首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Physics >Comparison of different pairing fluctuation approaches to BCS-BEC crossover
【24h】

Comparison of different pairing fluctuation approaches to BCS-BEC crossover

机译:BCS-BEC交叉的不同配对波动方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The subject of BCS-Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) crossover is particularly exciting because of its realization in ultracold atomic Fermi gases and its possible relevance to high temperature superconductors. In this paper we review the body of theoretical work on this subject, which represents a natural extension of the seminal papers by Leggett and by Nozieres and Schmitt-Rink (NSR). The former addressed only the ground state, now known as the "BCS-Leggett" wave-function, and the key contributions of the latter pertain to calculations of the superfluid transition temperature T-c. These two papers have given rise to two main and, importantly, distinct, theoretical schools in the BCS-BEC crossover literature. The first of these extends the BCS-Leggett ground state to finite temperature and the second extends the NSR scheme away from T-c both in the superfluid and normal phases. It is now rather widely accepted that these extensions of NSR produce a different ground state than that first introduced by Leggett. This observation provides a central motivation for the present paper which seeks to clarify the distinctions in the two approaches. Our analysis shows how the NSR-based approach views the bosonic contributions more completely but treats the fermions as "quasi-free". By contrast, the BCS-Leggett based approach treats the fermionic contributions more completely but treats the bosons as "quasi-free". In a related fashion, the NSR-based schemes approach the crossover between BCS and BEC by starting from the BEC limit and the BCS-Leggett based scheme approaches this crossover by starting from the BCS limit. Ultimately, one would like to combine these two schemes. There are, however, many difficult problems to surmount in any attempt to bridge the gap in the two theory classes. In this paper we review the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. The flexibility of the BCS-Leggett based approach and its ease of handling make it widely used in T = 0 applications, although the NSR-based schemes tend to be widely used at T not equal 0. To reach a full understanding, it is important in the future to invest effort in investigating in more detail the T = 0 aspects of NSR-based theory and at the same time the T not equal 0 aspects of BCS-Leggett theory.
机译:BCS-玻色-爱因斯坦凝聚(BEC)交叉的主题特别令人兴奋,因为它已在超冷原子费米气体中实现,并且可能与高温超导体有关。在本文中,我们回顾了有关该主题的理论工作,这代表了莱格特(Leggett)和Nozieres和Schmitt-Rink(NSR)对开创性论文的自然延伸。前者仅处理基态,现在称为“ BCS-Leggett”波函数,后者的关键作用在于计算超流体转变温度T-c。这两篇论文在BCS-BEC跨界文献中引起了两个主要的,而且重要的是截然不同的理论流派。这些中的第一个将BCS-Leggett基态扩展到有限温度,第二个将NSR方案在超流体阶段和正常阶段都从T-c扩展开。现在,NSR的这些扩展所产生的基态与Leggett最初引入的基态不同,这已被广泛接受。这种观察为本文寻求澄清两种方法之间的区别提供了主要动机。我们的分析表明,基于NSR的方法如何更完整地看待玻色子的贡献,却将费米子视为“准无”。相比之下,基于BCS-Leggett的方法可以更完全地处理费米子贡献,但将玻色子视为“准无”。以相关的方式,基于NSR的方案通过从BEC限制开始,从而解决了BCS和BEC之间的交叉,而基于BCS-Leggett的方案通过从BCS限制开始,解决了该交叉问题。最终,人们希望将这两种方案结合起来。但是,要弥合两个理论类别之间的差距,有许多困难的问题需要克服。在本文中,我们回顾了这两种方法的优缺点。尽管基于NSR的方案往往在T不等于0的情况下广泛使用,但基于BCS-Leggett的方法的灵活性及其易于处理的特性使其广泛用于T = 0的应用中。要充分理解,这一点很重要将来,我们会投入更多的精力来研究基于NSR的理论的T = 0方面,同时还要研究BCS-Leggett理论的T不等于0方面。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号