# “Superconductor-Insulator transition” in a single Josephson junction

\[

## Abstract

$`VI`$-curves of resistively shunted single Josephson junctions with different capacitances and tunneling resistances are found to display a crossover between two types of $`VI`$-curves: one without and another with a resistance bump (negative second derivative) at zero-bias. The crossover corresponds to the dissipative phase transition (superconductor-insulator transition) at which macroscopic quantum tunneling delocalizes the Josephson phase and destroys superconductivity. Our measured phase diagram does not agree with the diagram predicted by the original theory, but does coincide with a theory that takes into account the accuracy of voltage measurements and thermal fluctuations.

\]

A Josephson junction is an unique physical object on which one can test a great variety of important physical concepts of modern physics, such as macroscopic quantum tunneling of the phase, quantum mechanical coherence, Coulomb blockade etc. An important place in this list is occupied by the so called dissipative phase transition (DPT), predicted for various systems . The physical origin of this transition is the suppression of macroscopic quantum tunneling of the phase by the interaction with dissipative quantum-mechanical environment, described by the Caldeira-Leggett model. Macroscopic quantum tunneling destroys superconductivity of a junction, whereas suppression of tunneling restores Josephson current. Hence, this transition is often called a superconductor-insulator transition (SIT).

The detection of DPT in a single Josephson junction is of principal importance since it is the simplest system where this transition is expected, without any risk of being masked by other physical processes, as is possible in more complicated systems like regular or random Josephson junction arrays. Some evidence of DPT (SIT) in a single Josephson junction has already been reported , but only for the case of weak Josephson coupling. It has not been enough to trace the whole phase diagram, including the range of strong Josephson coupling where the theoretical predictions are especially intriguing.

In this Letter we present results of our measurements on $`R=dV/dI`$ vs. $`I`$ curves, for a variety of single small isolated Josephson junctions, shunted and unshunted, with different values of capacitance $`C`$ and normal state tunneling resistance $`R_T`$. We have detected a crossover between two types of RI-curves with an essentially different behavior at small currents. Relating this crossover with the DPT, we were able to map out the whole phase diagram for a Josephson junction. The position of the observed phase boundary does not agree with that expected from the original theory. However, the theory revised to take into account a finite accuracy of our voltage measurements (viz., the minimum voltage that we are able to detect), explains well the observed phase diagram. We also argue that the real signature of DPT is a modification of $`VI`$-curves as observed in our experiment: the SIT, traditionally defined as the change of sign of thermoresistance $`dR/dT`$, is not necessarily identical to the DPT. The measured phase diagram provides the first observation of DPT for a single Josephson junction in the whole interval of the Josephson coupling.

Our sample consists of a shunted superconducting Al-AlO<sub>x</sub>-Al tunnel junction (area 150\*150 nm<sup>2</sup>). Its resistance $`R_T`$ = 3.4 - 21 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was determined by reducing the shunt resistance $`R_s`$ = 4 - 75 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ off from the normal state resistance measured at 0.1 K. The shunted junction was connected to four measurement leads via 20 $`\mu `$m long thin film Cr resistors $`R_L`$ 100 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This ensures a well-defined resistive environment governed by the shunt (see Fig. 1). The value of $`R_s`$ was deduced using the length of the shunt and the measured resistivity of the Cr sections in the leads. The circuits, both shunted and unshunted, were fabricated using electron beam lithography and triple-angle evaporation. The Cr resistors and shunt (10-15 nm thick, 100 nm wide) were evaporated at right angle of incidence. When exposing the chrome metal sections in e-beam writing, an accurately tuned electron dose ensured that the Al replicas were evaporated on the side of the resist and thus removed during lift-off. Within 5 $`\%`$, no change was observed in $`R_s`$ when $`B`$ and $`T`$ were swept over 0 … 0.2 T and 0.1 … 4 K, respectively. On the dilution refrigerator, the samples were mounted inside a tight copper enclosure and the measurement leads were filtered using 0.5 m of Thermocoax cable.

Two types of observed RI-curves are shown in Fig. 2. In the “superconductor”-type (Fig. 2a), the resistance has its minimum at zero bias and increases monotonically up to sub-gap resistance (in parallel with $`R_s`$) given by the maxima in the figures. In the “blockade” type (Fig. 2b), a higher resistance “bump” appears at small currents, i.e., the resistance is maximum at zero bias. The width of this feature becomes more pronounced with decreasing Josephson coupling . In both cases, the resistance returns smoothly to its normal state value after the subgap maximum.

In order to determine the phase diagram, we plot in Fig. 3 the character of our samples (“superconductor”/”insulator”) on the coordinate plane ($`R_q/R`$, $`E_J`$/$`E_C`$) which are the intrinsic parameters of DPT . The DPT boundary is to separate open and solid symbols in Fig. 3. Here $`R_q=\frac{h}{(2e)^2}=6.5`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the quantum resistance, and the resistance $`R=R_sR_{qp}/(R_s+R_{qp})`$ characterizes the total ohmic dissipation, $`R_{qp}`$ being the quasiparticle resistance. The Josephson energy $`E_J`$ was calculated from $`R_T`$ using the Ambegaokar-Baratoff relation while the Coulomb energy $`E_C=e^2/2C`$ was estimated from normal state $`VI`$-curves: the junction capacitance was obtained from the offset at large bias voltages using the formula $`V_{\mathrm{offset}}=\frac{e}{2C}\frac{R_s}{R_s+R_T}`$ that comes from a simple balance of currents through the junction and the shunt. As seen from the summary of junction parameters in Table I, the ratio $`E_J`$/$`E_C`$ falls between 0.85 and 14.1.

Zero bias resistance $`R_0`$ is displayed as function of temperature in Fig. 4 . Near $`T_c`$ all the samples have a pronounced peak which has also been observed by Shimazu et al . At lower temperatures, the resistance first decreases and then starts to increase again (Fig. 4b). This re-entrant behavior is not observed in samples with large $`E_J/E_C`$ which stay “superconducting” all the way down to lowest temperatures (Fig. 4a).

Let us discuss the phase diagram for DPT expected from theory. In the classical limit at zero temperature, the Josephson phase $`\phi `$ is trapped in some well of the “tilted washboard” potential $`U(\phi )=E_J\mathrm{cos}\phi (\mathrm{}/2e)I\phi `$. This localized-phase state corresponds to a superconducting state. In fact, this localization is never perfect: (i) at finite temperatures the phase can hop from one well to another via thermal activation; (ii) at very low temperatures the phase is able to escape from a well via macroscopic quantum tunneling which is an exponential function of the barrier height $`E_J`$ . When we say that the junction is a “superconductor” we mean that (i) its resistance is essentially smaller than the normal junction resistance, (ii) its resistance increases with temperature like in a metal because enhanced thermal fluctuations produce an increased phase slip rate $`d\phi /dt`$.

Because of quantum-mechanical tunneling, the bound states in different wells form an energy band like in a solid . The band energy is a periodic function of the quasicharge $`Q`$ (an analog of quasimomentum in a solid) with the period $`2e`$. If $`E_J/E_C1`$, that corresponds to the “tight binding” limit in the solid-state theory, then $`E(Q)=E(Q+2e)=\mathrm{\Delta }[1\mathrm{cos}(\pi Q/e)]`$. Here the band half-width is given by 

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{16}{\sqrt{8\pi }}\left(\frac{E_J}{2E_C}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{}\omega _p\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{8E_J}{E_C}\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(1)   
where $`\omega _p=\sqrt{8E_JE_C}/\mathrm{}`$ is the plasma frequency. For a small quasicharge $`Q2e`$ one may use the “effective-mass” approximation $`E(Q)=Q^2/2C^{}`$ where the effective capacitance (an analog of the effective mass) $`C^{}=e^2/\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can exceed the geometric capacitance $`C`$ essentially.

The band theory predicts Ohm’s law $`V=RI`$ at small current bias $`Ie/RC^{}`$. This corresponds to the quasicharge $`Q=C^{}V=IRC^{}`$. However, with increasing current bias the quasicharge approaches the Brillouin-zone boundary ($`Q=\pm e`$). Then another regime of phase motion sets in : The phase performs Bloch oscillations, $`\phi =2eE(Q)/\mathrm{}I`$, with $`Q=It`$ leading to the period $`2e/I`$. In this regime dissipation is suppressed, corresponding to a decreasing resistance $`V/I`$.

Thus, at small current bias the RI-curve must have a bump of width $`e/RC^{}`$ (a voltage of $`e/C^{}`$), and the Josephson junction always behaves as a normal junction with ohmic resistance $`R`$. At larger currents $`Ie/RC^{}`$, however, the junction has a tendency to become superconducting again. This behavior is a direct outcome of the band picture for the phase motion, as was shown in Ref. . It was obtained also using more rigorous path-integral methods . Therefore, a blockade bump in the RI-curve of a Josephson junction is a clear manifestation of phase delocalization and the band picture.

The bump on the RI-curve at small bias looks similar to the bump due to the Coulomb blockade of single-electron tunneling and, moreover, is governed by the same effective Coulomb energy $`e^2/C^{}`$. On the other hand, in the model which we are discussing here, there is no single-electron tunneling at all if the resistance $`R`$ is dominated by the shunt resistance $`R_s`$ (quasiparticle resistance $`R_{qp}>>R_s`$). In fact, we deal with the Coulomb blockade indeed, but it is the Cooper-pair current channel that is blocked . However, in an unshunted junction with $`R=R_{qp}`$ the additional Coulomb blockade of single-electron tunneling can increase the zero-bias resistance well above $`R`$.

The theory as summarized above would indicate that any Josephson junction must have a blockade bump at zero bias. However, we must take into account an important effect of the environment: suppression of the quantum tunneling between wells by dissipation . This decreases the band half-width which now is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}\omega _p}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{1\alpha }}.$$
(2)   
Here $`\alpha =R_q/R`$ is the dissipation parameter. The renormalized energy $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ vanishes at $`\alpha =1`$ where the band disappears and quantum tunneling becomes impossible . Then, the junction is superconducting down to the lowest current bias. Consequently, the phase line separating the “insulator” from the “superconductor” is the $`\alpha =1`$ line independently of the energy ratio $`E_J/E_C`$ (the dashed vertical line on the phase diagram, Fig. 3) .

This phase diagram, in which the Josephson junction under weak dissipation remains an “insulator” even in the limit of $`E_J/E_C\mathrm{}`$, is difficult to confirm because the putative, very slow delocalization of phase leads to exceedingly small voltages. Experimentally, the “insulator” behavior can be observed only if the voltage of the bump, the effective Coulomb gap $`e/C^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}/e`$, exceeds the minimum voltage $`V_{min}`$ detectable in our measurements. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that our measured DPT corresponds not to the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$, but to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}eV_{min}`$. Together with Eqs. (1) and (2) (neglecting an unimportant factor of $`(E_J/2E_C)^{1/4}`$ in Eq. (1)), the latter condition yields the crossover from the superconductor to the insulator behavior at

$$\frac{E_J}{E_C}=\frac{1}{8}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{16}{\sqrt{8\pi }}+(1\alpha )\mathrm{ln}\omega _p\tau _s\right)^2.$$
(3)   
Here $`\tau _s=\mathrm{}/eV_{min}`$ is the phase slip time for the minimum detectable voltage $`V_{min}`$. This is the time necessary for a phase change by $`2\pi `$, i.e., for the phase motion between two wells. In our case, $`V_{min}`$ is about 0.5 $`\mu `$V which corresponds to $`\tau _s210^9`$ s. The curve obtained from Eq. (3) using the plasma frequency $`210^{11}`$ Hz is displayed in Fig. 3. Within our quite large statistical uncertainty, Eq. (3) agrees with the experimental crossover between ”superconductor” and ”blockade” types of $`RI`$-curves. If we apply the argument by Schön and Zaikin  that an insulator state is observable when the phase spreading time $`\mathrm{}/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is smaller than the observation time $`\tau `$ in our experiment, then the crossover (replacing $`\tau _s`$ by $`\tau `$ 1 s in Eq. (3)) would take place at $`E_J/E_C100`$ in contrast to $`E_J/E_C10`$ observed in the experiment. Thus, the ability to reveal the blockade bump (insulator behavior) is restricted not by the observation time, but by the accuracy of the voltage measurement.

According to Ref. , thermal fluctuations are also able to “wash out” the blockade bump if thermal energy $`kT`$ is on the order of or larger than $`e^2/C^{}`$. In this case, the crossover is given by Eq. (3) again, but with $`\tau _s`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{}/kT`$ which is about 5 times less than $`\tau _s`$ at our minimum temperature of 50 mK. Since the crossover depends logarithmically on $`\tau _s`$, small uncertainties in $`\tau _s`$ do not shift its position essentially when compared with our experimental uncertainty. In fact, since the numerical factors in the conditions $`kTe^2/C^{}`$ and $`V_{min}e/C^{}`$ are not known, it is difficult to judge which one of these restrictions is stronger.

Finally, we want to compare the concepts of the superconductor-insulator transition (SIT) and the dissipative phase transition (DPT). The common formulation is that “superconductor” and “insulator” are specified by the positive and negative sign of $`dR_0/dT`$, respectively. Accordingly, one may identify the peak in $`R_0(T)`$ (see Fig. 4) also as SIT. But the SIT near $`T_c`$ has nothing to do with DPT predicted theoretically : the peak in Fig. 4 corresponds to the temperature at which the normal junction (with the $`RI`$-curve noted by $`N`$ in Fig. 3) becomes superconducting, i.e., a Josephson junction with a detectable critical current ( $`RI`$-curve noted by $`S`$ in Fig. 3). The DPT theory assumes that the critical current is initially finite, but in reality it may be essentially smaller than $`eE_J/\mathrm{}`$ because fluctuations are especially important at small $`E_J/E_C`$. We believe that this discussion is relevant for understanding the data of Yagi et al. , who observed the SIT for $`E_J/E_C`$ between 0.1 and 0.2 for strong dissipation $`\alpha >1`$ (horizontal dotted line in Fig. 3). These results were considered to be contradictory to the DPT theory which does not predict any transition to the insulating phase at $`\alpha >1`$. In fact, there is no disagreement: Yagi et al. did not observe DPT where the energy band width is to vanish, but SIT where the critical current disappears. So, our important conclusion is that the concepts of DPT and SIT are not completely identical: both are accompanied by the sign change of $`dR_0/dT`$ and thus any DPT is SIT, but not vice versa. In our case the zero slope of $`dR_0/dT`$ occured at about $`R_s=10`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which roughly agrees with the DPT line obtained from the RI-curves.

In summary, our experiments clearly confirm the existence of the dissipative phase transition in a single Josephson junction, though the observed phase diagram is quite different from that expected originally. The agreement with theory is achieved by taking into account that the position of the measured phase boundary is governed not only by intrinsic junction parameters, but also by the accuracy of voltage measurements. Our work is a strong demonstration of quantum effects in a single Josephson junction, especially, of the Josephson phase delocalization and the band picture of phase motion.

We acknowledge interesting discussions with G. Schön, A.D. Zaikin, and A.B. Zorin. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland and by the Human Capital and Mobility Program ULTI of the European Union.