Cooper pair splitting controlled by a temperature gradient

• Dmitry S. Golubev and
• Andrei D. Zaikin

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2023, 14, 61–67, doi:10.3762/bjnano.14.7

• hybrid NSN structures associated with the phenomena of crossed Andreev reflection and Cooper pair splitting. Results and Discussion Let us consider the NSN structure depicted in Figure 2. Normal metallic leads are attached to a bulk superconductor with the aid of two junctions described by a set of

• of the processes of crossed Andreev reflection (a) and elastic cotunneling (b). These schemes are redrawn from [25]. Schematics of the NSN structure under consideration. Normal electrodes are biased by external voltages V1 and V2 and are kept at different temperatures T1 and T2. The superconducting

• ; Introduction Normal metals connected to a superconductor exhibit a variety of non-trivial phenomena associated with the existence of proximity-induced superconducting correlations spreading over long distances at sufficiently low temperatures [1]. One of these phenomena is the so-called crossed Andreev

Transport signatures of an Andreev molecule in a quantum dot–superconductor–quantum dot setup

• Zoltán Scherübl,
• András Pályi and
• Szabolcs Csonka

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2019, 10, 363–378, doi:10.3762/bjnano.10.36

• experiments is to understand the various tunneling-induced non-local interaction mechanisms that are present in the devices, namely crossed Andreev reflection, elastic co-tunneling, and direct interdot tunneling. Here, we provide a theoretical study of a simple device that consists of two quantum dots and a

• experiments and applications. Keywords: Andreev bound state; crossed Andreev reflection; elastic co-tunneling; quantum dot; Introduction Superconducting hybrid nanodevices provide a promising platform for quantum architectures. While superconductors (SCs) allow for a spatially extended coherent state

• pair from the SC is transformed to two electrons in the normal conductor. The conversion of Cooper pairs has a special form called crossed Andreev reflection (CAR), when the two electrons originating from the Cooper pair ends up in spatially separated normal parts [4][5][6][7]. CAR is also a potential

Josephson effect in junctions of conventional and topological superconductors

• Alex Zazunov,
• Albert Iks,
• Miguel Alvarado,
• Alfredo Levy Yeyati and
• Reinhold Egger

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 1659–1676, doi:10.3762/bjnano.9.158

• us briefly pause in order to make two remarks. First, we note that the Majorana field see Equation 39, couples to both spin modes ψσ in Equation 50. The coupling λ↓ between γ and the spin-↓ field in the SAC, ψ↓, is generated by crossed Andreev reflection processes, where a Cooper pair in lead S2

Disorder-induced suppression of the zero-bias conductance peak splitting in topological superconducting nanowires

• Jun-Tong Ren,
• Hai-Feng Lü,
• Sha-Sha Ke,
• Yong Guo and
• Huai-Wu Zhang

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 1358–1369, doi:10.3762/bjnano.9.128

• splitting, the zero-bias conductance peak is split and the shot noise is enhanced due to the crossed Andreev reflection (CAR) which, contrasting with the local Andreev reflection that injects a Cooper pair in a single lead, would split a Cooper pair over two leads. The CAR processes will induce a current

• splitting induces a crossed Andreev reflection and the resonant Andreev tunneling is suppressed, resulting in the deviation of the Fano factor from zero. Therefore, the shot noise provides a clear signature to discriminate between the two different mechanisms that lead to the formation of the zero-bias

Revealing the interference effect of Majorana fermions in a topological Josephson junction

• Jie Liu,
• Tiantian Yu and
• Juntao Song

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 520–529, doi:10.3762/bjnano.9.50

• hole part, we need additional information beyond the Andreev reflection process. Thus, it is necessary to add another STM lead to detect the electron transmission or the crossed Andreev reflection between the two leads [47][48]. This can directly reveal the information of the DOS. During this process

• the local DOS. However, only a single tunneling process cannot provide all information. We need more tunneling processes, and the two leads are necessary here. There are three tunneling processes in such a two-lead setup: the Andreev reflection, the crossed Andreev reflection, and the electron

• transmission. We consider a symmetric connection case and simplify the result. For this condition, the coefficient of the Andreev reflection is the same as the coefficient of the crossed Andreev reflection. Then, the current for lead 1 is I1 = (2TA × V1 + (TA + Te)(V1 − V2))e/h and the current for lead 2 is I2

P-wave Cooper pair splitting

• Henning Soller and
• Andreas Komnik

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2012, 3, 493–500, doi:10.3762/bjnano.3.56

• function of charge transfer. As a first step, we discuss characteristics of the conductance for crossed Andreev reflection in superconductor–ferromagnet beam splitters with s-wave and p-wave superconductors and no spin-active scattering. In a second step, we consider spin-active scattering and show how to

• realize p-wave splitting using only an s-wave superconductor, through the process of spin-flipped crossed Andreev reflection. We present results for the conductance and cross correlations. Conclusion: Spin-activity of interfaces in Cooper pair splitters allows for new features in ordinary s-wave Cooper

• phenomenological parameter, whereas we use a second tunneling transparency to account for spin flips. For a comparison of both descriptions of tunnel contacts we refer the reader to [68]. Spin-flipped crossed Andreev reflection In simple superconductor-ferromagnet tunneling junctions the presence of spin-active