pseudodiffusive transmission refers to the @xmath1 scaling of the electrical current transmitted over a distance @xmath0 through a clean sheet of undoped graphene @xcite .
the same @xmath1 scaling characterizes diffusion in a random potential , but now it applies in the absence of any disorder .
there is a large number of theoretical @xcite and experimental @xcite studies of this phenomenon , which is understood as a general property of massless dirac fermions in the limit of vanishing excitation energy .
the optical analogue in a photonic crystal with a dirac spectrum has been studied as well @xcite .
layered superconductors with a _ d_-wave symmetry of the order parameter ( notably the high-@xmath2 cuprates @xcite ) form an altogether different system in which massless dirac fermions are known to exist @xcite .
these are so - called nodal fermions , located in the two - dimensional brillouin zone near the intersections ( nodal points ) of the fermi surface with lines ( nodal lines ) of vanishing excitation gap .
elastic mean free paths @xmath3 as large as @xmath4 have been reached in @xmath5 single - crystals @xcite , much larger than the superconducting coherence length @xmath6 .
it is the purpose of this work to demonstrate theoretically the pseudodiffusive @xmath1 scaling of the transmission through a _
d_-wave superconductor over the range of lengths between @xmath7 and @xmath3 .
this anomalous scaling was not noticed in earlier studies of similar systems @xcite .
the problem is interesting from a conceptual point of view , because it highlights both the differences and similarities between dirac fermions produced by a bandstructure ( as in graphene or photonic crystals ) or produced by a _ d_-wave order parameter . in undoped graphene ,
the transmitted electrical current @xmath8 in response to a voltage difference @xmath9 scales as @xcite @xmath10 the length @xmath0 over which the current is transmitted should be large compared to the fermi wave length @xmath11 in the metal contacts , but small compared to the mean free path @xmath3 . the length @xmath0 should also be small compared to the transverse width @xmath12 of the graphene sheet ( to avoid edge effects ) .
potential barriers ( smooth on the scale of the lattice constant ) at the interfaces between the metal contacts and the graphene sheet have no effect on the current , because of the phenomenon of klein tunneling @xcite .    for the _ d_-wave superconductor , we find a transmitted electrical current per layer equal to @xmath13 for @xmath14 . here
@xmath15 are the tunnel probabilities through the potential barriers at the two normal - metal  superconductor ( ns ) interfaces .
the dirac equation for nodal fermions is anisotropic @xcite , with different velocities @xmath16 and @xmath17 parallel and perpendicular to the nodal lines .
this anisotropy ( with @xmath18 in @xmath5 ) increases the slope of the @xmath1 scaling .
remarkably enough , the anisotropy does not introduce a dependence of the transmitted current on the angle @xmath19 between the direction of the current and the nodal lines .
the result holds generically for any orientation , except for a narrow range of angles of order @xmath20 around @xmath21 .
the tunnel barriers reduce the slope of the @xmath1 scaling of the transmitted electrical current , by a factor @xmath22 for small tunnel probabilities .
this does not imply that the nodal fermions are only weakly transmitted , but rather that the transmission probabilities for transmission as an an electron or as a hole are almost the same for @xmath23 .
indeed , we find that the electrical shot noise power @xmath24 as well as the transmitted thermal current @xmath25 ( both of which do not depend on the sign of the carriers charge ) remain finite in the limit @xmath26 .
we interpret this result in terms of a resonant coupling via the nodal lines of the mid - gap states @xcite extended along the two ns interfaces .
we also find , quite surprisingly , that the thermal conductivity is _ independent _ of the tunnel probabilities @xmath27 .
the outline of this paper is as follows . in sec .
[ nodalt ] we formulate the scattering problem and calculate the transfer matrix of the nodal dirac fermions through the _ d_-wave superconductor .
the matching of wave functions at the interface with the metal electrodes is done in sec .
[ wavematching ] , both for ideal ns interfaces and for interfaces containing a tunnel barrier .
the transmission matrix of electrons and holes follows in sec .
[ transmission ] .
we then apply this result to the calculation of transport properties : the electrical current ( sec .  [ electric ] ) ,
the thermal current ( sec .  [ thermal ] ) , and the electrical shot noise ( sec .  [ shotnoise ] ) .
we conclude in sec .
[ discuss ] with a discussion of our results and an outlook .
geometry to measure the transmission of nodal fermions through a @xmath28-wave superconductor .
a current @xmath29 is injected into the superconductor from metal contact @xmath30 ( at a voltage @xmath9 ) and drained to ground via the superconductor ( current @xmath31 ) or via a second metal contact @xmath32 ( current @xmath33 ) .
if the separation @xmath0 of the metal contacts is large compared to the superconducting coherence length @xmath7 , the current @xmath33 is predominantly due to transmission parallel to the nodal lines @xmath34 or @xmath35 of vanishing excitation gap . ]
we consider a two - dimensional spin - singlet superconductor ( s ) , connecting two normal metal contacts with parallel ns interfaces , separated by a distance @xmath0 .
the transverse dimension @xmath12 of the superconducting strip ( in the @xmath36-@xmath37 plane ) is assumed to be large compared to @xmath0 , in order to avoid edge effects .
the order parameter @xmath38 is assumed to have @xmath39 symmetry : it vanishes for wave vectors along two nodal lines , which are taken to be the @xmath36 and the @xmath37 axis .
all our results also apply to @xmath40-superconductors , for our purposes , a simple @xmath41 rotation relates the two systems . to be specific
, the @xmath36-@xmath37 plane can represent a single @xmath42 layer of a cuprate superconductor @xcite , with the @xmath43 $ ] direction at an angle @xmath41 .
ellipsoidal equal - energy contours of low - energy excitations in the brillouin zone of a superconductor with @xmath39 symmetry .
long and short axes have ratio @xmath44 .
the contours are centered at the four nodal points ( solid dots ) , where the order parameter vanishes on the fermi surface .
the normal @xmath45 to the ns interfaces is indicated .
the dashed line , displaced from the nearest nodal point by @xmath46 , indicates points of constant wave vector component parallel to the interface . ]
low - energy excitations in the superconductor are found in the brillouin zone near the four intersections @xmath47 , @xmath48 ) of the fermi surface with the nodal lines of the order parameter .
( these nodal points are labeled @xmath49 in fig .
[ fig_brillouin ] . ) around these points , both the pair potential @xmath38 and the kinetic energy can be linearized : the dynamics of the nodal fermions is governed by an anisotropic dirac equation @xcite .
for example , near node @xmath50 at @xmath51 this can be written in the form @xmath52 or more compactly with the help of pauli matrices , @xmath53\psi=\varepsilon\psi .
\label{dirac2}\ ] ] we have set @xmath54 to unity , restoring units in the final expressions .
the spinor @xmath55 contains the envelope wave functions of electron and hole excitations ( slowly varying on the scale of the fermi wavelength @xmath56 ) .
the fermi velocity @xmath16 is larger than the velocity @xmath57 by a factor of order @xmath58 ( with @xmath59 the superconducting coherence length ) , which is in the range 1020 for cuprate superconductors .
the equal - energy contours in the brillouin zone of the nodal fermions thus have an elongated ellipsoidal shape , @xmath60 as a function of the displacement @xmath61 of the wave vector from the nodal point .      since the system is translation invariant along the ns interfaces , the component of the wave vector along these interfaces , @xmath62 , is a conserved quantity . here
@xmath19 is the angle between the normal to the ns interface and the nodal line pointing to node @xmath50 , which we restrict to @xmath63 without loss of generality .
moreover , since mirror reflection along the ns interface , followed by the transformation @xmath64 , while leaving all the other parameters unchanged , maps @xmath19 on @xmath65 , we can further restrict @xmath19 to @xmath66 . in all our formulas , to obtain the corresponding formulas for @xmath65 , replace @xmath46 by @xmath67 and @xmath68 by @xmath69 .    we write @xmath70 , with @xmath71 the coordinate perpendicular to the ns interfaces and @xmath72 the coordinate parallel to them .
we substitute @xmath73 into eq .   and find that the spinor @xmath74 satisfies the wave equation @xmath75 \psi(s)=\varepsilon\psi(s ) , \label{dirac3}\ ] ] where @xmath76 is differentiation perpendicular to the ns interface , and @xmath77 and @xmath78 are the operators of particle current perpendicular and parallel to the ns interface , @xmath79 we note that the operator @xmath77 squares to a scalar , its magnitude giving the particle velocity @xmath80 perpendicular to the ns interface : @xmath81    to solve eq .  , we multiply it by @xmath82 and rearrange to obtain @xmath83 with @xmath84 the solution to eq .
can then be written as @xmath85 , \label{msdef}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the second equation defines the _ transfer matrix _ @xmath86 .
as expected , the particle current @xmath77 is conserved by eq .
: @xmath87 =   \psi^\dagger(s ) [ -i{\mathcal{a}}_0^\dagger { j}+i { j}{\mathcal{a}}_0 ] \psi(s)=0 $ ] .
at the two ns interfaces the coupled electron - hole excitations in the superconductor are converted into uncoupled electrons and holes in the normal metal .
we thus need to match , at @xmath88 and @xmath89 , the envelope wave functions @xmath55 of the nodal fermions in s to the bloch wave functions @xmath90 of free fermions in n. this is similar to the matching of dirac equation to helmholtz equation considered in the context of transmission through a photonic crystal @xcite .
translational invariance parallel to the ns interfaces requires that the coupling conserve the wave vector component @xmath46 parallel to the interfaces .
particle flux conservation imposes further constraints , as we determine here .      at the surface of the superconductor ,
the order parameter @xmath91 attains its bulk value over a short length scale , the healing length @xmath92 .
the two - component wave function on the s side of the interface ( at @xmath93 ) can be linked to that on the n side ( @xmath88 ) by an _ interface matrix _ @xmath94 , defined by @xmath95 in the normal metal , the operator of particle flux perpendicular to the ns interface can be written as @xmath96 with @xmath97 possibly different from @xmath98 because of a fermi energy mismatch .
the requirement of particle flux conservation reads @xmath99    to derive the most general form of the interface matrix fulfilling this requirement , notice that a unitary rotation through angle @xmath100 , where @xmath101 , \label{theta_def}\end{aligned}\ ] ] transforms @xmath77 into @xmath102 up to a scalar factor : @xmath103   { j}\exp[-i\theta \sigma_y /2 ] .
\label{jndef}\ ] ] this allows us to write the interface matrix as @xmath104   { \mathcal{m}}_0 , \label{mnsdef}\ ] ] where @xmath105 is a @xmath106 matrix fulfilling a generalized unitarity condition , @xmath107    eq .
restricts @xmath108 to a three - parameter form @xmath109 ( ignoring an irrelevant scalar phase factor ) , with arbitrary real parameters @xmath110 . to understand better where the nontrivial interface matrix arises from , and to show that we may set @xmath111
, we have to extend the dirac equation to the interface layer , where @xmath68 varies in space .
this is done in appendix [ mns_derivation ] .
so far we have considered only _ intranode _ scattering at the ns interface .
we refer to such an interface as an `` ideal interface '' .
a nonideal interface contains a tunnel barrier , which introduces _ internode _ scattering .
we will consider the transfer matrices through the _ d_-wave superconductor for both cases in the next two subsections .      the complete transfer matrix for a strip of _ d_-wave superconductor with ideal ns interfaces reads @xmath112 where @xmath113 is the @xmath114 from eq .   with @xmath89 , describing propagation inside the superconductor , and @xmath94 from eq .
, with @xmath115 , describes an ns interface . upon substitution , we obtain @xmath116\nonumber\\ & \quad\mbox{}+\frac{\sinh[\kappa_{\alpha}(q)l]}{v_{\alpha}^{2}\kappa_{\alpha}(q)}\left(i\varepsilon v_{\alpha}\sigma_{z } + qv_{f } v_{\delta}\sigma_{y}\right)\biggr ] , \label{mideal}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the definitions @xmath117    notice , how  as a result of accounting for the two ns interfaces
the transfer matrix has simplified from that of eq .  .
the change is that the particle flux operator @xmath77 in eq .
is replaced by @xmath118 in eq .  .
also note that the determinant of the transfer matrix has norm one , @xmath119 , as required by the generalized unitarity relation @xmath120 which holds for any transfer matrix as a consequence of particle current conservation .    to appreciate the effects of the dirac cone anisotropy
, we can perform a linear transformation on our system to obtain one with an isotropic dirac cone : contraction along the nodal line by a factor @xmath121 , and expansion perpendicular to it by a factor @xmath122 .
the dispersion of the new , isotropic dirac cone has a single velocity parameter @xmath123 .
the superconducting strip is deformed by the transformation : its width @xmath12 is unchanged , but its length @xmath0 becomes @xmath124 an effective propagation length we define here for later use .
the matrix derived above is the transfer matrix for nodal fermions near point @xmath125 on the fermi surface , with @xmath126 the transverse wave vector component relative to @xmath127 .
similarly , the transfer matrices near each of the four nodal points can be written as    [ mabcd ] @xmath128    the basis at each nodal point is the same spinor @xmath129 , but the electron states @xmath130 are `` right - movers '' ( propagating from @xmath30 to @xmath32 ) at nodal points @xmath50 or @xmath131 and `` left - movers '' ( from @xmath32 to @xmath30 ) at nodal points @xmath132 and @xmath133 .
the complete fermi surface of the normal metal ( n ) might differ in many ways from that of the superconductor .
however , when we study transport near a specific nodal point , due to transverse momentum conservation , we can effectively reduce the fermi surface to the two @xmath134 points where transverse momentum has the same value as at the nodal point .
these two @xmath134 points in n each couple to different nodal points in s , for example to nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 in fig .
2 . a nonideal ns interface couples different nodal points , by reversing the component of the momentum perpendicular to the interface . such _
internode scattering _ may be caused by an insulating layer at the ns interface , or it may result from the fermi velocity mismatch between n and s. note that only internode scattering is possible in the absence of superconducting order  any _ intranode _ scattering has to happen inside the superconductor .
we will generically describe a nonideal ns interface by a tunnel barrier , with tunnel probability @xmath135 ( which we take mode independent for simplicity ) . for @xmath136 , the tunnel barrier couples electrons near nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 .
the transfer matrix @xmath137 for a tunnel barrier at position @xmath138 , defined by @xmath139 has the form @xmath140 with @xmath141 .
the tunnel barrier at @xmath138 also couples holes near nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 , with transfer matrix @xmath142 ( the basis states are chosen such that the upper component is a right - mover and the lower component a left - mover . )    finally ,
we can write down the full transfer matrix of the superconducting strip , in the basis @xmath143 , including nonideal contacts with tunneling probabilities @xmath144 at @xmath88 and @xmath145 at @xmath89 . it is obtained by matrix multiplication , @xmath146 with @xmath9 a unitary matrix that switches bases from @xmath147 to @xmath143 : @xmath148    if @xmath149 , the nodal point @xmath50 is coupled to the nodal point @xmath133 , so the above formulas still hold , with @xmath132 replaced by @xmath133 .
if both @xmath150 and @xmath151 , the tunnel barriers at the interfaces do not couple nodal point @xmath50 to any other nodal points .
since we assume @xmath152 , this case of misaligned nodes is the generic case . in that case
, @xmath153 is to be replaced by the singular transfer matrix @xmath154 corresponding to andreev reflection with reflection amplitude @xmath155 , @xmath156 since @xmath154 is also the @xmath157 limit of @xmath158 in eq .
( up to an irrelevant phase factor ) , eq .   is valid as it stands for misaligned nodes as well .
referring to the geometry of fig .
[ fig_layout ] , a scattering state ( for a given value of @xmath46 ) has the form @xmath159 at the normal side of the left ns interface and @xmath160 at the normal side of the right ns interface .
the complex number @xmath161 is the amplitude for andreev reflection ( from electron to hole ) and the complex number @xmath162 is the amplitude for electron transmission .
we calculate this transmission amplitude using the relation @xmath163_{11}\right)^{-1 } = \left([{\mathcal{m}}_a^\dagger]_{11 } \,\right)^{-1 } , \label{tmrelation}\ ] ] where the first equality follows from @xmath164 , and the second equality from particle current conservation , eq .  .
substitution of eq .   gives the expression @xmath165-\frac{i\varepsilon\sinh[\kappa_{\alpha}(q_a ) l]}{v_{\alpha}\kappa_{\alpha}(q_a)}\right]^{-1}.\label{teeresult}\ ] ]      for nonideal interfaces we have to consider both the transmission amplitude @xmath162 from electron to electron and the transmission amplitude @xmath166 from electron to hole .
it is convenient to define the @xmath106 transmission matrix @xmath167 which contains also the transmission amplitudes @xmath168 and @xmath169 from hole to electron and from hole to hole .
this matrix @xmath170 is a @xmath106 subblock of the @xmath171 unitary scattering matrix @xmath172 , which we derive in appendix  [ fulls ] .    to obtain @xmath170 from the @xmath171 transfer matrix @xmath173
, we make a change of basis from the basis @xmath143 used in eq .   to a basis @xmath174
in which the upper two components are right - movers and the lower two components are left - movers .
the change of basis is carried out by the unitary matrix @xmath175 we can then follow the same reasoning as in the previous subsection , to conclude that @xmath170 is determined by the @xmath106 upper - left block @xmath176 of @xmath177 , @xmath178 cf .
.    substitution of @xmath173 from eq .
gives , after some algebra ,    @xmath179
turning now to observable quantities , we will work in the linear response regime @xmath180 , when the transmission amplitudes may be evaluated at the fermi level ( @xmath181 ) .
the current @xmath182 ( per layer ) transmitted into metal contact @xmath32 through nodal point @xmath50 is obtained by integrating the transmission probability @xmath183 over @xmath184 , @xmath185 ( the conductance quantum @xmath186 includes a twofold spin degeneracy . )
the integrand decays exponentially for @xmath187 . for @xmath188
the effective integration range is much smaller than @xmath189 and may be extended to @xmath190 .
substituting eq .
( for @xmath181 ) we arrive at @xmath191 as expected , the conductance of a single nodal point has the same form as that of a single valley in a graphene strip , with @xmath0 replaced by the effective propagation length @xmath192 of eq .  .
the current @xmath193 transmitted through nodal point @xmath131 is given by the same formula with @xmath80 replaced by @xmath194 . because of the identity @xmath195 the total current @xmath196 becomes _ independent _ of @xmath19 .
the conductivity @xmath197 per layer for the case of ideal ns interfaces is then equal to @xmath198 as discussed in sec .
[ bulk ] , eq .   differs [ by a factor @xmath199 from the bulk electrical conductivity of refs .
@xcite .      for nonideal ns interfaces , tunnel barriers couple the nodal points , and the calculation of the current @xmath200 becomes more involved . in this section
we treat the generic case of misaligned nodal points .
the case of ( perfectly ) aligned nodal points is considered in appendix  [ galigned ] .
we first calculate the current through nodal point @xmath50 . as discussed in sect .
[ nonideal ] , we can substitute @xmath153 with @xmath154 of eq .  , and using eq .
we obtain the transmission matrix ( at @xmath181 ) @xmath201 where the denominator @xmath202 has the form @xmath203.\label{zdefa2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath192 is the effective propagation length , while @xmath204 is the transverse wave number defined by @xmath205.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    both @xmath162 and @xmath166 are peaked at @xmath206 .
this peak momentum lies at the nodal point ( @xmath207 ) only for ideal interfaces . in the presence of tunnel barriers
the sign of @xmath204 is such that the order parameter has opposite sign at the two intersections of the line @xmath206 with the fermi surface .
integration over @xmath184 of electron current minus hole current gives the net ( electrical ) current , @xmath208\nonumber\\ & = g_{0}v\frac{w}{l}\frac{v_{\alpha}^{2}}{\pi v_{f}v_{\delta}}\frac{1}{2-\gamma_1 } \frac{\gamma_2}{2-\gamma_2}.\label{i2anonideal}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    similarly , for the current through nodal point @xmath132 we take the limit @xmath209 of eq .   and obtain the transmission matrix @xmath210 , \label{zdefc}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and then the current @xmath211 note the minus sign in the formula for @xmath212 .
the current has opposite sign to that at nodal point @xmath50 , since here holes rather than electrons tunnel across the system to contact 2 .
the total current ( per layer ) through nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 becomes @xmath213 comparison with eq .
reveals that each tunnel barrier changes the sum of the current transmitted through a nodal point and the one opposite to it in momentum space , its time - reversed partner , by a factor of @xmath214 . as in the case of ideal ns contacts ,
the pair of nodal points @xmath131 and @xmath133 contribute a same amount , but with @xmath215 replaced by @xmath216 .
the @xmath19-dependence again drops out of the total current @xmath217 . for the conductivity @xmath218 per layer
we finally obtain @xmath219
the conductivity vanishes in the weak tunneling limit @xmath220 , because the electron and hole contributions to the electrical current @xmath33 then become equal but of _ opposite sign_. electrons and holes contribute with the _ same sign _ to the thermal current , @xmath221,\label{ithermal}\ ] ] with @xmath222 the lorenz number .
the thermal current flows from contact @xmath30 at temperature @xmath223 into contact @xmath32 at temperature @xmath224 .
( eq .   requires @xmath225 and @xmath224 sufficiently small that the transmission amplitudes may be evaluated at the fermi energy @xmath181 . )
we consider the ( generic ) case of misaligned nodes .
substitution of the expressions for @xmath170 from sec .
[ gmisaligned ] , and summing over the pair of nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 , we find that @xmath226 quite surprisingly , this turns out to be _ independent of the tunnel probabilities _ @xmath144 and @xmath145 .
the total thermal current ( per layer ) also includes contributions from the nodal points @xmath131 and @xmath133 , and is  just as the electrical conductivity  independent of the angle @xmath19 : @xmath227 as discussed in sec .
[ bulk ] , the thermal conductivity @xmath228 extracted from eq .   coincides with the bulk thermal conductivity of ref .  @xcite .
the zero - frequency noise power of time dependent electrical current fluctuations @xmath229 measured in contact number 2 , @xmath230 is given in terms of the transmission matrix elements by the general expression @xcite @xmath231.\label{p22}\end{aligned}\ ] ] as with the conductance , we work in the linear response regime , so the transmission matrix is to be evaluated at @xmath181 .    we restrict ourselves to the case of misaligned nodes and substitute the expressions for @xmath170 from sec .
[ gmisaligned ] .
the integral over @xmath46 contains four separate contributions , from @xmath46 near nodes @xmath50 , @xmath131 , @xmath132 , and @xmath133 . the total result ( per layer ) is @xmath232 the fano factor @xmath233 is given by @xmath234    in the ideal limit @xmath235 we find a fano factor @xmath236 , three times smaller than the value @xmath237 associated with a poisson process . as discussed in the context of graphene @xcite ,
this is the same one - third reduction as in a diffusive metallic conductor and is a hallmark of pseudodiffusive transmission .    in the weak tunneling limit
@xmath220 the noise power remains finite , @xmath238 while the electrical current vanishes , @xmath239 .
the electrical current fluctuations therefore become large relative to the time - averaged current in the presence of tunnel barriers .
this is discussed in the context of resonant tunneling through midgap states in sec .
[ midgap ] .
the electrical current @xmath33 and thermal current @xmath25 that we have calculated describe transmission of electrons and holes over a finite length @xmath0 of a clean _ d_-wave superconductor .
earlier work @xcite calculated the electrical and thermal conductivities @xmath240 and @xmath241 of a disordered infinite system .
these are in principle different systems , but we can still compare them by formally converting the currents through the finite system into bulk conductivities by means of @xmath242 and @xmath243 .    the thermal conductivity obtained in this way from the finite - system thermal current , @xmath244 is the same as the bulk thermal conductivity of durst and lee @xcite .
the results for the electrical conductivity differ , however .
the bulk result @xcite @xmath245 differs from the finite - system result  even if we assume ideal ns interfaces .
the difference between the factors @xmath44 in eq .   and
@xmath246 in eq .
is small in practice ( because @xmath247 ) , but the difference does illustrate that these are different systems .
we have found that tunnel barriers at the ns interfaces reduce the transmitted electrical current , but not the thermal current nor the electrical noise . this result has a natural interpretation in terms of the midgap states at the ns interfaces .
midgap states are zero - energy edge states of the _ d_-wave superconductor , which exist at momentum @xmath46 along the edge if the order parameter has opposite sign at the two intersections of the line of constant @xmath46 with the fermi surface @xcite
. the midgap states at the two ns interfaces have a small overlap , and therefore acquire a nonzero energy @xmath248 ( tunnel splitting ) .
moreover , the coupling to the metal electrodes at @xmath249 introduces partial widths @xmath250 , @xmath251 of the midgap states ( tunnel broadening ) .    tunneling through a pair of midgap states was studied in ref .
@xcite , in the context of majorana bound states ( which are a special type of nondegenerate midgap states ) .
we can compare the transmission probabilities resulting from that work , @xmath252 with the results from sec .
[ gmisaligned ] in the tunneling limit @xmath253 , @xmath254 we have defined @xmath255 this comparison leads to the identification @xmath256    resonant tunneling , with all transmission probabilities equal to @xmath257 , occurs when @xmath258 , hence when @xmath259 ( tunnel splitting of the midgap states equal to tunnel broadening ) . because transmission from electron to electron and from electron to hole happens with the same probability ( to leading order in @xmath260 ) , the transmitted electrical current vanishes in the limit of small @xmath135 .
the thermal current @xmath25 and electrical noise @xmath261 remain finite , because @xmath183 and @xmath262 contribute with the same sign to these quantities .
this interpretation explains the finite small-@xmath135 limit for @xmath261 and @xmath25 , but it does not explain why the thermal current turns out to be completely independent on the values of @xmath144 and @xmath145 . that remains a surprising result of our calculation , for which we have no qualitative explanation .
we have shown how ballistic transport through a clean _ d_-wave superconductor ( such as single - crystal @xmath5 ) has features in common with graphene @xcite : a pseudodiffusive @xmath1 scaling of the electrical current transmitted over a distance @xmath0 , and a @xmath263 suppresssion of the electrical shot noise with respect to the poisson value of uncorrelated current pulses .
these effects have been observed in graphene @xcite and it would be interesting to search for them in the high-@xmath2 cuprates .
the @xmath1 scaling should persist , with a modified slope , in the presence of tunnel barriers at the ns interfaces , and in the case of the thermal current we find that even the slope is independent of the tunnel barrier height .
there are more areas of correspondence between massless dirac fermions in _ d_-wave superconductors and in graphene , in addition to the pseudodiffusive transport studied in this work .
we mention two such effects , as directions for future research .
* in graphene an electrostatic potential can displace the fermi level away from the dirac point of vanishing density of states .
d_-wave superconductor the supercurrent velocity @xmath264 enters into the dirac equation as a scalar term @xmath265 @xcite , and therefore has the same effect of displacing the dirac point relative to the fermi level .
there is one curious difference with respect to graphene : the _ d_-wave superconductor has two pairs of valleys and the dirac point can be displaced independently in each pair ( relative to the same fermi level ) . with reference to fig .
[ fig_brillouin ] , the component of @xmath264 in the @xmath36-direction acts on valleys at the nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 , while the component in the @xmath37-direction acts on those at @xmath131 and @xmath133 .
* while the role of an electrostatic potential in graphene is played by the supercurrent , an electric field in the _ d_-wave superconductor plays the role of a magnetic field in graphene .
if a sufficiently strong electric field could be induced in a thin - film cuprate superconductor , it might be possible to see effects analogous to the effects of landau level quantization in graphene @xcite .
this research was supported by the dutch science foundation nwo / fom and by an erc advanced investigator grant .
in sec .  [ tmideal ] we derived the most general form of the transfer matrix of an ns interface , consistent with the requirement of particle flux conservation . the result in eq .
has three undetermined parameters @xmath266 , @xmath267 , and @xmath268 .
here we calculate the interface matrix by solving the dirac equation in the interface layer and determine these unknown parameters .
the interface layer is the region where the order parameter increases from @xmath269 to its bulk value , over a healing length @xmath92 ( which is typically of the same order of magnitude as the coherence length @xmath7 ) .    as discussed in ref .
@xcite , in order to preserve hermiticity , the dirac equation needs to be supplemented by terms containing the spatial derivatives of @xmath17 : @xmath270 \psi   = \varepsilon \psi . \label{dirac4}\ ] ] we assumed that the phase of @xmath91 is constant , and set it to 0 ( without loss of generality ) , thus @xmath68 is real throughout , and is only a function of the distance @xmath271 from the ns interface .
an eigenstate @xmath74 of momentum @xmath46 parallel to the ns interface satisfies @xmath272 \psi(s ) = \varepsilon \psi(s),\ ] ] with the derivative of @xmath68 denoted by the shorthand @xmath273 .
accordingly , the matrix @xmath274 in eq .   becomes @xmath271-dependent and gets a new term : @xmath275    since @xmath276 ( in the relevant range of @xmath46 s near the nodal point ) , the integral of @xmath277 over the interface layer is @xmath278 and may be neglected .
then @xmath279 commutes with @xmath280 for @xmath281 , and therefore we can simply integrate eq .   over the interface layer :
\nonumber\\ \quad & = \exp\left[\frac{-i}{2}\int_0^{\tan \theta } \frac{1}{1+u^2 } \left ( \sigma_y - i u
\right ) du\right ] \nonumber\\ \quad & = \sqrt{\frac{v_f \cos \alpha } { v_\alpha } } \exp[-i\theta \sigma_y /2],\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath283 $ ] as defined in eq .  .
the result agrees with eq .   with @xmath111 , and @xmath284 .
the fermi velocity mismatch contributes an additional factor @xmath285 to the interface matrix , and in addition may cause internode scattering ( as detailed in sec .
[ nonideal ] ) .
in secs .  [ transmission ] and [ electric ] we have calculated the @xmath106 transmission matrix @xmath170 , which is the quantity we need for the transport properties considered . for reference , we give here the full @xmath171 scattering matrix , @xmath286 containing the @xmath106 transmission matrices @xmath170 ( from left to right ) and @xmath287 ( from right to left ) , as well as the reflection matrices @xmath288 ( from left to left ) and @xmath289 ( from right to right ) .
these matrices can be obtained from transfer matrix @xmath173 by constructing the four @xmath106 sub - blocks @xmath290 , @xmath291 and then evaluating @xmath292 cf .
eqs .   and .
we restrict ourselves to @xmath181 and misaligned nodes . near node @xmath50
we find the reflection matrices    @xmath293    the transmission matrix @xmath294 is given by eq .   and
the resulting scattering matrix is unitary , @xmath296 , as it should be .
similarly , near node @xmath132 we find @xmath297 given by eq .  , @xmath298 , and the reflection matrices @xmath299
for @xmath301 the two nodal points @xmath50 and @xmath132 line up with the normal to the ns interface , while nodes @xmath131 and @xmath133 remain misaligned . restricting ourselves again to @xmath181 , we may put @xmath302 , @xmath303 , @xmath304 , and @xmath305 in eq .  .
the result is    @xmath306\cosh l_0 q\quad   & i[\sqrt{1-\gamma_1}+e^{-2ik_{f}l}\sqrt{1-\gamma_2}]\sinh l_0 q\\ -i[\sqrt{1-\gamma_1}+e^{2ik_{f}l}\sqrt{1-\gamma_2}]\sinh l_0 q\quad   & [ 1+e^{-2ik_{f}l}\sqrt{1-\gamma_1}\sqrt{1-\gamma_2}]\cosh l_0 q \end{pmatrix},\label{talignedresult}\\ z_{ac}={}&2\sqrt{1-\gamma_1}\sqrt{1-\gamma_2}\cos(2k_{f}l)+2-\gamma_1-\gamma_2+\gamma_1\gamma_2\cosh^{2 } l_0 q.\label{zaligneddef}\end{aligned}\ ] ]         dependence on the separation @xmath0 of the ns interfaces of the current @xmath33 into contact @xmath32 , for the interface orientation @xmath310 of aligned nodes @xmath50 and @xmath132 . calculated from eqs .   for parameters @xmath311 , @xmath312 . ]    as shown in fig .
[ fig_aligned_a ] , the current @xmath33 oscillates as a function of @xmath313 , between minima @xmath314 at @xmath315 and maxima @xmath316 at @xmath317 .
( similar oscillations were found in ref .
@xcite . ) simple expressions for these two values follow for the case @xmath318 of equal tunnel barriers , @xmath319 with abbreviation @xmath320 .
for @xmath321 we recover the ideal limit @xmath322 .
for @xmath323 we have instead @xmath324 , @xmath325 .
same as fig .
[ fig_brillouin ] , but now for an angle @xmath328 between the normal @xmath329 to the ns interface and the lines @xmath34 , @xmath35 of vanishing order parameter . for this orientation
the nodal points @xmath330 and @xmath331 are pairwise aligned with @xmath329 ( dashed lines ) , so that they are pairwise coupled by a tunnel barrier at the interfaces . ]    for @xmath332 , nodal points @xmath330 and @xmath331 are pairwise aligned with the normal to the ns interface ( see fig .
[ fig_nodes ] ) .
the transmission matrix @xmath333 through nodes @xmath330 is given by eqs .   and with @xmath334 replaced by @xmath335 .
similarly , for the transmission matrix @xmath336 through nodes @xmath331 we should replace @xmath337 by @xmath338 .
the current @xmath345 through the aligned nodes @xmath50 and @xmath133 follows from @xmath346 \cosh(2 l_\alpha q ) } { \bigl[\gamma_1\gamma_2 + 4\sqrt{1-\gamma_1}\sqrt{1-\gamma_2}\cos\psi(q)+(2-\gamma_1)(2-\gamma_2 ) \cosh ( 2 l_\alpha q)\bigr]^{2 } } .\label{teethead}\end{aligned}\ ] ]          99 c. w. j. beenakker , rev .
phys . * 80 * , 1337 ( 2008 ) .
m. i. katsnelson , eur .
j. b * 51 * , 157 ( 2006 ) .
j. tworzydo , b. trauzettel , m. titov , a. rycerz , and c. w. j. beenakker , phys .
. lett . * 96 * , 246802 ( 2006 ) .
a. r. akhmerov and c. w. j. beenakker , phys .
b * 75 * , 045426 ( 2007 ) .
e. prada , p. san - jose , b. wunsch , and f. guinea , phys .
b * 75 * , 113407 ( 2007 ) .
h. schomerus , phys .
b * 76 * , 045433 ( 2007 ) . y. m. blanter and i. martin , phys . rev .
b * 76 * , 155433 ( 2007 )
. j. cserti , a. csordas , and g. david , phys .
99 * , 066802 ( 2007 ) .
a. cresti , g. grosso , and g. pastori parravicini , phys .
b * 76 * , 205433 ( 2007 ) .
m. titov , epl * 79 * , 17004 ( 2007 ) .
a. g. moghaddam and m. zareyan , phys .
b * 79 * , 073401 ( 2009 ) .
p. dietl , g. metalidis , d. golubev , p. san - jose , e. prada , h. schomerus , and g. schn , phys .
b * 79 * , 195413 ( 2009 ) . f. miao , s. wijeratne , y. zhang , u. c. coskun , w. bao , and c. n. lau , science * 317 * , 1530 ( 2007 ) .
l. dicarlo , j. r. williams , y. zhang , d. t. mcclure , and c. m. marcus , phys .
* 100 * , 156801 ( 2008 ) .
r. danneau , f. wu , m. f. craciun , s. russo , m. y. tomi , j. salmilehto , a. f. morpurgo , and p. j. hakonen , phys .
lett . * 100 * , 196802 ( 2008 ) .
r. a. sepkhanov , ya .
b. bazaliy , and c. w. j. beenakker , phys .
a * 75 * , 063813 ( 2007 ) .
r. a. sepkhanov and c. w. j. beenakker , opt
. commun . *
281 * , 5267 ( 2008 ) .
x. d. zhang , phys .
a * 372 * , 3512 ( 2008 ) .
x. d. zhang and z. y. liu , phys .
* 101 * , 264303 ( 2008 ) .
d. j. van harlingen , rev .
phys . * 67 * , 515 ( 1995 ) .
a. lee , phys .
lett . * 71 * , 1887 ( 1993 ) .
a. c. durst and p. a. lee , phys .
b * 62 * , 1270 ( 2000 ) .
a. altland , b. d. simons , and m. r. zirnbauer , phys .
359 * , 283 ( 2002 ) .
r. harris , p. j. turner , s. kamal , a. r. hosseini , p. dosanjh , g. k. mullins , j. s. bobowski , c. p. bidinosti , d. m. broun , r. liang , w. n. hardy , and d. a. bonn , phys .
b * 74 * , 104508 ( 2006 ) .
z. c. dong , z. m. zheng , and d. y. xing , j. phys . cond .
matt . * 16 * , 6099 ( 2004 ) .
s. takahashi , t. yamashita , and s. maekawa , j. phys .
* 67 * , 325 ( 2006 ) .
w. j. herrera , a. levy yeyati , and a. martn - rodero , phys .
b * 79 * , 014520 ( 2009 ) . c
hu , phys .
lett . * 72 * , 1526 ( 1994 ) .
s. kashiwaya and y. tanaka , rep .
phys . * 63 * , 1641 ( 2000 ) .
m. p. anantram and s. datta , phys .
b * 53 * , 16390 ( 1996 ) .
j. nilsson , a. r. akhmerov , and c. w. j. beenakker , phys .
* 101 * , 120403 ( 2008 ) .
m. franz and z. teanovi , phys .
lett . * 84 * , 554 ( 2000 ) .
a. h. castro neto , f. guinea , n. m. peres , k. s. novoselov , and a. k. geim , rev .
phys . * 81 * , 109 ( 2009 ) .
s. h. simon and p. a. lee , phys .
lett . * 78 * , 1548 ( 1997 ) .