1 / 15

Quantum criticality perspective on population fluctuations of a localized electron level

This study explores population fluctuations of a localized electron level from a quantum criticality perspective. It investigates the effects of energy levels, interactions, and external factors on the population dynamics. The results provide insights into multi-level dots, charge sensing, and qubit dephasing.

jtharp
Download Presentation

Quantum criticality perspective on population fluctuations of a localized electron level

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quantum criticality perspective on population fluctuations of a localized electron level Vyacheslavs (Slava) Kashcheyevs Collaboration: Christoph Karrasch, Volker Meden (RTWH AachenU., Germany) Theresa Hecht, Andreas Weichselbaum (LMU Munich, Germany) AvrahamSchiller (Hebrew U., Jerusalem,Israel) “The Science of Complexity”, Minerva conference, Eilat, March31st, 2009

  2. Quantum criticality perspective on population fluctuations of a localized electron level

  3. Average population <n–> V– Ω 1 0 Start non-interacting ε– EF – Increase level energy ε– Critical ε*= EF

  4. V– Ω 1 b 0 Add on-site interactions Average population <n–> ε– EF – + U V+ ε+ Increase level energy ε– Without V_, b: Two disconnected, orthogonal ground states, “critical” at ε–=ε*

  5. V– Ω 1 b 0 Results in a nutshell Average population <n–> “narrow” “broad” ε– EF – + U V+ ε+ Increase level energy ε– For small V_, b:

  6. Population switching in multi-level dots: is the there room for abrupt (first order) transitions? what determines the transition width for moderate interactions? Charge sensing Qubit dephasing A basic (“trivial”) example of criticality Connecting limits of different models (Non-) Interacting resonant level versusanisotropic Anderson Full weak-to-strong coupling crossover “Applied” “Fundamental” Motivation

  7. Model Hamiltonian Strongly anisotropic Anderson model, with local, tilted Zeeman field(b,ε+–ε–) V– =0  only “+” band   interacting resonant level Caution: definitions of εσ and δU here are different form those in the paper

  8. Weaponry • Analytical mapping to anisotropic Kondo model via bosonisation • Pertrubative RG (in tunneling, not U!) of Yuval-Anderson-Hamann’70 • Numerical Renormalization Group • FunctionalRG Fight problems, not people!

  9. Fermi liquid(Kondo) FP D << Ω D >> Ω Strategy – renormalization • Disconnected system at ε–=ε* is RG-invariant afixed point! • Tunneling is a relevant perturbation  FP is repulsive  the system is critical validity range of perturbative RG Line of critical FP!

  10. Reduced to Ω Crossover to strong coupling when ~ 1 Started from Γ+ RG recipe for critical exponents • Linearize RG equations around the FP: Bosonization-based mapping: Starting (bare) value

  11. Compare to numerics (alpha) • Numerics done for ε*=0 Consistent with presudo-spin Kondo regime VK,Schiller,Entin,Aharony ’07Silvestrov,Imry’07

  12. Compare to numerics (beta)

  13. Compare to numerics (both!) A scaling law Thanks to Amnon Aharony!

  14. Some open questions • How does finite voltagedephase/modify the power-laws? • Will direct measuring of <n-> (e.g., via charge sensing) be destructive for the effect? • What if both fermionic & bosonicenvironment are present? Scaling arguments?

  15. Thank you!

More Related