I was aware of it. The novelty in my works is to apply this same idea to the saturation of dephasing time in nanowires and quantum dots. This latter problem has got a resurgence after the work in PRL by Mohanty, Jariwala and Webb

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9710095

where it was proved that this is an intrinsic effect contrarily to common wisdom.

I worked this out after my works about decoherence in thermodynamic limit.

Ciao,

Marco

]]>In effect, in May 2000 a paper has been submitted to Phys Rev B: http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Acond-mat%2F0005082. The autors, in the conclusions, had already the intuition that the 0.7 anomaly could be a spin polarization effect.

Ciao

Hermann

It is a property of exchange models. This approximation favors the tendency of the spins to align. For the simple model that sentence refers to, there is a more mundane reason and it is that the effect can be seen when you do this approximation. Indeed, there can be some experiments with polarized states that do not see the decoherence effect and the reason is that a small perturbation approximation applies. The other way round grants the effects I discuss.

Ciao,

Marco

]]>I read about four years ago your cited paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0403678. I read this statement: “Let us see this in a simple model. We consider as a possible Hamiltonian…

where we consider negligible the dynamical part of the N spins that

interact with a single one through the coupling constant J.”

What are the arguments you can produce in order to prove the negligibility of the J interaction?

]]>