dale van harlingen sergey frolov, micah stoutimore, martin stehno university of illinois at...
TRANSCRIPT
Dale Van Harlingen
Sergey Frolov, Micah Stoutimore, Martin Stehno
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Valery Ryazanov
Vladimir Oboznov, Vitaly Bolginov, Alexey Feofanov
Institute of Solid State Physics, Chernogolovka, Russia
10th International Vortex Workshop --- January 14, 2005 --- Mumbai, India
Current-Phase Relations and Spontaneous Vortices
in SFS -Josephson junctions and arrays
Supported by the National Science Foundation and the U. S. Civilian Research Development Fund
I
-Josephson junction
0-junctionminimum energy at 0
I
-junctionminimum energy at
I
J
Spontaneously-broken symmetry
Spontaneous circulating current for L>1 in zero applied magnetic flux
I = Icsin(+) = -Ic
sin
E = EJ [1 - cos(+)]
= EJ [1 + cos]
E
E
negative critical current
-2-2 0
THEORY EXPERIMENT
Klapwijk, 1999
Ryazanov, 2000
Testa, 2003
+-
+- Van Harlingen, 1993
YBCO d-wave corner SQUIDs
Non-equilibrium SNS junctions
SFS junctions
d-wave grain boundary junctions
Not (yet) observed
A.F. Volkov (1995)
non-equilibrium Andreev states
Yurii Barash (1996)
zero-energy bound states
Vadim Geshkenbein (1987) --- p-wave
Tony Leggett (1992) --- d-wave
directional phase shift
Lev Bulaevskii (1978)
tunneling via magnetic impurities
Alex Buzdin (1982)
tunneling w/ exchange interaction
FS
x
S
_+
_
+ _+
_ +
NOT a -junction
The History of junctions
F
p p
E
2Eex
Order parameter oscillations
SF interface: Exchange energy-induced oscillations of the proximity-induced order
parameter
Proximity decay
xSC FM
Ff
ex
f
ex xexpx
v
E2iexpx
v
E2iexp
2
1~)x(
F
ex
v
E2p
RI
xxx
expcos~)(
Exchange energy
Fermi velocity
FS
x
S
FS
x
S
0-state -state
SFS Josephson junctions: dependence of free energy on ferromagnetic barrier thickness
0 0
~ nd ~ (n+½) d
R
2
I
2
R
2
I
2
RIRI0cc
dsinh
dsin
dcosh
dcos
dsinh
dsin
dcosh
dcos
II
Variation of critical current with barrier thickness
2/1
exBI,R )iETk(2
Dlengthcoherence
thicknessbarrierd
energyexchangeEex
tcoefficiendiffusionD
Quasiclassical Usadel equations:Buzdin et al., Kontos et al.
Variation of critical current with temperature
2/1
B2/12
ex2
BI,R Tk)E)Tk((
D
IR
1i
11
2/1
exBI,R )iETk(2
D
Control transition by temperature via coherence length:
I
R)nm(
)K(T )K(T
)A(Ic d =
24nm23nm22nm
21nm
20nm
Si
Si
Si
Si
Step 1: Deposit Base Nb layer
Step 2: Deposit CuNi + protective Cu
Step 3: Define SiO window
Step 4: Deposit Top wiring Nb layer
Si
Si
Si
Window Junctions (Chernogolovka) Trilayer Junctions (Urbana)
Step 1: Deposit Nb-CuNi-Nb trilayer
Step 2: Etch top Nb, backfill with SiO2
Step 3: Deposit Top wiring Nb layer
5m x 5m to 50m x
50m
2m x 2m to 20m x 20m
SFS junction fabrication
Critical current measurements: SFS Junctions
0 5 10 15 20 25 3010-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
105
fit to Ic vs. d model
Cu0.47Ni0.53
Crit
ical
cur
rent
den
sity
(A
/cm
2)
Barrier thickness (nm)
Critical current measurements: SFS Junctions
SQUID potentiometer measurement
RN ~ 10-5 IcRN ~ 10-10 V
-40 -20 0 20 400
2
4
6
8
T = 5K
I c (
A)
Magnet current (mA)
Current-Phase Relation Measurement
dc SQUID technique: J.R. Waldram et al., Rev. Phys. Appl. 10, 7 (1975)
SQUID
I
Null SQUID current --- measure I and ~
- junction in an rf-SQUID
0
2
LICL
M
L2sinI
MI
0C
Simulation:
I
Measurement:
• Hysteretic when L > 1
• L varied by changing Ic(T) or L
• CPR is accessible for L < 1
I
MLIC
SQUID detector
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
L=
0M
L2
Near the 0- crossover temperature
0 1 2 3 4 5-10
-5
0
5
10
- junction
Crit
ical
cur
rent
(A
)
Temperature (K)
0 - junction
Study region near crossover
for which -1 < < 1
I
Simulation
0
Temperature:rf SQUID curves
Slight shift die to a background magnetic field ~ 1-10 mG
Current-Phase Relation measurements
Extracted from rf SQUID characteristics:
• 0- crossover is sharp
• Ic = 0 at the crossover temperature T
• CPR is sinusoidal
• No distortions due to sin(2)
Why do we expect a sin(2) component ?
What is the right experiment to probe sin(2
Theoretical predictions:
Radovic et al. Chtchelkatchev et al.
Hekkila et al. Golubov et al.
Suggestive experiments:
Ryazanov et al. (arrays)
Baselmans et al. (SNS SQUIDs)
Current-phase relation measurements
Critical current diffraction patterns:
extra structure in junctions
higher harmonics in SQUIDs/arrays
Shapiro steps (microwave irradiated) --- subharmonic steps
High frequency rf SQUID structure
• Absence of first-order term makes it possible to observe second-order Josephson tunneling
• Interaction of 0 and states at crossover – competing energies
Secondary Josephson Harmonics ?
Results of data fitting: < 5 %
Ic goes to 0 at T, contrary to
predictions of large sin 2
)2sin()sin()( 2 ccc III
Ic resolution ~ 10 nA
-10 -5 0 5 10-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Critical curr
ent (m
A)
SQUID Voltage (mV)
Shapiro steps: only integer steps
Diffraction patterns: Fraunhofer
1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.900
10
20
30
40
I c (A
)
T (K)
Critical current vs. temperature
Critical current does not vanish --- this suggests sin(2) term in CPR
Shapiro steps
Half-integer Shapiro steps --- consistent with sin(2) term in CPR
Half-integer steps only occur near T where critical current vanishes
Suggests coexisting “0” and “” states that entangle near degeneracy
Critical current diffraction patterns
Junction barrier is not uniform near T
Average film thickness 24nm
Linear thickness variation of 0.4nm
Effect of sloped barrier thickness variation
2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2400
200
0
200
4002.9847 10
2
2.5380 102
Ic d r T( ) i T( )( )
nA
0
3.20002.4 T
T = 2.6K
T = 2.8K
T = 3.0K
T (K)
I c (n
A)
I c (n
A)
I c (n
A)
y (m)
Arrays of -Josephson junctions
Motivation:
1. Observe spontaneous currents and vortices
2. Opportunity to explore non-uniform frustration
3. Opportunity to tune through -transition to measure uniformity of junctions and variation of vortex size
0
cLI2where~
a
a
Cluster Mask
2 x 2
6 x 63 x 3
1 x N
Cluster Designs
2 x 2
6 x 6
fully-frustrated checkerboard-frustrated
fully-frustrated unfrustrated checkerboard-frustrated
30m
Scanning SQUID Microscopy (SSM)
x-y scan
hinge
Square arrays Triangle arrays YBCO films
10m 100mSpatial resolution:
10mFlux sensitivity:
10-6 0
MoGe films
Array images: magnetic field-induced vortices
Single vortex f 0 f = 0.03
f = 0.33 f = 0.50 f = 0.66
-junction array images: spontaneous currents
zero magnetic field
3 x 3
1 x 20
6 x 6
What determines the current pattern?
1. Distribution of frustrated cells --- to maintain phase coherence, each much generate (approximately) 0/2 flux quantum
2. Disorder in cell areas (small) and critical currents (substantial)
3. Thermal fluctuations during cooling --- closely-spaced metastable states
6 x 6
T
T = 1.7K T = 4.2KT = 2.75K
Scanning SQUID Microscope images
T
Ic
Checkerboardfrustrated
Fullyfrustrated
2 x 2 arrays: spontaneous vortices
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ene
rgy
(EJ)
Magnetic flux (0)
Ene
rgy
(EJ)
Magnetic flux (0)
Ene
rgy
(EJ)
Magnetic flux (0)
Ene
rgy
(EJ)
Magnetic flux (0)
Ene
rgy
(EJ)
Magnetic flux (0)
Ene
rgy
(EJ)
Magnetic flux (0)
2 x 2 arrays --- simulations of vortex configurations
all 0-JJ all -JJ
1D-chain arrays --- simulations of vortex configurations
T, K
IC
1 2 3 4
6x6 checkerboard frustrated cluster:
Magnetic field applied (to enhance contrast of SC lines)
T, K
IC
1 2 3 4
6x6 checkerboard frustrated cluster:
Zero magnetic field
6x6 checkerboard frustrated cluster:
Zero Field
Vortices appear at T. (difficult to determine T precisely since diverges)
Resolution improves as Ic increases --- limits for ~ a
T, K
IC
1 2 3 4
6x6 checkerboard frustrated cluster:
Magnetic field applied (to enhance contrast of SC lines)
Conclusions
• Measuring Current-Phase Relation (CPR) of SFS junctions
Observe transition between 0-junction and -junction states
Mixed evidence for any sin 2 in the CPR in the 0- crossover region
Considering effects of barrier inhomogeneities
• Imaging arrays of -junctions by Scanning SQUID Microscopy
Observe spontaneous vortices
Studying crossover region
• Develop trilayer process --- materials and fabrication issues
• Engineer superconducting flux qubit incorporating a -junction
• Measure 1/f noise from magnetic domain dynamics on SFS junctions
• Measure CPR in non-equilibrium -SNS junctions
Work in Progress
1. Provides natural and precisely-degenerate two-level
system
Advantages of -junction flux qubits
J
E
Precisely-degenerate two-level system with no flux
bias
Spontaneous circulating current in rf SQUID
2. Decouple qubit from environment since no external field
needed
(always need some field bias to counteract stray fields and to
control qubit state, but does reduce size of fields needed)
1. Controllability/reproducibility of 0- transition point and
critical currents in multiple-qubit circuits determines
tunneling rate
2. Enhancing normal state resistance of -junction determines decoherence due to quasiparticle dissipation
3. Low frequency magnetic noise in SFS junction barriers source of decoherence
Challenges for -junction flux qubits
Approach: trilayer junction technology
Approach: SIFIS and SFIFS structures
Approach: barrier material engineering
Decoherence from 1/f magnetic domain switching noise
1/f critical current noise modulates tunneling barrier height
Fluctuation of the tunneling frequency causes phase noise decoherence since is different for each successive point of a distribution measurement
t
IC
~ Ic
Magnetic domain switching causes critical current noise
MODEL
S
S
F
SIMULATION
Secondary Josephson Harmonics
Results of data fitting: < 5 %
Ic goes to 0 at T, contrary to
predictions of large sin 2
)2sin()sin()( 2 ccc III
Current
Simulation = 0.5
Ic resolution ~ 10 nA
1. Existence of Josephson sin(2) component
2. Effect of barrier inhomogeneities and fluctuations
• Clustering of magnetic atoms junction aging effects
• Interface conduction reduction of current density
Barrier thickness variations non-uniform current densities
• Ferromagnetic domain noise decoherence in qubits
3. SFS arrays --- magnetic imaging of spontaneous vortices
4. Implementation of -junctions in superconducting flux qubits
Key Issues
BSCCO grain boundary junctions
Possible origin: second-order Josephson coupling
non-sinusoidal current-phase relation … I() = Ic1 sin() + Ic2 sin(2)
(cancellation of tunneling into + and – lobes)
Zero-field peak in critical current has ½ width of finite field peaks
_+
_
+ _+
_ +
Evidence for sin(2) in SNS ballistic -junctionsBaselmans et al., PRL 2002
N SS
E
Andreev levels
V
Suggests sin(2) component
I
I
= =
vortex
Observe half-integer Shapiro steps in a dc
SQUID near 0/2
Another SFS junction – 4x4 m
1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.790
5
10
15
20
I cn (A
)
T (K)
Ic0
Ic1
Ic1/2
Shapiro step maximum amplitude
Half-integer steps only occur near T where critical current vanishes
Suggests coexisting “0” and “” states that entangle near degeneracy