The shot noise in tunneling experiments reflects the Poissonian nature of the tunneling process. The shot-noise power is proportional to both the magnitude of the current and the effective charge of the carrier. Shot-noise spectroscopy thus enables us, in principle, to determine the effective charge <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mi>q</a:mi></a:math> of the charge carriers of that tunnel. This can be used to detect electron pairing in superconductors: In the normal state, the noise corresponds to single electron tunneling (<c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mrow><c:mi>q</c:mi><c:mo>=</c:mo><c:mn>1</c:mn><c:mi>e</c:mi></c:mrow></c:math>), while in the paired state, the noise corresponds to <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><e:mrow><e:mi>q</e:mi><e:mo>=</e:mo><e:mn>2</e:mn><e:mi>e</e:mi></e:mrow></e:math>. Here, we use a newly developed amplifier to reveal that in typical mesoscopic superconducting junctions, the shot noise does not reflect the signatures of pairing and instead stays at a level corresponding to <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><g:mrow><g:mi>q</g:mi><g:mo>=</g:mo><g:mn>1</g:mn><g:mi>e</g:mi></g:mrow></g:math>. We show that transparency can control the shot noise, and this <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><i:mrow><i:mi>q</i:mi><i:mo>=</i:mo><i:mn>1</i:mn><i:mi>e</i:mi></i:mrow></i:math> is due to the large number of tunneling channels with each having very low transparency. Our results indicate that in typical mesoscopic superconducting junctions, one should expect <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><k:mrow><k:mi>q</k:mi><k:mo>=</k:mo><k:mn>1</k:mn><k:mi>e</k:mi></k:mrow></k:math> noise and lead to design guidelines for junctions that allow the detection of electron pairing. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: