© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.
Physics Today
BCS-to-BEC evolution details Carlos A. R. Sá de Melo
Published Aug 1, 2009 • 0 citations
Abstract Sá de Melo replies: I thank D. M. Eagles for his comments. My statement concerning the evolution from Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer to Bose–Einstein condensation superfluids was about clarity and not who was the first to propose the idea. Although I appreciate Eagles’s work, I still think that Anthony Leggett’s papers 1 are the clearest presentation on the topic up to 1980.In his very interesting book written in 1964, John Blatt describes the BEC theory of superconductivity and its relation to the BCS theory. 2 As he recounts, the possibility of pairing without superconductivity and Bose condensation of electron pairs at a lower temperature was suggested as early as 1946 by Richard Ogg Jr. In 1954 and subsequent years, Max Schafroth developed a firm theoretical framework for such pairing, but it was not supported by experimental evidence: No preformed pairs were found, and the BEC temperature was much too high for known superconductors. Blatt’s book thoroughly documents a clear connection between a variational, fixed-number ground state comprising antisymmetrized products of pair wavefunctions and the BCS equations that Eagles used in his 1969 paper. Eagles noticed that the BCS and number equations at zero temperature could be used to describe the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity in low-carrier-density thin films or bulk materials for fixed (and sufficiently strong) interaction and changing carrier density. However, Blatt’s main interest was in metals with high carrier densities. If one reads the full statement in the box entitled “Feshbach resonances” on page 47 of my article, it is clear that I am talking about changing interactions for fixed density and not changing density for fixed interactions. I do not think it is currently possible in any superconductor to control the interactions between fermions. Thus my statement is accurate.In many instances the change in carrier concentration in thin films or three-dimensional (bulk) systems is made via chemical doping, which may introduce disorder or distortions in the crystal structure and thus change the system in more than the desired way. I have serious doubts that ceramic samples of zirconium-doped strontium titanate described in Eagles’s letter indeed show the BCS-to-BEC evolution; the references provided do not offer clear evidence of such a phenomenon.Since cuprate superconductors are known to be quasi-2D and have d-wave pairing symmetry, the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity for sufficiently strong fixed interactions and changing carrier density would be accompanied by a topological quantum phase transition 3 and would not be a crossover as in the s-wave case. However, as much as I might want such a transition to be found for the cuprates, current experimental evidence shows that their normal state and superconducting properties are more complicated than simple BCS-to-BEC theories would predict.The beauty of the observation of the BCS-to-BEC evolution in ultracold atoms is that many of the materials difficulties encountered in standard condensed matter can be avoided and the tuning of the interaction for fixed low density can be controlled. However, one should keep an open mind that a similar realization may appear elsewhere. For instance, if carrier density could be controlled and changed continuously via electrostatic doping in good-quality thin films or at the surface of bulk low-carrier-density superconductors like some titanates or cuprates, then there is a good chance of observing the BCS-to-BEC evolution as a function of carrier density as envisioned by Eagles in 1969.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES << REFERENCES 1. A. J. Leggett, in Modern Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter: Proceedings of the XVI Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics, February 19-March 3, 1979, Karpacz, Poland, A. Pekalski, J. Przystawa, eds., Springer, New York (1980) Google Scholar A. J. Leggett, J. Phys. Colloq. 41, C7–19 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1051/jphyscol:1980704 , Google ScholarCrossref2. J. M. Blatt, Theory of Superconductivity, Academic Press, New York (1964). Google Scholar3. L. S. Borkowski, C. A. R. Sá de Melo, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9810370v1 , Google Scholar R. D. Duncan, C. A. R. Sá de Melo, Phys. Rev. B 62, 9675 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.9675 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2009 American Institute of Physics.
DOI 10.1063/1.4797182 Related papers BCS-to-BEC evolution details
D. M. Eagles
Physics Today • Jul 31, 2009• 4 citations
Historical Notes on Feshbach and Shape Resonances
D. M. Eagles
Physics Today • Feb 1, 2005• 0 citations
Aspects of BCS to BEC “Crossover” as illustrated by fulleride superconductivity
Richard H. Squire, Norman Henry March
International Journal of Quantum Chemistry • Jan 1, 2007• 5 citations
BCS Theory of Superconductivity
A. S. Alexandrov, Nevill Mott
WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks • Nov 24, 1994• 0 citations
Evolution from Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer to Bose–Einstein Condensation in Two Dimensions: Crossovers and Topological Quantum Phase Transitions
C. A. R. Sá de Melo, Senne Van Loon
Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics • Mar 11, 2024• 4 citations
Sá de Melo replies: I thank D. M. Eagles for his comments. My statement concerning the evolution from Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer to Bose–Einstein condensation superfluids was about clarity and not who was the first to propose the idea. Although I appreciate Eagles’s work, I still think that Anthony Leggett’s papers 1 are the clearest presentation on the topic up to 1980.In his very interesting book written in 1964, John Blatt describes the BEC theory of superconductivity and its relation to the BCS theory. 2 As he recounts, the possibility of pairing without superconductivity and Bose condensation of electron pairs at a lower temperature was suggested as early as 1946 by Richard Ogg Jr. In 1954 and subsequent years, Max Schafroth developed a firm theoretical framework for such pairing, but it was not supported by experimental evidence: No preformed pairs were found, and the BEC temperature was much too high for known superconductors. Blatt’s book thoroughly documents a clear connection between a variational, fixed-number ground state comprising antisymmetrized products of pair wavefunctions and the BCS equations that Eagles used in his 1969 paper. Eagles noticed that the BCS and number equations at zero temperature could be used to describe the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity in low-carrier-density thin films or bulk materials for fixed (and sufficiently strong) interaction and changing carrier density. However, Blatt’s main interest was in metals with high carrier densities. If one reads the full statement in the box entitled “Feshbach resonances” on page 47 of my article, it is clear that I am talking about changing interactions for fixed density and not changing density for fixed interactions. I do not think it is currently possible in any superconductor to control the interactions between fermions. Thus my statement is accurate.In many instances the change in carrier concentration in thin films or three-dimensional (bulk) systems is made via chemical doping, which may introduce disorder or distortions in the crystal structure and thus change the system in more than the desired way. I have serious doubts that ceramic samples of zirconium-doped strontium titanate described in Eagles’s letter indeed show the BCS-to-BEC evolution; the references provided do not offer clear evidence of such a phenomenon.Since cuprate superconductors are known to be quasi-2D and have d-wave pairing symmetry, the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity for sufficiently strong fixed interactions and changing carrier density would be accompanied by a topological quantum phase transition 3 and would not be a crossover as in the s-wave case. However, as much as I might want such a transition to be found for the cuprates, current experimental evidence shows that their normal state and superconducting properties are more complicated than simple BCS-to-BEC theories would predict.The beauty of the observation of the BCS-to-BEC evolution in ultracold atoms is that many of the materials difficulties encountered in standard condensed matter can be avoided and the tuning of the interaction for fixed low density can be controlled. However, one should keep an open mind that a similar realization may appear elsewhere. For instance, if carrier density could be controlled and changed continuously via electrostatic doping in good-quality thin films or at the surface of bulk low-carrier-density superconductors like some titanates or cuprates, then there is a good chance of observing the BCS-to-BEC evolution as a function of carrier density as envisioned by Eagles in 1969.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES << REFERENCES 1. A. J. Leggett, in Modern Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter: Proceedings of the XVI Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics, February 19-March 3, 1979, Karpacz, Poland, A. Pekalski, J. Przystawa, eds., Springer, New York (1980) Google Scholar A. J. Leggett, J. Phys. Colloq. 41, C7–19 (1980).
https://doi.org/10.1051/jphyscol:1980704 , Google ScholarCrossref2. J. M. Blatt, Theory of Superconductivity, Academic Press, New York (1964). Google Scholar3. L. S. Borkowski, C. A. R. Sá de Melo,
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9810370v1 , Google Scholar R. D. Duncan, C. A. R. Sá de Melo, Phys. Rev. B 62, 9675 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.9675 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2009 American Institute of Physics.
Again an article in Physics Today, (by Carlos Sá de melo October 2008, page 45), has incorrectly implied that Anthony Leggett was the first person to study the crossover from Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer to Bose–Einstein condensation. On page 47 of the article, it states that “a clear picture of the BCS-to-BEC evolution at zero temperature didn’t emerge until 1980, when Anthony Leggett realized that the physics could be captured by a simple description in real space of paired fermions with opposite spins.” Although the model I considered in my 1969 paper 1 1. D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev. 186, 456 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.186.456 is slightly different from Leggett’s, figure 4 in my paper clearly shows regions where pairing without superconductivity occurs and where superconductivity is limited by the Bose- condensation temperature of pairs, and on page 458 I discuss a limit at which the diameter of pairs is small compared with the distance between them.I also disagree with a statement in the box on page 47 of Sá de Melo’s article that “the evolution from a Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superfluid to a Bose–Einstein condensation superfluid cannot be studied in … superconductors.” At least in ceramic samples of SrTiO3 with 3% of the titanium replaced by zirconium, the transition has been studied by varying the carrier concentration via differing heat treatments to produce different concentrations of oxygen vacancies. 2 2. R. J. Tainsh, C. Andrikidis, Solid State Commun. 60, 517 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90729-5 D. M. Eagles, Solid State Commun. 60, 521 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90730-1 D. M. Eagles, R. J. Tainsh, C. Andrikidis, Physica C 157, 48 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-4534(89)90466-8 It is possible that such a transition may be found in other superconducting semiconductors when people start to search for suitable materials. However, in three dimensions the pairing strength has to be above some threshold value to obtain the possibility of reaching the Bose-gas regime. Also, many authors think that the BEC regime occurs in underdoped cuprates, 3,4 3. Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan, K. Levin, Phys. Rep. 412, 1 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.02.005 4. A. S. Alexandrov, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 20, 481 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-007-0258-z while the consensus is that overdoped samples are BCS-like.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev. 186, 456 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.186.456 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. R. J. Tainsh, C. Andrikidis, Solid State Commun. 60, 517 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90729-5 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI D. M. Eagles, Solid State Commun. 60, 521 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90730-1 , , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI D. M. Eagles, R. J. Tainsh, C. Andrikidis, Physica C 157, 48 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-4534(89)90466-8 , , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan, K. Levin, Phys. Rep. 412, 1 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.02.005 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. A. S. Alexandrov, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 20, 481 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-007-0258-z , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2009 American Institute of Physics.
Daniel Kleppner’s Reference Frame piece implies incorrectly that the crossover between Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer and Bose–Einstein condensation theory was first studied by Anthony Leggett in 1980. Actually, my early work on this topic was published 11 years before then. 1 1. D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev. 186, 456 (1969) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.186.456. In the mid-1980s, I and colleagues in Australia also found the first example 2 2. R. J. Tainsh, C. Andrikidis, Solid State Commun. 60, 517 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90729-5 D. M. Eagles, Solid State Commun. 60, 521 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90730-1. of a system that lay on the Bose-gas side of the BCS–Bose gas transition, in a ceramic sample of 3% zirconium-doped strontium titanate (SrTiO3), although with a pairing temperature much lower than that predicted for the 1969 model used for this material. In three dimensions there is a threshold in the coupling strength for the existence of Bose-gas superconductivity at very low carrier concentrations, and for strengths slightly above the threshold, the pair-binding energy is proportional to the square of the difference of the coupling from the threshold value. Thus, for example, a calculated coupling error that gives a value 5% above threshold instead of 1% above would make a factor of 25 error in the pair-binding energy.A later attempt 3 3. C. Andrikidis, R. J. Tainsh, D. M. Eagles, Physica B 165, 1517 (1990) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(09)80344-X. to reach the Bose-gas regime in macrocrystalline samples of Zr-doped SrTiO3 with similar carrier concentrations to those in the ceramic sample mentioned indicated that some nonuniform state prevented the Bose-gas regime being reached. However, there is still much interesting physics awaiting study in this material.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev. 186, 456 (1969) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.186.456. Google ScholarCrossref, ISI, CAS2. R. J. Tainsh, C. Andrikidis, Solid State Commun. 60, 517 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90729-5 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI, CAS D. M. Eagles, Solid State Commun. 60, 521 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90730-1. , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI, CAS3. C. Andrikidis, R. J. Tainsh, D. M. Eagles, Physica B 165, 1517 (1990) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(09)80344-X. Google ScholarCrossref© 2005 American Institute of Physics.
Abstract The pioneering works by Eagles, Leggett, and Nozieres/Schmitt‐Rink [Eagles, Phys Rev, 1969, 186, 456; Leggett, In: Modern Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter, Springer‐Verlag: Berlin, 1980; Nozieres and Schmitt‐Rink, Low Temp Phys, 1985, 59, 980] (reviewed and augmented by Randeria [Randeria, Bose‐Einstein Condensation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, p 255]) emphasize that in the limits of the models studied both at T = 0 and T ≠ 0, the “cross‐over” from a BCS‐type to a BEC‐type superconductor is continuous. The BCS and BEC “end points” seem to be well‐established. However, in the intermediate region—home to fulleride and high temperature superconductors—considerable extrapolation of the models must be done as there still is no exact theory. Yet, considerable current literature is devoted to what appears to be more “singular‐type phenomena” such as quantum critical points, “stripe” formation, insulator to superconductor phase transitions, loss of validity of the Fermi liquid theory, etc. Using a connection we have made with “cold” atom fermion‐boson crossover theory [Chen, Stajic, Levin, 2005, e‐print cond‐mat/0508603], we can establish that the resonance previously discussed [Squire and March, Int J Quant Chem, 2006, 106, 3343] is a result of the crossing of the fermion band by the boson band. While the ground state appears to remain continuous, the paired energy gap becomes transformed. We discuss features of the resonance and the experimentally observed pre‐formed “BEC Cooper pair” formation, essential to the boson‐fermion resonance theory. In addition some of the various singular phenomena discussed above can be put more into perspective. Finally, in both limits the relation of characteristic lengths to the inverse Fermi momentum is strongly emphasized, as is the role of the chemical potential near the pseudogap regime. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 2007
The crucial demonstration that superfluidity was linked to Bose particles and Bose-Einstein condensation came after the discovery of He3 in 1949, which failed to show the characteristic A transition within a reasonable wide temperature interval around the critical temperature for the onset of superfluidity in He4. The idea of the bosonization of electrons due to their pairing, introduced by Ogg (1946) became very attractive as an explanation for superconductivity after Schafroth (1955) showed that a gas of charged bosons with charge 2e would indeed show a Meissner effect, which is one of the most crucial features of superconductors (see Chapter 1). However this phenomenological Bose-gas picture was condemned and later on practically forgotten because it was unable to account quantitatively for the critical parameters of the classical (low-temperature) superconductors. Using for Tc the Bose-Einstein condensation temperature Eq.(l.S) one obtains the utterly meaningless result Tc = lOOOO.R&s; with the atomic density of electron pairs ~ 1022cm~3 and with the effective mass m** = 2me. The failure of the Schafroth picture stems from a very large size £ of pairs in classical superconductors, which can be estimated from the uncertainty principle: The uncertainty of the momentum 8p is estimated from the uncertainty of the kinetic energy 8E ~ vpSp, which should be of the order of Tc, the only characteristic energy of the superconducting state. Therefore and turns out to be more than one micron for simple metals with Tc ~ IK and the Fermi velocity VF — I0scm/s. That means that pairs in classical superconductors overlap strongly and the Shafroth model of real space pairs is wrong. The finally successful theory for classical superconductors was formulated by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer (1957). In this chapter we present the main points of the BCS theory, using the Bogoliubov transformation (1947,1958) for the weak-coupling regime and the Green&s;s function technique for the intermediate coupling in Chapter 3. More details will be found in the excellent books by Schrieffer(1965), De Gennes (1989) and Abrikosov, Gor&s;kov and Dzyaloshinskii (1963).
This article gives a detailed review of our current theoretical understanding of the crossover from cooperative Cooper pairing to independent bound-state formation and Bose–Einstein condensation in Fermi systems with increasing attractive interactions. Introduction There are two well-known paradigms for understanding the phenomena of superconductivity and superfluidity: (I) BCS theory [1], in which the normal state is a degenerate Fermi liquid that undergoes a pairing instability at a temperature T c ≪ ε f , the degeneracy scale. The formation of Cooper pairs and their condensation (macroscopic occupation of a single quantum state) both occur simultaneously at the transition temperature T c . (II) Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) of bosons at a T c of the order of their degeneracy temperature. At a fundamental level these bosons (for example, 4 He or excitons) are invariably composite objects made up of an even number of fermions. The composite particles form at some very high temperature scale of the order of their dissociation temperature T dissoc , and these “pre-formed” bosons then condense at the BEC T c ≪ T dissoc . In most cases of experimental interest the system under consideration clearly falls into one category or the other. For instance, 3 He is a Fermi superfluid described by (I) whereas 4 He is a Bose superfluid (II). Essentially all cases of superconductivity in metals that we understand reasonably well are much closer to (I) than to (II), as evidenced by the existence of fermionic quasiparticles above T c .
We review aspects of the evolution from Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer (BCS) to Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) in two dimensions, which have now become relevant in systems with low densities, such as gated superconductors Li xZrNCl, magic-angle twisted trilayer graphene, FeSe, FeSe1− xS x, and ultracold Fermi superfluids. We emphasize the important role played by chemical potentials in determining crossovers or topological quantum phase transitions during the BCS–BEC evolution in one-band and two-band superfluids and superconductors. We highlight that crossovers from BCS to BEC occur for pairing in nonnodal s-wave channels, whereas topological quantum phase transitions, in which the order parameter symmetry does not change, arise for pairing in any nodal higher angular momentum channels, such as d-wave. We conclude by discussing a few open questions regarding the BCS-to-BEC evolution in 2D, including modulus fluctuations of the order parameter, tighter upper bounds on critical temperatures, and the exploration of lattice effects in two-band superconductors and superfluids.