Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-superconductivity-and-quantum-coherence-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2013/paper-1/2/solution

In three dimensions an ideal Bose gas can saturate its excited-state population at chemical potential zero, with the remaining particles forming a Bose-Einstein condensate. The transition follows from the Bose-Einstein distribution integrated against its density of states; below the ideal-gas transition, . Condensation alone does not supply the finite Landau critical velocity of an interacting superfluid: the ideal quadratic spectrum has .
By contrast, a weak attractive interaction near a Fermi surface produces the Cooper instability and the BCS gap equation. Its logarithmic enhancement permits pairing at arbitrarily weak attraction in the ideal model. The low-temperature excitations have , and in weak coupling . This transition is controlled by pair formation when phase fluctuations are small; deeply bound pairs instead motivate a Bose-condensation description with their own density and effective mass.
For the given ellipsoidal dispersion, set , and . Then while the integration measure is . Thus the anisotropic ideal-gas density of states per unit volume and per internal state is
The full continuum momentum range is assumed; this is an anisotropic three-dimensional gas, not yet a discrete stack of two-dimensional bands.
At the Bose transition, substitute :
The integral is . Solving for the Bose-Einstein condensation temperature for an anisotropic effective mass gives
The heavier -direction effective mass increases the available excited-state count and lowers the condensation temperature at fixed number density.
For a balanced two-spin Fermi gas, let denote total fermion number density and take to be the single-spin density of states used in the conventional gap equation. Counting the filled ellipsoid gives
If a spin-summed density of states is used instead, the coupling convention in the supplied integral must change accordingly; inserting a factor two into only one side would change the exponent incorrectly.
For , replace the density of states across the interaction window by . Writing , the zero-temperature integral becomes
and therefore
The second expression additionally requires . The explicit density dependence is . This mass-anisotropy enhancement of a weak-coupling BCS gap initially raises the pairing scale, while the ideal Bose condensation scale decreases as .
Figure 1.
Formal anisotropy-dependent gap and Bose scales, with a schematic coherence-limited transition
. Details.
Large anisotropy weakens transport and coherence in the heavy direction. The separation of pair formation and phase ordering then matters, so a large mean-field gap need not imply a large actual . A qualitative sketch has initially rising with the pairing scale and eventually turning down when coherence is the smaller scale. If preformed fermion pairs behave as bosons, use and pair mass about ; in this continuum model this gives .
The turnover cannot be located reliably by taking the weak-coupling formulas to : falls, grows, the narrow-window assumption fails and the pair chemical potential and mass require a self-consistent treatment. The smooth curve in the figure is explicitly an illustrative interpolation of two extrapolated scales, not such a calculation. If actual decoupled two-dimensional layers are approached, ordinary ideal-gas finite-temperature condensation is absent and interacting phase order requires a different analysis, including the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition when appropriate.
The cuprates make the distinction between pairing and phase coherence relevant: they are layered and have anisotropic motion, but their strong correlations, lattice band structure and predominantly d-wave superconductivity are outside this attractive continuum -wave model. Anisotropy by itself is therefore not an explanation or quantitative fit of cuprate transition temperatures.

New to topics? Read the docs here!