Date

2005-09-12

Description

Comment: 4 pages, 3 figures

The observation of coherent quantum transport phenomena in metals and

semiconductors is limited by the eventual loss of phase coherence of the

conducting electrons. We use the weak localization effect to measure the

low-temperature dephasing time in a two-dimensional electron Fermi liquid in

GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures. We use a novel temperature calibration method

based on the integer quantum Hall effect in order to directly measure the

electrons' temperature. The data are in excellent agreement with recent

theoretical results, including contributions from the triplet channel, for a

broad temperature range. We see no evidence for saturation of the dephasing

time down to around 100mK. Moreover, the zero-temperature dephasing time is

extrapolated to be higher than 4ns.

semiconductors is limited by the eventual loss of phase coherence of the

conducting electrons. We use the weak localization effect to measure the

low-temperature dephasing time in a two-dimensional electron Fermi liquid in

GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures. We use a novel temperature calibration method

based on the integer quantum Hall effect in order to directly measure the

electrons' temperature. The data are in excellent agreement with recent

theoretical results, including contributions from the triplet channel, for a

broad temperature range. We see no evidence for saturation of the dephasing

time down to around 100mK. Moreover, the zero-temperature dephasing time is

extrapolated to be higher than 4ns.

Type

Identifier

doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.73.115318

Phys. Rev. B 73, 115318 (2006)

Database

Link to record

Show preview

Hide preview

ar
X

iv :c

on d-

m at

/0 50

92 85

v1 [

co nd

-m at.

me s-h

all ]

12 Se

p 2 00

5 Dephasing Time in a Two-Dimensional Electron Fermi Liquid

M. Eshkol,1, ∗ E. Eisenberg,1 M. Karpovski,1 and A. Palevski1

1School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler

Faculty of Exact Science, Tel-Aviv University, 69978 Tel-Aviv, Israel.

(Dated: February 2, 2008)

The observation of coherent quantum transport phenomena in metals and semiconductors is lim- ited by the eventual loss of phase coherence of the conducting electrons on the time scale τϕ. We use the weak localization effect to measure the low-temperature dephasing time in a two-dimensional electron Fermi liquid in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures. We use a novel temperature calibration method based on the integer quantum Hall effect in order to directly measure the electrons’ temper- ature. The data are in excellent agreement with recent theoretical results, including contributions from the triplet channel, for a broad temperature range. We see no evidence for saturation of the dephasing time down to ∼ 100mK. Moreover, the zero-temperature dephasing time is extrapolated to be higher than 4ns.

PACS numbers: 73.20.Fz, 03.65.Yz, 73.43.Qt, 73.43.Fj

The electron dephasing time, τϕ, is a quantity of great importance for the analysis of transport in semiconduc- tor and metal mesoscopic samples. Essentially, τϕ sets the scale at which the quantum-mechanical properties of the microscopic system crossover to the familiar classical behavior seen in macroscopic objects. The study of quan- tum coherence has attracted much attention, motivated both by questions of fundamental scientific interest con- cerning sources of decoherence in materials, and by the possibility of using solid-state electronic devices to store quantum information. The investigation of electron de- phasing has advanced significantly thanks to the obser- vation of a variety of prominent quantum interference phenomena. Weak localization [1, 2], universal conduc- tance fluctuations [3, 4], the Aharonov-Bohm effect [5] and persistent currents [6] exhibited in mesoscopic elec- tronic systems make these systems suitable for studying decoherence. The most prominent interference effect is weak-localization, the quantum-mechanical enhancement of coherent backscattering. This coherent interference is destroyed by the break of time-reversal symmetry, re- sulting in a noticeable ”anomalous” magnetoresistance of disordered conductors at low temperatures and low magnetic fields. Analysis of the magnetoresistance curves may provide quantitative information on the various elec- tron dephasing mechanisms.

A number of basic microscopic dephasing processes may coexist in real systems at low temperatures, with one or two mechanisms typically dominating, depending on system dimensionality, level of disorder and temper- ature. For two-dimensional semiconducting samples at low temperatures, the dominating dephasing process is quasi-elastic e-e interactions. These give rise to 1/τϕ ≃ T 2 ln(T ) at relatively high temperatures, due to large en- ergy transfer processes (or, using the terminology of Ref. [7], the ballistic term) and 1/τϕ ≃ T at lower temper- atures, where small energy transfer processes dominate the dephasing (diffusive term in [7]). Accordingly, the

zero temperature dephasing time, τ0ϕ ≡ τϕ(T → 0), is ex- pected to diverge. Contrary to this prediction, a number of experimental groups have shown indications for a finite saturated dephasing time at low temperatures [8]. Re- cently, this contradiction has been the focus of consider- able attention. Among the current opinions on the mat- ter, it has been suggested that the saturated value should depend on the specific sample geometry [9], the level of disorder in the sample [10], the microscopic qualities of the defects [11, 12], or e-e scattering mediated by the magnetic exchange interaction [13]. Others argue that the saturation is caused by extrinsic mechanisms, such as magnetic spin-spin scattering [14], hot electron effects [15], electromagnetic noise sources [3] or non-equilibrium effects [16]. The possible extrinsic mechanisms urge cau- tion when determining the actual temperature of the two- dimensional electron system and ensuring outside radia- tion is small.

Most of the above-mentioned experiments were com- pared with theoretical results for the two-dimensional electron gas, focusing on the universal contribution of the singlet channel interaction, both in the energetically dif- fusive [17, 18] and ballistic regimes [18, 19]. Recently, the effect of Fermi liquid renormalization of the triplet chan- nel of the Coulomb interaction on the dephasing time has been studied theoretically for arbitrary relation be- tween inverse temperature and elastic mean free time [7]. The prefactors of these dependencies are not universal, but are determined by the Fermi liquid constant char- acterizing the spin-exchange interaction. It is expected that taking into account the Fermi liquid normalization would facilitate better quantitative understanding of the experimental data.

In this work, weak-localization magnetoresistance measurements were performed in two-dimensional Fermi liquid fabricated in GaAs/Al0.3Ga0.7As heterostructures with high conductance, in order to extract the dephasing time at various temperatures down to ∼100mK.We com-

2 pare our results to the theoretical prediction that includes contributions from both the singlet and triplet channels. Our measurements are in the intermediate temperature range, where both small and large energy transfer scat- tering contribute to phase braking. The measurements were accompanied by integer quantum Hall measure- ments showing variable-range-hopping behavior in the di- agonal resistivity minima at very low temperatures. This predicted, exponential behavior was used to calibrate the electrons’ temperature as a means to quantify hot elec- trons effects. We observe good quantitative agreement with theory over all the temperature range, in both en- ergetically ballistic and diffusive regimes. No indications for saturation of the dephasing time are detected down to the lowest temperature measured.

It has been shown in [7] that at low temperatures, where small energy transfer scattering processes domi- nate (kBTτ/~ ≪ 1), the temperature dependence of the dephasing time is:

1/τϕ =

{ 1 +

3(F σo ) 2

(1 + F σo )(2 + F σ o )

} kBT

g~ ln[g(1 + F σo )]

+ pi

4

{ 1 +

3(F σ0 ) 2

(1 + F σo ) 2

} (kBT )

2

~EF ln(EF τ/~), (1)

where F σo is the interaction constant in the triplet chan- nel which depends on interaction strength [20, 21], g ≡ 2pi~/e2R� andEF is the Fermi energy. At higher temper- atures where large energy transfer scattering processes contribute (kBTτ/~≫ 1),

1/τϕ = pi

4

(kBT ) 2

BEF

{ ln

( 2EF kBT

)

+ 3(F σo )

2

(1 + F σo ) 2 ln

( EF

kBT √ b(F σo )

)} , (2)

where b(x) ≈ (1 + x2)/(1 + x)2, and B is a numerical factor that varies between 0.84 for weak magnetic fields (ΩHτϕ ≫ 1 where ΩH = 4DeH/~c) and 0.79 in the op- posite limit [7]. These results were recently compared by Minkov et al. [22] to measurements of magnetoresistance and dephasing times for samples of intermediate conduc- tances, where higher orders in 1/g contribute. Taking into account high orders corrections, good agreement be- tween theory and experiment has been observed.

The samples are fabricated from single-well Al- GaAs/GaAs heterostructures in order to avoid compli- cations from inter-valley scattering magnetic impurities, and due to the negligible spin-orbit coupling in these het- erostructures. The samples are mesa-etched into stan- dard Hall-bar configuration using standard lithography. The samples dimensions are 200µm long and 10µm wide. The electron density was 2.8×1011cm−2 with a mobility of 87000cm2/V sec. The corresponding electron diffusion constant(D) and mean free time (τ) areD = 0.085m2/sec

40 45 50 55

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

3

10

4

R

x x

( )

B(KGauss)

T

Thermometer

(mK)

400

160

110

75

(a)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

(b)

x x

( )

T(K)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

(c)

T

e l

( K

)

T

Thermometer

(K)

FIG. 1: (Color online) The temperature calibration pro- cess: (a) Magnetoresitance measurements. The longitudinal resistance is presented as a function of the magnetic field for several different temperatures. The magnetic field is in the range 3.9-5T (corresponding to plateau i=3). The tem- perature ranges from 400mK (top) to around 75mK (bot- tom), as measured by the thermometer. (b) The measured resistance minima as function of thermometer temperature (black circles), compared to the variable-range-hopping result

̺xx ∝ 1/T exp−(T/To) 1/2 (red solid line). Clearly, the mea-

sured resistance surpasses the variable-range-hopping results, reflecting the hot electrons effect. (c) The actual electrons’ temperature as function of the thermometer temperature.

and τ = 3.3×10−12sec. The magnetoresistance measure- ments are carried out using a four-probe configuration, using a lock-in amplifier by applying a magnetic field perpendicularly to the sample. VL, the applied bias on the whole sample of length L, is kept below the temper- ature [16], eVL/kB < T , rather than the conventional eVφ/kB < T criterion, where Vφ is the bias applied to the phase-coherent length, Lφ, in order to prevent any non-equilibrium effects from causing dephasing. In ad- dition, we explicitly verified that the magnetoresistance

3 curve was insensitive to further reduction in the voltage bias.

At very low temperatures, lack of good thermal con- tact between the lattice and the electrons might oc- cur. This might lead to a difference between the ac- tual electron temperature and that measured by the thermometer. This hot electrons effect, requires care- ful temperature measurement. We employ longitudinal resistance measurements in the integer quantum Hall ef- fect regime in order to directly measure the tempera- ture of the electron gas using an effect independent of the weak localization phenomenon. It is well established [23] that the longitudinal conductance in the plateau area in the quantum Hall regime is due to thermal ac- tivation over the mobility edge at relatively high tem- peratures, and to variable-range-hopping at lower tem- peratures. These effects predict exponentially strong temperature dependence of the conductivity/resistivity, ρxx ∝ 1/T exp(−(T/T0)

1/2). This dependence was mea- sured and shown in AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures very similar to ours in Ebert et al. [24], at least down to 30mK. We use these theory and experimental findings to cali- brate our temperature by comparing our data (Fig. 1(a)) with the theoretical prediction they established. By tak- ing the minima resistivity measured by us and comparing it to a value from the equation given in Ebert et al., we measure the electrons’ temperature and indeed find that it is higher than the thermometer temperature, indicat- ing hot electron effects. In order to minimize small lock- in amplifier deviations, we calibrated it by setting the re- sistivity values at the minima corresponding to plateau i=4 to zero, where the value is already at the saturated value for the entire temperature range. In addition, we normalized the measured and calculated resistivity val- ues at the high temperatures where we expect the tem- perature deviation between the gas and thermometer to be absent in order to fix the prefactors. The difference between the measured and calculated values is shown in Fig. 1(b). By comparing the measured data with the the- oretical predictions, we can measure the actual electron gas temperature (Fig 1(c)).

According to theory of weak localization, the magne- toconductance in the 2D limit is given by the following combination of digamma functions [25]:

∆σ = e2

2pi2~

{ 3

2 Ψ

[ 1

2 + B2 B

] −Ψ

[ 1

2 + B1 B

]

− 1

2 Ψ

[ 1

2 + B3 B

] − ln

[ B

3/2 2

B1B3 1/2

]} , (3)

where Ψ is the digamma function and

B1 = B0 +Bso +Bs

B2 = Bϕ + 4/3Bso + 2/3Bs

B3 = Bϕ + 2Bs. (4)

-10 -5 0 5 10

-0.008

-0.004

0.000

R /

R

B(Gauss)

T

el

4.2K

2.5K

1.33K

850mK

600mK

300mK

130mK

FIG. 2: (Color online) Weak localization magnetoresistance measurements at different temperatures. The temperature range is from 4.2K (top) down to 130mK(bottom). The black solid lines are the best fits to Eq. 3.

0.1 1

1E9

1E10

1E11

Experimental Data

Eq. 1

Linear term from Eq. 1 + Eq. 2

Eq. 2

1 /

( 1

/ s

e c

)

T

el

(K)

FIG. 3: (Color online) The temperature dependence of the dephasing rate τ−1φ extracted from the weak-localization mea-

surements (Black squares). The green solid line is the theoret- ical value from Eq. 1. The blue dashed line is the theoretical value from Eq 2. The red dotted line is the theoretical value from the combination of the linear term in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2.

In Eq. (4), Bx ≡ ~/4eDτx are the characteristic fields of elastic scattering (B0), spin-orbit (Bso), phase loss (Bϕ) and magnetic impurities (Bs) related to the correspond- ing times τ, τso, τϕ and τs. B is the applied perpendicular field. The Magnetoresistance data are shown in Fig. 2, for temperatures between 4.2K and ∼130mK. The solid lines are best fits using Eq. 3. In our MBE grown sam- ples there are no magnetic impurities and Bso ≪ Bφ, making τφ the only fitting parameter. The values of the extracted dephasing time from Eq. 3 are plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of temperature. The green solid line is the theoretical value from Eq. 1, applicable where the small- energy transfer term dominates, and the blue dashed line is the theoretical value from Eq. 2, applicable where the

4 large-energy transfer term dominates. The red dotted line is the combination of the theoretical value from Eq. 2 and the linear term from Eq. 1, which represents the bal- listic limit with some contribution from the small-energy transfer linear term. These curves are plotted with no fitting parameter. The value used for the Fermi-liquid constant is F σo = −0.4, consistent with the known value for GaAs for our electron concentration. This value was used for all theoretical values described in Fig. 3. The measured dephasing times agree well with Eq. 1,

up to T ∼ 1K. This is in agreement with the estimated transition temperature T = ~/kBτ ≈ 1.4K describing the transition to the ballistic limit where large energy transfer processes dominate. At higher temperatures, comparison to the ballistic term (Eq. 2) shows agree- ment at least asymptotically. Combining the high energy transfer term from the high temperature limit together with the linear term from Eq. 1, we can observe even better agreement, albeit with a small deviation at the highest temperatures which might be the result of the proximity to the limit where Lφ ≈ l, making the appli- cation of Eqs. 1,2 somewhat problematic. The excellent agreement at the low temperature range

allows us to use this equation to extrapolate the dephas- ing times to lower temperatures. We estimate our ex- perimental error to be no more than 10 percent. Using this estimate and attributing the deviations at the lowest temperature achieved to a constant value, we can calcu- late the minimum saturated dephasing time value and es- timate the saturation temperature. The dephasing rate we measure at the lowest temperature is 1.54ns−1, while the theoretical prediction from Eq. 1 is 1.46ns−1. Taking into account a possible measurement error of 10%, and attributing all the deviation from the predicted theoret- ical value to an unknown temperature-independent de- phasing mechanism yields a rate of 0.23ns−1 for this zero- temperature dephasing mechanism. The minimal satu- rated dephasing time is thus estimated to be τsatϕ > 4ns and the maximal corresponding saturation temperature is ∼ 25mK. To the best of our knowledge, this satu- rated dephasing time value is higher then the saturation dephasing times reported in previous experiments. To conclude, we have measured the dephasing time

using weak localization magnetoresistance measurement, demonstrating very good quantitative agreement with re- cent theoretical results for a Fermi liquid (given in Eqs. 1 and 2), with no fitting parameters. Our data are at a range where both large and small energy transfer scatter- ing contribute to dephasing. We demonstrate the agree- ment on a relatively broad temperature scale. We see no evidence for saturation down to the lowest temperature measured. Comparing our data to the theoretical results, we limit the possible temperature independent dephasing rate to 0.23ns−1 at most, resulting in zero-temperature dephasing time of at least 4ns, which cannot be observed in our samples at electron temperatures above 25mK.

We would like to thank I. L. Aleiner, K. B. Efetov, A. D. Zaikin and G. Scho¨n for fruitful discussions. The support of the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Centers of Excellence Program is gratefully acknowledged. E.E. is supported by an Alon fellowship at Tel-Aviv University.

∗ Electronic address: shkolm@post.tau.ac.il [1] P.W. Anderson, E. Abrahams, D.C. Licciardello, and

T.V. Ramakrishnan Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 718 (1979). [2] G. Bergmann Phy. Rep. 107 1 (1984). [3] B.L. Al’tshuler, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 41, 530

(1985);JETP Lett. 41, 648 (1985). [4] P.A. Lee and A.D. Stone Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1622

(1985). [5] S. Washburn, and R.A. Webb, Adv. Phys. 35, 375 (1986). [6] Y. Imry Introduction to mesoscopic physics (Ox-

ford:Oxford University Press) 1997. [7] B.N. Narozhny, Gabor Zala, and I.L. Aleiner Phys. Rev.

B 65 180202 (2002). [8] P. Mohanty, E. M. Q. Jariwala and R.A. Webb, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 78, 3366 (1997). A. G. Huibers, J. A. Folk, S. R. Patel, C. I. Duruoz and J. S. Harris, Jr. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5090 (1999).

[9] D. Natelson, R.L. Willet,K.W. West and L.N. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1821 (2001).

[10] J.J. Lin and L.Y. Kao, J.Phys.:Condens.Matter 13 L119 (2001).

[11] Y. Imry, H. Fukayama and P. Schwab, Europhys. Lett. 47, 608 (1999).

[12] A. Zawadowski, J. von Delft and D.C Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2632 (1999).

[13] A. Kaminski and L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2400 (2001).

[14] F. Pierre, H. Pothier, D. Esteve, M.H. Devoret, A.B. Gougam and N.O. Brige, ”Kondo Effect and Dephas- ing in Low-Dimensional Metallic Systems” (Dordrecht: Kluwer) (2001).

[15] B.L. Al’tshuler, M.E Gershenson and I.L. Aleiner, Phys- ica E 3, 58 (1998).

[16] Z. Ovadyahu, Phys. Rev. B 63, 235403 (2001). [17] B. Al’tshuler, A.G. Aronov and D.E. Khmelnitsky, J.

Phys. C: Solid state Phys. 15, 7367 (1982). [18] H. Fukuyama and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. B 27, 5976

(1983). [19] L. Zheng and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 53, 9964

(1996). [20] Ga`bor Zala, B.N. Narozhny, and I.L Aleiner, Phys. Rev.

B 64 214204 (2001). [21] L.D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 30, 1058 (1956) [Sov.

Phys. JETP 3, 920 (1956); 32, 59 (1957); 5, 101 (1957)]. [22] G.M. Minkov, A. V. Germanenko, and I. V. Gornyi Phys.

Rev. B 70 245423 (2004). [23] Y. Ono, J. Phys. Soc. Jap 51, 237 (1982). [24] G. Ebert, K. von Klitzing, C. Probst, E. Schuberth, K.

Ploog, and G. Weimann, Solid State Commun 45, 625 (1983).

[25] S. Hikami, A.I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka, Prog. Theor. Phys 63, 707 (1980).

iv :c

on d-

m at

/0 50

92 85

v1 [

co nd

-m at.

me s-h

all ]

12 Se

p 2 00

5 Dephasing Time in a Two-Dimensional Electron Fermi Liquid

M. Eshkol,1, ∗ E. Eisenberg,1 M. Karpovski,1 and A. Palevski1

1School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler

Faculty of Exact Science, Tel-Aviv University, 69978 Tel-Aviv, Israel.

(Dated: February 2, 2008)

The observation of coherent quantum transport phenomena in metals and semiconductors is lim- ited by the eventual loss of phase coherence of the conducting electrons on the time scale τϕ. We use the weak localization effect to measure the low-temperature dephasing time in a two-dimensional electron Fermi liquid in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures. We use a novel temperature calibration method based on the integer quantum Hall effect in order to directly measure the electrons’ temper- ature. The data are in excellent agreement with recent theoretical results, including contributions from the triplet channel, for a broad temperature range. We see no evidence for saturation of the dephasing time down to ∼ 100mK. Moreover, the zero-temperature dephasing time is extrapolated to be higher than 4ns.

PACS numbers: 73.20.Fz, 03.65.Yz, 73.43.Qt, 73.43.Fj

The electron dephasing time, τϕ, is a quantity of great importance for the analysis of transport in semiconduc- tor and metal mesoscopic samples. Essentially, τϕ sets the scale at which the quantum-mechanical properties of the microscopic system crossover to the familiar classical behavior seen in macroscopic objects. The study of quan- tum coherence has attracted much attention, motivated both by questions of fundamental scientific interest con- cerning sources of decoherence in materials, and by the possibility of using solid-state electronic devices to store quantum information. The investigation of electron de- phasing has advanced significantly thanks to the obser- vation of a variety of prominent quantum interference phenomena. Weak localization [1, 2], universal conduc- tance fluctuations [3, 4], the Aharonov-Bohm effect [5] and persistent currents [6] exhibited in mesoscopic elec- tronic systems make these systems suitable for studying decoherence. The most prominent interference effect is weak-localization, the quantum-mechanical enhancement of coherent backscattering. This coherent interference is destroyed by the break of time-reversal symmetry, re- sulting in a noticeable ”anomalous” magnetoresistance of disordered conductors at low temperatures and low magnetic fields. Analysis of the magnetoresistance curves may provide quantitative information on the various elec- tron dephasing mechanisms.

A number of basic microscopic dephasing processes may coexist in real systems at low temperatures, with one or two mechanisms typically dominating, depending on system dimensionality, level of disorder and temper- ature. For two-dimensional semiconducting samples at low temperatures, the dominating dephasing process is quasi-elastic e-e interactions. These give rise to 1/τϕ ≃ T 2 ln(T ) at relatively high temperatures, due to large en- ergy transfer processes (or, using the terminology of Ref. [7], the ballistic term) and 1/τϕ ≃ T at lower temper- atures, where small energy transfer processes dominate the dephasing (diffusive term in [7]). Accordingly, the

zero temperature dephasing time, τ0ϕ ≡ τϕ(T → 0), is ex- pected to diverge. Contrary to this prediction, a number of experimental groups have shown indications for a finite saturated dephasing time at low temperatures [8]. Re- cently, this contradiction has been the focus of consider- able attention. Among the current opinions on the mat- ter, it has been suggested that the saturated value should depend on the specific sample geometry [9], the level of disorder in the sample [10], the microscopic qualities of the defects [11, 12], or e-e scattering mediated by the magnetic exchange interaction [13]. Others argue that the saturation is caused by extrinsic mechanisms, such as magnetic spin-spin scattering [14], hot electron effects [15], electromagnetic noise sources [3] or non-equilibrium effects [16]. The possible extrinsic mechanisms urge cau- tion when determining the actual temperature of the two- dimensional electron system and ensuring outside radia- tion is small.

Most of the above-mentioned experiments were com- pared with theoretical results for the two-dimensional electron gas, focusing on the universal contribution of the singlet channel interaction, both in the energetically dif- fusive [17, 18] and ballistic regimes [18, 19]. Recently, the effect of Fermi liquid renormalization of the triplet chan- nel of the Coulomb interaction on the dephasing time has been studied theoretically for arbitrary relation be- tween inverse temperature and elastic mean free time [7]. The prefactors of these dependencies are not universal, but are determined by the Fermi liquid constant char- acterizing the spin-exchange interaction. It is expected that taking into account the Fermi liquid normalization would facilitate better quantitative understanding of the experimental data.

In this work, weak-localization magnetoresistance measurements were performed in two-dimensional Fermi liquid fabricated in GaAs/Al0.3Ga0.7As heterostructures with high conductance, in order to extract the dephasing time at various temperatures down to ∼100mK.We com-

2 pare our results to the theoretical prediction that includes contributions from both the singlet and triplet channels. Our measurements are in the intermediate temperature range, where both small and large energy transfer scat- tering contribute to phase braking. The measurements were accompanied by integer quantum Hall measure- ments showing variable-range-hopping behavior in the di- agonal resistivity minima at very low temperatures. This predicted, exponential behavior was used to calibrate the electrons’ temperature as a means to quantify hot elec- trons effects. We observe good quantitative agreement with theory over all the temperature range, in both en- ergetically ballistic and diffusive regimes. No indications for saturation of the dephasing time are detected down to the lowest temperature measured.

It has been shown in [7] that at low temperatures, where small energy transfer scattering processes domi- nate (kBTτ/~ ≪ 1), the temperature dependence of the dephasing time is:

1/τϕ =

{ 1 +

3(F σo ) 2

(1 + F σo )(2 + F σ o )

} kBT

g~ ln[g(1 + F σo )]

+ pi

4

{ 1 +

3(F σ0 ) 2

(1 + F σo ) 2

} (kBT )

2

~EF ln(EF τ/~), (1)

where F σo is the interaction constant in the triplet chan- nel which depends on interaction strength [20, 21], g ≡ 2pi~/e2R� andEF is the Fermi energy. At higher temper- atures where large energy transfer scattering processes contribute (kBTτ/~≫ 1),

1/τϕ = pi

4

(kBT ) 2

BEF

{ ln

( 2EF kBT

)

+ 3(F σo )

2

(1 + F σo ) 2 ln

( EF

kBT √ b(F σo )

)} , (2)

where b(x) ≈ (1 + x2)/(1 + x)2, and B is a numerical factor that varies between 0.84 for weak magnetic fields (ΩHτϕ ≫ 1 where ΩH = 4DeH/~c) and 0.79 in the op- posite limit [7]. These results were recently compared by Minkov et al. [22] to measurements of magnetoresistance and dephasing times for samples of intermediate conduc- tances, where higher orders in 1/g contribute. Taking into account high orders corrections, good agreement be- tween theory and experiment has been observed.

The samples are fabricated from single-well Al- GaAs/GaAs heterostructures in order to avoid compli- cations from inter-valley scattering magnetic impurities, and due to the negligible spin-orbit coupling in these het- erostructures. The samples are mesa-etched into stan- dard Hall-bar configuration using standard lithography. The samples dimensions are 200µm long and 10µm wide. The electron density was 2.8×1011cm−2 with a mobility of 87000cm2/V sec. The corresponding electron diffusion constant(D) and mean free time (τ) areD = 0.085m2/sec

40 45 50 55

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

3

10

4

R

x x

( )

B(KGauss)

T

Thermometer

(mK)

400

160

110

75

(a)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

(b)

x x

( )

T(K)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

(c)

T

e l

( K

)

T

Thermometer

(K)

FIG. 1: (Color online) The temperature calibration pro- cess: (a) Magnetoresitance measurements. The longitudinal resistance is presented as a function of the magnetic field for several different temperatures. The magnetic field is in the range 3.9-5T (corresponding to plateau i=3). The tem- perature ranges from 400mK (top) to around 75mK (bot- tom), as measured by the thermometer. (b) The measured resistance minima as function of thermometer temperature (black circles), compared to the variable-range-hopping result

̺xx ∝ 1/T exp−(T/To) 1/2 (red solid line). Clearly, the mea-

sured resistance surpasses the variable-range-hopping results, reflecting the hot electrons effect. (c) The actual electrons’ temperature as function of the thermometer temperature.

and τ = 3.3×10−12sec. The magnetoresistance measure- ments are carried out using a four-probe configuration, using a lock-in amplifier by applying a magnetic field perpendicularly to the sample. VL, the applied bias on the whole sample of length L, is kept below the temper- ature [16], eVL/kB < T , rather than the conventional eVφ/kB < T criterion, where Vφ is the bias applied to the phase-coherent length, Lφ, in order to prevent any non-equilibrium effects from causing dephasing. In ad- dition, we explicitly verified that the magnetoresistance

3 curve was insensitive to further reduction in the voltage bias.

At very low temperatures, lack of good thermal con- tact between the lattice and the electrons might oc- cur. This might lead to a difference between the ac- tual electron temperature and that measured by the thermometer. This hot electrons effect, requires care- ful temperature measurement. We employ longitudinal resistance measurements in the integer quantum Hall ef- fect regime in order to directly measure the tempera- ture of the electron gas using an effect independent of the weak localization phenomenon. It is well established [23] that the longitudinal conductance in the plateau area in the quantum Hall regime is due to thermal ac- tivation over the mobility edge at relatively high tem- peratures, and to variable-range-hopping at lower tem- peratures. These effects predict exponentially strong temperature dependence of the conductivity/resistivity, ρxx ∝ 1/T exp(−(T/T0)

1/2). This dependence was mea- sured and shown in AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures very similar to ours in Ebert et al. [24], at least down to 30mK. We use these theory and experimental findings to cali- brate our temperature by comparing our data (Fig. 1(a)) with the theoretical prediction they established. By tak- ing the minima resistivity measured by us and comparing it to a value from the equation given in Ebert et al., we measure the electrons’ temperature and indeed find that it is higher than the thermometer temperature, indicat- ing hot electron effects. In order to minimize small lock- in amplifier deviations, we calibrated it by setting the re- sistivity values at the minima corresponding to plateau i=4 to zero, where the value is already at the saturated value for the entire temperature range. In addition, we normalized the measured and calculated resistivity val- ues at the high temperatures where we expect the tem- perature deviation between the gas and thermometer to be absent in order to fix the prefactors. The difference between the measured and calculated values is shown in Fig. 1(b). By comparing the measured data with the the- oretical predictions, we can measure the actual electron gas temperature (Fig 1(c)).

According to theory of weak localization, the magne- toconductance in the 2D limit is given by the following combination of digamma functions [25]:

∆σ = e2

2pi2~

{ 3

2 Ψ

[ 1

2 + B2 B

] −Ψ

[ 1

2 + B1 B

]

− 1

2 Ψ

[ 1

2 + B3 B

] − ln

[ B

3/2 2

B1B3 1/2

]} , (3)

where Ψ is the digamma function and

B1 = B0 +Bso +Bs

B2 = Bϕ + 4/3Bso + 2/3Bs

B3 = Bϕ + 2Bs. (4)

-10 -5 0 5 10

-0.008

-0.004

0.000

R /

R

B(Gauss)

T

el

4.2K

2.5K

1.33K

850mK

600mK

300mK

130mK

FIG. 2: (Color online) Weak localization magnetoresistance measurements at different temperatures. The temperature range is from 4.2K (top) down to 130mK(bottom). The black solid lines are the best fits to Eq. 3.

0.1 1

1E9

1E10

1E11

Experimental Data

Eq. 1

Linear term from Eq. 1 + Eq. 2

Eq. 2

1 /

( 1

/ s

e c

)

T

el

(K)

FIG. 3: (Color online) The temperature dependence of the dephasing rate τ−1φ extracted from the weak-localization mea-

surements (Black squares). The green solid line is the theoret- ical value from Eq. 1. The blue dashed line is the theoretical value from Eq 2. The red dotted line is the theoretical value from the combination of the linear term in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2.

In Eq. (4), Bx ≡ ~/4eDτx are the characteristic fields of elastic scattering (B0), spin-orbit (Bso), phase loss (Bϕ) and magnetic impurities (Bs) related to the correspond- ing times τ, τso, τϕ and τs. B is the applied perpendicular field. The Magnetoresistance data are shown in Fig. 2, for temperatures between 4.2K and ∼130mK. The solid lines are best fits using Eq. 3. In our MBE grown sam- ples there are no magnetic impurities and Bso ≪ Bφ, making τφ the only fitting parameter. The values of the extracted dephasing time from Eq. 3 are plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of temperature. The green solid line is the theoretical value from Eq. 1, applicable where the small- energy transfer term dominates, and the blue dashed line is the theoretical value from Eq. 2, applicable where the

4 large-energy transfer term dominates. The red dotted line is the combination of the theoretical value from Eq. 2 and the linear term from Eq. 1, which represents the bal- listic limit with some contribution from the small-energy transfer linear term. These curves are plotted with no fitting parameter. The value used for the Fermi-liquid constant is F σo = −0.4, consistent with the known value for GaAs for our electron concentration. This value was used for all theoretical values described in Fig. 3. The measured dephasing times agree well with Eq. 1,

up to T ∼ 1K. This is in agreement with the estimated transition temperature T = ~/kBτ ≈ 1.4K describing the transition to the ballistic limit where large energy transfer processes dominate. At higher temperatures, comparison to the ballistic term (Eq. 2) shows agree- ment at least asymptotically. Combining the high energy transfer term from the high temperature limit together with the linear term from Eq. 1, we can observe even better agreement, albeit with a small deviation at the highest temperatures which might be the result of the proximity to the limit where Lφ ≈ l, making the appli- cation of Eqs. 1,2 somewhat problematic. The excellent agreement at the low temperature range

allows us to use this equation to extrapolate the dephas- ing times to lower temperatures. We estimate our ex- perimental error to be no more than 10 percent. Using this estimate and attributing the deviations at the lowest temperature achieved to a constant value, we can calcu- late the minimum saturated dephasing time value and es- timate the saturation temperature. The dephasing rate we measure at the lowest temperature is 1.54ns−1, while the theoretical prediction from Eq. 1 is 1.46ns−1. Taking into account a possible measurement error of 10%, and attributing all the deviation from the predicted theoret- ical value to an unknown temperature-independent de- phasing mechanism yields a rate of 0.23ns−1 for this zero- temperature dephasing mechanism. The minimal satu- rated dephasing time is thus estimated to be τsatϕ > 4ns and the maximal corresponding saturation temperature is ∼ 25mK. To the best of our knowledge, this satu- rated dephasing time value is higher then the saturation dephasing times reported in previous experiments. To conclude, we have measured the dephasing time

using weak localization magnetoresistance measurement, demonstrating very good quantitative agreement with re- cent theoretical results for a Fermi liquid (given in Eqs. 1 and 2), with no fitting parameters. Our data are at a range where both large and small energy transfer scatter- ing contribute to dephasing. We demonstrate the agree- ment on a relatively broad temperature scale. We see no evidence for saturation down to the lowest temperature measured. Comparing our data to the theoretical results, we limit the possible temperature independent dephasing rate to 0.23ns−1 at most, resulting in zero-temperature dephasing time of at least 4ns, which cannot be observed in our samples at electron temperatures above 25mK.

We would like to thank I. L. Aleiner, K. B. Efetov, A. D. Zaikin and G. Scho¨n for fruitful discussions. The support of the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Centers of Excellence Program is gratefully acknowledged. E.E. is supported by an Alon fellowship at Tel-Aviv University.

∗ Electronic address: shkolm@post.tau.ac.il [1] P.W. Anderson, E. Abrahams, D.C. Licciardello, and

T.V. Ramakrishnan Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 718 (1979). [2] G. Bergmann Phy. Rep. 107 1 (1984). [3] B.L. Al’tshuler, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 41, 530

(1985);JETP Lett. 41, 648 (1985). [4] P.A. Lee and A.D. Stone Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1622

(1985). [5] S. Washburn, and R.A. Webb, Adv. Phys. 35, 375 (1986). [6] Y. Imry Introduction to mesoscopic physics (Ox-

ford:Oxford University Press) 1997. [7] B.N. Narozhny, Gabor Zala, and I.L. Aleiner Phys. Rev.

B 65 180202 (2002). [8] P. Mohanty, E. M. Q. Jariwala and R.A. Webb, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 78, 3366 (1997). A. G. Huibers, J. A. Folk, S. R. Patel, C. I. Duruoz and J. S. Harris, Jr. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5090 (1999).

[9] D. Natelson, R.L. Willet,K.W. West and L.N. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1821 (2001).

[10] J.J. Lin and L.Y. Kao, J.Phys.:Condens.Matter 13 L119 (2001).

[11] Y. Imry, H. Fukayama and P. Schwab, Europhys. Lett. 47, 608 (1999).

[12] A. Zawadowski, J. von Delft and D.C Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2632 (1999).

[13] A. Kaminski and L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2400 (2001).

[14] F. Pierre, H. Pothier, D. Esteve, M.H. Devoret, A.B. Gougam and N.O. Brige, ”Kondo Effect and Dephas- ing in Low-Dimensional Metallic Systems” (Dordrecht: Kluwer) (2001).

[15] B.L. Al’tshuler, M.E Gershenson and I.L. Aleiner, Phys- ica E 3, 58 (1998).

[16] Z. Ovadyahu, Phys. Rev. B 63, 235403 (2001). [17] B. Al’tshuler, A.G. Aronov and D.E. Khmelnitsky, J.

Phys. C: Solid state Phys. 15, 7367 (1982). [18] H. Fukuyama and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. B 27, 5976

(1983). [19] L. Zheng and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 53, 9964

(1996). [20] Ga`bor Zala, B.N. Narozhny, and I.L Aleiner, Phys. Rev.

B 64 214204 (2001). [21] L.D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 30, 1058 (1956) [Sov.

Phys. JETP 3, 920 (1956); 32, 59 (1957); 5, 101 (1957)]. [22] G.M. Minkov, A. V. Germanenko, and I. V. Gornyi Phys.

Rev. B 70 245423 (2004). [23] Y. Ono, J. Phys. Soc. Jap 51, 237 (1982). [24] G. Ebert, K. von Klitzing, C. Probst, E. Schuberth, K.

Ploog, and G. Weimann, Solid State Commun 45, 625 (1983).

[25] S. Hikami, A.I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka, Prog. Theor. Phys 63, 707 (1980).

Comments