4.8 Article

Current-Phase Relation of Ballistic Graphene Josephson Junctions

Journal

NANO LETTERS
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages 3396-3401

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00097

Keywords

Graphene; Josephson junctions; SQUID; current-phase relation

Funding

  1. EC-FET Graphene flagship
  2. Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM
  3. FLAG-ERA through project iSpinText
  4. OTKA [IC108676]
  5. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  6. MEXT, Japan
  7. JSPS KAKENHI [JP26248061, JP15K21722, JP25106006]
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25107004] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current-phase relation (CPR) of a Josephson junction (JJ) determines how the supercurrent evolves with the superconducting phase difference across the junction. Knowledge of the CPR is essential in order to understand the response of a JJ to various external parameters. Despite the rising interest in ultra-clean encapsulated graphene JJs, the CPR of such junctions remains unknown. Here, we use a fully gate-tunable graphene superconducting quantum intereference device (SQUID) to determine the CPR of ballistic graphene JJs. Each of the two JJs in the SQUID is made with graphene encapsulated in hexagonal boron nitride. By independently controlling the critical current of the JJs, we can operate the SQUID either in a symmetric or asymmetric configuration. The highly asymmetric SQUID allows us to phase-bias one of the JJs and thereby directly obtain its CPR. The CPR is found to be skewed, deviating significantly from a sinusoidal form. The skewness can be tuned with the gate voltage and oscillates in anti-phase with Fabry-Perot resistance oscillations of the ballistic graphene cavity. We compare our experiments with tight-binding calculations which include realistic graphene-superconductor interfaces and find a good qualitative agreement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available