1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prb,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: 

4: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities

5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

8: 

9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

10: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

12: \usepackage{epsf}

13: 

14: %\nofiles

15: 

16: \newcommand{\hpl}[1]{[{\bf hpl: #1}]}

17: \newcommand{\sr}[1]{[{\bf sr: #1}]}

18: \newcommand{\mk}[1]{[{\bf mk: #1}]}

19: 

20: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

22: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

24: \newcommand{\beqan}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

25: \newcommand{\eeqan}{\end{eqnarray*}}

26: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}

27: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}}

28: \newcommand{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

29: \newcommand{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

30: 

31: \newcommand{\refeq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

32: \newcommand{\code}[1]{{\smaller\texttt{#1}}}

33: \newcommand{\ep}{\thinspace . }

34: 

35: 

36: \newcommand{\mathbfx}[1]{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

37: \newcommand{\mathbfxg}[1]{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

38: \newcommand{\modten}[1]{\mathbfx{#1}}

39: \newcommand{\modvec}[1]{\mathbfx{#1}}

40: \newcommand{\phivec}{\mathbfx{\phi}}

41: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{|| #1 ||}

42: \newcommand{\Norm}[2]{|| #1 ||_{#2}}

43: \newcommand{\w}{\mathbfx{w}}

44: \newcommand{\x}{\mathbfx{x}}

45: \newcommand{\y}{\mathbfx{y}}

46: \renewcommand{\k}{\mathbfx{k}}

47: \newcommand{\kk}{\mathbfx{k}}

48: \newcommand{\ii}{\mathbfx{i}}

49: \newcommand{\jj}{\mathbfx{j}}

50: \renewcommand{\u}{\mathbfx{u}}

51: \renewcommand{\b}{\mathbfx{b}}

52: \newcommand{\A}{\mathbfx{A}}

53: \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbfx{a}}

54: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbfx{C}}

55: \newcommand{\F}{\mathbfx{F}}

56: \newcommand{\G}{\mathbfx{G}}

57: \newcommand{\Id}{\mathbfx{I}}

58: \newcommand{\J}{\mathbfx{J}}

59: \newcommand{\K}{\mathbfx{K}}

60: \newcommand{\U}{\mathbfx{U}}

61: \renewcommand{\L}{\mathbfx{L}}

62: \newcommand{\Null}{\mathbfx{0}}

63: \newcommand{\D}{\mathbfx{D}}

64: \newcommand{\M}{\mathbfx{M}}

65: \newcommand{\N}{\mathbfx{N}}

66: \newcommand{\T}{\mathbfx{T}}

67: \newcommand{\bft}{\mathbfx{t}}

68: \newcommand{\B}{\mathbfx{B}}

69: \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbfx{Q}}

70: \renewcommand{\P}{\mathbfx{P}}

71: \def\R{\mathbfx{R}}

72: \renewcommand{\c}{\mathbfx{c}}

73: \newcommand{\bfr}{\mathbfx{r}}

74: \newcommand{\p}{\mathbfx{p}}

75: \newcommand{\s}{\mathbfx{s}}

76: \newcommand{\z}{\mathbfx{z}}

77: \newcommand{\n}{\mathbfx{n}}

78: \newcommand{\f}{\mathbfx{f}}

79: \newcommand{\q}{\mathbfx{q}}

80: \renewcommand{\v}{\mathbfx{v}}

81: \newcommand{\e}{\mathbfx{e}}

82: \newcommand{\tde}{\modten{\varepsilon}}

83: \newcommand{\tds}{\modten{\sigma}}

84: 

85: \begin{document}

86: 

87: %\preprint{APS/123-QED}

88: 

89: \title{A finite element analysis of a silicon based double quantum

90: dot structure}

91: % Force line breaks with \\

92: \author{S. Rahman$^1$}

93: \email{S.Rahman.00@cantab.net}

94: % \altaffiliation[Also at ]{Physics Department, Cambridge University.}%Lines break automatically or can be forced with \\

95: \author{J. Gorman$^1$}%

96: \author{C. H. W. Barnes$^1$}%

97: \author{D. A. Williams$^2$}%

98: \author{H. P. Langtangen$^3$}%

99: \affiliation{$^1$Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge

100: University, J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 OHE, UK}%

101: \affiliation{$^2$Hitachi Cambridge Laboratory, J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 OHE, UK}%

102: \affiliation{$^3$Simula Research Laboratory, Martin Linges v 17,

103: Fornebu P.O.Box 134, 1325 Lysaker, Norway}%

104: 

105: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

106:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

107: 

108: \begin{abstract}

109: 

110: We present finite-element solutions of the Laplace equation for

111: the silicon-based trench-isolated double quantum-dot and the

112: capacitively-coupled single-electron transistor device

113: architecture. This system is a candidate for charge and spin-based

114: quantum computation in the solid state, as demonstrated by recent

115: coherent-charge oscillation experiments. Our key findings

116: demonstrate control of the electric potential and electric field

117: in the vicinity of the double quantum-dot by the electric

118: potential applied to the in-plane gates. This constitutes a useful

119: theoretical analysis of the silicon-based architecture for quantum

120: information processing applications.

121: 

122: \end{abstract}

123: 

124: \pacs{85.35.Be, 03.67.Lx}% PACS,  the Physics and Astronomy

125: %Classification Scheme.

126: 

127: \maketitle

128: 

129: Recent experiments conducted on trench-isolated double quantum-dot

130: (IDQD) structures have successfully demonstrated detection of

131: single-electron polarization,\cite{Emiroglu:03} and

132: coherent-charge oscillation.\cite{Gorman:05} This highlights the

133: possibility of constructing charge-based quantum computer circuits

134: in Si, with coherence times of the order

135: $100$~ns.\cite{NielsonBook,Loss:98} The architecture for a single

136: qubit device is a complex, three-dimensional structure consisting

137: of a single-electron transistor (SET), an IDQD, and gate

138: electrodes. This makes it difficult to determine theoretically the

139: system evolution by means of a complete and self-consistent

140: Schr\"{o}dinger-Poisson analysis. This is particularly the case if

141: the analysis were to fully take into account the device geometry

142: and all interactions while performing quantum manipulations within

143: the coherence time of the qubit.\cite{ft1}

144: 

145: In this paper, we present a significant contribution to such an

146: analysis by a finite-element solution of the Laplace equation with

147: the three-dimensional device geometry and material composition

148: taken into account. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the

149: electrostatic effect on the IDQD structure when voltages are

150: applied to the in-plane control gates of the device.

151: 

152: Figures~\ref{fig:schematic}(a) and \ref{fig:schematic}(b) show

153: device schematics in the $x$-$y$ and $x$-$z$-planes, respectively.

154: The trench isolation, illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic}(b),

155: is formed by high-resolution electron-beam lithography and

156: reactive-ion etching. Each trench is approximately $150$~nm deep

157: and runs into the buried-oxide (BOX) layer of the

158: silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer. The active regions of the device

159: elements are P doped Si, which are electrically isolated from

160: other device elements, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic}. In

161: this work, we use rectangular approximations to the device

162: elements and the etched profiles to simplify the

163: analysis.\cite{ft2}

164: 

165: \begin{figure}[!h]

166: \begin{center}

167: \rotatebox{0}{\scalebox{0.65}[0.65]{\includegraphics*[0.0in,4.25in][6.0in,8.25in]{f1.eps}}}

168: \end{center}

169: \caption{A schematic representation of the Si IDQD device used in

170: the numerical simulations. Rectangular approximations are made to

171: the device elements. (a) A view of the $x$-$y$ plane at the level

172: of the dashed line in (b). (b) A view of the $x$-$z$ plane at the

173: level of the dashed line in (a). The trench-like structures are

174: connected to the in-plane metal gates through a column of air.

175: Each trench extends about $150~$nm above the oxide base.}

176: \label{fig:schematic}

177: \end{figure}

178: 

179: The small dimensions of the quantum dots and the $20$~nm

180: constriction between them, which is fully depleted and acts as a

181: tunable inter-dot tunnel barrier, result in a significant

182: double-well type confinement potential for the electrons that

183: occupy discrete quantum states on each quantum

184: dot.\cite{Fujisawa:98,vanDerWiel:02} The tunable inter-dot

185: coupling causes the wave functions in the two dots to overlap and

186: hybridize so that they may be thought of as pseudo-molecular

187: states of an artificial two atom molecule. The IDQD is an

188: electrically-isolated component that is coupled only capacitively

189: to the rest of the circuit, including the SET for read-out, and

190: the in-plane control gates (G1 to G3) for manipulation. Voltages

191: applied to the gates G1 to G3 are used to tune the electric field

192: in the vicinity of the IDQD, and thus, the confinement potential

193: asymmetry and inter-dot tunnelling. Hence, an electron initially

194: localized on one quantum dot may be allowed to tunnel to the

195: opposite quantum dot by such manipulation.

196: 

197: An electric field is induced on the SET as a result of this

198: polarization process. This modulates the chemical potential of the

199: SET, and, therefore, the conductance through the source and drain

200: leads under a finite SET bias condition. To maximize the change in

201: conductance, the SET is initially tuned to the charge-sensitive

202: regime by an appropriate voltage bias at G4, and under a small

203: source-drain bias to ensure operation in the linear transport

204: regime. Such manipulation of the device has only been shown

205: through experiment so far. Therefore, a thorough theoretical

206: analysis is necessary to complement the recent experimental

207: findings, and build a more comprehensive understanding of the

208: physical mechanisms involved.

209: 

210: Analytic methods exist for calculating the electrostatic potential

211: in two-dimensional electron gases generated by patterned surface

212: gates on GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures.\cite{Davies:94,Davies:95}

213: While these analytic methods yield useful results for such

214: devices, they are unsuitable for trench-isolated Si structures,

215: where the geometry is much more sophisticated. Therefore,

216: numerical methods have to be implemented. The finite-element

217: method is a well-suited means for simulation of

218: geometrically-complicated domains,\cite{Cook,Zienkiewicz} and is

219: commonly used to solve Poisson-type

220: equations.\cite{Iserles,DpBook2}

221: 

222: In order to determine the electric field throughout the modelled

223: device regions, the numerical solution to the Laplace equation in

224: three-dimensions is performed:

225: 

226: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:poisson}

227:      \nabla \cdot [ \epsilon (\mathbf{x}) \nabla \phi (\mathbf{x}) ] &=& 0, \qquad \mathbf{x} \in \Omega \in \mathbb{R}^3, \label{eqn:lap1} \\

228:     \phi(\mathbf{x}) &=& D_i, \qquad \mathbf{x} \in \partial \Omega_{D_i}, \label{eqn:lap2}\\

229:      - \epsilon (\mathbf{x}) \frac{\partial \phi }{\partial n} &=&

230:      q,\qquad \mathbf{x} \in \partial \Omega_{N}, \label{eqn:l3}

231: \end{eqnarray}

232: 

233: \noindent where $\phi (\mathbf{x})$ is the electrostatic potential

234: and $\epsilon (\mathbf{x})$ is the material dielectric parameter.

235: The dielectric parameter varies discontinuously on moving through

236: the different materials - air ($\epsilon_0 = 8.85 \cdot 10^{-12}

237: ~$Fm$^{-1}$), Si ($11.0 \epsilon_0$) and SiO$_2$ ($4.5 \epsilon_0

238: $). We apply Dirichlet boundary conditions to the surfaces of the

239: metal gates and to the grounded base of the device, and the

240: Neumann boundary condition to the exposed surfaces. (We apply

241: Neumann boundary conditions with $q=0$, but for generality, we

242: include in our discussion the possibility of non-zero $q$).

243: 

244: The finite element solution of the Laplace equation is well

245: covered in the literature.\cite{Iserles,DpBook2,Mohan} The basic

246: idea of the finite element method is to approximate the unknown

247: fields, for example $\phi$ in the Laplace equation above, by

248: $\widetilde{\phi}$ which is a combination of linearly independent

249: basis functions $N_j$

250: 

251: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:fem4}

252: \widetilde{\phi}(\x) = \sum_{j=1}^M \phi_j N_j(\x) ,

253: \end{equation}

254: 

255: \noindent where $M$ is the number of basis functions and $\phi_j$

256: are the expansion coefficients to be determined. In the finite

257: element method, the computational domain $\Omega$ is divided into

258: a number of elements, and the $N_j$ are chosen to be piecewise

259: polynomials such that they are non-zero only in a `few' adjacent

260: elements.\cite{ft3,Iserles} The method then requires the

261: substitution of $\widetilde{\phi}$ into the Laplace equation, and

262: the residual $R = \nabla \cdot [\epsilon \nabla \widetilde{\phi}

263: ]$ to be orthogonal to the space spanned by a linearly independent

264: set $\{ W_1,\ldots,W_n\}$. In our calculations, we implement the

265: orthogonality through the weighted residual statement:

266: 

267: \begin{eqnarray}

268: \int_{\Omega} R W_i d\Omega = 0 , \qquad i=1,\hdots,M ,

269: \end{eqnarray}

270: 

271: \noindent and Galerkin's method i.e. set $W_i$ equal to the basis

272: functions $N_i$ to obtain

273: 

274: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:fem1}

275:     \int_{\Omega} N_i [

276:     \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial

277:     x}

278:     +

279:     \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial

280:     y}

281:     +

282:     \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial

283:     z}]

284:     d\Omega  = 0 \ep

285: \end{eqnarray}

286: 

287: 

288: %Using Green's Theorem:

289: 

290: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:green}

291: %- \int_{\Omega}\nabla \cdot [k \nabla u] W_i d \Omega \\

292: %\nonumber = \int_{\Omega}k\nabla u \cdot \nabla W_i d \Omega -

293: %\int_{\partial \Omega} W_i k \frac{\partial u}{\partial n} d\Gamma

294: %,

295: %\end{eqnarray}

296: 

297: Using integration by parts, we reduce the order of derivatives in

298: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:fem1});

299: 

300: \begin{eqnarray}\label{fem2}

301:    -  \int_{\Omega}

302:      \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial x} \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial x}

303:     +

304:      \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial y} \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial y}

305:     +

306:     \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{\partial z} \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial z}

307:     d\Omega

308:     \nonumber \\ \nonumber\\

309:     +\int_{\partial \Omega} N_i \epsilon \frac{\partial \widetilde{\phi}}{ \partial n} d\Gamma

310:     =0 \ep

311: \end{eqnarray}

312: 

313: 

314: The weighted residual method and integration by parts leads to a

315: natural mechanism for the incorporation of derivative boundary

316: condition given by Eq.~(\ref{eqn:l3}) for the Laplace operator

317: $\nabla \cdot [\epsilon \nabla \widetilde{\phi}]$. Hence, we

318: obtain after expanding the approximation for $\widetilde{\phi}$

319: 

320: %{\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}}

321: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:fem5}

322:       \int_{\Omega}

323:      \epsilon \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial x} \frac{\partial N_j}{\partial x} \phi_j

324:     +

325:      \epsilon \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial y} \frac{\partial N_j}{\partial y} \phi_j

326:     +

327:      \epsilon \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial z} \frac{\partial N_j}{\partial z} \phi_j

328:      d\Omega

329:      \nonumber\\ \nonumber\\

330:     +  \int_{\partial \Omega} N_i q d\Gamma

331:     =0 ,

332: \end{eqnarray}

333: 

334: \noindent where summation is implied over repeated indices. The

335: problem has now been reduced to one of matrix inversion;

336: 

337: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:femMain}

338:     K \Phi = F ,

339: \end{equation}

340: 

341: \noindent where the `stiffness' matrix $K$ is given by

342: 

343: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:femK}

344:     K_{ij} = \int_{\Omega}

345:      \epsilon \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial x} \frac{\partial N_j}{\partial x}

346:     +

347:      \epsilon \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial y} \frac{\partial N_j}{\partial y}

348:     +

349:      \epsilon \frac{\partial N_i}{\partial z} \frac{\partial N_j}{\partial z}

350:      d\Omega ,

351: \end{equation}

352: 

353: \noindent and the RHS vector is given by

354: 

355: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:femF}

356:     F_i=-\int_{\partial \Omega} N_i q d\Gamma ,

357: \end{equation}

358: 

359: \noindent and $\Phi$ is simply the vector of unknowns $\phi_j$.

360: Dirichlet boundary conditions are implemented by forcing

361: prescribed values of $\phi_j$.

362: 

363: %It is often convenient to decompose the integrals given by

364: %Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:femK})-(\ref{eqn:femF}) involving the entire domain

365: %$\Omega$ into integrals over the elements $\Omega_e$. The benefits

366: %of this decomposition are most evident for more complex partial

367: %differential equations and therefore we avoid further elaboration

368: %on this point.

369: 

370: In the formulation and solution of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:femMain}) we have

371: chosen linear basis functions corresponding to 8-noded brick

372: elements. This method therefore has a convergence rate for error

373: of 2.0.\cite{ft4}

374: 

375: We have employed Gaussian quadrature in three-dimensions for the

376: volume integrals and two-dimensions for surface integrals, and a

377: conjugate gradient method with Incomplete Lower and Upper (ILU)

378: factorization preconditioning to solve the resulting linear system

379: of equations. Sufficient resolution was obtained by a mesh with

380: $107\times 77\times 9$ nodes in the $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions,

381: respectively. We implemented adaptive mesh refinement along $z$

382: axis to improve accuracy in the vicinity of the active region.

383: 

384: 

385: \begin{figure}[!h]

386: \begin{center}

387: \rotatebox{0}{\scalebox{0.65}[0.65]{\includegraphics*[1.5in,0.1in][6.0in,6.2in]{f2.eps}}}

388: \end{center}

389: \caption{Two-dimensional slices taken from the full

390: three-dimensional solution of the Laplace equation. (a) A slice

391: from the $x$-$y$ plane at $z=420$~nm, through the center of the

392: gates and IDQD. (b) A slice from the $x$-$z$ plane at $y=190$~nm,

393: through the center of gate G2. The gate G4, is set to $-4.8$~V.

394: The gates G1, G2 and G3 are set to $1$~V, $2$~V and $-1$~V

395: respectively. The position of the IDQD is outlined.}

396: \label{fig:2dsolutions}

397: \end{figure}

398: 

399: 

400: Figures~\ref{fig:2dsolutions}(a) and \ref{fig:2dsolutions}(b) show

401: cross-sectional slices along orthogonal planes of the full

402: three-dimensional solution for the simulated electric potential.

403: The simulation was performed with the following parameters: the

404: gate potentials of G1, G2 and G3 are set to +$1$~V, $2$~V and

405: -$1$~V, respectively; G4 is set to $-4.8$~V. The voltage chosen

406: for G4 is approximately equal to that used for this gate in the

407: experimental demonstrations in Ref.~\onlinecite{Emiroglu:03} where

408: single electron polarization of the IDQD was obtained for such a

409: device. The choices of G1, G2 and G3, are also similar to those in

410: the experiments but for this simulation, the exact values are

411: chosen so that three-dimensional illustrations are as clear as

412: possible.

413: 

414: Figures~\ref{fig:2dsolutions}(a) and \ref{fig:2dsolutions}(b)

415: clearly demonstrate the effect of the applied gate voltages on the

416: potential landscape of the IDQD and the device as a whole; the

417: result of applying a voltage on the in-plane gates is that a

418: significant fraction of the applied voltage is induced on the

419: IDQD, despite the etched trench gap. The abrupt change in the

420: effective permittivity from the metallic gates to the voids, from

421: the voids to the SiO$_2$, and from Si to SiO$_2$, causes some

422: definition of the gates and the IDQD in the plots. The difference

423: between the relative permittivity of air, Si and SiO$_2$ leads to

424: a potential gradient, such that the absolute value of the

425: potential is prone to vanish more rapidly in air, compared with Si

426: and SiO$_2$. However, Fig.~\ref{fig:2dsolutions}(b) clearly

427: demonstrates that for this particular pillar height, which matches

428: the device used in experiment, the potential at the IDQD is due

429: mainly to the electric field vectors that are on a direct path

430: through the trench isolation, and not the underlying substrate.

431: This is consistent with experimental observations and is the

432: preferred mechanism of device operation, since it is relatively

433: easier in design and theoretical analysis, compared with the case

434: where the majority of the electric field is through the

435: semiconductor base and the field lines arrive at the IDQD from

436: several different paths.

437: 

438: \begin{figure}

439: 

440: \epsfxsize=9.0cm

441: 

442: \centerline{\epsffile{f3.eps}}

443: 

444: \caption{Cross-sectional curves through the IDQD with $x=320$~nm

445: and $z=420$~nm (the dots of each curve correspond to nodal points

446: of the computational grid). The gate G4 is set to -$4.8$~V. (a)

447: The electrostatic potential of the voltage on gate G2 is changed

448: from -$5$~V to +$5$~V. (b) The voltage applied to gate G1 is

449: varied from $0$~V to -$5$~V. The voltage applied to gate G3 is set

450: to the negative of that applied to gate G1 (in order to maximize

451: the electric field). } \label{fig:xscurves1}

452: 

453: \end{figure}

454: 

455: For a more quantitative analysis, we determine the electric

456: potential along the active region of the IDQD as a function of the

457: applied gate voltages. This is shown in

458: Figs.~\ref{fig:xscurves1}(a) and \ref{fig:xscurves1}(b), where

459: different gates are used to apply the in-plane electric field.

460: Figure~\ref{fig:xscurves1}(a) shows that the effect of varying the

461: voltage applied to gate G2, from -$5$~V to +$5$~V, is to induce a

462: voltage at the IDQD from -$2$~V to +$0.8$~V, respectively. Note

463: that G4 had lowered the overall potential by approximately

464: $0.55$~V in this case.

465: 

466: The data in Fig.~\ref{fig:xscurves1}(a) shows a maximum change of

467: $0.3$~V of the electrostatic potential at the IDQD, when the G2

468: gate voltage is raised or lowered by $1$~V. This field coupling

469: factor of $\sim$$30~\%$ is approximately one order of magnitude

470: greater than what was observed in experiment.\cite{Emiroglu:03}

471: However, the measured quantity in experiments is the SET current,

472: and the IDQD coupling terms are inferred from such measurements.

473: The task of calculating such coefficients exactly as measured in

474: experiment is beyond the scope of a purely electrostatic model,

475: since, with the SET present, the global system that must be

476: treated consists of interacting sub-systems of quantum

477: mechanically bound electrons. Therefore, we project that a

478: self-consistent Schr\"{o}dinger-Poisson analysis of the system

479: would yield results for the coupling coefficients that are closer

480: to actual values observed in experiment.

481: 

482: Our results are also consistent with the experimental

483: demonstrations of Ref.~\onlinecite{Emiroglu:03} where the voltage

484: on gate G2 is swept continuously from $-5$~V to $+5$~V, with G4

485: set to $\sim$$-4.8$~V, in order to demonstrate conductance

486: resonances of the SET currents but also resonances due to the

487: single electron polarization of the IDQD. (The device in

488: Ref.~\onlinecite{Emiroglu:03} had a slight asymmetry in the

489: alignment of the IDQD relative to G2, hence the ability of G2 to

490: polarize the IDQD.)

491: 

492: The abrupt changes in the potential at $115$~nm and $265$~nm are

493: due to the change of relative permittivity at the air-SiO$_2$

494: interface. The difference between the potential gradient in the

495: air and in the semiconductor regions is more evident in these

496: figures. Figure~\ref{fig:xscurves1}(b) shows the effect of

497: applying voltages of opposite sign to gates G1 and G3. This

498: results in a potential gradient across the IDQD, which has a

499: maximum value of $\sim$$0.007$~Vnm$^{-1}$ in these simulations.

500: This clearly demonstrates an effective mechanism for externally

501: tuning the internal potential asymmetry of the IDQD electronic

502: states.

503: 

504: In the experimental demonstrations of Ref.~\onlinecite{Gorman:05},

505: a voltage bias is pulsed across in-plane metallic gates, which are

506: placed perpendicularly to an IDQD as in our case, and this was

507: shown to result in the coherent oscillation of a single electron

508: charge present in an IDQD. This is again consistent with our

509: results which suggests a strong electric field is induced at the

510: IDQD due to the electric field at the in-plane gates.

511: 

512: In summary, we have successfully demonstrated, by means of

513: finite-element solutions to the Laplace equation, that the

514: electric potential and potential gradient across the confining

515: region of the IDQD in trench-isolated Si devices may be

516: manipulated effectively by the voltages applied to

517: capacitively-coupled in-plane gates. Our calculations show good

518: correlation with recent experimental demonstrations, where the

519: IDQD electron states are manipulated by such methods.

520: 

521: We thank S. Pfaendler and R. Schumann for comments and useful

522: discussions. SR, JG, and CB acknowledge the support of the EPSRC

523: through the QIP IRC. SR acknowledges the Cambridge-MIT Institute

524: for financial support.

525: 

526: \begin{references}

527: 

528: \bibitem{Emiroglu:03}   E. G. Emiroglu, D. G. Hasko

529: and D. A. Williams, Appl.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3942-3044

530: (2003).

531: 

532: \bibitem{Gorman:05}   J. Gorman, D. G. Hasko

533: and D. A. Williams,  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 090502 (2005).

534: 

535: \bibitem{Loss:98} D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys.\

536: Rev.\ A {\bf 57}, 120-126 (1998).

537: 

538: \bibitem{NielsonBook} M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,  {\it Cambridge University Press},

539: (2003).

540: 

541: \bibitem{ft1} The most significant interaction is that between the SET and the IDQD

542: because it directly influences the read-out operation and the

543: degree of back-action.

544: 

545: \bibitem{ft2} The device elements are in fact roughly rectangular, so this

546: approximation introduces only a small error to the results

547: presented.

548: 

549: \bibitem{vanDerWiel:02} W. G. van der Wiel, S. De

550: Francheshi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha and L. P.

551: Kouwenhoven, Reviews of Modern Physics, {\bf 75}, 1-22, (2003).

552: 

553: \bibitem{Fujisawa:98} T. Fujisawa, T. H. Oosterkamp, W. G. van der Wiel, B. W. Broer, R. Aguado, S. Tarucha and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science, {\bf 282},

554: 932-935, (1998).

555: 

556: \bibitem{Davies:95}    J. H. Davies, I. A. Larkin and E.

557: V. Sukhorukov J.\ Appl.\ Phys. {\bf 77}, 4504-4512 (1995).

558: 

559: \bibitem{Davies:94} J. H. Davies and I. A. Larkin, Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 49(7)},

560: 4800-4809 (1994).

561: 

562: %\bibitem{Laux:88}  S. E. Laux and D. J. Frank and F.

563: %Stern, Surface Science {\bf 196}, 101-106 (1988).

564: 

565: \bibitem{Cook} R. D. Cook, D. S. Malkus and M. E. Plesha, {\it Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis}, Wiley,

566: (1989).

567: 

568: \bibitem{Zienkiewicz} O. Zienkiewicz, {\it The Finite Element

569: Method}, McGraw-Hill, 4th edition (1994).

570: 

571: %\bibitem{Bathe} K. J. Bathe, {\it Finite Element Procedures}, Prentice Hall,

572: %(1996).

573: 

574: \bibitem{Iserles}A. Iserles, {\it A first course in the numerical analysis of differential equations}, Cambridge University Press,

575: (1995).

576: 

577: \bibitem{DpBook2} H. P. Langtangen, {\it Computational Partial

578: Differential Equations - Numerical methods and Diffpack

579: Programming}, Springer, 2nd edition (2003).

580: 

581: \bibitem{Mohan} L. Ramdas Ram-Mohan, {\it Finite Element and Boundary Element Applications in Quantum Mechanics}, Oxford University

582: Press, 1st edition, (2002).

583: 

584: \bibitem{ft3} The choice of piecewise polynomials results in a speed-up over spectral methods with little increase in error.

585: 

586: \bibitem{ft4} Higher-order basis functions were also implemented but had

587: not resulted in any significant improvement in the accuracy of the

588: results presented.

589: 

590: 

591: 

592: \end{references}

593: 

594: \end{document}

595: 

596: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

597: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

598: