Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Research & Reviews Journal of Material Sciences

Cooper pairs in superconductivity in a generalized BEC theory

Israel Chávez, LA Garcia, M. Grether, MANUEL DE LLANO

Published Dec 21, 2018• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Multicondensate Superconductivity in a Generalized BEC Formalism with Hole Cooper Pairs

Israel Chávez, M. Grether, MANUEL DE LLANO

Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism•Dec 12, 2014•1 citation

Towards a theory of superconductivity based on collective Cooper pairs

Carlos Ramírez García, Chumín Wang

Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids•Oct 18, 2010•2 citations

Superconducting Bose–Einstein condensates of Cooper pairs interacting with electrons

В. В. Толмачев

Physics Letters A•Feb 1, 2000•80 citations

Generalized BEC in superconductivity

M. Grether, MANUEL DE LLANO

Physica C Superconductivity•Mar 29, 2007•2 citations

Is Room-temperature Superconductivity with Phonons Possible?

MANUEL DE LLANO

By recognizing the vital importance of two‐hole Cooper pairs (CPs) in addition to the usual two‐electron ones in a strongly‐interacting many‐electron system, the concept of CPs was re‐examined with striking conclusions: namely, they are gapped and linearly‐dispersive resonances with a finite lifetime—but provided the ideal‐gas Fermi sea is replaced by a BCS‐correlated unperturbed ground‐state “sea.” Based on this, Bose‐Einstein condensation (BEC) theory has been generalized to include not boson‐boson interactions (also neglected in BCS theory) but rather boson‐fermion (BF) interaction vertices reminiscent of the Fröhlich electron‐phonon interaction in metals. Instead of phonons, the bosons in the generalized BEC (GBEC) theory are now both particle and hole CPs. Unlike BCS theory, the GBEC model is not a mean‐field theory restricted to weak‐coupling as it can be diagonalized exactly. In weak coupling it reproduces the BCS condensation energy, and the next‐order‐in‐coupling term increases its magnitude with respect to BCS. Each kind of CP is responsible for only half the condensation energy. The GBEC theory reduces to all the old known statistical theories as special cases—including the so‐called “BCS‐Bose crossover” picture which in turn generalizes BCS theory by not assuming that the interelectronic chemical potential equals the Fermi energy. Indeed, a BCS condensate is precisely the weak‐coupling limit of a GBE condensate with equal numbers of both types of CPs. With feasible Cooper/BCS model interelectonic interaction parameter values, and even without BF interactions, the GBEC theory yields transition temperatures [including room‐temperature superconductivity (RTSC)] substantially higher than the BCS ceiling of around 45K, without relying on non‐phonon dynamics involving excitons, plasmons, magnons or otherwise purely‐electronic mechanisms. The results are expected to shed light on the experimental search for RTSC.

arXiv:cond-mat/0601526•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•2 citations

Generalized Bose-Einstein condensation in superconductivity and superfluidity

MANUEL DE LLANO, Rocio R. Jauregui, J. Récamier +1 more

Unification of the Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer (BCS) and the Bose‐Einstein condensation (BEC) theories is surveyed in terms of a generalized BEC (GBEC) finite‐temperature statistical formalism. A vital distinction is that Cooper pairs (CPs) are true bosons that may suffer a BEC since they obey BE statistics, in contrast with BCS pairs that are “hard‐core bosons” at best. A second crucial ingredient is the explicit presence of hole‐pairs (2h) alongside the usual electron‐pairs (2e). A third critical element (particularly in 2D where ordinary BEC does not occur) is the linear dispersion relation of CPs in leading order in the center‐of‐mass momentum (CMM) power‐series expansion of the CP energy. The GBEC theory reduces in limiting cases to all five continuum (as opposed to “spin”) statistical theories of superconductivity, from BCS on one extreme to the BEC theory on the other, as well as to the BCS‐Bose “crossover” picture and the 1989 Friedberg‐Lee BEC theory. It accounts for 2e‐ and 2h‐CPs in arbitrary proportions while BCS theory can be deduced from the GBEC theory but allows only equal (50%‐50%) BE condensed‐mixtures of both kinds of CPs. As it yields the precise BCS gap equation for all temperatures as well as the precise BCS zero‐temperature condensation energy for all couplings, it suggests that the BCS condensate is a BE condensate of a ternary mixture of kinematically independent unpaired electrons coexisting with equally proportioned weakly‐bound zero‐CMM 2e‐ and 2h‐CPs. Without abandoning the electron‐phonon mechanism in moderately weak coupling, and fortuituously insensitive to the BF interactions, the GBEC theory suffices to reproduce the unusually high values of Tc (in units of the Fermi temperature TF) of 0.01–0.05 empirically found in the so‐called “exotic” superconductors of the Uemura plot, including cuprates, in contrast to the low values of Tc/TF⩽10−3 roughly reproduced by BCS theory for conventional (mostly elemental) superconductors.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations
By recognizing the vital importance of two‐hole Cooper pairs (CPs) in addition to the usual two‐electron ones in a strongly‐interacting many‐electron system, the concept of CPs was re‐examined with striking conclusions: namely, they are gapped and linearly‐dispersive resonances with a finite lifetime—but provided the ideal‐gas Fermi sea is replaced by a BCS‐correlated unperturbed ground‐state “sea.” Based on this, Bose‐Einstein condensation (BEC) theory has been generalized to include not boson‐boson interactions (also neglected in BCS theory) but rather boson‐fermion (BF) interaction vertices reminiscent of the Fröhlich electron‐phonon interaction in metals. Instead of phonons, the bosons in the generalized BEC (GBEC) theory are now both particle and hole CPs. Unlike BCS theory, the GBEC model is not a mean‐field theory restricted to weak‐coupling as it can be diagonalized exactly. In weak coupling it reproduces the BCS condensation energy, and the next‐order‐in‐coupling term increases its magnitude with respect to BCS. Each kind of CP is responsible for only half the condensation energy. The GBEC theory reduces to all the old known statistical theories as special cases—including the so‐called “BCS‐Bose crossover” picture which in turn generalizes BCS theory by not assuming that the interelectronic chemical potential equals the Fermi energy. Indeed, a BCS condensate is precisely the weak‐coupling limit of a GBE condensate with equal numbers of both types of CPs. With feasible Cooper/BCS model interelectonic interaction parameter values, and even without BF interactions, the GBEC theory yields transition temperatures [including room‐temperature superconductivity (RTSC)] substantially higher than the BCS ceiling of around 45K, without relying on non‐phonon dynamics involving excitons, plasmons, magnons or otherwise purely‐electronic mechanisms. The results are expected to shed light on the experimental search for RTSC.
Unification of the Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer (BCS) and the Bose‐Einstein condensation (BEC) theories is surveyed in terms of a generalized BEC (GBEC) finite‐temperature statistical formalism. A vital distinction is that Cooper pairs (CPs) are true bosons that may suffer a BEC since they obey BE statistics, in contrast with BCS pairs that are “hard‐core bosons” at best. A second crucial ingredient is the explicit presence of hole‐pairs (2h) alongside the usual electron‐pairs (2e). A third critical element (particularly in 2D where ordinary BEC does not occur) is the linear dispersion relation of CPs in leading order in the center‐of‐mass momentum (CMM) power‐series expansion of the CP energy. The GBEC theory reduces in limiting cases to all five continuum (as opposed to “spin”) statistical theories of superconductivity, from BCS on one extreme to the BEC theory on the other, as well as to the BCS‐Bose “crossover” picture and the 1989 Friedberg‐Lee BEC theory. It accounts for 2e‐ and 2h‐CPs in arbitrary proportions while BCS theory can be deduced from the GBEC theory but allows only equal (50%‐50%) BE condensed‐mixtures of both kinds of CPs. As it yields the precise BCS gap equation for all temperatures as well as the precise BCS zero‐temperature condensation energy for all couplings, it suggests that the BCS condensate is a BE condensate of a ternary mixture of kinematically independent unpaired electrons coexisting with equally proportioned weakly‐bound zero‐CMM 2e‐ and 2h‐CPs. Without abandoning the electron‐phonon mechanism in moderately weak coupling, and fortuituously insensitive to the BF interactions, the GBEC theory suffices to reproduce the unusually high values of Tc (in units of the Fermi temperature TF) of 0.01–0.05 empirically found in the so‐called “exotic” superconductors of the Uemura plot, including cuprates, in contrast to the low values of Tc/TF⩽10−3 roughly reproduced by BCS theory for conventional (mostly elemental) superconductors.