Mesoscopic Stern-Gerlach device to polarize spin currents

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 67, Issue 4, 2003, Pages

  Ionicioiu, Radu ^a   D’Amico, Irene ^a  

^a ISI FOUNDATION   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCELERATION; ARTICLE; DEVICE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERFEROMETER; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; POLARIZATION; QUANTUM MECHANICS; SOLID STATE;

EID: 0037438610     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.041307     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. S.A. Wolf et al., Science 294, 1488 (2001).
2. S. Datta and B. Das, Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 665 (1990).
3. G. Schmidt, D. Ferrand, L.W. Molenkamp, A.T. Filip, and B.J. van Wees, Phys. Rev. B 62, R4790 (2000).
4. G. Schmidt, C. Gould, P. Grabs, A.M. Lunde, G. Richter, A. Slobodskyy, and L.W. Molenkamp, cond-mat/0206347 (unpublished).
5. Z.G. Yu and M.E. Flatté, cond-mat/0201425 (unpublished);
6. Z.G. Yu and M.E. Flatté, cond-mat/0206321 (unpublished).
7. E. I. Rashba, cond-mat/0206129, Euro. Phys. J. B (to be published).
8. P.R. Hammar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 203 (1999).
9. S. Gardelis et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 7764 (1999);
10. F.G. Monzon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5022 (2000);
11. Phys. Rev. Lett.B.J. van Wees, 84, 5023 (2000);
12. Phys. Rev. Lett.P.R. Hammar et al., 84, 5024 (2000).
13. V.P. LaBella et al., Science 292, 1518 (2001);
14. ScienceW.F. Egelhoff, Jr. et al., 296, 1195a (2002);
15. ScienceV.P. LaBella et al., 296, 1195a (2002).
16. R. Fiederling et al., Nature (London) 402, 787 (1999).
17. Y. Ohno et al., Nature (London) 402, 790 (1999).
18. B.T. Jonker et al., Phys. Rev. B 62, 8180 (2000).
19. A.A. Kiselev and K.W. Kim, cond-mat/0203261 (unpublished).
20. A.A. Kiselev and K.W. Kim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 775 (2001).
21. M. Governale, D. Boese, U. Zülicke, and C. Schroll, Phys. Rev. B 65, 140403 (2002);
22. M. GovernaleD. BoeseU. ZülickeC. Schrollcond-mat/0108373 (unpublished).
23. D. Frustaglia, M. Hentschel, and K. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 256602 (2001).
24. P. Recher, E.V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1962 (2000).
25. J. Nitta, F.E. Meijer, and H. Takayanagi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 695 (1999).
26. We point out that even in the case in which a single-input design is considered (e.g., by replacing the first beam splitter with a Y junction), the corresponding device can still be used as a spin polarizer and all the results derived here for the output spin polarization apply as well. In this case, however, the device is no longer equivalent to a PBS or a Controlled-NOT gate and for this reason we prefer the four terminal design.
27. A Mach-Zehnder interferometer was also considered by Seelig and Büttiker Ref. 21, in the context of charge decoherence in a AB ring.
28. G. Seelig and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B 64, 245313 (2001).
29. D. Grundler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6074 (2000).
30. J. Nitta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997).
31. J.C. Egues, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, cond-mat/0207392 (unpublished).
32. If we inject spins in input 1 instead of 0, the transformations are (Formula presented) (Formula presented)
33. G. Cernicchiaro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 273 (1997).
34. J.M. Kikkawa and D.D. Awshalom, Nature (London) 397, 139 (1999).
35. A. Bachtold et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6082 (2000);
36. A. Bachtoldcond-mat/0002209 (unpublished).
37. K. Tsukagoshi, B.W. Alphenaar, and H. Ago, Nature (London) 401, 572 (1999).
38. G. Badurek et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 307 (1993).
39. This is one of the main differences between our proposal and the one described in Ref. 13,. Since in that case the interferometer is not balanced the interference pattern, and hence the transmission coefficients, are both energy dependent.
40. E. Bucks et al., Nature (London) 391, 871 (1998).
41. C.H.W. Barnes, J.M. Shilton, and A.M. Robinson, Phys. Rev. B 62, 8410 (2000);
42. C.H.W. BarnesJ.M. ShiltonA.M. Robinsoncond-mat/0006037.