1506: 

1507: \begin{itemize}

1508: 

1509: \item[$\bullet$] 

1510: ``Quantum chaos" considerations in the derivation 

1511: of the Kubo formula for the case of a closed isolated 

1512: system are essential ($\Gamma\propto|\dot{X}|^{2/3}$).

1513: 

1514: \item[$\bullet$] 

1515: We have distinguished between adiabatic, 

1516: non-adiabatic and non-perturbative regimes, 

1517: depending on what is $\Gamma$ compared with 

1518: $\Delta$ and $\Delta_b$. 

1519: 

1520: \item[$\bullet$] 

1521: In the strict adiabatic limit Kubo formula 

1522: reduces to the familiar adiabatic transport 

1523: expression (``geometric magnetism").

1524: 

1525: \item[$\bullet$]

1526: A generalized Fluctuation-dissipation relation  

1527: can be derived. In the zero temperature limit 

1528: an implicit assumption in the derivation 

1529: is having a generic bandprofile as implied 

1530: by quantum chaos considerations.

1531: 

1532: \item[$\bullet$]

1533: We also have derived an $S$ matrix expression 

1534: for the generalized conductance of 

1535: a dot-wire system, in the non-adiabatic 

1536: limit $L\rightarrow\infty$. 

1537: The result coincides with that of open 

1538: system (BPT formula). 

1539: 

1540: \item[$\bullet$] 

1541: The issue of ``quantized pumping" is analyzed 

1542: by regarding the field which is created     

1543: by ``Dirac chains". In the adiabatic regime 

1544: $Q$ can be either smaller or larger than unity, 

1545: while in the non-adiabatic regime $Q$ is less 

1546: than unity in agreement with BPT.    

1547: 

1548: \item[$\bullet$]

1549: We have analyzed pumping on networks 

1550: using Green function expressions.

1551: The average result can be expressed 

1552: in terms of transmission probabilities. 

1553: The analog of universal conductance fluctuations 

1554: is found in the strict adiabatic regime. 

1555: The conductance becomes well define (small dispersion) 

1556: in the non-adiabatic regime.

1557: 

1558: \item[$\bullet$]

1559: The average over the quantum mechanical result, 

1560: which becomes the well defined conductance 

1561: in the non-adiabatic regime, coincides with the 

1562: result that had been obtained for the corresponding 

1563: stochastic model.

1564: 

1565: \end{itemize}

1566: 

1567: 

1568: 

1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1571: \section{Acknowledgments}

1572: I have the pleasure to thank T.~Kottos and 

1573: H.~Schanz for fruitful collaboration,   

1574: and Y.~Avishai, M.~B{\"u}ttiker, T.~Dittrich, 

1575: M.~Moskalets and K.~Yakubo for discussions. 

1576: This research was supported by 

1577: the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02),

1578: and by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation 

1579: for Scientific Research and Development.

1580: 

1581: 

1582: 

1583: 

1584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1585: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1586: 

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{landau}

1589: L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz,

1590: {\em Statistical physics}, (Buttrworth Heinemann 2000).

1591: 

1592: \bibitem{dsp}

1593: D. Cohen in {\em Dynamics of Dissipation},

1594: Proceedings of the 38th Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics,

1595: Edited by P. Garbaczewski and R. Olkiewicz (Springer, 2002)

1596: 

1597: \bibitem{wilk}

1598: M. Wilkinson, J. Phys. A {\bf 21} (1988) 4021. \

1599: M. Wilkinson and E.J. Austin, J. Phys. A {\bf 28} (1995) 2277.

1600: 

1601: \bibitem{crs} 

1602: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} (1999) 4951. 

1603: 

1604: \bibitem{frc} 

1605: D. Cohen, Annals of Physics {\bf 283} (2000) 175.

1606: 

1607: \bibitem{pmc} 

1608: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68} (2003) 155303.

1609: 

1610: 

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{berry}

1613: M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 392} (1984) 45.

1614: 

1615: \bibitem{thouless}

1616: D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. {\bf B27} (1983) 6083.

1617: 

1618: \bibitem{AvronNet}

1619: J.E. Avron et al, 

1620: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 60} (1988) 873.

1621: 

1622: \bibitem{BeRo}

1623: M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, 

1624: Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 442} (1993) 659. 

1625: 

1626: 

1627: 

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{pmo} 

1630: D. Cohen, Phys. 

1631: Rev. B {\bf 68} (2003) 201303(R).

1632: 

1633: \bibitem{BPT}

1634: M.~B{\"u}ttiker et al, Z.~Phys.~B-Condens.~Mat., {\bf 94} (1994) 133. 

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{brouwer}

1637: P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58} (1998) R10135. 

1638: 

1639: 

1640: 

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{ratchD} 

1643: P.Reimann, Phys. Rep. {\bf 361} (2002) 57. \

1644: Special issue, Appl. Phys. A {\bf 75} (2002). \

1645: P.Reimann, M. Grifoni, and P.Hanggi, 

1646: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 10.

1647: 

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{ratchH}

1650: H. Schanz, M.F. Otto, R. Ketzmerick, and T. Dittrich, 

1651: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 070601.

1652: 

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{MoBu}

1655: M.~Moskalets and M.~B{\"u}ttiker, 

1656: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68} (2003) 161311(R).

1657: 

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{pmt} 

1660: D. Cohen, T. Kottos and H. Schanz, 

1661: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71} (2005) 035202(R).

1662: 

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{imryK}

1665: Y. Imry and N.S. Shiren, 

1666: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33} (1986) 7992.

1667: 

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{kottos} 

1670: T.~Kottos and U.~Smilansky. 

1671: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 4794.

1672: 

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{SAA}

1675: T. A. Shutenko, I. L. Aleiner and B. L. Altshuler, 

1676: Phys. Rev. {\bf B61} (2000) 10366.

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{barriers}

1679: Y. Levinson, O. Entin-Wohlman, and P. Wolfle, cond-mat/0010494. \

1680: M. Blaauboer and E.J. Heller, 

1681: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64} (2001) 241301(R).

1682: 

1683: 

1684: \bibitem{rsp}

1685: D. Cohen and T. Kottos, 

1686: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} (2000) 4839.

1687: 

1688: 

1689: \bibitem{AvronSnow}

1690: J. E. Avron et al, 

1691: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, R10 (2000) 618.

1692: 

1693: 

1694: \end{thebibliography}

1695: 

1696: \ \\ 

1697: 

1698: \texttt{http://www.bgu.ac.il/$\sim$dcohen/} 

1699: 

1700: 

1701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1702: \end{document}

1703: