Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Nonlocal transport measurements in hybrid quantum Hall–superconducting devices

Lingfei Zhao, Ethan G. Arnault, Trevyn F. Q. Larson, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, François Amet, and Gleb Finkelstein
Phys. Rev. B 109, 115416 – Published 11 March 2024

Abstract

There has been a growing interest in hybrid quantum Hall–superconductor devices, driven by the prospect to realize exotic ground states and excitations with non-Abelian exchange statistics. While the existing experiments clearly demonstrate Andreev coupling between the edge states and the superconductors, the question remains whether the quantum coherence could propagate between several superconducting contacts via chiral channels. To answer this question, we have first extended the Landauer-Büttiker (LB) formalism to samples with one superconducting contact and found a remarkable agreement within a series of measurements related to each other via LB-type formulas. We have then switched to the case of multiple superconducting contacts, and found that we can describe the measurements self-consistently if we neglect the superconducting phase coherence between multiple contacts. We interpret this result as a negative answer to the question posed above: the phase correlations between multiple superconducting contacts are not established via μm-long quantum Hall edge states. Looking forward, our approach may find applications in the broader field of topological superconductivity and proximal structures. Possible violations of the self-consistency tests presented here may be used as an indication that superconducting phase coherence is induced in the quantum Hall edges.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 21 November 2023
  • Revised 27 January 2024
  • Accepted 21 February 2024

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.115416

©2024 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Lingfei Zhao1,*, Ethan G. Arnault1, Trevyn F. Q. Larson1, Kenji Watanabe2, Takashi Taniguchi2, François Amet3, and Gleb Finkelstein1

  • 1Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
  • 2National Institute for Materials Science, 1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba 305-0044, Japan
  • 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28607, USA

  • *lz117@duke.edu

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 109, Iss. 11 — 15 March 2024

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article part of CHORUS

Accepted manuscript will be available starting 11 March 2025.
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Sketches of QH devices with one superconducting contact and multiple normal contacts. (a) The device is in QH regime with only one QH edge state propagating clockwise. The shaded contact (3) is superconducting and others are normal. CAES along the superconducting contact convert an upstream electron into a downstream electron or hole. (b) Two QH edge states are present (e.g., belonging to different Landau levels). The inner channels are reflected back by the gates (blue dotted rectangles).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    (a) Optical image of the device. The filling factor under the top gates (LTG and RTG) is ν=2. The filling factor outside is tuned to ν=6 by a global Si gate (BG) underneath the substrate. Contact 3 is a superconductor (MoRe) and other contacts are normal metals (Cr/Au). (b) R(13)2,53, R(23)1,53, R31,53, and R21,53 (from top to bottom) measured as a function of VRTG and VBG. VBG is tuned inside the range of ν=6 plateau and VRTG is maintaining ν=2 underneath. (c) R(23)1,53+R(13)2,53/3 (top) and R(23)1,532R(13)2,53/3 (bottom) plotted vs. VRTG and VBG. The two maps agree well with R31,53 and R21,53 in (b).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    (a) R24,32 and R31,43 of a bilayer graphene device with four superconducting contacts (inset) plotted vs. VBG. The gate voltage spans over the lowest Landau level (ν=4) plateau. (b) R23,32 vs. RH+R24,32+R31,43 as a function of VBG. The two differential resistances agree well. The temperature of the device is 60 mK.

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review B

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×