

Feature Articles: Quantum Computing Electron Spin Rotation and Quantitative Determination of SpinOrbit CoefficientsAbstractIn recent research, there have been proposals to realize quantum bits (qubits) with electron spins, where these qubits compose a quantum computer. In this article, we explain the mechanism of electron spin precession that is caused by the Rashba spinorbit interaction and introduce the latest research results on quantitative determination of the Rashba and Dresselhaus spinorbit coefficients. These findings represent a step toward the utilization of electron spins as qubits of a quantum computer. 1. Background1.1 Spin in conventional electronic devicesAn electron has not only a charge degree of freedom but also a spin degree of freedom associated with the spin angular momentum. If a charged particle has angular momentum, magnetic moment is generated. Therefore, each electron, having a spin angular momentum, acts as a micromagnet. The spin degree of freedom can be interpreted, in one way, as the freedom in the orientation of the micromagnet. In other words, spin is not a conserved quantity. Thus, it has not been easy to use them in conventional devices. Recently, research on electron spin in semiconductors has become increasingly important because future technologies that will transcend existing concepts, such as quantum computers based on spin qubits, will be based on current basic research such as the fundamental research studies described in this article. 1.2 Spin and magnetic momentWhile spin is naively interpreted as a micromagnet, its quantum mechanical properties are complicated and the spin sometimes behaves contrary to everyday experience. For example, one would associate the word spin with the spin of a tennis ball, where the magnitude of the ball’s angular momentum can be varied continuously by applying a torque. However, the spin of an electron cannot be varied continuously. To describe such peculiar properties of electron spin, we dare to provide a quantum mechanical explanation of electron spin in this article. 1.3 The SternGerlach experimentThe fact that the magnitude of electron spin is not continuously variable but takes only discrete values was confirmed by the SternGerlach experiment (Fig. 1) [1]. While tiny particles of silver were used in the actual experiment, the experimental results reflect the properties of electron spin. When electrons pass through space containing a magnetic field whose magnitude is graded in the perpendicular direction, their spins are decoupled into two states with different magnetic moments, as if they have been sorted (taking a bar magnet as an example, these are an upspin state with the south (S) magnetic pole facing upward and a downspin state with the S pole facing downward). A straightforward interpretation of the measured results leads to the conclusion that the magnetic moment of electron spins can take only two values: either the value corresponding to the upward direction or the value corresponding to the downward direction. Then, might there be electrons with a spin state that is neither upward nor downward vertically, such as those whose S pole is pointing horizontally among the electrons that have passed through the detector? To give the conclusion first: yes, there are such electrons. To understand why and to make correct predictions about spinrelated phenomena in semiconductor devices, we need an accurate understanding of quantum mechanics.
1.4 Probability interpretation of the wave function and reduction of the wave packetTwo wellknown concepts in quantum mechanics are probability interpretation (of the wave function) and reduction of the wave packet. Considering a onedimensional world for simplicity, let us express the wave function of an electron by Ψ(x). Probability interpretation means the following. When we try to measure the location of an electron described by Ψ(x), the probability that the electron is found at a position between x and x+Δx is given by Ψ(x)^{2}Δx. Reduction of the wave packet is related to probability interpretation. It is a term that describes how an electron in a state with a wide probabilistic distribution Ψ(x)^{2} (wave packet) before measurement collapses to a point at a certain position x as a consequence of the measurement. 1.5 Spin states other than up and downBesides an electron’s position, its spin state is also more correctly described by a wave function. If we apply the concept of reduction of the wave packet, then the SternGerlach experiment is interpreted as the collapse of the wave function of electron spin to either an up state or a down state by measurement. We note that the up/down direction is the direction of the magnetic field (z direction) within the experimental apparatus (detector). Since we have freedom in the direction of the magnetic field to be set in the detector of the experimental apparatus, we can also select any arbitrary direction for the observation of a magnetic moment. We would like to emphasize that the phenomena we are explaining here are not related to the torque that the magnetic field in the detector may apply to the electron spin to change its orientation. We are saying that the orientation of the spin is varied as a result of the reduction of the wave packet. To understand the above description, one needs to know that any state (wave function) of electron spin is described by a wave function a↑⟩_{z }+ b↓⟩_{z}=, which is a superposition of the upspin ≡ ↑⟩_{z} and downspin ≡ ↓⟩_{z} wave functions. One needs to accept the quantum mechanical conclusion that the probabilities of observing the up and downspin states upon measurement of spin state a↑⟩_{z }+ b↓⟩_{z}= are given by a^{2} and b^{2}, respectively, where a and b are complex numbers such that a^{2} + b^{2} = 1. Moreover, if we perform the measurements on the same spin state a↑⟩_{z} + b↓⟩_{z}= while varying the direction of the magnetic field in the detector, we will find a certain direction for which observation of only upspin electrons will result (upspin with respect to the chosen magnetic field direction). This direction is called the direction (or orientation) of the electron spin. Generally, electron spin orientations differ from one electron to another. However, the conclusion of quantum mechanics is that any electron spin can be expressed as a↑⟩_{z} + b↓⟩_{z} by finding appropriate complex numbers a and b, whichever direction it is pointing in. From the above discussion, we can conclude the following. If there are two spin states ↑⟩_{x} and ↓⟩_{x} that are orientated in the +x and x directions, respectively, we should be able to write them as a superposition of ↑⟩_{z} and ↓⟩_{z}, which ultimately leads to ↑⟩_{x}=(↑⟩_{z} + ↓⟩_{z}) and ↓⟩_{x}=(↑⟩_{z} – ↓⟩_{z}). If we interpret this probabilistically, then the probability that a spinup or spindown state is detected (with respect to the z direction) is 50% upon the measurement of these spins. Conversely, the state a↑⟩_{z} + b↓⟩_{z} can also be written as ↑⟩_{x} + ↓⟩_{x} using ↑⟩_{x} and ↓⟩_{x}. Therefore, if the direction of the magnetic field in the detector is in the x direction, the up and down spin states will be observed with probabilities and , respectively. We finally ask which direction is the electron spin a↑⟩_{z }+ b↓⟩_{z} pointing in? We provide only the conclusion here. The threedimensional vector for the orientation of this spin is (x, y, z) = (2Re(a*b), 2Im(a*b), a^{2} – b^{2}) , where Re(a*b) and Im(a*b) are the real and imaginary parts of the complex number a*b, respectively. 1.6 Spin splitting due to the Rashba effectIn our research, we use a spinorbit interaction called the Rashba effect [2] in controlling electron spins. A Hamiltonian^{*1} of the spinorbit interaction generally takes the form (∇V×p)•σ. Using the confinement potential V(z) of the quantum well for V, i.e., ∇V(z) = (0, 0, eE_{z}), and ħk for p (momentum), we obtain the Hamiltonian for the Rashba effect as H_{R} = a_{so }กาE_{z}กำ (k_{y}σ_{x} – k_{x}σ_{y}). Here, a_{so} is a materialdependent intrinsic constant for the Rashba effect, กาE_{z}กำ is the expectation value of E_{z}, and σ_{x} and σ_{y} are the Pauli spin matrices.^{*2} If we use a plane wave for the orbital part of the wave function for simplicity with a twodimensional wave vector k≡(k_{x}, k_{y})=(k, 0), the wave functions (eigenfunctions) including the spin part are given by with respective eigenenergies ± a_{so }กาE_{z}กำk. Thus, the energy splitting between the two states at a constant wave vector, which is caused by a spinorbit interaction associated with the confinement potential of semiconductor heterostructures, is called the Rashba splitting^{*3} (Fig. 2).
1.7 Spin rotationConsider a superpositioned wave function that is composed of two wave functions associated with two points on the Fermi surface^{*4} (k±Δk, 0), where Δk = a_{so }กาE_{z}กำ m*/ħ^{2}, in a system having the Rashba splitting. The spin part of this wave function at x = 0 is , where the spin is orientated in the z direction. The electron spin states for x ≠ 0 are = , the spin orientation of which is (sin(2Δkx), 0, cos(2Δkx)) in a threedimensional vector. Thus, the spin rotates in the xz plane as a function of the electron’s position x. An electron in a semiconductor can be regarded as a wave packet having a central wave number. Since the propagation speed of a wave packet is given by its group velocity (Fermi velocity), an electron in uniform linear motion changes its position according to its Fermi velocity. Thus, the spin orientation will rotate accordingly. The angular velocity of the electron spin rotation is given as ω = 2a_{so }กาE_{z}กำ k/ħ in this case. The tunability of กาE_{z}กำ by an external gate or a specific design of the heterostructure enables us to control the angular velocity of spin rotation, which is one of the greatest attractions of the Rashba effect. Some examples of spin rotation for an electron moving at the Fermi velocity are shown in Fig. 3, where a_{so} acts as a parameter indicating how easy it is to control the electron spin precession by an electric field กาE_{z}กำ.
In research on the Rashba effect up to now, it has been important to obtain a value called the Rashba coefficient α, which corresponds to a_{so }กาE_{z}กำ. Pieces of circumstantial evidence showing that the α values are controllable by a gate had been accumulated, though nobody had been able to show a quantitatively linear relationship between α and_{ }กาE_{z}กำ. The factors that have delayed the progress of this research include (1) a lack of experimental methods that enable one to measure the value of กาE_{z}กำ within a quantum well directly and (2) uncertainty about the size of the Dresselhaus spin splitting (the spin splitting arising from the bulk inversion asymmetry), which coexists with the Rashba spin splitting. In collaborative work between Hokkaido University and NTT Basic Research Laboratories, we have demonstrated the linear relationship α = a_{so }กาE_{z}กำ quantitatively by using In_{0.53}Ga_{0.47}As semiconductor quantum wells (Fig. 4), which are latticematched to (001) InP; this led to the successful quantitative determination of the value of a_{so} [3]. A key to our success was the coincidental discovery of an epitaxial wafer that has the property that the value of กาE_{z}กำ can seemingly be varied from positive to negative values by means of gating. Careful experiments with this epitaxial wafer and a series of similar wafers resulted in our quantitative determination of a_{so}.
2. Latest results2.1 Experimental procedure for determining a_{so}The testpiece used in our experiment was a 10nmthick In_{0.53}Ga_{0.47}As semiconductor quantum well grown on the (001) plane of an InP substrate (with barrier layers of In_{0.52}A1_{0.48}As). We controlled the electron density and the perpendicular electric field กาE_{z}กำ within the quantum well by means of a surface gate in a fieldeffecttransistor structure (Fig. 4). We used a dilution refrigerator to cool the sample down to ~100 mK (electron temperature), in order to minimize the effect of thermal disturbance and increase the measurement sensitivity, and measured the electric resistance as a function of the perpendicular magnetic field (magnetoresistance) for various gate voltages. In these measurements, a distinctive phenomenon called the weak antilocalization appeared in the vicinity of zero magnetic field, owing to the interference of the electron wave functions. We were able to determine the value of the Rashba coefficient α by theoretically analyzing this experimentally observed phenomenon [4]. 2.2 Weak localization and weak antilocalization effectsWeak localization is a phenomenon that occurs when an electron is scattered sequentially in a loop by impurities distributed randomly in the conductor, whereby the electrons are weakly localized in the loop as a result of constructive interference of the wave functions. For example, if an electron happens to follow the closed path indicated by blue arrows in Fig. 5(a) after the injection of the electron as indicated by the black arrow, then the red path, which is the timereversed path of the blue one, should also be present quantum mechanically with the same probability as the blue path. Since the lengths of the two paths are exactly equal, constructive interference always occurs at the endpoint of the two paths (the position of the green impurity in Fig. 5(a)), if the electron propagation is not accompanied by spin rotation. This results in enhancement of the backscattering probability. This is the mechanism of weak localization.
The weak localization effect is partially destroyed if a magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the quantum well. As a result, a negative magnetoresistance appears in the vicinity of the zero magnetic field, as shown by the black curve in Fig. 5(b). The weak localization effect observed in the vicinity of zero magnetic field is also suppressed by the rotation of spins, which is called weak antilocalization. In a more precise description, the mechanism of the weak antilocalization is related to the noncommutativity of spin rotation operators (AB ≠ BA for arbitrarily chosen A and B). This results in a positive magnetoresistance if the weak antilocalization is occurring (the red curve in Fig. 5(b)). The results of our experiment are shown in Fig. 6(a), where the electric conductivity of a quantum well sample is plotted (on the vertical axis) as a function of the magnetic field (horizontal axis) for various values of the gate voltage Vg. It is necessary to invert the + and  signs on the vertical axis (or invert up and down) when comparing the results with the schematic weak localization/antilocalization effects shown in Fig. 5(b) because the data plotted here are the electric conductances, not the resistances. Because V_{g} is a relative quantity, its value is set to 0 V when the Rashba splitting is minimized in this analysis. This experimental result shows that the weak antilocalization effect becomes stronger as the absolute value of Vg increases. Then, the value of the Rashba coefficient α can be extracted from the values of the fitting parameters that fit the experimental result best assuming a recently developed theoretical model. The gate voltage dependence of the Rashba spinorbit interaction coefficient α of this sample obtained from such analyses is shown in Fig. 6(b). We note that the angular velocity of the electron spin rotation rises faster as α increases. The fact that we successfully made accurate predictions of the values of α as a function of the gate voltage V_{g} as in Fig. 6(b) indirectly means that we succeeded in controlling the angular velocity of the electron spin rotation freely by means of the gate of a transistor. For example, we can rotate the spins of electrons within a semiconductor about some specific axis ((b) in Fig. 3), halt the rotation ((a) in Fig. 3), and rotate them in reverse ((c) in Fig. 3) all by means of a gate. As a result, we expect that the knowledge acquired in this research will bring us one step closer to being able to utilize electron spins in future electronic devices such as quantum computers and ultralowpower logic devices.
References
