Applied Physics: Control and detection of singlet-triplet mixing in a random nuclear field

Science

Volumn 309, Issue 5739, 2005, Pages 1346-1350

  Koppens, F H L ^a   Folk, J A ^a   Elzerman, J M ^a   Hanson, R ^a   Willems Van Beveren, L H ^a   Vink, I T ^a   Tranitz, H P ^b   Wegscheider, W ^b   Kouwenhoven, L P ^a   Vandersypen, L M K ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONS; PARAMAGNETIC RESONANCE; SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

ELECTRON SPINS; INTERDOT TUNNEL COUPLING; SINGLET; TRIPLETS;

NUCLEAR ENERGY;

HYDROGEN; QUANTUM DOT;

PHYSICS;

ARTICLE; CONTROL; ELECTRON; ELECTRON TRANSPORT; ENERGY; MAGNETIC FIELD; NUCLEAR OVERHAUSER EFFECT; OSCILLATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMICONDUCTOR; TIME;

EID: 23944440864     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1113719     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. F. Meier, B. P. Zakharchenya, Eds., Optical Orientation (North-Holland, New York, 1984).
2. D. Gammon et al., Science 277, 85 (1997).
3. D. Loss, D. P. DiVincerao, Phys. Rev. A. 57, 120 (1998).
4. I. A. Merkulov, A. L. Efros, J. Rosen, Phys. Rev. B 65, 205309 (2002).
5. P.-F. Braun et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 116601 (2005).
6. A. S. Bracker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 047402 (2005).
7. M. Eto, T. Ashiwa, M. Murata, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73, 307 (2004).
8. B. E. Kane, Nature 393, 133 (1998).
9. J. M. Taylor, A. Imamoglu, M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 246802 (2003).
10. J. Schliemann, A. Khaetskii, D. Loss, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15, R1809 (2003).
11. A. V. Khaetskii, D. Loss, L. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 186802 (2002).
12. W. A. Coish, D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 70, 195340 (2004).
13. W. G. van der Wiel et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1 (2003).
14. K. Ono, D. G. Austing, Y. Tokura, S. Tarucha, Science 297, 1313 (2002).
15. A. C. Johnson, J. R. Petta, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, A. C. Gossard, cond-mat/0410679 (2004).
16. 2/Vs. Measurements were performed in a dilution refrigerator at 150 mK, with a magnetic field in the plane of the heterostructure.
17. D. Paget, G. Lampel, B. Sapoval, V. I. Safarov, Phys. Rev. B 15, 5780 (1977).
18. D. Gammon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5176 (2001).
19. T. Fujisawa et al., Science 282, 932 (1998).
20. O. N. Jouravlev, Y. Nazarov, personal communication.
21. The difference between the field dependence of the resonant and inelastic currents can be explained by the coupling with the leads. The S(0,2) state is lifetime-broadened because of coupling with the right lead (∼0.3 μeV), giving a weaker field dependence for the resonant current. The field dependence of the inelastic leakage is not affected by the lead coupling, because under the high-bias conditions of this experiment, there were no available states in the left lead that could broaden S(1,1).
22. A. C. Johnson et al., Nature 435, 925 (2005).
23. M. Dobers, K. v. Klitzing, J. Schneider, G. Weimann, K. Ploog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1650 (1988).
24. A. K. Hüttel et al., Phys. Rev. B 69, 073302 (2004).
25. 6 nuclei, changes in the nuclear polarization of 0.1% can be caused by 1000 electron-nudear flip-flop processes. For typical currents (∼100 fA), 1000 electrons move through the dot in 1 ms, so in principle current fluctuations as fast as 1 kHz are possible.
26. K. Ono, S. Tarucha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 256803 (2004).
27. R. de Sousa, S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 67, 033301 (2003).
28. 2* of 16 ns in a GaAs quantum dot, slightly shorter than in our experiment, presumably because of a smaller dot size. Braun et al. (5) measured a considerably shorter time scale, 500 ps, in InAs dots, because of a notable difference in dot size, nuclear spin I, and the stronger hyperfine coupling constant in InAs.
29. V. N. Golovach, A. V. Khaetskii, D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 016601 (2004).
30. J. M. Elzerman et al., Nature 430, 431 (2004).
31. M. Kroutvar et al., Nature 432, 81 (2004).
32. We thank O. N. Jouravlev and Y. Nazarov for developing a model that helped greatly with the physical interpretation of the data; G. Burkard, W. A. Coish, V. N. Golovach, A. C. Johnson, D. Loss, and C. M. Marcus for fruitful discussions; R. Schouten, B. van den Enden, and M. van Oossanen for technical assistance; and J. Caro for supporting infrastructure. Supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Quantum Information Science and Technology program, the Dutch Organization for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the Office of Naval Research, Exploratory Research for Advanced Technology, and the EU Research Training Network on spintronics.