Superconducting transport

Superconducting model Hamiltonians:

Nambu formalism
Current through a N/S junction
Supercurrent in an atomic contact
Finite bias current and shot noise:
The MAR mechanism

Superconducting model Hamiltonians

Assume an electronic system with Hamiltonian
(in a site representation):

H 0 n i t ( ci ci 1 ci1 ci )
i

If due to some attractive interaction non included in H, the system

becomes superconducting:

H S 0 n i t ( c i c i 1 c i1 c i ) ( c ic i c ic i )
i

= local pairing potential = gap parameter (homogeneous system)

c ic i

c ic i

H S 0 n i t ( c i c i 1 c i1 c i ) ( c ic i c ic i )
i

Diagonalization of HS: Bogoliubov transformation:

i ui c i vi c i

i i

u c vi c i

2x2 space (Nambu space)

A quasi-particle is a linear combination of electron and hole

 Matrix notation: spinor operator for a quasi particle of spin

ci
i
ci

i ci

ci

The usual causal propagator in this 2X2 space will be

G ij ( t ,t' ) i T i ( t ) i ( t' )

Which in an explicit 2x2 representation has the form

T c ( t )c ( t' )
i
j
G ij ( t ,t' ) i
T c ( t )c ( t' )
i
j

T ci ( t )c j ( t' )
T ci ( t )c j ( t' )

 From a practical point of view of the quantum mechanical calculation:

Doubling up of the Hilbert space:

0
0
h 0

t 0

t
0 t

t 0
0 t 0

Formally like a normal system with two orbitals per site

 Problem: surface Green functions in the superconducting state

Simple model: semi-infinite tight-binding chain

h0
0
h 0

h0

0 0

h0

surface site

e-h symmetry

0 0

h0

h0

t 0

t
0 t

 Adding an extra identical site, 0 , and solving the Dyson equation

t 2 g 002 ( ) ( 0 )g 00 ( ) 1 0

tg

( ) ( I h0 )g00 ( ) I 0
2

00

Normal case

Superconducting case

In a superconductor the energies of interest are

Wide band approximation

g 00 ( ) i ( )

i
W

g 00 ( ) i ( )
2 2

Normal state

Superconducting state

BCS density of states

 A word on notation: Nambu space + Keldish space

Superconductivity

Non-equilibrium

Keldish

Gi , j ( t ,t' )

, ,
i , j 1,2
Nambu

N/S superconducting contact

Single-channel model

L R eV
Superconductor
L

Left lead

Right lead

H H L H R t( c L c R c R c L )

perturbation

 Superconducting right lead (uncoupled):

R

g ( ) i R ( )
2 2
a
RR

R 0

g RR, ( ) g aRR ( ) g rRR ( ) f R ( )

Nambu space

 Normal metal left lead

L

1 0

g ( ) i L ( )
0 1
a
LL

Important point

g LL, ( ) g aLL ( ) g rLL ( ) f L ( )

f L ( ) f ( eV )

0
f ( eV )

g ( ) 2i L ( )
0
f ( eV )

,
LL

hole distribution

N/S quasi-particle tunnel: tunnel limit

I
1

eV

T0

T0

GS ( V ) S ( eV )

GN
N ( )

eV
( eV )2 2

0,

Differential conductance

standard BCS picture

, eV

eV

t exp( d )

Tunnel regime

Contact regime

eV

=1
= 0.9
= 0.5

G(V)/G0

Conductance saturation

4e 2
G 2G0
h

0
-3

-2

-1

eV/

Andreev Reflection

Superconductor

Normal metal
Transmitted charge

2e

Probability 2

 L R eV

Normal metal

Left lead

Superconductor
Right lead

H H L H R t( c L c R c R c L )

perturbation

ie
I t c L ( t )c R ( t ) c R ( t )c L ( t )

2ie
I
t c L ( t )c R ( t ) c R ( t )c L ( t )

2e
,
,
I t d GRL
(

G
,11
LR ,11( )
h

Current due to Andreev reflections (eV )

2
8e 2 4
I A ( V ) t d M ,11 ( eV ) M ,22 ( eV ) GS ,12 ( ) [ f ( eV ) f ( eV )]
h

M ,11 ( eV )

GS ,12 ( ) M ,22 ( eV )
2

Differential conductance
2

G(V)/G0

=1
= 0.9
= 0.5

2e 2
G0
h

0
-3

-2

-1

eV/

4e 2
2
G( V )
h ( 2 )2 4( 1 )( eV / )

4e 2
saturation value G( V )
h

eV

Josephson current in a S/S contact

Zero bias case

L R 0
Superconductor

Superconductor
L

Left lead

L e i L

L R
Superconducting phase difference

H H L H R t( c L c R c R c L )

BCS superconductors

Right lead

R e i R

SQUID configuration

2 1
transmission

Uncoupled superconductors
L
Nambu space

L e i L

a
i
g LL ( ) i L ( )

2 2 e L
1

eiL

L R 0

Superconductor

Left lead

Superconductor
Right lead

H H L H R t( c L c R c R c L )

perturbation

ie

t
c
(
t
)
c
(
t
)

L
R
R ( t )c L ( t )

2ie
t c L ( t )c R ( t ) c R ( t )c L ( t )

2e
,
,
I t d GRL
(

G
,11
LR ,11( )
h

2e
,
,
I ( ) t d GRL
(

G
,11
LR ,11( )
h

The zero bias case, V=0, is specially simple, because the system
is in equilibrium
Even in the perturbed system:

G , ( ) G a ( ) G r ( ) f ( )

,
a
r
GRL
(

G
(

G
,11
RL ,11
RL ,11 ( ) f ( )

2e
a
a
r
r
I ( ) t d GRL

G
,11
LR ,11
RL ,11
LR ,11 f ( )
h

2e
a
a
r
r
I ( ) t d GRL

G
,11
LR ,11
RL ,11
LR ,11 f ( )
h

g L ,12 ( )g R ,21( )
2e 2
g12r ( ) g 21r ( )
I ( ) t sin d Im
f ( )
h
D( )
r

D( ) det[I tg Lr ( )t g Rr ( )]

D( ) 1

Tunnel limit

I( )
sin tanh

2eRN
2
k
T
B

Nambu space

Ambegaokar-Baratoff

2 ( i )2

I( )

2e 2
g ( )g 21( )
t sin d Im 12
f ( )
h
D( )

= 0.1

= 0.95

1
2

-3

j()

-2

-1

-3

-2

-1

30

D( ) 0

20

= 0.95
= 2.5

10

Andreev states

0
-10

( ) 1 sin 2

-20

-30
-3

-2

-1

I( )

2e 2
g ( )g 21( )
t sin d Im 12
f ( )
h
D( )

D( ) 0

( ) 1 sin 2

Andreev states

1.0

Two level system

E/

0.5

IS ( )

=0.9

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
-2

-1

( )
e2 sen
Is( )
tanh

h ( )
2
k
T
B

Supercurrent

e d ( )
d

Josephson supercurrent
Josephson (1962)

I s ( )

e
sen
h

I()/Ic 0,10

= 0.1

0,05

e
Is( )
2

sen
1 sen

0,00
0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

-0,05

-0,10

I()/Ic

1,5

1,0

=0.9
0,5

0,0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

Kulik-Omelyanchuk (1977)

2e

sen
h
2

I s ( )
I()/Ic

=1

0
0,0

-1

-2

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

S/S atomic contact with finite bias

Multiple Andreev reflections (MAR)

Sub-gap structure: qualitative explanation

1 quasi-particle

a) eV>

2 quasi-particles

b) eV>

c) eV>23
e
h
e

e
p1

3 quasi-particles

p3 3

p2 2

eV>2n

n quasi-particles

a
b

c
3

Conduction in a superconducting junction

I
EF,L

2
I

EF,R
2

EF,L - EF,R = eV > 2

eV

Experimental IV curves in superconducting contacts

50
40

Al 1 atom
contact

I [ nA ]

T = 17 mK
30
20
10
0

100

200

300

V [ V ]

400

500

Andreev reflection in a superconducting junction

Superconductor
eV>

Superconductor
Transmitted charge

2e

Probability 2

eV

Multiple Andreev reflection

2 /3

Superconductor
eV > 2 /3

Superconductor
Transmitted charge

3e

Probability 3

eV

Theoretical model
d 2eV

dt

L R eV

I (V , t )

(V )e in ( t )

2eV
( t ) 0
t

V
L R eV

Superconductor

Left lead

Superconductor

Right lead

H H L H R [tei ( t )c L c R te i ( t )c R c L ]

time dependent perturbation

L e i ( t ) / 2
R e i ( t ) / 2

Gauge choice

t tei ( t ) / 2

Calculation of the current

H H L H R [tei ( t )c L c R te i ( t )c R c L ]

I ( t ) ie [tei ( t ) / 2 c ( t )c ( t ) tei ( t ) / 2 c ( t )c ( t )]

L
R
R
L

2e

i ( t ) / 2

I( t )
tei ( t ) / 2GRL
(
t
,
t
)

te
G
,11
LR ,11( t ,t )

in ( t )
I
(
V
,
t
)

I
(
V
)
e
n n
Non-linear and non-stationary current

dc component of the current I0(V)

Experiments

Theoretical IV curves

TRANSMISSION
1.0
0.99
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

eI/G

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

eV/

2.0

2.5

3.0

50

Al one-atom contact

dc current
4

30

20

T = 17 mK
3

eI/G

I [ nA ]

40

10
0

TRANSMISSION
1.0
0.99
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

100

200

300

400

500

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

eV/

V [ V ]
Sub-gap structure (SGS) in:

1.5

eV

2
n

2.0

2.5

3.0

Fitting of the curves I0(V)

555

experimental
data
experimental
experimentaldata
data
(Total
transmission
0.807)
(Total
(Totaltransmission
transmission==
=0.807)
0.807)

444

eI/G
eI/G
eI/G

333

222

n = 0.652
n = 0.652
n = 0.652
n = (0.390,0.388)
n = (0.390,388)
n = (0.405,0.202,0.202)

111

000
000

111

22
2

3
33

eV/
eV/

4
44

555

666

I0(V) characteristics

Atomic Al contacts

T1=0.800, T2=0.075
T1=0.682, T2=0.120, T3=0.015
T1=0.399, T2=0.254, T3=0.154

b
c

75
0.8
17
0.8

07
0.8

eI/G

eI/G

Atomic Pb contacts

0
0

eV/

eV/

Determination of conduction channels of an atomic contact

Mechanical break junction
Scheer et al, PRL 78, 3535 (97)
(Saclay)

Superconducting IV in last contact before breaking

Theoretical curves

The PIN code of an atomic contact

2e 2
G
h

PIN code

Determination of conduction channels of an atomic contact

Correlation between number of channels and number of valence atomic orbitals

Al

3p
3s

Al
Pb
Nb
Au

3
3
5
1
Proximity effect

~ 7 eV
(Saclay)
(Madrid)
(Leiden)
(Saclay)

MCBJ
STM
MCBJ
MCBJ

Shot noise in superconducting atomic contacts

S( 0 ) dt I( t ) I( 0 ) I( 0 ) I( t )
S (0) 2eI

eV k BT

Poissonian limit

S (0) / 2 I q*

Charge of the carriers

What is the transmitted charge in a Andreev reflection?

eV>

eV>

h
e

Q* e

Q * 2e ?

eV>23
e
h
e

Q * 3e ?

Theoretical curves
8

0.95

Shot Noise

S/(4e /h)

6
5

0.9

0.8

0.7
0.6

3
2

0.5
0.4

0.3

1
0
0.0

0.2
0.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

1.0
2.0

2.5

eV/

Huge increase of S/2eI for V

3.0

 Effective charge carried by a multiple Andreev reflection:

2
Q* 1 Integer

eV

10

Effective charge

Charge in the tunnel limit

4

Transmission
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.95

S/2eI

q = S/2eI

= 0.01

0
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00

0
0,5

eV/

= 0.1

1,0

1,5

2,0

eV/

2,5

3,0

Shot noise measurements in atomic contacts

superconducting Al contact

effective charge

Cron, Goffman, Esteve and Urbina, Phys.Rev.Lett. 86, 4104, (2001).

Superconducting transport through a magnetic region

Superconducting transport through a correlated quantum dot

SC

SC