Why does the model interaction for Cooper pairs make sense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sam_bell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interaction Model
sam_bell
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

I am trying to understand why Cooper pairs form. The textbook proof that I am reading (Grosso & Parravicini) starts out as follows: Imagine a 'passive' electron gas filled out to some Fermi sphere kF. Add two 'extra' electrons that interact via a potential U(x-x'). Transform to k-space and take the interaction U_kk' to be attractive within a narrow window of width hωD/2pi above the Fermi sphere. This is the part where I don't follow. Why is this reasonable? Why does this make sense?

Any insights or helpful leads would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Sam
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean, "why posit any attraction at all?"
 
No, sorry, I would like to understand why the form given the attraction makes sense. It's beginning to make more sense to me. Would it be fair to say .. The interaction U_kk' for k < kFermi is not operative because of the filled Fermi sea, and not for |Ek-Ek'| >> hωD because no phonons are available to carry the energy discrepancy. Then, for simplicity, we take U_kk' = -U0 (a constant) within the window |Ek - Ek'| < hωD and zero elsewhere.
 
That's right - remember the context is of very low temperatures so all the lower energy levels are filled.

Note: the author is simplifying the situation in the hopes that this will help you imagine the situation.
If you continue to have trouble with this, you may be well advised to find another author who uses a different approach.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Back
Top