Luttinger liquid with strong spin-orbital coupling and Zeeman splitting in quantum wires

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 15, 2004, Pages

  Yu, Yue ^a   Wen, Yuchuan ^a   Li, Jinbin ^a   Su, Zhaobin ^a   Chui, S T ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONDUCTANCE; ELECTRON TRANSPORT; ENERGY; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAGNETISM; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; PARAMETER; QUANTUM MECHANICS; THEORY;

EID: 37649028626     PISSN: 01631829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.153307     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. F.D.M. Haldane, J. Phys. C 14, 2585 (1981).
2. E.I. Rashba, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) 2, 1224 (1960) [Sov. Phys. Solid State 2, 11-09 (1960)].
3. E.I. Rashba, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) 2, 1224 (1960) [Sov. Phys. Solid State 2, 11-09 (1960)].
4. A.V. Moroz and C.H.W. Barnes, Phys. Rev. B 61, 2464 (2000).
5. A.V. Moroz, K.V. Samokhin, and C.H.W. Barnes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4164 (2000); Phys. Rev. B 62, 16 900 (2000).
6. A.V. Moroz, K.V. Samokhin, and C.H.W. Barnes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4164 (2000); Phys. Rev. B 62, 16 900 (2000).
7. However, for carbon nanotubes, the spin-charge separation is not destroyed, see, A. De Martino and R. Egger, Europhys. Lett. 56, 570 (2001). It is also different from the weak Rashba coupling case where the spin-charge separation is held, see, e.g., W. Häusler, Phys. Rev. B 63, 121310 (2001); M. Governale and U. Zülicke, ibid. 66, 073311 (2002).
8. However, for carbon nanotubes, the spin-charge separation is not destroyed, see, A. De Martino and R. Egger, Europhys. Lett. 56, 570 (2001). It is also different from the weak Rashba coupling case where the spin-charge separation is held, see, e.g., W. Häusler, Phys. Rev. B 63, 121310 (2001); M. Governale and U. Zülicke, ibid. 66, 073311 (2002).
9. However, for carbon nanotubes, the spin-charge separation is not destroyed, see, A. De Martino and R. Egger, Europhys. Lett. 56, 570 (2001). It is also different from the weak Rashba coupling case where the spin-charge separation is held, see, e.g., W. Häusler, Phys. Rev. B 63, 121310 (2001); M. Governale and U. Zülicke, ibid. 66, 073311 (2002).
10. J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997); G. Engels, J. Lange, T. Schäpers, and H. Lüth, Phys. Rev. B 55, R1958 (1997).
11. J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997); G. Engels, J. Lange, T. Schäpers, and H. Lüth, Phys. Rev. B 55, R1958 (1997).
12. T. Kimura, K. Kuroki, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 53, 9572 (1996).
13. F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1840 (1981).
14. para here.
15. See, e.g., L.W. Molenkamp, G. Schmidt, and G.E.W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 64, 121202(R) (2001); G. Feve, W.D. Oliver, M. Aranzana, and Y. Yamamoto, ibid. 66, 155328 (2002).
16. See, e.g., L.W. Molenkamp, G. Schmidt, and G.E.W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 64, 121202(R) (2001); G. Feve, W.D. Oliver, M. Aranzana, and Y. Yamamoto, ibid. 66, 155328 (2002).
17. Guan-Hong Chen and M.E. Raikh, Phys. Rev. B 60, 4826 (1999).
18. K.A. Matveev and L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 990 (1993).
19. S.T. Chui and J.W. Bray, Phys. Rev. B 16, 1329 (1977); Phys. Rev. B 19, 4020 (1979); C.L. Kane and M.P.A. Fisher, ibid. 46, 15 233 (1992).
20. S.T. Chui and J.W. Bray, Phys. Rev. B 16, 1329 (1977); Phys. Rev. B 19, 4020 (1979); C.L. Kane and M.P.A. Fisher, ibid. 46, 15 233 (1992).
21. S.T. Chui and J.W. Bray, Phys. Rev. B 16, 1329 (1977); Phys. Rev. B 19, 4020 (1979); C.L. Kane and M.P.A. Fisher, ibid. 46, 15 233 (1992).