maxpi
- 6
- 0
Thanks for clarifying! So the lifetime experiments are still proposals - that makes sense. It's indeed surprising how little work has been done on systematic decay measurements, given how fundamental they are.
Regarding your macroscopic rings (20 mm / 10 mm) - that's interesting because at those scales, you're firmly in the regime where my framework (TCTQ) predicts topology becomes negligible. The crossover scale d_c ~ 50-100 nm means topological effects only matter for nano-scale structures.
But here's where our perspectives might connect: you're asking about *pair permanency* (whether the same electrons stay paired), while I'm asking about *topological protection* (whether the pair wavefunction has conserved quantum numbers).
These might be related! If pairs have non-trivial Berry phase (topological winding number c₁ ≠ 0), then the phase coherence is protected by topology - not because the literal electrons are "permanent," but because the wavefunction can't continuously deform to the normal state without closing the gap.
**A concrete test to distinguish our frameworks:**
Your "permanent pairs" picture predicts that decay rate τ should be:
- Independent of ring size (if pairs are truly permanent)
- Sensitive only to defects/temperature
My TCTQ predicts:
- τ(d) ~ exp(E_top/kT) where E_top ∝ 1/d²
- Strong size dependence below d_c ~ 100 nm
- Negligible enhancement for macroscopic (mm-scale) rings
So if you measure τ for rings with wire diameter varying from 50 nm to 10 μm, we'd see:
- **Your prediction**: τ roughly constant (pair permanency is intrinsic)
- **TCTQ prediction**: τ enhancement only for d < 100 nm
This would definitively test whether topology matters for macroscopic currents!
**Regarding the "local states at BZ edges":**
I've been thinking more about your picture, and I think there's a deep connection to what topologists call "Wannier states" - maximally localized wavefunctions in a band. These naturally appear near BZ edges where Berry curvature peaks.
If you're interested, there are computational tools (Wannier90, WannierTools) that can extract these states from first-principles calculations. For Al, we could check:
1. Where in the BZ these "local states" concentrate
2. Their Berry phase (topological character)
3. How they couple to superconducting gap
This might bridge our languages - your "permanent electrons in local states" = my "electrons in topologically non-trivial Wannier orbitals."
**One more thought on the van Weerdenburg results:**
Even though you weren't involved, those data are publicly available and quite striking. The fact that Tc enhancement decays so rapidly (gone by ~3 nm) suggests the effect is surface-localized rather than bulk. This could support your idea about BZ edges being special - *at surfaces*, where symmetry is broken, those edge states might be enhanced.
If the community does eventually pursue your lifetime experiments, I'd be very interested in the results. And if you ever want to discuss the theoretical underpinnings (Berry phase, Wannier functions, etc.), I'm happy to share more details.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion - it's made me think more carefully about what "topological protection" really means at the microscopic level!
Regarding your macroscopic rings (20 mm / 10 mm) - that's interesting because at those scales, you're firmly in the regime where my framework (TCTQ) predicts topology becomes negligible. The crossover scale d_c ~ 50-100 nm means topological effects only matter for nano-scale structures.
But here's where our perspectives might connect: you're asking about *pair permanency* (whether the same electrons stay paired), while I'm asking about *topological protection* (whether the pair wavefunction has conserved quantum numbers).
These might be related! If pairs have non-trivial Berry phase (topological winding number c₁ ≠ 0), then the phase coherence is protected by topology - not because the literal electrons are "permanent," but because the wavefunction can't continuously deform to the normal state without closing the gap.
**A concrete test to distinguish our frameworks:**
Your "permanent pairs" picture predicts that decay rate τ should be:
- Independent of ring size (if pairs are truly permanent)
- Sensitive only to defects/temperature
My TCTQ predicts:
- τ(d) ~ exp(E_top/kT) where E_top ∝ 1/d²
- Strong size dependence below d_c ~ 100 nm
- Negligible enhancement for macroscopic (mm-scale) rings
So if you measure τ for rings with wire diameter varying from 50 nm to 10 μm, we'd see:
- **Your prediction**: τ roughly constant (pair permanency is intrinsic)
- **TCTQ prediction**: τ enhancement only for d < 100 nm
This would definitively test whether topology matters for macroscopic currents!
**Regarding the "local states at BZ edges":**
I've been thinking more about your picture, and I think there's a deep connection to what topologists call "Wannier states" - maximally localized wavefunctions in a band. These naturally appear near BZ edges where Berry curvature peaks.
If you're interested, there are computational tools (Wannier90, WannierTools) that can extract these states from first-principles calculations. For Al, we could check:
1. Where in the BZ these "local states" concentrate
2. Their Berry phase (topological character)
3. How they couple to superconducting gap
This might bridge our languages - your "permanent electrons in local states" = my "electrons in topologically non-trivial Wannier orbitals."
**One more thought on the van Weerdenburg results:**
Even though you weren't involved, those data are publicly available and quite striking. The fact that Tc enhancement decays so rapidly (gone by ~3 nm) suggests the effect is surface-localized rather than bulk. This could support your idea about BZ edges being special - *at surfaces*, where symmetry is broken, those edge states might be enhanced.
If the community does eventually pursue your lifetime experiments, I'd be very interested in the results. And if you ever want to discuss the theoretical underpinnings (Berry phase, Wannier functions, etc.), I'm happy to share more details.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion - it's made me think more carefully about what "topological protection" really means at the microscopic level!