Superconductors and quasiparticles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Niles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Superconductors
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi

I read on Wikipedia that a broken Cooper pair is called a Bogoliubov quasiparticle (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle). Is that really true (if yes, then is there a difference between QPs in a metal and a superconductor)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A "quasiparticle" is a concept out of Landau's Fermi Liquid Theory. It is the result of the "renomalization" of the many-body interaction in the weak-coupling limit. It applies to most metails. And since conventional superconductors are predominantly these "standard" metals, the quasiparticles are the same because these are renormalized electrons.

In cuprate superconductors, that's a different story. Because of strong coupling, these quasiparticles many not be the same ones you get in metals. In fact, that's why the normal state of these material are often called "bad metals", because the behavior of these quasiparticles are not what one would expect out of the Fermi Liquid theory.

Zz.
 
Pedantic point: the Bogoliubov particles in SC are not quite electrons, but a mixture of electron and hole excitations. Sort of. At the end of the day, it doesn't make immediate sense to talk about excitations of a different ground state and assume that they behave anything like each other.
 
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...
Back
Top