No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Semiclassical Monte Carlo simulation studies of spin dephasing in InP and InSb nanowires
3. S. Bandyopadhyay and M. Cahay, Introduction to Spintronics (CRC, Boca Raton, 2008).
19. L. Kong, G. Du, Y. Wang, J. Kang, R. Han, and X. Liu, International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (Tokyo, Japan, 2005), pp. 175–178.
20. S. Pramanik, S. Bandyopadhyay, and M. Cahay, Third IEEE Conference on Nanotechnology (San Fransisco, CA, 2003), vol. 2, pp. 87–90.
29. C. Jacoboni and P. Lugli, The Monte Carlo Method for Semiconductor Device Simulation (Springer-Verlag, Wien, 1989).
31. E. I. Rashba, Sov. Phys. Semicond. 2, 1109 (1960).
34. M. I. D’yakonov and V. I. Perel, Sov. Phys. Solid State 13, 3023 (1972).
43. S. Asmontas and R. Raguotis, Acta Physica Polonica A 113, 929 (2008).
Article metrics loading...
We use semiclassical Monte Carlo approach to investigate spin polarized transport in InP and InSbnanowires. D’yakonov-Perel (DP) relaxation and Elliott-Yafet (EY) relaxation are the two main relaxation mechanisms for spin dephasing in III-V channels. The DP relaxation occurs because of bulk inversion asymmetry (Dresselhaus spin-orbit interaction) and structural inversion asymmetry (Rashba spin-orbit interaction). The injection polarization direction studied is that along the length of the channel. The dephasing rate is found to be very strong for InSb as compared to InP which has larger spin dephasing lengths. The ensemble averaged spin components vary differently for both InP and InSbnanowires. The steady state spin distribution also shows a difference between the two III-Vnanowires.
Full text loading...
Most read this month