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

Interference effects induced by a precessing easy-plane magnet coupled to a helical edge state

Kevin A. Madsen, Piet W. Brouwer, Patrik Recher, and Peter G. Silvestrov
Phys. Rev. B 103, 115142 – Published 24 March 2021
PDFHTMLExport Citation
Abstract
Authors
Article Text
  • INTRODUCTION
  • MODEL
  • RIGHT POINT CONTACT “OPEN”
  • RIGHT POINT CONTACT “CLOSED”
  • FULL INTERFEROMETER
  • FINITE-T ENHANCEMENT OF DC AHARONOV-BOHM…
  • CONCLUSION
  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • References

    Abstract

    The interaction of a magnetic insulator with the helical electronic edge of a two-dimensional topological insulator has been shown to lead to many interesting phenomena. One of these is that for a suitable orientation of the magnetic anisotropy axis, the exchange coupling to an easy-plane magnet has no effect on DC electrical transport through a helical edge, despite the fact that it opens a gap in the spectrum of the helical edge [Meng et al., Phys. Rev. B 90, 205403 (2014)]. Here, we theoretically consider such a magnet embedded in an interferometer, consisting of a pair of helical edge states connected by two tunneling contacts, at which electrons can tunnel between the two edges. Using a scattering matrix approach, we show that the presence of the magnet in one of the interferometer arms gives rise to AC currents in response to an applied DC voltage. On the other hand, the DC Aharonov-Bohm effect is absent at zero temperature and small DC voltages, and only appears if the applied voltage or the temperature exceeds the magnet-induced excitation gap.

    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Figure
    1 More
    • Received 11 December 2020
    • Revised 10 March 2021
    • Accepted 16 March 2021

    DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.115142

    ©2021 American Physical Society

    Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

    1. Research Areas
    Aharonov-Bohm effectEdge statesMagnetic anisotropyQuantum interference effectsSpin-orbit couplingTopological insulators
    Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

    Authors & Affiliations

    Kevin A. Madsen1,*, Piet W. Brouwer1, Patrik Recher2,3, and Peter G. Silvestrov2

    • 1Dahlem Center for Complex Quantum Systems and Institut für Physik, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 14, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
    • 2Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Braunschweig, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany
    • 3Laboratory for Emerging Nanometrology Braunschweig, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany

    • *kevin.madsen@fu-berlin.de

    Article Text (Subscription Required)

    Click to Expand

    References (Subscription Required)

    Click to Expand
    Issue

    Vol. 103, Iss. 11 — 15 March 2021

    Reuse & Permissions
    Access Options
    Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

    Authorization Required

    Log In
    Other Options
    ×

    Images

    • Figure 1
      Figure 1

      Schematic picture of the interferometer considered here. The interferometer can be realized by bringing helical edge channels of the same quantum spin Hall insulator sufficiently close together that they can make electrical contact (left), or by bringing the edge channels of different quantum spin Hall insulators into contact (right). Both panels show the location of eight reference points i=1,2,...,8 used for the calculations in the main text. The “positive” current direction for i=1,2,3,4 and for i=5,6,7,8 is to the right and to the left, respectively. The interferometer is threaded by a magnetic flux Φ.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 2
      Figure 2

      In the theoretical description, currents are calculated for eight reference points i=1,2,...,8, as shown in the left panel. The “positive” current direction for i=1,2,3,4 and for i=5,6,7,8 is to the right and to the left, respectively. The two tunneling point contacts between the opposing helical edge states are described by scattering matrices S(C1) and S(C2). The definitions of the transmission coefficients T1 and T1′ and the reflection coefficient R1 for the left tunneling point contact are shown in the right panel.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 3
      Figure 3

      Schematic picture of the “right point contact open” geometry for a realization in which the interfering edge channels are on the same quantum spin Hall insulator (left) and on different quantum spin Hall insulators (right). The positions labeled i=1,2,...,8 refer to the reference positions used for the calculations in the main text.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 4
      Figure 4

      Distribution functions f3+(ɛ+) and f7(ɛ−) for bias voltage eV<2Δ′/(2−T1′) (top panel) and eV>2Δ′/(2−T1′) (bottom panel). The bias voltage V is applied to lead “1” only; the (electro)chemical potentials of leads “2,” “7,” and “8” are held constant at the value μ=0.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 5
      Figure 5

      Schematic picture of the “right point contact closed” geometry for a realization in which the interfering edge channels are on the same quantum spin Hall insulator (left) and on different quantum spin Hall insulators (right). The positions labeled i=1,2,...,8 refer to the reference positions used for the calculations in the main text.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 6
      Figure 6

      Contributions to the AC current amplitude I1(ωM) in lead “1” that depend on the distribution function f2(ɛ) in lead “2.” The panels (a)–(f) are in the same order as the terms of Eq. (41), but when attempting to match the expressions from the panels to Eq. (41) care must be taken as explained in the following. An overall minus sign that comes from the definition of the current I1(ω) in Eq. (3) is not included. In panel (a) unitarity of S(M) must be used to make the replacement −rM*(ɛ−)tM(ɛ−)=rM′(ɛ−)tM′*(ɛ−) to arrive at the corresponding term in Eq. (41). In comparison to Eq. (41), the contribution from panel (f) contains an extra factor of |rM(ɛ−)|2. This factor has been dropped in Eq. (41), as T1′R1rM′(ɛ−)|rM(ɛ−)|2≈T1′R1rM′(ɛ−) to the level of approximation made in Eq. (41). In panels (c) and (f) the property m̂−m̂+=1 is used, as the red or blue paths reflect off both sides of the magnet. The factors of −1, R1, and iT1′ printed along the paths come from the scattering matrix elements of S(C1) and S(C2) related to the paths that are shown in the limits considered.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 7
      Figure 7

      From top to bottom: Precession frequency ωM, DC current I2(0) at zero Aharonov-Bohm phase ϕ, ϕ-dependent contribution to DC current defined in Eq. (51), and the magnitude |I2(ωM)| and |I2(2ωM)| of the AC current components at frequency ωM and 2ωM, as a function of the bias voltage V at lead “1.” All currents are evaluated in lead “2.” The solid curves show the numerical evaluation of the full solution without the approximation of small Rj, Tj′, j=1,2. The dashed curves are obtained using the analytical expressions (47, 48, 49, 50), with the exception of the second panel, where we have included all ϕ-independent terms up to second order in (Rj)1/2, (Tj′)1/2, not only those of lowest nontrivial order given in I2(0) in Eqs. (48). The parameters are chosen as T1=0.79, R1=0.09, T1′=0.12, T2=0.78, R2=0.06, T1′=0.16, kFL=1, and kFL3=0.1.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 8
      Figure 8

      Aharonov-Bohm current δI2(0,ϕ) from Eq. (54) as a function of applied bias V in lead “1” for several values of kBT/Δ; from bottom to top they are 0.01,0.1,0.25,0.5, and 2. The precession frequency ωM is determined from the solution of Eq. (47) at finite T. The phases are chosen such that sinkF(L3+L)+ϕ=1.

      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
    ×