text:
# Scalar field spacetimes and the AdS/CFT conjecture

## Abstract

We describe a class of asymptotically AdS scalar field spacetimes, and calculate the associated conserved charges for three, four and five spacetime dimensions using the conformal and counter-term prescriptions. The energy associated with the solutions in each case is proportional to $`\sqrt{M^2k^2}`$, where $`M`$ is a constant and $`k`$ is a scalar charge. In five spacetime dimensions, the counter-term prescription gives an additional vacuum (Casimir) energy, which agrees with that found in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence. We find a surprising degeneracy: the energy of the “extremal” scalar field solution $`M=k`$ equals the energy of global AdS. This result is discussed in light of the AdS/CFT conjecture.

The non-linear coupling of gravity to matter in general relativity presents difficult technical problems in attempts to understand gravitational interactions of elementary particles and strings, as well as questions such as the details of gravitational collapse. Progress in the former area has come mainly from treating quantum fields as propagating on fixed background geometries , whereas much of the progress in the latter has come from detailed numerical work .

Exact solutions of the relevant matter-gravity equations can play an important role by shedding light on questions of interest in both general relativity and string theory. One is often interested in certain classes of solutions, with specified asymptotic properties, the most common of which are the asymptotically flat spacetimes. Recent work in string theory however has highlighted the importance of another class of spacetimes via the AdS/CFT conjecture . These are the asymptotically anti-deSitter spacetimes (AAdS).

The AdS/CFT conjecture is a duality between string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and the large $`N`$ limit of conformally invariant $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills (YM) theory on the boundary of $`AdS_5`$. This conjecture proposes a direct correspondence between physical effects associated with fields propagating in AdS spacetime and those of a conformal quantum field theory on the boundary of AdS spacetime. Significant evidence for the conjecture has come from studying free scalar or other fields on a fixed $`AdS`$ background . Another important aspect of this conjecture is that it connects infrared effects in AdS space to ultraviolet effects in the boundary theory. This in turn implies a connection between low and high energy physics in the respective theories. A fully non-linear gravity-scalar field solution can provide a window into this aspect of the conjecture as well, as is the case for scalar fields on a fixed background.

With this motivation we study the Einstein-scalar field system, with minimally coupled massless scalar field and negative cosmological constant. We present static spherically symmetric AAdS solutions of these equations. For spacetime dimension $`d=3`$, the equations can be solved exactly. For $`d4`$, the corresponding equations can be solved analytically for large radial distance, ie. asymptotically. We calculate conserved charges associated to these spacetimes using the conformal  and the counterterm  prescriptions. Finally we discuss some consequences of our results, in particular the surprising energy degeneracies associated with the solutions: The “extremal” limit of our solutions have the same energy as the corresponding global $`AdS_d`$ spacetime.

The solutions we discuss are singular at the origin. This raises the question of whether these are “admissable” in the context of the AdS/CFT conjecture. The fact that the energy of this class of solutions turns out to be finite is a hint that the singularity may be resolved by quantum effects. Indeed, there has been a suggestion  that singularities are valuable in that they are concomitant with the absence of an energy lower bound, which is another criteria for excluding solutions. This is not the case for the solutions we present, since the corresponding energies are well defined and bounded below by the energy of global AdS.

The equality of the vacuum energy of ADS (calculated via the counter-term method), and the Casimir energy of the boundary YM theory is considered to be a piece of the evidence for the AdS/CFT conjecture. However, our degeneracy result demonstrates that there is another spacetime with the same Yang-Mills Casimir energy. This raises an ambiguity concerning this dictionary entry of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

The $`d=3`$ matter-gravity model considered in this paper has been studied numerically in the full time dependent context with circular symmetry in Refs. , where critical behavior at the onset of black hole formation is observed. More recently the critical exponent for the apparent horizon radius found in  has been verified by an analytical perturbation theory calculation .

We consider the massless scalar field minimally coupled to gravity in $`d`$ spacetime dimensions. With the parametrization of the negative cosmological constant as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(d1)(d2)/2\mathrm{}^2`$, the field equations are

$$R_{ab}+\frac{(d1)}{\mathrm{}^2}g_{ab}=_a\varphi _b\varphi .$$
(1)
where factors of $`8\pi G`$ are suppressed. We assume the static spherically symmetric form

$$ds^2=g(r)h(r)dt^2+\frac{h(r)}{g(r)}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2,$$
(2)
of the metric in $`d`$ spacetime dimensions, which give the coupled equations

$`r\mathrm{}^2g^{}`$ $`+`$ $`(d3)(gh)\mathrm{}^2(d1)r^2h=0,`$ (3)
$`(\mathrm{ln}h)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{d2}}(\varphi ^{})^2,`$ (4)
$`\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{gr^{d2}}},`$ (5)
where the prime  denotes the derivative with respect to $`r`$ and $`k`$ is an integration constant obtained by integrating the Klein-Gordon equation.

By a field redefinition $`g(r):=\psi (r)/r^{d3}`$, the above set of equations give

$`\psi ^2\left[r{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }}{\psi ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)r^2+(d3)(d4)\mathrm{}^2}{(d1)r^2+(d3)\mathrm{}^2}}\right]`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{d2}}`$ (7)
This basic equation determines the spacetime metrics of interest. This equation is especially simple for $`d=3`$ and we deal with it separately, followed by the cases $`d4`$.

$`d=3`$: The differential equation (7) reduces to :

$$g(r)^2\left[r\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(r)}{g(r)}1\right]=k^2.$$
(8)
The complete solution is this case can be expressed as $`r=r(g)`$ with

$$r=B\mathrm{}\left(g^2+Ag/2k^2/2\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{g+A/4+C/4}{g+A/4C/4}\right)^{A/4C}$$
(9)
where $`A`$ and $`B>0`$ are integration constants, and $`C=\sqrt{8k^2+A^2}`$. Without loss of generality, we can set $`B=1`$. It is convenient to define the variables $`x=g+A/4,b=C/4,a=A/C`$, in terms of which Eq.(9) becomes

$$r=\mathrm{}(xb)^{(1a)/4}(x+b)^{(1+a)/4}.$$
(10)
Using (4) gives

$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2b^2}{xab}}(xb)^{(1a)/2}(x+b)^{(1+a)/2},`$ (11)
$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1a^2}{2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xb}{x+b}}\right).`$ (12)
Thus the scalar field is real for $`a^21`$. The metric may be written in the new radial coordinate $`x`$ as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(xb)^{(1+a)/2}(x+b)^{(1a)/2}dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{4(x^2b^2)}}dx^2`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}^2(xb)^{(1a)/2}(x+b)^{(1+a)/2}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2.`$ (14)
The Ricci scalar of the metric is

$$R=2\frac{3x^24b^2+a^2b^2}{\mathrm{}^2(x^2b^2)}$$
(15)
which shows that there are curvature singularities at $`x=\pm b`$, corresponding to the origin $`r=0`$. Also, it confirms that the spacetime is AAdS, since $`R(x\mathrm{})=6/\mathrm{}^2`$. Since the solution contains no horizons for non-vanishing scalar field, the singularity at $`r=0`$ is naked.

There are two special cases of this metric which are familiar, both of which correspond to vanishing scalar field, $`k=0`$. The first is $`a^2=1`$ for which the metric reduces to

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}2b\right)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}2b}+r^2d\theta ^2,$$
(16)
where the $``$ signs correspond to $`a=\pm 1`$ respectively. Thus $`a=1`$ is the non-rotating BTZ black hole with mass $`2b=C/2`$. The second is $`b=0`$ and $`a`$ arbitrary, which gives the zero mass BTZ black hole, rather than global $`AdS_3`$ spacetime.

$`d4`$: For spacetime dimensions greater than three, equation (7) cannot be solved analytically. However it is possible to obtain an asymptotic expansion of the solution for large $`r`$. For $`r\mathrm{}`$ (and fixed $`\mathrm{}`$), (7) can be approximated as:

$$\psi ^2\left[\frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }}{\psi ^{}}r(d2)\right]=\frac{k^2}{d2},$$
(17)
which has the exact solution $`\psi _0(r)`$ given implicitly by

$`r`$ $`=B\mathrm{}^{2/(d1)}[\psi _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{A\psi _0}{d1}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{(d1)(d2)}}]^{\frac{1}{2(d1)}}\times `$ (19)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0+A/2(d1)+C/2(d1)(d2)}{\psi _0+A/2(d1)C/2(d1)(d2)}}\right]^{\frac{A}{2C}\left(\frac{d2}{d1}\right)}`$
As before the metric for large $`r`$ may be written using the variables $`x=\psi _0+A/2(d1)`$, $`b=C/2(d1)(d2)`$, and $`a=(d2)A/C`$. For large $`r`$, $`\psi _0(r)r^{(d1)}`$.

The next term in the asymptotic expansion for large $`r`$ is obtained by writing

$$\psi (r)=\psi _0(r)(1+\alpha \mathrm{}^2/r^2),$$
(20)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant. For $`d=5`$ one finds $`\alpha =1`$ by substituting this expression into Eq.(7), a result which is useful for calculating conserved charges.

For AAdS geometries, the calculation of conserved charges is complicated by the occurrence of divergent expressions. These occur essentially because the metric diverges as $`r^2`$ for large $`r`$. There exist two quite distinct procedures for obtaining “regularized” finite expressions for asymptotic conserved charges. These are the so-called “conformal”  and “counter-term”  methods.

In the conformal method, a conformal transformation $`g_{ab}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ is performed on the physical spacetime $`(\widehat{M},\widehat{g}_{ab})`$ under consideration, such that the asymptotic regions get mapped to a finite distance in a new manifold $`(M,g_{ab})`$ . A boundary is then added to this conformally transformed (and unphysical) manifold. This is especially useful for AAdS spacetimes, because many of the canonical metric components diverge asymptotically and limits such as $`r\mathrm{}`$ become rather tricky. On the other hand, the transformed manifold has a completely well-behaved structure.

The procedure basically involves showing that the electric parts of the Weyl tensor satisfy, as a consequence of Einstein’s equations, a conservation law at null infinity, $``$, in the conformally transformed spacetime. The end result is that the following equation holds on $``$:

$$D^pE_{mp}=8\pi G\frac{(d3)}{\mathrm{}}T_{ab}n^ah^b{}_{m}{}^{}.$$
(21)
where $`D^p`$ is the intrinsic covariant derivative on $``$, compatible with the induced metric $`h_{ab}:=g_{ab}\mathrm{}^2n_an_b(n_a:=_a\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`E_{ab}`$ is the electric part of the Weyl tensor at $``$ defined as: $`E_{ab}:=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{3d}C_{ambn}n^mn^n`$ and $`T_{ab}:=\mathrm{\Omega }^{2d}\widehat{T}_{ab}`$ on $``$. The above conservation equations dictate the following form of conserved charge associated with the conformal killing vector field (KVF) $`\xi `$:

$$Q_\xi [C]:=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\frac{\mathrm{}}{d3}_CE_{ab}\xi ^a𝑑S^b.$$
(22)
(An ordinary KVF on $`\widehat{M}`$ becomes the conformal KVF on $`M`$.) In the presence of matter fields, this charge satisfies the covariant balance equation

$$Q_\xi [C_2]Q_\xi [C_1]=_\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ab}\xi ^a𝑑S^b$$
(23)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are two cross-sections on $``$ bounding the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Equations (22) and (23) are the fundamental relations which we will use to define conserved quantities. Thus apart from volume factors, the electric part of the Weyl tensor is the relevant quantity to be calculated. For our metrics the scalar field vanishes too quickly to be captured on the right hand side of Eqn. (23).

The counter-term method proposes that the Einstein-Hilbert action $`S_{EH}`$ should be supplemented with additional boundary terms dependent on the intrinsic metric. Since the variational principle is defined with fixed boundary metric, this does not change the equations of motion. The full action $`S+S_{ct}`$ is used to obatin an effective energy momentum tensor associated with the boundary:

$$T_{ab}:=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\frac{\delta (S_{EH}+S_{ct})}{\delta \gamma ^{ab}}.$$
(24)
The conserved charge associated with the symmetry generated by a vector field $`\xi `$ is then defined by

$$Q_\xi :=\frac{1}{8\pi G}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{d2}\sqrt{\sigma }T_{ab}u^a\xi ^b,$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a spatial slice of $`M`$, $`u^a`$ is the timelike unit normal at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\sigma _{ab}:=\gamma _{ab}+u_au_b`$.

For $`d=3,4`$ and 5, the following expression suffices to yield finite charges for commonly encountered AAdS spacetimes, including the scalar solutions:

$$L_{ct}=\frac{d2}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\gamma }\frac{\mathrm{}\sqrt{\gamma }}{2(d3)}R(\gamma ).$$
(26)
The resulting stress-energy tensor is

$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{ab}\gamma _{ab}K{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{l}}\gamma _{ab}`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{d3}}\left(R_{ab}(\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{ab}R(\gamma )\right).`$
The conserved charges for various dimensions are calculated using (22) in the conformal method ($`Q_1`$), and (25) in the counterterm method ($`Q_2`$). Restoring the $`8\pi G`$ factors we obtain the following expressions.

| Dim | $`Q_1`$ | $`Q_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3 | - | $`ab/4G`$ |
| 4 | $`ab/G`$ | $`ab/G`$ |
| 5 | $`9\pi ab/16G`$ | $`9\pi ab/16G+3\pi l^2/32G`$ |

Conserved quantities in the two approaches.

Note that the conformal method does not apply for $`d=3`$, as the Weyl tensor is identically zero. The following comments discuss additional aspects of the solutions:

(i) Although we have not been able to find an exact solution of (7) above three dimensions for all $`r`$, there is strong evidence that the solutions in higher dimensions have curvature singularities at the origin. This may be seen analytically and numerically. Analytically, (7) can be integrated near $`r=0`$. For example, in $`d=5`$ this equation gives

$$\psi =\sqrt{\frac{k^2}{6}\frac{r^4}{6\mathrm{}^4}},$$
(29)
from which the Ricci scalar is $`Rr^6`$. Numerically, this equation can be integrated for all $`r`$ and $`d`$ (for example using MAPLE) . For all initial conditions considered, $`\varphi ^{}`$ shows a strong divergence at the origin, which is similar to the behaviour seen analytically in three dimensions. Finally, an exact scalar field solution in five dimensions has been found recently by one of us . Although this exact solution arises in different coordinates, it has the same symmetries as the class considered in this paper. This provides further evidence that the spherically symmetric scalar field-AdS spacetimes generically have naked singularties at the origin.

(ii) The two approaches for calculating conserved charges give positive energies for our scalar field solutions in spite of the fact that the solutions contain a naked singularity at the origin. This is unlike the negative mass Schwarzschild naked singularity, where the associated conserved charge is negative.

(iii) Except in $`d=5`$, the two approaches yield identical results. In $`d=5`$, the counterterm prescription predicts an additional Casimir energy, which is identical to that found in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence, and is independent of the scalar charge $`k`$. This is unlike AAdS spacetimes with rotation, where the vacuum energy depends on the rotation parameter . Our results can be generalized to spacetime dimensions greater than five; the Casimir energy appears for all odd dimensional spacetimes.

(iv) In terms of the scalar field strength $`k`$, the conserved charges are proportional to

$$ab=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{C^2}{(d2)^2}4k^2\frac{(d1)}{(d2)}},$$
(30)
Note that the $`k=0`$ case is the AdS-Schwarzschild solution with mass $`M=C/(d2)`$. Thus, surprisingly the presence of the scalar field effectively reduces the energy of the gravitational solution.

(v) There is an unexpected and interesting result in the “extremal” case

$$\frac{C}{d2}=2k\sqrt{\frac{d1}{d2}}.$$
(31)
The conserved charge vanishes in the conformal calculation for all dimensions and is therefore equal to the energy of global AdS in this method. The same holds for the counter-term method, except that the energies of the two solutions now equal the Casimir energy in five dimensions. This surprising degeneracy of energy associated with two distinct solutions on the gravity side raises an interesting question for the AdS/CFT conjecture: What effects on the CFT side distinguish global AdS from this extremal scalar field solution? It is possible that the answer lies in calculating other effects using the correspondence, such as n-point functions with these spacetimes as background (see below).

(vi) The energy of Schwarzschild-AdS spacetime $`M_{SA}`$ (calculated using either method) can be matched by choosing $`C`$ and $`k`$ of the scalar solutions such that

$$M_{SA}=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{C^2}{(d2)^2}4k^2\frac{(d1)}{(d2)}}.$$
(32)
Thus the energy degeneracy pointed out above, concerning global AdS, extends to the Schwarzschild-AdS metrics.

(vii) There exist certain intuitive criteria for the types of gravitational singularities that might be permitted in the context of the AdS/CFT conjecture. The central singularity in the present solutions does not violate these. Thus it appears that an explanation of the degeneracy is not yet available.

(viii) Some evidence that the energy degeneracy discussed above may not be manifested in other calculations in the AdS/CFT context comes from consideration of the full action associated with our solutions. This computation can be done exactly in three dimensions. Surprisingly, the divergence at the origin does not make the action infinite. (Recall that the divergence for large $`r`$ is regulated by the subtraction procedure). The key test is whether the scalar field parameter appears in the action. It does: $`S=\pi k`$ (multiplied by a factor coming from the $`t`$ integration) for the “extremal” solution. (For comparison the action of global AdS is $`2\pi `$.) This situation is analagous to the result for Schwarzschild-AdS, where the action is a function of the black hole mass $`M`$. The natural interpretation of the latter  is that it corresponds to a CFT at finite temperature. Since there is a scale in our solution, determined by the scalar field strength, the correponding CFT must have conformal invariance broken. The exact nature of the breaking is apparently not due to a temperature since temperature cannot be associated with naked singularities. Nevertheless, these considerations provide a clear distinction between global AdS and this class of scalar field spacetimes, regardless of the energy degeneracy.

In summary we have described solutions of general relativity with a cosmological constant coupled to a scalar field. In three spacetime dimensions, the solution is exact for all $`r`$, whereas for higher dimensions, the solution is an asymptotic one, for large $`r`$. The solutions have finite energy, although they do not possess an event horizon. The only non-zero charges are those associated with the timelike KVF. Furthermore, these charges contain information about the strength of the scalar field $`k`$. As we have discussed above, these results lead to interesting questions concerning the AdS/CFT conjecture. Among these are the issues of how a naked singularity on the gravity side translates to the field theory side, given that the associated energy is finite, and the meaning of the energy degeneracy of the extremal solution and global AdS. Finally, it would be interesting to see if the energy degeneracies we have found can lead to the possibility of phase transitions analagous to the Hawking-Page transition  between Schwarzschild-AdS black holes and global AdS.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


format: text

text:
# Quasiclassical description of transport through superconducting contacts

## I Introduction

At the end of the 1960’s several authors demonstrated that the complete standard theory of superconductivity, both in equilibrium and out of equilibrium, can be formulated in terms of a quasiclassical transport equation . This theory, known as quasiclassical theory of superconductivity, combines Landau’s semiclassical transport equations for quasiparticles with the concept of pairing and particle-hole coherence that are the basis of the BCS theory. The quasiclassical theory provides a full description of superconducting phenomena ranging from inhomogeneous superconductors to superconducting phenomena far from equilibrium. In its traditional form, the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity is restricted to the description of weak perturbations of a superconductor: the external perturbations (magnetic field, variations in the chemical potential, etc) should be weak ($`VE_F`$), where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy, of long wavelength ($`qk_F^1`$), where $`k_F^1`$ is the Fermi wavelength, and of low frequency ($`\mathrm{}\omega E_F`$) . Although this limit covers many situations of interest in superconductivity, some important cases fall outside the range of validity of the usual scheme of the quasiclassical theory: strong impurities, walls, interfaces, etc. In the case of the analysis of the transport properties of superconducting contacts, the quasiclassical theory is complemented by appropriate boundary conditions, the so-called Zaitsev boundary conditions , or by its generalization to magnetically active interfaces by Millis, Rainer and Sauls . Although these boundary conditions provide a formal solution of the problem of a strong perturbation due to interfaces, their highly non-linear form introduces many problems, e.g. these boundary conditions have spurious solutions which require special care, in particular in numerical implementations. At this point, we should mention that the recent progress in the solution of these boundary conditions make them much more tractable .

In the field of electronic transport through superconducting junctions there are many basic situations in which a complete understanding is still lacking. This is partially due to the difficulty of applying the quasiclassical theory because of the lack of simple and manageable boundary conditions. Most of these situations are related to either the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics of contacts between two superconductors with arbitrary transmission, or to situations in which there are magnetically active interfaces giving rise to spin-dependent transport. For instance, in the context of high temperature superconductors (HTS), which by now are believed to be d-wave superconductors , we can mention N-I-S tunnel junctions, grain boundary junctions widely used for the realization of Josephson junctions , and YBCO S-N-S edge junctions . In the two latter systems the description of the I-V characteristics requires an analysis of multiple Andreev reflections (MAR) , while all systems above require a careful self-consistent study of the superconducting state in the presence of pair-breaking, caused by bulk or surface impurities and by the surface itself, in order to account for results obtained in experiments  by theory . Other examples, which take place in the context of conventional superconductors, are the S-N-S point contacts, where the normal region $`N`$ has a length comparable to the superconducting coherent length . These systems demand from the theory a detailed analysis of the interplay between the proximity effect superconductivity in the normal metal and the occurrence of MAR. This analysis is currently in progress making use of the approach described in this work .

With respect to the transport through spin active interfaces there have been an extensive experimental effort to explore tunneling through magnetic insulator barriers, by probing the proximity effect in S/F-structures, and by constructing S/F-multilayers (see also references therein). Andreev reflection using ferromagnet/superconductor point contacts have also been used to probe the spin polarization of the ferromagnet. Finally, supercurrents have been reported in S/F/S junctions by Veretennikov et al  and by Gandit et al . To model an S/F/S-junction one can follow one of two routes. The first route is to assume an extension of a ferromagnetic metal, now characterized by a length and an exchange field, separating the two superconductors. Following this route, both critical current oscillations and the effect of the exchange field on the Andreev bound states have been studied. The limitation here is that the approach is restricted to small exchange fields in the ferromagnet, i.e. fields that are comparable to the superconducting gap. The second route, which we subscribe to, is to treat the effect of the ferromagnet as a boundary problem connecting the two superconducting half-spaces. Using Bogoliubov-deGennes equations and a WKB-approach for the ferromagnetic barrier, i.e. the scattering approach, Josephson current-phase relations and quasiparticle tunneling have been studied for both conventional s-wave and unconventional d-wave superconductors.

Parallel to the quasiclassical treatment of interfaces, a different formalism referred to as the Hamiltonian approach has emerged as a new interesting tool for the analysis of transport through superconducting contacts. This approach is based on modeling the contact by a simple Hamiltonian in combination with non-equilibrium Green’s function techniques. The origin of this approach can be traced back to the work of Bardeen who introduced the tunnel Hamiltonian approximation in order to describe a tunnel junction . Most of the calculations of current through superconducting contacts in the early 60’s were based on this tunnel Hamiltonian, and were restricted to the lowest order transport processes such as the calculation of the Josephson current in a S-I-S junction . Multi-particle tunneling was first discussed by Schrieffer and Wilkins  in their *multiparticle tunneling theory* as a possible explanation for the observed sub-gap structure in superconducting tunnel junctions. The contributions of these higher order processes were found to be divergent, which has led to the quite extended belief that the Hamiltonian approach is pathological except for describing the lowest order tunneling processes. However, in a series of works, Caroli and coworkers in the 70’s  and, more recently, Martín-Rodero and collaborators  have shown that one can get rid of all the old pathologies of this approach by using a local representation and by summing the series of tunneling processes up to infinite order. In particular, within this technique a microscopic theory of Multiple Andreev reflections has been developed . This theory describes quantitatively the I-V characteristic of superconducting atomic-size contact.

In this paper we show how the Hamiltonian approach may be brought into the quasiclassical theory by integrating out large energies right at the onset. The resulting boundary condition reproduces results obtained by the conventional quasiclassical Zaitsev boundary condition or by boundary conditions based on the scattering approach. The boundary condition is also well suited for calculating time-dependent properties such as the current-voltage characteristics or the current fluctuations of S-I-S junctions. The paper is organized in the following manner: In section II we give the energy integration of the Hamiltonian approach and state the resulting boundary condition. In section III we show how the current through a contact may be calculated from the boundary t-matrix. In this section we also calculate the Josephson current resolved in energy and on trajectory for different types of superconductors and for different types of coupling between the two superconductors. In section IV, we discuss the boundary condition at a finite bias applied between the superconductors. This is then applied to the case of two coupled d-wave superconductors. Finally, in section V, current-fluctuations are discussed and the current-current correlator is derived within our method. This is then applied to compute the trajectory resolved current-fluctuations of two coupled d-wave superconductors.

## II Description of the approach

The system of study is two semi-infinite superconducting electrodes coupled over some type of interface barrier. Our approach is to artificially separate the problem in to two parts in order to pose a boundary condition for the interface. The first part consists of calculating the Green’s function of either conductor, extending to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ respectively, in presence of a hard surface at $`x=0`$. To this part of the problem, the quasiclassical theory is our theory of choice. It has been shown that strong perturbations, such as rigid walls may be included into quasiclassical theory by means of effective boundary conditions posed for the quasiclassical Green’s function. To couple the two electrodes, from now denoted left (L) and right (R), we assume a phenomenological Hamiltonian as follows

$$\widehat{H}_T=\underset{\sigma }{}\widehat{c}_{L,\sigma }^{}v_{LR}\widehat{c}_{R\sigma }+\widehat{c}_{R\sigma }^{}v_{RL}\widehat{c}_{L\sigma }.$$
(1)
The potentials $`v_{LR}`$ and $`v_{RL}`$, with $`v_{RL}^{}=v_{LR}=v`$, act as hopping elements connecting the two electrodes $`L`$ and $`R`$. The perturbation given by $`\widehat{H}_T`$ is short ranged ($`\lambda _F\xi _o`$) and may be strong ($`vE_F`$). The local character of $`\widehat{H}_T`$ allows us to view it as a single strong impurity in case of a point contact or as a line of strong impurities in case of an extended contact between the two electrodes. Following the work of Thuneberg and co-workers the single impurity or, in case of the line of impurities following the work of Buchholtz and Rainer, this strong perturbation may also be incorporated into quasiclassical theory via a T-matrix equation. Anticipating the result for the T-matrix, the effect of the contact between the two electrodes on the physical quasiclassical Keldysh-Nambu matrix Green’s function, or propagator, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i`$, in electrode $`i=(L,R)`$ enters as a source term in the transport equation for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ along a trajectory $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$

$`i𝒗_F_𝑹\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ $`+`$ $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{ϵ}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F),\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)]_{}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{ii}(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F),\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)]_{}\delta (𝑹𝑹_c).`$ (3)
Here $`𝑹_c`$ is the position of the contact and $`𝒗_F`$ is the Fermi velocity at point $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ on the Fermi surface. The Green’s function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}`$ is an intermediate Green’s function obtained by solving the hard wall boundary condition of the separate electrodes, i.e. without taking the contact into account but using the self energies $`\stackrel{ˇ}{ϵ}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ evaluated using the physical propagator, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i`$, satisfying Eq. (3).

Our objective is to find the quasiclassical T-matrix, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}`$, giving the source term in the transport equation (3) above. The starting point is a conventional many-body perturbation theory for the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_T`$. To proceed we artificially enlarge our Hilbert space with a ”reservoir quantum number” $`(L,R)`$ and the functions entering are the matrices

$`\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{LL}& \stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{LR}\\ \stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{RL}& \stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{RR}\end{array}\right)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{T}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LL}& \stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}\\ \stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RL}& \stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RR}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}\end{array}\right)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\\ \stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}& 0\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$

The matrix elements are the usual Keldysh-Nambu matrices of non-equilibrium superconductivity. Especially, the Green’s functions $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}`$ are the Green’s functions for the uncoupled left and right electrode. The coupling elements, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR,RL}`$, between $`L`$ and $`R`$ are proportional to the unit matrix in the Keldysh space and in Nambu space adopt the form

$`\widehat{v}_{LR}=\widehat{v}_{RL}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v& 0\\ 0& v^{}\end{array}\right).`$

With this, we write the T-matrix equation

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{T}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}},`$ (5)
which together with the Dyson equation

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{T}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ (7)
constitutes a closed set of equations that are to be brought into quasiclassical form. We have given two different ways of summing the series which correspond either to ”dressing” the perturbation (equations (4) and (6)) or to ”dressing” the Green’s function (equations (5) and (7)). The two sets of equations are equivalent and two useful relations

$$\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{T}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{T}}=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{v}}$$
(8)
follow directly. Here, and above, the $``$-product is short-hand for integration or summation over common arguments. Starting from equation (5), using equation (7) and the second of the two relations (8), it is straight forward to get the following closed set of equations, closed separately for one and each of the components, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{ij}`$, of the T-matrix,

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}`$ (10)
$`+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LL}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}`$ (12)
$`+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RR}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RL}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RL}.`$ (14)
The equations above depend only on the Green’s functions $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},L}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},R}`$ of the two uncoupled systems. Since the full Green’s function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{ij}`$ has been eliminated from the T-matrix equations there are no Green’s functions with spatial arguments in both systems. Together with the short range of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR,RL}`$ this means that we can directly perform the quasiclassical $`\xi `$-integration on the T-matrix equations and substitute the quasiclassical Green’s functions, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}`$, for the full ones, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{\mathrm{},i}`$, above.

At the quasiclassical level, the Green’s functions $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;t,t^{})`$ at the interface in equations (12) depend on the position on the Fermi surface, $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$, and of two times $`(t,t^{})`$. The coupling elements will be assumed to be time independent but may couple different points $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ and $`\widehat{𝒑}_F^{}`$ on the Fermi surfaces of the two conductors. The exact form of the $`(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$-dependence of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}`$ is a degree of freedom in the model that allows us to consider different types of transport through the interface. We can now write down the equations for the quasiclassical $`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}`$-matrix components

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime }}`$ (16)
$`+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LL}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime }}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime \prime }}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime }}`$ (18)
$`+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{RR}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime }}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime \prime }}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LR}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime }}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime \prime }}`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{RL}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}+\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},R}\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{RL}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime }}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F^{\prime \prime \prime }},`$ (20)
where we suppressed the explicit dependence of the functions on $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ and on time variables. The earlier $``$-product in Eq. (12) is replaced by the $``$-product in the quasiclassical expression. The $``$-product stands for an integration over a common time variable together with a normal matrix multiplication in the combined Keldysh-Nambu and spin space. A left-over from the $`\xi `$-integration is the intermediate averaging over position on the Fermi surface as indicated by $`\mathrm{}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}=_{FS}\mathrm{}𝑑\widehat{𝒑}_F`$. The quasiclassical $`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}`$-matrix entering in to equation (3) is the forward scattering limit

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{ij}=\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{ij}(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F;t,t^{})`$

of Eq. (18) and in general it depends on two times $`(t,t^{})`$.

Following Ref. , let us summarize the procedure for calculating the quasiclassical propagators in the presence of an interface:

1. To find $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$, we solve the conventional quasiclassical equations, the Eilenberger equation or the Usadel equation, for the uncoupled electrodes in equilibrium using hard-wall boundary conditions.
2. Use $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$ to solve the quasiclassical T-matrix equations (18).
3. Solve the inhomogeneous quasiclassical equation (3) for the physical propagator $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$.
4. Use $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$ to calculate the “smooth” self-energies $`\stackrel{ˇ}{ϵ}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ which enter the quasiclassical equations for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$.

The whole scheme amounts to a set of linear differential equations for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$, coupled in a non-linear way by the T-matrix and the self-energy equations. Substantial simplifications can be achieved in the case of low transmissive tunnel barriers or point contacts. In these cases one can neglect the influence of the neighboring electrodes in the calculation of the self-energies and then the equations for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{ϵ}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ decouple.

## III Josephson currents

As a first application of the boundary condition we calculate supercurrent through a variety of contacts connecting two superconducting reservoirs. The current contribution from a given trajectory, $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$, and at a given energy, $`\epsilon `$, may be calculated directly by integrating the transport equation (3) along the direction given by $`𝒗_F(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$. This is easily seen as on the considered trajectory away from the contact the physical propagator $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ coincides with the intermediate propagator $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ calculated by the impenetrable surface condition. In absolute vicinity of the contact only the source term in Eq. (3), $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{ii}(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F),\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)]\delta (𝑹𝑹_c)`$, contributes and results in a jump in the Green’s function. The magnitude of this jump is given by integrating Eq. (3) over the interval $`]0_{},0_+[`$. Performing the integral results in the scattered propagator

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{i+}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)\frac{i}{v_F\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i}[\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{ii}(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F),\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)],$$
(21)
where $`\varphi _i`$ is the angle $`𝒗_F(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ makes with the contact normal. Note that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_i(\widehat{𝒑}_F)\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ and to calculate $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{i+}(\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$, i.e. the propagator along the trajectory ($`\widehat{𝒑}_F^{}`$) coupled to ($`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$) by pure surface scattering we must solve for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{i+}(\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$ along the path given by $`𝒗_F(\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$. The propagator at the contact, computed in (21), may now be inserted in the current formula

$$j(T)=eN_F\frac{d\epsilon }{4\pi i}\mathrm{Tr}𝒗_F(\widehat{𝒑}_F)g^K(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\epsilon )_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}=eN_F\frac{d\epsilon }{4\pi i}j_\epsilon ^K(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F},$$
(22)
with $`N_F`$ the density of states at the Fermi level in the normal state. Since the Josephson current is an equilibrium property, the Keldysh Green’s function components of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$ are in this case simply related to the Retarded (R) and Advanced (A) ones as $`\widehat{g}^K=(\widehat{g}^R\widehat{g}^A)\mathrm{tanh}(\epsilon /2T)`$, and with $`(\widehat{g}^A(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\epsilon ))^{}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{g}^R(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\epsilon )\widehat{\tau }_3`$, we get the energy and trajectory resolved current contribution across the contact, evaluated in the left superconductor, as

$$j_\epsilon ^K(\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left\{i\widehat{\tau }_3[\widehat{t}_{LL}^R,\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{},L}^R]\right\}\right]\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon }{2T}).$$
(23)
The lonely first intermediate Green’s function, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},i}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$, in Eq. (21) explicitly drop out of the current in the angle average since they obey the impenetrable surface boundary condition.

So far no reference have been made to the modeling of the contact and the $`\widehat{t}`$-matrix element $`\widehat{t}_{LL}^R`$. The contact model depends on the choice of the momentum dependence of the coupling elements, $`v_{RL}^{}=v_{LR}=v(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$. Two extreme models for the $`(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$-dependence will be considered: a totally disordered contact, $`v(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})=v`$, i.e. the coupling across the contact retains no memory of the momentum direction, and a momentum conserving contact with $`v(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})=v\delta (\widehat{𝒑}_F\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$. The $`\widehat{t}`$-matrix equations for the two types of contact, dropping superfluous indexing, read

$$\widehat{t}=\widehat{v}\widehat{g}_R(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\widehat{v}^{}+\widehat{v}\widehat{g}_R(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\widehat{v}^{}\widehat{g}_L(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\widehat{t}$$
(24)
for the disordered contact and

$$\widehat{t}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\widehat{v}\widehat{g}_R(\widehat{𝒑}_F)\widehat{v}^{}+\widehat{v}\widehat{g}_R(\widehat{𝒑}_F)\widehat{v}^{}\widehat{g}_L(\widehat{𝒑}_F)\widehat{t}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)$$
(25)
for the momentum conserving contact. For either model, the $`\widehat{t}`$-matrix equation above is simple to invert after inserting the retarded Green’s functions $`\widehat{g}_R(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ and $`\widehat{g}_L(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$

$$\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{R(L)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{R(L)}& f_{R(L)}e^{\pm i\chi /2}\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{R(L)}\mathrm{e}^{i\chi /2}& g_{R(L)}\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
with the phase difference $`\chi `$ across the junction and the upper (lower) signs of the phase refer to the right (left) electrode. In equilibrium the T-matrix equation is simply an algebraic equation in energy space, which can be trivially inverted. The energy and trajectory resolved current is written

$$j_\epsilon (\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{i𝒟(f_R\stackrel{~}{f}_Le^{i\chi }f_L\stackrel{~}{f}_Re^{i\chi })}{2𝒟𝒟g_Rg_L+\frac{𝒟}{2}(f_R\stackrel{~}{f}_Le^{i\chi }+f_L\stackrel{~}{f}_Re^{i\chi })}\right]\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon }{2T}).$$
(27)
Here we have traded in the coupling strength, $`v`$, for the transmission coefficient $`𝒟`$. The two are simply related as

$$𝒟=\frac{4|v|^2}{(1+|v|^2)^2}.$$
(28)
The scalar coupling element, $`v`$, is from now on a dimensionless quantity. We have normalized the original coupling element in units of $`(1/\pi N_F)`$ to get rid of the different prefactors that appear in the angle averages in the T-matrix equation (18).

### A Josephson current between two s-wave superconductors

Assuming that the two electrodes both are s-wave superconductors, we have the Green’s functions on either side of the contact

$$\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{R(L)}=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon & \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{e}^{\pm i\chi /2}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{e}^{i\chi /2}& \epsilon \end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[\mathrm{\Delta }^2\epsilon ^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Since the s-wave superconductor is isotropic it does not matter which model for the coupling, (24) or (25), we choose. Additionally, in the absence of surface depairing effects it is sufficient to know the bulk Green’s functions (29) to calculate the current contribution (23). Using Eq. (27) we find the known result that the Josephson current is carried by junction states located at $`\epsilon _J(\chi ,T)=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }(T)[1𝒟\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi /2)]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The total current is the sum of all contributions and reads

$$j(T)=eN_F𝒟\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }(T)\mathrm{sin}\chi }{[1𝒟\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\chi }{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon _J(\chi ,T)}{2T}).$$
(30)
In equation (30) it should be noted that a second temperature dependence enters via the the temperature dependent gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$.

### B Josephson current between two d-wave superconductors

To emphasize the modeling of the $`(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\widehat{𝒑}_F^{})`$-dependence of the coupling across the junction and the importance of using the correct surface Green’s functions, we now study the current-phase relation of two d-wave superconductors. A realization of a d-wave order parameter is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi _{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\alpha )`$. The magnitude and sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}`$ depends on the position on the Fermi circle and this is measured by the angle, $`\varphi _{\widehat{𝒑}_F}`$, the angle $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ makes with the crystal $`\widehat{a}`$-axis. The angle $`\alpha `$ tracks the relative junction-to-crystal $`\widehat{a}`$-axis orientation. If $`\alpha =\pm \pi /4`$ and specular quasiparticle scattering at the interface is assumed the order parameter seen along a trajectory changes sign at the surface and an Andreev bound state forms at zero energy for every trajectory $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ \[\]. We will stick with the junction realization $`\alpha =\pm \pi /4`$. To incorporate the effect of these surface states into the current-phase relation one must use the surface Green’s functions

$$\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_F)_{R(L)}=\frac{\pi }{\epsilon }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}& is_R\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\mathrm{e}^{\pm i\chi /2}\\ is_R\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\mathrm{e}^{i\chi /2}& \mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}=[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}^2\epsilon ^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The factor $`s_R`$ discriminates between two types of junction: $`s_R=1(\alpha _R=\alpha _L`$) is referred to as a symmetric, and $`s_R=1(\alpha _R=\alpha _L`$) as a mirror junction. The convention for signs of the phase, $`\chi `$, are as for the s-wave superconductor. It should be said before proceeding that we are neglecting the pair-breaking effect of the surface and we assume constant order parameters up to the interface. This is for the sake of simple illustration and for the comparison of analytical results with other boundary conditions.

Turning to the $`\widehat{t}`$-matrix equations and starting with the diffusive model of the point contact, one immediately find that the Josephson current is zero. This follows from the vanishing average, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}=0`$. Due to this property the anomalous propagators vanish and therefore the Josephson current as well (see Eq. (27)). In the opposite limit, using the momentum-conserving model (25), the Josephson current is not zero. After inverting the $`\widehat{t}`$-matrix equation and evaluating the commutator in (23), we find the energy resolved current at $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$

$$j_\epsilon (\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\pm \mathrm{Im}\left[𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi }{\epsilon ^2\epsilon _J^2(\chi ;\widehat{𝒑}_F)}\right)\right]\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon }{2T}).$$
(32)
The sign of $`j_\epsilon (\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ is (+) for a mirror and (-) for a symmetric junction. As in the case of the s-wave junction we have junction states carrying the Josephson current. The position of these states depend on the type of junction in the following way

$$\epsilon _J(\chi ;\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\pm \sqrt{𝒟}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}|\times \{\begin{array}{c}|\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}|,\text{mirror}\hfill \\ |\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi }{2}|,\text{symmetric}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
These junction states were first found by Riedel and Bagwell using a scattering approach and, independently, by Barash using what is known as the Zaitsev boundary condition. Performing the integral over the energy we write the trajectory resolved current-phase relations

$$j(\widehat{𝒑}_F)=\pm 2\pi \sqrt{𝒟}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}|\times \{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi }{2}\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\sqrt{𝒟}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}|\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}}{2T})\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi }{2}\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\sqrt{𝒟}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}|\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi }{2}}{2T})\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
for the two junction types, the upper being the mirror and the lower the symmetric one. The total current is the trajectory average of $`j(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ multiplied by $`eN_F`$.

The main purpose of this section was to show that the quasiclassical version of the point contact coupling of two electrodes is simple to use and can recover results known in literature. In case of unconventional superconducting electrodes results depend in a crucial way on how the contact is modeled. This gives the Hamiltonian boundary condition an advantage in flexibility to the conventional Zaitsev boundary condition which coincides with the momentum conserving contact (25) introduced above.

### C Josephson current through a spin active interface

As another illustration of the flexibility of this method we extend the discussion to currents through spin active interfaces, i.e. interfaces which flip the spin of the incident electrons either by spin-dependent scattering within the interface, or by a difference in spin-orbit coupling on either side of the interface. The general boundary conditions that connect the quasiclassical propagators for superconducting metals across magnetically active interfaces were introduced by Millis, Rainer and Sauls . Recently one of the authors  derived the explicit solution of these boundary conditions for equilibrium Green functions. In order to compare with this solution, as in Ref. \[\], we shall analyze in this section the Josephson current through a contact of two isotropic s-wave superconductors connected through a small magnetically active junction.

In order to accommodate the spin dependence we enlarge our space in such a way that every quantity is now a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in spin space. In particular, the coupling elements are spin dependent and adopt the following general form

$$\widehat{v}_{LR}=\widehat{v}_{RL}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v& 0\\ 0& v^{}\end{array}\right)\text{where}v=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_,& v_,\\ v_,& v_,\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
Let us stick to the case of S/F/S junction analyzed in Ref. \[\]. In this case $`F`$ stands for a small ferromagnetic particle or grain. This ferromagnetic material is treated as a partially transparent barrier which transmits the two spin projections differently. For spin-active interfaces the different components of the $`S`$-matrix, $`S_{ij}`$ are $`2\times 2`$ spin matrices. To proceed further a specific $`S`$-matrix was chosen in Ref. \[\] to model the magnetic barrier

$$\widehat{S}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& \hfill S_{12}\\ S_{21}& \hfill S_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& \hfill t\\ t& \hfill r\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3),$$
(36)
where $`\sigma _j`$ notes the Pauli-matrices spanning spin space and parameters $`(t,r)`$ are the usual transmission and reflection coefficients. The S-matrix (36) is one of the simplest choices that allows a variable degree of spin mixing at the interface and the spin mixing is parameterized by the spin-mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. By this construction $`\widehat{S}`$ only violates spin conservation, i.e. it does not commute with the quasiparticle spin operator $`\sigma `$. The angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ will be considered as a phenomenological parameter independent of the trajectory direction (for more details see Tokuyasu et al Ref. \[\]). Within the approach presented of this paper, one can easily model the previous S-matrix with a spin dependent coupling

$$\widehat{v}_{LR}=\widehat{v}_{RL}^{}=v\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3)\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
Again the quasiclassical surface Green functions are the inputs in this approach, i.e. the Green’s functions at the interface calculated with impenetrable wall boundary conditions. The spin-active boundary condition must be used at the contact also for the reflecting surface. In this simple case of a magnetic barrier the resulting spin-dependent propagators can be written in a $`4\times 4`$ block-diagonal form

$$\widehat{g}_{block}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta })=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta })& 0\\ 0& \widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta })\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}g_{}& f_{}& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{}& \stackrel{~}{g}_{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& g_{}& f_{}\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{f}_{}& \stackrel{~}{g}_{}\end{array}\right),$$
(38)
where the electron and anomalous parts of $`\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta })`$ in the upper left corner of $`\widehat{g}_{block}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta })`$ can be written as

$`g_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^R\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)}{\epsilon ^R\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)}}`$ (39)
$`f_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }\chi )/2}}{\epsilon ^R\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)}}`$ (40)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }\chi )/2}}{\epsilon ^R\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)}}`$ (41)
for trajectories with $`(\widehat{𝒑}_F\widehat{𝒏}>0)`$. For trajectories with reversed momentum, i.e. $`(\widehat{𝒑}_F\widehat{𝒏}<0)`$, the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Theta }\chi )/2]`$ for functions $`f_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ goes to $`\mathrm{exp}[\pm i(\mathrm{\Theta }\pm \chi )/2]`$. Above, as in the earlier examples, the phase difference, $`\chi `$, between the two reservoirs is included and the upper (lower) signs refer two the right (left) reservoir. The components of the propagator in the lower right corner of $`\widehat{g}_{block}`$ are simply related to those in the upper left corner by the replacement $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

The angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ induces a mixing of the two otherwise separated spin bands. It is easy to see that the resulting density of states at the interface has Andreev bound states inside the gap. These states are located at $`\epsilon _{b,()}=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)`$, with $`+()`$ for the spin-up (-down) branch. The existence of the sub-gap states alters the Josephson current-phase relation radically. The contribution to the current from the energy $`\epsilon `$, the trajectory $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$, and spin band $`()`$ may be calculated directly from expression (27). Keeping in mind that the phase that enters in Eq. (27) is the phase difference over the contact we write

$$j_{\epsilon ,}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta },\chi )=\mathrm{Im}\left[𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi }{\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)+\epsilon \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)\right]^2𝒟\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi /2)}\right)\right]\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon }{2T})$$
(42)
for the current carried by the spin-up band. The current carried by the spin-down band is given simply as $`j_{\epsilon ,}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta },\chi )=j_{\epsilon ,}(\widehat{𝒑}_F;\mathrm{\Theta },\chi )`$. At a finite superconducting phase difference, the original two interface Andreev bound states are split up into four current carrying states located inside the gap at positions

$$\epsilon _J=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\left[\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)𝒟\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi /2)\pm \sqrt{𝒟}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{sin}(\chi /2)\sqrt{1𝒟\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi /2)}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(43)
These states give the total contribution to the current and their positions change from the tunnel regime, $`\epsilon _J=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)`$, to $`\epsilon _J=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}[(\chi \pm \mathrm{\Theta })/2)]`$ at perfect transmission.

In figure 1 we show the current-phase relation for a set of transparencies $`𝒟=0.1,0.4,0.8`$, and $`1.0`$. In each panel the spin-mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is varied from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$ in steps of $`\frac{\pi }{10}`$. As seen, for each value of $`𝒟`$ there is a range $`\mathrm{\Theta }>\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ where the junctions are $`\pi `$-junctions. For small $`𝒟`$, the critical spin-mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ is close to $`\pi `$ and with increasing $`𝒟`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ increases towards $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. The magnitude of the critical current is for all but the perfect transmission junction very asymmetric for $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ junctions. In figure 2 we show the energy resolved spectral current (42) for $`𝒟=0.4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0.7\pi `$ at different phase differences, $`\chi `$, over the junction. At small phase differences the junction state initially at $`\epsilon _J(\chi =0)=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)`$ splits in to two states carrying current in opposite directions. This gives a small but positive current as seen in the corresponding current-phase relation in figure 1. As the phase difference is increased the two states dispersing with phase towards $`\epsilon =0`$ from either side eventually cross at $`\epsilon =0`$. Above this phase difference, both current-carrying states at $`\epsilon <0`$ ($`\epsilon >0`$) give current in the same direction and the magnitude of the current increases abruptly.

To conclude this section, let us stress that these results reproduce the result obtained in Ref. , showing again the versatility of the boundary conditions introduced in this work.

## IV Solving the T-matrix equation at an applied voltage

In this section we shall describe how the T-matrix equation (18) can be solved in the case of a voltage-biased superconducting contact. As a constant bias $`V`$ is applied across a junction between two superconductors, the phase difference oscillates with time according to the Josephson relation: $`\varphi (t)=\varphi _0+\omega _0t`$, where $`\omega _0=2eV/\mathrm{}`$ is the Josephson frequency. This makes that every Green’s function and T-matrix component depend on two time arguments. We show in this section how the time convolutions in the T-matrix equation can be handled.

As we shall show in next section the current can be expressed, for instance, only in terms of the advanced and retarded components of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LR}`$. Thus, we concentrate ourselves in these components whose equations can be written as (see Eq. 9)

$`\widehat{t}_{LR}^{R,A}(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{v}_{LR}+{\displaystyle }dt_1{\displaystyle }dt_2\widehat{v}_{LR}\times `$ (45)
$`\widehat{g}_R^{R,A}(t,t_1)\widehat{v}_{RL}\widehat{g}_L^{R,A}(t_1,t_2)\widehat{t}_{LR}^{R,A}(t_2,t^{}).`$
Here, we have written explicitly the time convolutions for the sake of clarity and we have omitted the $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ integrations, since they do not affect the time convolutions. In this expression every quantity is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix in Nambu and spin space, and from now to the end of this section we get rid of the superindexes $`R,A`$, since the equations for these two components are formally identical. We also drop the $`\mathrm{}`$ subindex, since all propagators in (45) are propagators of the separated electrodes. The electrode Green’s functions entering Eq. (45) take the form: $`\widehat{g}_j(t,t^{})=\widehat{U}_j^{}(t)\widehat{g}_j(tt^{})\widehat{U}_j(t^{})`$, where $`j=R,L`$ and $`\widehat{U}_j(t)=\text{exp}\left[i\varphi _i(t)\widehat{\tau _3}/2\right]`$, $`\varphi _j(t)`$ being the phase of the $`j`$th superconductor. In this expression, $`\widehat{g}_j(t)=\widehat{g}_j(ϵ)\text{exp}(iϵt)𝑑ϵ/2\pi `$.

We use the transformation generated by $`\widehat{U}_j(t)`$ to transfer the time dependence from the Green’s functions to the hopping elements

$`\widehat{t}_{LR}(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{v}_{LR}(t)\delta (tt^{})+{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\widehat{v}_{LR}(t)}`$ (47)
$`\widehat{g}_R(tt_1)\widehat{v}_{RL}(t_1)\widehat{g}_L(t_1t_2)\widehat{t}_{LR}(t_2,t^{}),`$
where $`\widehat{v}_{LR}(t)=\widehat{U}_L(t)\widehat{v}_{LR}\widehat{U}_R^{}(t)=\widehat{v}_{RL}^{}(t)=v\text{exp}\left[i\varphi (t)\widehat{\tau }_3/2\right]`$. One can easily show that all physical properties of the system are invariant under this gauge transformation. Thus, we shall usually consider the T-matrix equation in this gauge, i.e. in which the hopping elements are time-dependent and the electrode Green’s functions only depend on the time difference.

In order to solve Eq. (47) it is more convenient to work in energy space where it becomes an algebraic equation. Thus, we Fourier transform the T-matrix with respect to the temporal arguments

$$\widehat{t}_{LR}(t,t^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑ϵ𝑑ϵ^{}e^{iϵt}e^{iϵ^{}t^{}}\widehat{t}_{LR}(ϵ,ϵ^{}).$$
(48)
It is easy to convince oneself that, due to the special time dependence of the coupling elements, the T-matrix admits a Fourier expansion of the form

$$\widehat{t}_{LR}(t,t^{})=\underset{n}{}e^{in\varphi (t^{})/2}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{iϵ(tt^{})}\widehat{t}_{LR}(ϵ,ϵ+neV).$$
(49)
In other words, Fourier transforming Eq. (47) one can show that $`\widehat{t}_{LR}(ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ satisfies the following relation

$$\widehat{t}_{LR}(ϵ,ϵ^{})=\underset{n}{}\widehat{t}_{LR}(ϵ,ϵ+neV)\delta (ϵϵ^{}+neV).$$
(50)
The problem of the calculation of the current can be reduced to the evaluation of the Fourier components $`\widehat{t}_{nm}(ϵ)\widehat{t}_{LR}(ϵ+neV,ϵ+meV)`$. As it can be seen Fourier transforming Eq. (47), these components fulfill the following (infinite) set of algebraic linear equations

$$\widehat{t}_{nm}=\widehat{v}_{nm}\delta _{n,m\pm 1}+\widehat{}_n\widehat{t}_{nm}+\widehat{𝒱}_{n,n2}\widehat{t}_{n2,m}+\widehat{𝒱}_{n,n+2}\widehat{t}_{n+2,m},$$
(51)
where $`\widehat{v}_{m1,m}=v(\widehat{1}+\widehat{\tau }_3)/2`$, $`\widehat{v}_{m+1,m}=v^{}(\widehat{1}\widehat{\tau }_3)/2`$, and the matrix coefficients $`\widehat{}_n`$ and $`\widehat{𝒱}_{n,m}`$ can be expressed in terms of the Green’s functions of the uncoupled electrodes, as

$`\widehat{}_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}vg_{R,n+1}v^{}g_{L,n}& vg_{R,n+1}v^{}f_{L,n}\\ v^{}g_{R,n1}v\stackrel{~}{f}_{L,n}& v^{}g_{R,n1}vg_{L,n}\end{array}\right)`$ (54)
$`\widehat{𝒱}_{n,n+2}`$ $`=`$ $`vf_{R,n+1}v\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_{L,n+2}& g_{L,n+2}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (57)
$`\widehat{𝒱}_{n,n2}`$ $`=`$ $`v^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_{R,n1}v^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ g_{L,n2}& f_{L,n2}\end{array}\right),`$ (60)
In these equations the short-hand notation $`g_{i,n}=g_i(ϵ+neV)`$ for the $`2\times 2`$ spin-dependent propagators has been used. Notice that the set of linear equations (51) are analogous to those describing a tight-binding chain with nearest-neighbor hopping parameters $`\widehat{𝒱}_{n,n+2}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒱}_{n,n2}`$. A solution can then be obtained by standard recursive techniques (see Ref. \[\] for details).

Finally, the $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$-dependence of the Green’s function in Eq. (51) depends on our choice of the contact model. Thus for instance, for the disordered case the Green’s functions appearing in Eq. (51) are the angle averaged ones, while for the case of a momentum conserving contact we must include the trajectory dependent Green’s functions (see Eqs. 13-14).

### A Current at finite voltage

As commented in a previous section, the current contribution from a given trajectory may be calculated directly by integrating the transport equation (3) along the trajectory over the discontinuity given by the source term. Thus, the time-dependent current reads as

$$j(t)=eN_Fj(\widehat{𝒑}_F,t)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F},$$
(61)
where the contribution of given trajectory with momentum $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ can be written as

$$j(\widehat{𝒑}_F,t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{\tau }_3[\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LL},\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}]_{}^K\right\}.$$
(62)
This expression can be greatly simplified as follows. First, the Keldysh components of the T-matrix can be eliminated in favor of the advanced and retarded components using the relation $`\stackrel{~}{t}^K=\stackrel{~}{t}^R\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^K\stackrel{~}{t}^A`$. On the other hand, the four elements of the enlarged space are not independent. For instance, it is easy to show the following relations: $`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LR}=\left(1+\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LL}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\right)\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{LR}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{RL}=\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_{RL}\left(1+\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{\mathrm{},L}\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{LL}\right)`$. Using these relations it is rather straightforward to show that the current can be written as

$`j(\widehat{𝒑}_F,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[\widehat{\tau }_3(\widehat{t}_{LR}^R\widehat{g}_R^K\widehat{t}_{RL}^A\widehat{g}_L^A\widehat{g}_L^R\widehat{t}_{LR}^R\widehat{g}_R^K\widehat{t}_{RL}^A`$ (64)
$`+\widehat{g}_R^R\widehat{t}_{RL}^R\widehat{g}_L^K\widehat{t}_{LR}^A\widehat{t}_{RL}^R\widehat{g}_L^K\widehat{t}_{LR}^A\widehat{g}_R^A)],`$
where we have dropped the symbol $`\mathrm{}`$, since from now on in this section the only Green functions which will appear are the surface Green functions.

Taking into account the Fourier expansion of the T-matrix (see Eq. 49), the current adopts the form

$$j(\widehat{𝒑}_F,t)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}j_m(\widehat{𝒑}_F)e^{im\varphi (t)},$$
(65)
where the different Fourier current components can be expressed in terms of the Fourier components of the harmonics $`\widehat{t}_{nm}(ϵ)\widehat{t}(ϵ+neV,ϵ+meV)`$ as follows

$`j_m(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dϵ{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Tr}[\widehat{\tau }_3(\widehat{t}_{LR,0n}^R\widehat{g}_{R,n}^K\widehat{t}_{RL,nm}^A\widehat{g}_{L,m}^A\widehat{g}_{L,0}^R\widehat{t}_{LR,0n}^R\widehat{g}_{R,n}^K\widehat{t}_{RL,nm}^A`$ (67)
$`+\widehat{g}_{R,0}^R\widehat{t}_{RL,0n}^R\widehat{g}_{L,n}^K\widehat{t}_{LR,nm}^A\widehat{t}_{RL,0n}^R\widehat{g}_{L,n}^K\widehat{t}_{LR,nm}^A\widehat{g}_{R,m}^A)].`$
This is the general expression of the ac Josephson effect in a superconducting contact. This indicates that in the case of constant bias voltage there appear alternating components which oscillate not only with the Josephson frequency $`\omega _0`$, as in the case of a tunnel junction, but also with all its harmonics. When the voltage tends to zero all the harmonics sum up to yield the supercurrent.

We can further simplify the expression of the current harmonics, $`j_m`$. Using the equations of the T-matrix components it can be shown that the general relation $`\widehat{t}_{RL,nm}^{A,R}(ϵ)=\widehat{t}_{LR,mn}^{R,A}(ϵ)`$ holds. Thus, we can simply express the current in terms of harmonics $`\widehat{t}_{LR,nm}^{R,A}\widehat{t}_{nm}^{R,A}`$ as follows

$`j_m(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dϵ{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Tr}[\widehat{\tau }_3(\widehat{t}_{0n}^R\widehat{g}_{R,n}^K\widehat{t}_{mn}^R\widehat{g}_{L,m}^A\widehat{g}_{L,0}^R\widehat{t}_{0n}^R\widehat{g}_{R,n}^K\widehat{t}_{mn}^R`$ (69)
$`+\widehat{g}_{R,0}^R\widehat{t}_{n0}^A\widehat{g}_{L,n}^K\widehat{t}_{nm}^A\widehat{t}_{n0}^A\widehat{g}_{L,n}^K\widehat{t}_{nm}^A\widehat{g}_{R,m}^A)].`$
In order to illustrate this current formula we now investigate the dc component for a spin singlet superconductor with no spin active interface in two limiting cases: tunnel regime and perfect transmission. For the description of a poorly transmissive barrier one can solve perturbatively the equation for $`\widehat{t}_{nm}^{R,A}`$. Up to first order in the coupling element: $`\widehat{t}_{LR,nm}^{R,A}(v/2)(\widehat{1}+\widehat{\tau }_3)\delta _{m,n+1}+(v/2)(\widehat{1}\widehat{\tau }_3)\delta _{m,n1}`$ and higher harmonics can be neglected. Substituting this perturbative solution into the expression of the dc current, $`j_0`$, one finds the traditional result

$`j_0(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dϵ\rho _L(ϵeV)\rho _R(ϵ)\times `$ (71)
$`\left[f_{FD}(ϵeV)f_{FD}(ϵ)\right],`$
where $`f_{FD}`$ is the Fermi distribution function and $`\rho _{L,R}`$ are the local densities of states at the corresponding side of the interface: $`\rho _i(ϵ)=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}\left\{g_i^A(ϵ)\right\}`$.

In the case of a perfect transmissive contact ($`𝒟=1`$), the absence of backscattering greatly simplify the calculation of the different harmonics of the T-matrix components (see Ref. \[\]). In the case of a symmetric contact the dc current for perfect transmission can be written as

$`j_0(\widehat{𝒑}_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dϵ{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}|\gamma _j|^2](1|\gamma _0|^2|\gamma _{m+1}|^2)\times `$ (73)
$`\left\{f_{FD}(ϵ)f_{FD}(ϵ+(m+1)eV)\right\},`$
where $`\gamma _j\gamma (ϵ+jeV)`$ and $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ is the amplitude of an Andreev reflection in a N-S interface with perfect transmission. This amplitude is defined as $`\gamma ^Rf^R/(g^Ri\pi )`$, where the Green’s functions are evaluated at the interface. This is a very appealing formula that tell us that the probability of a multiple Andreev reflection is basically the product of the different Andreev reflections that take place at each side of the interface.

In order to illustrate our approach in the case of a voltage biased contact, we consider here a junction between two d-wave superconductors. Let us analyze in particular the symmetric junction mentioned in section IIIB, whose description is based on the Green’s functions of Eq. (31). Again, we neglect pair breaking effect and assume constant order parameter up to the interface. The proper self-consistent treatment of these junctions will be the subject of a forthcoming publication. In this contact geometry the zero-energy bound states in each side of the interface strongly affect the transport through this system. Of course, the results for the current depend on the contact model used. Let us first consider the case of a disordered contact. In this case, the propagators which enter in the current formula are the angle averaged ones. This implies that the anomalous propagators vanish, which means that the current is only due to single-quasiparticle processes. Thus, the current formula reduces to

$$j_0(V)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ𝒯(ϵ,V)\left[f_{FD}(ϵeV)f_{FD}(ϵ)\right],$$
(74)
where $`𝒯(ϵ,V)`$ is an energy and voltage dependent transmission coefficient given by

$$𝒯(ϵ,V)=\frac{4\pi ^2|v|^2\rho _L(ϵeV)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}\rho _R(ϵ)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}}{|1|v|^2g_L(ϵeV)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}g_R(ϵ)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}|^2},$$
(75)
where $`\rho _i(ϵ)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F}`$ ($`i=L,R`$) is the local density of states at the interface.

In Fig. 3 we show the current-voltage characteristics and differential conductance for different values of the normal transmission coefficient $`𝒟`$ for this disordered model. The only abrupt feature exhibited by the current inside the gap occurs in the tunnel regime. The resonant tunneling through the zero-energy bound states leads to a zero-bias anomaly and the subsequent negative differential conductance. As it is well known, the position and the height of the peak in the conductance depends on intrinsic width of zero-energy states . It is known theoretically that the elastic scattering with bulk impurities  or a diffusive surface layer  provide an intrinsic broadening, which for the case of Born scatteres is $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1/2\tau `$ is the effective pair-breaking parameter locally at the surface. In Fig. 3 we have introduced a small phenomenological broadening of $`10^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to mimic this intrinsic effect.

With this simple calculation we can already point out the following. Many calculations of the I-V curves in junctions of unconventional superconductors are limited to the tunneling regime, and make use of the traditional tunnel formula (see Eq. 71). However, if bound states or divergencies are present in the density of states, this perturbative expression does not even give the correct result for a low transparent contact, and one needs to include high order processes as in Eq. (74). Indeed, this is a well known problem in the context of s-wave superconductors (for a discussion of this problem see for instance Ref. \[\]). In order to illustrate this fact, in Fig. 4 we compare the result of Eq. (74) and the tunneling result for a small transparency $`𝒟=0.01`$. One can see in Fig. 4(a) that there is a clear difference between these two results. In particular, in the low voltage regime the complete expression renormalizes the unphysical divergencies obtained with the tunnel formula. As the broadening of the level is increased the difference between these two results diminishes progressively (see Fig. 4(b)). Indeed, recent experiments in $`ab`$-plane tunneling into YBCO  suggest that the broadening of the zero bias anomaly can be as large as $`25\%`$ of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see Ref. \[\]). In this case, there is no significant difference in the resulting current between both expressions.

Let us now consider the case of a momentum conserving contact, which is the usual assumption in the Zaitsev boundary conditions. To gain some insight into the final result, in Fig. 5 we show the contribution of an individual trajectory $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$. The current and voltage are normalized in units of the gap seen by this trajectory. As can be observed, the current exhibits a pronounced subgap structure at voltages $`eV=\mathrm{\Delta }_p/n`$, where $`n`$ is a integer number, together with the appearance of negative differential conductance (this can be seen better in the lower panel of this figure). These features are a simple consequence of the resonant tunneling across the zero-energy bound states. Indeed, this type of I-V has been previously obtained in the context of a junction between two conventional superconductors coupled by means of a resonant transmission (see Ref. \[\]). Notice also the presence of a zero bias peak, specially clear for low transparencies, and which is a consequence of the small broadening introduced in the calculation. The total current is obtained by averaging over the different trajectories. Thus, the final result depends on the model for the angular dependence of the normal transmission coefficient. With any reasonable reasonable model most of the features of the trajectory resolved current disappear. In particular, the subharmonic gap structure is washed out, and it only remains a peak in the conductance at $`eV\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see for instance Ref. \[\]).

## V Current fluctuations

During the last years it has become progressively clearer that a deep understanding of the electronic transport in mesoscopic systems requires the analysis of quantities which goes beyond the straightforward measurement of the current-voltage characteristics. In this sense the noise or time-dependent current fluctuations has emerged as a very useful tool which provides new information on the time correlations of the current, information about channel distributions, statistics and charge of the carriers . In the case of superconducting contacts, most of the activity has been restricted to the case of s-wave superconductors . In the case of unconventional superconductors there are only a few theoretical works in the context of hybrid structures like normal metal/d-wave superconductors . We believe that in the next future the measurement of current fluctuations will be an important tool for a deeper understanding of the symmetry of the order parameter and origin of the superconductivity in general in the case of HTS materials. For this reason in this section we describe the calculation of the noise spectrum within our approach, valid for any type of contact between unconventional superconductors.

Let us remember that the noise is characterized by its spectral density or power spectrum $`S(\omega )`$, which is simply the Fourier transform at frequency $`\omega `$ of the current-current correlation function

$`S(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d(t^{}t)e^{i\omega \left(t^{}t\right)}\delta \widehat{ȷ}(t^{})\delta \widehat{ȷ}(t)+\delta \widehat{ȷ}(t)\delta \widehat{ȷ}(t^{})}`$ (76)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d(t^{}t)e^{i\omega \left(t^{}t\right)}K(t,t^{})},`$ (77)
where $`\delta \widehat{ȷ}(t)=\widehat{ȷ}(t)<\widehat{ȷ}(t)>`$ are the fluctuations in the current.

In order to obtain the expression of the current-current correlator, first we need an expression for the current operator. Within our model this operator evaluated at the interface can written as follows

$$\widehat{ȷ}(t)=ie\underset{\sigma }{}\left\{v_{LR,\sigma }\widehat{c}_{L,\sigma }^{}(t)\widehat{c}_{R,\sigma }(t)v_{RL,\sigma }\widehat{c}_{R,\sigma }^{}(t)\widehat{c}_{L,\sigma }(t)\right\}.$$
(78)
This expression is a simple consequence of the continuity equation for the current .

In order to calculate the noise we need in principle to evaluate correlators of four field operators. However, we are working in the framework of a mean field theory, which means that we can decouple these correlators in terms of one-particle Green’s functions using the Wick theorem. With this in mind, it is straightforward to show that the kernel $`K(t,t^{})`$ can be expressed in terms of the interface Keldysh Green’s functions as follows

$`K(t,t^{})=e^2\{\text{Tr}[\widehat{v}_{RL}\widehat{G}_{LL}^<(t,t^{})\widehat{v}_{LR}\widehat{G}_{RR}^>(t^{},t)`$ (79)
$`+\widehat{v}_{LR}\widehat{G}_{RR}^<(t,t^{})\widehat{v}_{RL}\widehat{G}_{LL}^>(t^{},t)`$ (80)
$`\widehat{v}_{RL}\widehat{G}_{LR}^<(t,t^{})\widehat{v}_{RL}\widehat{G}_{LR}^>(t^{},t)`$ (81)
$`\widehat{v}_{LR}\widehat{G}_{RL}^<(t,t^{})\widehat{v}_{LR}\widehat{G}_{RL}^>(t^{},t)]+(tt^{})\}`$ , (82)
where the functions $`\widehat{G}^<`$ and $`\widehat{G}^>`$ are related to the usual advanced, retarded and Keldysh functions in the following way

$`\widehat{G}^<`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{G}^K\widehat{G}^R+\widehat{G}^A\right)/2`$ (83)
$`\widehat{G}^>`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{G}^K+\widehat{G}^R\widehat{G}^A\right)/2.`$ (84)
In order to compactify the notation, we introduce the trace $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Tr}}`$ and the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_3`$ which act in the “reservoir” space. Then, the noise kernel reads

$`K(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\stackrel{~}{\text{Tr}}[\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{G}^<(t,t^{})\stackrel{~}{\tau }_3\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{G}^>(t^{},t)+`$ (86)
$`\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{G}^>(t,t^{})\stackrel{~}{\tau }_3\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{G}^<(t^{},t)].`$
Now, in order to eliminate the Green’s functions in favor of the T-matrix elements, we use the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^{<,>}=\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{G}^R\stackrel{~}{v}\right)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^{<,>}\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{G}^A\right),$$
(87)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^<(ϵ)=\left[\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^A(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^R(ϵ)\right]f_{FD}(ϵ)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^>(ϵ)=\left[\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^A(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^R(ϵ)\right]\left(f_{FD}(ϵ)1\right)`$. Now, making use of Eqs. (3-7) it is easy to see that the following relation holds

$$\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{G}^{<,>}=\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^{<,>}\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right).$$
(88)
This expression allows us to write the noise kernel as follows

$$K(t,t^{})=e^2\stackrel{~}{\text{Tr}}\left\{\left[\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^<\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right)\right](t,t^{})\stackrel{~}{\tau }_3\left[\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^>\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right)\right](t^{},t)+(tt^{})\right\}.$$
(89)
As explained in section II, once we have eliminated the full Green’s functions in the noise kernel, we can perform the quasiclassical $`\xi `$-integration and substitute the quasiclassical Green’s functions, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$, for the full ones, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Thus, the noise kernel can be expressed finally as

$$K(t,t^{})=e^2\stackrel{~}{\text{Tr}}\left\{\left[\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^<\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right)\right](t,t^{})\stackrel{~}{\tau }_3\left[\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^>\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right)\right](t^{},t)+(tt^{})\right\}.$$
(90)
Let us stick now to the case of a constant bias voltage applied across the interface. In this case, for both contact models considered in section III, we can resolve the current fluctuations in trajectories as follows

$$S(\omega ,t)=e^2N_FS(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\omega ,t)_{\widehat{𝒑}_F},$$
(91)
where the time-dependent contribution of given trajectory with momentum $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$ can be written as

$$S(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\omega ,t)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S_m(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\omega )e^{im\varphi (t)},$$
(92)
where the different ac-components of the noise can be expressed in terms of the Fourier component of the T-matrix elements in the following way

$$S_m(\widehat{𝒑}_F,\omega )=𝑑ϵ\underset{n}{}\stackrel{~}{\text{Tr}}\left\{\left[\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^<\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right)\right]_{0n}(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{\tau }_3\left[\stackrel{~}{T}^R\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^>\left(\stackrel{~}{1}+\stackrel{~}{T}^A\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^A\right)\right]_{nm}(ϵ+\omega )+(ϵϵ+\omega )\right\}.$$
(93)
Notice that in the case of a junction between two superconductors, the noise, as the current, oscillates on time with all the harmonics of the Josephson frequency. Notice also that we have reduced the calculation of this quantity to the determination of the different Fourier components of the T-matrix elements, which has been detailed in section IV.

In order to illustrate the calculation of the current fluctuations, we consider the contact between d-wave superconductors analyzed in the previous section. In particular, we present results for the zero-frequency noise at zero temperature, $`S`$, i.e. the zero-frequency shot noise. At this point, it is worth remarking that by zero-frequency noise we mean noise at a frequency lower than any relevant energy scale in our problem, gap for instance, and high enough to neglect $`1/f`$ noise . Again, the final result depends on the type of contact model under investigation. Let us start discussing the shot noise for the disordered contact. In this case, due to the vanishing of the anomalous Green’s functions, the whole calculation reduces to the determination of the quasiparticle contribution, which in term of the transmission coefficient of Eq. (75) can be written as

$$S=_0^{eV}𝑑ϵ𝒯(ϵ,V)\left(1𝒯(ϵ,V)\right).$$
(94)
This is simply the result that one obtains for a normal contact with an energy and voltage dependent transmission coefficient . In Fig. 6 we show the result of Eq. (94) for different normal transmissions. In the tunneling regime the shot noise is $`S(V)2ej(V)`$ and the most remarkable feature is the zero bias anomaly (see inset of Fig. 6). In the case of perfect transmission there is a non-zero noise due to the fact that the transmission coefficient $`𝒯(ϵ,V)`$ is less than one in the gap region. For voltages much greater than the maximum gap, then $`𝒯(ϵ\mathrm{\Delta },𝒟=1.0)1`$, what makes that the noise at $`𝒟=1.0`$ saturates in the high voltage regime.

More interesting is the case of the momentum conserving interface. In Fig. 7 we show the contribution of a trajectory of momentum $`\widehat{𝒑}_F`$. As in the case of the current, the shot noise exhibits a rich subharmonic gap structure, which persists almost up to perfect transmission. The shape of the different curves can be understood in the same terms as the BCS case (see Ref. \[\]), with the additional ingredient of the resonant tunneling through the zero energy states. Of course, as in the case of the current, most of these features disappear after performing the angular average.

In the case of conventional superconductors, the shot noise has been proposed as a tool for measuring the multiple charge quanta transferred by the multiple Andrev reflections . Obviously we can pose here the same question in the case of unconventional superconductors. Indeed, a noise experiment has been recently proposed by Auerbach and Altman  to discriminate between two possible explanations of the pronounced subharmonic gap structure observed in YBCO edge junctions . Namely, usual multiple Andreev reflections in a d-wave superconductor and magnon pair creation in the context of the SO(5) theory. In this latter case the observed charge should be $`Q^{}=2ne`$, where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, at a voltage $`eV_n=\mathrm{\Delta }/n`$. This result has to be compared with $`Q^{}=ne`$ expected in the traditional view of MAR. In order to contribute to the solution of this puzzle, we show in Fig. 7 (lower panel) the effective charge, $`Q^{}=S/2ej`$, for a transmission $`𝒟=0.6`$. This result confirm the traditional interpretation that in the MAR process of order $`n`$ a charge $`ne`$ is transferred. Usually, in order to observe a clear quantization of the charge one should go to the tunneling regime , but in this case this is not necessary due to the resonant tunneling through the zero-energy states. Notice again that this is the contribution of a single trajectory and after angle averaging this clear quantization of the charge with voltage disappears. The exhaustive analysis of the shot noise in d-wave contacts will be presented in a forthcoming publication.

## VI Conclusions

We have shown how a Hamiltonian approach and the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity can be combined to give a powerful tool to analyze electronic and transport properties of superconducting junctions. In particular, we have demonstrated that a simple Hamiltonian description of an interface can be used to model a great variety of contacts. This Hamiltonian description can be brought into quasiclassical theory via a T-matrix equation, resulting in a new formulation of boundary conditions. These boundary conditions do not contain any spurious solution and can be efficiently solved to compute any transport property. The broad applicability of this formulation covers cases ranging from conventional superconductors to unconventional ones, clean systems and diffusive ones. Moreover, it can be applied to spin active interfaces and it is well suited for the description of time-dependent phenomena like the I-V characteristics and the noise properties of junctions with arbitrary transmission and bias voltage. We have illustrated this approach with the calculation of Josephson current in a great variety of situations. The calculation of I-V characteristics and the noise has been exemplified with the analysis of a contact between two d-wave superconductors. In particular, we have briefly discussed the use of shot noise as a possible tool for measuring the charge of the Andreev reflections in unconventional superconductors.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. Poenicke, A. Martín-Rodero, A. Levy Yeyati and G. Schön for fruitful discussions. J.C. Cuevas acknowledges the European Community for the Marie Curie Fellowship under contract HPMF-CT-1999-00165. M. Fogelström thanks the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (NFR) under contract F620-1072/2000 and the DFG project SFB 195 for support.