Andreev scattering and Josephson current in a one-dimensional electron liquid

Abstract

Andreev scattering and the Josephson current through a one-dimensional interacting electron liquid sandwiched between two superconductors are reexamined. We first present some apparently new results on the noninteracting case by studying an exactly solvable tight-binding model rather than the usual continuum model. We show that perfect Andreev scattering (i.e., zero normal scattering) at the Fermi energy can only be achieved by fine-tuning junction parameters, a fine-tuning which is possible even with bandwidth mismatch between superconductor and normal metal. We also obtain exact results for the Josephson current, which is generally a smooth function of the superconducting phase difference except when the junction parameters are adjusted to give perfect Andreev scattering, in which case it becomes a sawtooth function. We then observe that, even when interactions are included, all low-energy properties of a junction (E≪Δ, the superconducting gap) can be obtained by “integrating out” the superconducting electrons to obtain an effective Hamiltonian describing the metallic electrons only with a boundary pairing interaction. This boundary model provides a suitable starting point for bosonization-renormalization group-boundary conformal field theory analysis. We argue that total normal reflection and total Andreev reflection correspond to two fixed points of the boundary renormalization group. For repulsive bulk interactions the Andreev fixed point is unstable and the normal one stable. However, the reverse is true for attractive interactions. This implies that a generic junction Hamiltonian (without fine-tuned junction parameters) will renormalize to the normal fixed point for repulsive interations but to the Andreev one for attractive interations. An exact mapping of our tight-binding model to the Hubbard model with a transverse magnetic field is used to help understand this behavior. We calculate the critical exponents, which are different at these two different fixed points.

Similar papers