F/S interfaces: point contact versus atomic thickness geometries

Details F/S interfaces: point contact versus atomic thickness geometries F/S interfaces: point contact versus atomic thickness geometries

2004-06-11

arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0406280v1

Physics

Condensed Matter

Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics

4 pages, 1 figure. To appear in the proceedings of the XXXIX Rencontres de Moriond (La Thuile, 2004)

Scientific paper

We contrast perturbative expansions of ferromagnet / superconductor interfaces in two geometries: (i) a point contact geometry where a single weak link connects a 3D ferromagnet to a 3D superconductor and (ii) an atomic thickness geometry with an infinite planar interface connecting a quasi-2D ferromagnet to a quasi-2D superconductor. Perturbation theories are rather different in the two approaches but they both break down at order $t^4$ ($t$ is the tunnel amplitude). The regimes of strong ferromagnets are in a qualitative agreement in both geometries. The regime of weak ferromagnets exists only for the atomic thickness geometry and is related to Andreev bound states due to lateral confinement in the superconductor.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

F/S interfaces: point contact versus atomic thickness geometries does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with F/S interfaces: point contact versus atomic thickness geometries, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and F/S interfaces: point contact versus atomic thickness geometries will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-106132