How to Distinguish between Specular and Retroconfigurations for Andreev Reflection in Graphene Rings
Jörg Schelter, Björn Trauzettel, Patrik Recher
DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.106603 · Physical Review Letters
Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval
Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.
Abstract
We numerically investigate Andreev reflection in a graphene ring with one normal conducting and one superconducting lead by solving the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equation within the Landauer-Büttiker formalism. By tuning chemical potential and bias voltage, it is possible to switch between regimes where electron and hole originate from the same band (retroconfiguration) or from different bands (specular configuration) of the graphene dispersion, respectively. We find that the dominant contributions to the Aharonov-Bohm conductance oscillations in the subgap transport are of period h/2e in retroconfiguration and of period h/e in specular configuration, confirming the predictions obtained from a qualitative analysis of interfering scattering paths. Because of the robustness against disorder and moderate changes to the system, this provides a clear signature to distinguish both types of Andreev reflection processes in graphene.
Similar papers
Andreev and normal reflections in gapped bilayer graphene–superconductor junctions
similarity 0.91Panch Ram et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Andreev reflection in bilayer graphene
similarity 0.90T. Ludwig
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Andreev reflection in graphene nanoribbons
similarity 0.89Diego Rainis et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Controllable Andreev Retroreflection and Specular Andreev Reflection in a Four-Terminal Graphene-Superconductor Hybrid System
similarity 0.89Shu-guang Cheng et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Andreev-Klein reflection in graphene ferromagnet-superconductor junctions
similarity 0.89Malek Zareyan et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Graphene Andreev billiards
similarity 0.88József Cserti et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified