Optical signatures of coupled quantum dots

Science

Volumn 311, Issue 5761, 2006, Pages 636-639

  Stinaff, E A ^a   Scheibner, M ^a   Bracker, A S ^a   Ponomarev, I V ^a   Korenev, V L ^b   Ware, M E ^a   Doty, M F ^a   Reinecke, T L ^a   Gammon, D ^a  

^a NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b IOFFE INSTITUTE   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING; ELECTRIC FIELDS; EXCITONS; RESONANCE; SEMICONDUCTING INDIUM COMPOUNDS;

COUPLED QUANTUM DOTS; MOLECULAR WAVE FUNCTION; OPTICAL SPECTRUM; QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING;

SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

ARSENIC DERIVATIVE; INDIUM; QUANTUM DOT;

PHYSICS;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DEVICE; ELECTRIC FIELD; ELECTRON; ENERGY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LASER; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; OPTICS; PHOTOREACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATION;

EID: 31944432846     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1121189     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. D. Gammon, D. G. Steel, Phys. Today 55, 36 (2002).
2. J. M. Garcia et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 2014 (1997).
3. Z. R. Wasilewski, S. Fafard, J. P. McCaffrey, J. Cryst. Growth 201-202, 1131 (1999).
4. Q. Xie, A. Madhukar, P. Chen, N. P. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2542 (1995).
5. G. S. Solomon, J. A. Trezza, A. F. Marshall, J. S. Harris Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 952 (1996).
6. P. Chen, C. Piermarocchi, L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 067401 (2001).
7. E. Biolatti, R. C. Iotti, P. Zanardi, F. Rossi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5647 (2000).
8. F. H. L. Koppens et al., Science 309, 1346 (2005).
9. J. R. Petta et al., Science 309, 2180 (2005).
10. T. Hatano, M. Stopa, S. Tarucha, Science 309, 268 (2005).
11. G. Schedelbeck, W. Wegscheider, M. Bichler, G. Abstreiter, Science 278, 1792 (1997).
12. M. Bayer et al., Science 291, 451 (2001).
13. H. J. Krenner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 057402 (2005).
14. G. Ortner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 157401 (2005).
15. Y. Lyanda-Geller, T. L. Reinecke, M. Bayer, Phys. Rev. B 69, 161308 (2004).
16. J. M. Villas-Boas, A. O. Govorov, S. E. Ulloa, Phys. Rev. B 69. 125342 (2004).
17. D. Bellucci, F. Troiani, G. Goldoni, E. Molinari, Phys. Rev. B 70, 205332 (2004).
18. G. Bester, A. Zunger, J. Shumway, Phys. Rev. B 71, 075325 (2005).
19. B. Szafran et al., Phys. Rev. B 71, 205316 (2005).
20. A. Zrenner et al., Nature 418, 612 (2002).
21. X. Q. Li et al., Science 301, 809 (2003).
22. S. Cortez et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 207401 (2002).
23. M. Kroutvar et al., Nature 432, 81 (2004).
24. A. S. Bracker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 047402 (2005).
25. L. M. Woods, T. L. Reinecke, R. Kotlyar, Phys. Rev. B 69, 125330 (2004).
26. Details of the experiment and calculations can be found in the Supporting Online Material on Science Online.
27. R. J. Warburton et al., Nature 405, 926 (2000).
28. M. E. Ware et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 177403 (2005).
29. This is only approximate; asymmetric h-h and e-h exchange will mix slightly the singlet and triplet states. Recently, it has been shown in electronic manipulation of charged molecules that hyperfine interactions can flip electronic spin (8-10); however, unlike electrons, holes should not have strong hyperfine interactions.
30. We thank S. C. Badescu for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Quantum Information Science and Technology, National Security Agency/Army Research Office, U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation, Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russian Science Support Foundation, and Office of Navy Research. E.A.S., I.V.P., M.E.W., and M.F.D. are National Research Council/Naval Research Laboratory Research Associates.