1: %
2: \documentclass[prl,aps,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: % \documentclass[prl,preprint,aps]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\nn}{ \nonumber}
11: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
12: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
13: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
14: \mathsurround=2pt
15: \begin{document}
16: \topmargin=-20mm
17: % \large
18:
19:
20: \title{On the dissipative effects in the electron transport through
21: conducting polymer nanofibers }
22:
23: \author{ Natalya A. Zimbovskaya}\vspace{5mm}
24:
25: \affiliation
26: {Department of Physics and Electronics, University of Puerto Rico at
27: Humacao, Humacao, PR 00791, and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104-6323, USA }
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: Here, we study the effects of stochastic nuclear motions on the electron
31: transport in doped polymer fibers assuming the conducting state of
32: the material. We treat conducting polymers as granular metals and
33: apply the quantum theory of conduction in mesoscopic systems to
34: describe the electron transport between metalliclike granules.
35: To analyze the effects of nuclear motions we mimic them by a
36: phonon bath, and we include electron-phonon interactions in
37: consideration. Our results show that the phonon bath plays a crucial
38: part in the intergrain electron transport at moderately low and room
39: temperatures, suppressing the original intermediate state for the
40: resonance electron tunneling, and producing new states which support
41: the electron transport. Also, the temperature dependence of magnitudes of the peaks in the electron transmission corresponding to these new states is analyzed.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \pacs{72.15.Gd,71.18.+y}
45: \date{\today}
46: \maketitle
47:
48:
49: \section{i. introduction}
50:
51: Currently, electron transport in conducting polymer nanofibers is a
52: subject of intense interest because such nanofibers are expected to be used in building up nanoelectronic devices. Doped polyacetylen or
53: polyaniline-polyethylene oxide fibers as well as polypyrrole
54: nanotubes could behave as conductors, and their conductivity
55: significantly increases upon doping. Charge transport mechanisms in
56: the conducting polymers were intensively studied starting from the
57: very discovery of these materials \cite{1,2}.
58:
59: It is known that chemically doped conducting polymers are very
60: inhomogeneous. In some regions polymer chains are disorderly
61: arranged forming an amorphous poorly conducting substance. In other
62: places the chains are ordered and densely packed \cite{3,4}. The
63: corresponding regions behave as metalliclike grains embedded in
64: the disordered environment. The key point in studies of
65: the electron transport in conducting polymers is to elucidate the
66: nature and physical mechanisms of the intergrain transport. Prigodin
67: and Epstein suggest that the intergrain transport
68: mostly occurs due to the electron tunneling between the grains
69: through intermediate resonance states on the polymer chains connecting them. This approach was employed to build up the theory of
70: electron transport in polyaniline based nanofibers \cite{5}
71: providing a good agreement with the previous transport experiments
72: \cite{6}. Assuming the electron tunneling through the intermediate state to be the predominant mechanism for the intergrain transport, we see
73: a similarity in electron transport mechanisms in conducting polymers
74: and those in molecules connecting metal leads. In the case of
75: polymers metalliclike domains take on part of the leads, and
76: the molecular bridge in between is reduced to a single
77: intermediate site.
78:
79:
80: An important issue that arises in the analysis of the intergrain
81: electron transport is the influence of nuclear motions in the medium
82: between the grains. The similar issue was
83: analyzed while developing the theory of conduction through
84: macromolecules. It was shown that the environment acts as a source
85: of incoherence for the tunneling electron \cite{7,8,9,10}. Also, it
86: can give rise to some extra electron states \cite{11,12}.
87: In the previous works \cite{5,13,14} the effects of stochastic nuclear motions were analyzed by introducing the coupling of the intermidiate state between the grains to a phonon bath including a large amount of harmonic oscillations. It was shown that the direct coupling of the bridge to the dissipative reservoir (phonon bath) brings an inelastic component to the intergrain transport. This erodes the peak in the electron transmission corresponding to the electron tunneling through the bridge. Nevertheless, estimations made in the recent work \cite{15} give grounds to believe that the peak could be still rather well pronounced under typical conditions of experiments on the electrical characterization of conducting polymer nanofibers.
88:
89:
90: However, the studies of dissipative effects in the intergrain electron transport in conducting polymers may not be restricted with the plain assumption of the direct coupling of the bridge site to the phonon bath. Other scenarios can occur. In particular, analyzing the electron transport in polymers, as well as in
91: molecules, one must keep in mind that besides the bridge sites there always exist other nearby sites. In some cases the presence of such sites may strongly influence the effects of stochastic nuclear motions on the characteristics of electron transport. This may happen when the nearby sites somehow ``screen" the bridge sites from direct interactions with the phonon bath. Here,
92: we elucidate some effects which could appear in the electron transport in conducting polymer fibers in the case of such indirect coupling of the bridge state to the phonon bath.
93:
94: \section{ii. model and results}
95:
96: We mimic the effects of
97: the environment by assuming that the side chain is attached to the
98: bridge, and this chain is affected by the phonon bath. This model resembles those
99: used to analyze electron transport through macromolecules
100: \cite{8,10,17}. The side chain is introduced to the model to screen
101: the resonance state making it more stable against the effect of
102: the phonon bath. As in the previous papers \cite{10,17} we assume
103: that electrons cannot hop along the side chain, so it may be reduced
104: to a single site attached to the resonance site (the bridge).
105:
106: Within the adopted model the Hamiltonian takes the form:
107: \be %1
108: H = H_{el} + H_{ph} + H_{e-ph} + H_L +H_R
109: \ee
110: where the Hamiltonian $ H_{el} $ describes the bridge with the attached side site:
111: \be %f2
112: H_{el} = \epsilon b^+b +\tilde\epsilon c^+ c - w(b^+ c + h.c.),
113: \ee
114: $H_{L,R} $ are self-energy terms describing the coupling of the left $(L)$ and right $(R)$ grain to the bridge, and $\epsilon $ and $\tilde\epsilon $ are the on-site energies of the bridge site and the attached side site, respectively. The factor $w$ is the hopping integral between the bridge an the attached site.
115:
116: The remaining terms in the expression (1) describe the phonon bath and the electron-phonon interaction, namely:
117: \be %f3
118: H_{ph} +H_{e-ph} = \sum_\alpha \Omega_\alpha B_\alpha^+ B_\alpha +
119: \sum_\alpha \lambda_\alpha c^+ c(B_\alpha + B_\alpha^+)
120: \ee
121: where $ \Omega_\alpha $ are the frequencies of phonons belonging to the bath and $\lambda_\alpha $ denote the electron-phonon coupling strengths. Performing the unitary transformation $\tilde H= e^S He^{-S} $ with the generator $ S $ \cite{16}:
122: \be %f4
123: S = \sum_\alpha \frac{\lambda_\alpha}{\Omega_\alpha} c^+ c(B_\alpha -B_\alpha^+),
124: \ee
125: the coupling to the bath is eliminated, and we obtain:
126: \be %f5
127: \tilde H = H_{eff} + H_{ph}
128: \ee
129: The effective Hamiltonian for the bridge within the adopted model takes on the form:
130: \be %f6,1
131: H_{eff} = \tilde H_{el} + H_L + H_R.
132: \ee
133: Here, the Hamiltonian $ \tilde H_{el} $ may be presented as follows:
134: \be % f7,2
135: \tilde H_{el} = H_b + H_c + H_{b-c}
136: \ee
137: where again $ H_b = \epsilon b^+ b $ corresponds to the bridge site, $ H_c $ is the
138: Hamiltonian of the side chain, and $ H_{b-c} $ describes the
139: interaction between them. The terms $ H_c $ and $ H_{b-c} $ are
140: modified due to the coupling of the side chain to the bath. Keeping
141: only one site in the side chain we have:
142: \be %f8,3-4
143: H_c = (\tilde \epsilon - \delta) c^+ c,
144: \ee
145: \be %f9
146: H_{b-c} = - w \chi (b^+ c + h.c.).
147: \ee
148: The quantities $ \delta $ and $
149: \chi $ are given by \cite{10}:
150: \be %f10,5
151: \delta = \sum_\alpha \frac{\lambda_\alpha^2}{\Omega_\alpha},\qquad
152: \chi =\exp \bigg[\sum_\alpha \frac{\lambda_\alpha}{\Omega_\alpha}
153: (B_\alpha - B_\alpha^+)\bigg] .
154: \ee
155:
156:
157: The lowest order in the Fourier transform for the Green's function
158: associated with the Hamiltonian (6) reads:
159: \be % f11,6
160: G^{-1} (E) = E - \epsilon - \Sigma_L (E) - \Sigma_R (E)- w^2 P(E).
161: \ee
162: The first four terms in this expression represent the inversed Green's
163: function for the resonance site coupled to the two grains where $
164: \Sigma_{L,R} (E) $ are complex self-energy terms. The last term
165: represents the effect of the environment and has the form \cite{10}:
166: \bea % f12,7
167: P(E)& =&\!\! -i \int_0^\infty dt \exp [it (E - \tilde \epsilon + \delta + i 0^+)]
168: \nn \\ & \times &\!\!
169: \big \{(1 - f) \exp[- F (t)] + f \exp[- F(-t)]\big\}
170: \eea
171: with $ \exp [-F (t)] $ being a dynamic bath correlation function, and
172: $ f $ taking on values $1$ and $0 $ when the attached site is occupied and empty, respectively.
173:
174: Characterizing the phonon bath with a continuous spectral density $ J
175: (\omega) $ given by \cite{18}:
176: \be % f13,8
177: J (\omega) = J_0 \left(\frac{\omega}{\omega_c}\right )
178: \exp \left [-\frac{\omega}{\omega_c} \right],
179: \ee
180: one may write out the following expressions for the functions $ F (t) $ and $\delta: $
181: \be % f14,9-10
182: F (t) = \int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\omega^2} J(\omega)
183: \left[1 - e^{- i\omega t} + \frac{2[1 - \cos (\omega t)] }{ \exp
184: (\omega/\theta)-1}\right],
185: \ee
186: \be %f15
187: \delta = \int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\omega} J(\omega) = J_0
188: \ee
189: where $ \theta $ is the temperature expressed in the units of energy.
190:
191: Within the short time scale $(\omega_c t \ll 1) $ the function $ F(t) $ could be presented in the form:
192: \be %f16,11
193: F(t) = \frac{J_0}{\omega_c}\left \{\frac{1}{2}\ln [1 + (\omega_c t)^2]
194: + i\arctan (\omega_c t) + K (t) \right \}
195: \ee
196: where
197: \be %f17,12,13
198: K(t) = \theta^2 t^2 \zeta \left(2; \frac{\theta}{\omega_c} + 1\right) \equiv
199: \theta^2 t^2 \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(n + \theta/\omega_c)^2}.
200: \ee
201: Here, $ \zeta\ \big(2; \theta/\omega_c + 1\big) $ is the Riemann
202: $ \zeta $ function \cite{19}.
203: The asymptotic expression for $ K(t)$ depends on the relation
204: between two parameters, namely, the temperature $ \theta $ and the cut-off
205: frequency $ \omega_c $ characterizing the thermal
206: relaxation rate of the phonon bath.
207: Assuming $\theta \gg \omega_c $ and estimating the sum of the series in Eq. (12) and we get:
208: \be % f18,13,14
209: K(t) \approx \frac{\theta}{\omega_c} (\omega_c t)^2 .
210: \ee
211: In the opposite limit $ \omega_c \gg \theta $ we obtain:
212: \be %f19,14
213: K(t) \approx \frac{\pi^2}{6} (\theta t)^2
214: \ee
215: Also, we may roughly estimate $K(t)$ within the intermediate range. Taking $ \theta \approx \omega_c $
216: we arrive at the approximation $K(t) \approx a^2 (\theta t)^2 $ where
217: $ a^2 $ is a dimensionless constant of the order of unity.
218: Correspondingly, within the short time scale we can omit the first term in the expression (16), and we get:
219: \be %f20
220: F(t) \approx \frac{J_0}{\omega_c} \big\{i\omega_c t + K(t)\big\}
221: \ee
222: where $K(t) $ is given by either Eq. (18) or Eq. (19) depending on the relation between $ \omega_c $ and $ \theta .$
223:
224:
225: Within the long time scale $ \omega_c t \gg1, $ and provided that temperatures are not very low $(\theta \gg \omega_c),$ we may present the function $ K(t) $ as:
226: \be %f21
227: K(t) = 2 \theta t \int_0^\infty \frac{dz}{z^2} (1-\cos z)e^{-z/\omega_c t} \approx \pi\theta t.
228: \ee
229: Now, the term $K(t) $ is the greatest addend in the expression for $ F(t),$ so the latter could be approximated as: $F(t)\approx \pi\theta t J_0/\omega_c. $ The same approximation holds within the low temperature limit when $\omega_c\gg \theta \gg t^{-1}.$
230:
231: Using the asymptotic expression (20), we may calculate the contribution to $ P(E) $ coming from the short time scale $(\omega_c t \ll 1).$ It has the form:
232: \be %f22,15
233: P_1(E) =- \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{J_0 \theta}} \exp\left[-
234: \frac{(E - \tilde\epsilon)^2}{4 J_0\theta} \right] \left \{1+ \Phi
235: \left[\frac{i(E - \tilde\epsilon)}{2\sqrt{J_0 \theta}} \right]
236: \right \}
237: \ee
238: where $ \Phi (z) $ is the probability integral. When both $\omega_c $ and $\theta $ have the same order of magnitude the expression for
239: $P(E) $ still holds the form (22). At $\theta \ll \omega_c, $ the temperature $ \theta $ in the expression (22) is to be replaced by $ \omega_c. $
240: We remark that under the assumption $ \theta \gg \omega_c $ the function $ P_1(E) $ does not depend on the cut-off frequency $\omega_c, $ whereas at $\omega_c \gg
241: \theta $ it does not depend on temperature.
242: The long time $(\omega_c t \gg 1)$ contribution to $ P(E) $ could be similarly estimated as follows:
243: \be %f23
244: P_2(E) = \frac{1}{E-\tilde \epsilon + J_0 + i\pi J_0 \theta /\omega_c}.
245: \ee
246: Comparing these expressions (22) and (23) we see that the ratio of the peak values of $ P_2(E) $ and $ P_1(E) $ is of the order of $(\omega_c^2/J_0\theta)^{1/2}.$ Therefore the term $P_1(E) $ predominates over $P_2(E)$ when the temperatures are moderately high $(\omega_c <\theta)$ and the electron-phonon interaction is not too weak $ J_0/\omega_c \sim1. $ Usually, experiments on the electrical characterization of conducting polymer nanofibers are carried out at $T\sim 100\div300K,$ so in further analysis we assume that $(\omega_c^2/J_0\theta)^{1/2}\ll 1,$ and we omit the term $P_2(E) $ from the following consideration using the approximation $ P(E) \approx P_1(E).$
247: As shown in the Fig. 1, the imaginary part of $ P(E) $ exhibits a dip around $ E = \tilde\epsilon $ and the width of the latter is determined by the product of the temperature $\theta $ (or $ \omega_c) $ and the constant $ J_0 $ characterizing
248: the strength of the electron-phonon interaction. When either factor increases, the dip becomes broader and its magnitude reduces.
249:
250:
251: \begin{figure}[t]
252: \begin{center}
253: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=7cm]{n20_1a.eps}
254: %\includegraphics[width=6cm,height=2.3cm]{n20_5.eps}
255: \caption{Energy dependence of the real (top panel) and imaginary
256: (bottom panel) parts of $ P(E) .$ The curves are plotted assuming $ J_0 =
257: 20 meV, \ w = 100 meV,\ \tilde \epsilon = 0,\ T= 100 K$ (dash
258: lines), and $ T = 300 K $ (solid lines) at $ \theta \gg \omega_c. $ }
259: \label{rateI}
260: \end{center}
261: \end{figure}
262:
263: The presence of $ P(E) $ gives rise to very significant changes in
264: the behavior of the Green's function given by the Eq. (11). Using the
265: flat band approximation for the self-energy corrections $
266: \Sigma_{L,R} ,$ namely: $ \Sigma_{L,R} = -i\Delta_{L,R} $ where
267: $\Delta_{L,R} $ are constants of the dimensions of energy, and
268: neglecting for a moment all imaginary terms in the Eq. (11), we find
269: that two extra poles of the Green's function emerge due to the
270: environment. When the phonon bath is detached $(J_0 = 0 )$ the separation between the poles is determined with the hopping integral $ w. $ Due to the electron coupling to the phonons the positions of the poles become shifted.
271: Assuming $ \epsilon = \tilde \epsilon = 0 $ and $\theta \gg \omega_c $ we get:
272: \be %f24,16
273: E = \pm 2 \sqrt{J_0 \theta |\ln(2J_0 \theta/w^2)|}.
274: \ee
275: The poles correspond to extra electron states which
276: occur due to electrons coupling to the environment. These new states are revealed in the structure of the electron
277: transmission $ T(E) $ which reads \cite{20}:
278: \be %f25,17
279: T(E) = 4 \Delta_L \Delta_R |G(E)|^2.
280: \ee
281: The structure of $T(E) $ is shown in the Fig. 2. Two peaks in the
282: transmission are associated with the environment induced electronic
283: states. Their positions and heights depend on the temperature and on the coupling strengths $ J_0, $ and $ w. $ The important feature in the electron transmission is the absence of the peak associated with the
284: resonance state between the grains (the bridge site) itself. This
285: happens due to the strong suppression of the latter by the effects
286: of the environment. Technically, this peak is damped for it is
287: located at $ E = 0 $ where the imaginary part of $ P(E) $ reachs its
288: maximum in magnitude.
289: To provide the damping of the original resonance the contribution from the environment (including the side chain attached to the bridge) to the Green's function (11) must exceed the terms $\Sigma_{L,R} $ describing the effect of the grains. This occurs when the inequality
290: \be %f26
291: \Delta<w^2/\sqrt{J_0\theta}
292: \ee
293: is satisfied. When the coupling of the bridge to the attached side site is weak, the influence of the environment slackens and the original peak associated with the bridge at $ E=\tilde \epsilon $ may emerge. At the same time the features originating from the environment induced status become small compared to this peak.
294:
295:
296:
297: So, the effects of the environment may lead to the
298: damping of the original resonance state for the electron tunneling
299: between the metallic islands in the polymer fiber. Instead, two
300: environment induced states appear to serve as intermediate states
301: for the electron transport. Similar effects were recently
302: investigated in the electron transport through DNA macromolecules
303: \cite{10}, and it was shown that low biased current-voltage
304: characteristics may be noticeably changed due to the occurence of
305: the phonon bath induced electron states. Due to some particular
306: features of conducting polymers, these effects may be revealed in polymer nanofiber current-voltage curves at significantly higher bias voltage, as discussed below.
307:
308: \begin{figure}[t]
309: \begin{center}
310: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=7cm]{n20_1.eps}
311: \caption{ The renormalized electron transmission function vs energy.
312: The curves are plotted for $ \epsilon = \tilde \epsilon = 0,\ w =
313: 100 meV,\ T = 100 K $ (dash lines) and $ T = 300 K $ (solid lines).
314: The constant $ J_0 $ equals $ 20 meV $ (top panel) and $ 50 meV $
315: (bottom panel). } \label{rateI}
316: \end{center}
317: \end{figure}
318:
319: Realistic polymer nanofibers have diameters within the range $
320: 20\div 100$nm, and lengths of the order of a few microns. This is
321: much greater than the typical size of both metalliclike grains and
322: intergrain separations which take on values $ \sim 5\div 10$nm
323: \cite{21}. Therefore, we may treat a nanofiber as a set of parallel
324: working channels, any single channel being a sequence of grains
325: connected with the resonance polymeric chains.
326: The net current in the fiber is the sum of currents flowing in these
327: channels, and the voltage $ V$ applied across the whole fiber is
328: distributed among sequental pairs of grains along a single channel.
329: So, the voltage $ \Delta V$ applied across two adjacent grains could
330: be estimated as $ \Delta V \sim V L/L_0 $ where $ L $ is the average
331: separation between the grains, and $ L_0 $ is the fiber length. The
332: ratio $ \Delta V/V $ may take on values of the order of $
333: 10^{-1}\div 10^{-2}. $ Experiments on the electrical characterization of the polymer fibers are usually carried out at moderately high temperatures $(T \div 300 K)$, so it seems likely that $ \theta > \omega_c. $
334: Assuming that $ w \sim 100 meV, $ and $ J_0
335: \sim 20\div 50 meV $ we estimate the separation between the
336: environment induced peaks in the electron transmission as $ 120\div
337: 170 meV $ (see Fig. 2). This estimate is close to $ e \Delta V $
338: when $ V $ takes on values up to $2 \div 3 $ volts. So, the environment
339: induced peaks in the electron transmission determine the shape
340: of the current-voltage curves even at reasonably high values of the
341: bias voltage applied across the fiber.
342:
343: In calculations of the current we employ the formula \cite{20}:
344: \be % f27,18
345: I = \frac{2en}{h} \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE T(E) [f_1(E) - f_2(E)].
346: \ee
347: Here, $ n $ is the number of the working channels in the fiber, $ f_{1,2}
348: (E) $ are Fermi functions taken with the different contact chemical
349: potentials $ \mu_{1,2} $ for the grains. The chemical potentials
350: differ due to the applied bias voltage $ \Delta V :$
351: \be % f28,19
352: \mu_1 = E_F + (1 - \eta) e \Delta V; \qquad
353: \mu_2 = E_F - \eta e \Delta V.
354: \ee
355: The parameter $ \eta $ characterizes how the voltage $ \Delta V $ is divided
356: between the grains; $ E_F $ is the equilibrium Fermi energy of the
357: system including the pair of grains and the resonance site in
358: between, and $ T (E) $ is the electron transmission function given
359: by Eq. (25).
360:
361:
362:
363: \begin{figure}[t]
364: \begin{center}
365: \includegraphics[width=8.9cm,height=4.7cm]{n20_6.eps}
366: \caption{
367: The current-voltage characteristics (nA--V) plotted for $ n =10,\ \ \Delta_L = \Delta_R
368: = 0.5 meV,\ \ \eta = 1/2,\ \ w = 100 meV,\\ J_0 = 20 meV $ (left panel), and
369: $ J_0 = 50 meV $ (right panel) at $ T = 100 K $ (dash lines) and $ T = 300K $
370: (solid lines).}
371: \label{rateI}
372: \end{center}
373: \end{figure}
374:
375: The resulting current-voltage characteristics are shown in the Fig.
376: 3. The current takes on low values $ (\sim 1 nA) $ because the
377: coupling of the grains to the intermediate state is weak due to
378: comparatively large distances between the grains \cite{2}.
379: Consequently, $ \Delta_{L,R}$ take on values much smaller than those
380: typical for electron transport through molecules placed between
381: metal leads. The $ I-V $ curves exhibit a nonlinear shape even at
382: room temperature despite the fact that the original state for the
383: resonance tunneling is completely suppressed. This occurs for the
384: intergrain transport is supported by new phonon induced electron
385: states. In this work we did not take a task of providing a
386: quantitative agreement between the theory and experimental results
387: obtained on conducting polymer fibers. However, in general, our
388: calculated $ I-V $ curves agree with the reported experiments
389: \cite{7}.
390:
391: \begin{figure}[t]
392: \begin{center}
393: %\includegraphics[width=5.5cm,height=6cm]{n20_1a.eps}
394: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm,height=6cm]{n20_5.eps}
395: \caption{Arrhenius plot of the peak value of the electron transmission function for $J_0 =20meV,\ w=100 meV,\ \Delta_L=\Delta_R= 0.5meV;\ \theta_0 = 8.6meV\ (T=100K).$ Solid line is plotted assuming the indirect coupling of the bridge to the phonon bath (Eqs. (11), (25)). Dashed line is plotted assuming that the bridge is directly coupled to the phonons (Eq. (29)).}
396: \label{rateI}
397: \end{center}
398: \end{figure}
399:
400: It is worthwhile to discuss the temperature dependence of
401: the peak value of the electron transmission which follows from the present results.
402: Using the expression (11) for the Green's function and the expression (22) for $ P(E) $ we may conclude that at low temperatures the transmission accepts small values, and exhibits rather weak temperature dependence. At higher temperatures $(T\sim 100K) $ the transmission increases fast as the temperature rises and then it reduces as the temperature further increases. The peak in the transmission is associated with the most favorable conditions for the environment induced states to exist when all remaining parameters (such as $J_0 $ and $w)$ are fixed. At high temperatures the peaks associated with the environment induced states are washed out, as usual.
403: This is shown in the Fig. 4. Also, basing on the results of the previous works \cite{5,15} we may analyze the temperature dependence of the electron transmission function assuming that the bridge between two adjacent grains is directly coupled to the phonon bath. In this case the transmission peak value may be presented in the form \cite{15}:
404: \be %f29
405: T(E) = 1 - \frac{\rho^4}{2(1+ \sqrt{1+\rho^2})^2}
406: \ee
407: where
408: \be %f30
409: \rho^2 = \frac{16J_0}{\omega_c} \frac{\theta^2}{(\Delta_L + \Delta_R)} \zeta \left(2;\frac{\theta}{\omega_c} +1\right) .
410: \ee
411: The temperature dependence of the transmission given by the Eq. (29) is also shown in the Fig. 4. Both curves are plotted at the same value of the electron-phonon coupling strength $ J_0. $ Comparing them we conclude that at higher temperatures the curves appear to differ. While the temperature rises, we observe a peak in the electron transmission assuming the indirect coupling of the bridge to the phonon bath, and we see the transmission to monotonically decrease when we consider the bridge directly coupled to the bath. Correspondingly, we may expect qualitative diversities to appear in the temperature dependencies of the current, as well. These diversities originate from the difference in the effects of environment on the intergrain electron transport in the cases of direct and indirect coupling of the bridge site to the phonon reservoir. When the bridge is directly coupled to the bath the stochastic motions in the environment only cause the peak in the electron transmission to be eroded, and the higher is the temperature the less distinguishable is the peak. However, when the bridge is screened from the direct coupling with the phonons due to the presence of the nearby sites,
412: the stochastic nuclear motions in the medium between the grains (especially those in the resonance chain) may take a very different part in the electron transport in conducting polymers at moderately low and room temperatures. Due to their influence the original intermediate state for the resonance tunneling may be completely suppresed but new environments induced states may appear providing the electron transport through the polymer nanofibers.
413:
414: \section{iii. conclusion}
415:
416:
417: Finally, studies of the electron transport in conducting polymers are not completed so far. There are solid grounds to expect significant dissipative effects in the intergrain transport at moderately high temperatures. As shown in the previous studies of the electron transport through molecules, various dissipative effects may occur depending on characteristic features in the interaction of a propagating electron with the environment. Among these features we may single out the character of the electron coupling to the dissipative reservoir (phonon bath) as a very significant factor. It is likely that in realistic conducting polymers both direct and indirect coupling of the intermediate state (the bridge) to the environment may occur. We need more experimental data concerning transport in these materials to determine which kind of coupling would prevail in a particular material under particular experimental conditions. The model adopted in the present work predicts that the temperature dependence of the electron transmission through the environment induced states crucially differs from that which is typical for the electron transport through the original bridge state directly coupled to the dephasing reservoir. So, the present results give means to experimentaly study distinctive features of the dissipative effects in the electron transport through conducting polymer nanofibers.
418:
419:
420:
421:
422:
423:
424:
425:
426: \section{Acknowledgments}
427: Author thank M. L. Klein and A. T. Johnson Jr. for useful discussions and G. M. Zimbovsky for help with the manuscript. This work was supported by NSF Advance program SBE-0123654 and PR Space Grant NGTS/40091.
428:
429:
430: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
431:
432: \bibitem{1} A. G. MacDiarmid, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 701 (2001).
433:
434: \bibitem{2} See e.g. V. N. Prigodin and A. J. Epstein, Synth. Met. {\bf 125},
435: 43 (2002) and references therein.
436:
437: \bibitem{3} J. Joo, Z. Oblakowski, G. Du, J. P. Ponget, E. J. Oh, J. M.
438: Wiessinger, Y. Min, A. G. MacDiarmid, and A. J. Epstein, Phys. Rev.
439: B {\bf 49}, 2977 (1994).
440:
441: \bibitem{4} J. P. Ponget, Z. Oblakowski, Y. Nogami, P. A. Albony, M. Laridjani,
442: E. J. Oh, Y. Min, A. J. MacDiarmid, J. Tsukamoto, T. Ishiguro, and A. J.
443: Epstein, Synth. Met. {\bf 65}, 131 (1994).
444:
445: \bibitem{5} N. A. Zimbovskaya, A. T. Johnson Jr., and N. J. Pinto, Phys. Rev. B
446: {\bf 72}, 024213 (2005).
447:
448: \bibitem{6} Yangxin Zhou, M. Freitag, J. Hone, C. Stali, A. T. Johnson Jr.,
449: N. J. Pinto, and A. G. MacDiarmid, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3800
450: (2003).
451:
452: \bibitem{7} A. Nitzan, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. {\bf 52}, 681 (2001).
453:
454: \bibitem{8} X. Q. Li and Y. Yan, Appl. Phys. lett. {\bf 81}, 925 (2001).
455:
456: \bibitem{9} M. Galperin, A. Ratner, and A. Nitzan, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 121},
457: 11965 (2004).
458:
459: \bibitem{10} R. Gutierrez, S. Mandal, and G. Cuniberti, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71},
460: 235116 (2005).
461:
462: \bibitem{11} R. G. Endres, D. L. Cox, and R. R. P. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys.
463: {\bf 76}, 195 (2004).
464:
465: \bibitem{12} F. L. Gervasio, P. Carloni, and M. Partinello, Phys. Rev. Lett.
466: {\bf 89}, 108102 (2002).
467:
468: \bibitem{13} N. A. Zimbovskaya, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 123}, 114708 (2005).
469:
470: \bibitem{14} M. Buttiker, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 3020 (1986).
471:
472: \bibitem{15} N. A. Zimbovskaya, cond-mat/0608591.
473:
474: \bibitem{16} U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, Vol. 10 in {\it Series in Modern Condesed Matter Physics} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
475:
476: \bibitem{17} G. Cuniberti, L. Craco, D. Porath, and C. Dekker, Phys. Rev. B
477: {\bf 65}, 241314(R) (2002).
478:
479: \bibitem{18} G. D. Mahan, {\it Many-Particle Physics} (Plenum, New
480: York, 2000).
481:
482: \bibitem{19} I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, {\it Tables of Integrals,
483: Series and Products} (Academic, New York, 2000).
484:
485: \bibitem{20} S. Datta, {\it Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems}
486: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995).
487:
488: \bibitem{21} See e.g. R. Pelster, G. Nimtz, and B. Wessling, Phys.Rev. B
489: {\bf 49}, 12718 (1994).
490:
491:
492: \end{thebibliography}
493:
494:
495: \end{document}
496:
497:
498:
499: \begin{figure}[t]
500: \begin{center}
501: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,height=8.8cm]{n20_2.eps}
502: %\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=4.3cm]{m6_3.eps}
503: %\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=8.6cm]{m6_0.eps}
504: \caption{}
505: \label{rateI}
506: \end{center}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509:
510:
511:
512:
513: \begin{figure}[t]
514: \begin{center}
515: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,height=8.8cm]{n20_0.eps}
516: %\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=4.3cm]{m6_3.eps}
517: %\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=8.6cm]{m6_0.eps}
518: \caption{}
519: \label{rateI}
520: \end{center}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523: pervaja versija risunkov
524: t=-10:0.005:10;
525: t1=1:0.1:40;
526: y1=0.0036./((t.^2).*(1-76.83*exp(-0.38*t.^2)).^2+0.0036*(1+18.3*exp(-0.38*t.^2)).^2);
527: y2=0.0036./((t.^2).*(1-1.537*exp(-19*t.^2)).^2+0.0036*(1+129.4*exp(-19*t.^2)).^2);
528: y3=0.0036./((t.^2).*(1-7.683*exp(-3.8*t.^2)).^2+0.0036*(1+57.87*exp(-3.8*t.^2)).^2);
529: y4=0.0036./((t.^2).*(1-7683*exp(-38*(t.^2))).^2+0.0036*(1+183*exp(-38*(t.^2))).^2);
530: y5=0.0036./((t.^2).*(1-153.66*exp(-1900*t.^2)).^2+0.0036*(1+1294*exp(-1900*t.^2)).^2);
531: y6=0.0036./((t.^2).*(1-768.3*exp(-380*t.^2)).^2+0.0036*(1+578.7*exp(-380*t.^2)).^2);
532: y7=0.0036./((t.^2)+0.0036);
533: z1=0.0077*t.*exp(-0.38*t.^2);
534: z2=-0.0347*exp(-0.38*t.^2);
535: z3=0.77*t.*exp(-38*t.^2);
536: z4=-0.347*exp(-38*t.^2);
537: z5=-log((1-5*(t1).^2.*exp(-0.00225*(t1).^2)).^2+(1+0.14*(t1).^2.*exp(-0.00225*(t1).^2)).^2);
538: subplot(2,2,3)
539: h=plot(t,y1,t,y2,t,y3);
540: set(h,'LineWidth',1,{'LineStyle'},{'-'})
541: set(h,{'Color'},{'k';'r';'b'})
542: axis([-4.5 4.5 -0.0022 0.044])
543: set(gca,'xtick',[-4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 ],'FontSize',16)
544: set(gca,'ytick',[0.0 0.02 0.04 ],'FontSize',16)
545: ylabel('\Delta M/M_0','FontSize',18);
546: xlabel('(B/B_0-1)\times10^2','FontSize',16)
547: subplot(2,2,2);
548: h1=plot(t,z1,t,z3);
549: set(h1,'LineWidth',1,{'LineStyle'},{'-'})
550: set(h1,{'Color'},{'r';'k'})
551: axis([-.9 .9 -0.06 0.06])
552: set(gca,'xtick',[-.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8],'FontSize',16)
553: set(gca,'ytick',[-.05 0 .05],'FontSize',16)
554: ylabel('\Delta M/M_0','FontSize',18)
555: subplot(2,2,4);
556: h2=plot(t,z4,t,z2);
557: set(h2,'LineWidth',1,{'LineStyle'},{'-'})
558: set(h2,{'Color'},{'k';'r'})
559: axis([-.9 .9 -0.42 0.06])
560: xlabel('(B/B_0-1)\times10^2','FontSize',16)
561: ylabel('\Delta M/M_0','FontSize',18)
562: set(gca,'xtick',[-.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8],'FontSize',16)
563: set(gca,'ytick',[-0.4 -.2 0 ],'FontSize',16)
564: subplot(2,2,1);
565: h3=plot(t,y4,t,y5,t,y6,t,y7);
566: set(h3,'LineWidth',1,{'LineStyle'},{'-'})
567: set(h3,{'Color'},{'k'})
568: axis([-0.7 0.7 -0.05 1.1])
569: ylabel('\Delta M/M_0','FontSize',18)
570: set(gca,'xtick',[-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6],'FontSize',16)
571: set(gca,'ytick',[0 0.5 1.0],'FontSize',16)
572: set(h3,'LineWidth',1,{'LineStyle'},{'-'})
573: set(h3,{'Color'},{'k';'g';'b';'r'})
574: