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

arXiv:cond-mat/0312001

Cooper Pairing Revisited

Valdir C. Aguilera-Navarro, Mauricio Fortes, MANUEL DE LLANO, Francisco J. Sevilla

Published Nov 28, 2003• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We recall the fundamental fact that Cooper pairs defined without ignoring two- hole pairs along with two-particle ones leads to a purely imaginary pair energy when the problem is based on the ideal Fermi gas sea. However, bound finite- lifetime pairs are recovered when it is based on the BCS ground-state Fermi sea. Their excitation energy is gapped at zero total momenta and then rises linearly in either 2D or 3D, making them similar to 3D plasmons which however rise quadratically.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.cond-mat/0312001

Related papers

Generalized Cooper pairing and Bose-Einstein condensation

Valdir C. Aguilera-Navarro, Mauricio Fortes, MANUEL DE LLANO

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.

arXiv:cond-mat/0306726•Jun 30, 2003•0 citations

Cooper Pairing and Ladder Correlations in a BCS Ground State

Valdir C. Aguilera-Navarro, Mauricio Fortes, MANUEL DE LLANO

A Bethe–Salpeter treatment of Cooper pairs (CPs) based on an ideal Fermi gas (IFG) "sea" produces unstable CPs if holes are not ignored. Stable CPs with damping emerge when the BCS ground state replaces the IFG, and are positive-energy, finite-lifetime resonances for nonzero center-of-mass momentum with a linear dispersion leading term. Bose–Einstein condensation of such pairs may thus occur in exactly two dimensions as it cannot with quadratic dispersion.

International Journal of Modern Physics B•Aug 10, 2003•0 citations

GENERALIZED COOPER PAIRING IN SUPERCONDUCTORS

MANUEL DE LLANO, James F. Annett

We review Cooper pairing starting from its simplest, original 1956 version of two electrons interacting above the Fermi sea of an ideal Fermi gas (IFG). The two-electron interaction assumed extensively (if not exclusively), is the attractive two-parameter Cooper, and then BCS, model interactions. Hole Cooper pairs (CPs) and electron-hole CPs are then included along with the initial electron-CPs in terms of the single-fermion Green functions implied by the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) integral equation in the ladder approximation. A purely-imaginary CP energy "instability" is recovered that is well-documented in the literature at least since the late 1950's. A novel interpretation of this instability is that an unperturbed Hamiltonian different from the IFG one first used by Cooper suffices to obtain meaningful CPs. Instead of the IFG sea, a BCS-correlated Fermi "sea" used in the BS equation interpreted as the associated unperturbed Hamiltonian leads to real CP energies (with small imaginary terms implying damping). We survey how this has been achieved in 1D, 2D and 3D, and give a more detailed treatment in 2D. A vital distinction is that the original and generalized CPs are true bosons in contrast with BCS pairs that are not ordinary bosons but rather "hard-core bosons" as they do not obey strict Bose commutation rules. Another important common element of the original or generalized CPs (particularly in 2D where ordinary Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) does not occur) is their linear dispersion relation in leading order in the total (or, center-of-mass) momentum power-series expansion of the CP energy. This theory encompasses, in principle, all empirically known superconductors including quasi-2D superconductors such as cuprates and the ET organic compounds, as well as quasi-1D ones such as the organometallic Bechgaard salts and nanotubes.

International Journal of Modern Physics B•Aug 20, 2007•19 citations

Cooper pairing reexamined

Mauricio Fortes, MANUEL DE LLANO, M. A. Solís

When both two-electron \textit{and} two-hole Cooper-pairing are treated on an equal footing in the ladder approximation to the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation, the zero-total-momentum Cooper-pair energy is found to have two \textit{real} solutions $\mathcal{E}_{0}^{BS}=\pm 2\hbar ω_{{D}%}/\sqrt{{e}^{2/λ}+{1}}$ which coincide with the zero-temperature BCS energy gap $Δ=\hbar ω_{D}/\sinh (1/λ) $ in the weak coupling limit. Here, $\hbar ω_{D}$ is the Debye energy and $λ\geq 0$ the BCS model interaction coupling parameter. The interpretation of the BCS energy gap as the binding energy of a Cooper-pair is often claimed in the literature but, to our knowledge, never substantiated even in weak-coupling as we find here. In addition, we confirm the two purely-\textit{imaginary} solutions assumed since at least the late 1950s as the \textit{only} solutions, namely, $\mathcal{E}_{0}^{BS}=\pm i2\hbar ω_{D}/\sqrt{{e}^{2/λ}{-1}}.$

arXiv:0806.3492•Jun 21, 2008•0 citations

Pairing in two dimensions and possible consequences for superconductivity: extension of Cooper's approach

Soumyadipta Pal

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.

Journal of Physics Communications•Oct 16, 2017•3 citations

Two-Cooper-pair problem and the Pauli exclusion principle

W. V. Pogosov, Monique Combescot, Michel Crouzeix

While the one-Cooper-pair problem is now a textbook exercise, the energy of two pairs of electrons with opposite spins and zero total momentum has not been derived yet, the exact handling of Pauli blocking between bound pairs being not that easy for $N=2$ already. The two-Cooper-pair problem however is quite enlightening to understand the very peculiar role played by the Pauli exclusion principle in superconductivity. Pauli blocking is known to drive the change from 1 to $N$ pairs but no precise description of this continuous change has been given so far. Using Richardson's procedure, we here prove that Pauli blocking increases the free part of the two-pair ground-state energy but decreases the binding part when compared to two isolated pairs---the excitation gap to break a pair however increasing from one to two pairs. When extrapolated to the dense BCS regime, the decrease in the pair binding while the gap increases strongly indicates that at odd with common belief, the average pair binding energy cannot be on the order of the gap.

arXiv:0911.1688•Physical Review B•May 13, 2010•22 citations
We recall the fundamental fact that Cooper pairs defined without ignoring two- hole pairs along with two-particle ones leads to a purely imaginary pair energy when the problem is based on the ideal Fermi gas sea. However, bound finite- lifetime pairs are recovered when it is based on the BCS ground-state Fermi sea. Their excitation energy is gapped at zero total momenta and then rises linearly in either 2D or 3D, making them similar to 3D plasmons which however rise quadratically.
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.
We review Cooper pairing starting from its simplest, original 1956 version of two electrons interacting above the Fermi sea of an ideal Fermi gas (IFG). The two-electron interaction assumed extensively (if not exclusively), is the attractive two-parameter Cooper, and then BCS, model interactions. Hole Cooper pairs (CPs) and electron-hole CPs are then included along with the initial electron-CPs in terms of the single-fermion Green functions implied by the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) integral equation in the ladder approximation. A purely-imaginary CP energy "instability" is recovered that is well-documented in the literature at least since the late 1950's. A novel interpretation of this instability is that an unperturbed Hamiltonian different from the IFG one first used by Cooper suffices to obtain meaningful CPs. Instead of the IFG sea, a BCS-correlated Fermi "sea" used in the BS equation interpreted as the associated unperturbed Hamiltonian leads to real CP energies (with small imaginary terms implying damping). We survey how this has been achieved in 1D, 2D and 3D, and give a more detailed treatment in 2D. A vital distinction is that the original and generalized CPs are true bosons in contrast with BCS pairs that are not ordinary bosons but rather "hard-core bosons" as they do not obey strict Bose commutation rules. Another important common element of the original or generalized CPs (particularly in 2D where ordinary Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) does not occur) is their linear dispersion relation in leading order in the total (or, center-of-mass) momentum power-series expansion of the CP energy. This theory encompasses, in principle, all empirically known superconductors including quasi-2D superconductors such as cuprates and the ET organic compounds, as well as quasi-1D ones such as the organometallic Bechgaard salts and nanotubes.
When both two-electron \textit{and} two-hole Cooper-pairing are treated on an equal footing in the ladder approximation to the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation, the zero-total-momentum Cooper-pair energy is found to have two \textit{real} solutions $\mathcal{E}_{0}^{BS}=\pm 2\hbar ω_{{D}%}/\sqrt{{e}^{2/λ}+{1}}$ which coincide with the zero-temperature BCS energy gap $Δ=\hbar ω_{D}/\sinh (1/λ) $ in the weak coupling limit. Here, ℏωD\hbar ω_{D}ℏωD​ is the Debye energy and λ≥0λ\geq 0λ≥0 the BCS model interaction coupling parameter. The interpretation of the BCS energy gap as the binding energy of a Cooper-pair is often claimed in the literature but, to our knowledge, never substantiated even in weak-coupling as we find here. In addition, we confirm the two purely-\textit{imaginary} solutions assumed since at least the late 1950s as the \textit{only} solutions, namely, E0BS=±i2ℏωD/e2/λ−1.\mathcal{E}_{0}^{BS}=\pm i2\hbar ω_{D}/\sqrt{{e}^{2/λ}{-1}}.E0BS​=±i2ℏωD​/e2/λ−1​.
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.
While the one-Cooper-pair problem is now a textbook exercise, the energy of two pairs of electrons with opposite spins and zero total momentum has not been derived yet, the exact handling of Pauli blocking between bound pairs being not that easy for N=2N=2N=2 already. The two-Cooper-pair problem however is quite enlightening to understand the very peculiar role played by the Pauli exclusion principle in superconductivity. Pauli blocking is known to drive the change from 1 to NNN pairs but no precise description of this continuous change has been given so far. Using Richardson's procedure, we here prove that Pauli blocking increases the free part of the two-pair ground-state energy but decreases the binding part when compared to two isolated pairs---the excitation gap to break a pair however increasing from one to two pairs. When extrapolated to the dense BCS regime, the decrease in the pair binding while the gap increases strongly indicates that at odd with common belief, the average pair binding energy cannot be on the order of the gap.