Cooper pairing is studied in three dimensions to determine its binding energy for all coupling using a general separable interfermion interaction. Also considered are Cooper pairs (CPs) with nonzero center-of-mass momentum (CMM). A coupling-independent linear term in the CMM dominates the pair excitation energy in weak coupling and/or high fermion density, while the more familiar quadratic term prevails only in the extreme low-density (i.e., vacuum) limit for any nonzero coupling. The linear-to-quadratic crossover of the CP dispersion relation is analyzed numerically, and is expected to play a central role in a model of superconductivity (and superfluidity) simultaneously accommodating a BCS condensate as well as a Bose-Einstein condensate of CP bosons. PACS #: 74.20.Fg; 64.90+b; 05.30.Fk; 05.30.Jp KEYWORDS: Cooper pairs; Bose-Einstein condensation; exotic superconductivity; superfluidity
Cooper pairing is studied in three dimensions to determine its binding energy for all coupling using a general separable interfermion interaction. Also considered are Cooper pairs (CPs) with nonzero center-of-mass momentum (CMM). A coupling-independent linear term in the CMM dominates the pair excitation energy in weak coupling and/or high fermion density, while the more familiar quadratic term prevails only in the extreme low-density (i.e., vacuum) limit for any nonzero coupling. The linear-to-quadratic crossover of the CP dispersion relation is analyzed numerically, and is expected to play a central role in a model of superconductivity (and superfluidity) simultaneously accommodating a BCS condensate as well as a Bose-Einstein condensate of CP bosons. PACS #: 74.20.Fg; 64.90+b; 05.30.Fk; 05.30.Jp KEYWORDS: Cooper pairs; Bose-Einstein condensation; exotic superconductivity; superfluidity
Cooper pairing in two dimensions is analyzed with a set of renormalized equations to determine its binding energy for any fermion number density and all coupling assuming a generic pairwise residual interfermion interaction. Also considered are Cooper pairs (CP's) with nonzero center-of-mass momentum (CMM) and their binding energy is expanded analytically in powers of the CMM up to quadratic terms. A Fermi-sea-dependent linear term in the CMM dominates the pair excitation energy in weak coupling (also called the BCS regime) while the more familiar quadratic term prevails in strong coupling (the Bose regime). The crossover, though strictly unrelated to BCS theory per se, is studied numerically as it is expected to play a central role in a model of superconductivity as a Bose-Einstein condensation of CPs where the transition temperature vanishes for all dimensionality d<2 for quadratic dispersion, but is nonzero for all d>1 for linear dispersion.
Abstract The superfluid density ns(T) n s ( T ) of a superconductor is calculated based on the generalized Bose–Einstein condensation (GBEC) theory that addresses a fully-interacting ternary boson-fermion gas mixture of free electrons as fermions, plus two-electron Cooper pairs (2eCPs) and also, explicitly, two-hole Cooper pairs (2hCPs), both as bosons. Here we consider two special cases (i) 100%–0% (i.e., with no condensed 2hCPs) and (ii) 0%–100% (i.e., with no condensed 2eCPs). Subsumed in GBEC are the Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer (BCS) and Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) theories along with the BCS-BEC crossover theory extended with 2hCPs. We find that in the weak-coupling regime ns(0) n s ( 0 ) agrees with data from the Uemura et al. (2004) graph for several elemental SCs by taking in 3D with a quadratic energy-dispersion relation while in 2D with a linear relation are much too far below the data. In the strong-coupling regime the linear behavior of critical temperature Tc T c vs ns(0) n s ( 0 ) obtained here is just as Božović et al. (2016) found. However, in 2D with a linear relation accounting for 0%–100%, ns(T)/ns(0) n s ( T ) / n s ( 0 ) compares well with some high- Tc T c -cuprate SC data between the two coupling regimes.
A Bethe-Salpeter treatment of Cooper pairs (CPs) based on an ideal Fermi gas (IFG) "sea"' yields the familiar negative-energy, two-particle bound-state if two-hole CPs are ignored, but is meaningless otherwise as it gives purely-imaginary energies. However, when based on the BCS ground state, legitimate two-particle "moving" CPs emerge but as positive-energy, finite-lifetime resonances for nonzero center-of-mass momentum, with a \textit{linear}dispersion leading term. Bose-Einstein condensation of such pairs may thus occur in exactly two dimensions as it cannot with quadratic dispersion.
A recent Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) model of several cuprate superconductors is based on bosonic Cooper pairs (CPs) moving in 3D with a quadratic energy-momentum (dispersion) relation. The 3D BEC condensate-fraction versus temperature formula poorly fits penetration-depth data for two cuprates in the range 1/2<T/Tc≤1 where Tc is the BEC transition temperature. We show how these fits are dramatically improved, assuming cuprates to be quasi-2D, and how equally good fits are obtained for conventional 3D and quasi-1D nanotube superconducting data, provided the correct linear CP dispersion is assumed in BEC at their assumed corresponding dimensionalities. This is offered as additional concrete empirical evidence for linearly-dispersive pairs in another recent BEC scenario of superconductors within which a BCS condensate turns out to be a very special case.
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.
Relation between the binding energy of a pair of electrons in Cooper's configuration and the magnitude of the attractive interaction between them is investigated theoretically for a two-dimensional electron gas when the electron pair has (a) zero and (b) finite center of mass momentum (CMM) first (i) in the background of a passive Fermi sea and (ii) with inclusion of the effect of Pauli exclusion principle in the presence of an active Fermi sea, at zero temperature. In the Cooper's approach (Cooper 1956 Phys. Rev. 104 1189) two pairing electrons are considered above the Fermi sea. Due to Pauli exclusion principle, these two electrons are forbidden to go into the states whose energies are less than the Fermi energy. Consequently, the role of the electrons which form the Fermi sea is passive in formation of electron pair (Fujita and Godoy 2001 Theory of High Temperature Superconductivity (Kluwer Academic Publishers)). However, in the case of an active Fermi sea, implying possible presence of multiple pairs of electrons coming out of the Fermi sea, the two electrons will have less available region in the momentum space for pair formation due to the Pauli blocking effect. In both the situations, threshold values of attractive interaction are found to exist to bind the electrons having finite CMM even with respect to the Fermi energy while with arbitrarily small value of attractive interaction they can be bound only in the case of zero CMM and that too in the presence of a passive Fermi sea. However, the presence of an active Fermi sea strongly opposes the pair formation having lower CMM. Furthermore, raising the range of the attractive interaction below and above the Fermi surface makes the pair formation more difficult due to enhanced Pauli blocking in this case. In the case of a passive Fermi sea however, with the increase in the range of the attractive interaction it becomes easier for the electron pairs to be in both Cooper pair state (CP) and true bound state (TB). These results are totally distinct from those obtained by Randeria et al (1989 Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 981, 1990 Phys. Rev. B 41 327) that a fermionic bound state in true vacuum is a necessary and sufficient condition for the Cooper pairing instability in the presence of a passive Fermi sea, independent of attractive interaction strength implying that for a potential which is attractive everywhere in two dimension, a two-body bound state exists for an arbitrarily weak attraction. Our calculations show, in the mean field approximation, that co-existence of TB state and CP state with various CMMs can occur only beyond a critical attractive interaction strength. This could lead to the formation of incoherent pairs even under strong coupling situation, which may hint onto the pseudo gap formation leading to some of the exotic features in the anomalous normal state seen in some of the exotic superconductors.