Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Physica B Condens Matter. 2012 Jun 1;407(11):1734–1736. doi: 10.1016/j.physb.2012.01.018

Quantum mechanisms of density wave transport

John H Miller Jr 1,*, Asanga I Wijesinghe 1
PMCID: PMC3375823  NIHMSID: NIHMS351375  PMID: 22711979

Abstract

We report on new developments in the quantum picture of correlated electron transport in charge and spin density waves. The model treats the condensate as a quantum fluid in which charge soliton domain wall pairs nucleate above a Coulomb blockade threshold field. We employ a time-correlated soliton tunneling model, analogous to the theory of time-correlated single electron tunneling, to interpret the voltage oscillations and nonlinear current-voltage characteristics above threshold. An inverse scaling relationship between threshold field and dielectric response, originally proposed by Grüner, emerges naturally from the model. Flat dielectric and other ac responses below threshold in NbSe3 and TaS3, as well as small density wave phase displacements, indicate that the measured threshold is often much smaller than the classical depinning field. In some materials, the existence of two distinct threshold fields suggests that both soliton nucleation and classical depinning may occur. In our model, the ratio of electrostatic charging to pinning energy helps determine whether soliton nucleation or classical depinning dominates.

Keywords: Charge density wave, spin density wave, soliton, quantum tunneling

1. Time-correlated soliton tunneling model

Our understanding of cooperative quantum tunneling has undergone significant advances since the 1960’s. The tunneling Hamiltonian matrix element proposed by Bardeen [1] led to Josephson’s theory [2] of coherent tunneling of superconducting electron pairs. Coherent Josephson tunneling has also been reported for Bose-Einstein condensates [3]. The widely cited “Fate of the False Vacuum” papers [4,5] discuss quantum instability of a scalar field φ(r) in a double-well potential. In quantum field theory, the term “vacuum” refers to a minimum energy state.

In this paper, φ represents the phase of a density wave. If φ sits in the higher metastable well (‘false vacuum’) it is unstable to decay by tunneling into the lower potential well, nucleating a bubble of ‘true vacuum’ bounded by charge soliton domain walls. The charge density wave (CDW) is an anisotropic (quasi-1-D) correlated electron-phonon system [6] in which quantum interference between right- and left-moving electron states creates a charge modulation, ρk(x,t) = ρ0k(x,t) + ρ1cos[2kFxφk(x,t)], along each (kth out of N) parallel chain or transverse wavevector. A spin density wave (SDW) is equivalent to two out-of-phase CDWs for the spin-up and spin-down subbands. If the phases are correlated, φkφ, then the net charge per unit length, averaged over several wavelengths, is given by: 〈ρ(x,t)〉 = (Q0/2π)∂φ(x,t)/∂x, where Q0=2Neρc and ρc is the condensate fraction. An applied field E thus couples to kinks rather than the phase, and the apparent coupling to φ comes from integrating by parts and throwing away the boundary conditions. Crucially, any charged kinks produce their own electric field, which contributes an electrostatic component to the potential energy. The density wave (DW) pinning energy is periodic in φ and can be idealized as a sine-Gordon potential, ∝ 1 − cosφ, in the simplest model.

Dielectric, ac conductivity, and mixing responses [79] of NbSe3 and TaS3, some at temperatures above 200 K, are nearly bias-independent below the threshold field ET for nonlinear transport. These results corroborate small CDW phase displacements [10] and contradict classical predictions [1113] of divergent dielectric response, suggesting that ET (measured) ≪ ET (classical). Quantized states in CDW microcrystals [14] and h/2e Aharonov-Bohm oscillations in the CDW magneto-conductance of NbSe3 crystals with columnar defects [15] and TaS3 rings [16] further reveal cooperative quantum behavior. The observed h/2e, rather than h/2Ne period predicted [17] for N parallel chains, suggests coherent Josephson-like tunneling of microscopic entities of charge 2e within the condensate, as the quantum fluid flows through a tiny barrier, rather than tunneling of a massive object. Unlike macroscopic quantum tunneling, Josephson tunneling can occur at all temperatures below the condensation temperature (Peierls temperature for CDWs), which for NbS3 is well above room temperature [18].

The quantum picture discussed here interprets the threshold field and coherent oscillations above threshold as due to Coulomb blockade [19] and time-correlated tunneling of microscopic quantum solitons that condense into soliton domain walls [2022]. Once fully nucleated, the domain walls (Fig. 1) carry charges ±Q0. These produce an internal field, E*=Q0/εA, where A is the crystal’s cross-sectional area. The difference in electrostatic energies, ½ ε (E ± E*)2 − ½ ε E2, with and without soliton pairs is positive when the applied field E is less than a Coulomb blockade threshold, ET = ½ E* = Q0/2εA, which can be much less than the classical depinning field. However, when E > ET, or θ = 2πE/E* > π, the formerly ‘true vacuum’ becomes a metastable state or ‘false vacuum,’ as illustrated in Fig. 2. Similar θ = π instabilities, where θ represents the vacuum angle, have been proposed for spontaneous CP violation [23,24] and several condensed matter systems, including topological insulators [25] and the quantum Hall effect [26].

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Top. Density wave phase vs. position, showing production of a soliton-antisoliton domain wall pair. Bottom. Model of density wave capacitance showing nucleated domain walls moving toward the contacts. The applied field E partially or completely cancels the internal field E*. The distance l, soliton width λ0=c0/ω0, where c0 and ω0 are the phason velocity and pinning frequency, respectively, and crystal thickness are exaggerated for clarity.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Left. Potential energy vs. φ for two values of θ, in which the many degrees of freedom are illustrated schematically. Tunneling can only occur if θ > π (E > ET), when the phases φk tunnel coherently into the adjacent well. Right. Potential energy vs. θ, in which the phases φkφ are sitting in various potential minima, φ ~ 2πn.

Like the classical depinning field Ecl, ET scales as ni2 for a weakly pinned sample, ni being the impurity concentration. This can be seen by examining the Grüner relation between dielectric response and threshold field, which for the simplest classical model is given by [6]: εEcl = 4πenchρc, where ε is the low-frequency dielectric response at zero bias and nch = N/A. The Coulomb blockade threshold ET = Q0/2εA leads to a similar relationship: εET = enchρc, with the result, ET = Ecl/4π, which scales as ni2 for a DW weakly pinned by impurities. Screening by normal carriers, both thermally activated and due to incomplete Peierls gaps in materials such as NbSe3, further enhance ε and reduce the ratio ET/Ecl. For a fixed ni, the temperature dependence of ε leads (inversely) to the observed [27] temperature dependence of ET.

The ‘vacuum angle’ θ is related to total displacement charge Q by: θ = 2π(Q/Q0). This contributes an electrostatic energy, Q2/2C, which is either enhanced or reduced by the internal field from a kink-antikink pair within which the phase is advanced. The potential energy per unit length of the kth chain or transverse wavevector can thus be written as [2122]:

u(φk)=up[1cosφk]+uE[θφk]2, (1)

where the first term is the pinning energy and the second, quadratic term is the electrostatic contribution. The inclusion of both terms clearly delineates a quantum threshold, which is much smaller than the classical depinning threshold when uEup. When θ > π, the state with φk ~ 2π becomes the lowest energy state, as illustrated in figure 2 (left). Thus, θ = π demarcates the boundary above which a dynamical phase transition via quantum decay of the ‘false vacuum’ becomes possible. Below threshold when θ < π, in the limit αuE/up ≪ 1 we find (setting φk = φ and ∂u/∂φ = 0, and using sinφφ) that φ ≅ [uE/(uE+up)]θαθ ~ 0, leading to a small phase displacement and relatively flat dielectric response below threshold.

The right side of figure 2 shows plots of u vs. θ, obtained by minimizing the energy for φkφ ~ 2πn. A voltage across the contacts induces a displacement charge Q. The charging energy, ∝ (θ − 2πn)2 in Fig. 2, can be expressed (for N parallel chains) in terms of total displacement charge as UC = (QnQ0)2/2C, showing a clear analogy to time-correlated single-electron tunneling (SET) in Coulomb blockade tunnel junctions [28]. The origin of the narrow-band noise, coherent voltage or current oscillations, and mode locking with an ac source thus becomes clear in this context.

In order to simulate DW dynamics above threshold, we employ a model that includes a shunt resistance R in parallel with a capacitive tunnel junction representing soliton tunneling, by analogy to time-correlated SET [28]. Details of these simulations will be discussed elsewhere. The phases φk tunnel coherently into the next well as each parabola in Fig. 2 crosses the next at the instability points θ = 2π(n + ½). We represent the amplitudes for the system to be on branches 0 and 1 (more generally n and n+1) as ψ0,1 = √ρ0,1 exp[0,1], where ρ0,1 = N0,1/N is the fraction of chains or transverse wavevectors on branch 0 or 1. These are coupled via a tunneling Hamiltonian matrix element T with a Zener-like dependence ∝Fexp[−F0/F] on the force F, which is proportional to the difference in energies between the two branches for a specific value of θ. Following Feynman’s treatment of the Josephson junction [29], the time-evolution of ψ0 and ψ1 is described using the Schrödinger equation, viewed as the “classical” equation of motion for the system:

iψ1,0/t=U0ψ1,0+Tψ0,1. (2)

The simulation results, to be discussed elsewhere, yield excellent quantitative agreement with measured coherent voltage oscillations and current-voltage characteristics in NbSe3. Moreover, the model explains the existence of more than one threshold field, as observed in some materials [30,31]. The two major thresholds emerge naturally, provided the nucleated soliton conductance is sufficiently small for θ to be treated quasi-statically, i.e. θ = πεE/ε1ET, where ε1 = ε(EET). We interpret the low- and high-field thresholds as due to soliton nucleation and classical depinning, respectively. The quantum instability occurs when θ ≥ π, while the classical instability occurs when θθc(α) ≅ α−1 + π/2 in the limit α = uE/up ≪ 1. The data showing flat dielectric and other ac responses suggest α ≪ 1, where soliton nucleation is the dominant mechanism. However, some crystals and temperature ranges suggests a higher uE/up, which enables both a low-field soliton nucleation threshold and high-field classical depinning threshold. Finally, in some materials at low temperatures [30,31], the normal carriers become frozen out and result in a relatively low ε and sufficiently high uE/up for classical depinning to dominate.

2. Discussion

The issue of whether DW transport is a high temperature cooperative quantum phenomenon is potentially of major significance. Areas of broad scientific impact include improved understanding of correlated electron systems, tunneling in quantum cosmology, spontaneous CP violation [23,24], and in some materials (e.g. NbS3 for which TP ~360 K [18]), the possibility of macroscopic quantum effects at biological temperatures. Finally, understanding of the quantum behavior of solitons could lead to topologically robust forms of quantum information processing.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support by R21CA133153 from NIH (NCI) and by ARRA supplement: 3 R21 CA133153-03S1 (NIH, NCI). Additional support was provided by the State of Texas through the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • 1.Bardeen J. Phys Rev Lett. 1961;6:57. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Josephson BD. Phys Lett. 1962;1:251. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cataliotti FS, et al. Science. 2001;293:843. doi: 10.1126/science.1062612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Coleman S. Phys Rev D. 1977;15:2929. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Callan CG, Coleman S. Phys Rev D. 1977;16:1762. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Grüner G. Rev Mod Phys. 1988;60:1129. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zettl A, Grüner G. Phys Rev B. 1984;29:755. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wu W-y, et al. Solid State Commun. 1985;55:663. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Miller JH, Jr, et al. Phys Rev B. 1985;31:5229. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.31.5229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ross JH, et al. Phys Rev Lett. 1986;56:663. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Littlewood PB. Phys Rev B. 1986;33:6694. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.33.6694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Coppersmith SN, Fisher DS. Phys Rev A. 1988;38:6338. doi: 10.1103/physreva.38.6338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Narayan O, Middleton AA. Phys Rev B. 1994;49:244. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.49.244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zybtsev SG, et al. Nat Commun. 2010;1:85. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Latyshev YI, et al. Phys Rev Lett. 1997;78:919. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tsubota M, et al. Physica B: Cond Matt. 2009;404:416. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bogachek EN, et al. Phys Rev B. 1990;42:7614. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.42.7614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zybtsev SG, et al. Appl Phys Lett. 2009;94:152112. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Krive IV, Rozhavsky AS. Solid State Commun. 1985;55:691. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maiti A, Miller JH., Jr Phys Rev B. 1991;43:12205. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.43.12205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miller JH, Jr, et al. Phys Rev Lett. 2000;84:1555. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Miller JH, Jr, et al. J Phys A: Math & General. 2003;36:9209. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tytgat MHG. Phys Rev D. 2000;61:114009. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Boer D, Boomsma JK. Phys Rev D. 2008;78:054027. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen KT, Lee PA. Phys Rev B. 2011;83:125119. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pruisken AMM, et al. Phys Rev B. 2005;72:035329. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Latyshev YI, Orlov AP, Monceau P. Pis’ma v ZhETF. 2011;93:101. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Averin DV, Likharev KK. J Low Temp Phys. 1986;62:345. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. III Addison-Wesley; Reading, Massachusetts: 1965. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mihály G, Beauchêne P. Solid State Commun. 1987;63:911. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Itkis ME, Nad FY, Monceau P. J Phys: Cond Matt. 1990;2:8327. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES