The story so far:

• Landauer formula + scattering matrix approach: general

way of treating (noninteracting, small bias) two-terminal
conductance of quantum coherent system attached to classical
reservoirs at absolute zero, independent of details of the
quantum system.
• Subtle issues about conductance: ballistic system has finite
conductance.
• Energy relaxation processes typically modeled as taking
place in leads or contacts, resulting in very nonthermal /
nonequilibrium electronic distributions in “active” region of
device.
On the plate today:

• Zeroth order effect of interactions

• Multiterminal generalization of Landauer formula: the
Buttiker formula.
• Reciprocity relations
• Finite temperature and larger biases
• Combining scattering matrices
 “Resistivity dipole” - Coulomb interactions

When computing chemical

potential changes, we showed contact 1 T contact 2
abrupt changes (a) at interfaces
between contacts and leads;
and (b) across a scatterer of lead 1 lead 2
transmittance T.
While µ may change abruptly, µ
we know electrostatic potential
1-T
cannot, because of screening. +k states
-k states
Quick accounting for averaged T
electron-electron interactions: x
Poisson equation and screening
length.
 “Resistivity dipole” - Coulomb interactions

µ
Discontinuity in chemical
potential leads to φ
smeared discontinuity in
electrostatic potential. screening length

Charge builds up
electron density
microscopically like a -
dipole around the +
scatterer.
Whole system is solved
self-consistently. electric field

In systems with poor

screening, effects of
interfaces can be very big!
Buttiker formula (1988)
Treats multiple probe measurements such that all probes are
on equal footing:
2e
I p = ∑ (Tq ← p µ p − Tp ←q µ q )
h q

Net current out of terminal p Contributions from scattering with

to/from terminals q.
Rewriting

G pq ≡
2e 2
Tp←q I p = ∑ (GqpV p −G pqVq )
h q

Sum rule (guarantees I = 0 when all V are same): ∑G

q
qp = ∑ G pq
q

I p = ∑ G pq (V p − Vq ) equivalent to Kirchhoff’s law

q
Buttiker formula
Using this formula, potential of terminal n is determined
by potentials of other terminals weighted by transmission
functions:
∑G V
q≠n
nq q

Vn =
∑G
q≠n
nq

Note that, in general, Gqp ≠ G pq

though Gqp (+ B ) = G pq (− B )

“reciprocity” -- not easy to show in general.

Buttiker formula: 4-terminal example

⎛ I1 ⎞ ⎡G12 + G13 + G14 − G12 − G13 − G14 ⎤⎛ V1 ⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥⎜V ⎟
⎜ I2 ⎟ ⎢ − G21 G21 + G23 + G24 − G23 − G24 ⎥⎜ 2 ⎟
⎜I ⎟ = ⎢ − G31 − G32 G31 + G32 + G34 − G34 ⎥⎜ V3 ⎟
⎜ 3⎟ ⎢ ⎥⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜I ⎟ − G41 − G42 − G43 G41 + G42 + G43 ⎦⎝V4 ⎠
⎝ 4⎠ ⎣

Can set V4 = 0 without loss of generality….

⎛ I1 ⎞ ⎡G12 + G13 + G14 − G12 − G13 ⎤⎛ V1 ⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥⎜V ⎟
⎜ I2 ⎟ = ⎢ − G21 G21 + G23 + G24 − G23 ⎥⎜ 2 ⎟
⎜I ⎟ ⎢ − G31 − G32 G31 + G32 + G34 ⎥⎦⎜⎝ V3 ⎟⎠
⎝ 3⎠ ⎣