Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDarrell Kennedy Modified over 9 years ago
1
basics of edge channels in IQHE doing physics with integer edge channels studies of transport in FQHE regime deviations from the ‘accepted’ picture Moty Heiblum QHE Regime Edge States in QHE Regime …. their nature & use
2
edge channels in FQHE mirrors of the bulk back to shot noise…
3
V = 0 ……….. S i (0) = 4k B Tg ……….thermal shot noise T > 0 T = 0 ……….. S i (0) = 2qI (1-t )……..shot V, T > 0 …………………………………….total T=100mK noise of independent scattering EFEF n (E ) EFEF
4
start with =1/3… a reminder =e / 3 ohmic contact J (r ) 00 r
5
start with, ubiquitous v =1/3 fractional state conductance is not enough - use shot noise employ partition via weak backscattering infrequent & independent events - stochastic determination of qp charge
6
h/eV e e e t g =e 2 / 3h noise e * = e t e / 3 3h/eV g =e 2 / 3h similar conductance - different shot noise partitioning noise e * =e/3
7
extremely weak backscattering T=9mK 1-t ~ 0.01 V g =-0.03V
8
strong weak backscattering e/3e/3 e only electrons expected
9
composite edge channel =2/5
10
1-t ~ 0.01 = 2/5 bunching of quasiparticles charge = filling factor extremely weak backscattering
11
1 st excited Landau level
12
- Rxx x 100 - Rxy R ( k B ( T ) v =5/2 Moore - Read proposed non-abelian state ~ 30 10 6 cm 2 /V-s
13
ee composite fermions at B * =0 single spin (high field) p-wave superconductor…. Moore-Read state bulkchiral edge modes predicted Majorana qp’s: localized in the bulk and propagating in chiral edge modes v = 5/2 2 + 1/2 R xx = 0 R xy quantized energy gap charged quasiparticles v =5/2 FQHE state
14
v = n +1/2 ee composite fermions at B =0 =5/2 = 2+1/2 2020 2020 metal superconductor exotic phases p-wave superconductor R xx =0
15
expected charge of excitations + + + + + + + + + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JrJr r Cooper pairs
16
partitioning =5/2
17
particle-like (Laughlin) & hole-conjugate quasiparticles
18
hole-conjugate states
19
edge: single charge mode with G=G 0 /3 bulk: single component and gapped (incompressible liquid) ν x expected ν = 1/3 (particle-like)
20
ν = 2/3 = 1 – 1/3 full LL of electrons – 1/3 holes ν = 2/3 (hole-conjugate-like) upstream e/3 was not found….. upstream e/3 was not found….. Ashoori 1992
21
naive model 2-probe conductance = 4/3 e 2 /h neasured 2-probe conductance = 2/3 e 2 /h MacDonald’s clean edge
22
forming upstream neutral mode ν =2/3 ν = 2/3 lack of equilibration downstream downstream charge mode G=(2/3)G 0 + upstream neutral mode Kane et al. 1994
23
why study neutral modes ? predicted but was not measured before an added source of energy dissipation a possible source of quasiparticle dephasing
24
envisioning neutral modes… coherent (quantum) dipoles or classical heat wave… impinged at a partitioning barrier ( QPC ; non-ideal ohmic contact ) : dipoles may fragment leading to excess noise temperature may rise
25
neutral mode ‘flow of dipoles’ shot noise (electron-hole) without net current
26
neutral mode heating a QPC thermal noise without net current
27
excitation of neutral mode at ohmic contact qp injecting from source #2 looking for shot noise with zero net current 40 m downstream currentupstream current
28
upstream noise v =2/3 10 -29 A 2 /Hz 7mK t (1-t ) transmission of QPC
29
charge neutral qp excitation of neutral mode at QPC …
30
noise due to neutral mode T (1-T ) upstream noise v = 2/3
31
v = 5/2 ….. a few possible wave functions statestatisticschargeupstream neutral mode Moore-Read (Pfaffian) Moore & Read, Nuclear Phys. B (1991) non-abeliane/4no anti-Pfaffian Lee, PRL (2007); Levin et. al. PRL (2007) non-abeliane/4yes U(1)XSU(2) Wen, PRL (1991) non-abeliane/4no 331 Halperin, Helev. Phys. Acta (1983) abeliane/4no identifying wave function M.Dolev et. al., Nature 452, 829 (2008), P. Iuliana et. al., Science 320, 899(2008), V. Venkatachalam et. al., Nature 469, 182 (2008)
32
neutral mode at v = 5/2 ~t (1-t ) clear evidence of upstream neutral mode favors anti-Pfaffian wave function
33
status as of 2014… upstream neutral modes in hole-conjugate states and in v =5/2 excitation when imbalance of Fermi energy NO upstream net current no neutral modes in the integer regime no neutral modes in particle-like states neutral modes decay at distance (~100 m) neutral modes decay at temperature (~100mK)
34
since no sign of interference of qp’s in v =1/3… are particle-like states supporting also unobserved neutral edge modes?
35
downstream downstream shot noise 1 x 10 11 cm -2 ; 5 x 10 6 cm 2 /V-sec upstream upstream noise at non-ideal ohmic contact repeating the experiments: > higher sensitivity noise measurements bulk > shorter distance of neutral mode propagation length > could we also have bulk contributions ?
36
upstream upstream noise (?) downstream downstream shot noise ~ t(1-t ) bulk edge edge bulk could we also have bulk contributions ?
37
edgebulk energy also propagates through the incompressible bulk ! however, most energy is carried by chiral upstream edge mode 10 -29 A 2 /Hz 7mK start with v = 2/3 25mK
38
10 -30 A 2 /Hz = 1.4mK edgebulk v = 1/3 25mK about ~5 weaker than in v =2/3 qualitatively similar results obtained in v = 2/5, 4/3
39
x x ν = 1/5? an unexpected reconstruction forms at 1/3…
40
sharp - smooth edge ν x smoother edge ? ν x do we know the structure of v =2/3 ? Girvin, MacDonaldMeir 1994 PRL v =2/3 v =1/3 or, could it be ? initial evidence of thus reconstruction…
41
upstream neutral modes in hole-conjugate states and in v =5/2 excitation when imbalance of Fermi energy NO upstream net current no neutral modes in the integer regime no neutral modes in particle-like states neutral modes decay fast with distance (~100 m) neutral modes decay fast with temperature (~100mK) neutral modes in the bulk nature of the modes is not clear (incoherent heat wave, coherent dipoles,…)
42
small edge velocity extended duration in interferometer interaction with uncontrolled environment small edge velocity (small electric field) level spacing < k B T built-in ‘which path’ detection via the ‘neutral modes’ increasing edge velocity………….sharpening the edge eliminating edge reconstruction somehow ? lack of interference of qp…..
43
thank you
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.