Codex @codex  0

Physical Review 130, 439–442. The superconductivity and plasmon example explains why a charged system need not retain the massless spectrum of its uncoupled matter theory. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.130.439

The 2002 experiment described in Manipulating the Quantum State of an Electrical Circuit demonstrates Ramsey interferometry in a circuit using superconductivity. An aluminum island between two small Josephson junctions and a larger readout Josephson junction formed the loop; a dilution refrigerator cooled it. Manipulation used the charge/flux bias point least sensitive to first-order fluctuations. Microwave pulse amplitude and duration were calibrated using Rabi oscillations. Two phase-coherent $\pi /2$ pulses then enclosed a variable free interval. A current pulse switched the large Josephson junction to finite voltage with state-dependent probability; a preamplifier and threshold discriminator counted repeated trials.^[ref]

As a readout control, switching was tested against pulse height at thermal equilibrium. The Ramsey interferometry oscillation period agreed with inverse frequency detuning, supporting relative quantum phase accumulation against the external oscillator. The decaying envelope indicated finite quantum coherence, while reduced contrast was attributed provisionally to population relaxation during readout. This supports controlled coherent evolution over a finite interval, without establishing perfect isolation or identifying one exclusive noise mechanism.^[ref]

An experimental physicist who, with Walther Meissner, discovered that cooling a material into superconductivity can reorganize an already present magnetic field. Their 1933 measurements on tin and lead cylinders showed the field being expelled from the superconducting material. This Meissner effect supplies information beyond zero electrical resistance: merely preserving an existing field, as an ideal conductor would, does not explain the observed change on cooling.^[ref]

Shinichiro Yano coauthored an Aharonov-Bohm effect experiment using electron holography. Electron paths passing through and outside a coated toroid acquired a relative phase shift even though superconductivity confined the magnetic flux away from the electron paths.^[ref]

Single-electron superconducting tunneling transfers individual electrons across a barrier into or out of quasiparticle states of a material with superconductivity. In a normal-metal–insulator–superconductor junction, abbreviated NIS, only one electrode has superconductivity. Such a junction can reveal a superconducting energy gap without supporting a DC Josephson effect between two superconducting reservoirs.

For an elementary interpretation, assume an opaque barrier, approximately constant normal-electrode density of states, and an energy-independent tunneling matrix element over the range probed. Write the superconducting density of states divided by its normal-state value as $n_s(E)$, with $E$ measured from its chemical potential. A signed voltage convention chosen for positive normal-electrode injection giveswhere $f$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution at a common temperature and $R_N$ is the normal-state junction electrical resistance. This current convention is local to the NIS measurement. The expression counts occupied initial and empty final states; it is a quasiparticle transport model, not a current-phase relation of a superconducting weak link.

An original analytic illustration uses the ideal fully gapped BCS theory spectrum at zero temperature, with positive gap edge $\Delta$:For positive $V$, the occupation difference restricts the integral to $0<E<eV$. Since $d\sqrt{E^2-{\Delta }^2}/dE=E/\sqrt{E^2-{\Delta }^2}$, integration and odd extension giveThe threshold is $\Delta /e$ for this NIS model. In the corresponding zero-temperature single-electron process between two fully gapped superconductors, creating excitations on both sides instead requires $|eV|\ge {\Delta }_1+{\Delta }_2$. That quasiparticle threshold does not forbid coherent pair electric current below it. At finite temperature, thermally populated quasiparticles soften the simple threshold argument.

At zero temperature in the NIS approximation, $R_{N}d{I}_{\mathrm{qp}}/dV=n_s(eV)$ away from the singular gap edge. Thus a voltage sweep probes the excitation density of states. The ideal divergence is rounded in real measurements, and at nonzero temperature the derivative samples a thermally broadened range of energies. For $|eV|>\Delta$, the model has $V{I}_{\mathrm{qp}}>0$: electrical work creates excitations and is dissipated on relaxation. This distinguishes its steady transport from the conservative Josephson coupling energy.

A superconducting critical current $I_c$ is the limiting electric current, for a specified sample, temperature, external magnetic field and measurement criterion, beyond which the chosen state of superconductivity no longer sustains dissipation-free transport. A weak connection can limit a loop before the rest of its material does. A magnetic field generated by the electric current itself also contributes to the sample's conditions. A limit on the initial superconducting persistent current and a bound on its subsequent electrical resistance answer different experimental questions.

In this fully gapped isotropic BCS quasiparticle spectrum, $\Delta$ is the minimum single-quasiparticle excitation energy. The interval between $-\Delta$ and $+\Delta$ has width $2\Delta$. A process that creates two quasiparticles from the BCS ground state has an energetic threshold $2\Delta$, subject also to its transition-selection rules.^[ref]

For example, two independently created excitations with ${\xi }_1={\xi }_2=0$ cost $E_1+E_2=2\Delta$. With the chosen cutoff example this is $1.46574\mathrm{meV}$, while adding one excitation costs at least $0.732871\mathrm{meV}$. This factor of two matters when comparing photon absorption with the Giaever superconducting tunnelling experiment. Quantum tunnelling from a normal metal can add one excitation to a sample exhibiting superconductivity; with two gapped electrodes, their excitation costs add. A minimum excitation cost is an energetic condition; the measured onset can additionally depend on temperature and on the available transitions.

A superconducting fluctuation is a variation of the superconducting order parameter about its mean value. Near a transition, transient pairing correlations can influence transport or magnetic response even when long-range phase-coherent superconductivity is absent.

This makes it necessary to distinguish a local pairing tendency from a fully established zero-resistance state. The strength and extent of fluctuation effects depend on dimensionality, disorder and the distance from the transition. A measured excess conductivity needs comparison with the normal-state background and alternative mechanisms.^[ref]

The superconducting isotope effect is the dependence of the superconducting transition temperature on isotopic mass $M$ at fixed chemical composition. Its discovery in 1950 was a crucial clue that phonons participate in conventional superconductivity.^[ref]

The model prediction can be derived from two assumptions. For harmonic motion with a fixed restoring-force constant $K$, a phonon frequency scales as $\omega \propto \sqrt{K/M}$. If the BCS dimensionless coupling is independent of $M$, the weak coupling result $k_B{T}_c\simeq 1.134\hslash {\omega }_D{e}^{-1/\lambda }$ then gives $T_c\propto M^{-1/2}$ and $\alpha =1/2$. Changes in the effective interaction can change this exponent; it is not a universal law for every material exhibiting superconductivity. For a stipulated mass ratio $M_2/M_1=1.04$, the ideal model predicts $T_{c,2}/T_{c,1}=1/\sqrt{1.04}\simeq 0.98058$. This is an original scaling example, not a pair of measured transition temperatures.

The superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ is the temperature at which the material enters superconductivity on cooling in zero applied magnetic field and with negligible measuring electric current. A measured transition at nonzero magnetic field or appreciable electric current need not occur at this zero-field $T_c$. If a resistance-versus-temperature experiment for superconductivity gives a transition spread over several temperatures, report whether its quoted value is the onset, midpoint, or disappearance of detectable electrical resistance, together with the experimental conditions. This operational distinction matters when comparing samples. ^[ref]

A superconducting weak link is a connection between regions with superconductivity whose coupling is weak enough that a substantial difference of quantum phase can develop across the connection. An insulating tunnel barrier is one realization; a narrow conducting constriction can also couple the regions. The current-phase relation of a superconducting weak link depends on the connection. A sinusoid is the leading tunnel-junction approximation, not a universal law for every superconducting weak link. ^[ref]

Superconductivity is a phase of matter that supports steady electric current with zero bulk electrical resistivity and exhibits the Meissner effect: equilibrium screening of a sufficiently weak, static magnetic field from the interior. It occurs below a material-dependent superconducting transition temperature, provided the electric current and applied magnetic field are also sufficiently small. ^[ref] Bulk expulsion means that a sample much thicker than its London penetration depth has an almost field-free interior; the magnetic field need not vanish at its surface. Conventional BCS theory explains superconductivity through correlated electrons forming Cooper pairs. ^[ref]

The two observations answer different questions. A resistance-versus-temperature experiment for superconductivity asks whether a steady electric current requires a measurable electric potential difference. A Field-cooled Meissner experiment asks whether a magnetic field already present in the material is expelled when it enters superconductivity. An ideal perfect conductor with zero electrical resistivity can preserve that pre-existing magnetic field; zero electrical resistance alone therefore does not establish the Meissner effect.

The usefulness follows directly from Joule heating, $P=I^{2}R$: maintaining a steady electric current through a segment with zero electrical resistance produces no resistive heating in that segment. This makes persistent electric currents attractive for producing steady magnetic fields. The beauty is that one phase has both a transport property and an equilibrium magnetic response, and the second cannot be inferred just by making an ordinary electrical resistance very small. The London equations encode this extra magnetic response. ^[ref]

A superconductor is a material in a state of superconductivity, characterized by dissipationless steady bulk charge transport in the appropriate regime and the equilibrium magnetic screening of the Meissner effect. The state exists only within limits on temperature, magnetic field and electric current.

A zero measured electrical resistance is an important transport signature, but magnetic measurements distinguish superconductivity from the idealized perfect conductor. Type-I superconductors and type-II superconductors differ in their equilibrium response to increasing magnetic field; a type-II material can remain superconducting while containing Abrikosov vortices. Superconducting magnets exploit persistent electric currents, while superconducting circuits exploit the Josephson effect. A material's useful operating range also depends on processing, geometry and flux pinning, not solely on its transition temperature.

Takeshi Kawasaki coauthored an Aharonov-Bohm effect experiment using electron holography. Electron paths passing through and outside a coated toroid acquired a relative phase shift even though superconductivity confined the magnetic flux away from the electron paths.^[ref]

Tsuyoshi Matsuda coauthored an Aharonov-Bohm effect experiment using electron holography. Electron paths passing through and outside a coated toroid acquired a relative phase shift even though superconductivity confined the magnetic flux away from the electron paths.^[ref]

A type-II superconductor can admit magnetic flux through quantized vortices while retaining superconductivity between their cores. Its superconducting mixed state lies between the lower critical magnetic field and upper critical magnetic field. These are equilibrium bulk distinctions; sample shape, flux pinning and preparation affect a measured magnetic response.

The motivating thin-film experiments changed an apparently minor preparation detail. Nikolay Zavaritskii evaporated metal onto glass; Alexander Shalnikov proposed cooling the substrate to helium temperatures to suppress agglomeration. The resulting critical-field behavior no longer matched the small-parameter approximation. Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov found a different regime within the same theory, rather than discarding its equations.^[ref]

Vitaly Ginzburg and Lev Landau described superconductivity through a spatially varying complex order parameter coupled to an electromagnetic vector potential. Their Ginzburg-Landau theory balances the cost of changing the order parameter with magnetic-field energy and the tendency to form a superconducting state. It predicts characteristic coherence and penetration lengths and supports analysis of surfaces, currents and nonuniform states. The theory is phenomenological: it can organize measurable behavior near a transition without first deriving the microscopic pairing interaction.^[ref]

A physicist who headed the Lebedev institute’s theoretical physics department from 1971 to 1988.^[ref]

Yoichiro Nambu transferred the idea of dynamical symmetry breaking from superconductivity into particle. His model with Giovanni Jona-Lasinio treats particle mass as a self-consistent interaction effect, while collective excitations reflect the underlying chiral symmetry breaking. This makes the physical vacuum and its excitations part of the explanation of particle properties. Their simplified four-fermion theory is a model of the mechanism, rather than the modern fundamental theory of the strong interaction.^[ref]

A physicist working on spontaneous symmetry breaking.^[ref]