Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
  • Editors' Suggestion

Fractional Quantum Hall Effect Energy Gaps: Role of Electron Layer Thickness

K. A. Villegas Rosales, P. T. Madathil, Y. J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan
Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 056801 – Published 28 July 2021
PDFHTMLExport Citation

Abstract

The fractional quantum Hall effect stands as a quintessential manifestation of an interacting two-dimensional electron system. One of the fractional quantum Hall effect’s most fundamental characteristics is the energy gap separating the incompressible ground state from its excitations. Yet, despite nearly four decades of investigations, a quantitative agreement between the theoretically calculated and experimentally measured energy gaps is lacking. Here we report a systematic experimental study that incorporates very high-quality two-dimensional electron systems confined to GaAs quantum wells with fixed density and varying well widths. The results demonstrate a clear decrease of the energy gap as the electron layer is made thicker and the short-range component of the Coulomb interaction is weakened. We also provide a quantitative comparison between the measured energy gaps and the available theoretical calculations that takes into account the role of finite layer thickness and Landau level mixing. All the measured energy gaps fall below the calculations, but as the electron layer thickness increases, the results of experiments and calculations come closer. Accounting for the role of disorder in a phenomenological manner, we find better overall agreement between the measured and calculated energy gaps, although some puzzling discrepancies remain.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 9 March 2021
  • Accepted 24 June 2021

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.056801

© 2021 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

Authors & Affiliations

K. A. Villegas Rosales, P. T. Madathil, Y. J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan

  • Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Supplemental Material (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 127, Iss. 5 — 30 July 2021

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    (a) Transport mobility (μ) versus quantum well width (w). (b),(c) Longitudinal resistance (Rxx) versus perpendicular magnetic field (B) for GaAs 2DESs with density 1.1×1011cm2, and w=20 and 30 nm. The insets show the Arrhenius plots of Rxx minimum at ν=1/3 from which we deduce Δ1/3.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Δ1/3 (in units of Coulomb energy EC) versus effective layer thickness w˜ (in units of magnetic length lB); in our samples lB7.1nm at ν=1/3. We show the charge distributions (from self-consistent calculations) for w=20 and 70 nm as insets; w˜ is defined as the standard deviation of the charge distribution from its center. The black symbol is Δ1/3 by Suen et al. [39] for a 2DES with similar density to ours and w=77nm. For w=80nm, we find an insulating phase instead of a FQHE and represent it with an open circle. The data show a clear decrease of Δ1/3 with increasing layer thickness (the dashed line drawn for 20w70 is a least-squares fit through the data points).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Δ1/3 versus w˜. The open symbols are from theoretical calculations that include the role of finite layer thickness [24, 25], and Landau level mixing and finite layer thickness [23].

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Red symbols are Δν versus (e2/4πε0εlB)/(2p+1), for a 2DES with w=70nm. The ν range is from 1/3 to 8/17, and 2/3 to 8/15. The red lines are linear fits to the data. The blue symbols are Δν versus the Zhang–Das Sarma energy [e2/4πε0ε(lB2+w˜2)1/2]/(2p+1). The blue lines are linear fits to the blue data points. The red and blue lines have negative intercept values with the y axis that we identify as the phenomenological disorder parameter (Γ).

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    (a) Closed red symbols are the measured Δ1/3 with the added corresponding Γ parameter to account for disorder. (b) The parameter Γ versus w. The adjusted measured gaps in (a) are overall in better agreement with the calculations, but have larger uncertainties and scatter (compared to Fig. 3) because of the scatter and uncertainties in values of Γ.

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Letters

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×