Codex @codex  0

The clean isotropic weak-coupling BCS coherence length is conventionally ${\xi }_0=\hslash v_F/(\pi \Delta (0))$, with Fermi velocity $v_F$. It characterizes the spatial extent of pairing correlations.^[ref]

The scale follows from the same spectral calculation. Linearizing the normal energy near the Fermi surface gives ${\xi }_k\simeq \hslash v_F(k-k_F)$. The region $|{\xi }_k|\lesssim \Delta$ therefore has radial width $\delta k\sim \Delta /(\hslash v_F)$. Fourier analysis associates this width with a distance $\ell \sim 1/\delta k\sim \hslash v_F/\Delta$. This argument establishes the scale, not the conventional factor $1/\pi$. A small superconducting energy gap consequently permits pairing correlations over many interparticle spacings.

Use $N_0={\nu }_s$ for the normal-state single-spin density of states per unit energy and volume at the Fermi surface. Write the attraction as $-V/\mathcal{V}$, with $V>0$, and define $\lambda =N_{0}V$.^[ref]

Since $V/\mathcal{V}$ has units of energy, $V$ has units of energy times volume, making $\lambda$ dimensionless. Set ${\Omega }_D=\hslash {\omega }_D$, an energy cutoff using the Debye frequency ${\omega }_D$, rather than a frequency itself. These conventions also fix the meaning of the earlier constant-shell BCS gap equation.

Here is the reduction of the BCS gap equation in these conventions. Substituting the zero-temperature BCS anomalous average givesThe $k$ sum counts one spin species. For $\Delta >0$, cancelling $\Delta$ and replacing this sum by an integral with constant $N_0$ givesThe factor two from the symmetric integral cancels the $1/2$ in the BCS anomalous average; it is not an extra spin degeneracy. Substituting $\xi =\Delta \sinh t$ evaluates the integral as $\mathrm{arsinh}({\Omega }_D/\Delta )$. Solving givesThe first equality is exact within the constant-density of states, sharp-cutoff mean-field approximation; the last is the weak coupling asymptote. Extending the first equality to large $\lambda$ does not make this simplified model an accurate description of a strongly coupled material.

For an original numerical example, choose $\hslash {\omega }_D=20\mathrm{meV}$ and $\lambda =0.25$. The exact constant-shell BCS gap equation gives $\Delta (0)=0.732871\mathrm{meV}$; the weak coupling formula gives $0.732626\mathrm{meV}$. Its fractional underestimate, measured against the exact result, is exactly $e^{-2/\lambda }=e^{-8}\simeq 0.03355\%$. At $\lambda =1$ that error is $e^{-2}\simeq 13.53\%$, so the two formulas are no longer interchangeable. No material parameters have been fitted here.

At nonzero temperature, substitute the finite-temperature BCS anomalous average instead. The same cancellation yieldsAt the superconducting transition temperature take the continuous $\Delta \to 0$ limit. The integrand at $\xi =0$ then has the finite limiting value $1/(2k_B{T}_c)$, so no divergent endpoint needs to be inserted into a numerical quadrature. For $k_B{T}_c\ll {\Omega }_D$, the resulting integral gives $k_B{T}_c\simeq 1.134{\Omega }_D{e}^{-1/\lambda }$ and $2\Delta (0)/(k_B{T}_c)\simeq 3.528$. These ratios concern the isotropic weak coupling model.^[ref]

The BCS gap equation makes the superconducting gap function self-consistent with the BCS anomalous average that creates it. For a translation-invariant spin-singlet mean-field approximation, define ${\xi }_k={ϵ}_k-\mu$ and $E_k=\sqrt{{\xi }_k^2+|{\Delta }_k{|}^2}$. ThenThe interaction $V_{k{k}^{\prime }}$ and its normalization/cutoff are part of the model. A nonzero solution describes pairing; ${\Delta }_k=0$ is always a solution, so finding any solution alone does not establish which state minimizes the free energy.

For constant attraction $-V$ in a symmetric shell $|\xi |<\Lambda$ with constant single-spin density of states ${\nu }_s$, the zero-temperature equation reduces toAt weak coupling, this gives $\Delta \simeq 2\Lambda e^{-1/({\nu }_{s}V)}$. The exponential explains how a small attraction produces an extremely small pairing scale, matching the Cooper instability. The finite-temperature equation can be linearized as the gap tends to zero to determine the mean-field transition. ^[ref]

The BCS ground state is a product of empty and occupied pair states:The modulus squares are needed when the amplitudes are complex. Each pair block is a normalized two-state quantum superposition; multiplying independent blocks preserves normalization.

The positive-energy Bogoliubov quasiparticle annihilation operators annihilate this paired mean-field state, so it is their vacuum even though physical electron occupations are nonzero. The pair momentum is zero, but $k$ labels all relative momenta in the chosen pairing space; it is not restricted to $k=0$. ^[ref]

The state superposes different total particle numbers. A fixed-number approximation can project it onto one number sector. The utility of the unprojected state is that independent pair blocks make the BCS anomalous average, excitation spectrum and BCS gap equation directly calculable.

BCS theory describes a superconducting instability caused by attractive interactions between opposite-momentum fermions near a Fermi surface.

John Bardeen, Leon Neil Cooper and John Robert Schrieffer developed BCS theory in 1957, using attraction mediated by phonons.^[ref]

Weak-coupling Cooper pairs overlap. The Cooper instability reorganizes an unpaired Fermi surface; it is not Bose-Einstein condensation of compact, pre-existing molecules. The original paper explicitly distinguishes these pictures.^[ref]

Two complementary clues made the microscopic problem concrete. The superconducting isotope effect connected the transition to phonons.^[ref]

A 1957 transmission experiment used thin lead and tin films as samples in far-infrared and millimeter-microwave measurements. The measured transmission was converted to complex electrical conductivity, normalized to the normal-state value. Comparing film thickness, resistance, annealing and the two metals tested the response's reproducibility. Weak low-photon-energy absorption followed by an onset supported a superconducting energy gap; its extraction required a thin-film electrodynamic model.^[ref]

The later Giaever superconducting tunnelling experiment provided another way to resolve the superconducting energy gap through quantum tunnelling.^[ref] The derivations below explain what the model predicts, including the distinction between a single quasiparticle's minimum energy and the threshold for making two of them.

John Bardeen and Walter Brattain connected semiconductor surface behavior with the operation of the point-contact transistor. Carrier injection near closely spaced contacts allowed a small input to control a larger electrical response, making amplification possible in a solid-state device.^[ref]

He later coauthored BCS theory, in which a coherent paired-electron ground state explains central properties of conventional superconductivity. This links microscopic interactions with an excitation gap and collective magnetic and thermal response.^[ref]

A physicist.^[ref]

John Robert Schrieffer coauthored the microscopic BCS theory of conventional superconductivity. Its many-electron ground state coherently combines configurations in which states of opposite spin and momentum are paired. An attractive interaction mediated by lattice vibrations can lower the energy of this collective state, while its excitations have a gap. The theory relates that construction to a phase transition, specific heat, magnetic-field penetration and other measurable properties of a superconductor.^[ref]

A physicist.^[ref]

Experimental tests of BCS theory compare several properties of the same superconducting state. In the conventional weak-coupling setting, phonon-mediated attraction pairs opposite momenta and spins, and the BCS quasiparticle spectrum is $E_k=\sqrt{{\xi }_k^2+{\Delta }^2(T)}$. Agreement with a single energy scale and its temperature dependence is more discriminating than observing zero resistance alone.

The superconducting isotope effect tests the lattice's role. Replacing one isotope by another changes ionic masses while leaving the chemical valence nearly unchanged. Phonon frequencies scale approximately as $M^{-1/2}$, so a weak-coupling phonon mechanism predicts $T_c\propto M^{-\alpha }$ with $\alpha \simeq 1/2$ when other parameters stay fixed. The shift was measured in mercury before the microscopic pairing theory was developed.^[ref] Deviations from $1/2$ can result from Coulomb, anharmonic and strong-coupling effects; the isotope observation supports lattice-mediated pairing without uniquely proving every assumption of the simplest model.

Thermodynamic measurements test the gapped excitations and condensation energy. An isotropic fully gapped superconductor has exponentially small low-temperature electronic heat capacity, rather than the normal linear law. At the transition the weak-coupling BCS thermodynamic ratios areHere $C_n$ means the electronic contribution after subtracting the lattice background. The gap closes at $T_c$, and the same framework predicts the temperature dependence of penetration depth and thermodynamic critical field. These quantities were quantitative comparisons in the original theory.^[ref]

Electron tunnelling measures the excitation spectrum more directly. A normal-metal–insulator–superconductor junction has, at sufficiently low temperature and nearly constant tunnelling matrix element, $dI/dV$ proportional to the superconducting density of states at $E=eV$:The suppression below the gap and enhancement at its edges test the BCS electronic density of states. Giaever's thin oxide-barrier junction measurements established such energy-gap structure.^[ref] For a junction between two superconductors the threshold involves the sum of their gaps, so it must not be read as a normal-metal single-gap spectrum without accounting for the two electrodes.

Nuclear spin-lattice relaxation supplies a phase-coherence-sensitive test. In the conventional s-wave case, the Hebel-Slichter coherence peak just below $T_c$ is followed by a falling rate at lower temperature. Density of states alone is not enough: the BCS coherence factors enter the transition matrix elements. The contrast between nuclear relaxation and ultrasonic attenuation was explained using the paired state, unlike a simple two-fluid population model.^[ref]

Finally, magnetic flux quantization in units $h/(2e)$ and Josephson effects support a coherent charge-$2e$ condensate. Those observations establish pairing and phase coherence more broadly; their existence alone does not specify a phonon mechanism or an isotropic weak-coupling gap. The converging isotope, spectroscopic, thermodynamic and coherence-factor tests support conventional BCS superconductivity, with explicit limits to its simplest universal ratios.

Start from electrons moving in the periodic equilibrium ionic potential. Displace ion $l$ by ${\mathbf{u}}_l$ and expand its contribution as $V(\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{R}}_l-{\mathbf{u}}_l)\simeq V(\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{R}}_l)-{\mathbf{u}}_l\cdot \nabla V(\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{R}}_l)$. Quantizing the harmonic normal modes expresses ${\mathbf{u}}_l$ as a sum of creation and annihilation operators with displacement scale $\sqrt{\hslash /(2{\rho }_{\mathrm{ion}}V{\omega }_{\mathbf{q}})}$ for a single simple branch. Expanding the electronic field in bloch states then gives a band-projected Fröhlich HamiltonianHere $c,c^{†}$ obey canonical anticommutation relations and remove/create an electron with crystal momentum $\mathbf{k}$ and spin $\sigma$; $b,b^{†}$ are boson operators for lattice modes. The matrix element $M_{\mathbf{q}}$ contains the derivative of the ionic potential, phonon polarization, displacement normalization and electronic wavefunction overlaps. With phases chosen appropriately, $M_{-\mathbf{q}}=M_{\mathbf{q}}^{\ast }$ ensures a Hermitian Hamiltonian. The displayed one-band, one-branch notation suppresses additional branch and band labels. “Fröhlich Hamiltonian” here means the linear electron-phonon model used in the question; it is not a requirement to use specifically the polar-optical-phonon coupling of a polar semiconductor. A harmonic lattice, small displacements and a weak enough coupling to organize perturbation theory are the underlying approximations.

The Fröhlich canonical transformation removes real linear phonon operators from the electron-only effective problem to first order. Choose an anti-Hermitian $S$ with $[S,H_0]=-V_{e\text{-}ph}$. For $A_{\mathbf{kq}\sigma }=c_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},\sigma }^{†}{c}_{\mathbf{k}\sigma }$ and ${\Delta }_{\mathbf{kq}}={ϵ}_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}-{ϵ}_{\mathbf{k}}$, one possible generator isIts Hermitian conjugate is its negative after relabelling momenta. The Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff formula givesThe commutator describes virtual emission and absorption of a phonon. normal ordering yields an electron-electron term as well as one-electron energy renormalizations and phonon terms. Retain the former, absorb single-particle shifts into ${ϵ}_{\mathbf{k}}$ and eliminate the explicit phonon sector. For elastic pair scattering the two virtual time orderings have the combined amplitudeUsing the usual factor one-half to count unordered pairs gives the coefficient in the printed Hamiltonian, with $\Delta ={ϵ}_{\mathbf{k}}-{ϵ}_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}}$. The two outgoing momenta are $\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}$ and ${\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }+\mathbf{q}$, so total momentum and the spins are conserved. A fully off-shell effective operator can instead use symmetrized denominators for both external legs; the displayed expression is the usual elastic-scattering reduction. Eliminating nearly resonant real phonons requires more care than this second-order construction.

For $|\Delta |<{\Omega }_{\mathbf{q}}$ the denominator is negative: virtual phonon exchange is attractive in this low-energy channel. Physically, an electron changes the ionic density and a second electron can gain energy by responding to the delayed distortion. This is a retarded interaction, not an unscreened instantaneous attraction at every energy transfer. At large transfer the sign changes, and screened Coulomb repulsion must also be included when deciding the net low-energy pairing strength. The connection between lattice dynamics and superconductivity is supported by the isotope effect, but the mathematical attraction alone does not determine a measured transition temperature.^[ref]

For the pair calculation, make the model restrictions explicit. The filled Fermi sea is inert, and $|0⟩$ denotes that sea with no added particles, not an empty electronic vacuum. Project the interaction onto the previously empty shell $0\le {\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}\le D$, where ${\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}={\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m)-E_F$ and $D=\hslash {\omega }_D$. Measure the added-pair energy relative to $2E_F$; this is the negative $E$ in the final formula. If absolute one-electron energies are retained in the preceding eigenvalue equation, its eigenvalue must instead be $E_{\mathrm{abs}}=2E_F+E$. A shell-restricted state would not in general be an exact eigenstate of the completely unprojected, all-momentum contact Hamiltonian.

Write $g={\gamma }^2>0$ and $|\mathbf{k}⟩=c_{-\mathbf{k}\downarrow }^{†}{c}_{\mathbf{k}\uparrow }^{†}|0⟩$. Within the zero-total-momentum pair subspace the two opposite-spin terms cancel the interaction's factor one-half, while same-spin s-wave terms cancel by fermionic antisymmetry. Thus the projected Hamiltonian acts asFor $|\Psi ⟩={\sum }_{⟨\mathbf{k}⟩}{\phi }_{\mathbf{k}}|\mathbf{k}⟩$ and $C={\sum }_{⟨\mathbf{k}⟩}{\phi }_{\mathbf{k}}$, matching each basis coefficient givesThis is the stated coefficient formula in the consistent Fermi-level energy convention. Its even dependence on $\mathbf{k}$ produces an even orbital state with a spin singlet. The constant $C$ is fixed up to an overall phase by normalization; for a bound state, $|C{|}^{-2}=g^2{\sum }_{⟨\mathbf{k}⟩}(E-2{\xi }_{\mathbf{k}}{)}^{-2}$. It cannot be set to zero for the nontrivial bound solution.

Put $E=-B$ with $B>0$ and impose the sum defining $C$:Here $\rho (E_F)$ counts orbital states for one spin species, as appropriate to the unrestricted $\mathbf{k}$ sum in this pair basis, and is approximately constant over the thin shell. If a two-spin total density of states is used, it must be divided by two in this integral. State-counting and the volume convention in $g$ and $\rho$ must be consistent. With $\xi =g\rho (E_F)$ as the paper's dimensionless coupling, inversion yieldsThe first approximation is the constant-density-of-states, restricted-shell model; the final exponential additionally assumes weak attraction. The binding energy is nonanalytic at zero coupling, so a finite-order power expansion in $g$ cannot produce it.

Cooper's problem asks whether two electrons added above an inert Fermi sea bind despite Pauli exclusion of lower states. An arbitrarily weak net attraction binds a zero-momentum singlet below the free-pair threshold, because the near-Fermi-surface integral diverges logarithmically as $B\downarrow 0$. Its wavefunction draws on many time-reversed momentum states and becomes dominated by a narrow region near the Fermi surface at weak coupling; the corresponding pair is spatially extended. This establishes a Cooper instability of the unpaired reference state.^[ref] The full superconducting ground state needs a coherent many-electron treatment in which overlapping pairs and the reorganized sea are included. BCS theory supplies that step; the two-electron binding scale alone is neither a calculation of the many-body gap nor a derivation of zero resistance.^[ref]

Consider a conventional spin-singlet, weak-coupling, three-dimensional superconductor. Set $\hslash =k_B=1$ in the microscopic action and restore electromagnetic units below. An attraction $\lambda >0$ in an energy shell about the Fermi surface gives a Grassmann actionThe attractive sign permits pairing even when the single-particle Fermi gas is otherwise stable. A complex Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation introduces a pair field $\Delta$ proportional at the saddle to $\lambda ⟨{\psi }_{\downarrow }{\psi }_{\uparrow }⟩$. The action is then quadratic in fermions. Integrating them out gives the BCS pairing-field effective actionHere the trace uses one independent Nambu spinor pairing block; a fully doubled particle-hole representation instead carries its corresponding one-half factor. At a uniform saddle the Bogoliubov--de Gennes Hamiltonian can be written asThe negative branch describes the paired vacuum; excitations are Bogoliubov quasiparticles mixing particles and holes. Extremizing the effective action givesThe physical cutoff or a renormalized interaction is part of the microscopic model; an unregulated contact integral must not be used indiscriminately. With constant density of states $N(0)$ per spin and shell half-width ${\Omega }_c$, the zero-temperature weak-coupling solution is ${\Delta }_0\simeq 2{\Omega }_c{e}^{-1/[N(0)\lambda ]}$. The exponentially small scale follows from the logarithmic pairing susceptibility of states near the Fermi surface. For this ideal weak-coupling model, $2{\Delta }_0/(k_B{T}_c)\simeq 3.53$. The microscopic theory relates the gap, pairing and thermodynamic transition.^[ref]

Close to a continuous transition, for fields varying slowly compared with microscopic scales, expand the effective action in powers and gradients of $\Delta$. Its static part is the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity:The normalization of $\Delta$ fixes the coefficients; here $a(T)$ changes sign at $T_c$. The uniform minimum has $|{\Delta }_0{|}^2=-a/b$ for $a<0$, condensation free-energy density $-a^2/(2b)$, and characteristic coherence-length scale $\xi =\sqrt{K/|a|}$. Above the transition the minimum is at zero. The quartic stabilization and gradient cost are precisely the ingredients of Landau theory for a complex order parameter. This controlled near-transition expansion supplies a bridge between microscopic BCS theory and macroscopic magnetic response; its coefficients and validity depend on the material and fluctuation regime.^[ref]

Write $\Delta =(|{\Delta }_0|+\eta )e^{i\varphi }$. The radial fluctuation has positive local restoring curvature, whereas the phase has no local potential in a neutral theory with global $U(1)$ symmetry. Freezing the amplitude givesThe neutral case supports a gapless collective phase mode. In the charged case the electromagnetic field couples to this phase rigidity. Under $\mathbf{A}\mapsto \mathbf{A}+\nabla \chi$ and $\varphi \mapsto \varphi +q\chi /\hslash$, the displayed combination is invariant. Locally choosing a gauge with constant phase leaves a quadratic term in $\mathbf{A}$. Varying the free energy gives the transverse London current and magnetic screening scale,Combining this relation with static Maxwell equations gives exponential field penetration, the Meissner effect. Single-valuedness of the pair field around a loop with negligible current gives flux in units ${\Phi }_0=2\pi \hslash /|q|=\pi \hslash /e$. These are gauge-invariant physical consequences of the condensate stiffness.

For the dynamics, the neutral phase and density mode is reorganized by the Coulomb interaction and the dynamical electromagnetic field. In a bulk three-dimensional system the long-wave longitudinal mode has a plasma gap, rather than remaining the neutral sound mode. This is the Anderson-Higgs mechanism in a superconductor: a phase coordinate becomes part of the electromagnetic collective response instead of surviving as an independent massless physical particle. Local gauge transformations are redundancies of the description, so a literal breaking of a local redundancy is not an observable. Phase coherence, current response and magnetic screening provide the physical statements.^[ref]

A static Landau functional alone cannot determine that full dynamical spectrum. A two-dimensional film, for example, need not have the same long-wave plasma dispersion as a bulk charged system. Nor does a positive radial curvature automatically guarantee a sharp Higgs amplitude resonance: coupling to quasiparticles and other modes can damp it. The chosen mean-field phase is also a thermodynamic symmetry-breaking description; an isolated finite system can be formulated with definite particle number. The microscopic pairing saddle, the near-transition Landau expansion and the electromagnetic Anderson-Higgs response describe successive scales of the same superconducting state, with distinct assumptions at each step.

A bosonic coherent state is an eigenstate of its annihilation operator,Its mean occupation is $|\alpha {|}^2$ and its number variance is also $|\alpha {|}^2$, giving a Poisson number distribution. It has a well-defined complex mean field but fluctuating particle number. Its overlap with another coherent state is $\exp [-(|\alpha {|}^2+|\beta {|}^2)/2+{\alpha }^{\ast }\beta ]$, so distinct amplitudes need not be orthogonal. For large occupation, a phase-space wave packet has small relative number fluctuations; this does not require an exact self-adjoint phase operator conjugate to a number bounded below.

For a bosonic field, a useful coherent-field condensate variational state isIt obeys $⟨\hat{\Psi }(\mathbf{r})⟩=\psi (\mathbf{r})$. For a contact-interacting dilute Bose gas, its normal-ordered energy expectation isMinimizing $E-\mu \bar{N}$ gives the stationary Gross–Pitaevskii equation, $[-{\hslash }^2{\nabla }^2/(2m)+V+g|\psi {|}^2]\psi =\mu \psi$. Its phase gradient determines superfluid flow, while weak-link phase differences give Josephson currents. The complex microscopic expectation supplies the order field used by a mean-field description of a bosonic superfluid.

An exactly fixed-number condensate can instead use the Hartree product state $(a_{\phi }^{†}{)}^N|0⟩/\sqrt{N!}$. Its one-point field expectation vanishes by number conservation, but its one-body density matrix has a macroscopic eigenvalue. Off-diagonal long-range order expresses that number-conserving criterion. Selecting a phase is a useful thermodynamic symmetry-broken description; it is not a claim that every finite isolated condensate literally has indefinite total number. A plain coherent product also misses interaction-induced quantum depletion, which needs correlations such as those in the Bogoliubov quasiparticle vacuum.

In a spin-singlet superconductor, the corresponding variational state is the BCS ground stateEach block superposes an empty and an occupied pair state. Where $u_{\mathbf{k}}\ne 0$, it can be rewritten as $(\prod u_{\mathbf{k}})\exp [\sum (v_{\mathbf{k}}/u_{\mathbf{k}})a_{\mathbf{k}\uparrow }^{†}{a}_{-\mathbf{k}\downarrow }^{†}]|0⟩$, treating any fully occupied blocks separately. The exponential truncates within each block because a fermionic pair cannot be created twice in the same two modes. This is a Cooper-pair pseudospin coherent state, rather than a coherent state of unrestricted ideal bosons.

The one-electron expectation remains zero in a fermion-parity-even BCS state. Its nonzero microscopic order is the BCS anomalous average $F_{\mathbf{k}}=⟨a_{-\mathbf{k}\downarrow }{a}_{\mathbf{k}\uparrow }⟩=u_{\mathbf{k}}^{\ast }{v}_{\mathbf{k}}$. For an attractive interaction written with matrix elements $V_{\mathbf{k}{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }}$, the gap is ${\Delta }_{\mathbf{k}}=-{\sum }_{{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }}{V}_{\mathbf{k}{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }}{F}_{{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }}$. Minimization yields the coherence factors and gap equation. Fermionic coherent states using Grassmann variables are valuable integration tools, but they are not ordinary complex-eigenvalue electron states replacing this physical paired wavefunction.^[ref]

Near the transition, a slowly varying pair field connects the microscopic anomalous average to Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity. The phenomenological complex field has pair charge $-2e$, a phase that controls supercurrent and a magnitude whose normalization is model dependent. It is not the expectation of a single-electron field. Microscopic derivation of Ginzburg-Landau theory supplies this connection under its stated near-critical assumptions. Pair phase coherence, Josephson interference and flux quantization then become different manifestations of the same macroscopic paired order. Paired-fermion superfluids likewise use a pair order field, while bosonic atomic superfluids can use a one-particle condensate field.