A Stability of persistent currents in superconductors regardless of temperature

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Stanislav
  • Start date Start date
Stanislav
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
From theories 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 warm up, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent. However, this supercurrent decrease is never observed. Is the superfluid density independent of temperature ?
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 decrease is never observed. Does it mean that the superfluid density is independent of temperature ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stanislav said:
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 decrease is never observed. Does it mean that the superfluid density is independent of temperature ?
Not an expert here, but how do you know it does not decrease? What size is the ring you are considering?
 
pines-demon said:
Not an expert here, but how do you know it does not decrease? What size is the ring you are considering?
There are always temperature fluctuations in every cryostat, and the SC-density decrease is not very weak, so a current instability would be detectable. However, the current is stable for years. I didn't find in literature any dependence of the supercurrent on temperature. The ring size is like in experiments with persistent supercurrents, macroscopic, a few centimeters.
 
Stanislav said:
There are always temperature fluctuations in every cryostat, and the SC-density decrease is not very weak, so a current instability would be detectable. However, the current is stable for years. I didn't find in literature any dependence of the supercurrent on temperature. The ring size is like in experiments with persistent supercurrents, macroscopic, a few centimeters.
Being naive, London equations (the first macroscopic equations for superconductivity) argue that the current depends on the superconducting density ##n_s## which depends on the temperature.
 
pines-demon said:
Being naive, London equations (the first macroscopic equations for superconductivity) argue that the current depends on the superconducting density ##n_s## which depends on the temperature.
Exactly. Then the question : why is the supercurrent stable in all experiments regardless of temperature variations ? Something is not in line in the story.
 
Breaking a pair reduces the magnetic field which leads to an electric field which speeds up the other Cooper pairs which increase the magnetic field. In the end, the magnetic field stays constant and the cooper pairs speed up so as to keep current constant, as claimed by the London equations
 
Electromotive force occurs when the actual supercurrent really decreases anyhow. The contradiction is that the observed supercurrent doesn't decrease, so any EMF is absent. Moreover, annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms, so the momentum conservation law requires that the supercurrent loses the momenta of annihilated pairs. So the supercurrent must actually decrease. However, it is never observed.
 
Last edited:
There is no momentum conservation for the electrons alone. Momentum can always be taken up from or given to the lattice.
 
Do you think the lattice takes the momentum of annihilated pairs and gives it to the living pairs ? How can the lattice know the direction and particles to be accelerated ? Why cannot the lattice boost normal electrons ? Too magic. Rather, the pair density is independent of temperature.
 
  • #10
Moreover, if the lattice takes the momenta of pairs, it takes also their energy. But the energy of atoms with the momenta of pairs is much lower than the energy of pairs with the same momenta, because the atoms are much heavier (if mv=MV, then mv^2 >> MV^2). Thus, some energy of dissipated pair momenta vanishes (probably as heat and radiation) and lattice cannot recover the lost momentum of pairs because of the energy deficit.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Thermal energy cannot recover the lost pair momentum because the thermal energy cannot spontaneously be converted into ordered momentum.
 
  • #12
In principle, this is the Einstein - de Haas effect. The electronic sub-system condenses into a broken symmetry state with non-vanishing angular momentum and the complete system starts to rotate due to angular momentum conservation.

PS: Obviously, I am not the first one to remark this connection: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.86.905
 
  • #13
Exactly. The angular momentum conservation works in superconductors at warming. Annihilated pairs give their momentum to lattice, and then the supercurrent momentum must decrease. However, the supercurrent remains constant. Conclusion: the pairs don't annihilate at warming.
 
  • #15
Yes, thank you. Professor Hirsch also noted that generally accepted theories are contradictory.
 
  • #16
Stanislav said:
Electromotive force occurs when the actual supercurrent really decreases anyhow. The contradiction is that the observed supercurrent doesn't decrease, so any EMF is absent. Moreover, annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms, so the momentum conservation law requires that the supercurrent loses the momenta of annihilated pairs. So the supercurrent must actually decrease. However, it is never observed.
I really think there is a very small transient decrease of supercurrent, if you suddenly decrease the superconducting density by changing the temperature. The penetration depth of the magnetic field and of the current density is proportional to 1/sqrt(n_s). A decrease in n_s leads to an increase in magnetic field and this goes in hand with an electric field. The change will never be instantaneous, as the newly generated normal conducting electrons need time to loose their current in collisions with the lattice. The electric field will be small but it must exist, simply because the electric field and acceleration are simultaneous, but velocity lags behind. The electric field acts both on the superconducting electrons and on the positively charged lattice, so momentum is automatically conserved.
 
  • #17
You wrote - "the newly generated normal conducting electrons need time to loose their current in collisions with the lattice"
A contradiction again : the magnetic field changes and generates an electric field because the current is actually decreasing, that is newly generated normal conducting electrons really slow down. No slow down - no fields
 
  • #18
Of course the normal conducting electrons will slow down due to collisions with the lattice atoms. Normal resistivity. Where is the contradiction?
 
  • #19
The contradiction is that the newly generated normal electrons slow down due to collisions with the lattice and, thus, transfer their angular momentum to the lattice, whereas the supercurrent momentum remains constant. A clear violation of the conservation law for angular momentum.
 
  • #20
The collision of the normal conducting electrons with the lattice preserves (angular) momentum. It is first carried by the electrons, afterwards by the lattice. Likewise, an electric field changes the momentum of the electrons and the lattice by a degree of like absolute value but opposite sign, also preserving momentum.
 
  • #21
The momentum taken by lattice is partially converted into heat, because the lattice is much heavier than electrons.
If mv=MV and m<<V, then mv^2 >> MV^2.
The heat cannot be spontaneously converted into an ordered momentum again. Thus, the part of the supercurrent momentum is lost for ever.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
When we guess that the pair density changes abruptly at Tc, then all contradictions vanish. Moreover, observations on metals say - the transition at Tc is rather abrupt than smooth. So I'm sure the pair density cannot smoothly decrease below Tc.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
This is a thermodynamical argument, not an argument about violation of conservation of momentum. So I think we can agree on that there is no violation of conservation of (angular) momentum.

Considering now thermodynamics, you seem to claim that the reduction of superconductive charge carrier density would violate the second law. Clearly, this is not the case. Excited broken pairs are at each temperature in equilibrium with bound pairs in the ground state. Entropy gain by breaking a pair is made up by reduction change in internal energy upon formation of a bound pair so that Delta G= Delta U-T Delta S=0. Near the Fermi surface, electrons of all momenta are present and Umklapp scattering allows for transfer of momentum to or from the lattice.
 
  • #25
This is a thermodynamical argument, not an argument about violation of conservation of momentum. So I think we can agree on that there is no violation of conservation of (angular) momentum.

Considering now thermodynamics, you seem to claim that the reduction of superconductive charge carrier density would violate the second law. Clearly, this is not the case. Excited broken pairs are at each temperature in equilibrium with bound pairs in the ground state. The loss of momentum of a pair upon break up is not irreversible. Elektrons of all momenta are present near the Fermi surface and Umklapp scattering allows for momentum transfer to the lattice.
 
  • #26
Closely to Tc the pair density tends to zero, so the velocity of remaining pairs should strongly increase (in order to keep the current stable). Thermal energy kT is quanized and cannot strongly accelerate each remaining pair. Or we must do a new assumption that each remaining pair can absorb a serie of heat quanta, and allways into a certain direction only. A magic again
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Moreover, assuming that pairs absorb any thermal energy we must accept that the pairs also emit any thermal energy. That is exactly named - momentum dissipation. The pair absorbing/emitting is no longer in its ground state and, thus, can dissipate energy and momentum
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Stanislav said:
Closely to Tc the pair density tends to zero, so the velocity of remaining pairs should strongly increase (in order to keep the current stable). Thermal energy kT is quanized and cannot strongly accelerate each remaining pair. Or we must do a new assumption that each remaining pair can absorb a serie of heat quanta, and allways into a certain direction only. A magic again
The pairs are in a condensate and the whole condensate has to be accelerated. The acceleration of the condensate is due to the electric field generated by the decaying normal current. You made me look up some basics isn "Michael Tihnkham, Introduction to Superconductivity", namely section 2.5 on non-static solutions and Gortner's two fluid model. There, it is clearly stated that non- zero electric fields are possible in superconductors.
I tried to work out as an example the case of a superconducting medium filling the half space x<0. The other half space is filled with a magnetic field ##B(x\ge0)=B_z=\mathrm{const}##. On the left, B has still only a z component but its value will be a function of x and t.
Likewise, on the left, we have an electric field ##E_y## and normal and superconducting currents ##j_\mathrm{n}## and ##j_\mathrm{s}## and respective densities
##n_\mathrm{n}## and ##n_\mathrm{s}## the latter being constant for t>0. (##n_\mathrm{n}## is the additional normal conductive density due to the temperature change).
At t=0 the temperature is assumed to jump so that the densities change, but the total current is continuous ##j(t_-)=j(t_+)##.

The currents fulfill the equations ##\dot{j}_\mathrm{s}=\frac{n_\mathrm{s}e^2}{m}E## and ##\dot{j}_\mathrm{n}=\frac{n_\mathrm{n}e^2}{m}E+j_\mathrm{n}/\tau##. Here, e and m are the charges and masses of the charge carriers (i.e. cooper pairs, whether broken or not), and ##\tau## is the mean intercollision time.

Considering the Fourier components ##\omega## and ##k=k_x##, I get

## (\omega^2-k^2)E=\left(\frac{n_\mathrm{s}e^2}{m}+\frac{i\omega}{i\omega+1/\tau}\frac{n_\mathrm{n}e^2}{m}\right)E##.
Similar equations hold for B, and the currents.
Considering values of ##\omega## much smaller than the absolute value of ##k##, the square of ##\omega## may be dropped. Furthermore we distinguish between ##\omega < 1/\tau## and ##\omega >1/\tau## and get
## -k^2-\frac{n_\mathrm{s}e^2}{m}+\frac{n_\mathrm{n}e^2}{m}=0## for ##\omega > 1/\tau## and
## -k^2-\frac{n_\mathrm{s}e^2}{m}=0## for ##\omega < 1/\tau##
The high frequency components interfere destructively for ##t >> \tau##.
The low frequency contributions initially have to interfere destructively due to the boundary conditions. Their superposition becomes non-zero for ##t>\tau## but finally they will also die out.
Note that k is purely imaginary, describing the screening of the fields.
Upon heating, the screening length increases within time ##\tau## to the new larger value, before the electric fields finally die out.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
All basics are derived by the assumption that SC pairs can be created/annihilated below Tc, so all conventional arguments follow from the conventional paradigm. Whereas the constant pair density follows directly from conservation law and thermodinamics. And from the reasonable idea that long-lived current requires long-lived carriers. Therefore the key question is "are the electron pairs permanent inside a supercurrent ?"
Only experiment can solve the problem, so I proposed a simple experiment about pair permanency, see
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Id=64fad8fb05a98c1b63fca0db&showFulltext=true
 
  • #30
Anyway, thank you for your answers and doubts. They certainly help to find a better solution to the problem.
 
  • #31
I had a look at your draft. In steady state, there will be an influx of Cooper pairs into the non-SC chamber and a reflux of electrons into the SC wire. Already in the wire, the electrons will recombine into Cooper pairs. Besides the small current of opposite direction carried by the Cooper pairs and electrons, the Cooper pairs in the wire won't carry any current. Specifically, they won't extract current from the ring. If they would, the walls of the ring would quickly charge up which would bring any current against the walls to a halt. So the ring is not influenced by what goes on in the dead channel.
 
  • #32
I believe the supercurrent will decay in the experiment. Because the new pairs (created in the wire and diffused toward the ring) never experienced EMF. Only the experiment can show the real behaviour of the system.
 
  • #33
We may also modify the experiment. We can create a small non-SC area directly on the ring surface, a point with magnetic field killing the pairs only in this small area. Then we should see the same effect - pair creation/annihilation and pair exchange between the small non-SC area and large SC area lead to the current decay, although the most area of the ring remains SC.
 
  • #34
I think that a wealth of this kind of experiments has been performed and published as the understanding of the breakdown of superconductivity in coils due to fluctuations of the field or the temperature is of vital technological importance. Tinkham also contains references.
 
  • #35
Stanislav said:
We may also modify the experiment. We can create a small non-SC area directly on the ring surface, a point with magnetic field killing the pairs only in this small area. Then we should see the same effect - pair creation/annihilation and pair exchange between the small non-SC area and large SC area lead to the current decay, although the most area of the ring remains SC.

DrDu said:
I think that a wealth of this kind of experiments has been performed and published as the understanding of the breakdown of superconductivity in coils due to fluctuations of the field or the temperature is of vital technological importance. Tinkham also contains references.
I looked for any experiments with the supercurrent decay. Nothing found. Therefore the question is open.
 
  • #36
I think the problem remains open because when a supercrrent slowly decays, the resistivity can remain negligible and diamagnetic signal is strong. Thus, the decay looks like a usual SC state.
 
  • #37
This is a fascinating discussion and I've been thinking about something related that might be relevant here.
When you mentioned the problem of pair density going to zero near Tc while the current stays stable, it reminded me of something I've been wrestling with - what if there's more to the story than just the two-fluid model?
Here's what I mean: in conventional BCS superconductors, sure, the stability comes from the condensate and the energy gap. But what about materials where the band structure itself has some topological character? I'm thinking about systems with non-zero Chern numbers or non-trivial Berry phase.
The reason I'm asking is this - if the Cooper pairs inherit some topological properties from the underlying band structure, wouldn't that add an extra "stiffness" to the condensate wavefunction that doesn't just come from pairing energy? Like, the topology would make it harder for the phase to unwind even when n_s gets really small near Tc.
I haven't seen this discussed much in the literature (or maybe I'm missing something obvious?). But it seems like you could actually test this - compare how persistent currents decay near Tc in something like Sr2RuO4 (which supposedly has topological character) versus conventional materials like Nb or Al.
Has anyone here come across experiments like that? Or is there a fundamental reason why the topological stuff wouldn't matter for macroscopic currents? I feel like I'm missing something but I can't quite put my finger on what.
 
  • #38
Stanislav said:
All basics are derived by the assumption that SC pairs can be created/annihilated below Tc, so all conventional arguments follow from the conventional paradigm. Whereas the constant pair density follows directly from conservation law and thermodinamics. And from the reasonable idea that long-lived current requires long-lived carriers. Therefore the key question is "are the electron pairs permanent inside a supercurrent ?"
Only experiment can solve the problem, so I proposed a simple experiment about pair permanency, see
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Id=64fad8fb05a98c1b63fca0db&showFulltext=true
Oh wow, I just looked at your aluminum ring paper - that's exactly the kind of experiment I was thinking about!
The fact that you're seeing Tc enhancement in the 2D-Al layers is really interesting. Standard BCS would predict the opposite (or at least no change) when you go to ultrathin films, right? Unless there's something about the reduced dimensionality that's actually favorable...
What caught my attention is the geometry you're using - those 3-4 monolayer films with the variable insulator thickness. That's getting down to scales where I'd expect any topological features of the band structure to really matter. At bulk scales (your 3D-Al) those effects wash out, but in extreme confinement maybe they become visible?
I'm curious - when you measure the lifetime vs insulator thickness, do you see anything like a characteristic length scale where the behavior changes? Like, is it just smooth exponential decay with barrier thickness, or are there any "kinks" or unexpected features in the data?
The reason I ask is if there's topological protection involved, I'd expect to see some non-monotonic behavior around a critical dimension. But I might be way off base here - could just be straightforward tunneling physics.
Have you tried this with materials other than aluminum? Would be fascinating to compare with something like NbSe₂ or even Sr₂RuO₄ where the topology is more established.
 
  • #39
maxpi said:
This is a fascinating discussion and I've been thinking about something related that might be relevant here.
When you mentioned the problem of pair density going to zero near Tc while the current stays stable, it reminded me of something I've been wrestling with - what if there's more to the story than just the two-fluid model?
Here's what I mean: in conventional BCS superconductors, sure, the stability comes from the condensate and the energy gap. But what about materials where the band structure itself has some topological character? I'm thinking about systems with non-zero Chern numbers or non-trivial Berry phase.
The reason I'm asking is this - if the Cooper pairs inherit some topological properties from the underlying band structure, wouldn't that add an extra "stiffness" to the condensate wavefunction that doesn't just come from pairing energy? Like, the topology would make it harder for the phase to unwind even when n_s gets really small near Tc.
I haven't seen this discussed much in the literature (or maybe I'm missing something obvious?). But it seems like you could actually test this - compare how persistent currents decay near Tc in something like Sr2RuO4 (which supposedly has topological character) versus conventional materials like Nb or Al.
Has anyone here come across experiments like that? Or is there a fundamental reason why the topological stuff wouldn't matter for macroscopic currents? I feel like I'm missing something but I can't quite put my finger on what.
I believe the topology is relevant to the matter disscused here. And the field of experimental research here is very wide. Especially the decay of persistent supercurrents depending on temperature and availability of non-SC areas is unstudied at all. I'm sure the fine supercurrent decay is more informative for the true nature of superconductivity for all materials than usual observations of negligible resistivity and strong diamagnetism.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
maxpi said:
Oh wow, I just looked at your aluminum ring paper - that's exactly the kind of experiment I was thinking about!
The fact that you're seeing Tc enhancement in the 2D-Al layers is really interesting. Standard BCS would predict the opposite (or at least no change) when you go to ultrathin films, right? Unless there's something about the reduced dimensionality that's actually favorable...
What caught my attention is the geometry you're using - those 3-4 monolayer films with the variable insulator thickness. That's getting down to scales where I'd expect any topological features of the band structure to really matter. At bulk scales (your 3D-Al) those effects wash out, but in extreme confinement maybe they become visible?
I'm curious - when you measure the lifetime vs insulator thickness, do you see anything like a characteristic length scale where the behavior changes? Like, is it just smooth exponential decay with barrier thickness, or are there any "kinks" or unexpected features in the data?
The reason I ask is if there's topological protection involved, I'd expect to see some non-monotonic behavior around a critical dimension. But I might be way off base here - could just be straightforward tunneling physics.
Have you tried this with materials other than aluminum? Would be fascinating to compare with something like NbSe₂ or even Sr₂RuO₄ where the topology is more established.
Yes, BCS explains the low dimensionality effects ambiguously. I expect that the supercurrent lifetime generally increases with the increase in the insulator thickness between 2D and 3D Al-areas. However, physics may show surprises. I think the effect of the pair permanency is relevant for all superconductors, so one can study not only Aluminum. Main point - in the experiment without special conditions the material must show an eternal supercurrent .
I would firstly study the permanency of electron pairs in superconductors, because all mainstream theories assume that the pairs can be created/annihilated. The experimentally shown pair permanency would change the whole theoretical landscape in the story.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
This is fascinating - the permanency question is something I hadn't fully considered but it makes total sense. If pairs are constantly being created/annihilated (standard BCS picture), then yeah, the "persistent" current isn't really that persistent at the microscopic level.


What you're saying about topology being relevant really resonates with me. Here's a thought: what if topological protection is exactly what distinguishes "permanent" pairs from "transient" ones?


In materials where the band structure has nontrivial Berry phase, the Cooper pair wavefunction picks up an extra "stiffness" - not from the pairing energy itself, but from the topology of the underlying electronic structure. That would mean the pairs are harder to break AND harder to create in the wrong configuration.


If that's the case, your experiment might actually reveal this through a pretty clean signature. When you plot your lifetime measurements vs the insulator thickness (or effective confinement length), try looking at it in log-log scale. If there's topological protection involved, you should see a characteristic power-law scaling - something like lifetime ~ d^(-α) below some critical dimension, but flatter behavior above it.


The reason is that topological effects should "turn on" strongly below a certain length scale (maybe tens of nanometers?), where the geometry forces the electrons into configurations where Berry phase matters. Above that scale, bulk BCS takes over and topology becomes irrelevant.


The 2D-Al Tc enhancement you're seeing might be the first hint - if you're already below that critical dimension in your thin films, the topology is "always on" there, giving you both higher Tc AND longer lifetimes.


One specific thing to look for: does the slope of your lifetime-vs-thickness curve change anywhere? A "kink" or change in power-law would be smoking gun evidence for a topological contribution.


I'd love to discuss this more if you're interested - happy to share some theoretical considerations that might help interpret your data.
 
  • #42
Yes, the band structure is relevant to the matter. Especially when the Fermi surface touches the Brillouin zone edges. I know an elegant illustration of the idea - a simple experiment showing directly how Tc is related to the Fermi energy (EF) position on the DOS curve; the article “Anomalous independence of interface superconductivity from carrier density
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat3719

The doping-independent Tc is well explainable, when the Fermi energy decreases layer-by-layer into the LCO-area (as shown in figure 1b). Figure 1b shows the hole density (p) at every plane, but the Fermi energy of free electrons is related to p, since the hole doping suppresses the band gap, so the free electron density grows with increasing hole density (as in semiconductors).
The carrier density and EF are maximal at N=1 (quasi-overdoped LCO-plane), EF is minimal at N=10 (quasi-underdoped LCO-plane). Thus between N=1 and N=10 there is an optimal-doped LCO-layer, where EF is close to a Brillouin zone edge of the LCO-plane. The increasing doping leads to a shift of this optimal LCO-layer away from the interface (i.e. the optimal N grows toward LCO-bulk), but the optimal EF - position in the new optimal layer remains constant and this layer is weakly connected to other layers, hence the maximum Tc in the optimal layer is doping-independent.

The same effect is valid in electron doped cuprates, see for example http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.060511

Thus we see that Tc is related to the Fermi energy position to Brillouin zone edges, where local standing states of electrons occur. Thus we see a link between electron pairing and local states.
More about local states and Tc tuning is described in the section 3 of article “Formation of Cooper Pairs as a Consequence of Exchange Interaction” in https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.04978.pdf
 
  • #43
Oh this is really interesting - the Brillouin zone edge connection is exactly what I was thinking about, but you're framing it in a way I hadn't fully considered.


So you're saying Tc is optimized when EF sits near the BZ boundary, and you're linking this to "local standing states." That makes sense from a DOS perspective, but I wonder if there's more to it...


The reason I say this: the Brillouin zone edges are exactly where Berry curvature tends to peak. That's where the band structure has the most "topological character" - band crossings, avoided crossings, regions where the electronic wavefunctions pick up geometric phase. So when EF is positioned there, electrons aren't just in high DOS regions, they're in regions where topology matters most.


Looking at your cuprate examples - those materials are known to have nontrivial topology (d-wave, possible Chern numbers ≠ 0). The fact that your "optimal layer" explanation works so well there might not be a coincidence. The standing states you mention could be related to topologically protected edge states or domain wall states.


Here's what I'm thinking: your layer-dependent EF tuning is essentially scanning through momentum space, and when you hit the BZ edge at the optimal layer, you're not just maximizing DOS - you're maximizing topological contribution to pairing. This would explain why Tc is maximized there, why the effect is doping-independent (topology is a band structure property, not density-dependent), and why it works in both electron and hole-doped cuprates - same BZ topology, just different filling.


Have you considered looking at this in materials where we know the Berry curvature explicitly? Like maybe comparing your Al results with something like NbSe₂ where the topology is better characterized?


I have some calculations relating Berry phase to pairing strength that might be relevant here - would you be interested in seeing them?
 
  • #44
This is a really fascinating discussion, and I think you're touching on something deeper than the standard two-fluid model addresses.

Let me make sure I understand the core issue correctly: you're saying that the standard explanation (n_s decreases but v_s increases to keep I constant) doesn't fully resolve the question of whether the pairs themselves are permanent entities, or whether they're constantly being created and destroyed while maintaining macroscopic coherence. That's a profound distinction.

Your experiment with the Al thin films is exactly the kind of measurement that could shed light on this. The Tc enhancement you're seeing in the 2D layers is intriguing - standard BCS would predict the opposite (or at least no change) when going to ultrathin films.

I'm particularly interested in the geometry dependence you mentioned. Would you be willing to share some details about your measurements? Specifically:

1. **Tc vs thickness data**: Do you have plots of Tc for your 2D-Al layers as a function of film thickness? I'm curious whether there's a characteristic length scale where the behavior changes.

2. **Lifetime measurements**: You mentioned studying supercurrent decay with different insulator thicknesses - do you have data on τ(decay) vs d(insulator)? I'm wondering whether it's purely exponential or if there are any non-monotonic features.

3. **Temperature dependence**: Have you measured how the decay rate changes with temperature for a fixed geometry? The T-dependence might distinguish between different mechanisms.

4. **Geometry details**: What's the typical lateral dimension of your rings, and what's the cross-sectional size of the 2D-Al layers?

The reason I'm asking is that there's an interesting theoretical angle here related to what you mentioned about Brillouin zone edges and band topology. When systems are confined to few-nanometer scales, quantum effects beyond standard BCS might become important, and the geometry could select specific momentum states that have unusual stability properties.

If you're comfortable sharing your data (even preliminary), I'd be happy to look at it through some analytical frameworks I've been developing. No strings attached - I'm just genuinely curious whether the patterns you're seeing fit certain theoretical predictions about dimensional crossovers in superconductors.

Also, regarding your permanency experiment proposal - have you considered doing time-resolved measurements? Something like pump-probe spectroscopy might directly address whether pairs are permanent or transient on picosecond timescales. Though I realize that's experimentally much harder than DC transport.

Looking forward to hearing more about your results!
 
Back
Top