4.8 Article

Probing Johnson noise and ballistic transport in normal metals with a single-spin qubit

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 347, 期 6226, 页码 1129-1132

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4298

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Ultracold Atoms
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  3. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Quantum-Assisted Sensing and Readout program
  4. Air Force Office of Scientific Research Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  5. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  6. National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate fellowship
  7. Society of Fellows of Harvard University
  8. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  9. NSF [ECS-0335765]
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  11. Division Of Physics [1125846] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. Division Of Physics
  13. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0969816] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermally induced electrical currents, known as Johnson noise, cause fluctuating electric and magnetic fields in proximity to a conductor. These fluctuations are intrinsically related to the conductivity of the metal. We use single-spin qubits associated with nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond to probe Johnson noise in the vicinity of conductive silver films. Measurements of polycrystalline silver films over a range of distances (20 to 200 nanometers) and temperatures (10 to 300 kelvin) are consistent with the classically expected behavior of the magnetic fluctuations. However, we find that Johnson noise is markedly suppressed next to single-crystal films, indicative of a substantial deviation from Ohm's law at length scales below the electron mean free path. Our results are consistent with a generalized model that accounts for the ballistic motion of electrons in the metal, indicating that under the appropriate conditions, nearby electrodes may be used for controlling nanoscale optoelectronic, atomic, and solid-state quantum systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据