Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse

Two-impurity Kondo model with spin-orbit interactions

Source: Phys. Rev. B 80, 155302 (2009); doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.80.155302

Published 2 October 2009

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 03.65.Ud
    Entanglement and quantum nonlocality
  • 72.15.Qm
    Scattering mechanisms and Kondo effect (metals/alloys)
  • 73.21.La
    Quantum dots (electron states/collective excitations)
  • YEAR: 2009
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef APS
David F. Mross and Henrik Johannesson
Department of Physics, University of Gothenburg, SE 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
We study the two-impurity Kondo model (TIKM) in two dimensions with spin-orbit coupled conduction electrons. In the first part of the paper we analyze how spin-orbit interactions of Rashba as well as Dresselhaus type influence the Kondo and Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yoshida (RKKY) interactions in the TIKM, generalizing results obtained by H. Imamura et al. [Phys. Rev. B 69, 121303(R) (2004)] and J. Malecki [J. Stat. Phys. 129, 741 (2007)]. Using our findings we then explore the effect from spin-orbit interactions on the non-Fermi-liquid quantum critical transition between the RKKY-singlet and Kondo-screened RKKY-triplet states. We argue that spin-orbit interactions under certain conditions produce a line of critical points exhibiting the same leading scaling behavior as that of the ordinary TIKM. In the second part of the paper we shift focus and turn to the question of how spin-orbit interactions affect the entanglement between two localized RKKY-coupled spins in the parameter regime where the competition from the direct Kondo interaction can be neglected. Using data for a device with two spinful quantum dots patterned in a gated InAs heterostructure we show that a gate-controlled spin-orbit interaction may drive a maximally entangled state to one with vanishing entanglement or vice versa (as measured by the concurrence). This has important implications for proposals using RKKY interactions for nonlocal control of qubit entanglement in semiconductor heterostructures. ©2009 The American Physical Society
History: Received 4 March 2009; revised 19 August 2009; published 2 October 2009
Permalink: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v80/e155302

REFERENCES (49)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. S. Sasaki, S. Kang, K. Kitagawa, M. Yamaguchi, S. Miyashita, T. Maruyama, H. Tamura, T. Akazaki, Y. Hirayama, and H. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. B 73, 161303(R) (2006).
  2. H. B. Heersche, Z. de Groot, J. A. Folk, L. P. Kouwenhoven, H. S. J. van der Zant, A. A. Houck, J. Labaziewicz, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 017205 (2006).
  3. C. Jayaprakash, H.-R. Krishna-murthy, and J. W. Wilkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 737 (1981).
  4. K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957).
  5. P. Simon, R. Lopez, and Y. Oreg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086602 (2005).
  6. M. G. Vavilov and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086805 (2005).
  7. I. Affleck, A. W. W. Ludwig, and B. A. Jones, Phys. Rev. B 52, 9528 (1995).
  8. G. Zaránd, C.-H. Chung, P. Simon, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 166802 (2006).
  9. D. F. Mross and H. Johannesson, Phys. Rev. B 78, 035449 (2008).
  10. D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).
  11. G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B 59, 2070 (1999).
  12. W. Yao, R.-B. Liu, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030504 (2005)
    13. S. M. Clark, Kai-Mei C. Fu, T. D. Ladd, and Y. Yamamoto, ibid. 99, 040501 (2007).
  13. G. Usaj, P. Lustemberg, and C. A. Balseiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 036803 (2005).
  14. Y. Rikitake and H. Imamura, Phys. Rev. B 72, 033308 (2005).
  15. S. Y. Cho and R. H. McKenzie, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012109 (2006).
  16. W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
  17. A. Ramsak, J. Mravlje, R. Zitko, and J. Bonca, Phys. Rev. B 74, 241305(R) (2006).
  18. A. V. Khaetskii and Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12639 (2000)
    19. V. N. Golovach, A. Khaetskii, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 016601 (2004)
    S. Amasha, K. MacLean, I. P. Radu, D. M. Zumbühl, M. A. Kastner, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, ibid. 100, 046803 (2008).
  19. L.-A. Wu and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062314 (2002)
    20. D. Stepanenko and N. E. Bonesteel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140501 (2004)
    S. Debald and C. Emary, ibid. 94, 226803 (2005)
    C. Flindt, A. S. Sørensen, and K. Flensberg, ibid. 97, 240501 (2006).
  20. H. Imamura, P. Bruno, and Y. Utsumi, Phys. Rev. B 69, 121303(R) (2004).
  21. G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. 100, 580 (1955).
  22. J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997).
  23. D. Grundler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6074 (2000).
  24. H. Min, J. E. Hill, N. A. Sinitsyn, B. R. Sahu, L. Kleinman, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 74, 165310 (2006)
    25. D. Huertas-Hernando, F. Guinea, and A. Brataas, ibid. 74, 155426 (2006).
  25. T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 228 (1960).
  26. B. A. Bernevig, J. O. Orenstein, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 236601 (2006).
  27. B. A. Jones and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B 40, 324 (1989).
  28. J. Gan, Phys. Rev. B 51, 8287 (1995).
  29. N. Andrei, G. T. Zimányi, and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B 60, R5125 (1999)
    30. M. Garst, S. Kehrein, T. Pruschke, A. Rosch, and M. Vojta, ibid. 69, 214413 (2004).
  30. For a review, see I. Zutić Jaroslav Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004).
ADVERTISEMENT