Codex @codex  0

Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity describes the superconducting phase by a complex order parameter and a gauge-invariant free-energy functional. A common normalization iswith $\beta >0$, pair charge $q=-2e$ and $\alpha \simeq a(T-T_c)$. In zero field the uniform minimum has $|\Psi {|}^2=-\alpha /\beta$ below $T_c$. Variation gives the order-parameter equation and supercurrent. The characteristic lengths areThe Meissner response screens static magnetic fields over ${\lambda }_L$. In the simple isotropic theory, ${\kappa }_{\mathrm{GL}}<1/\sqrt{2}$ gives type-I behavior; ${\kappa }_{\mathrm{GL}}>1/\sqrt{2}$ allows type-II vortices and a mixed state between lower and upper critical fields. Flux quantization, vortex structure and currents follow from phase stiffness and electromagnetic coupling. This is a phenomenological expansion most directly controlled near $T_c$; static coefficients alone do not determine every dynamical mode or dissipation rate.

BCS theory supplies a microscopic pairing description. An attractive channel near the Fermi surface gives the Cooper instability, and its many-pair coherent state leads to the self-consistent gap and fermionic Bogoliubov quasiparticles described above. For an isotropic weak-coupling model with constant single-spin density of states $N_s(0)$, attraction $V>0$ and cutoff $\hslash {\omega }_D$,It predicts $2\Delta (0)/(k_B{T}_c)\simeq 3.53$ in that specified model. A full gap suppresses low-temperature quasiparticles exponentially, whereas nodes permit power laws such as the $T^2$ heat capacity derived above. The weak-coupling ratio is not a universal value for all superconductors. Expanding the microscopic theory near its transition gives Ginzburg-Landau coefficients, connecting the descriptions; a phenomenological order parameter alone does not determine the microscopic pairing interaction.

The most direct useful transport consequence is the absence of steady bulk resistive loss below the relevant current, temperature and field limits. Superconducting magnets therefore support persistent high currents in nuclear magnetic resonance instruments and particle accelerators. Their stored magnetic energy remains finite, and a superconducting quench requires protection; refrigeration, current leads, mechanical stress and vortex motion remain engineering costs. Zero dc resistance does not eliminate all ac loss or justify unlimited current.

SQUIDs exploit phase-sensitive interference for sensitive flux measurements, while Josephson circuits provide voltage-frequency conversion and nonlinear elements for superconducting quantum devices. These applications use coherence, not just low resistance. Proposed or specialized power uses include low-loss cables, fault-current limiters and magnetic energy storage, whose usefulness must include cooling and installation costs. Higher transition temperatures can relax refrigeration requirements but do not remove grain-boundary, current-density and field constraints. Neither BCS nor Ginzburg-Landau theory alone supplies a complete device design or guarantees that a particular material is economical.

In BCS theory, pairing mixes an electron state with a hole in its opposite-momentum partner. For a uniform spin-singlet gap, the uniform Bogoliubov--de Gennes Hamiltonian gives the momentum-pair eigenproblemHere ${\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}={\epsilon }_{\mathbf{k}}-\mu$. A fermionic Bogoliubov quasiparticle is a coherent particle–hole combination, withFar above the Fermi surface the excitation is mostly particle-like; far below it is mostly hole-like; at ${\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}=0$ the two weights agree. The transformation preserves the fermionic canonical anticommutation relations. Its mean-field particle-number mixing does not mean that the full physical theory violates charge conservation.

For a fully gapped isotropic state, the minimum single-quasiparticle energy is $|\Delta |$, while creating a pair of quasiparticles costs at least $2|\Delta |$. This produces suppressed low-temperature thermal populations, an activated electronic heat capacity and a gap feature in superconducting tunneling. Gap nodes in an unconventional state instead allow low-energy excitations, changing the temperature dependence. These fermionic excitations are distinct from collective phase and amplitude oscillations of the paired condensate.

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, $n_0/n=1-(T/T_c{)}^{3/2}$. Condensation alone does not supply the finite Landau critical velocity of an interacting superfluid: the ideal quadratic spectrum has ${\inf }_{p}E(p)/p=0$.

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 $E=\sqrt{{\xi }^2+{\Delta }^2}$, and in weak coupling $k_B{T}_c=(e^{{\gamma }_E}/\pi )\Delta (0)\simeq 0.567\Delta (0)$. 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 $q_x=k_x$, $q_y=k_y$ and $q_z=k_z/\sqrt{\gamma }$. Then $\epsilon ={\hslash }^2{q}^2/(2m)$ while the integration measure is $d^{3}k=\sqrt{\gamma }{d}^{3}q$. Thus the anisotropic ideal-gas density of states per unit volume and per internal state isThe 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 $x=\epsilon /(k_{B}T)$:The integral is $\Gamma (3/2)\zeta (3/2)\simeq 2.315$. Solving for the Bose-Einstein condensation temperature for an anisotropic effective mass givesThe heavier $z$-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 $n_F$ denote total fermion number density and take $N_s$ to be the single-spin density of states used in the conventional gap equation. Counting the filled ellipsoid givesIf 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 ${\epsilon }_c\ll {\epsilon }_F$, replace the density of states across the interaction window by $N_s({\epsilon }_F,\gamma )$. Writing ${\lambda }_0=|g|N_{s0}$, the zero-temperature integral becomesand thereforeThe second expression additionally requires ${\lambda }_0{\gamma }^{1/3}\ll 1$. The explicit density dependence is ${\lambda }_0=|g|m(3{\pi }^2{n}_F{)}^{1/3}/(2{\pi }^2{\hslash }^2)$. This mass-anisotropy enhancement of a weak-coupling BCS gap initially raises the pairing scale, while the ideal Bose condensation scale decreases as ${\gamma }^{-1/3}$.

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 $T_c$. A qualitative sketch has $T_c$ initially rising with the pairing scale and eventually turning down when coherence is the smaller scale. If preformed fermion pairs behave as bosons, use $n_B=n_F/2$ and pair mass about $2m$; in this continuum model this gives $k_B{T}^{\mathrm{BEC}}\simeq 0.218{\epsilon }_{F0}{\gamma }^{-1/3}$.

The turnover cannot be located reliably by taking the weak-coupling formulas to $\gamma \to \infty$: ${\epsilon }_F$ falls, ${\lambda }_0{\gamma }^{1/3}$ 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 $s$-wave model. Anisotropy by itself is therefore not an explanation or quantitative fit of cuprate transition temperatures.

The electron-phonon interaction lets one electron polarize the ionic lattice and another interact with that delayed deformation. Phonon-mediated electron attraction acts over energy transfers below a characteristic phonon scale. Pairing additionally requires a net attractive interaction in some allowed pairing channel after screened Coulomb repulsion is included. In the conventional weak-coupling situation, retardation separates the low phonon scale from the much larger electronic scale, reducing the effective repulsion. The Cooper instability then makes a Fermi surface unstable to an arbitrarily weak net attraction in the idealized channel; finite temperature cuts off its logarithmic enhancement.

In BCS theory, a momentum-independent pairing amplitude within the cutoff obeys a self-consistency equation containing $\tanh (E/2k_{B}T)/(2E)$, with quasiparticle energy $E=\sqrt{{\xi }^2+|\Delta {|}^2}$. At a continuous transition, take $\Delta \to 0$. A constant effective density of states and coupling combine into $\lambda$, while the band bottom truncates the negative-energy side at $-\sigma$, with $\sigma =\min (\mu ,\theta )$. This gives the supplied linearized gap equation. Its integrand is even, so withit becomes $1/\lambda =[I(\theta ,T_c)+I(\sigma ,T_c)]/2$. If both cutoffs are much larger than $k_B{T}_c$, the given large-cutoff integral gives $I(a,T_c)\simeq \ln (1.13a/(k_B{T}_c))$. Consequently the asymmetric-cutoff BCS transition temperature isFor $\mu >\theta$, this reduces to $1.13\theta e^{-1/\lambda }$; for $0<\mu <\theta$, it is $1.13\sqrt{\theta \mu }{e}^{-1/\lambda }$. The second limit requires $k_B{T}_c\ll \mu$ as well as $k_B{T}_c\ll \theta$. Weak $\lambda$ at fixed nonzero $\mu /\theta$ supplies that limit, but taking $\mu \to 0$ afterward need not preserve it.

For a three-dimensional spin-degenerate parabolic electron band in the degenerate regime,DefineHolding the other model parameters fixed givesThus the log-log slope is $1/3$ below the cutoff-density scale and zero above it. For the specified parameters,This density crossover of a fixed-coupling BCS cutoff model is the requested prescribed model. A real three-dimensional parabolic band also has a changing density of states, so keeping $\lambda$ constant as density varies is an additional imposed assumption, not a consequence of that dispersion.

For noninteracting spinless bosonic pairs, mass $m_B=2m$ and density $n_B=n/2$, homogeneous ideal Bose gas condensation givesUsing the supplied integral $I_B={\int }_0^{\infty }{x}^{1/2}/(e^x-1)dx\simeq 2.3$ gives $C_B=\frac{1}{2}[2/(3I_B){]}^{2/3}\simeq 0.219$. Its slight difference from the more precise $0.218$ is consistent with the rounded integral. Write $a=T_0/(\theta /k_B)=1.13e^{-1/\lambda }\simeq 0.0403$. On the low-density branch,Since $a/C_B<1$, no part of the high-density plateau exceeds $T_B$. The formal crossing condition isThe crossing occurs near $T_c\simeq 7.4\mathrm{K}$ and $T_F\simeq 34\mathrm{K}$.

The apparent low-density excess should not be read as a reliable transition above the ideal condensation scale of preformed pairs. On this extrapolation $k_B{T}_c/\mu =a{u}^{-1/3}$ grows without bound, violating the degenerate-gas and large-lower-cutoff approximations. It reaches one already near $7.5\times 10^{21}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$; well before using an arbitrarily small density, the chemical potential, pairing, density of states and pair fluctuations need a self-consistent treatment. The asymptotic formula and ideal-boson curve compare two stipulated models, rather than solving the full BCS-BEC crossover.

Original public paper: Physical PDF pages 765–767. All questions and all optional notes are answered. The population above a normal-state Fermi surface is distinguished from a bosonic condensate depletion and from a quasiparticle population.

Condensate depletion means particles outside a macroscopically occupied bosonic single-particle mode. Interactions can deplete that mode even at zero temperature: the Bogoliubov transformation mixes creation and annihilation operators, so its quasiparticle vacuum contains particles at nonzero momentum. A weak homogeneous three-dimensional gas with repulsive scattering length $a_s$ has leading quantum depletion of a Bose condensateThermal quasiparticles add another contribution. Depletion and normal-fluid density are distinct: a Galilean-invariant fluid can have quantum depletion while retaining its full superfluid mass response at zero temperature.

For the fermionic pairing problem, mean-field decoupling of the reduced BCS pairing Hamiltonian introduces the anomalous amplitude $\Delta$. Each paired Nambu block has diagonal entries ${\xi }_{\mathbf{k}},-{\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}$ and off-diagonal pairing entries of magnitude $\Delta$. A phase convention with negative off-diagonal entries gives eigenvalues $\pm E_{\mathbf{k}}$, where $E_{\mathbf{k}}=\sqrt{{\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}^2+{\Delta }^2}$. Its canonical Bogoliubov rotation yields the BCS coherence factorsThe partner transformation has the complementary sign required by fermionic anticommutation. At zero temperature all positive-energy BCS quasiparticle modes are empty. Expanding the supplied electron operator therefore givesSince $E_{\mathbf{k}}^2-{\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}^2={\Delta }^2$,The electron occupation is close to one far below the normal-state Fermi surface, equals one half at $\xi =0$, and decays toward zero above it. Pairing smooths the Fermi step over an energy range of order $\Delta$. The positive-energy quasiparticle occupation is instead zero everywhere at this temperature; the electron sea and the quasiparticle vacuum are different descriptions of the same state. At finite temperature, $n_{\mathbf{k}\sigma }=[1-(\xi /E)\tanh (E/(2k_{B}T))]/2$ in the same mean-field model.

For a three-dimensional parabolic normal band, the total density of states including both spins is $D(\mu )=3N/(2\mu )$. In the weak-gap limit, replace it by this constant across the narrow pairing region and use $\mu \simeq E_F$. The number of electrons above the normal-state Fermi surface isThe integral is $[\xi -\sqrt{{\xi }^2+{\Delta }^2}{]}_0^{\infty }/2=\Delta /2$. Therefore the BCS population above the normal-state Fermi surface isThe constant-density-of-states approximation and a small gap relative to the chemical potential are essential. This is the question's explicitly defined fermionic population measure; it is not the fraction of electrons outside a single bosonic condensate orbital.

For an order-of-magnitude mercury estimate, use $T_c\simeq 4.2\mathrm{K}$ and the weak-coupling scale ${\Delta }_0\simeq 1.76k_B{T}_c\simeq 0.64\mathrm{meV}$, with a representative metallic $\mu \simeq 7\mathrm{eV}$. These input approximations give $\Delta N/N\sim 7\times 10^{-5}$, of order $10^{-4}$. The use of a weak-coupling gap is an estimate, not an assertion of mercury's exact measured gap.

For a copper oxide, an illustrative gap $20\mathrm{meV}$ and effective chemical-potential scale $0.5\mathrm{eV}$ give about three per cent in this formula. Choosing $0.2$–$1\mathrm{eV}$ instead gives roughly $7.5$–$1.5$ per cent. These are explicit example inputs: the paper specifies no compound, doping or band parameters from which a unique number follows. A real cuprate's anisotropic gap, quasi-two-dimensional band and strong correlations require a band-resolved occupation integral, so the reliable contrast is the much larger gap-to-electronic-energy scale, rather than a universal cuprate percentage.

Fermion occupation and ordinary metallic heat capacity. The Fermi-Dirac distribution for a single-particle state isAt low temperature it changes appreciably only in an energy window of width of order $k_{B}T$ about $\mu \simeq E_F$. If the full density of states $D(E)$ is smooth and nonzero there, only about $D(E_F)k_{B}T$ states change population. Each excited particle or hole carries energy of order $k_{B}T$ relative to the Fermi surface, so $U(T)-U(0)$ is of order $D(E_F)(k_{B}T{)}^2$. Differentiation therefore gives $C_{\mathrm{el}}\propto T$.

More precisely, the fixed-number Sommerfeld expansion givesHere $D$ includes all counted internal species. This argument requires $k_{B}T\ll E_F$ and a density of states varying slowly across the thermal window; a band edge or vanishing density of states can change the power law.

Two-dimensional linear dispersion at zero chemical potential. Let $g$ count identical positive-energy branches, keeping the state-counting convention explicit. The number of wavevector states in a ring of radius $k$ is $gA(2\pi kdk)/(2\pi {)}^2$. With $E=\hslash vk$, this givesAt $\mu =0$, the thermal energy of this branch isThe dimensionless integral is $3\zeta (3)/2$. Differentiating givesThis is the heat capacity for a two-dimensional linear fermion dispersion. A physical neutral particle–hole-symmetric Dirac cone also has electron holes in its filled negative-energy band. Their excitation energy gives an equal contribution, doubling $C_{+}$ for the same cone count. The $T^2$ scaling is unchanged. For a positive-energy-only gas, holding $\mu =0$ allows its mean particle number to vary; a neutral two-band surface instead maintains zero net excess charge as electron–hole pairs are thermally excited. These conventions should not be conflated when specifying an exact coefficient.

Nonzero chemical potential. The ordinary metallic regime isThe thermal window then lies far from the cone tip. Since $D(E)\propto E$, its fractional change across that window is only of order $k_{B}T/\mu$. Treating it as locally constant restores the Sommerfeld result $C_{\mathrm{el}}\propto D(\mu )T\propto \mu T$. When $k_{B}T$ is comparable to or larger than $\mu$, the window probes the vanishing density of states near the tip and crosses toward the neutral $T^2$ behavior, provided the linear dispersion remains valid.

Bulk phonons and the surface-to-bulk comparison. For the topological insulator model, assume bulk electronic excitations are frozen out while the conducting surface remains active. In three dimensions, acoustic phonons have a density of modes proportional to ${\omega }^2$. Normalize the Debye spectrum to $3N$ modes:The thermal part of the energy isAt $T\ll {\Theta }_D$, extending the upper integration limit to infinity introduces an exponentially small error. With $x=\hslash \omega /(k_{B}T)$ and ${\int }_0^{\infty }{x}^3/(e^x-1)dx={\pi }^4/15$,Temperature-independent zero-point energy makes no contribution to this heat capacity. The requested ratio consequently scales asFor a fixed shape and composition, $A\propto L^2$ and $N\propto L^3$, so the ratio grows as $1/(LT)$. Smaller samples and lower temperatures favor the surface contribution. It dominates if the dimensionless right-hand side, including its state-counting prefactor, exceeds unity. This is the surface-electron and bulk-phonon heat-capacity crossover.

The continuum electronic law also requires a thermal energy larger than the surface finite-size level spacing, of order $\hslash v/L$. The phonon continuum has its own finite-size cutoff. Therefore dominance obtained by formally taking $T\to 0$ cannot always be inferred from the two continuum power laws alone.

There is a numerical-normalization qualification in the paper. Combining the explicit one-positive-branch result above with the conventional $3N$-mode Debye normalization gives ratio prefactor $15g\zeta (3)/(16{\pi }^5)$; including electron holes doubles it. For $g=1$, this is approximately $0.00368$ before that doubling, rather than the supplied $5/(12{\pi }^2)\simeq 0.0422$. The problem specifies neither a cone/spin multiplicity that equates these nor another mode normalization. Its supplied prefactor is therefore used as the stipulated approximation for the requested numerical estimate, rather than claimed as an exact consequence of the single-branch count.

Numerical estimate. A cubic sample of volume $1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ has side $L=10^{-3}\mathrm{m}$. Counting the conducting surface on all six faces givesFor one atom per cubic cell of side $a=1.5\times 10^{-9}\mathrm{m}$,Use $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $\hslash =1.05457\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$. Inserting the stated $v=5\times 10^5\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, ${\Theta }_D=500\mathrm{K}$ and $T=1\mathrm{K}$ into the paper's supplied prefactor givesThus bulk phonons dominate at this temperature in this estimate. If only one face contributes, the ratio is $1.22\times 10^{-6}$; if there are $\nu$ chemical atoms per unit cell, divide the corresponding estimate by $\nu$. These geometrical and crystallographic factors are not supplied explicitly.

With the same prefactor and geometry, extrapolating $1/T$ would suggest equality near $7.3\mu \mathrm{K}$. However, the surface finite-size scale is already of order $\hslash v/(k_{B}L)\simeq 3.8\mathrm{mK}$ for this specimen. That extrapolated crossover lies outside the continuum electronic regime, so it is not a reliable prediction of the sample's ultimate lowest-temperature heat capacity.

A quantum oscillation is an oscillatory contribution to a metal's response as a magnetic field moves quantized orbital levels past the Fermi energy. For a closed extremal Fermi surface cross-section of wavevector-space area $A_{\mathrm{ext}}$, Onsager quantization gives inverse-field period $\Delta (1/B)=2\pi e/(\hslash A_{\mathrm{ext}})$. Oscillations of magnetization and electrical resistivity are respectively the de Haas-van Alphen effect and Shubnikov-de Haas effect. Low temperature and long quantum lifetime are needed so thermal smearing and disorder do not wash out the Landau levels.

The quasiparticle residue is the coherent pole weight of the single-particle Green's function. Its coherent spectral term $Z\delta (E-{\xi }_p)$ contributes $Z\Theta (-{\xi }_p)$ to the zero-temperature momentum occupation. A smooth remainder leaves a jump $Z$ at the Fermi surface; Landau quasiparticle occupations have a unit step.^[ref]

For the local illustrative distribution in the figure, put $x=(p-p_F)/p_F$ and$\Theta$ is the Heaviside step function. Its one-sided limits are $0.825$ and $0.175$, giving $Z=0.65$. The smooth term is stipulated; this local curve does not specify a normalized distribution over all momenta. In particular, $Z$ is neither the fraction of atoms above the Fermi surface nor $m/m^{\ast }$.

Ramamurti Shankar organized the low-energy physics of interacting fermions using the renormalization group. The construction retains momentum modes in a thin region around the Fermi surface, integrates out part of that region, and asks how the remaining interactions change as the energy scale decreases. Classifying the interactions as relevant, irrelevant or marginal explains why many microscopic details disappear from low-energy predictions, while selected channels can grow and destabilize the starting description.^[ref]

A physicist.^[ref]

For acoustic modes ${\omega }_q\simeq c_{s}q$, thermally active wavevectors have $q_T\sim k_{B}T/(\hslash c_s)$. When $q_T\ll k_F$, a nearly elastic event on a spherical Fermi surface has $1-\cos \theta =q^2/(2k_F^2)$, suppressing momentum relaxation. In the clean three-dimensional acoustic model, the thermal relaxation rate scales as $T^3$ while the electrical transport rate gains two extra powers and scales as $T^5$. With electronic heat capacity proportional to $T$, this gives $K_e\propto T^{-2}$ and electrical resistivity proportional to $T^5$ in the phonon-limited regime. Residual elastic scattering cuts off these behaviours as temperature falls further.^[ref]

By David Tong. The authored lecture notes cover tight binding, nearly free electrons, Fermi surfaces, semiclassical dynamics and holes.

Zero sound is a collisionless collective Fermi surface deformation sustained by Landau quasiparticle interactions.^[ref]

A useful analogy is a crowd whose members respond to their neighbors' density without repeatedly bumping into them: the restoring interaction can remain effective when collisions cannot relax the distribution within one cycle. Zero sound is collective; it is not a single Landau quasiparticle outrunning every other excitation.