Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
5, October 2004 (
C 2004)
T. M. Klapwijk1
The current understanding of the superconducting proximity effect is reviewed taking into
account recent experimental and theoretical results obtained for mesoscopic normal metal-
superconductor junctions as well as superconducting weak links. Although known for 40 years
the phenomenon remained poorly understood. Current insights are the result of theoretical
developments leading to the nonequilibrium quasiclassical theory, getting experimental ac-
cess to proximity structures on a submicron scale as well as by combining it with the knowl-
edge developed in the 80s on quantum transport in disordered and ballistic systems.
KEY WORDS: proximity-effect; Andreev reflection; mesoscopic superconductivity; Michael Tinkham.
593
0896-1107/04/1000-0593/0
C 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
594 Klapwijk
constructed which are smaller than the characteris- potential (r) is shown defined as:
tic lengths. Thirdly, various successful attempts have
been made to bridge the gap between the heavy the- (r) = VN F (r) = VN ψ(r ↑)ψ(r ↓) (1)
oretical framework of the quasi-classical equations with F (r) the condensation amplitude, the probabil-
and the more accessible conceptual framework based ity amplitude of finding two electrons in the con-
on transmission matrices which assists experimental- densed state at a point r and VN the electron-electron
ists in designing and interpreting their experiments. interaction constant which may be either negative
The aim of this contribution is to sketch a (repulsive) or positive (attractive). Obviously, Fig. 1
development since the original Blonder-Tinkham- shows that (r) is expected to have a finite value in N
Klapwijk article from ballistic Andreev toward dif- and is depressed in S. The full normal state value of
fusive normal metal-superconductor systems. On our = 0 and the full superconducting state of = 0
way we highlight a few conceptually important ex- are recovered far away from the interface over some
perimental results. We apologize that the selection characteristic length.
has some personal bias. To correct for that extensive The basic experimental facts on a NS interface
reference is made to a number of important recent are:
review articles. We hope that this contribution can
• The observation that the critical tempera-
serve as an introduction to the subject to newcomers
in the field. We close with a historical note. ture of a bilayer of a low Tcl superconduc-
tor such as Al and a higher Tch supercon-
ductor, such as Pb, gradually increases from
2. EARLY KNOWLEDGE Tcl to Tch with increasing thickness of the
Pb on the Al film. The same experiment
Most of the early knowledge about the prox- could be done with a fully normal metal
imity effect has been summarized by Deutscher and such as Cu covered by Pb. The effectiveness
De Gennes [l] in 1969. It is based on the theoreti- of the proximity effect could be influenced
cal treatment developed by De Gennes [9,10] valid by adding magnetic impurities to the normal
close to the critical temperature. In Fig. 1 the results metal.
are shown for two different NS interfaces and for a • The second observation regards tunneling ex-
so-called SNS contact. On the vertical axis the pair periments through which one can measure
the excitation spectrum in a normal metal N
backed by a superconducting film S.
• The third observation is the Meissner effect
which accounts for the diamagnetic screening
realized by a “proximitized” normal metal.
An additional body of knowledge results from
the Josephson-effect. It has already been shown by
De Gennes [9] in 1964 that as a consequence of the
proximity-effect a supercurrent should flow through
a normal metal of thickness dN . The maximum su-
percurrent carried by such a normal metal would
depend exponentially on thickness with the normal
metal coherence length ξN as the characteristic length
scale. This prediction has been confirmed in early ex-
periments by Clarke [11] including its relationship
to the Josephson-effect [12]. However, unlike the
Josephson-effect in tunnel junctions, a detailed com-
parison with the microscopic theory has only been
Fig. 1. Figure taken from DeGennes [9]. Spatial dependence of the made recently [13]. This is partially due to lack of
pair potential (x) at temperatures close to the critical tempera- practical interest. Josephson junctions based on SNS
ture in a NS sandwich (a) and in an SNS junction (b). For the NS
sandwich two cases, one for a repulsive and one for an attractive
junctions have a relatively low impedance, far below
electron-electron interaction in N are shown (we ignore the f (x) 1 , and are not very useful in any practical appli-
curve). cation where usually 50- impedances are required.
Proximity Effect From an Andreev Perspective 595
Due to the recent advances in microfabrication- its correlated properties. The electron and the hole
techniques these experimental systems are much form phase-conjugated pairs, a property which will
more accessible. be lost at a certain distance from the interface. The
A more fundamental reason is that the origi- proximity-effect is now understood as a process at
nal proximity-effect theory was much too simple. An the interface itself, in essence Andreev reflection,
SNS junction forms a problem of inhomogeneous su- and how this coherence is propagated and lost due
perconductors. A current is driven from S to N and to dephasing processes in the normal metal. The lat-
vice versa and high-frequency time-dependent pro- ter are in principle identical to processes known from
cesses may take place. In the early 60s one relied phase-coherent transport in normal metals. How-
on the full Gorkov equations or used the simpli- ever, the presence of disorder in the normal metal
fied version of the Ginzburg-Landau equations only influences also the processes at the boundary itself
valid close to Tc . Subsequent theoretical develop- because incident electron waves may make repeated
ments have provided a much more advanced theoret- attempts which must be added phase-coherently to
ical framework [14]. The equilibrium theory, known find the probability for Andreev reflection. Hence,
as the quasi-classical equations, was developed by the proximity effect is on a microscopic level the in-
Eilenberger [15] and for dirty superconductors by timate connection between Andreev reflection at the
Usadel [16]. In this approach it is assumed that all rel- interface and the phase coherence maintained over a
evant variations occur on a length scale larger than certain length scale in the normal metal.
the Fermi wavelength. Hence, dependences on the
scale of the Fermi wavelength can be averaged out. 3. BALLISTIC ANDREEV INTERFACE
Usadel simplified the equations further by assum-
ing that the system is dirty and impurity-averaged As a starting point it is apprpriate to recall the
Green’s functions can be defined. results of Blonder et al. [7] for a ballistic Andreev in-
This approach came to its full maturity in the terface. The microscopic description of the supercon-
early 70s to describe transport problems and time- ducting state starts with the Bogoliubov-De Gennes
dependent processes by Larkin and Ovchinnikov equations [11]. The wave-function ψ is defined as a
[17–19], Eliashberg [20], and Schmid and Schön [21]. 2-component wavefunction:
We will refer to this theoretical approach as the
“quasi-classical theory,” also when it includes the u i2Et
+φ
ψ= e h s (2)
nonequilibrium version. In its application to inho- v
mogeneous problems, such as the proximity-effect,
these equations have to be supplemented by suitable with u and v representing the electron-like (k > kF )
boundary conditions. An example are those intro- and the hole-like (k < kF ) component, E the energy
duced by Zaitsev [22]. with respect to the Fermi-level, and φs the macro-
Many of the experimental problems studied scopic phase of the superconducting state.
recently can be understood with the help of the The Bogoliubov-De Gennes equations, written
quasi-classical equations. However, some of these in one dimension, are two coupled Schrödinger equa-
problems, in particular those where one could as- tions:
sume, ballistic electron transport could be under- h2 d
stood more readily by using the Bogoliubov-De Eψ(x) = − − µ u(x) + (x)v(x)
2m dx2
Gennes equations and using the concept of An-
dreev reflection [23]. The current understanding of h2 d
the proximity effect focuses on the following aspects. Eψ(x) = + µ v(x) + (x)u(x) (3)
2m dx2
At the boundary between a normal metal and a su-
perconductor Andreev reflection occurs. In this pro- with (x) the pair potential of Eq. (1) and µ the
cess electrons above the Fermi level are converted chemical potential, which serves as a reference for
into holes below the Fermi level and a Cooper pair the energy E.
is formed inside the superconductor. This is one cru- In general Eq. (3) allows for four types of quasi-
cial ingredient of the proximity effect and describes particle waves for a given energy:
how the two electronic reservoirs are communicating
at the boundary itself. The second ingredient is how u ±ik+ x
ψ±k+ = e (4)
in the normal metal this electron-hole pair looses v
596 Klapwijk
given by: Eq. (15) for = 0 one finds for the conductance:
2e kF2 S 1
G0 = (12) GN = G0 (1 − B(E)) = G0 (16)
h2 4π 1 + Z2
which means that Tn is equal to 1/(1 + Z2 ) and the
with kF the Fermi momentum. Returning to the im- conductance in the normal state is given by:
portant case of a short channel of zero length Eq. (12)
is now better known as the multichannel Landauer GN = G0 Tn (17)
formula developed for mesoscopic conductors: for finite Z.
In the past 20 years Eq. (14) has been used
2e2
m
G0 = Tn (13) extensively to study new superconducting materials
h with pointcontacts. From Eq. (14) one finds the su-
n=0
perconducting energy gap allowing for various in-
with Tn the transmission coefficient per mode n and terface imperfections with the adjustable parameter
m the number of modes. Each mode carries a current Z, using the relatively simple technique of a point
e/h, the factor 2 takes care of the two different spin contact. Previously, the superconducting gap had to
directions. Equation (11) follows from the Landauer be determined by developing a suitable tunnel bar-
formula assuming that each mode has a transmission rier [2]. The discovery of many new superconducting
coefficient equal to unity, the number of modes fol- materials and the pointcontact technique accounts
lows from the area S compared to kF . for much of the success of Eq. (14). A recent ex-
The same reasoning used to derive Eq. (11) ample is the application to the new superconductor
leads to the current-voltage characteristics for a MgB2 with a critical temperature of 38 K [24,25]. In
pointcontact between a normal metal and a super- Fig. 2 temperature-dependent pointcontact conduc-
conductor. The probabilities A, B, C, and D are de- tance measurements are shown for a single-crystal
termined from the amplitudes, Eq. (9), and used to MgB2 and comparison with Eq. (14) assuming the
calculate their contribution to the currents for a given
applied voltage. Hence the current-voltage charac-
teristic is given by:
G0 ∞
I= dE[f (E) − f (E + eV)][1 + A(E) − B(E)]
e 0
(14)
with A the extra current per incident electron wave
due to the Andreev process and B the reflected elec-
tron current due to elastic scattering. For low tem-
peratures the 1st term in square brackets reduces to
a δ-function around eV. Hence, scanning the voltage
is also a direct probe of the energy-dependent reflec-
tion coefficients:
dI
= GNS = G0 [1 + A(eV) − B(eV)] (15)
dV
and the conductivity of the pointcontact is a direct
measure of the reflection coeflicients. Note the simi-
larity with the conventional expression for a NIS tun-
neljunction in which the 2nd term within √ brackets is
replaced by the BCS density of states, E/ E2 − 2 ,
in the superconductor. Indeed this term reduces to
the BCS density of states for large values of Z i.e. for Fig. 2. (a) Temperature dependence of the conductance of a c-axis
junction at a magnetic field of 1 T. (b) Comparison of conductance
the tunnelbarrier regime. It is sometimes convenient at B = 0 T and at 1 T. The full lines are fits to Eq. (14). The bot-
to re-express the quantity Z in terms of a transmis- tom panel shows the two energy gaps as a function of temperature.
sion coefficient for the normal state Tn . Evaluating Taken from Ref. [25].
598 Klapwijk
existence of two gaps in different crystal directions. However, let us now return to the hypothet-
Note the excellent agreement between data and the- ical situation of a ballistic system in a true one-
ory over a large temperature range. dimensional model. The first thing to notice is that
A 2nd important extension has been in the field Eq. (18) with Eqs. (6) leads to a finite value for
of spin polarization. De Jong and Beenakker [26] in N assuming a finite value for the electron-electron
pointed out that Andreev reflection should be sup- interaction VN = 0. For each energy E the coherence
pressed at an interface between a ferromagnet and gets lost over a characteristic decay length hvF /E. For
a superconductor. Since one has in general in a fer- a given energy E above the Fermi energy EF the wave
romagnet both spin-up and spin-down channels and vector for the electron qe = qF + δk/2 differs slightly
Andreev reflection should still be partially possi- from the Fermi wave vector. The reflected hole also
ble and can become a measure of the degree of has a slightly smaller value qh = qF − δk/2. The dif-
spin-polarization of a ferromagnet. This was recog- ference in momentum of δk is given by qF (E/EF )
nized and successfully used by Soulen et al. [27] and which leads to a dephasing length depending on en-
Upadhyay et al. [28]. A further theoretical basis of ergy. Equation 18 clearly shows that to determine the
the technique has been developed by Mazin et al. spatial extent of the quantity one needs to know
[29]. u and v, which both are energy-dependent and the
Clearly, rather than being an artificial model sys- distribution-function. Each energy weighs differently
tem the ballistic Andreev interface can be accessed into the sum and therefore one cannot define a char-
directly by point contact spectroscopy. This applica- acteristic decay length, except for the limit close to
tion has turned out be very flexible and useful for the critical temperature [9]. The same applies to the
a large range of new superconducting materials and superconducting side, where a gradual rise of is ex-
also useful for the determination of the degree of pected but again the energy dependence and the oc-
spin-polarization in ferromagnets or half-metals. cupation numbers will play a role.
Another quantity of interest is the current car-
ried by quasiparticles. At a normal metal-supercon-
4. SPATIAL EXTENT OF THE ductor interface current carried by quasiparticles is
ANDREEV PROCESSES converted into current carried by Cooper-pairs. The
charge current carried by Bogoliubov quasiparticles
In a point contact geometry it is assumed that is the sum of the part carried by the electron part u
the reservoirs are three dimensional. The Andreev and the part carried by the hole part v:
interface represents a weak link between the reser-
eh
voirs. The one-dimensional solution of Eq. (3) can JQ = [Im(u∗ ∇u) + Im(v∗ ∇v)] (19)
be used provided translational invariance is assumed m
in the plane parallel to the interface. In addition the For E < both k+ and k− have small imaginary parts
choice for this geometry made it acceptable to ignore which lead to an exponential decay of the quasiparti-
an important equation which in principle should be cle amplitude in the superconductor on a length scale
added to Eq. (3): λ given by:
(r) = VN (r) v∗ (r)u(r)[1 − 2f (E)] (18)
2 1/2
hvF E
E>0 λ= 1− (20)
2
with (r) the pair potential which couples the
two Schrodinger equations. It is called the self- of which the leading term is hvF /2 ≈ ξ(T). These
consistency-equation while it is dependent on the evanescent waves carry quasiparticle current, which
solutions found from Eq. (3). In three-dimensional is taken over by an increasing supercurrent of this en-
reservoirs the induced values for u and v are di- ergy. To determine the full value of the quasiparticle
luted by solutions for the unconnected reservoirs current the fraction carried by each energy should be
and therefore one can ignore the spatial decay of taken together with the probability of these states to
at both the N and the S-side. In comparison with be occupied.
Fig. 1 is a step-function rising from 0 to a finite In closing this section we return to the self-
bulk-value 0 over a very short distance. To simplify consistency equation. If we assume that in N VN = 0
this problem further one can choose the electron- we will have also (r) = 0. However, since we find
electron interaction constant VN = 0. at any point close to the interface a finite value for
Proximity Effect From an Andreev Perspective 599
the amplitudes of electrons and holes, we will obtain in crossing the object while being scattered by im-
a finite value for the condensation amplitude F: purities. An equilibrium superconductor is separated
from a normal metal by an interface barrier as used
F = ψ(r ↑)ψ(r ↓) = v∗ (r)u(r)[1 − 2f (E)] (21) in Section 3. In the normal metal a contact is indi-
E>0
cated, called a reservoir from which waves will emit
which is known as the order parameter or alternati- and which will absorb waves. The middle region is the
vely the “Cooper pair density.” Hence, we find scattering region. It is assumed that = 0(VN = 0).
that in the absence of any attractive interaction An incident electron wave will scatter from the impu-
there is still a finite probability of finding Cooper rities and eventually reach the interface with the su-
pairs in N, which is equivalent to stating that perconductor undergoing Andreev reflection. Since
the Andreev-reflected electrons and holes maintain the hole wave is essentially phase-conjugate with
phase-coherence over a certain length leading to the incident electron wave it will retrace the origi-
a finite contribution to F. This is the “leakage of nal path. However, since the incident electron wave
Cooper pairs” alluded to in various textbooks on is also partially reflected as an electron wave impu-
superconductivity. rity scattering might scatter the partial electron wave
again to the superconductor and so forth. The scat-
5. IMPURITY-SCATTERING AND tered wave will be the coherent superposition of the
TRANSMISSION MATRIX APPROACH various contributions and since for small energy dif-
ferences phase coherence is maintained the addition
In Section 3 the equivalent of a transmission of impurities to the scattering problem of Section 3 is
matrix for a quantum-coherent scattering problem the enhancement of the Andreev reflection probabil-
was used. A great deal of quantum-coherent trans- ity and hence, enhanced conductance (“reflectionless
port theory has been developed to understand quan- tunneling” [31]). Depending on the path length and
tized conductance, Aharonov-Bohm oscillations and the magnetic field a total phase shift of
universal conductance fluctuations in, for example, 2eL BS
metallic rings [30]. In recent years a similar approach φ = + 4π (22)
hvF φ0
has evolved for NS interfaces in which elastic scatter-
ing in N occurs. This approach has been developed is accumulated with L the path length, B the ap-
and summarized by Beenakker [31,32] and Lambert plied magnetic field, S the enclosed area, and
0
[33]. To appreciate the nature of the problem we re- the flux quantum. For increased voltages (increased
call the early work of Van Wees et al. [34]. energies) or applied magnetic field phase coherence
In Fig. 3 three relevant elements of the geome- is destroyed and the enhanced conductance is sup-
try are shown. We will assume that the inelastic scat- pressed. Such a behavior had been first reported by
tering length Linel is always smaller than the device Kastalsky et al. [35]. In calculating the actual conduc-
size. Hence, the single particle phase is conserved tance an energy-average over the available occupied
states is taken. The correlations of these electrons
is determined by the Thouless energy ETh = hD/L2 .
Or one can define for √ a particular energy value E a
decay length T = hD/E , which is analogous to
the phase-correlation length identified in the previ-
ous Section, but now for a dirty system. The corre-
lation between an electron and an Andreev-reflected
hole in a diffusive system√is given by the normal metal
coherence length ξN = hD/kT if kT would be the
dominant energy.
For small voltages very simple expressions have
been derived by Beenakker [31]. For small voltages
the probabilities of Section 3 A(E) reduces to 1/(1 +
2Z2 )2 and B(E) to 2(1 + Z2 )/(1 + 2Z2 )2 and hence
Fig. 3. Interface between a superconductor and a normal metal
reservoir separated by a diffusive scattering region and an inter- 2
GNS = G0 (23)
face scatterer (barrier).
is the applied magnetic flux. (1 + 2Z2 )2
600 Klapwijk
current in a tunnel junction is small. An Andreev conducting phase. The third (Keldysh) function ĝK
S is
component will be present, although small since it given by:
is 2nd order in the transmission coefficient. Hekking
S = ĝS ĥ − ĥĝS
ĝK R A
and Nazarov [37] recognized that the probability for (29)
these 2nd order processes would depend on the im- with the distribution matrix ĥ defined as:
purity scattering in the metals used in the experi-
ments. Pothier et al. [38] studied two closely spaced 1 − 2f e 0
ĥ = (30)
NIS tunneljunctions with the S electrodes connected 0 2f h − 1
by a superconducting loop. They demonstrated that
with f e and f h the distribution functions for electrons
the subgap current has a contribution which de-
and holes.
pends on the applied magnetic flux, which therefore
Once θ(x, E) and ϕ(x, E) are known a set of ex-
could be identified as the Andreev-contribution, in
pressions can be used to determine several quantities
perfect agreement with the theory of Hekking and
characteristic for the superconducting state. The den-
Nazarov.
sity of states follows from:
n(x, E) = N(0)Re[cos θ(x, E)] (31)
6. DIFFUSIVE USADEL-EQUATIONS
with N(0) the density of states in the normal state.
The previous Sections have demonstrated that a For a normal metal θ √ = 0 and for a bulk superconduc-
full understanding of the interactions between a nor- tor sin θBCS (E) = / 2 − E2 . As argued by Estève
mal metal and a superconductor must face the spa- et al. [39] Im[sin2 θ] can be interpreted as an effective
tial dependence, the energy dependence, the impurity energy dependent pair density.
scattering, the dependence on the macroscopic super- Finally, the self-consistency equation for (x)
conducting phase, and on the occupation-numbers. depends on θ and ϕ according to:
This theoretical complexity is dealt with in the theory hωD
E
of nonequilibrium superconductivity based on impu- (x) = N(0)VN dE tanh Im(sin θ)eiϕ (32)
0 2kB T
rity averaged Green’s functions. A relatively accessi-
ble introduction has been developed by Estève et al. which can be compared to Eq. (18).
[39,40]. Further details of this approach can also be For a normal metal-superconductor interface θ
found in Guéron [41] and Anthore [42]. follows from solving the Usadel-equation:
Rather than by using two-component plane
hD 2 h
waves with u and v, the diffusive superconducting ∇ θ + iE − cosθ sin θ + (x)cos θ = 0
2 τsf
state is described by the impurity-averaged Green (33)
functions introduced by Usadel [16]: ĝR A K
S , ĝS and ĝS .
R A
The first two, ĝS , and ĝS describe the equilibrium allowing for spin-flip scattering. In N it is assumed
states of the system, whereas the third one ĝK S de-
that = 0 with no electron-electron interaction,
scribes the occupation of the states. A convenient whereas in S (x) is given by Eq. (32).
way to proceed with these quantities, first introduced
by Nazarov [43], is the parameterization by two com-
plex parameters θ(x, E) and ϕ(x, E), both being po- 6.1. Induced Local Density of States
sition dependent and energy dependent. Each of the
functions ĝR A
S and ĝS is now given by:
This analysis has been performed by Guéron
et al. [44] and applied to experimental results.
iϕ
cos θ sin θe Figure 6 shows a superconducting wire (aluminium)
S =
ĝR (27)
sin θe−iϕ − cos θ connected to a normal wire (copper). The contacts
labeled F1 , F2 , and F3 are tunnelcontacts, which en-
and able the measurement of the local density of states of
∗
− cos θ∗ sin θ∗ eiϕ Eq. (31).
S =
ĝA ∗ (28) Experimental results are shown in the upper
sin θ∗ e−iϕ cos θ∗
panel of Fig. 7. The inset shows, for reference, a
where θ(x, E) represents the complex superconduct- standard BCS density of states measurement. In the
ing order and ϕ(x, E) is an energy-dependent super- lower panel the results from the Usadel theory are
602 Klapwijk
remains in the middle (x = 1 µm) even for very long In Fig. 13, a comparison is made between the cal-
wires. This is an intrinsic result for any NSN system. culated resistance as a function of temperature and
The normal current in S is found using Eq. (36) the measurement for a L = 2 µm wire. The calcula-
with the distribution function determined from the tion is done with parameters D = 160 cm2 /s, as de-
Boltzmann-like Usadel equation Eq. (35). The ap- termined from the impurity resistivity, and (0) =
plied voltage V, is taken into account via the bound- 1.764 kB Tc = 192 µeV with Tc = 1.26 K determined
ary conditions for Eq. (35): from the length dependence. Without any fitting pa-
±eV/2 rameter, the agreement between the model (dots)
δ f (0, L; E) = . (37) and the experiment (data points: open symbols) is
4kB T cosh2 (E/2kB T)
Hence, the normal metal leads are taken as equilib-
rium reservoirs.
The local voltage is calculated using:
L
eV(x) = dEf even (E, x)Re[cos θ(x, E)] (38)
0
encouragingly good. Only at the lower tempera- rent 2-dimensional semiconductors. The early work
tures the observed resistance is slightly less than was done by Kulik [52], Ishii [53], and Bardeen
the theoretically predicted values. The most likely and Johnson [54]. It is assumed that we have per-
cause is that the rigid boundary conditions imposed fect interfaces between N and S leading to perfect
at the interfaces should be relaxed. There is a fi- Andreev-reflection at the interfaces i.e. determined
nite possibility for superconducting correlations to by Eq. (9) and Eq. (26) with Z = 0. For simplicity a
extend into the normal metal reservoirs, which would one-dimensional system is assumed. Because of the
mean that the boundary condition θ(x = 0, L) = 0 is finite length of N discrete energy levels are formed.
too rigid. Since the correlations will extend into a For E < the continuity conditions for the
3-dimensional volume we assume that using the wavefunctions and their derivatives at x = ±L/2 we
boundary conditions ∂x θ(x = 0, L) = θ(x = 0, L)/a obtain the dispersion relation:
i.e. a decay over a fixed characteristic length a, is a
exp(2iα(E)) exp[i(k+ − k− )L] exp(±iφ) = 1 (39)
realistic assumption. It assumes a geometric dilution
of the correlations. The result is shown in Fig. 13 where k+ and k− are the wave vectors of the elec-
by filled triangles. The best agreement between mea- tron and the hole respectively. The phase-factor
surement and calculation model is obtained for a = φ is equal to the differences of the macroscopic
75 nm. This value appears reasonable for a decay phases of the two superconductors (φs1 − φs2 ). The
length since it is comparable to the dimensions (100 energy-dependent phase factor α(E) is given by
nm × 250 nm) of the wire which emits into the arccos(E/). Since the considered energy E is usu-
reservoirs. ally much less than the Fermi-energy, the energy
eigenvalues can be calculated by using the relation
7. BALLISTIC SUPERCURRENTS hδk = h(k+ − k− ) = 2E/vF . Under this condition the
dispersion relation becomes:
In Section 2 it was pointed out that DeGennes hvF
[9] in 1964 recognized that a Josephson supercur- En ± = [2(πn + α) ± φ], n = 0, 1, 2, . . . (40)
2L
rent could flow through a normal metal sandwiched
between two superconductors. The strength of the If we specify for the case of low energies E we
Josephson supercurrent was found to be exponen- find:
tially dependent on the length reflecting the fi- hvF 1
En ± = 2π n + ±φ (41)
nite correlation length for penetrating Cooper pairs. 2L 2
In some of the experiments described above two
Hence we have a set of equally spaced energy
superconductors were used to perform Andreev-
levels until the levels approach . Note that the po-
interferometry and by doing that it was demonstrated
sition of the energy level is set by the phase differ-
that the normal conductance has a component which
ence φ.
is phase-dependent. However, a phase-coherent
In recent years this approach has been exten-
component should be the Josephson-current. Appar-
sively studied for the limit of very short contacts. The
ently the normal conductance discussed so far can
availability of mechanical break junctions has led to
be studied without having to consider the supercur-
very detailed studies of both the supercurrent as well
rent. The reason is that the characteristic length LT
as the voltage carrying state in single-atom point con-
plays its role differently. The supercurrent decays ex-
tacts [55]. These junctions consist of adjustable point
ponentially with LT , whereas the conductance is pro-
contacts in which the distance between the outermost
portional to LT . If the length of the normal domain
atoms can be adjusted with a precision in the order
is short enough the supercurrent will appear. For
of 0.001 Å. It has therefore become feasible to study
larger lengths only the phase-coherent normal con-
continuously the transition from tunneling to metal-
ductance is observable. Experimentally, this depen-
lic contact in superconducting junctions. These ballis-
dence has been clearly demonstrated in experiments
tic contacts are short compared to ξ0 = hvF /0 . Since
by Dimoulas et al. [51] and in subsequent work.
we are weakly connecting two bulk superconductors
In the spirit of Section 3 the supercurrent
the contact-region itself can be viewed as a normal
through SNS systems has been studied by start-
metal part. Hence, the dispersion relation (Eq. (39))
ing with the concept of Andreev reflections. The
has only one solution within the bound E < :
early work was based on a normal domain free of
any elastic scattering, a condition reachable in cur- α = arccos(E/) = ±(φ/2) (42)
606 Klapwijk
which leads to the very simple relation that posite sign. In addition by definition f + (En ) = 1 −
f − (En ), which leads to:
E = ± cos(φ/2) (43)
m
All these expressions have been derived for the case I= I(En )[1 − 2f (En )] (46)
that elastic scattering is negligible. Beenakker [56] n=0
has extended this approach to the case with finite
transmission eigenvalues. He finds that the energy The charge current carried by the allowable energy
levels are given by: states follow from the probability-current-density:
the concept of multiple Andreev reflections. This was accomplishment which Zaitsev [22] stimulated to de-
completely convincing even without any mathemati- velop his boundary conditions.
cal formulation. These results were included in a submitted con-
It was our hope to get a paper written before my tribution to LT16, in early 1981. The contribution got
return to The Netherlands, early July 1980. Several upgraded to an invited talk held during this confer-
attempts were made, mostly descriptive and unsatis- ence in Los Angeles (Aug. 19–25, 1981) and pub-
fying. Computer simulations with an ad hoc reflec- lished in the Proceedings [69]. On Oct. 19, 1981 the
tion coefficient at the interfaces looked encouraging BTK paper was submitted. In parallel Mike devel-
but we were not sure how much of the Josephson- oped the Boltzmann equation approach to attack the
effect one could throw out and the concept of dif- SNS problem with elastic scattering at the interfaces
ferent chemical potentials associated with the charge for which the trajectory method had turned out to
imbalance was still confusing us. We had been gradu- be too clumsy. The original note on this issue was
ally looking more and more into the Bogoliubov-De dated Feb. 18, 1981. It was further worked out with
Gennes equations, which had been the vehicle to in- the help of Miguel Octavio and submitted on Feb. 18,
troduce the concept of Andreev reflections back in 1983.
1964. We realized that we were using a reflection- We believed that we had solved the last remain-
coefficient for number current and not for charge ing puzzle in understanding superconducting con-
current. tacts and that the subject was now closed. In retro-
A note was written by Greg Blonder, dated spect we did not anticipate that the BTK paper would
Aug. 20, 1980, which summarized the relevant as- become so popular because of pointcontact spec-
pects under the title A Bogoliubov Equation Primer. troscopy of superconducting and magnetic materials.
To this note he added an Appendix where he showed We neither did realize that it was an early example of
how the matching of the wave functions at an in- dealing with quantum transport problems in the spirit
terface with a δ-function worked (Section 3). This of the Landauer-Büttiker formalism [31]. We also
was used to perform a computercalculation using the did not realize that the mechanical break junctions
bouncing-ball picture, which we subsequently called [55] would provide such rich and detailed experimen-
the “trajectory method.” Everything worked fine and tal data, which stimulated a lot of theoretical work
beautiful, except for the fact that the subharmonic and which also clearly connected the multiple An-
gap structure disappeared at low temperatures. In dreev concept with multiparticle tunneling. The idea
the computer calculations the reflection-coefficients of multiple charge quanta have found strong sup-
without the δ-function were used and therefore there port through recent shot noise measruements [70,71].
was no cut-off for higher order processes. All orders In view of the historical account in which exper-
weighed equally heavy. But the δ-function was intro- imental results on subharmonic gap structure be-
duced to find some mechanism to cut off these higher tween dissimilar superconductors played such an en-
order processes. Since we modelled the SS contact couraging role it would be nice to see experiments
with S-c-S with c a normal metal like constriction with controllable break junctions of two dissimilar
we had two δ-functions at each interface. With the superconductors.
trajectory method this led to the impossible task to
keep track of multiple elastic scattering paths and
multiple Andreev scattering paths. So we were stuck ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
except that we were able to correctly describe in its
full glory the NS contact with the trajectory method The author likes to express his gratitude to
and also the SS contacts provided we were willing to Michael Tinkham for his very personal style of do-
accept that there was no cut-off for higher order pro- ing experimental research in superconductivity with
cesses. Having been impressed by the depth of the a sharp eye for the essential physics. In addition
Russian theoretical work we were extremely pleased he acknowledges the stimulating interactions with
to obtain for NS contacts exactly the same result as students and collaborators: J. J. A. Baselmans, W.
Zaitsev had published in the course of 1980, even be- Belzig, G. E. Blonder, G. R. Boogaard, A. Dimoulas,
ing able to point out that his expressions must contain S. G. den Hartog, J. P. Heida T. T. Heikkillä,
a mistake. Moreover we were able to describe the NS D. R. Heslinga, W. M. van Huffelen, A. T. Filip, R.
contacts with an arbitrary transmission coefficient, an S. Keizer, P. H. C. Magnée, A. F. Morpurgo, Yu. V.
610 Klapwijk
Nazarov, M. Octavio, S. Russo, A. H. Verbruggen, 30. Y. Imry, Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics (Oxford
A. F. Volkov, B. J. van Wees, F. K. Wilhelm, and University Press, Oxford, 2002).
31. C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 731 (1997).
A. V. Zaitsev. Financial support has been provided 32. C. W. J. Beenakker, Andreev Billiards, cond-mat/0406018.
by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschap- 33. C. J. Lambert and R. Raimondi, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 10,
pelijk Onderzoek (NWO) through the Stichting voor 901 (1998).
34. B. J. van Wees, P. de Vries, P. Magnée, and T. M. Klapwijk,
Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM). Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 510 (1992).
35. A. Kastalsky, A. W. Kleinsasser, L. H. Greene, R. Bhat, F. P.
REFERENCES Milliken, and J. P. Harbison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3026 (1991).
36. S. G. Den Hartog, C. M. A. Kapteyn, B. J. van Wees, and T.
M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4592 (1996).
1. G. Deutscher and P. G. de Gennes, in Superconductivity, 37. F. W. J. Hekking and Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1625
R. D. Parks, ed. (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969), Vol. 2, (1993).
p. 1005. 38. H. Pothier, S. Guéron, D.Estève, and M. H. Devoret, Phys.
2. E. L. Wolf and G. B. Arnold, Phys. Rep. 91, 31 (1982). Rev. Lett. 73, 2488 (1994).
3. M. Gurvitch, M. A. Washington, and H. A. Huggins, Appl. 39. D. Estève, H. Pothier, S. Guéron, Norman O. Birge, and M. H.
Phys. Lett. 42, 472 (1983). Devoret, in L. L. Sohn et al. (eds.), Introduction to Mesoscopic
4. M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw-Hill, Electron Transport (Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam, 1997).
New York, 1996). 40. D. Estève, H. Pothier, S. Guéron, Norman O. Birge, and
5. J. R. Waldram, Superconductivity of Metals and Cuprates M. H. Devoret, in Correlated Fermions and Transport in Meso-
(Institute of Physics Publishing, London, 1996). scopic Systems, T. Martin, G. Montambaux, and J. Trân Vân,
6. B. Pannetier and H. Courtois, J. Low Temp. Phys. 118, 599 eds. (Editions Frontières, Paris, 1996).
(2000). 41. S. Guéron, Quasiparticles in a Diffusive Conductor: Interaction
7. G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B and Pairing, Thesis, CEA-Saclay, 1997.
25, 4515 (1982). 42. A. Anthore, Decoherence Mechanisms in Mesoscopic Conduc-
8. S. Redner, Citation Statistics From More Than a Century of tors, Thesis, CEA-Saclay, 2003.
Physical Review, physics/040713/v1, July 27, 2004. 43. Yu. N. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1420 (1994).
9. P. G. de Gennes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 225 (1964). 44. S. Guéron, H. Pothier, N. O. Birge, D. Estève, and
10. P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 3025 (1996).
(Benjamin, New York, 1966). 45. H. Courtois, Ph. Gandit, B. Pannetier, and D. Mailly, Super-
11. J. Clarke, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Sci. 308, 447 lattices Microstruct. 25, 721 (1999).
(1969). 46. S. N. Artemenko, A. F. Volkov, and A. V. Zaitsev, Solid State
12. J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B 4, 2963 (1971). Commun. 30, 771 (1979).
13. P. Dubos, H. Courtois, B. Pannetier, F. K. Wilhelm, A. D. 47. Yu. V. Nazarov and T. H. Stoof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 823 (1996).
Zaikin, and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B 63, 064502 (2001). 48. T. H. Stoof and Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 53, 14496 (1996).
14. J. Rammer and H. Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 323 (1986). 49. G. R. Boogaard, A. H. Verbruggen, W. Belzig, and T. M.
15. G. Eilenberger, Z. Phys. 214, 195 (1968). Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B 69, R220503 (2004).
16. K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 507 (1970). 50. I. Siddiqi, A. Verevkin, D. E. Prober, A. Skalare,
17. A. ILarkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 55, W. R. McGrath, P. M. Echternach, and H. G. LeDuc, J.
2262 (1968); [Sov. Phys. JETP 28, 1200 (1969)]. Appl. Phys. 91, 4646 (2002).
18. A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 68, 51. A. Dimoulas, J. P. Heida, B. J. van Wees, T. M. Klapwijk, W.
1915 (1975); [Sov. Phys. JETP 41, 960 (1975)]. van de Graaf, and G. Borghs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 602 (1995).
19. A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 73, 52. I. O. Kulik, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 57, 1745 (1969); [Sov. Phys.
299 (1977); [Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 155 (1977)]. JETP 30, 944 (1970)].
20. G. M. Eliashberg, Zh. Eksp. Thoer. Fiz. 61, 1254 (1971); [Sov. 53. C. Ishii, Prog. Theor. Phys. 44, 1525 (1970).
Phys. JETP 34, 668 (1972)]. 54. J. Bardeen and J. L. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B 5, 72 (1972).
21. A. Schmid and G. Schön, J. Low Temp. Phys. 20, 207 (1975). 55. N. Agrait, A. Levy Yeyati, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Phys.
22. A. V. Zaitsev, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 86, 1742 (1984); [Sov. Rep. 377, 81 (2003).
Phys. JETP 59, 1015 (1984)]. 56. C. W. J. Beenakker, in Transport Phenomena in Mesoscopic
23. A. F. Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 46, 1823 (1964); [Sov. Systems, H. Fukuyama and T. Ando, eds. (Springer, Berlin.
Phys. JETP 19, 1228 (1964)]. 1992).
24. R. S. Gonnelli, D. Daghero, G. A. Ummarino, V. A. Stepanov, 57. A. F. Morpurgo, B. J. van Wees, T. M. Klapwijk, and G.
J. Jun, S. M. Kazakov, and J. Karpinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, Borghs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4010 (1997).
247004 (2002). 58. I. O. Kulik and A. N. Omel’yanchuk, JETP Lett. 21, 96 (1975);
25. P. Szabo, P. Samuely, J. Kacmarcik, T. Klein, J. Marcu, D. Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. 3, 459 (1978).
Fruchart, S. Miraglia, C. Marcenat, A. G. M. Jansen, Phys. 59. V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 486
Rev. Lett. 87, 137005 (2001). [1963; erratum 11, 104 (1963)].
26. M. J. M. de Jong and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 60. A. F. Morpurgo, T. M. Klapwijk, and B. J. van Wees, Appl.
1657 (1995). Phys. Lett. 72, 966 (1998).
27. R. J. Soulen, Jr., J. M. Byers, M. S. Osofsky, B. Nadgorny, 61. J. J. A. Baselmans, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Appl.
T. Ambrose, S. F. Cheng, P. R. Broussard, C. T. Tanaka, J. Phys. Lett. 79, 2940 (2001).
Nowak, J. S. Moodera, A. barry, and J. M. D. Coey, Science 62. J. J. A. Baselmans, T. T. Heikkilä, B. J. van Wees, and T. M.
282, 85 (1998). Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 207002 (2002).
28. S. K. Updahyay, A. Palanisami, R. N. Louie, and R. A. 63. F. K. Wilhelm, G. Schön, and A. D. Zaikin. Phys. Rev. Lett.
Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3247 (1998). 81, 1682 (1998).
29. I. I. Mazin, A. A. Golubov, and B. Nadgorny, J. Appl. Phys. 64. H. Pothier, S. Guéron, N. O. Birge, D. Estève, and M. H.
89, 7576 (2001). Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3490 (1997).
Proximity Effect From an Andreev Perspective 611
65. J. J. A. Baselmans, A. F. Morpurgo, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. 69. T. M. Klapwijk, G. E. Blonder, and M. Tinkham, Physica B
Klapwijk, Nature 397, 43 (1999). +C 109–110, 1657 (1982).
66. J. J. A. Baselmans, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. 70. P. Dieleman, H. G. Bukkems, T. M. Klapwijk, M.
Rev. B 63, 094504 (2001). Schicke, and K. H. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3486
67. D. W. Abraham, C. J. Lobb, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, (1997).
Phys. Rev. B 26, 5268 (1982). 71. R. Cron, M. F. Goffman, D. Estève, and C. Urbina, Phys. Rev.
68. S. Pilgram and P. Samuelsson, cond-mat/0407029. Lett. 86, 4104 (2001).