Hofstadter butterflies in a modulated magnetic field: Superconducting wire network with magnetic decoration

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 70, Issue 14, 2004, Pages

  Iye, Yasuhiro ^a   Kuramochi, Eiichi ^a   Hara, Masahiro ^a   Endo, Akira ^a   Katsumoto, Shingo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ELECTRON; ENERGY; INHIBITION KINETICS; MAGNETIC FIELD; OSCILLATION; REGULATORY MECHANISM; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; SUPERCONDUCTOR;

EID: 37649029750     PISSN: 01631829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.144524     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. D.R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. B 14, 2239 (1976).
2. G.H. Wannier, Phys. Status Solidi B 88, 757 (1978).
3. F.H. Claro and G.H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. B 19, 6068 (1979).
4. Y. Hatsugai and M. Kohmoto, Phys. Rev. B 42, 8282 (1990).
5. Ch. Kreft and R. Seiler, J. Math. Phys. 37, 5207 (1996).
6. D.J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M.P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 405 (1982).
7. A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 28, 6713 (1983).
8. P. Lederer, D. Poilblanc, and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1519 (1989).
9. Y. Hasegawa, Y. Hatsugai, M. Kohmoto, and G. Montambaux, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9174 (1990).
10. C. Albrecht, J.H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, D. Weiss, V. Umansky, and H. Schweizer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 147 (2001).
11. B. Pannetier, J. Chaussy, R. Rammal, and J.C. Villegier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1845 (1985); see also B. Pennetier, in Quantum Coherence in Mesoscopic Systems, edited by B. Kramer, NATO Advanced Study Institute Series Vol. 254 (Plenum Press, New York, 1991), p. 457.
12. B. Pannetier, J. Chaussy, R. Rammal, and J.C. Villegier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1845 (1985); see also B. Pennetier, in Quantum Coherence in Mesoscopic Systems, edited by B. Kramer, NATO Advanced Study Institute Series Vol. 254 (Plenum Press, New York, 1991), p. 457.
13. S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. B 27, 1541 (1983).
14. R. Rammal, T.C. Lubensky, and G. Toulouse, Phys. Rev. B 27, 2820 (1983).
15. M.J. Higgins, Y. Xiao, S. Bhattacharya, P.M. Chaikin, S. Sethuraman, R. Bojko, and D. Spencer, Phys. Rev. B 61, R894 (2000).
16. C.C. Abilio, P. Butaud, Th. Fournier, B. Pannetier, J. Vidal, S. Tedesco, and B. Dalzotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5102 (1999).
17. M.A. Itzler, A.M. Behrooz, C.W. Wilks, R. Bojko, and P.M. Chaikin, Phys. Rev. B 42, 8319 (1990).
18. M.A. Itzler, R. Bojko, and P.M. Chaikin, Phys. Rev. B 47, 14 165 (1993).
19. B. Doucot, W. Wang, J. Chaussy, B. Pannetier, R. Rammal, A. Vareille, and D. Henry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1235 (1986).
20. S. Ito, M. Ando, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 3158 (1999).
21. M. Ando, S. Ito, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 3462 (1999).
22. Y. Nozaki, Y. Otani, K. Runge, H. Miyajima, B. Pannetier, J.P. Nozieres, and G. Fillion, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 8571 (1996).
23. G.-Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. B 62, 4567 (2000).
24. Y. Morita and Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 151 (2001).
25. The reason why the range of φ for Fig. 13 is wider than for Fig. 12 is simply due to the difference in the magnetic decoration. First, the ferromagnetic material for sample B was nickel in contrast to cobalt for sample A. Secondly, the distance between the ferromagnet array and the superconducting network was about five times larger for sample B than sample A. These two factors made the value of φ required for the same amplitude of magnetic field modulation much larger for sample B than for sample A.