|
|
Bremer, J. W., & Newhouse, V. L. (1958). Phys. Rev. Lett., 1, 282.
|
|
|
|
Shah, J., Pinczuk, A., Gossard, A. C., & Wiegmann, W. (1985). Energy-loss rates for hot electrons and holes in GaAs quantum wells. Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 2045–2048.
Abstract: We report the first direct determination of carrier-energy-loss rates in a semiconductor. These measurements provide fundamental insight into carrier-phonon interactions in semiconductors. Unexpectedly large differences are found in the energy-loss rates for electrons and holes in GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells. This large difference results from an anomalously low electron-energy-loss rate, which we attribute to the presence of nonequilibrium optical phonons rather than the effects of reduced dimensionality or dynamic screening.
|
|
|
|
Vercruyssen, N., Verhagen, T. G. A., Flokstra, M. G., Pekola, J. P., & Klapwijk, T. M. (2012). Evanescent states and nonequilibrium in driven superconducting nanowires. Phys. Rev. B, 85, 224503(1–10).
Abstract: We study the nonlinear response of current transport in a superconducting diffusive nanowire between normal reservoirs. We demonstrate theoretically and experimentally the existence of two different superconducting states appearing when the wire is driven out of equilibrium by an applied bias, called the global and bimodal superconducting states. The different states are identified by using two-probe measurements of the wire, and measurements of the local density of states with tunneling probes. The analysis is performed within the framework of the quasiclassical kinetic equations for diffusive superconductors.
|
|
|
|
Bardeen, J., Cooper, L. N., & Schrieffer, J. R. (1957). Microscopic theory of superconductivity. Phys. Rev., 106, 162–164.
|
|
|
|
Tinkham, M., Free, J. U., Lau, C. N., & Markovic, N. (2003). Hysteretic I–V curves of superconducting nanowires. Phys. Rev. B, 68, 134515(1 to 7).
Abstract: Experimental I–V curves of superconducting MoGe nanowires show hysteresis for the thicker wires and none for the thinner wires. A rather quantitative account of these data for representative wires is obtained by numerically solving the one-dimensional heat flow equation to find a self-consistent distribution of temperature and local resistivity along the wire, using the measured linear resistance R(T) as input. This suggests that the retrapping current in the hysteretic I–V curves is primarily determined by heating effects, and not by the dynamics of phase motion in a tilted washboard potential as often assumed. Heating effects and thermal fluctuations from the low-resistance state to a high-resistance, quasinormal regime appear to set independent upper bounds for the switching current.
|
|
