Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Landauer Buttiker Formalism PDF
Landauer Buttiker Formalism PDF
Frank Elsholz
3 Concepts 4
3.1 Transmission probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Ballistic conductor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 Reflectionless contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4 Transverse modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5 Distribution Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6 Number of transverse modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7 Contact Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Landauer Formula 8
6 Multiterminal Devices 10
2
1 Symbols
Quantity Größe Symbol SI-Unit
(2-D)Conductivity1 (spezifische) Leitfähigkeit σ Ω−1 · m−1
(2-D)Resistivity1 (spezifischer) Widerstand ρ Ω · m−1
Conductance1 Leitwert G Ω−1
Resistance1 Widerstand R Ω
Band edge energy (bulk) (Leitungs-)bandunterkante EC eV
Cutoff energy ? εc eV
Transmission function Transmissionsfunktion T
Heavyside function Stufenfunktion ϑ
Effective mass Effektive Masse m me
Length Länge L m
Width Breite w m
Number of transverse modes Anzahl transversaler Moden M
RL I
Rtot = RU + RI + R0 + RL (1) R RI
+ U-
But we won’t worry ’bout all these details, so usually we R
calculate the resistors resistance by calculating UDC UDC
UR Figure 1:
R0 = . (2)
I Measuring
On the other hand, we know, that the resistance can be the value of a
expressed by a specific, material dependend but geometry resistance R0 is
independent (2-D)resistivity ρ, or, equivalently, it’s (2- influenced by
D)conductivity σ, as: several sources
of pratical
L errors.
R0 = G−1
0 = , (3)
σw
1
Temparture dependent
3
L
w
Contact 1 Conductor
Contact 2
which is not observed experimentally. For the length L going to zero und
for small width w, we find a limiting value limL→0 R0 → RC (w), which does
depend on the width. To find an explanation, we introduce several concepts.
3 Concepts
We treat the resistor as a conductor sandwiched between two contacts (fig.
2).
4
later. This assumption set us in the position to note, that the +k states
inside a ballistic conductor are populated by electron originating in the left
contact only and vice versa.
5
E
E(kz)
EC+e4
EC+e3
EC+e2
EC+e1
EC+e0
EC
Conductor Contact kz
(a) (b)
µ1 and µ2 :
T =0K
Left contact: f1 (E) = ϑ(µ1 − E) Fermi distribution
T =0K
Right contact: f2 (E) = ϑ(µ2 − E) Fermi distribution
T =0K
+k states: f + (E) = f1 (E) = ϑ(µ1 − E)
Conductor: T =0K
-k states: f − (E) = f2 (E) = ϑ(µ2 − E)
6
electron density for an electron inside a conductor of length L and veff is the
effective velocity of the electrons. So we have:
e X ∂E +
In+ = f (E(k)). (5)
L k h̄∂k
P L
R
By using the formal transition →2× 2π
dk this yields:
k
Z∞
2e
In+ = f + (E)dE. (6)
h
εn
Here 2e
h
nA
= 80 meV is the current per mode per energy. The same holds for
the −k states.
3.7 Contact Resistance
Apply a low voltage U = (µ1 − µ2 ) /e to a ballistic conductor, such that
M (E)=const=M for µ2 < E < µ1 , which is referred to as transport at the
Fermi edge. Then the current will be
2e 2e2 (µ1 − µ2 )
I = I+ − I− = M (µ1 − µ2 ) = M
h h e
The conductance will be
I 2e2
GC = = M
U h
and the resistance (contact resistance)is
h
G−1
C = ≈ 12.9 kΩ
M
2e2 M
These results have been confirmed experimentally (fig. 6).
7
Figure 6: Discrete conductance steps in a narrow conductor (atopted from:
[1]).
4 Landauer Formula
A fully analoguous treatment including a resident scatterer inside the
conductor with transmission probability T yield Landauer’s formula for the
conductance of a mesoscopic conductor:
2e2
Gtot = h
MT Landauer 1957 (8)
Discrete modes
Ohm’s law
Ohm’s law is obtained considerering the limiting case of a long conductor
including many scatterers, which will not be derived here. The interested
reader may be suggested to have a look in [1]. Finally we want to devide the
resistance into two parts: The resistance originating in the transistion to the
contacts and the residual scatterer’s resistance:
h h h 1−T
G−1 = = + (9)
2e2 M T 2 2
|2e{zM} |2e M{z T }
G−1
C G−1
s
8
5 Residual scatterer’s resistance on a micro-
scopic scale
m1 S m2
XL L R XR
Distributionfunctions (T=0 K):
+ + + +
f (E)=J(m1-E) f (E)=J(m1-E) f (E)=J(m2-E)+T[J(m1-E)-J(m2-E)] f (E)=J(F''-E)
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 m2 m1 E 0 m2 m1 E 0 m2 F'' m1 E 0 F'' E
-
f (E)=J(F'-E) -
-
f (E)=J(m2-E)
-
f (E)=J(m2-E)
1 f (E)=J(m2-E)+(1-T)[J(m1-E)-J(m2-E)] 1 1
1
T T T
0 0 0 0
0 F' E 0 m2 F' m1 E 0 m2 F' m1 E 0 m2 F' m1 E
To have a look at the distribution function for the electrons inside the con-
ductor for temperature 0K, we first consider the +k states. Coming in from
the left contact (XL), they are Fermi distributed according to the left contact
electrochemical potential µ1 and move on to the scatterer (L). Here a frac-
tion T transmits the scatterer, the remaining part is reflected back to the left
contact, so these electrons turn into −k states. Directly after the scatterer
(R) the +k states are highly nonequilibrium distributed. On their way to
the right contact, however they relaxate and form a new equilibrium Fermi
distribution with some quasi-potential F”. The same holds for the −k states
originating in the right contact: First they are Fermi distributed according
to the right contact electrochemical potential µ2 , move on to the scatterer.
Here, in pricipal a fraction T is transmitted and the rest reflected, however
to simplify the matter, we assume the scatterer to act only on the +k states,
so all −k states can transmit, which definitely is not quite correct. After
passing the scatterer, the transmitted −k states unify with the reflected +k
states, that turned into −k states and we again have a highly nonequilibrium
9
distribution, which relexates on it’s way to the left contact. A quasi Fermi-
potential F’ emerges.
In that simplified model the quasi-Fermi Niveaus are given by:
F 0 = µ2 + (1 − T )(µ1 − µ2 ) (10)
F 00 = µ2 + T (µ1 − µ2 ) (11)
Fig. 8 shows the electrochemical potentials for the two species across the
E
m1
F'
F''
m2
S
XL L R XR
equilibrium nonequilibrium equilibrium
distributions distributions distributions
conductor. Clearly we can see, that the voltage drop at the scatterer is:
+k states eVs+ = µ1 − F 00 = (1 − T )∆µ = eG−1
s I
− 0 −1
-k states eVs = F − µ2 = (1 − T )∆µ = eGs I
whereas the voltage drop at the contacts is:
according to eqn. 9.
6 Multiterminal Devices
Now we want to extend our investigations to multi-terminal devices, having
more than 2 probes (or electrodes or contacts, generally terminals). Fig. 9
10
mp1 mp2
1 T
m1 S m2
1-T
S S
m1 +k -k S +k -k m2 m1 S m2 m1 S m2
have to treat such multi-terminal devices? It was Büttiker, who realized, that
there is no principal difference between voltage probes and current probes, so
we can simply extend the two terminal Landauer formula by summing over
all probes:
2e X
Büttiker: Ip = T q←p µp − T p←q µq (12)
h q
11
Here T q←p := Mq←p Tq←p is the product of transmission probability T from
contact p to contact q and the number of transverse modes M between them,
and is called transmission function. Just let us rewrite this a little:
2e2 P P
Gqp = Gpq
with Gpq := T pq
h q q
µq P
Vq := Ip = Gpq (Vp − Vq )
e q
V
V2
I1 I2 I3
V1 V3
+-
I
12
write:
I1 G11 (V1 − V1 ) + G12 (V1 − V2 ) + G13 (V1 − V3 )
I2 = G21 (V2 − V1 ) + G22 (V2 − V2 ) + G23 (V2 − V3 )
I3 G31 (V3 − V1 ) + G32 (V3 − V2 ) + G33 (V3 − V3 )
G12 + G13 −G12 −G13 V1
= −G21 G21 + G23 −G23 V2
−G31 −G32 G31 + G32 V3
This can be reduced further. From Kirchhoff’s knot rule, we know, that
I1 + I2 + I3 = 0, so these three equations are not independent and we can
only solve for I1 and I2 . I3 then follows immediately. Secondly we can choose
a reference potential without changing the physics behind it, so we choose
V3 = 0 to simplify the matter. This yields:
I1 G12 + G13 −G12 V1
⇒ =
I2 −G21 G21 + G23 V2
| {z }
−1
2
V1 Raa Rab I1
⇔ =
V2 Rba Rbb I2
R can be obtained from the conductance coefficients Gij and these can be
obtained from the scattering matrix Slm , for which we have to solve the
threedimensional problem quantummechanically, e.g. using Green’s function.
13
References
[1] S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, 1995).
14