Time-dependent Andreev reflection Dmitri V. Averin1, Gongqi Wang1, and Andrey S. Vasenko2;3 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 2National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000 Moscow, Russia 3I.E. Tamm Department of Theoretical Physics, P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119991 Moscow, Russia We extend the basic theory of Andreev reflection (AR) in a normal metal/superconductor junction to the situation with an arbitrary time-dependent bias voltage V (t) across the junction. The central element of the theory is the fact that the Fourier transform of the AR amplitude has a casual structure. As an example, the theory is used to describe the current response to short pulses of the bias voltage, which create coherent superposition of quasiparticle states with different energies. The current oscillates in time, with the gap frequency ∆=~, and also as a function of the pulse area R V (t)dt, with the period of the single-electron flux quantum e=h. Andreev reflection (AR) [1] is the process of conversion of electrons in a normal metal (N) into Cooper pairs in a superconductor (S) and vice versa, and represent the main mechanism of electron transport across an NS in- terface with large electron transparency. As a result, AR determines the basic transport characteristics of the NS junctions, including the linear conductance [2, 3], average current [4{6] and current noise [7, 8]; in junctions with very low transparency, one can observe individual AR FIG. 1: Sketch of (a) a short constriction between a normal metal transitions [9]. AR also gives rise to an enormous amount (N) and a superconductor (S) used as the basic model of an NS of various other transport phenomena. To give just a few junction, and (b) a quasiparticle scattering scheme in the junction that consists of the normal scattering with the scattering matrix examples, it is the basic mechanism of the supercurrent U (U ∗ for the holes), energy change of the incident quasiparticles flow in Josephson junctions [10{12] and, in the form of according to Eq. (3) due to the time-dependent bias voltage V (t), multiple Andreev reflections (MAR), determines all their and Andreev reflection at the NS interface with the amplitude A() transport characteristics at finite bias voltages: average (5). Also indicated schematically in (b) is the Fermi level in the current [13{19], current noise [20{23] and full statistics two electrodes. of charge transfer [24, 25]. AR produces thermoelectric effects in NS junctions [26{30], and plays an important R role in superconducting structures with other materials, total \magnetic flux” V (t)dt carried by the pulse with e.g., carbon nanotubes [31{33], graphene [34{37], topo- the period of the single-electron flux quantum h=e. logical insulators [38{41]. In all these situations, AR is We begin by outlining the derivation of our main re- typically considered under the conditions of the constant sults. We use the most basic model of an NS junction, a bias voltage, when the energy of the quasiparticles which small constriction between the normal and superconduct- determine the AR amplitude can be taken to be constant ing electrodes (Fig. 1a) with all transport modes charac- throughout the scattering process. However, in many sit- terized by one transparency D. For short constriction, uations, a more detailed theory of AR with an arbitrary it is possible to consider the constriction region itself time-dependent bias voltage V (t) is desirable. The pri- as normal, reducing the transport inside it to the mo- mary goal of this work is to develop such a theory. tion of independent quasiparticles. We assume that the Physically, the main novel feature of the time- bias voltage V (t) across the constriction is arbitrary, but dependent bias is the creation of coherent quantum su- varies on the time scale set by the energy gap ∆ of the perposition of the quasiparticle states with different en- superconductor and other small energies in the problem, ergies. As a result, the junction produces an oscillatory e.g., temperature T ; i.e., its characteristic frequencies are arXiv:2007.07483v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 15 Jul 2020 current response, the magnitude of which is sensitive to smaller than the microscopic energy scales set by the the coherence properties of these superpositions. For in- Fermi energy and by the traversal time of the barrier stance, as shown below, the oscillating current generated that determines the transparency D. In this regime, we by the AR processes is more stable to thermal averaging can neglect the effect of the bias voltage on D, and also than that produced by the quasiparticle tunneling, since use the quasiclassical approximation for the quaiparticle AR always involve two quasiparticles with vanishing to- motion through the constriction. This general approach tal energy. Also, in the limit of short pulses of the bias is similar to the one used to describe the time-dependent voltage, the quantum superposition of quasiparticle ener- transport in normal conductors { see, e.g., [42]. gies leads to the current oscillations as a function of the One starts by accounting for the effect of the bias volt- 2 age V (t) on the quasiparticle motion between the two For the holes incident from the normal electrode, the AR electrodes. The voltage creates the electric field E(t; x) amplitude is the same, while the scattering matrix is U ∗. localized in the constriction, V (t) = R dxE(t; x), where Solving this scattering scheme for the electrons and the x is the coordinate along the constriction. (The assump- holes, taking the standard average over their equilibrium tion of the relatively low frequencies of V (t) made above energy distributions at temperature T , and combining also implies that E(t; x) is quasistatic from the point of the electron and the hole contributions to the current, view of electromagnetism.) Describing this field through we get the total current in the constriction: the vector potential A(t; x), E = −@A=@t, and solving eN Z Z I(t) = d!dνW ∗(!)W (ν)ei(!−ν)t d[f( − !) the time-dependent Scr¨odingerequation with A(t; x) in 2π the quasiclassical approximation, we see that the ampli- h A∗() A( + ν − !) tude (t) of the wavefunction of an electron crossing the 2 e −f( + ν)] · 1 + D ∗ 2 2 constriction from the normal metal to the superconduc- 1 − [A ()] R 1 − A ( + ν − !)R 1 − [A∗()]2 1 − A2( + ν − !) i tor acquires the A(t; x)-dependent phase: −R ; (6) 1 − [A∗()]2R 1 − A2( + ν − !)R ie Z e(t) ! expf dxA(t; x)g e(t) where N is the number of the spin-degenerate trans- ~ Z t port modes in the constriction. In principle, this ex- −ie 0 0 −iφ(t) = expf dt V (t )g e(t) = e e(t) ; (1) pression can be used directly to calculate the current in ~ the NS junction. For instance, for constant bias voltage, where the phase φ is defined by the relation φ_ = e V (t). W (!) = δ(! − eV=~), and Eq. (6) reduces to the well- ~ Electrons passing through the constriction in the op- known expression [4], which describes the evolution of the posite direction accumulate the phase of the opposite dc IV curves from the regime of the tunnel to the bal- sign. The phases acquired by the holes are switched listic junction with increasing quasiparticle transparency in comparison to those for the electrons. Physically, D. For general time-dependent voltage, however, it is these phase factors describe the acceleration/deceleration more convenient to transform Eq. (6) explicitly into the of the quasiparticles as they move between the junction time domain. electrodes. In the quasiclassical approximation, the par- As the first step in this direction, we separate the term ticle energies change, while the change of their velocity in Eq. (6) that does not decay at large jj. The magnitude is small and is neglected. of this term in the integral over is 1−R = D and it gives R Next, we introduce the Fourier components of the ac- D d[f(−!)−f(+ν)] = D(! +ν), meaning that this cumulated phase: contribution in Eq. (6) corresponds to the normal-state Z current IN (t) in the junction: e−iφ(t) = d!W (!)e−i!t; (2) eND Z I (t) = d!dν(! + ν)W ∗(!)W (ν)ei(!−ν)t N 2π in close analogy to what is done in the \Werthamer the- eND @ ory" of the time-dependent properties of the Josephson = − i eiφ(t) e−iφ(t) = GV (t) : (7) π @t tunnel junctions [43, 44]. Then, the electron acceleration 2 process (1) has the following form in terms of the energy Here G = e ND/π~ is the normal-state conductance. After the separation of the normal-state part, the cur- components a() of the wavefunction e(t): rent can be expressed as Z a() ! d!W (!)a( − !) : (3) eN Z h Z W (!)A( + !) 2 I = I + df() D2 d!e−i!t N 2π 1 − A2( + !)R The quasiparticle acceleration/deceleration described Z 2 2 2 −i!t W (!)A ( + !) above should be combined with the standard quasipar- +RD d!e + 2DR 1 − A2( + !)R ticle scattering scheme in the NS junction as illustrated n Z W (!)A2( + !) 2o i schematically in Fig. 1b. For electrons incident from the ·Re eiφ(t) d!e−i!t − ::: ; (8) normal electrode on the constriction at energy , the scat- 1 − A2( + !)R tering process consists of the normal barrier scattering where the ellipsis denotes the subtracted identical terms characterized by the scattering matrix U, in which A( + !) is replaced everywhere with A∗( − !).