journal article·2020-03-12Open access

Quantum aspects of hydrodynamic transport from weak electron-impurity scattering

Aaron Hui, Samuel Lederer, Vadim Oganesyan, Eun-Ah Kim

Physical Review B· Volume 101· Issue 12

Abstract

Recent experimental observations of apparently hydrodynamic electronic transport have generated much excitement. However, the understanding of the observed nonlocal transport (whirlpool) effects and parabolic (Poiseuille-like) current profiles has largely been motivated by a phenomenological analogy to classical fluids. This is due to difficulty in incorporating strong correlations in quantum mechanical calculation of transport, which has been the primary angle for interpreting the apparently hydrodynamic transport. Here we demonstrate that even free-fermion systems, in the presence of (inevitable) disorder, exhibit nonlocal conductivity effects such as those observed in experiments because of the fermionic system's long-range entangled nature. On the basis of explicit calculations of the conductivity at finite wave vector, $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\mathbf{q})$, for selected weakly disordered free-fermion systems, we propose experimental strategies for demonstrating distinctive quantum effects in nonlocal transport at odds with the expectations of classical kinetic theory. Our results imply that the observation of whirlpools or other ``hydrodynamic'' effects does not guarantee the dominance of electron-electron scattering over electron-impurity scattering.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Quantum and electron transport phenomena · Quantum, superfluid, helium dynamics · Cold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (36)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1126/science.aad034310.1126/science.aad0343 ↗
2. 10.1126/science.aad020110.1126/science.aad0201 ↗
3. 10.1038/nphys424010.1038/nphys4240 ↗
4. 10.1038/s41586-019-1788-910.1038/s41586-019-1788-9 ↗
5. 10.1126/science.aac838510.1126/science.aac8385 ↗
6. 10.1038/s41467-018-06688-y10.1038/s41467-018-06688-y ↗
7. 10.1063/1.502076310.1063/1.5020763 ↗
8. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.25680410.1103/PhysRevLett.106.256804 ↗
9. 10.1038/nphys366710.1038/nphys3667 ↗
10. 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.871410.1103/PhysRevB.56.8714 ↗
11. 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.12312010.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123120 ↗
12. 10.1088/0953-8984/21/16/16421610.1088/0953-8984/21/16/164216 ↗
13. 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.14450210.1103/PhysRevB.76.144502 ↗
14. 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.08541610.1103/PhysRevB.78.085416 ↗
15. 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.08541510.1103/PhysRevB.79.085415 ↗
16. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.02530110.1103/PhysRevLett.103.025301 ↗
17. 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.16543310.1103/PhysRevB.92.165433 ↗
18. 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.24511610.1103/PhysRevB.89.245116 ↗
19. 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.19512210.1103/PhysRevB.91.195122 ↗
20. 10.1073/pnas.171141411410.1073/pnas.1711414114 ↗
21. 10.21468/SciPostPhys.6.5.06110.21468/SciPostPhys.6.5.061 ↗
22. 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.11542610.1103/PhysRevB.92.115426 ↗
23. 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.12541010.1103/PhysRevB.93.125410 ↗
24. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.11660110.1103/PhysRevLett.123.116601 ↗
25. 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.796610.1103/PhysRevB.60.7966 ↗
26. 10.1088/1361-648X/aaa27410.1088/1361-648X/aaa274 ↗
27. 10.1080/1478644600864281810.1080/14786446008642818 ↗
28. E. Lifshitz · 2012
29. 10.1016/0003-4916(70)90399-410.1016/0003-4916(70)90399-4 ↗
30. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.12680110.1103/PhysRevLett.109.126801 ↗
31. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.07660210.1103/PhysRevLett.120.076602 ↗
32. 10.1038/nphys146310.1038/nphys1463 ↗
33. 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.24530910.1103/PhysRevB.86.245309 ↗
34. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.02680410.1103/PhysRevLett.123.026804 ↗
35. 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.1338910.1103/PhysRevB.51.13389 ↗
36. 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.03543010.1103/PhysRevB.99.035430 ↗