Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:31:00.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transition from coherent to ohmic conductance explained by a statistical model for the effects of decoherence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Matías Zilly ,
Orsolya Ujsághy  and
Dietrich E. Wolf
Matías Zilly
Affiliation:
[email protected], University Duisburg-Essen, Department of Physics, Duisburg, Germany
Orsolya Ujsághy
Affiliation:
[email protected], Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Theoretical Physics and Condensed Matter Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
Dietrich E. Wolf
Affiliation:
[email protected], University Duisburg-Essen, Department of Physics, Duisburg, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Using a statistical model for the effects of decoherence [1], we show that in linear tight-binding samples ohmic conductance (resistance proportional to length) is reached for any finite density p of decoherence sites, if the chemical potential μ of the contacts is within a conducting band. If μ is outside a band, or if due to disorder, no bands form, for high decoherence densities p>p* still ohmic conductance is reached, where p* is a critical decoherence density. For p<p*, the sample resistance increases exponentially with the length.

Keywords

electrical propertiesmicroelectronicssimulation
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1260: Symposium T – Photovoltaics and Optoelectronics from Nanoparticles , 2010 , 1260-T12-02
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zilly, M., Ujsághy, O., and Wolf, D.E., Eur. Phys. J. B 68, 237 (2009).Google Scholar
2For an overview of electron transport theories, see Ventra, M. Di, Electrical Transport in Nanoscale Systems, Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
3For an introduction to quantum transport theory and the Landauer formalism see Datta, S., Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
4 Büttiker, M., Phys. Rev. B 33, 3020 (1986).Google Scholar
5 D'Amato, J.L. and Pastawski, H.M., Phys. Rev. B 41, 7411 (1990).Google Scholar
6 Maschke, K. and Schreiber, M., Phys. Rev. B 49, 2295 (1994).Google Scholar
7 Roy, D. and Dhar, A., Phys. Rev. B 75, 195110 (2007).Google Scholar
8 Pala, M.G. and Iannaccone, G., Phys. Rev. B 69, 235304 (2005).Google Scholar
9 Zheng, H., Wang, Z., Shi, Q., Wang, X., and Chen, J., Phys. Rev. B 74, 155323 (2006).Google Scholar
10 Meir, Y. and Wingreen, N.S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2512 (1992).Google Scholar
11 Golizadeh-Mojarad, R. and Datta, S., Phys. Rev. B 75, 081301 (2007).Google Scholar
12 Zilly, M., Electronic conduction in linear quantum systems: Coherent transport and the effects of decoherence. PhD thesis, University Duisburg-Essen, submitted.Google Scholar
13 Thouless, D.J.. In Balian, R. et. al., eds. Proceedings of the Les Houches Summer School, Session XXXI, pages 1–62 (1979).Google Scholar