It's common knowledge (and has been discussed in other questions on this site) that the standard BCS ground state |ΨBCS⟩=∏k(uk+vkc†k↑c†−k↓)|0⟩ does not have a well-defined particle number and that this doesn't matter in bulk superconductors because the standard deviation is ΔN∝√N and hence irrelevant for N→∞.
But I also read that you can arrive at a BCS state with well-defined particle number by first defining
|ΨBCS(ϕ)⟩=(|uk|+eiϕ|vk|c†k↑c†−k↓)|0⟩
and then "integrating out" the phase according to
|ΨBCS(N)⟩=∫2π0dϕe−iNϕ/2|ΨBCS(ϕ)⟩,
If that is true, then surely this is the actual "physical" state of a superconductor and the original BCS state is merely used for convenience.
But that, in turn, would make the well-defined phase of the superconducting state a mere mathematical artifact, when every other textbook highlights it as something very fundamental (and if I remember correctly, it's very important for things like the Josephson effect as well).
So, can anyone point to the error in the logic above?
Answer
The important point is that [N,ϕ]=i, with N the number of electron et ϕ the phase. So you can apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, of which you gave the two extremum situations of 1) either perfectly defined N and completely unknown ϕ or 2) perfectly defined ϕ and completely unknown N. In general varying a bit the phase ϕ let a bit of electron N flowing, which is the basic situation in mesoscopic systems (e.g. Josephson junctions).
Conceptually, isolate a part of a superconductor (or any macroscopic system behaving as quantum mechanics), if you can count the number of electrons precisely, there is no current and so no phase difference, so ϕ is not a good quantum number. If you can define a current (and so fix a phase difference) you can not count the electrons in your control volume of superconductor.
Note that it is not that obvious to demonstrate the commutation relation [N,ϕ]=i in the general case, and discussions using this relation are usually subtle. For a harmonic oscillator the relation is easy to prove, using the coherent states, see e.g.
or the book by Nagaosa on Quantum Field Theory in Condensed Matter (or a title like that).
No comments:
Post a Comment