1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%% May 2005
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: \documentclass{iopart}
6:
7: \usepackage{fleqn}
8:
9: % special
10: \usepackage{ifthen}
11: \usepackage{ifpdf}
12:
13: % fonts
14: \usepackage{latexsym}
15: %\usepackage{amsmath}
16: \usepackage{amssymb}
17: \usepackage{bm}
18:
19:
20: % figures
21: \ifpdf
22: \usepackage{graphicx}
23: \usepackage{epstopdf}
24: \else
25: \usepackage{graphicx}
26: \usepackage{epsfig}
27: \fi
28:
29: % math symbols I
30: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}
31: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}
32: \newcommand{\trc}{\mbox{trace}}
33: \newcommand{\intt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int }
34: \newcommand{\ointt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\circ\ }
35: \newcommand{\ar}{\mathsf r}
36: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}}
37: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}}
38:
39:
40: % math symbols II
41: \newcommand{\eexp}{\mbox{e}^}
42: \newcommand{\bra}{\left\langle}
43: \newcommand{\ket}{\right\rangle}
44: \newcommand{\mass}{\mathsf{m}}
45:
46:
47: % more math commands
48: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}
49: \newcommand{\bmsf}[1]{\bm{\mathsf{#1}}}
50: \newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\begin{matrix} #1 \end{matrix}}
51: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
52:
53:
54: % equations
55: \newcommand{\be}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\ifthenelse{#1=-1}{\nonumber}{\ifthenelse{#1=0}{}{\label{e#1}}}}
56: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
57:
58:
59: % graphics
60: \newcommand{\drawline}{\begin{picture}(500,1)\line(1,0){500}\end{picture}}
61: \newcommand{\hide}[1]{}
62: \newcommand{\Cn}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}}
63: \newcommand{\mpg}[2][\hsize]{\begin{minipage}[b]{#1}{#2}\end{minipage}}
64: \newcommand{\putgraph}[2][width=\hsize]{ \includegraphics[#1]{#2} }
65:
66:
67: \begin{document}
68:
69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
71:
72: \title[Quantum pump in a closed circuit]
73: {Operating a quantum pump in a closed circuit}
74:
75: \author{Itamar Sela and Doron Cohen}
76:
77: \address{
78: Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84005, Israel
79: }
80:
81:
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83:
84: \begin{abstract}
85: During an adiabatic pumping cycle a conventional
86: two barrier quantum device takes an electron
87: from the left lead and ejects it to the right lead.
88: Hence the pumped charge per cycle is naively
89: expected to be $Q \le e$. This zero order adiabatic
90: point of view is in fact misleading. For a closed device
91: we can get ${Q > e}$ and even ${Q \gg e}$.
92: In this paper a detailed analysis of the
93: quantum pump operation is presented.
94: Using the Kubo formula for the geometric
95: conductance, and applying the Dirac chains picture,
96: we derive practical estimates for~$Q$.
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99:
100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103:
104: Understanding of charge transport in mesoscopic
105: and molecular size devices is essential
106: for the future realization of `quantum circuits' \cite{rev}.
107: Of particular interest are adiabatic processes
108: that take electrons and move them one by one
109: via a device. The simple minded peristaltic point
110: of view of such process is misleading:
111: such picture looks valid in the case of an open circuit,
112: but breaks down once the pump is integrated into
113: a closed circuit \cite{pmp,pmc,pme}.
114: %
115: It is the purpose of this paper to further
116: elaborate on the physics of quantum pumping
117: in {\em closed circuits}, and to provide a detailed
118: analysis of a prototype pump.
119: %
120: The interest and the feasibility of realizing
121: experiments with closed circuits is discussed
122: in Section~1.3 of \cite{pml}.
123:
124:
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126: \subsection{The prototype pumping device}
127:
128: The prototype example for a quantum pumping
129: device is the two barrier model (Fig.1).
130: The one particle Hamiltonian is
131: %
132: \be{1}
133: \mathcal{H}(X_1(t),X_2(t)) = \frac{1}{2\mass}\hat{p}^2 +
134: X_1(t)\delta(\hat{x}-x_1)+X_2(t)\delta(\hat{x}-x_2)
135: \ee
136: %
137: where $\mass$ is the mass of the particle
138: and $(\hat{x},\hat{p})$ are the position
139: and the momentum operators.
140: The region $x<x_1$ is the left lead,
141: and the region $x>x_2$ is the right lead.
142: We refer to the segment $x_1<x<x_2$
143: as the ``dot region".
144: The driving is performed by
145: changing $X_1$ and $X_2$ in time.
146: In an actual experiment the control
147: parameters $X_1$ and $X_2$ represent gate voltages.
148: %
149: %
150: In order to talk about charge transfer we
151: have to define also a current operator. In what
152: follows we use the conventional definition
153: %
154: \be{2}
155: \mathcal{I}=\frac{e}{2\mass}
156: \left(\hat{p}\delta(\hat{x}-x_0) + \delta(\hat{x}-x_0)\hat{p}\right)
157: \ee
158: %
159: where $e$ is the charge of the particle
160: and $x_0$ is an arbitrary section point.
161: The momentary current via different sections
162: is in general not the same. But if we integrate
163: it over a whole pumping cycle the result becomes
164: independent of $x_0$.
165:
166:
167: The pumping device can be used in
168: two different configuration.
169: In the case of an {\em open geometry} (Fig.1)
170: the leads are attached to reservoirs
171: that have the same chemical potentials.
172: For simplicity one assumes
173: a zero temperature Fermi occupation.
174:
175:
176: In the case of a {\em closed geometry} (Fig.1)
177: the leads are detached from
178: the reservoirs and are connected together
179: so as to have a ring.
180: This means periodic boundary conditions
181: over a large space interval $(-L/2)<x<(L/2)$.
182: Furthermore, the closed system is assumed to be
183: strictly isolated from any environmental influences.
184: %
185: The closed system can be regarded
186: as a network with two nodes that
187: are connected by two bonds one
188: of length $L_{\tbox{D}}$ (dot region)
189: and the other of length $L_{\tbox{W}}$ (wire region).
190: The total length of the ring
191: is $\mathit{L}=L_{\tbox{D}}+L_{\tbox{W}}$.
192: We assume that $L_{\tbox{D}} \ll L$.
193:
194:
195:
196:
197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
198: \subsection{Open (leads) geometry}
199:
200: The {\em open version} of the two barrier model
201: has been considered in Ref.\cite{tbm}
202: using the scattering matrix formalism
203: of B\"{u}ttiker Pr\'{e}tre and Thomas (BPT) \cite{BPT1,BPT2}.
204: A typical pumping cycle is illustrated in Fig.2c.
205: In the 1st half of the cycle an electron
206: is taken from the left lead into the dot region
207: via the left barrier, while in the second
208: half of the cycle an electron is transfered
209: from the dot region to the right lead
210: via the right barrier.
211: Naively, by this peristaltic picture,
212: it seems that at most one electron
213: is pumped through the device per cycle.
214: This expectation is supported by the formal
215: calculation. Using the BPT formula
216: one obtains \cite{SAA}
217: %
218: \be{1000}
219: Q \ \ = \ \ (1-\overline{g}_{\tbox{T}}) e
220: \ee
221: %
222: where $0<\overline{g}_{\tbox{T}}<1$ characterizes
223: the transmission of the device during the charge transfer.
224: In the limit $\overline{g}_{\tbox{T}} \rightarrow 0$, which
225: is a pump with {\em no leakage}, indeed one gets $Q=e$.
226: Otherwise one gets $Q<e$.
227:
228:
229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
230: \subsection{Closed (ring) geometry}
231:
232: Our interest is in the {\em closed version}
233: of the two barrier model.
234: A major observation is that
235: the pumped charge~$Q$ is {\em not} ``quantized"
236: even if the device is closed and isolated from
237: any environmental influences.
238: Moreover, it can be larger than unit charge.
239: In fact we can have $Q \gg e$.
240:
241: The analysis that we are going to present
242: demonstrates and refines general results
243: that were obtained in Ref.\cite{pmc}.
244: There we have worked out an artificial circuit
245: which has been modeled as a $3$~site system.
246: In the present paper we would like to work out
247: a major prototype model that allows
248: the desired comparison between results
249: for closed circuit as opposed to
250: that of open geometry [Eq.(\ref{e1000})].
251:
252:
253: We are going to use the Kubo approach
254: to quantum pumping \cite{pmp,pmc,pme}.
255: The ``Dirac chains picture"
256: which we further review in the next subsection
257: makes a distinction between
258: ``near field" and ``far field"
259: pumping cycles. The near field
260: result has been further considered
261: in Ref.\cite{pMB} using an extension
262: of the BPT scattering approach to quantum pumping.
263:
264:
265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
266: \subsection{The Dirac chains picture}
267:
268: In order to analyze an {\em adiabatic} \cite{berry1} pumping cycle
269: we have first to understand the geometry of the parameter space.
270: In fact the parameter space of the two barrier model
271: is three dimensional $(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ where $X_3=\Phi$
272: is the flux via the ring. In practice we assume
273: a planar $\Phi=0$ pumping cycle, but for the
274: theoretical discussion it is convenient
275: to regard $\Phi$ as a free parameter.
276:
277: We ask what is the amount of charge which is transported
278: via a section of the ring per cycle. For this
279: purpose we have to calculate the
280: current $I=\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle$ at each moment.
281: If we were changing the flux we would have
282: by Ohm law $I=-G^{33}\dot{\Phi}$ where $G^{33}$
283: is called the Ohmic (dissipative) conductance.
284: But if we change (say) the parameter $X_1$
285: then $I=-G^{31}\dot{X_1}$, where $G^{31}$
286: is called the geometric (non-dissipative)
287: conductance \cite{thouless,AvronNet,berry2}.
288: In general we can write $dQ = -G^{31}dX_1 -G^{32}dX_2$
289: and hence
290: %
291: \be{3}
292: Q \ = \ \oint I dt \ = \ \oint \bm{G} \cdot d\bm{X}
293: \ee
294: %
295: where $\bm{X}=(X_1,X_2)$ and $\bm{G} = (G^{31},G^{32})$.
296:
297:
298: The elements of the conductance matrix $G^{kj}$
299: can be calculated using the Kubo formula.
300: It turns out \cite{berry1,berry2} that in the adiabatic
301: limit $G^{31}=B_2$ and $G^{32}=-B_1$
302: where $\vec{B}$ is the ``magnetic" field (2-form)
303: which appears in the theory of Berry phase \cite{berry1}.
304: The sources of this field are Dirac monopoles
305: that are located at the points of degeneracy.
306: For the double barrier model a given level $n$
307: can have a degeneracy provided $X_1=X_2$,
308: and either $\Phi=0$ or $\Phi=\pi\hbar/e$
309: modulo $2\pi\hbar/e$.
310: In fact we have for each level (excluding the ground state)
311: two Dirac chains of degeneracies as in Fig.2d.
312:
313:
314: From the above observation one easily
315: draws the following conclusions:
316: \ \ {\bf (i)} We can get $Q \gg e$ for
317: a tight cycle around a Dirac chain
318: if the degeneracy is in the pumping plane.
319: \ \ {\bf (ii)} We can get $Q \ll e$ for
320: a tight cycle around a Dirac chain
321: if the degeneracy is off the pumping plane.
322: \ \ {\bf (iii)} We can get $Q \sim e$ for
323: a cycle which is located in the far field
324: of a Dirac chain.
325: The existence of a far field region
326: is not self evident. This constitutes
327: a major motivation for the present study.
328:
329:
330:
331:
332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
333: \subsection{outline}
334:
335: The outline of this paper is as follows.
336: In section~2 we clarify the starting point
337: of the calculation, which is the Kubo formula.
338: In section~3 we introduce a preliminary discussion
339: of the expected results and their significance.
340: %
341: Then in sections~4 to~11 we analyze the
342: pumping process in the two barrier model.
343: In particular we find the dependence
344: of~$Q$ on the ``radius" of the pumping cycle,
345: and make a distinction between ``near field"
346: and ``far field" results.
347:
348:
349:
350:
351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
354: \section{The Kubo formula}
355:
356: Given a time dependent
357: Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(X)$
358: with $X=X(t)$ we define
359: $\mathcal{F}=-\partial \mathcal{H}/\partial X$
360: and would like to calculate
361: the generalized conductance
362: as defined by the expression
363: %
364: \be{14}
365: \langle \mathcal{I} \rangle =
366: \ \ = \ \ - G \ \dot{X}
367: \ee
368: %
369: We label by $n$ the adiabatic levels
370: of the closed ring. The adiabatic states
371: are defined by the equation
372: $\mathcal{H}|n\rangle = E_n |n\rangle$
373: with implicit $X$ dependence.
374: Using these notations the Kubo formula
375: for the {\em geometric conductance}
376: can be written as
377: %
378: \be{15}
379: G = \sum_{m(\ne n)}
380: \frac{ 2\hbar\mathcal{F}_{mn} }
381: {(E_m-E_n)^2}\im[\mathcal{I}_{nm}]
382: \ee
383: %
384: The above expression assumes that only one
385: level ($n$) is occupied. If several levels
386: are occupied we have to sum over them.
387: If we have more than one control variable,
388: say $X_1$ and $X_2$, then we have
389: to use the more elaborated notation $G^{31}$
390: and $G^{32}$ in order to distinguish between
391: different elements of the conductance matrix.
392:
393:
394: If the pumping cycle crosses very close
395: to a degeneracy, we can get from Eqs.(\ref{e14}-\ref{e15})
396: a very large current $I$, and upon integration
397: we can find that the transported charge is $Q\gg e$.
398: In the next sections we shall develop actual
399: estimates for $Q$. But first we would like
400: to further illuminate the significance of~$Q$.
401:
402:
403: The Schrodinger equation can be written in the {\em adiabatic basis},
404: where the {\em transformed} Hamiltonian matrix takes the form
405: $H_{nm} = E_n \delta_{nm} + \dot{X} A_{nm}$,
406: where $E_n$ are called the adiabatic
407: energy levels, and $A_{nm}$ is a matrix
408: that can be calculated using a well known recipe
409: (which is summarized in section~III of \cite{pmc}).
410: One regards $\dot{X}$ as the ``small parameter".
411: %
412: If the system is prepared an
413: instantaneous {\em adiabatic} state $|n\rangle$,
414: then the instantaneous current is $I=0$,
415: whereas if it is prepared in an
416: instantaneous {\em steady} state
417: (an eigenstate of $H_{nm}$),
418: then the instantaneous current is finite, say $I=I_0$.
419: Accordingly one can question the physical
420: relevance of~$Q$: After all typically
421: the initial preparation is an adiabatic state,
422: and not a steady state.
423:
424:
425: So let us consider an actual physical scenario.
426: For simplicity we assume that only two adiabatic
427: levels are involved: The occupied level $n$
428: and next (empty) level $m=n+1$.
429: To make the dynamical picture simple we use
430: an analogy with the dynamics of a spin $1/2$ particle,
431: and consider the illustration in Fig.3.
432: We regard the state $n$ as spin polarized
433: in the~$z$ direction, and the state $m$
434: as spin polarized in the $-z$ direction.
435: The instantaneous steady states of the Hamiltonian
436: are polarized along an axis that has a small tilt
437: relative to the~$z$~direction.
438:
439:
440: Initially the spin is polarized in the $z$ direction
441: and therefore $I(t=0)=0$.
442: For some time we have $|X(t)-X(0)| \ll \delta X_c$
443: where $\delta X_c$ is the relevant parametric scale
444: for the variation of the adiabatic levels.
445: During this time interval the tilt angle is
446: approximately constant. The spin is performing
447: a precession around the tilted axis.
448: As a results we get $I(t) \ne 0$.
449: In fact the maximum current is $I(t)=2I_0$.
450: We get this current after half period of precession.
451:
452:
453: So we have a modulated current $I(t)$ that equals
454: upon averaging $I_0$. As long as $|X(t)-X(0)| \ll \delta X_c$
455: the precession goes on as described above. But
456: on larger time scales we have to take into account
457: the variation in the tilt angle. Consequently the
458: modulation of the current is no longer in the
459: range $0 < I(t) < 2I_0$, but rather it is shifted
460: and may increase. Still the average stays approximately $I_0$.
461:
462:
463: Thus we see that in the actual physical scenario
464: the average over $I(t)$ is the same as
465: the $I_0$ of the instantaneous steady state.
466: The validity conditions for this statement
467: are essentially the validity conditions of
468: linear response theory, which are further explained
469: in Ref.\cite{pmc}. The discussion above illuminates
470: the justification for the use of the first order
471: steady state solution of Kubo for the purpose of evaluating
472: the pumped charge in an actual physical scenario.
473:
474:
475:
476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478: \section{Charge transfer during an avoided crossing}
479:
480:
481: The pumped charge $Q$ is obtained via the integral Eq.(\ref{e3})
482: using Eq.(\ref{e15}) for $G$. On the basis of the naive heuristic
483: picture of the Introduction (and see Fig.2) we expect
484: that most of the contribution to the integral would
485: come from a small segments in $\bm{X}$ space where the {\em last}
486: occupied level has an avoided crossing with the first
487: unoccupied level. Later we define precisely
488: the region in $\bm{X}$ space where this assumption
489: is a valid approximation.
490:
491: Let us try to sketch what might come out from the
492: calculation. Later on we are going to do a proper job.
493: But before we dive into the detailed analysis
494: (which is quite lengthy) it would be nice to gain
495: some rough expectation.
496: %
497: %
498: Given that our interest is focused
499: in a small energy window such that $E_n \sim E$
500: we define $v_{\tbox{E}}=(2E/\mass)^{1/2}$.
501: The mean level spacing in the energy
502: range of interest is
503: %
504: \be{0}
505: \Delta = v_{\tbox{E}} \frac{\hbar\pi}{L}
506: \ee
507: %
508: while the energy splitting $\Delta_s$
509: at the avoided crossing might be much smaller.
510: We define the following notations
511: %
512: \be{0}
513: |\mathcal{F}_{nm}| &\equiv& \sigma_0 \\
514: |\mathcal{I}_{nm}| &\equiv& \frac{ev_{\tbox{E}}}{L} \sqrt{g_{\varphi}} \\
515: \Delta_s/\Delta &\equiv& \sqrt{1-g_0}
516: \ee
517: %
518: where both $0<g_{\varphi}<1$ and $0<g_0<1$
519: are dimensionless. Note that $g_0$ is related
520: to the overall transmission $\overline{g}_{\tbox{T}}$
521: of the device. The adiabaticity condition is
522: %
523: \be{0}
524: |\dot{X}| \ll \frac{\Delta_s^2}{\hbar\sigma_0}
525: \ee
526: %
527: and from Eq.(\ref{e14}) with (\ref{e15}) we get the current
528: %
529: \be{0}
530: \langle \mathcal{I} \rangle =
531: 2\left(\frac{\hbar\sigma_0}{\Delta_s^2}\dot{X}\right)
532: \left(\frac{ev_{\tbox{E}}}{L}\right) \sqrt{g_{\varphi}}
533: \ee
534: %
535: The time of the Landau-Zener transition
536: via the avoided crossing is
537: %
538: \be{0}
539: \delta t \approx (\Delta_0/\sigma_0)/\dot{X}
540: \ee
541: %
542: and hence the transported charge is
543: %
544: \be{23}
545: Q
546: \ \ \approx \ \
547: \langle \mathcal{I} \rangle \delta t
548: \ \ \approx \ \
549: \left(\frac{g_{\varphi}}{1-g_0}\right)^{1/2} e
550: \ee
551: %
552: where $g_0$ and $g_{\varphi}$ should be estimated
553: in the region of the avoided crossing.
554: We note that $g_{\varphi}/(1-g_0)$
555: is like the Thouless conductance,
556: and can be regarded as a measure for
557: the sensitivity of the energy levels
558: to a test flux. We have pointed out
559: and discussed this issue in Refs.\cite{pmp,pmc},
560: and later it was derived \cite{pMB} in the context
561: of the scattering formalism.
562:
563:
564: In Fig.4 we display the numerically determined $Q$
565: for various path segments. The horizontal axis is
566: the $|X_1-X_2|$ distance of the path segment from
567: the degeneracy point. As $|X_1-X_2|$ becomes small
568: $g_0 \rightarrow 1$ and we get $Q \gg e$.
569: But the asymptotic value $Q \approx e$ which is
570: observed for large $|X_1-X_2|$ cannot be explained
571: by such a simple minded calculation.
572: A major objective of the detailed analysis
573: is to illuminate the observed crossover.
574:
575:
576:
577:
578:
579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
583: \section{The model, basic equations}
584:
585: The one particle Hamiltonian of the two barriers model
586: depends on set of parameters $(X_1, X_2, \Phi)$.
587: From now on we use units such that $e=\hbar=1$, and
588: characterize the geometry by the dimensionless parameter
589: %
590: \be{0}
591: b \ \ = \ \ L_{\tbox{W}} / L_{\tbox{D}} \ \ \gg \ \ 1
592: \ee
593: %
594: We write the wavefunction on the two bonds as:
595: %
596: \be{0}
597: \psi_{\tbox{dot}}(x)
598: &=&
599: \left({2}/{\mathit{L}}\right)^{1/2}
600: \sqrt{q_{\tbox{D}}}
601: \ \sin({\varphi_{\tbox{D}}(x))}
602: \\
603: \psi_{\tbox{wire}}(x)
604: &=&
605: \left({2}/{\mathit{L}}\right)^{1/2}
606: \sqrt{q_{\tbox{W}}}
607: \ \sin({\varphi_{\tbox{W}}(x))}
608: \ee
609: %
610: where $\varphi(x) = k x + \const$.
611: Given $(X_1,X_2)$ and assuming $\Phi=0$,
612: the eigenstates of this Hamiltonian can be found by
613: searching $k_n$ values for which the
614: matching conditions on the log-derivatives
615: are satisfied. This leads to the following
616: system of equations:
617: %
618: \be{27}
619: && \cot(\varphi_{\tbox{W1}}) + \cot(\varphi_{\tbox{D1}}) = \frac{2\mass}{k} X_1
620: \\ \label{e28}
621: \label{MatchingEquation2}
622: && \cot(\varphi_{\tbox{W2}}) + \cot(\varphi_{\tbox{D2}}) = \frac{2\mass}{k} X_2
623: \\
624: && \varphi_{\tbox{D2}} - \varphi_{\tbox{D1}} = kL_{\tbox{D}}
625: \\
626: && \varphi_{\tbox{W2}} - \varphi_{\tbox{W1}} = kL_{\tbox{W}}
627: \ee
628: %
629: where it should be clear
630: that $\varphi_{\tbox{D1}} \equiv \varphi_{\tbox{D}}(x_1)$ etc.
631: The corresponding eigenenergies are $E_n=k_n^2/2\mass$.
632: A similar system of equation can be written for $\Phi=\pi$.
633: We can find the $q_{\tbox{W}}/q_{\tbox{D}}$ ratio for
634: a given eigenstate via the matching condition
635: on the wavefunction at either of the two nodes:
636: %
637: \be{31}
638: \sqrt{q_{\tbox{W}}} \ \sin({\varphi_{\tbox{W}})}
639: = \sqrt{q_{\tbox{D}}} \ \sin({\varphi_{\tbox{D}})}
640: \ee
641: %
642: where ${(\varphi_{\tbox{D}}, \varphi_{\tbox{W}})}$ mean
643: either ${(\varphi_{\tbox{D1}},\varphi_{\tbox{W1}})}$
644: or ${(\varphi_{\tbox{D2}}, \varphi_{\tbox{W2}})}$.
645: The normalization condition implies that
646: %
647: \be{32}
648: \frac{L_{\tbox{D}}}{\mathit{L}} q_{\tbox{D}}
649: + \frac{L_{\tbox{W}}}{\mathit{L}} q_{\tbox{W}}
650: \ \approx \ 1
651: \ee
652: %
653: For an ``ergodic state" we have $q\approx1$ for both bonds.
654: In general we characterize an eigenstate by a the mixing parameter
655: %
656: \be{33}
657: \Theta
658: \equiv
659: 2 \arctan\left( \sqrt{ \frac{\mbox{Prob(wire)}}{\mbox{Prob(dot)}} }\right)
660: = 2 \arctan\left( \sqrt{b}
661: \left(\frac{q_{\tbox{W}}}{q_{\tbox{D}}}\right)^{1/2} \right)
662: \ee
663: %
664: such that $\Theta=0$ means a definite dot state,
665: while $\Theta=\pi$ means a definite wire state.
666: In practice we have ${0<\Theta<\pi}$.
667:
668:
669: In the numerical analysis we use units
670: such that $\mass=1$ and $L_{\tbox{D}}=1$.
671: Given $X_1$ and $X_2$ we solve the system
672: of equations for the $k_n$ and for
673: the $\varphi^{(n)}$ at the nodes.
674: Then we determine $q^{(n)}$
675: at each bond, and from the ratio we
676: get $\Theta^{(n)}$ as well.
677:
678:
679:
680: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
682: \section{Regions in $\bm{X}$ space}
683:
684:
685: We focus on a small energy window
686: such that the energy levels of interest
687: are $E < E_n < E+dE$. We characterize
688: a barrier $X\delta()$ using its transmission
689: %
690: \be{0}
691: g(X) = \left[ 1 + \left(\frac{1}
692: {v_{\tbox{E}}}X \right)^2 \right]^{-1}
693: \approx
694: \left(\frac{1} {v_{\tbox{E}}}X \right)^{-2}
695: \ee
696: %
697: The last expression holds if $g(X) \ll 1$.
698: We can regard $g_1=g(X_1)$ and $g_2=g(X_2)$
699: as an alternate way to specify $X_1$ and $X_2$.
700: %
701: %
702: The $(X_1,X_2,\Phi)$ space is divided
703: into various regions (Fig.5a). There is a region
704: where $g_1$ and $g_2$ are of order one
705: ($|1-g| \ll 1$). There the delta functions
706: at the nodes can be treated as a small perturbation.
707: There is a region where ${1/b \ll g_1,g_2 \ll 1}$.
708: There each dot level mix with many wire
709: levels. This intermediate region will
710: be discussed in a future work \cite{pmm}.
711: Finally there is the region in $\bm{X}$ space
712: which is of interest in the present study:
713: %
714: \be{34}
715: g_1,g_2 \ \ \ll \ \ 1/b
716: \ee
717: %
718: We shall argue that in this region
719: the states are categorized into
720: ``wire states" and ``dot state",
721: which mix only whenever the energy
722: level of the dot ``cross"
723: an energy level of the wire (Fig.5bcd).
724: This allows to use ``two level"
725: approximation in the analysis of the mixing.
726:
727:
728: The degeneracies of the Hamiltonian occur
729: at points $(X^{(r)},X^{(r)})$ along the
730: symmetry axis of $\bm{X}$ space. They are divided
731: into two groups: those that are located
732: in the $\Phi=0 (\mbox{mod}(2\pi))$ planes and those
733: that are located in the $\Phi=\pi(\mbox{mod}(2\pi))$ planes.
734: In Appendix~A we find the explicit expression
735: for $X^{(r)}$. It should be clear that each degeneracy
736: point is duplicated $\mbox{mod}(2\pi)$
737: in the $\Phi$ direction, hence creating
738: what we call a ``Dirac chain".
739:
740:
741: There are only two non-trivial
742: degeneracies in $\bm{X}$ space which are
743: associated with a given level $n$.
744: One is with the neighboring level
745: ``from above" and the other is with the
746: neighboring level ``from below".
747:
748:
749: Once we locate a degeneracy point
750: we can make a distinction between ``near field"
751: and ``far field" regions.
752: The near field is defined as the region
753: where we can use degenerate perturbation
754: theory in order to figure out the
755: splitting of the levels.
756: In contrast to that,
757: the far field is defined as the region
758: where we can calculate the
759: splitting of the levels
760: by treating the dot-wire coupling
761: as a first order perturbation.
762:
763:
764: In Fig.5a we show one pumping path that
765: crosses in the near field region,
766: and a second pumping path that
767: crosses in the far field region.
768:
769:
770:
771:
772: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
774: \section{Eigenstate analysis}
775:
776:
777: In the theoretical analysis it is illuminating
778: to map the behavior of $k_n$ and $\Theta^{(n)}$
779: in $(X_1,X_2,\Phi)$ space. See Figs.6-7.
780: It is not difficult to realize that the
781: variation of $\Theta$ is bounded as follows:
782: %
783: \be{35}
784: {\sqrt{b}}\left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{+1/2}
785: \ \ < \ \ \tan(\Theta/2) \ \ < \ \
786: {\sqrt{b}}\left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{-1/2}
787: \ee
788: %
789: where $g$ is either $g_1$ or $g_2$.
790: The derivation of this result is as follows:
791: The matching conditions at a given node
792: implies that $(\varphi_{\tbox{D}}, \varphi_{\tbox{W}})$
793: are constraint to be on one of two
794: branches which are illustrated in Fig.8.
795: With each point of a given branch we can
796: associate a $\Theta$ value via Eq.(\ref{e33})
797: and either Eq.(\ref{e27}) or Eq.(\ref{e28}).
798: It is a straightforward exercise to
799: express $\Theta$ say as a function
800: of $\varphi_{\tbox{D}}$, and then to find
801: its minimum and maximum values. Assuming
802: that $g\ll 1$ one obtains Eq.(\ref{e35}).
803:
804:
805:
806:
807: Given $\Theta^{(n)}$ we can extract
808: what are the $q^{(n)}$ at each bond,
809: and what are the $\varphi^{(n)}$ at the nodes.
810: By solving Eq.(\ref{e32}) with Eq.(\ref{e33}) we get
811: %
812: \be{36}
813: q_{\tbox{D}} &\ \ = \ \ & b \ (\cos(\Theta/2))^2
814: \\
815: \label{e37}
816: q_{\tbox{W}} &\ \ = \ \ & (\sin(\Theta/2))^2
817: \ee
818: %
819: then from Eq.(\ref{e31})
820: with either Eq.(\ref{e27}) or Eq.(\ref{e28})
821: we find an expression for $\varphi$ at a given node.
822: In particular we get
823: %
824: \be{38}
825: \varphi_{\tbox{D}} =
826: \left( 1 \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}\tan(\Theta/2) + ... \right)
827: \left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{1/2}
828: \ee
829: %
830: Note that $\varphi$ is well defined $\mbox{mod}(\pi)$.
831: There are states which are dot-like ($\Theta \ll 1$),
832: and there are states which are wire-like ($\Theta \sim \pi$).
833: There are regions where a dot-like state mix with
834: wire-like state leading to pair of states
835: with $\Theta^{(+)} \sim \Theta^{(-)} \sim \pi/2$.
836: From the above formula it follows that in the latter case
837: %
838: \be{39}
839: &&\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)}
840: \ \ \approx \ \ \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}
841: \ \ \approx \ \ \left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{1/2}
842: \\ \label{e40}
843: \label{varphi_D_Minus_varphi_D}
844: &&|\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)} - \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}|
845: \ \ = \ \
846: \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}} \left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{1/2}
847: \left( \tan(\Theta^{(+)}/2) +
848: \tan(\Theta^{(-)}/2) \right)
849: \ee
850:
851:
852:
853:
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
855: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
856: \section{Eigenenergies and "mixing" from perturbation theory}
857:
858: In order to find the splitting and the mixing of the two levels
859: we use perturbation theory once in the far field analysis
860: and once in the near field analysis.
861: In both cases we use the following notations.
862: The unperturbed basis is $\vert i \rangle$ with a dot-like state
863: $|1\rangle$ and a wire-like $|2\rangle$.
864: The perturbed eigenstates $\vert n \rangle$
865: are indicated as $|+\rangle$ and $|-\rangle$.
866: The Hamiltonian in both cases has the general form
867: %
868: \be{0}
869: \mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_0+\bm{W}=\left(
870: \begin{array}{cc}
871: E_1 & 0 \\
872: 0 & E_2
873: \end{array}
874: \right)
875: +\left(
876: \begin{array}{cc}
877: W_{11} & W_{12} \\
878: W_{21} & W_{22}
879: \end{array}
880: \right)
881: \ee
882: %
883: The eigenvectors are real so $W_{12}=W_{21}$.
884: The Hamiltonian can be written
885: as a linear combination of Pauli matrices
886: %
887: \be{0}
888: \mathcal{H}=\left(\frac{E_1 + E_2}{2} + \frac{W_{11}+W_{22}}{2}\right){\bm 1}
889: +\left( \frac{E_1 - E_2}{2} + \frac{W_{11}-W_{22}}{2} \right)
890: {\bm \sigma}_3+W_{12}{\bm \sigma}_1
891: \ee
892: %
893: we define
894: %
895: \be{43}
896: \Delta_s &=& 2\sqrt{\left( \frac{E_1 - E_2}{2} + \frac{W_{11}-W_{22}}{2} \right)^2 + W_{12}^2}
897: \\
898: \label{e44}
899: \tan(\theta) &=& \frac{2W_{12}}{(W_{11}-W_{22}) + (E_1 - E_2)}
900: \ee
901: %
902: The eigenenergies are
903: %
904: \be{45}
905: E_n =
906: \left(\frac{E_1 + E_2}{2} + \frac{W_{11}+W_{22}}{2}\right)
907: \pm\frac{\Delta_s}{2}
908: \ee
909: %
910: The eigenstates are found by rotating
911: a spin half around the $y$ axis at an angle~$\theta$
912: %
913: \be{0}
914: |+\rangle
915: &\longrightarrow&
916: \left( \begin{array}{c}
917: \cos{(\theta/2)} \\ \sin{(\theta/2)}
918: \end{array} \right)\\
919: \label{nVector}
920: |-\rangle
921: &\longrightarrow&
922: \left( \begin{array}{c}
923: -\sin{(\theta/2)} \\ \cos{(\theta/2)}
924: \end{array} \right)
925: \ee
926: %
927: Assuming that the unperturbed basis
928: consists of distinct dot-like
929: and wire-like states, it follows that
930: we can use the following approximation:
931: %
932: \be{48}
933: \Theta^{(+)} \ \ &=& \ \ \theta \\
934: \label{e49}
935: \Theta^{(-)} \ \ &=& \ \ \pi-\theta
936: \ee
937: %
938: Using Eq.(\ref{e36}) and Eq.(\ref{e40})
939: this implies
940: %
941: \be{50}
942: \sqrt{q_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)} q_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}}
943: \ \ &\approx& \ \ \frac{b}{2}|\sin(\theta)|
944: \\ \label{e51}
945: %%%%%%%% \ \ = \ \ b\frac{|W_{12}|}{\Delta_s}
946: |\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)} - \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}|
947: \ \ &=& \ \ \frac{2}{\sqrt{b}} \left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{1/2}
948: \frac{1}{|\sin(\theta)|}
949: \ee
950: %
951: We note that in the strong mixing region we have $\theta\approx\pi/2$.
952:
953: In the next sections we obtain explicit expressions
954: for the ``splitting" and the ``mixing" using the above
955: scheme. From the numerics (see e.g. Fig.7) we see
956: that these are in fact very satisfactory approximations.
957:
958:
959:
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
962: \section{Far field analysis}
963:
964: The eigenstates of the ring in the $\bm{X}$ region
965: of interest as defined in Eq.(\ref{e34}) can be found
966: using first order perturbation theory with respect
967: to the wire-dot coupling. This is explained below.
968: We have verified numerically that the approximation
969: is remarkable unless we are very close to
970: a degeneracy point. This defines our distinction
971: between ``far" and ``near" field regions.
972: In the latter case we present in the next section
973: a complementary treatment using degenerate
974: perturbation theory.
975:
976: The unperturbed Hamiltonian in the far field
977: analysis corresponds to ${X_1=X_2=\infty}$.
978: Using the notations as defined in the previous
979: section we take $|2\rangle$ as the $n^{\tbox{th}}$
980: wire state, and $|1\rangle$ as the closest
981: dot state from above. Hence
982: %
983: \be{52}
984: E_1 &=& \frac{1}{2\mass} \left(\frac{\pi}{L_{\tbox{D}}}(1+[n/b]_{\tbox{integer}})\right)^2 \\
985: \label{e53}
986: E_2 &=& \frac{1}{2\mass} \left(\frac{\pi}{L_{\tbox{W}}}n\right)^2
987: \ee
988: %
989: Using the formula
990: %
991: \be{0}
992: W_{ij} \ \ = \ \ -\frac{1}{4\mass^2 X} [\partial \psi^{(i)}] [\partial \psi^{(j)}]
993: \ee
994: %
995: we get:
996: %
997: \be{0}
998: W_{11} &=& -\frac{v_{\tbox{E}}^2}{2L_{\tbox{D}}}
999: \ \left[\frac{1}{X_1} + \frac{1}{X_2} \right] \\
1000: W_{22} &=& -\frac{v_{\tbox{E}}^2}{2L_{\tbox{W}}}
1001: \ \left[\frac{1}{X_1} + \frac{1}{X_2} \right] \\
1002: \label{e57}
1003: |W_{12}| &=& \frac{v_{\tbox{E}}^2}{2\sqrt{L_{\tbox{D}} L_{\tbox{W}}}}
1004: \ \left|\frac{1}{X_1} \pm \frac{1}{X_2} \right|
1005: \ee
1006: %
1007: where the $\pm$ sign in the expression for the dot-wire
1008: coupling depends on whether the dot and the wire states
1009: have the same parity or not.
1010:
1011: In case of a far field pumping cycle we start
1012: (say) with very high barriers, and then lower
1013: one of them, say $X_1$. If we neglected
1014: the dot-wire coupling $W_{12}$, the dot level
1015: would cross the wire level at a point $X_1=X^{(n)}$
1016: that can be determined from the equation $E_1+W_{11}=E_2$.
1017: At the vicinity of the avoided crossing we obtain
1018: %
1019: \be{0}
1020: |W_{12}| = \frac{1}{2\pi} (b g^{(n)})^{1/2} \Delta
1021: \ee
1022: %
1023: where
1024: %
1025: \be{0}
1026: g^{(n)} = \left(\frac{1}{v_{\tbox{E}}}X^{(n)}\right)^{-2}
1027: \ee
1028: %
1029: From the condition $|W_{12}|\ll \Delta$
1030: we deduce Eq.(\ref{e34}) which defines
1031: our $\bm{X}$ region of interest.
1032: Furthermore, from the results of the previous
1033: section we obtain expressions for the
1034: splitting and for the mixing of the levels:
1035: %
1036: \be{60}
1037: \Delta_s &=& bg^{(n)} \ \frac{1}{2L} ||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}|| \\
1038: \sin(\theta) &=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{b g^{(n)})}}
1039: \ \frac{v_{\tbox{E}}}{||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}||}
1040: \ee
1041: %
1042: We use the following notation, which
1043: we regard as a measure for the distance
1044: of the pumping cycle from the nearby degeneracy:
1045: %
1046: \be{0}
1047: ||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}|| = \sqrt{(X_1 - X^{(n)})^2
1048: + \frac{4}{b}\left(\frac{v_{\tbox{E}}}{\sqrt{g^{(n)}}}\right)^2}
1049: \ee
1050: %
1051: The significance of this notation
1052: will be further clarified in the next
1053: section where we extend the analysis
1054: into the near field region.
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060:
1061:
1062:
1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1064: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1065: \section{Near field analysis}
1066:
1067: The unperturbed Hamiltonian in the near field
1068: analysis corresponds to ${X_1=X_2=X^{(r)}}$.
1069: We can find a rough approximation for $X^{(r)}$
1070: using the analysis of the previous section,
1071: but in fact we can find the exact expression
1072: which is derived in Appendix~A,
1073: where we also define the obvious
1074: notations $k_r$ and $g^{(r)}$.
1075: For later calculation the following
1076: approximation is useful:
1077: %
1078: \be{0}
1079: X^{(r)} \ \ \approx \ \ \frac{v_{\tbox{E}}}{\sqrt{g^{(r)}}}
1080: \ee
1081: %
1082: The unperturbed basis consists of
1083: the dot-like definite
1084: parity state $|1\rangle$,
1085: and the wire-like definite parity state $|2\rangle$.
1086: We recall that for these states $\Theta$
1087: attains its extremal values as remarked
1088: at the end of Appendix~A.
1089: The energies of the unperturbed states are
1090: %
1091: \be{0}
1092: E_1 = E_2 = E_r = \frac{1}{2\mass}k_r^2
1093: \ee
1094: %
1095: and the perturbation matrix is
1096: %
1097: \be{0}
1098: W_{11} &=& bg^{(r)} \frac{1}{2L} \left( \delta X_1 + \delta X_2 \right)\\
1099: W_{22} &=& g^{(r)} \frac{1}{2L} \left( \delta X_1 + \delta X_2 \right)\\
1100: |W_{12}| &=& \sqrt{b}g^{(r)} \frac{1}{2L} | \delta X_1 - \delta X_2 |
1101: \ee
1102: %
1103: where
1104: %
1105: \be{0}
1106: \delta X_1 &=& X_1 - X^{(r)} \\
1107: \delta X_2 &=& X_2 - X^{(r)}
1108: \ee
1109: %
1110: Consequently we can determine both the
1111: splitting and the mixing of the levels:
1112: %
1113: \be{0}
1114: \Delta_s &=& bg^{(r)}\frac{1}{2L} ||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}|| \\
1115: \sin(\theta) &=&
1116: \frac{2}{\sqrt{b}} \
1117: \frac{|X_1-X_2|}{||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}||}
1118: \ee
1119: %
1120: In the above expression we have extended
1121: the interpretation of the distance measure
1122: as follows:
1123: %
1124: \be{0}
1125: ||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}|| =
1126: \sqrt{
1127: \left( {X_1+X_2}-2X^{(r)}\right)^2 +
1128: \frac{4}{b} |X_1- X_2|^2}
1129: \ee
1130: %
1131: Now we realize that the far field results of the
1132: previous section are formally a saturated
1133: version of the near field results with
1134: %
1135: \be{0}
1136: |X_1- X_2|_{\infty} = \frac{v_{\tbox{E}}}{\sqrt{g^{(n)}}}
1137: \ee
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1143: \section{The expressions for $G$}
1144:
1145: We are now ready to calculate $G$ from Eq.(\ref{e15}).
1146: There are of course $G^{31}$ and $G^{32}$ but
1147: the expressions look alike so we concentrate,
1148: say, on the case $X=X_1$, and suppress the
1149: node indication subscript whenever possible.
1150: By definition $\mathcal{F}
1151: =-\partial \mathcal{H}/\partial X
1152: =\delta(\hat{x}-x_1)$.
1153: The current operator has been defined
1154: in Eq.(\ref{e2}), but we still have the freedom
1155: to set $x_0$ as we want. So the natural
1156: choice for sake of calculation,
1157: is obviously $x=x_1$. We shall expand later
1158: on the results that would be obtained
1159: if the current were measured via a different
1160: section. The matrix elements of the operators
1161: involved are
1162: %
1163: \be{0}
1164: \label{F1Definition}
1165: \mathcal{F}_{nm}
1166: &=&
1167: -\frac{2}{L}
1168: \sqrt{q_{\tbox{D}}^{(n)} q_{\tbox{D}}^{(m)} }
1169: \ \sin(\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(n)})
1170: \ \sin(\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(m)})
1171: \\
1172: \nonumber
1173: \mathcal{I}_{nm}
1174: &=&
1175: i\frac{e}{\mass L}
1176: \sqrt{ q_{\tbox{D}}^{(n)} q_{\tbox{D}}^{(m)} }
1177: \left[
1178: \frac{k_n{+}k_m}{2} \sin{(\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(m)} {-} \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(n)})}
1179: +
1180: \frac{k_n{-}k_m}{2} \sin{(\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(m)} {+} \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(n)})}
1181: \right]
1182: \ee
1183: %
1184: One should notice that $\mathcal{F}_{nm}$ is real and symmetric
1185: with respect to $n\leftrightarrow m$ interchange,
1186: while $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$ is antisymmetric and purely
1187: imaginary as implied by time reversal symmetry.
1188: Once we sum Eq.(\ref{e15}) over all the occupied levels,
1189: $nm$ terms cancel with $mn$ terms.
1190: Within the framework of the ``two level approximation"
1191: the only remaining term involves the occupied level $n$
1192: and the next empty level $m=n+1$
1193: %
1194: \be{0}
1195: \label{G1}
1196: G^{31}(X_1, X_2) = 2 \frac{ \mathcal{F}_{mn} \ \im[\mathcal{I}_{nm}] } { \Delta_s^2 }
1197: \ee
1198: %
1199: We recall the following expressions:
1200: %
1201: \be{0}
1202: \sqrt{q_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)} q_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}}
1203: \ \ &\approx& \ \ \frac{b}{2}|\sin(\theta)|
1204: \\
1205: \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)}
1206: \ \ \approx \ \ \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}
1207: \ \ &\approx& \ \ \left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{1/2}
1208: \\
1209: |\varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(+)} - \varphi_{\tbox{D}}^{(-)}|
1210: \ \ &\approx& \ \
1211: \frac{2}{\sqrt{b}} \left[\frac{1}{4}g\right]^{1/2}
1212: \frac{1}{|\sin(\theta)|}
1213: \ee
1214: %
1215: Upon substitution we realize that both in the near
1216: and in the far field we can neglect the second
1217: term in the expression for $\mathcal{I}_{nm}$. Consequently
1218: %
1219: \be{0}
1220: G^{31}(X_1, X_2)
1221: \ = \
1222: -\frac{1}{4}\left(gb\right)^{3/2}
1223: \frac{ev_{\tbox{E}}}{L^2}
1224: \ \frac{1}{\Delta_s^2}
1225: \ |\sin(\theta)|
1226: \ = \
1227: -\frac{2 \ ev_{\tbox{E}}}{b\sqrt{g}} \
1228: \frac{|X_1 - X_2|}{||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}||^3}
1229: \ee
1230: %
1231: We observe that in the near field,
1232: where $||\bm{X}-\bm{X}^{(r)}||$ is essentially
1233: the Euclidean measure of distance,
1234: we get the field of a Dirac monopole
1235: as expected. But as we go to the far field
1236: the $|X_1-X_2|$ contribution saturates
1237: as explained in the previous section.
1238:
1239:
1240:
1241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1243: \section{The calculation of $Q$}
1244:
1245: Having found $G^{31}$ and a similar
1246: expression for $G^{32}$ we can perform
1247: the integration of Eq.(\ref{e3}) in order
1248: to obtain $Q$. We already pointed out
1249: that most of the contribution
1250: in the regions of our interest
1251: comes from the avoided crossings.
1252: In the near field it is most convenient
1253: to make the integration along
1254: $X_1-X_2=\pm\const$ segments,
1255: while in case of the far field
1256: we make the integration along
1257: $X_2=\infty$ and $X_1=\infty$ segments.
1258:
1259:
1260: It is not difficult to realize that
1261: in the near field calculation both
1262: segments ($X_1-X_2=\pm\const$) give
1263: the same contribution. This means that
1264: we simply have to do one of the integral
1265: and to multiply by~$2$.
1266: But in the far field one should
1267: be more careful. If we measure
1268: the current in the {\em middle} of the dot
1269: (as indeed done in the numerics)
1270: then the same rule applies. But if
1271: we measure the current (say) at node~$1$,
1272: then the predominant contribution to $Q$
1273: comes obviously from the $X_2=\infty$ segment,
1274: so the result should not be multiplied by~$2$.
1275: %
1276: %
1277: %
1278: Performing a straightforward calculation
1279: of the $dX$ integral, using
1280: %
1281: \be{0}
1282: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
1283: \frac{dx}{\left( x^2 + a^2 \right)^{3/2}} = \frac{2}{a^2}
1284: \ee
1285: %
1286: and taking the above discussion into account,
1287: we get in the near field
1288: %
1289: \be{81}
1290: Q \ \ \approx \ \ \frac{X^{(r)}}{|X_1-X_2|} e
1291: \ee
1292: %
1293: One can show that this result is in agreement
1294: with the rough estimate of Eq.(\ref{e23}).
1295: However, in the far field we have to substitute
1296: the saturated value of $|X_1-X_2|$
1297: leading to the result $Q \approx e$.
1298:
1299:
1300: The calculation in the far field does not care
1301: whether the pumping cycle encircle a $\Phi=0$
1302: degeneracy or a $\Phi=\pi$ degeneracy.
1303: It is only in the near field of $X^{(r)}$
1304: that we see the difference. This is clearly
1305: confirmed by the numerics (Fig.4).
1306: But a closer look reveals that the far field
1307: numerical result for $Q$ is somewhat
1308: smaller than~$1$. This might look like
1309: a contradiction with respect to the general expectations.
1310: The resolution of this puzzle is related
1311: to the limitation of the far field perturbative
1312: treatment. Within the framework of this
1313: treatment $\Theta^{(n)}$ changes
1314: from $\Theta^{(n)}=\pi$ to $\Theta^{(n)}=0$
1315: as we lower (say) the $X_1$ barrier.
1316: But in fact we know from section~8 that $\Theta$
1317: is bounded. This means that not all the
1318: the probability gets into the dot region.
1319: Consequently, if we integrate
1320: along the $X_2=\infty$ segment,
1321: we expect to get $Q<e$ as observed.
1322: On the other hand, in case of a full
1323: pumping cycle, we have to cross
1324: from the $X_2=\infty$ segment
1325: to the $X_1=\infty$ segment.
1326: This was neglected in our calculation.
1327: Thus if we had a full cycle we would
1328: expect to get $Q\approx e$ in the far field
1329: as implied by the Dirac chains picture.
1330:
1331:
1332:
1333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1335: \section{Discussion}
1336:
1337: We were able to derive an estimate for $Q$
1338: in the case where the pumping cycle
1339: is dominated by a single degeneracy.
1340: Within this framework
1341: we can still distinguish between
1342: near field (where $Q\gg e$)
1343: and far field (where $Q\sim e$) regions.
1344: %
1345: %
1346: Our results are in agreement with
1347: those of Ref.\cite{pmc}. We note that
1348: an optional derivation of the near field
1349: limit has been introduced in Ref.\cite{pMB}
1350: using an extension of the BPT scattering
1351: formalism. But the latter derivation
1352: was not suitable to reproduce the far field
1353: result because it has been {\em assumed} there
1354: that the charge cannot accumulate in the dot region.
1355:
1356:
1357: It should be re-emphasized that the results
1358: that we have obtained assume that the pumping
1359: cycle is dominated by a single degeneracy.
1360: In a follow up work \cite{pmm} we shall
1361: discuss the case where the charge transport
1362: involves many levels, such that the
1363: contribution of neighboring levels (in Eq.(\ref{e15}))
1364: is negligible compared with contribution
1365: that comes from $|m-n|>1$ levels.
1366:
1367:
1368: The results that we obtain for a closed geometry are very
1369: different from those that are obtained for an open
1370: geometry. This is because the motion of the electron
1371: is ``recycled". In a more technical language this means
1372: that multiple rounds should be taken into account in
1373: the calculation of correlation functions.
1374: Refs.\cite{pmo,pme} further discuss how the Kubo formula
1375: can be used in order to interpolate these two extreme
1376: circumstances.
1377:
1378:
1379: It should be clear that adiabatic transport becomes
1380: counter-intuitive if one adopts a misleading
1381: zero order point of view of the adiabatic process.
1382: Moreover, even within the ``two level approximation"
1383: it would not be correct to say that $Q$ is determined
1384: by {\em peristaltic} mechanism:
1385: namely, it is not correct to say
1386: that charge transfer is regulated
1387: by the Landau-Zener transitions.
1388:
1389:
1390: A {\em peristaltic} mechanism would imply $Q\sim e$.
1391: In the near field we have $Q\gg e$ so we do not have
1392: such mechanism for sure. This is also reflected
1393: by having the same~$I$ at both nodes as discussed
1394: in the paragraph of Eq.(\ref{e81}).
1395: However, even in the far field,
1396: where the peristaltic picture seems natural,
1397: we have realized that it is an over simplification:
1398: also in the case of a far field cycle a finite
1399: fraction of $Q$ is contributed during
1400: the intermediate stages of the pumping cycle.
1401:
1402:
1403: \appendix
1404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1406: \section{Finding the degeneracy points}
1407:
1408:
1409: If system is symmetric ($X_1=X_2=X$) then we can distinguish between
1410: odd and even states leading to the following eigenvalue equations
1411: %
1412: \be{101}
1413: \cot(kL_{\tbox{D}}/2) + \cot(kL_{\tbox{W}}/2)
1414: &= -\frac{2\mass}{k}X
1415: & \,\,\, \mbox{odd states}
1416: \\ \label{e102}
1417: \tan(kL_{\tbox{D}}/2) + \tan(kL_{\tbox{W}}/2)
1418: &= +\frac{2\mass}{k}X
1419: & \,\,\, \mbox{even states}
1420: \ee
1421: %
1422: As we lower $X$ we have an exact crossing whenever
1423: a dot state crosses a wire state with the opposite parity.
1424: We have an avoided crossing whenever a dot state
1425: tries to cross a wire state with the same parity.
1426: The later becomes an exact crossing
1427: if the flux through the ring is half integer.
1428:
1429:
1430: We can determine the degeneracy points by
1431: equating (\ref{e101}) with (\ref{e102}).
1432: This gives $\sin(kL_{\tbox{W}})=-\sin(kL_{\tbox{D}})$.
1433: For half integer flux it is
1434: convenient to use delta gauge on the middle of the wire,
1435: so as to get there $\pi$ phase jump boundary conditions.
1436: This implies that in the above equation we make
1437: the replacement $(kL/2) \mapsto (kL/2) + (\pi/2)$,
1438: hence getting the degeneracy condition
1439: $\sin(kL_{\tbox{W}})=+\sin(kL_{\tbox{D}})$.
1440: We therefore conclude that we have degeneracies for
1441: %
1442: \be{0}
1443: k_r \ \ = \ \ \frac{\pi}{L_{\tbox{W}}-L_{\tbox{D}}} n_r
1444: \ee
1445: %
1446: They are categorized into $\Phi{=}0$ degeneracies
1447: for $n_r=1,3,5,\dots$ and $\Phi{=}\pi$ degeneracies
1448: for $n_r=2,4,6,\dots$.
1449: Their location is $(X^{(r)},X^{(r)})$ where
1450: %
1451: \be{0}
1452: X^{(r)} \ \ = \ \ -\frac{k_r}{\mass}\cot(k_rL_{\tbox{D}})
1453: \ee
1454: %
1455: Accordingly
1456: %
1457: \be{0}
1458: g^{(r)} \ \ = \ \ g(X^{(r)})
1459: \ \ = \ \ \sin^2(k_rL_{\tbox{D}})
1460: \ \ = \ \ \sin^2(k_rL_{\tbox{W}})
1461: \ee
1462: %
1463: At a degeneracy point the mixing parameter $\Theta$
1464: that characterizes the odd and the even states
1465: attains the extremal values which are allowed by Eq.(\ref{e35}).
1466: This can be verified by deducing $q_{\tbox{W}}/q_{\tbox{D}}$
1467: from Eq.(\ref{e31}) with ${\varphi_{\tbox{D}}=k_rL_{\tbox{D}}/2}$ for the
1468: odd state and ${\varphi_{\tbox{D}}=(\pi/2)+k_rL_{\tbox{D}}/2}$
1469: for the even state.
1470:
1471:
1472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1474: \ack
1475:
1476: D.C. thanks M.~Moskalets and M.~B{\"u}ttiker
1477: for discussions that had motivated this work,
1478: and Y.~Oreg for urging clarification of the
1479: formal result. We are grateful to
1480: T.~Kottos, H.~Schanz and G.~Rosenberg
1481: for helpful suggestions and help with the
1482: numerical procedure. The research was supported
1483: by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02),
1484: and by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation
1485: for Scientific Research and Development.
1486:
1487:
1488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1490: \Bibliography{99}
1491:
1492: \bibitem{rev}
1493: L.P. Kouwenhoven, C.M. Marcus, P.L. Mceuen,
1494: S. Tarucha, R. M. Westervelt and N.S. Wingreen,
1495: Proc. of Advanced Study Inst. on Mesoscopic
1496: Electron Transport, edited by L.L. Sohn,
1497: L.P. Kouwenhoven and G. Schon (Kluwer 1997).
1498:
1499:
1500:
1501: \bibitem{pmp}
1502: D. Cohen, cond-mat/0208233 (2002);
1503: Solid State Communications {\bf 133}, 583 (2005).
1504:
1505: \bibitem{pmc}
1506: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 155303 (2003).
1507:
1508: \bibitem{pme}
1509: For a mini-review see: D. Cohen, Physica E 28, 308 (2005).
1510:
1511: \bibitem{pml}
1512: G.~Rosenberg and D.~Cohen,
1513: cond-mat/0510289, J. Phys. A (2006, in press).
1514:
1515:
1516:
1517:
1518: \bibitem{tbm}
1519: Y. Levinson, O. Entin-Wohlman and P. Wolfle, cond-mat/0010494.
1520:
1521: \bibitem{BPT1}
1522: M. Buttiker, H. Thomas and A Pretre,
1523: Z.~Phys.~B-Condens.~Mat., {\bf 94}, 133 (1994).
1524:
1525: \bibitem{BPT2}
1526: P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, R10135 (1998).
1527:
1528: \bibitem{SAA}
1529: T. A. Shutenko, I. L. Aleiner and B. L. Altshuler,
1530: Phys. Rev. {\bf B61}, 10366 (2000).
1531:
1532: \bibitem{pMB}
1533: M.~Moskalets and M.~B{\"u}ttiker,
1534: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 161311(R) (2003).
1535:
1536:
1537:
1538:
1539: \bibitem{berry1}
1540: M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 392}, 45 (1984).
1541:
1542: \bibitem{thouless}
1543: D. J. Thouless,
1544: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 6083 (1983).
1545:
1546: \bibitem{AvronNet}
1547: J.E. Avron, A. Raveh and B. Zur,
1548: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 60}, 873 (1988).
1549:
1550: \bibitem{berry2}
1551: M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 442}, 659 (1993).
1552:
1553: \bibitem{pmm}
1554: I.~Sela and D.~Cohen, in preparation.
1555:
1556: \bibitem{pmo}
1557: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 201303(R) (2003).
1558:
1559:
1560:
1561: \end{thebibliography}
1562:
1563:
1564:
1565:
1566:
1567: \newpage
1568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1570: %%% Figures
1571:
1572:
1573:
1574:
1575:
1576:
1577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1578: \mpg{
1579:
1580: % 2 delta model
1581:
1582: \Cn{\putgraph[width=0.9\hsize]{ringnet}}
1583:
1584: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 1.}
1585: Illustration of the model system.
1586: The two barrier pumping device
1587: is used in two different configurations.
1588: Left panel: open lead geometry;
1589: Right panel: closed ring geometry.
1590: The barriers are located
1591: at the nodes $x_1$ and $x_2$
1592: while the current is measured
1593: through the section at $x_0$. }
1594:
1595: }
1596:
1597: \ \\ \ \\
1598:
1599:
1600:
1601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1602: \mpg{
1603:
1604: % pumping cycle
1605:
1606: \Cn{
1607: \putgraph[height=0.3\hsize]{pme_2delta}
1608: \putgraph[height=0.3\hsize]{pmp_levels}
1609: }
1610:
1611: \Cn{
1612: \putgraph[width=0.92\hsize]{DiracChains}
1613: }
1614:
1615: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG 2.}
1616: (a) Upper left: The energy levels of a ring
1617: with two barriers, at the beginning of the pumping cycle.
1618: It is assumed that the three lower levels are occupied.
1619: (b) Upper right: The adiabatic levels as a function
1620: of time during the pumping cycle.
1621: (c) Lower Left: The $(X_1,X_2)$ locations of
1622: the Dirac chains of the $3$ occupied levels.
1623: Filled (hollow) circles imply that there
1624: is (no) monopole in the pumping plane.
1625: Note that for sake of illustration overlapping
1626: chains are displaced from each other.
1627: The pumping cycle encircles $2+1$ Dirac chains
1628: that are associated with the 3rd and 2nd levels respectively.
1629: (d) Lower right: The $2$ Dirac chains
1630: that are associated with the 3rd level.}
1631:
1632: }
1633:
1634:
1635: \ \\
1636:
1637:
1638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1639: \mpg{
1640:
1641: % non stationary evolution
1642:
1643: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{adiabat}
1644: \mpg[0.5\hsize]{
1645: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 3.} }
1646: Cartoon of the adiabatic evolution
1647: within the framework of the two level approximation.
1648: The system is prepared in level $n$,
1649: and the nearby empty level is ${m=n+1}$.
1650: The control parameter $X(t)$ is being changed
1651: slowly, and therefore the system ``oscillates"
1652: around the first order adiabatic solution.
1653: The energy of the latter is illustrated
1654: by a dashed line. Note that the identity
1655: of the adiabatic state changes gradually,
1656: and can be regarded as constant only
1657: on scales $\delta X \ll \delta X_c$.}
1658:
1659: }
1660:
1661:
1662: \ \\ \ \\
1663:
1664:
1665:
1666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1667: \mpg{
1668:
1669: % Q plot
1670:
1671: \Cn{
1672: \mpg[0.4cm]{(a) \\ \vspace*{4cm} }
1673: \putgraph[width=0.5\hsize]{Qpumped}
1674: }
1675:
1676: \Cn{
1677: \mpg[0.4cm]{(b) \\ \vspace*{2cm} }
1678: \putgraph[height=0.25\hsize]{QpumpedZoom}
1679: \hspace*{1cm}
1680: \mpg[0.4cm]{(c) \\ \vspace*{2cm} }
1681: \putgraph[height=0.25\hsize]{X1X2PumpingPath}
1682: }
1683:
1684: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 4.} }
1685: Panels (a) and (b):
1686: Numerical calculation of the pumped charge $Q$.
1687: The model parameters are ${L_{\tbox{D}}=\mass=e=1}$
1688: and ${L_{\tbox{W}} = 3000.43}$. The current $I$
1689: is measured at the middle of the dot.
1690: The numerical integration is carried out along
1691: the segments which are indicated in panel (c),
1692: and the results are multiplied by~2 so as to include
1693: the equal contribution that comes from the second
1694: half of the cycle. There are two sets of data points.
1695: One set (filled circles) is for pumping cycles that encircle
1696: an in-plane degeneracy point ($n_r=2993$).
1697: A second set (hollow circles) is for pumping cycles
1698: that encircle an off-plane degeneracy point ($n_r=2992$).
1699: The location of the avoided crossing for each
1700: data set is indicated by the solid lines in panel (c).
1701: The near and that far field approximations
1702: that we derive for~$Q$ are indicated by the
1703: the solid lines in panel~(a). The zoom in panel~(b)
1704: reveals that~$Q$ in the far field is in fact slightly
1705: less then~$1$, which is explained in section~13.
1706: }
1707:
1708:
1709:
1710: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1711: \mpg{
1712:
1713: % X space regions
1714:
1715: \Cn{
1716: \mpg[0.4cm]{(a) \\ \vspace*{5cm} }
1717: \putgraph[height=0.6\hsize]{X1_X2Plane}
1718: }
1719:
1720: \Cn{
1721: \mpg[0.4cm]{(b) \\ \vspace*{3cm} }
1722: \putgraph[height=0.35\hsize]{X1_X2PlaneZoom}
1723: \hspace*{1cm}
1724: \mpg[0.4cm]{(c) \\ \vspace*{3cm} }
1725: \putgraph[height=0.33\hsize]{kDisconnectedRing}
1726: }
1727:
1728: \Cn{
1729: \mpg[0.4cm]{(d) \\ \vspace*{3cm} }
1730: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{kX1EqualX2}
1731: \hspace*{1cm}
1732: \mpg[0.4cm]{(e) \\ \vspace*{3cm} }
1733: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{kX1EqualX2FluxPi}
1734: }
1735:
1736: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 5.}
1737: Regions in $\bm{X}$ space. The model parameters
1738: are the same as in the previous figure.
1739: Panel (a) displays the region of interest
1740: as defined in Eq.(\ref{e34}). It is bounded
1741: by the left and by the bottom solid lines
1742: which are defined by $g(X) \sim 1/b$.
1743: In-plane and off-plane degeneracy points
1744: are indicated by filled and hollow circles respectively.
1745: We indicate by arrow one in-plane degeneracy
1746: point ($n_r = 2993$). A zoom of its near
1747: field is displayed in panel (b). The ellipse
1748: in panel (b) indicates a level splitting
1749: that equals $\Delta/10$. The dashed lines
1750: in panels (a) and (b) indicate far field and near
1751: field pumping cycles respectively.
1752: In panels (c)-(e) we shows the energy levels ($k_n$)
1753: along three paths in $\vec{X}$ space,
1754: which are $(X_1{=}X,X_2{=}\infty, \Phi{=}0)$,
1755: and $(X_1{=}X,X_2{=}X, \Phi{=}0)$,
1756: and $(X_1{=}X,X_2{=}X, \Phi{=}\pi)$ respectively.
1757: The degeneracies ${n_r = 2992...2999}$
1758: are circled. The arrow indicates the
1759: representative degeneracy point ${n_r = 2993}$.
1760: In panels (d) the odd states are indicated
1761: by dashed lines so as to distinguish
1762: them from the even states. }
1763:
1764: }
1765:
1766:
1767:
1768:
1769:
1770:
1771:
1772: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1773: \mpg{
1774:
1775: % two levels approximation
1776: % X space contors
1777:
1778: \mpg[0.4cm]{(a) \\ \vspace*{4cm} }
1779: \putgraph[width=0.6\hsize]{X1X2PlaneLevelSplitting0Pi}
1780:
1781: \mpg[0.4cm]{(b) \\ \vspace*{4cm} }
1782: \putgraph[width=0.6\hsize]{X1X2PlaneLevelSplittingMixing0}
1783:
1784: \mpg[0.4cm]{(c) \\ \vspace*{4cm} }
1785: \putgraph[width=0.6\hsize]{X1X2PlaneLevelSplittingMixingPi}
1786:
1787:
1788: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 6.}
1789: The energy level splitting and the mixing
1790: parameter $\Theta$ for two pairs of levels.
1791: The model parameters are ${L_{\tbox{D}}=\mass=e=1}$
1792: and ${L_{\tbox{W}} = 160.43}$.
1793: In panel (a) we show the contour lines
1794: for the energy level splitting of
1795: the first (even) dot level with an odd wire level ($n = 158$),
1796: and for the energy level splitting of
1797: the first (even) dot level with
1798: an even wire level ($n = 157$).
1799: The two cases are displayed again
1800: in panels (b) and (c) respectively
1801: where we plot both level splitting contours
1802: (solid lines) and $\Theta$ contours (dashed lines).
1803: In the ``even-odd crossing" case
1804: we have an in-plane degeneracy, which is
1805: indicated by a filled circle,
1806: while the inner most contour line
1807: is for $\Delta/5$ splitting.
1808: Note that within the white regions
1809: the mixing is maximal ($\Theta\sim\pi/2$).
1810: In the ``even-even avoided crossing" case
1811: the projection of the off-plane degeneracy point
1812: is indicated by a hollow circle.}
1813:
1814: % The mixing contour lines
1815: % correspond to levels mixing
1816: % such that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}\tan(\Theta^{(\pm)}/2)$
1817: % is equal $0.15,\ 0.5,\ 1,\ 5,\ 10,\ 20,\ 30,\ 40$.
1818: %
1819: % In this plot $\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}\tan(\Theta^{(\pm)}/2)$
1820: % is equal $1/4,\ 1/2,\ 1,\ 3/2,\ 2$.
1821:
1822: }
1823:
1824:
1825:
1826:
1827:
1828:
1829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1830: \mpg{
1831:
1832: % near field analysis
1833: % k, q, Theta, phi
1834:
1835: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{KNearFieldApproximation}
1836: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{ThetaNearFieldApproximation}
1837: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{phiDotNearFieldApproximation}
1838:
1839:
1840: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 7.}
1841: Tests of the perturbation theory based
1842: approximations (dashed lines) against
1843: the numerics (solid lines).
1844: The model parameters are ${L_{\tbox{D}}=\mass=e=1}$
1845: and ${L_{\tbox{W}} = 3000.43}$, and we focus
1846: on the degeneracy point $n_r = 2993$.
1847: For these parameters ${X^{(r)} \approx 465}$
1848: and ${g^{(r)} \approx 4.5 \times 10^{-5}}$.
1849: All the plots refer to the path $(X_2 - X_1) = 5$.
1850: In the left panel the dashed lines are derived
1851: from Eq.(\ref{e45}). In the middle panel the dashed
1852: lines are based on Eqs.(\ref{e48}-\ref{e49})
1853: with $\theta$ from Eq.(\ref{e44}).
1854: In the right panel the dashed lines are deduced
1855: from Eq.(\ref{e38})}
1856:
1857:
1858: }
1859:
1860:
1861: \ \\ \ \\
1862:
1863:
1864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1865: \mpg{
1866:
1867: % phi vs phi branches
1868:
1869: \putgraph[width=0.49\hsize]{phiDotphiWireBranches}
1870:
1871:
1872: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG. 8.} }
1873: The wire phase $\varphi_{\tbox{W}}/\pi$ versus
1874: the dot phase $\varphi_{\tbox{D}}/\pi$
1875: at a node with delta barrier $g(X) = 0.225$.
1876: The two branches are implied by the
1877: matching condition Eq.(\ref{e27}). The ratio
1878: $|{\sin(\varphi_{\tbox{D}})}/{\sin(\varphi_{\tbox{D}})}|$
1879: attains its extremal values (Eq.(\ref{e35}))
1880: at the points which are indicated by circles.}
1881:
1882:
1883:
1884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1886: \end{document}
1887:
1888:
1889:
1890:
1891:
1892:
1893:
1894:
1895:
1896:
1897:
1898:
1899:
1900:
1901:
1902:
1903:
1904:
1905:
1906: