Nonequilibrium plasmons in a quantum wire single-electron transistor

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 90, Issue 17, 2003, Pages

  Kim, Jaeuk U ^a   Krive, Ilya V ^a,b   Kinaret, Jari M ^a  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b B VERKIN INSTITUTE FOR LOW TEMPERATURE PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING   (Ukraine)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; ELECTRON TRANSPORT PROPERTIES; ELECTRON TUNNELING; ELECTRONS; HAMILTONIANS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PROBABILITY; SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM WIRES;

NONEQUILIBRIUM PLASMONS; SINGLE ELECTRON TRANSISTOR;

TRANSISTORS;

EID: 4344675519     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 5, 544 (1950)
2. J. M. Luttinger, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 4, 1154 (1963).
3. S. J. Tans et al., Nature (London) 386, 474 (1997).
4. R. Egger and A. O. Gogolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5082 (1997).
5. C. Kane, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5086 (1997).
6. M. Bockrath et al., Nature (London) 397, 598 (1999)
7. Z. Yao et al., Nature (London) 402, 273 (1999).
8. V. J. Emery, Highly Conducting One-Dimensional Solids, edited by J.T. Devreese, R. P. Evrard, and V. E. van Doren (Plenum, New York, 1979), p. 247
9. F. D. M. Haldane, J. Phys. C 14, 2585 (1981)
10. J. Voit, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, 977 (1995).
11. H. W. C. Postma et al., Science 293, 76 (2001).
12. A. Braggio et al., Europhys. Lett. 50, 236 (2000).
13. A. Braggio, M. Sassetti, and B. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 146802 (2001).
14. M. Thorwart et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 196402 (2002).
15. A. Furusaki, Phys. Rev. B 57, 7141 (1998).
16. A. Komnik and A. O. Gogolin, cond-mat/0211474.
17. Identical expression for transitions in a magnetic field was derived by J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 91, 728 (1953).
18. G. H. Hardy and S. Ramanujan, Proc. London Math. Soc. 17, 75 (1918).
19. dot = g shows fluctuation suppressions as a function of g, similar to the inset of Fig. 2(B); however, the averaged probabilities follow Eq. (9) with α = 0. Finally, when the dot transition matrix elements in Eq. (6) are replaced by unity, it shows no fluctuation of the probabilities at all and averaged probabilities are in good agreement with Eq. (9) for the whole range of interaction strength.
20. Note that, in Fig. 3(B), the peak corresponding to (N = 0, n = j + 1) ↔ (N = 1,n = j) is missing at low T as it results from the transitions between (nearly degenerate) excited states.
21. Including spin in the central segment results in additional peaks [9].