1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%555
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prb,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
5: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities\begin{normalsize}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
8: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
9:
10: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
11: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
12: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
13: \usepackage{epsfig}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: %\preprint{APS/123-QED}
18:
19: \title{
20: Effect of magnetic pair breaking on Andreev bound states and
21: resonant supercurrent in quantum dot Josephson junctions
22: }
23:
24: \author{Grygoriy Tkachov$^{1,2}$ and Klaus Richter$^{1}$}
25: \affiliation{
26: $^{1}$ Institute for Theoretical Physics, Regensburg University, 93040 Regensburg, Germany\\
27: $^{2}$ Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, 01187 Dresden, Germany
28: }
29:
30: %\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
31: % but any date may be explicitly specified
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We propose a model for resonant Josephson tunneling through quantum dots that
35: accounts for Cooper pair-breaking processes in the superconducting leads
36: caused by a magnetic field or spin-flip scattering.
37: The pair-breaking effect on the critical supercurrent $I_c$ and the Josephson current-phase
38: relation $I(\varphi)$ is largely due to the modification of the spectrum of Andreev bound states
39: below the reduced (Abrikosov-Gorkov) quasiparticle gap.
40: For a quantum dot formed in a quasi-one-dimensional channel,
41: both $I_c$ and $I(\varphi)$ can show a significant magnetic field dependence
42: induced by pair breaking
43: despite the suppression of the orbital magnetic field effect in the channel.
44: This case is relevant to recent experiments on quantum dot Josephson junctions in
45: carbon nanotubes.
46: Pair-breaking processes are taken into account via
47: the relation between the Andreev scattering matrix and
48: the quasiclassical Green functions of the superconductors in the Usadel limit.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \pacs{74.50.+r,73.63.-b}
52: % PACS:
53: %74.50.+r Tunneling phenomena; point contacts, weak links, Josephson effects
54: %73.63.-b Electronic transport in nanoscale materials and structures
55:
56:
57:
58: \maketitle
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: Since its discovery the Josephson effect~\cite{Josephson}
62: has been studied for a variety of
63: superconducting weak links~\cite{Likharev,Tinkham,Golubov}.
64: The research has recently entered a new phase with
65: the experimental realization of quantum dot weak links
66: exploiting electronic properties of finite-length carbon nanotubes
67: coupled to superconducting leads~\cite{Basel,Jarillo,Jorgensen}.
68: In particular, for the first time
69: since its theoretical prediction~\cite{Matveev,vanHouten,Beenakker}
70: resonant Josephson tunneling through discrete electronic states
71: has been observed in carbon nanotube quantum dots~\cite{Jarillo}.
72: As demonstrated in Refs.~\onlinecite{Jarillo,Jorgensen},
73: the novel type of weak links exhibits transistor-like
74: functionalities,
75: e.g. a periodic modulation of the critical current with a gate voltage
76: tuning successive energy levels
77: in the dot on- and off-resonance with the Fermi energy in the leads.
78: This property has already been implemented in a recently
79: proposed carbon nanotube superconducting quantum interference
80: device (CNT-SQUID)~\cite{SQUID} with possible applications
81: in the field of molecular magnetism.
82:
83: Motivated by the experiments on resonant Josephson tunneling,
84: in this paper we investigate theoretically
85: how robust it is with respect to pair-breaking perturbations
86: in the superconducting leads.
87: Cooper pair breaking can be induced by a number of factors,
88: e.g. by paramagnetic impurities~\cite{AG},
89: an external magnetic field~\cite{Maki}
90: or by structural inhomogeneities producing
91: spatial fluctuations of the superconducting coupling constant~\cite{Fluctuations}.
92: It can cause a drastic distortion of
93: the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superconducting
94: state, which manifests itself in the smearing of the BSC density of states
95: leading to gapless superconductivity~\cite{AG,Maki}.
96:
97: While the pair-breaking effect on bulk superconductivity is now
98: well understood, its implications for quantum superconducting transport
99: have been studied to a much lesser extent
100: [see, e.g. Refs.~\onlinecite{Golubov, Averin, Cuevas}]
101: which to our knowledge does not cover
102: Josephson tunneling through quantum dots.
103: On the other hand, in low-dimensional systems pair-breaking effects
104: may be observable in a common experimental situation when,
105: for instance, a carbon nanotube weak link is subject to a magnetic field.
106: Since the orbital field effect in the quasi-one-dimensional
107: channel is strongly suppressed,
108: pair breaking in the superconducting leads
109: can be the main source of the magnetic field dependence
110: of the Josephson current. This situation is addressed in our work.
111:
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \begin{figure}[b]
116: %\begin{center}
117: \epsfxsize=0.5\hsize
118: \epsffile{Cons.eps}
119: %\end{center}
120: \caption{Scheme of a superconducting constriction
121: with a normal scattering region $N$.
122: The arrows indicate the electrons (e) and holes (h)
123: incident on and outgoing from $N$.}
124: \label{Cons}
125: \end{figure}
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128: %
129:
130: The influence of pair breaking on the Josephson current can not, in general,
131: be accounted for by mere suppression of the order parameter in the superconducting leads.
132: As was pointed out in Ref.~\onlinecite{Averin}, it is a more subtle effect involving
133: the modification of the spectrum of current carrying states in the junction, in particular,
134: the subgap states usually referred to as Andreev bound states (ABS)~\cite{Beenakker,BS}.
135: We illustrate this idea for quantum dot junctions in the simple model
136: of a short superconducting constriction
137: with a scattering region containing a single Breit-Wigner resonance
138: near the Fermi energy.
139: The Josephson current is calculated using
140: the normal-state scattering matrix of the system
141: and the Andreev reflection matrix~\cite{vanHouten,Beenakker}.
142: Unlike Refs.~\onlinecite{vanHouten,Beenakker}
143: we focus on dirty superconductors
144: for which the Andreev matrix can be quite generally expressed in terms
145: of the quasiclassical Green functions~\cite{GolKup},
146: allowing us to treat pair breaking in the superconducting leads nonperturbatively.
147: Although we account for all energies
148: (below and above the Abrikosov-Gorkov gap $\Delta_{\bf g}$),
149: it turns out that the behavior of the Josephson current can be well understood
150: in terms of a pair-breaking-induced modification of the ABS,
151: which depends sensitively on the relation between the Breit-Wigner
152: resonance width $\Gamma$ and the superconducting pairing energy $\Delta$.
153: Both the critical supercurrent and the Josephson current-phase relation
154: are analyzed under experimentally realizable conditions.
155:
156: \section{Model and Formalism}
157:
158:
159: We consider a junction between two
160: superconductors $S_1$ and $S_2$
161: adiabatically narrowing into quasi-one-dimensional ballistic wires
162: $S^\prime_1$ and $S^\prime_2$ coupled to
163: a normal conductor $N$ [Fig.~\ref{Cons}].
164: The transformation from the superconducting electron spectrum to
165: the normal-metal one is assumed to take place
166: at the boundaries $S_1S^\prime_1$ and $S^\prime_2S_2$,
167: implying the pairing potential of the form~\cite{Likharev}:
168: $\Delta(x)=\Delta{\rm e}^{i\varphi_1}$ for $x<-L/2$,
169: $\Delta(x)=0$ for $|x|\leq L/2$
170: and $\Delta(x)=\Delta{\rm e}^{i\varphi_2}$ for $x>L/2$
171: with the order parameter phase difference $\varphi\equiv\varphi_2-\varphi_1$
172: and the junction length $L\ll\hbar v_F/\Delta$
173: ($v_F$ is the Fermi velocity in $S_{1,2}$).
174:
175: The Josephson coupling can be interpreted in terms of the Andreev process~\cite{Andreev}
176: whereby an electron is retro-reflected as a Fermi-sea hole
177: from one of the superconductors with the subsequent hole-to-electron
178: conversion in the other one.
179: Such an Andreev reflection circle facilitates a Cooper pair transfer
180: between $S_1$ and $S_2$.
181: Normal backscattering from disordered superconducting bulk
182: into a single-channel junction is suppressed
183: due to the smallness of the junction width compared to
184: the elastic mean free path $\ell$.
185: The $N$ region in the middle of the junction
186: is thus supposed to be the only source of normal scattering.
187: In such type of weak links the Josephson current
188: is conveniently described by the scattering matrix expression
189: of Refs.~\onlinecite{Beenakker,Brouwer}
190: that can be written at finite temperature $T$
191: as the following sum over the Matsubara frequencies
192: $\omega_n=(2n+1)\pi k_BT$~[Ref.~\onlinecite{Brouwer}]:
193: \!
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: I=-\frac{2e}{\hbar}\, 2k_BT\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}
196: \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}
197: \ln\,{\rm Det}\left[
198: \hat{1}-\hat{s}_A(E)\hat{s}_N(E)
199: \right]_{E=i\omega_n.}
200: \label{I}
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: %
203: Here $\hat{s}_N(E)$ is a $4\times 4$ unitary matrix
204: relating the incident electron and hole waves on the $N$ region
205: to the outgoing ones [Fig.~\ref{Cons}].
206: It is diagonal in the electron-hole space:
207:
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \hat{s}_N=
210: \left[
211: \begin{array}{cc}
212: s_{ee}(E) & 0\\
213: 0 & s_{hh}(E)
214: \end{array}
215: \right],
216: \,
217: s_{ee}(E)=
218: \left[
219: \begin{array}{cc}
220: r_{11}(E) & t_{12}(E)\\
221: t_{21}(E) & r_{22}(E)
222: \end{array}
223: \right].
224: \nonumber
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: %
227: The matrix $s_{ee}(E)$ describes electron
228: scattering in terms of the reflection
229: and transmission amplitudes, $r_{jk}(E)$ and $t_{jk}(E)$,
230: for a transition from $S^\prime_k$ to $S^\prime_j$
231: ($j,k=1,2$).
232: The hole scattering matrix is related
233: to the electron one by $s_{hh}(E)=s^*_{ee}(-E)$.
234: The Andreev scattering matrix $\hat{s}_A(E)$
235: is off-diagonal in the electron-hole space:
236:
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: \hat{s}_A=
239: \left[
240: \begin{array}{cc}
241: 0 & s_{eh}(E)\\
242: s_{he}(E) & 0
243: \end{array}
244: \right],
245: \label{A}
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: %
248: where the $2\times 2$ matrices $s_{he}(E)$ and $s_{eh}(E)$
249: govern the electron-to-hole and hole-to-electron scattering
250: off the superconductors.
251: Equation (\ref{I}) is valid for all energies
252: as long as normal scattering from the superconductors is absent~\cite{Beenakker,Brouwer}.
253:
254: In Ref.~\onlinecite{Beenakker} the Andreev matrix (\ref{A})
255: was obtained by matching
256: the solutions of the Bogolubov-de Gennes
257: equations in the wires $S^\prime_{1,2}$
258: to the corresponding solutions
259: in impurity-free leads.
260: Gorkov's Green function formalism
261: in combination with the quasiclassical theory~\cite{Quasi}
262: allows one to generalize the results of Ref.~\onlinecite{Beenakker}
263: to dirty leads with a short mean free path
264: $\ell\ll\hbar v_F/\Delta$.
265: In the latter case the matrices $s_{he}(E)$ and $s_{eh}(E)$
266: can be expressed in terms of the
267: quasiclassical Green functions of the superconductors
268: as follows~\cite{GolKup}:
269:
270: \begin{eqnarray*}
271: s_{eh}=
272: \left[
273: \begin{array}{cc}
274: \frac{f_1(E)}{g_1(E)+1} & 0\\
275: 0 & \frac{f_2(E)}{g_2(E)+1}
276: \end{array}
277: \right],
278: \,
279: s_{he}=
280: \left[
281: \begin{array}{cc}
282: \frac{-f^\dagger_1(E)}{g_1(E)+1} & 0\\
283: 0 & \frac{-f^\dagger_2(E)}{g_2(E)+1}
284: \end{array}
285: \right].
286: \end{eqnarray*}
287: %
288: Here $g_{1,2}$ and $f_{1,2}$ ($f^\dagger_{1,2}$)
289: are, respectively, the normal and anomalous retarded Green
290: functions in $S_{1,2}$.
291: These matrices are diagonal in the electrode space
292: due to a local character of Andreev reflection in our geometry.
293:
294:
295:
296: Neglecting the influence of the narrow weak link
297: on the bulk superconductivity,
298: we can use the Green functions of
299: the uncoupled superconductors $S_{1,2}$
300: described by the position-independent
301: Usadel equation~\cite{Quasi},
302: \,
303: \begin{eqnarray}
304: \left[E\hat\tau_3+\hat\Delta_j+\frac{i\hbar}{2\tau_{pb}}\,
305: \hat\tau_3\hat g_j\hat\tau_3\,,\,\hat g_j\right]=0,
306: \label{Usadel}
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: %
309: with the normalization condition $\hat g_j^2=\hat\tau_0$
310: for the matrix Green function
311: \,
312: \begin{eqnarray*}
313: \hat g_j=\left[
314: \begin{array}{cc}
315: g_j & f_j\\
316: f^\dagger_j & -g_j
317: \end{array}
318: \right],
319: \,\,
320: \hat\Delta_j=\left[
321: \begin{array}{cc}
322: 0 & \Delta {\rm e}^{i\varphi_j}\\
323: -\Delta {\rm e}^{-i\varphi_j} & 0
324: \end{array}
325: \right],
326: \,\,
327: j=1,2.
328: \end{eqnarray*}
329: %
330: Here $\hat\tau_0$ and $\hat\tau_3$ are the unity and Pauli matrices,
331: respectively, and $[...,...]$ denotes a commutator.
332: Equation~(\ref{Usadel}) accounts for a finite pair-breaking
333: rate $\tau^{-1}_{pb}$ whose
334: microscopic expression depends on the nature of
335: the pair-breaking mechanism.
336: For instance, for thin superconducting films in a parallel magnetic field,
337: $\tau^{-1}_{pb}=(v_F\ell/18)(\pi dB/\Phi_0)^2$~[Ref.~\onlinecite{Maki}]
338: where $d$ is the film thickness and $\Phi_0$ is the flux quantum.
339: For paramagnetic impurities,
340: $\tau_{pb}$ coincides with the spin-flip time~\cite{AG}.
341: In the case of the spatial fluctuations of the superconducting coupling,
342: $\tau^{-1}_{pb}$ is proportional to the variance of the fluctuations~\cite{Fluctuations}.
343:
344: From Eq.~(\ref{Usadel}) one obtains the Green functions
345: \!
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: &&
348: g_j=\frac{u}{\sqrt{u^2-1}}=
349: u{\rm e}^{-i\varphi_j} f_j,\quad
350: f^\dagger_j=-{\rm e}^{-2i\varphi_j}f_j,
351: \label{Green}\\
352: &&
353: \frac{E}{\Delta}=u\left(1-\frac{\zeta}{\sqrt{1-u^2}}\right),\quad
354: \zeta=\frac{\hbar}{\tau_{pb}\Delta},
355: \label{u}
356: \end{eqnarray}
357: %
358: where, following Refs.~\onlinecite{AG,Maki},
359: we introduce a dimensionless pair-breaking parameter $\zeta$.
360: The matrices $s_{eh}$ and $s_{he}$
361: can be expressed using Eqs.~(\ref{Green}) as follows:
362: \!
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: &
365: s_{eh}=\alpha
366: \left[
367: \begin{array}{cc}
368: {\rm e}^{i\varphi_1} & 0\\
369: 0 & {\rm e}^{i\varphi_2}
370: \end{array}
371: \right],
372: \,\,
373: s_{he}=\alpha
374: \left[
375: \begin{array}{cc}
376: {\rm e}^{-i\varphi_1} & 0\\
377: 0 & {\rm e}^{-i\varphi_2}
378: \end{array}
379: \right],&
380: \label{SA}\\
381: &\alpha=u-\sqrt{u^2-1}.&
382: \label{a}
383: \end{eqnarray}
384: %
385: We note that pair breaking modifies
386: the energy dependence of the Andreev reflection amplitude
387: $\alpha$ according to the non-BCS Green functions (\ref{Green}) and (\ref{u}).
388: A few words concerning the applicability of this result are due here.
389:
390: First of all, there is no restriction on energy $E$, e.g.
391: for $\zeta\leq 1$, equations (\ref{SA}) and (\ref{a}) are
392: valid both below and above the reduced (Abrikosov-Gorkov)
393: quasiparticle gap $\Delta_{\bf g}=\Delta\left(1-\zeta^{2/3}\right)^{3/2}$.
394: In particular, for $|E|\leq\Delta_{\bf g}$ one can show that
395: $u$ is real and $|u|\leq(1-\zeta^{2/3})^{1/2}<1$ [Ref.~\onlinecite{Maki}],
396: corresponding to perfect Andreev reflection with
397: $\alpha=\exp(-i\arccos(u))$.
398: Since in the Usadel limit $\ell\ll v_F\tau_{pb}$,
399: normal scattering from the superconductors is suppressed
400: due to the smallness of the junction width
401: also in the presence of pair breaking.
402: The absence of normal transmission at $|E|\leq\Delta_{\bf g}$
403: is consistent with the Abrikosov-Gorkov approach
404: assuming no impurity states inside the gap and
405: the validity of the Born approximation~\cite{AG,Maki}.
406: For $|E|\geq\Delta_{\bf g}$ the relevant solution of Eq.~(\ref{u})
407: is complex and has positive ${\rm Im}u$ related to the density of states
408: of the superconductor~\cite{Maki}.
409: Equations (\ref{u}) and (\ref{a}) are thus the generalization
410: of the known result $\alpha=(E/\Delta_0)-\sqrt{(E/\Delta_0)^2-1}$ [Ref.~\onlinecite{BTK}]
411: for transparent point contact,
412: where $\Delta_0\equiv\Delta|_{\zeta=0}$ is the BCS gap.
413: It is convenient to measure all energies in units of $\Delta_0$
414: for which equations (\ref{Green})--(\ref{a}) should be complemented with
415: the self-consistency equation for $\Delta$.
416: At $T=0$, the case we are eventually interested in, this equation can be written as
417: ~\cite{AG,Maki}:
418: \!
419: \begin{eqnarray}
420: \ln(\zeta_0/\zeta)&=&-\pi\zeta/4, \qquad\zeta\leq 1,
421: \label{OP1}\\
422: \ln(\zeta_0/\zeta)&=&\sqrt{\zeta^2-1}/(2\zeta)-\ln(\zeta+\sqrt{\zeta^2-1})-
423: \label{OP2}\\
424: &-&(\zeta/2)\arctan\left( 1/\sqrt{\zeta^2-1} \right), \qquad \zeta\geq 1,
425: \nonumber
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: %
428: with $\zeta$ being now a function of a new pair-breaking parameter
429: $\zeta_0=\hbar/(\tau_{pb}\Delta_0)$ ranging from zero to the critical value $\zeta_0=0.5$
430: at which $\zeta=\infty$ and $\Delta=0$~\cite{AG,Maki}.
431:
432: Inserting Eqs.~(\ref{A}) and (\ref{SA}) for $\hat{s}_A(E)$
433: into Eq.~(\ref{I}) and taking the limit $T\to 0$
434: we obtain the Josephson current for an arbitrary $\hat{s}_N(E)$
435: as
436: \!
437: \begin{eqnarray}
438: &&
439: I=-\frac{4e}{h}
440: \int_{0}^{\infty}d\omega
441: \frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}
442: \ln\,
443: \left\{\right.
444: 1+
445: \nonumber\\
446: &&
447: \alpha^4\,{\rm Det}\,s_{ee}(E)\,{\rm Det}\,s^*_{ee}(-E)-
448: \nonumber\\
449: &&
450: \alpha^2\,\left[r_{11}(E)r^*_{11}(-E)+r_{22}(E)r^*_{22}(-E)+\right.
451: \label{I0}\\
452: &&
453: \left.
454: \left.
455: {\rm e}^{-i\varphi}t_{21}(E)t^*_{12}(-E)+ {\rm e}^{i\varphi}t_{12}(E)t^*_{21}(-E)
456: \right]
457: \right\}_{E=i\omega.}
458: \nonumber
459: \end{eqnarray}
460: %
461:
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
465: \begin{figure}[t]
466: \begin{center}
467: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize
468: \epsffile{BS_15.eps}
469: \end{center}
470: \caption{Phase dependence of the Andreev bound state for a broad resonant level
471: with $\Gamma=15\Delta_0$ close to the Fermi energy ($E_r=0.1\Gamma$);
472: dashed line shows the normalized gap for a given value of the pair-breaking parameter
473: $\zeta_0$.}
474: \label{E15}
475: \end{figure}
476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478: %
479:
480: \section{Andreev bound states in a resonant junction}
481:
482: Let us assume that the $N$ region is a small quantum dot
483: and electrons can only tunnel via one of its levels
484: characterized by its position $E_r$
485: with respect to the Fermi level and broadening $\Gamma$.
486: For the simplest Breit-Wigner scattering matrix with
487: $r_{11}=r_{22}=(E-E_r)/(E-E_r+i\Gamma)$ and
488: $t_{12}=t_{21}=\Gamma/i(E-E_r+i\Gamma)$,
489: equation (\ref{I0}) reads
490: \!
491: \begin{eqnarray}
492: &
493: I=-(2e/h){\cal T}\sin\varphi
494: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\omega
495: \times&
496: \label{I1}\\
497: &
498: \left\{
499: u^2\left(
500: {\cal R}+{\cal T}\left( 1+ \frac{ \sqrt{1-u^2}-\zeta }{\Gamma/\Delta} \right)^2
501: \right)
502: -1+{\cal T}\sin^2\left(\frac{\varphi}{2}\right)
503: \right\}^{-1}_{E=i\omega.}&
504: \nonumber
505: \end{eqnarray}
506: %
507: where ${\cal T}=1-{\cal R}=\Gamma^2/(E^2_r+\Gamma^2)$
508: is the Breit-Wigner transmission probability
509: at the Fermi level.
510: The parameter $\Gamma/\Delta$ accounts for the energy dependence
511: of the resonant superconducting tunneling.
512: In Eq.~(\ref{I1}) the integrand has, in general, poles given by the equation
513: \begin{eqnarray}
514: &
515: u^2\left(
516: {\cal R}+{\cal T}\left( 1+ \frac{ \sqrt{1-u^2}-\zeta }{\Gamma/\Delta} \right)^2
517: \right)
518: =1-{\cal T}\sin^2\left(\frac{\varphi}{2}\right).&
519: \label{Eq}
520: \end{eqnarray}
521: %
522: Along with Eq.~(\ref{u}) they determine
523: the energies of the Andreev bound states (ABS) localized
524: below the Abrikosov-Gorkov gap $\Delta_{\bf g}=\Delta\left(1-\zeta^{2/3}\right)^{3/2}$.
525: It is instructive to understand how the pair breaking modifies the ABS spectrum
526: since this is reflected on both the current-phase relation $I(\varphi)$
527: and the critical current $I_c\equiv\max\,I(\varphi)$.
528:
529:
530: We start our analysis with an analytically accessible case
531: of an infinitely broad resonant level,
532: $\Gamma/\Delta\to\infty$, where Eq.~(\ref{Eq}) reduces to
533: $u^2=1-{\cal T}\sin^2(\varphi/2)$, yielding the ABS energies $\pm E(\varphi)$ [see, Eq.~(\ref{u})]:
534: \!
535: \begin{eqnarray}
536: E(\varphi)=\Delta\sqrt{1-{\cal T}\sin^2(\varphi/2)}
537: \left[
538: 1-\frac{\zeta}{\sqrt{{\cal T}}|\sin(\varphi/2)|}
539: \right].
540: \label{broad}
541: \end{eqnarray}
542: %
543: Requiring $E(\varphi)\leq\Delta_{\bf g}$ we find that
544: the ABS exist in the phase interval where $\sin^2(\varphi/2)\geq\zeta^{2/3}/{\cal T}$
545: and only if $\zeta^{2/3}\leq {\cal T}$.
546: The numerical solution of Eqs.~(\ref{u}), (\ref{OP1}) and (\ref{Eq})
547: confirms that the interval of the existence of ABS
548: gradually shrinks from $0\leq\varphi\leq 2\pi$
549: to a narrower one with increasing pair breaking [see, Fig.~\ref{E15}].
550: Outside this interval the Josephson current is carried by the continuum states
551: ($E\geq\Delta_{\bf g}$) alone, which is automatically accounted for by Eq.~(\ref{I1}).
552: An equation of the same form as Eq.~(\ref{broad})
553: was derived earlier for a nonresonant system
554: and by a different method~\cite{Averin}.
555:
556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
559: \begin{figure}[t]
560: \begin{center}
561: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize
562: \epsffile{BS_03.eps}
563: \end{center}
564: \caption{
565: Phase dependence of the Andreev bound state for a narrow resonant level
566: with $\Gamma=0.3\Delta_0$ and $E_r=0.1\Gamma$.
567: }
568: \label{E03}
569: \end{figure}
570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
571: %%%%%%%%%
572:
573: By contrast, the ABS spectrum for a narrow resonant level
574: turns out to be much less sensitive to pair breaking.
575: Indeed, under condition $\Gamma/\Delta\ll 1-\zeta$ equations~(\ref{u}) and
576: (\ref{Eq}) reproduce the known result,
577: $E(\varphi)=\sqrt{E^2_r+\Gamma^2}\sqrt{1-{\cal T}\sin^2(\varphi/2)}$
578: [Refs.~\onlinecite{vanHouten,Golubov}].
579: In particular, for $E_r\to 0$ the ABS exist within the resonance width,
580: $E(\varphi)<\Gamma$
581: and are separated from the continuum by a gap $\Delta_{\bf g}-\Gamma$.
582: Solving Eqs.~(\ref{u}), (\ref{OP1}) and (\ref{Eq}) numerically,
583: we find that until this gap closes at a certain value of $\zeta_0$,
584: the ABS spectrum remains virtually intact [see, Fig.~\ref{E03}].
585: For bigger $\zeta_0$, the spectrum gets modified in a way similar
586: to the previous case [cf., third panels in Figs.~\ref{E15} and~\ref{E03}].
587: In the case of a very narrow resonance, the characteristic value of $\zeta_0$ is $\approx 0.45$,
588: corresponding to $\zeta\approx 1$,
589: i.e. to the onset of gapless superconductivity~\cite{AG,Maki}.
590:
591:
592:
593: \section{Critical current and current-phase relation: Results and Discussion}
594:
595: For numerical evaluation of the Josephson current (\ref{I1})
596: we first put $E=i\omega$ in Eq.~(\ref{u}) and then make the transformation
597: $u\to i\nu$, yielding $\omega/\Delta=\nu(1-\zeta/\sqrt{1+\nu^2})$.
598: Using this relation, in Eq.~(\ref{I1}) we change to the integration over $\nu$
599: with the Jakobian $d\omega/d\nu=\Delta[1-\zeta/(1+\nu^2)^{3/2}]$:
600: \!
601: \begin{eqnarray}
602: &
603: I=(2e\Delta/h){\cal T}\sin\varphi
604: \int\limits_{\nu_0}^{\infty}d\nu\,\left(1-\frac{\zeta}{(1+\nu^2)^{3/2}}\right)
605: \times&
606: \label{I2}\\
607: &
608: \left\{
609: \nu^2\left(
610: {\cal R}+{\cal T}\left( 1+ \frac{ \sqrt{1+\nu^2}-\zeta }{\Gamma/\Delta} \right)^2
611: \right)
612: +1-{\cal T}\sin^2\left(\frac{\varphi}{2}\right)
613: \right\}^{-1}.&
614: \nonumber
615: \end{eqnarray}
616: %
617: Positiveness of $\omega$ in Eq.~(\ref{I1}) enforces the choice of
618: the lower integration limit: $\nu_0=0$ for $\zeta\leq 1$ and $\nu_0=\sqrt{\zeta^2-1}$
619: for $\zeta\geq 1$.
620:
621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
625: \begin{figure}[t]
626: \begin{center}
627: \epsfxsize=0.7\hsize
628: \epsffile{Ic_OP.eps}
629: \end{center}
630: \caption{On-resonance critical current vs. pair-breaking parameter
631: $\zeta_0=\hbar/(\tau_{pb}\Delta_0)$ for different $\Gamma/\Delta_0$.
632: The behavior of the normalized order parameter~\cite{AG,Maki}
633: is shown, for comparison, in red.
634: }
635: \label{Iz}
636: \end{figure}
637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
638: %%%
639: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
642: \begin{figure}[b]
643: \begin{center}
644: \epsfxsize=0.7\hsize
645: \epsffile{If.eps}
646: \end{center}
647: \caption{
648: On-resonance current-phase relation for different values
649: of the pair-breaking parameter $\zeta_0$ and $\Gamma=\Delta_0$.}
650: \label{I_f}
651: \end{figure}
652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
653: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
654:
655: Using Eqs.~(\ref{OP1}), (\ref{OP2}) and (\ref{I2}) we are able to
656: analyze the critical current $I_c\equiv\max\,I(\varphi)$ in the whole
657: range of the pair-breaking parameter, $0\leq\zeta_0\leq 0.5$
658: [see, Fig.~\ref{Iz}].
659: In line with the discussed behavior of the Andreev bound states,
660: for a narrow resonance, $\Gamma/\Delta_0\ll 1$,
661: the critical current starts to drop significantly only upon entering
662: the gapless superconductivity regime $0.45\leq\zeta_0\leq 0.5$.
663: On the other hand, for a broad resonance, $\Gamma/\Delta_0\gg 1$,
664: the suppression of $I_c$ is almost linear in the whole range.
665: We note that in both cases the behavior of $I_c$
666: strongly deviates from that of the bulk order parameter (red curve)~\cite{AG,Maki}
667: largely due to the pair-breaking effect on the ABS.
668: In practice, the $I_c(\zeta_0)$ dependence can be measured by applying
669: a magnetic field [the case where $\zeta_0=(B/B_*)^2$ and
670: $B_*=(\Phi_0/\pi d)\sqrt{18\Delta_0/\hbar v_F\ell}$]
671: in an experiment similar to Ref.~\onlinecite{Jarillo}
672: where a quantum dot, defined in a single-wall carbon nanotube,
673: was strongly coupled to the leads with the ratio $\Gamma/\Delta_0\approx 10$.
674: Carbon nanotube quantum dots with lower $\Gamma/\Delta_0$ values are
675: accessible experimentally, too~\cite{Basel,SQUID}.
676:
677:
678:
679: We also found that the crossover between the gapped and gapless regimes
680: is accompanied by a qualitative change in the shape of the Josephson
681: current-phase relation $I(\varphi)$ as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{I_f}
682: for the on-resonance case $E_r=0$ and $\Gamma=\Delta_0$.
683: The $I(\varphi)$ relation is anharmonic
684: as long as the junction with $\Delta_{\bf g}\not=0$ supports the ABS (black and blue curves).
685: The vanishing of the ABS upon entering the gapless regime
686: leads to a nearly sinusoidal current-phase relation (red curve).
687: A closely related effect
688: is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{I_E} showing the modification of the critical current resonance
689: lineshape with the increasing pair-breaking strength.
690: In the absence of pair breaking it is nonanalytic near $E_r=0$ (black curves)
691: reflecting the anharmonic $I(\varphi)$ due to the ABS in a transparent channel~\cite{vanHouten,Beenakker}.
692: On approaching the gapless regime this singularity is smeared out
693: (red curves), which is accompanied by
694: the suppression of the $I_c$ amplitude.
695: At finite temperatures $T\ll\Delta/k_B$
696: the pair-breaking-induced smearing of the resonance peak
697: will enhance the usual temperature effect.
698:
699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
702: \begin{figure}[t]
703: \begin{center}
704: \epsfxsize=0.95\hsize
705: \epsffile{IE.eps}
706: \end{center}
707: \caption{Critical current vs. resonant level position:
708: $\zeta_0=0$ (black), $\zeta_0=0.25$ (blue) and $\zeta_0=0.45$ (red).}
709: \label{I_E}
710: \end{figure}
711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
713:
714:
715:
716: In conclusion, we have proposed a model describing resonant Josephson tunneling through
717: a quantum dot beyond the conventional BCS picture of the superconducting state
718: in the leads. It allows for nonperturbative treatment of pair-breaking processes induced
719: by a magnetic field or paramagnetic impurities in diffusive superconductors.
720: We considered no Coulomb blockade effects, assuming small charging energy in the dot
721: $E_C\ll\Delta_0,\Gamma$, which was, for instance, the case in the experiment of Ref.~\onlinecite{Jarillo}.
722: Our predictions, however, should be qualitatively correct also
723: for weakly coupled dots with $\Gamma\leq E_C\ll\Delta_0$ at least as far as
724: the dependence of the ctitical supercurrent
725: on the pair-breaking parameter is concerned.
726: Indeed, for a narrow resonance the Andreev bound states
727: begin to respond to pair breaking only when the gap $\Delta_{\bf g}$ becomes sufficiently small
728: [see, Fig.~\ref{E03}] so that
729: for a finite $E_C\ll\Delta_0$ one can expect a sharp transition to the resistive state, too,
730: similar to that shown in Fig.~\ref{Iz} for $\Gamma/\Delta_0\ll 1$.
731:
732: We thank D. Averin, C. Bruder, P. Fulde, A. Golubov, M. Hentschel, T. Novotny,
733: V. Ryazanov and C. Strunk for useful discussions.
734: Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
735: (GRK 638 at Regensburg University) is gratefully acknowledged.
736:
737:
738:
739:
740:
741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
742: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
744: \bibitem{Josephson}
745: B. D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. {\bf 1}, 251 (1962).
746:
747: \bibitem{Likharev}
748: K. K. Likharev, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 51}, 101 (1979).
749:
750:
751: \bibitem{Tinkham}
752: M.~Tinkham, {\em Introduction to Superconductivity}
753: (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996).
754:
755:
756: \bibitem{Golubov}
757: A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, and E. Il'ichev, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 76}, 411 (2004).
758:
759:
760: \bibitem{Basel}
761: M. R. Buitelaar, W. Belzig, T. Nussbaumer, B. Babic, C. Bruder,
762: and C. Sch{\"o}nenberger,
763: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 057005 (2003).
764:
765:
766: \bibitem{Jarillo}
767: P. Jarillo-Herrero, J.A. van Dam, and L.P. Kouwenhoven, Nature {\bf 439}, 953 (2006).
768:
769:
770: \bibitem{Jorgensen}
771: H.I. Jorgensen, K. Grove-Rasmussen, T. Novotny, K. Flensberg,
772: and P.E. Lindelof, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 207003 (2006).
773:
774:
775: \bibitem{Matveev}
776: L.I. Glazman and K.A. Matveev, Pis'ma Zh. Eskp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 49}, 570 (1989) [JETP Lett. {\bf 49}, 659 (1989)].
777:
778:
779: \bibitem{vanHouten}
780: C. W. J. Beenakker and H. van Houten,
781: in {\em Single-electron Tunneling and Mesoscopic Devices}, edited by H. Koch and H. L{\"u}bbig, p. 175
782: (Springer, Berlin, 1992).
783:
784:
785: \bibitem{Beenakker}
786: C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67}, 3836 (1991);
787: in {\em Transport Phenomena in Mesoscopic Systems},
788: edited by H. Fukuyama and T. Ando, p. 235 (Springer, Berlin 1992).
789:
790:
791: \bibitem{SQUID}
792: J.-P. Cleuziou, W. Wernsdorfer, V. Bouchiat, T. Ondarcuhu and M. Monthioux,
793: Nature Nanotechnology {\bf 1}, 53 (2006).
794:
795:
796: \bibitem{AG}
797: A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gorkov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 39}, 1781 (1960)
798: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 12}, 1243 (1961)].
799:
800:
801: \bibitem{Maki}
802: K. Maki, in {\em Superconductivity}, edited by R. D. Parks (Dekker, New York, V.2, 1969);
803: K. Maki and P. Fulde, Phys. Rev. {\bf 140}, A1586 (1965).
804:
805:
806: \bibitem{Fluctuations}
807: A.I. Larkin and Yu.N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 61}, 2147 (1971) [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 34}, 1144 (1972)].
808:
809:
810: \bibitem{Averin}
811: A.V. Zaitsev and D. V. Averin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 3602 (1998).
812:
813: \bibitem{Cuevas}
814: J. C. Cuevas and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70}, 214512 (2004).
815:
816: \bibitem{BS}
817: I.O. Kulik, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 57}, 1745 (1969)
818: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 30}, 944 (1969)];
819: C. Ishii, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 44}, 1525. (1970).
820:
821: \bibitem{GolKup}
822: This follows from the theory of
823: A.A. Golubov and M.Yu. Kupriyanov, Physica C {\bf 259}, 27 (1996),
824: generalizing the results of Ref.\onlinecite{BTK} to disordered superconductors.
825:
826:
827: \bibitem{Andreev}
828: A.F. Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 46}, 1823 (1964)
829: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 19}, 1228 (1964)].
830:
831: \bibitem{Brouwer}
832: P.W. Brouwer and C.W.J. Beenakker, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals {\bf 8},
833: 1249 (1997).
834:
835: \bibitem{Quasi}
836: G. Eilenberger, Z. Phys. {\bf 214}, 195 (1968);
837: A.I. Larkin and Yu.N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor Fiz. {\bf 55}, 2262 (1968)
838: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 28}, 1200 (1969)];
839: K.D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 25}, 507 (1970)
840:
841: \bibitem{BTK}
842: G.E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T.M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 25}, 4515 (1982).
843:
844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
845: \end{thebibliography}
846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
847:
848: \end{document}
849:
850:
851: % ****** End of file apssamp.tex ******
852:
853: %
854: %
855: \bibitem{EM}
856: {\em Single Charge Tunneling}, edited by H. Grabert and M. N. Devoret (Plenum Press, New York, 1992).
857:
858:
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
865: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
866: %%%%%%%%%%%% BUFFER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
867: %%%%%%%%%%%% BUFFER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
868: %%%%%%%%%%%% BUFFER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
869: %%%%%%%%%%%% BUFFER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
870: %%%%%%%%%%%% BUFFER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
874:
875: $
876: {\bf k}_S=\nabla\varphi-2\pi{\bf A}/\Phi_0,
877: $
878:
879: \begin{eqnarray}
880: \Delta(x)=
881: \left\{
882: \begin{array}{cc}
883: \Delta{\rm e}^{i\varphi_1} &{\rm if} x<-L/2,\\
884: 0 &{\rm if} |x|\leq L/2,\\
885: \Delta{\rm e}^{i\varphi_2} &{\rm if} x>L/2,
886: \end{array}
887: \right.
888: \end{eqnarray}
889: %
890:
891: Non-Breit-Wigner resonant supercurrents\\
892: in quantum Josephson transistors with pair-breaking
893:
894: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
895: a typical effect of the pair-breaking on the dependence $E(\varphi)$.
896: Unlike the case $\zeta=0$,
897: for a non-zero depairing parameter ($\zeta=0.3$) the ABS
898: exists only in a finite interval of phases with the center at $\varphi=\pi$.
899: At the ends of this interval the curve $E(\varphi)$ approaches
900: the superconductor gap $\Delta_{\zeta}(\zeta)$ with a vanishing derivative.
901:
902: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
903: \bibitem{Fistul}
904: L.G. Aslamazov and M.V. Fistul', Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 56}, 666 (1982).
905: A. V. Balatsky, I. Vekhter, and Jian-Xin Zhu, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 78}, 373 (2006).
906:
907:
908:
909:
910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
911: \bibitem{AGD}
912: A.~A.~Abrikosov, L.~P.~Gorkov, I.~E.~Dzyaloshinski,
913: {\it Methods of quantum field theory in statistical physics},
914: (Prentice-Hall Inc, 1963).
915:
916: \bibitem{Ambegaokar}
917: V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 10}, 486 (1963).
918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
919:
920:
921: Its influence on the Josephson current can be interpreted
922: in terms of Andreev reflection~\cite{Andreev,BTK} that mediates
923: the Cooper pair exchange between the nonideal condensates,
924: as discussed earlier for nonresonant junctions~\cite{Averin}.
925: Common causes of pair breaking include
926: Since the superconducting contacts usually have a rather complex alloy structure
927: (as e.g. in Refs.~\cite{Basel,Jarillo,Jorgensen}),
928: it is conceivable that some type of pair-breaking is always present in the leads.