Quantum stirring, ratchets, and pumping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Physics or the Physics Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, the introduction of this article may need to be rewritten.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details.
Quantum mechanics
\Delta x \, \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}
Uncertainty principle
Introduction to...

Mathematical formulation of...
This box: view • talk • edit

A pump is an AC driven device that generates a DC current. In the simplest configuration a pump has two leads connected to two reservoirs. In such open geometry the pump takes particles from one reservoir and emits them into the other. Accordingly a current is produced even if the reservoirs have the same temperature and chemical potential.

Stirring is the operation of inducing a circulating current with a non-vanishing DC component in a closed system. The simplest geometry is obtained by integrating a pump in a closed circuit. More generally we can consider any type of stirring mechanism such as moving a spoon in a cup of coffee.

Pumping[1][2] and Stirring[3] devices are close relatives of ratchet systems.[4] The latter are defined in this context as AC driven spatially periodic arrays, where DC current is induced. Dissipation is essential for the operation of a conventional Ratchet system, but there are also non-dissipative Hamiltonian Ratchet systems that can be regarded as an "unfolded" version of "quantum stirring in a ring".

Strictly speaking stirring is a non-linear effect, because in linear response theory (LRT) an AC driving induces an AC current with the same frequency. Still an adaptation of the LRT Kubo formalism allows the analysis of stirring. The quantum pumping problem (where we have an open geometry) can be regarded as a special limit of the quantum stirring problem (where we have a closed geometry). Optionally the latter can be analyzed within the framework of scattering theory.

It is possible to induce a DC current by applying a bias, or if the particles are charged then by applying an electro-motive-force. In contrast to that a quantum pumping mechanism produces a DC current in response to a cyclic deformation of the confining potential. In order to have a DC current from an AC driving, time reversal symmetry (TRS) should be broken. In the absence of magnetic field and dissipation it is the driving itself that can break TRS. Accordingly the typical pump operation is based on varying more than one parameter. The best known example is the peristaltic mechanism that combines a cyclic squeezing operation with on/off switching of entrance/exit valves.

The studies of quantum pumping[1][2] and of quantum stirring [3] emphasize the role of quantum interference in the analysis of the induced current. A major objective is to calculate the amount Q of transported particles per a driving cycle. There are circumstances in which Q is an integer number due to the topology of parameter space. More generally Q is affected by inter-particle interactions, disorder, chaos, noise and dissipation.

Contents

[edit] The Kubo approach to quantum stirring

Consider a closed system which is described by a Hamiltonian \mathcal{H}(X) that depends on some control parameters X = (X1,X2,X3). If X3 is an Aharonov Bohm magnetic flux through the ring, then by Farady law -\dot{X_3} is the electro motive force. If linear response theory applies we have the proportionality I=-G^{33}\dot{X}_3, where G33 is the called the Ohmic conductance. In complete analogy if we change X1 the current is I=-G^{31}\dot{X}_1, and if we change X2 the current is I=-G^{32}\dot{X}_2, where G31 and G32 are elements of a conductance matrix. Accordingly for a full pumping cycle:


Q = \oint\limits_{\mbox{cycle}} Idt = -\oint (G^{31} dX_1 + G^{32} dX_2)

The conductance can be calculated and analyzed using the Kubo formula approach to quantum pumping[5], which is based on the theory of adiabatic processes.[6] Here we write the expression that applies in the case of low frequency "quasi static" driving process (the popular terms "DC driving" and "adiabatic driving" turn out to be misleading so we do not use them):


G^{3j}= \frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{0}^{\infty}\langle\left[\mathcal{I}(t),\mathcal{F}^j(0)\right]\rangle \, t \, dt

where \mathcal{I} is the current operator, and \mathcal{F}^j=-\partial \mathcal{H}/\partial X_j is the generalized force that is associated with the control parameter Xj. Though this formula is written using quantum mechanical notations it holds also classically if the commutator is replaced by Poisson brackets. In general G can be written as a sum of two terms: one has to do with dissipation, while the other, denoted as B has to do with geometry. The dissipative part vanishes in the strict quantum adiabatic limit, while the geometrical part B might be non-zero. It turns out that in the strict adiabatic limit B is the "Berry curvature" (mathematically known as ``two-form"). Using the notations B1 = − G32 and B2 = G31 we can rewrite the formula for the amount of pumped particles as


Q = \oint \vec{B} \cdot \vec{ds}

where we define the normal vector \vec{ds}=(dX_2,-dX_1) as illustrated. The advantage of this point of view is in the intuition that it gives for the result: Q is related to the flux of a field \vec{B} which is created (so to say) by ``magnetic charges" in X space. In practice the calculation of \vec{B} is done using the following formula:


{B}_j= \sum_{n (\ne n_0)} \frac{2\hbar \ {\rm Im}[\mathcal{I}^{}_{n_0n} \ \mathcal{F}^j_{nn_0}]}{(E_n-E_{n_0})^2}

This furmula can be regarded as the quantum adiabatic limit of the Kubo formula. The eigenstates of the system are labeled by the index n. These are in general many body states, and the energies are in general many body energies. At finite temperatures a thermal average over n0 is implicit. The field B can be regarded as the rotor of "vector potential" A (mathematically known as the ``one-form"). Namely, \vec{B}=\nabla\wedge\vec{A} . The ``Berry phase" which is acquired by a wavefunction at the end of a closed cycle is


\mbox{BerryPhase} = \frac{1}{\hbar} \oint \vec{A} \cdot d\vec{X}

Accordingly one can argue that the "magnetic charge" that generates (so to say) the B field consists of quantized "Dirac monopoles". It follows from gauge invariance that the degeneracies of the system are arranged as vertical Dirac chains. The "Dirac monopoles" are situated at X points where n0 has a degeneracy with another level. The Dirac monopoles picture[7] is useful for charge transport analysis: the amount of transported charge is determined by the number of the Dirac chains encircled by the pumping cycle. Optionally it is possible to evaluate the transported charge per pumping cycle from the Berry phase by differentiating it with respect to the Aharonov-Bohm flux through the device.[8]

[edit] Ratchet systems

The term Ratchet refers to directed transport in a driven spatially periodic system. The operation of a Ratchet involves one parameter driving. It is assumed that the system is unbiased, i.e. the average driving force is zero. The directed transport in a conventional Ratchet system is the outcome of an interplay between broken spatial inversion symmetry of the driving force, and broken time reversal symmetry due to dissipation. Another type of paradigm is the Hamiltonian ratchet, where the induced directed transport in the chaotic region of phase space is complementary to the opposite ballistic motion in the excluded islands.

[edit] The scattering approach to quantum pumping

The Ohmic conductance of a mesoscopic device that is connected by leads to reservoirs is given by the Landauer formula: in dimensionless units the Ohmic conductance of an open channel equals its transmission. The extension of this scattering point of view in the context of quantum pumping leads to the Brouwer-Buttiker-Pretre-Thomas (BPT) formula[1] which relates the geometric conductance to the S matrix of the pump:


G^{3j}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mbox{trace} \left(P_A\frac{\partial S}{\partial X_j}S^{\dagger}\right)

Here PA is a projector that restrict the trace operations to the open channels of the lead where the current is measured. This BPT formula has been originally derived using a scattering approach[9], but later its relation to the Kubo formula has been worked out.[10]

[edit] The effect of Interactions

A very recent work considers the role of interactions in the stirring of Bose condensed particles.[11] Otherwise the rest of the literature concerns primarily electronic devices.[12] Typically the pump is modeled as a quantum dot. The effect of electron-electron interactions within the dot region is taken into account in the Coulomb blockade regime or in the Kondo regime. In the former case charge transport is quantized even in the case of small back scattering. Deviation from the exact quantized value is related to dissipation. In the Kondo regime, as the temperature is lowered, the pumping effect is modified. There are also works that consider interactions over the whole system (including the leads) using the Luttinger liquid model.

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c M. Buttiker, H. Thomas and A Pretre, Z. Phys. B Condens. Mat. 94, 133 (1994).
    P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B 58, R10135 (1998).
    B. L. Altshuler, L. I. Glazman, Science 283, 1864 (1999).
    J. A. Avron, A. Elgart, G. M. Graf and L. sadun, Phys. Rev. B 62, 10618 (2000).
    D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 201303(R) (2003).
    M. Moskalets and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B 68, 161311 (2003).
  2. ^ a b M. Switkes, C. M. Marcus, K. Campman, A. C. Gossard, Science 283, 1905 (1999).
  3. ^ a b D. Cohen, arXiv:cond-mat/0208233 (2002).
    D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 155303 (2003).
    M. Aunola and J. J. Toppari, Phys. Rev. B 68, 020502 (2003).
    D. Cohen, T. Kottos and H. Schanz, Phys. Rev. E 71, 035202(R) (2005).
    G. Rosenberg and D. Cohen, J. Phys. A 39, 2287 (2006).
    I. Sela and D. Cohen, J. Phys. A 39, 3575 (2006).
    M. Hiller, T. Kottos and D. Cohen, unpublished (2007).
  4. ^ P. Reimann Phys. Rep. 361 (2002) 57
    H. Schanz, M. F. Otto, R. Ketzmerick and T. Dittrich Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 070601
    H. Schanz, T. Dittrich and R. Ketzmerick Phys. Rev. E 71 (2005) 026228
    T. Dittrich, M. Gutiérrez and G. Sinuco Physica A 327 (2003) 145
    H. Linke et al, Appl. Phys. A 75 (2002) 237-246.
  5. ^ D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 155303 (2003).
  6. ^ D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B 27, 6083 (1983).
    Q. Niu and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. A 17, 2453 (1984).
    M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 392, 45 (1984).
    J.E. Avron, A. Raveh and B. Zur, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 873 (1988).
    M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 442, 659 (1993).
  7. ^ D. Cohen, arXiv:cond-mat/0208233 (2002).
  8. ^ M. Aunola and J. J. Toppari, Phys. Rev. B 68, 020502 (2003).
  9. ^ M. Buttiker, H. Thomas and A Pretre, Z. Phys. B Condens. Mat. 94, 133 (1994).
  10. ^ D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 68, 201303(R) (2003).
  11. ^ M. Hiller, T. Kottos and D. Cohen, unpublished (2007).
  12. ^ I. L Aleiner and A. V andreev Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1286
    C. Liu and Q. Niu Phys. Rev. B 48 (1993) 18320
    M. Blaaboer and E. J. Heller Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001) 241301
    B. Wang and J. Wang Phys. Rev. B 65 (2002) 233315
    J. Splettstosser, M. Governale, J. Konig and R. Fazio cond-mat/0506080
    T. Aono Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 116601
    Q. Niu and D. J. Thouless J. Phys. A 17 (1984) 2453
    P. Sharma and C. Chamon Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 96401
    A. V. Andreev and E. G. Mishchenko Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001) 233316
    P. Sharma and C. Chamon Phys. Rev. B 68 (2002) 35321
    R. Citro, N. Andrei and Q. Niu Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 165312
    D. S. Golubev and A. Zaikin, cond-mat/0010493
    E. Sela and Y. Oreg cond-mat/0509467
    E. Cota, R. aguado and G. Platero Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 107202.

[edit] Unsorted

  • B. L. Hazelzet, M. R. Wegewijs, T. H. Stoof, and Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 63 (2001) 165313
  • O. Entin-Wohlman, A. Aharony and V. Kashcheyevs, Turk. J. Phys. 27 (2003) 371
  • J. N. H. J. Cremers and P. W. Brouwer Phys. Rev. B 65 (2002) 115333
  • I. L. Aleiner, B. L. Altshuler and A. Kamenev, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 10373
  • E. R. Mucciolo, C. Chamon and C. M. Marcus Phys. Rev. Lett 89 (2002) 146802
  • T. Aono Phys. Rev. B 67 (2003) 155303
  • O. Entin-Wohlman, Y. Levinson, and P. Wölfle Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001) 195308
  • F. Hekking and Yu. Nazarov, Phys Rev. B 44 (1991) 9110
  • F. Zhou, B. Spivak and B. Altshuler Phys. Rev. Lett 82 (1990) 608
  • Y. Wei , J. Wang, and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 9947
  • Y. Wei1, J. Wang, H. Guo, and C. Roland Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001) 115321
  • Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 34 (1986) 5093
  • J. A. Chiang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. A 57 (1998) 2278
  • F. Hekking and Yu. Nazarov, Phys Rev. B 44 (1991) 11506
  • M. G. Vavilov, V. Ambegaokar and I. Aleiner, Phys Rev. B 63 (2001) 195313
  • V. Kashcheyevs, A. Aharony, and O. Entin-Wohlman, Eur. Phys. J. B 39 (2004) 385
  • V. Kashcheyevs, A. Aharony, and O. Entin-Wohlman Phys. Rev. B 69 (2004) 195301
  • O. Entin-Wohlman, A. Aharony, and V. Kashcheyevs J. of the Physical Society of Japan 72, Supp. A (2003) 77
  • O. Entin-Wohlman and A. Aharony Phys. Rev. B 66 (2002) 035329
  • O. Entin-Wohlman, A. Aharony, and Y. Levinson Phys. Rev. B 65 (2002) 195411
  • Y. Levinson, O. Entin-Wohlman, and P. Wölfle Physica A 302 (2001) 335
  • L. E. F. Foa Torres Phys. Rev. B 72 (2005) 245339

[edit] See also