Reply to the comment on "Theoretical analysis of the transmission phase shift of a quantum dot in the presence of Kondo correlations"
M. Lavagna, P. Vitushinsky, A. Jerez
Abstract
In their comment, Aharony, Entin-Wohlman, Oreg and von Delft claimed that the expression we obtained for the phase of the S-matrix does not give back the correct result notably in the U=0 limit of the single level Anderson model (SLAM). Their comment, however, misses the point of our argument, namely, that the SLAM is insufficient to describe the interferometry experiment. Instead, the quantum dot needs to be viewed as a multi-level artificial atom, and the interferometry experiment as a scattering experiment off the atom. The description is subject, in particular, to such scattering theorems as the generalized Levinson theorem. As a result, we show how there exists a factor of 2 difference between the phase of the S-matrix responsible for the shift in the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) oscillations, and the one controlling the conductance. We point out how the results obtained this way are in remarkably good quantitative agreement with measurements performed by AB interferometry for the conductance as well as for the phase shift.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Distinguishing Quantum Capacitance Signatures of a Topological Majorana Wire from a Normal Wire Segment
Binayyak Bhusan Roy, Jay Deep Sau, Sumanta Tewari
Band's Geometry Origin of Quantum Spin Transport Phenomena
Elena Derunova, Mazhar N. Ali
Trapping e/4 quasiparticles in bilayer graphene
Mario Di Luca, Emily Hajigeorgiou, Ning Ma et al.
Scalable, Simple, and Versatile Encapsulation of 2D Materials and Devices
Gabriel Natale, Uma Chirkova, Flávio Henriques Feres et al.
Mobility Enhancement in Si/SiGe Quantum Well Enabled by a Buried Si Layer Trapping Oxygen Impurities
Felix Reichmann, Alberto Mistroni, Fabian Fidorra et al.
Occupation-Driven Josephson Diode in a Symmetric Junction
Jianxiong Zhai, Zelei Zhang, Jiawei Yan