4.7 Article

Asymmetric Little-Parks oscillations in full shell double nanowires

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97780-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant [832645]
  2. Carlsberg Foundation
  3. Independent Research Fund Denmark
  4. QuantERA SuperTop [NN 127900]
  5. European Union [828948]
  6. Danish National Research Foundation
  7. Villum Foundation [25310]
  8. Sino-Danish Center
  9. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [832645] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little-Parks oscillations in a hollow superconducting cylinder are typically symmetric, but can become asymmetric when a small misalignment of the applied parallel field with respect to the axis of the nanowires occurs. This asymmetry is observed in both destructive and non-destructive regimes, with superconductivity either destroyed or depressed but not fully destroyed at certain flux values.
Little-Parks oscillations of a hollow superconducting cylinder are of interest for flux-driven topological superconductivity in single Rashba nanowires. The oscillations are typically symmetric in the orientation of the applied magnetic flux. Using double InAs nanowires coated by an epitaxial superconducting Al shell which, despite the non-centro-symmetric geometry, behaves effectively as one hollow cylinder, we demonstrate that a small misalignment of the applied parallel field with respect to the axis of the nanowires can produce field-asymmetric Little-Parks oscillations. These are revealed by the simultaneous application of a magnetic field perpendicular to the misaligned parallel field direction. The asymmetry occurs in both the destructive regime, in which superconductivity is destroyed for half-integer quanta of flux through the shell, and in the non-destructive regime, where superconductivity is depressed but not fully destroyed at these flux values.

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

4.7
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