^{1}

^{*}

^{2}

It is well known that the critical current density of a superconductor depends on its size, shape, nature of doping and the manner of preparation. It is suggested here that the
*collective *effect of such differences for different samples of the same superconductor is to endow them with different values of the Fermi energy—a single property to which may be attributed the observed variation in their critical current densities. The study reported here extends our earlier work concerned with the generalized BCS equations [Malik, G.P. (2010) Physica B,
405, 3475-3481; Malik, G.P. (2013) WJCMP,
3,103-110]. We develop here for the first time a framework of microscopic equations that incorporates all of the following parameters of a superconductor: temperature, momentum of Cooper pairs, Fermi energy, applied magnetic field and critical current density. As an application of this framework, we address the different values of critical current densities of Bi-2212 for non-zero values of temperature and applied magnetic field that have been reported in the literature.

The critical current density (j_{c}) of a superconductor (SC) is an important parameter because the greater its value, the greater is the practical use to which it can be put. Most of the plethora of formulae available in the literature for calculating this parameter may be mainly categorized as following from the framework of the Londons’ equations or the Ginsburg-Landau (GL) equations. The salient features of such approaches are that they are based on diverse criteria such as the type of SC being dealt with (type I or II) and its geometry [_{c} of an SC only when its temperature T is close to its critical temperature T_{c}. In contrast with these phenomenological approaches, there is also available in the literature a smaller body of work dealing with the j_{c} of an SC on the basis of the microscopic theory of superconductivity. Notable among these is the often-used approach of Kupriyanov and Lukichev [

An overview of the study reported herein is as follows. Guided by a substantial body of recent work, e.g., [_{F}) play a pivotal role in determining properties of high-T_{c} SCs, we have been following a course where E_{F} is directly incorporated into the generalized BCS equations for the gaps (Δs) and the T_{c}s of both elemental and composite SCs [_{F} because of the assumption that E F / k θ ≫ 1 , where k is the Boltzmann constant and θ the Debye temperature of the SC. As a supplement to this framework, we reported in [_{F}-incorporated equation for j_{c}, leading to a unified framework for dealing with the Δ_{s}, T_{c}s and j_{c}s of both elemental and composite SCs at T = 0 and H = 0, where H is the applied external magnetic field. Since the j_{c}-values of an SC are generally reported for non-zero values of both T and H, we present here a framework to deal with such a situation. In essence, the present work is concerned with a generalization of: 1) the work reported in [_{F} in the pairing equations that already incorporate T and H and 2) the work reported in [_{F} and the momentum P of the pairs. We believe that presented herein is the first attempt that brings the T-and H-dependent j_{c} of an SC under the purview of an E_{F}-incorporated microscopic theory of superconductivity.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we show how, without making the usual approximation E F ≫ k θ , the dynamical equation for a Cooper pair interacting via the model BCS interaction can be generalized to include T and H via the Matsubara prescription and the Landau quantization scheme, respectively. We thus obtain the pairing equation incorporating E_{F}, T and H corresponding to the 1-phonon exchange mechanism (1PEM) and P = 0, which is appropriate for dealing with the situation when j = 0. In order to deal with the situation when j ≠ 0, we need to do away with the P = 0 constraint of this section. This is done in Section 3, assuming that the dimensionless interaction parameter remains unchanged as we move out of the center-of-mass frame to the lab frame. Based on the equations thus obtained, in Section 4 are derived expressions for the density of the superconducting electrons n_{s}, their critical velocity v_{c}, j_{c} and s ≡ m^{*}/m_{e}, where m^{*} is the effective mass of an electron and m_{e} the free electron mass. Application of these equations to deal with the empirical data of Bi_{2}Sr_{2}CaCu_{2}O_{8} (Bi-2212) for non-zero values of T and H is taken up in Section 5.1 (for j = 0) and Section 5.2 (for j ≠ 0). In Section 5.3 we present the solutions of these equations in the scenario of 1PEM due to each of the ion species: Ca, Sr, and Bi. Sections 6 and 7 are devoted, respectively, to a Discussion of our findings and Conclusions. Finally, for the reader’s convenience, we have given in an Appendix the conversion factors needed to go over from the natural system of units to the more familiar units employed in the BCS theory.

Incorporating T and H into the pairing equation is a two-step process [

For elemental SCs for which pairing arises from the one-phonon exchange mechanism (1PEM) due to a single species of ions, Step (1) leads to

1 = V ( 2 π ) 3 1 2 ∫ E F − k θ E F + k θ d 3 p tanh [ ( β / 2 ) ( p 2 / 2 m − E F − W / 2 ) ] p 2 / 2 m − E F − W / 2 , (1)

where (−V) ≠ 0 in a narrow region of ± k θ around the Fermi surface is the model BCS interaction parameter, β = 1 / k T , k is the Boltzmann constant, θ the Debye temperature of the ions, and W is one-half the binding energy of a pair which is to be identified with Δ. The units employed are: eV, ℏ = c = 1 , generally. However, for the convenience of the reader, in all the final equations that are actually employed in our calculations, the factors of ℏ and c have been made explicit.

If the field H is applied in the z-direction, then Step (2) consists of making the following substitutions in (1):

∫ d p x d p y = 2 π e H ∑ n , p x 2 2 m + p y 2 2 m = ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) Ω 1 ( H ) = e H m * c = Ω 0 H / s , Ω 0 = e / m e c = 1.7588 × 10 7 rad ⋅ sec − 1 ⋅ G − 1 , ( s = m * / m e ) (2)

where Ω_{0}(H) is the cyclotron frequency corresponding to the free electron mass and we assume that m^{*} = m_{e} when j_{c} = 0. The transverse components of momentum are thus quantized into Landau levels and we have (1) as

1 = e H V 8 π 2 ∫ − L L d p z ∑ n = 0 n m tanh [ ( β / 2 ) ( p z 2 / 2 m * − E F + ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) − W / 2 ) ] p z 2 / 2 m * − E F + ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) − W / 2 (3)

where L and n_{m} are usually ∞ . Since the energy of an electron in our problem is constrained to lie in a narrow shell around the Fermi surface, we fix L and n_{m} by appealing to the law of equipartition of energy and split the region in which V ≠ 0 as

− 2 k θ 3 ≤ p x 2 + p y 2 2 m * = ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) ≤ 2 k θ 3 − k θ 3 ≤ p z 2 2 m * − E F ≤ k θ 3 . (4)

In terms of the variable ξ = p z 2 / 2 m * − E F , d p z = ( 1 / 2 ) 2 m * / ( E F + ξ ) d ξ (3) is given by

1 = e H V 16 π 2 2 m * E F ∫ − L 1 ( θ ) L 1 ( θ ) d ξ 1 + ξ / E F × ∑ n = 0 n m ( θ , H ) tanh [ ( β / 2 ) ( ξ + ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) − W / 2 ) ] ξ + ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) − W / 2 (5)

where

L 1 ( θ ) = k θ / 3

and

n m ( θ , H ) = floor { 2 k θ 3 ℏ Ω 1 ( H ) − 1 2 } . (6)

Putting W = 0 and rewriting (5) in terms of T and the dimensionless variable x = ξ / ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) , we obtain the equation for the critical field H_{c} at temperature T (equivalently, the equation for the critical temperature T_{c} at field H) as

1 = λ m ∫ − L 2 ( θ , H c ) L 2 ( θ , H c ) d x 1 + ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) x / E F 1 × ∑ n = 0 n m 2 ( θ , H c ) tanh [ ( ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) / 2 k T c ) ( x + n + 1 / 2 ) ] x + n + 1 / 2 (7)

where E_{F} has been relabeled as E_{F}_{1} in order to distinguish it from the E_{F} that occurs in the equations when P ≠ 0,

L 2 ( θ , H c ) = k θ / [ 3 ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) ] ,

n m 2 ( θ , H c ) = floor [ 2 L 2 ( θ , H c ) − 1 / 2 ]

and

λ m ( H c , V ) = e H c V 16 π 2 2 m * E F 1 . (8)

Incorporating T, H and E_{F}, (7) is the equation we had set out to obtain; it reduces to Equation (16) of [_{m} too is dimensionless and enable one to employ in our framework the more familiar BCS units, i.e., eV-cm^{3} for V and Gauss for H.

It is a tenet of the BCS theory that the same interaction parameter λ occurs in both the equation for {T = T_{c}, Δ = 0} and the equation for {T = 0, Δ_{0} ≠ 0}, where Δ_{0} is the gap at T = 0. Similarly, we assume here that λ_{m} remains unchanged when we go over from the P = 0 to P ≠ 0 equations. We now draw attention to the fact that in [_{0}s and j_{c}s of various SCs, it was assumed that E_{F} too has the same value in both the equation for Δ_{0} (H = 0) and the equation for P_{c}/j_{c}--a plausible justification for which being that we were dealing with the j_{c}s too at T = 0 and H = 0. For the sake of generality, we now assume that the value of E_{F} when P ≠ 0 is different from its value when P = 0. Hence, E_{F} is labelled as E_{F}_{2} in the present section.

The T- and P-dependent equation for pairing in the 1PEM scenario is [

1 = V 16 π 2 ∫ l u d 3 p tanh [ β C ( p ) / 2 ] + tanh [ β D ( p ) / 2 ] C ( p ) + D ( p ) , (9)

where

C ( p ) = ( P / 2 + p ) 2 2 m * − E / 2 = P 2 8 m * + | P | | p | cos ( P , p ) 2 m * + p 2 2 m * − E F 2 − W / 2 D ( p ) = ( P / 2 − p ) 2 2 m * − E / 2 = P 2 8 m * − | P | | p | cos ( P , p ) 2 m * + p 2 2 m * − E F 2 − W / 2

V ≠ 0 in the region

E F 2 − k θ ≤ ( P / 2 + p ) 2 2 m * , ( P / 2 − p ) 2 2 m * ≤ E F 2 + k θ , (10)

and the total energy of a pair is E = 2 E F 2 + W . When P = 0, (10) fixes the limits l and u in (9) as l = E F 2 − k θ and u = E F 2 + k θ . When P ≠ 0, the lower limit in (9) follows from:

E F 2 − k θ ≤ ( P c / 2 − p ) 2 2 m * = p 2 / 2 m * − | P c | p z / 2 m * , (11)

where P_{c} is the critical momentum corresponding to W = 0, p z = | p | cos ( P c , p ) and the P c 2 -term in the expansion of ( P c / 2 ± p ) 2 has been neglected (as justified in [

p z 2 / 2 m * ≅ E F 2 / 3 , i .e ., p z = 2 m * E F 2 / 3 ,

whence we have (11) as

− E 1 ( θ ) + E 2 ( E F 2 ) ≤ [ ( p z 2 / 2 m * − E F 2 ) + ( p x 2 + p y 2 ) / 2 m * ] ( E 1 ( θ ) = k θ , E 2 ( E F 2 ) = P c E F 2 / 6 m * ) . (12)

which is now the lower limit in (9). Working out the upper limit similarly, we have the limits of (9) as:

− E 1 ( θ ) + E 2 ( E F 2 ) ≤ [ ( p z 2 / 2 m * − E F 2 ) + ( p x 2 + p y 2 ) / 2 m * ] ≤ E 1 ( θ ) − E 2 ( E F 2 ) . (13)

Employing substitutions (2) in order to introduce H into (9), we obtain

1 = e H c V 8 π 2 ∫ − l 1 ( θ , E F 2 ) l 1 ( θ , E F 2 ) d p z × ∑ n = 0 n u 1 ( θ , E F 2 , H c ) tanh [ A 1 ( T c , H c , E F 2 , p z ) ] + tanh [ B 1 ( T c , H c , E F 2 , p z ) ] 2 [ ( p z 2 / 2 m * − E F 2 ) + ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) ] (14)

where

Ω 2 ( H c ) = Ω 0 H c / s (15)

A 1 ( T c , H c , E F , p z ) = ( 1 2 k T c ) [ ( p z 2 2 m * − E F 2 ) + ( n + 1 2 ) ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) + E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] B 1 ( T c , H c , E F , p z ) = ( 1 2 k T c ) [ ( p z 2 2 m * − E F 2 ) + ( n + 1 2 ) ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) − E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] (16)

and

l 1 ( θ , E F 2 ) = ( 1 / 3 ) [ E 1 ( θ ) − E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] n u 1 ( θ , E F 2 , H c ) = floor [ 2 l 1 ( θ , E F 2 ) / ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) − 1 / 2 ] .

We note that the factors of (1/3) in the limits of the integral and (2/3) in the upper limit of the sum occur because, appealing to the equipartition law, we have split the inequalities (13) as

( 1 / 3 ) [ − E 1 ( θ ) + E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] ≤ ( p z 2 / 2 m * − E F 2 ) ≤ ( 1 / 3 ) [ E 1 ( θ ) − E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] ( 2 / 3 ) [ − E 1 ( θ ) + E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] ≤ [ ( p x 2 + p y 2 ) / 2 m * = ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) ] ≤ ( 2 / 3 ) [ E 1 ( θ ) − E 2 ( E F 2 ) ] .

With

ξ = p z 2 / 2 m * − E F 2 , d p z = 1 2 2 m * / ( E F 2 + ξ ) d ξ

(14) is transformed into

1 = λ m ( V , H c ) 2 ∫ − l 1 ( θ , E F 2 ) l 1 ( θ , E F 2 ) d ξ 1 + ξ / E F 2 × ∑ n = 0 n u 1 ( θ , E F 2 , H c ) tanh [ A 2 ( T , H c , E F 2 , ξ ) ] + tanh [ B 2 ( T , H c , E F 2 , ξ ) ] ξ + ( n + 1 / 2 ) ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) , (17)

where λ_{m}(V, H_{c}) is given by (8), A_{2}(..) and B_{2}(..) are given by A_{1}(..) and B_{1}(..), respectively, with ( p z 2 / 2 m * − E F 2 ) replaced by ξ. Employing the dimensionless variables x = ξ / ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) and

y = E 1 ( θ ) / E 2 ( E F 2 ) = k θ P c 6 m * / E F 2 , (18)

we finally obtain the desired equation incorporating T, H and E_{F2} when P ≠ 0 in terms of y as

1 = λ m ( V , H c ) 2 ∫ − l 2 ( θ , H c , r , y ) l 2 ( θ , H c , r , y ) d x 1 + ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) x / E F 2 × ∑ n = 0 n u 2 ( θ , H c , r , y ) tanh [ A 3 ( ... ) ] + tanh [ B 3 ( ... ) ] x + n + 1 / 2 , (19)

where

l 2 ( θ , H c , r , y ) = E 1 ( θ ) ( 1 − 1 / r y ) 3 ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) (20)

n u 2 ( θ , H c , r , y ) = floor [ 2 l 2 ( θ , H c , r , y ) − 1 / 2 ] (21)

A 3 ( ... ) = A 3 ( θ , T c , H c , r , y , x , n ) = [ ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) 2 k T c { x + n + 1 / 2 + E 1 ( θ ) r y ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) } ] (22)

B 3 ( ... ) = B 3 ( θ , T c , H c , r , y , x , n ) = [ ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) 2 k T c { x + n + 1 / 2 − E 1 ( θ ) r y ℏ Ω 2 ( H c ) } ] . (23)

Although the multiplier r of y in the above equations is unity for an elemental SC, it has been introduced for later convenience when we deal with a composite SC characterized by multiple θs. Taking the example of Bi-2212, we note that if the Debye temperature of the SC is θ_{0} and pairing takes place via the Ca or the Sr ions, then r_{1} = θ_{Ca}/θ_{0} = 1 (because θ_{Ca} = θ_{0}) for the former case and r_{2} = θ_{Sr}/θ_{0} ≠ 1 (because θ_{Sr} differs from θ_{0}) for the latter.

If we assume that (7) corresponding to a set of {E_{F}_{1}, T_{c}_{1}, H_{c}_{1}, j_{c}_{1} = 0}-values and (19) corresponding to a set of {E_{F}_{2}, T_{c}_{2}, H_{c}_{2}, j_{c}_{2} ≠ 0}-values have provided a value of y, then we are enabled to obtain the following equations for the density of superconducting electrons n_{s}, P_{c}, the critical velocity v_{c} and j_{c}, where the requisite factors of ℏ and c have been inserted for the convenience of the reader.

n s ( s , E F 2 ) = 1 3 π 2 ( 2 m * E F 2 ( ℏ c ) 2 ) 3 / 2 = C 1 ( s E F 2 ) 3 / 2 ( C 1 = ( 2 m e c 2 ) 3 / 2 3 π 2 ( ℏ c ) 3 ≅ 4.541 × 10 21 ( eV ) − 3/2 cm − 3 ) (24)

P c ( θ , E F 2 , s , y ) = k ( 6 s m e ) 1 / 2 θ y E F 2 − 1 / 2 ,

whence

v c ( θ 0 , E F 2 , s , y ) = c P c 2 s m e = C 2 θ 0 y ( s E F 2 ) − 1 / 2 ( C 2 = 6 1 / 2 c k m e − 1 / 2 2 ≅ 4.426 × 10 3 eV 1/2 K − 1 cms − 1 ) (25)

j c ( θ 0 , E F 2 , s , y ) = e n s v c = C 3 θ 0 y s E F 2 ( C 3 = eC 1 C 2 = 2 3 e c k m e 3 π 2 ( ℏ c ) 3 ≅ 3.22 × 10 6 CK − 1 (eV) − 1 cm − 2 s − 1 ) (26)

and

s ( θ , E F 2 , j c , r , y ) = j c r y C 3 θ E F 2 . (27)

We now undertake a study of Bi-2212 for which T_{c} = 86 K when H = 0. When H ≠ 0, it is characterized by [

T c 1 = 65 K , H c 1 = 36 Tesla , j c 1 = 0. (28)

Among the 14 different values of j_{c} that have been reported for the same SC at different values of T and H, we focus here on the following two which are particularly interesting because they correspond to the same values of T and H:

T c 2 = 4.2 K , H c 2 = 12 Tesla , j c 2 = 2.4 × 10 5 A / cm 2 (29)

T c 3 = T c 2 , H c 3 = H c 2 , j c 3 = 1.0 × 10 6 A / cm 2 . (30)

For the data in (28), we need to employ (7) which corresponds to j_{c} = 0, whereas for the data in (29) and (30) we need (19). In either case, first of all, we require the value of the Debye temperature θ_{0} of the SC, which is 237 K. Since we are now dealing with a composite SC [(7) was derived for an elemental SC], we have the following multiple Debye temperatures at play because of the anisotropy of the SC [

θ ( Bi-2212 ) = θ 0 = 237 K θ Ca = 237 , θ Sr = 286 K , θ Bi = 269 K . (31)

Note that y in (18) is defined in terms of the Debye temperature of the SC (not in terms of the Debye temperature of any of the constituents of the SC if it consists of several elements). Sticking to the same definition, we have

y ( Bi-2212 ) = E 1 ( θ 0 ) / E 2 ( E F 2 ) = k θ 0 P c 6 s m e E F 2 , (32)

and, in all the four equations following (19), we need to have [_{Ca}/θ_{0}, θ_{Sr}/θ_{0} and θ_{Bi}/θ_{0} for pairing via the Ca, Sr and Bi ions, respectively.

Following our study dealing with the T_{c}s, Δ_{0}s and j_{0}s of Bi-2212 reported in [

L 3 ( θ , H c ) = k θ 3 ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) , n u 3 ( θ , H c ) = floor [ 2 L 3 ( θ , H c ) − 1 / 2 ] ϕ 1 ( H c , E F , x ) = 1 / 1 + ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) x / E F

F 1 ( θ , T c , H c , x ) = ∑ n = 0 n u 3 ( θ , H c ) tanh [ ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) 2 k T c ( x + n + 1 / 2 ) ] x + n + 1 / 2

G 1 ( θ , T c , H c , E F 1 ) = ∫ − L 3 ( θ , H c ) L 3 ( θ , H c ) d x ϕ 1 ( H c , E F , x ) F 1 ( θ , T c , H c , x ) ,

which lead to the following equation in the 2PEM scenario as a generalization of (7) for pairing via the Ca and Sr ions when j_{c} = 0:

E q 1 ( θ 1 , θ 2 , T c 1 , H c 1 , E F 1 , λ m 1 , λ m 2 ) ≡ Re [ 1 − λ m 1 G 1 ( θ 1 , T c 1 , H c 1 , E F 1 ) − λ m 2 G 1 ( θ 2 , T c 1 , H c 1 , E F 1 ) ] = 0. (33)

For the θ-values in (31), we note that (i) solution of (33) with inputs from (28) leads to (a) the value of λ_{m}_{1} for pairing in the 1PEM scenario via the Ca ions by putting θ 1 = θ Ca , λ_{m}_{2} = 0 and (b) the value of λ_{m}_{2} for pairing in the 1PEM scenario via the Sr ions by putting λ_{m}_{1} = 0, θ 2 = θ Sr and (ii) the need to invoke 2PEM will arise only if either of the so-obtained λ_{m}s exceeds the Bogoliubov limit of 0.5, because beyond this value the system becomes unstable.

If we obtain the generalized version of (19) to deal with pairing in the 2PEM scenario following the same procedure as above, then with the inputs from (29) and (30) we have two equations besides (33). These three equations are not sufficient to deal with at least the six unknowns in our problem: λ_{m}_{1}, λ_{m}_{2}, E_{F}_{1}, E_{F}_{2}, E_{F}_{3} and y. Therefore, ab-initio calculation of the j_{c}s via this approach will involve making ad hoc assumptions about some of the unknowns. To avoid such a situation, we adopt the strategy of incorporating in the generalized version of (19) the empirical j_{c}-values noted in (29) or (30). Even though the number of equations in this approach continues to be three, we show below how it sheds light on several important features of the data in (29) and (30).

In order to incorporate j_{c} into (19), we employ (27) for s(θ, E_{F}, j_{c}, r, y), whence we have (15) as

Ω 2 ( H c ) → Ω 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) = C 3 Ω 0 H c θ E F j c r y

and (20)-(23) as

l 4 ( H c , E F , j c , r , y ) = k j c ( r y − 1 ) 3 C 3 ℏ Ω 0 H c E F (34)

n u 4 ( H c , E F , j c , r , y ) = floor [ 2 l 4 ( H c , E F , j c , r , y ) − 1 / 2 ] (35)

A 3 ( ... ) = A 3 ( θ , T c , H c , E F , j c , r , y , x , n ) = [ ℏ Ω 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) 2 k T c { x + n + 1 2 + k θ ℏ Ω 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) } ] (36)

B 3 ( ... ) = B 3 ( θ , T c , H c , E F , j c , r , y , x , n ) = [ ℏ Ω 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) 2 k T c { x + n + 1 / 2 − k θ ℏ Ω 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) } ] . (37)

With the definitions

ϕ 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , x , r , y ) = 1 1 + ℏ Ω 2 ( θ , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) x / E F

F 2 ( θ , T c , H c , E F , j c , x , r , y ) = ∑ n = 0 n u 4 ( H c , E F , j c , r , y ) A 3 ( ... ) + B 3 ( ... ) x + n + 1 / 2 ,

where l 4 ( ... ) , n u 4 ( ... ) , A 3 ( ... ) and B 3 ( ... ) are given by (34), (35), (36) and (37), respectively, and

G 2 ( θ , T c , H c , E F , j c , r , y ) = ∫ − l 4 ( ... ) l 4 ( ... ) d x ϕ 2 ( ... ) F 2 ( ... ) , (38)

we obtain, in the 2PEM scenario as a generalization of (19) for pairing via two species of ions and a given value of j_{c}, the following equation:

E q 2 ( θ 1 , θ 2 , T c , H c , q , E F , j c , r 1 , r 2 , y , λ m 1 , λ m 2 ) ≡ Re [ 1 − λ m 1 G 2 ( θ 1 , T c , H c , E F , j c , r 1 , y ) − λ m 2 G 2 ( θ 2 , T c , H c , E F , j c , r 2 , y ) ] = 0. (39)

In order to unravel the empirical features of Bi-2212 noted in (28), (29) and (30) in the above framework, we proceed as follows:

1) We first deal with the data in (28) via (33) where, in the latter equation, E_{F1} is an independent variable. If we solve this equation for different assumed values of E_{F}_{1}= ρkθ_{0} and λ_{m}_{2} = 0, we obtain the corresponding values of λ_{m}_{1} for pairing via the Ca ions. We thus find that for ρ = 10, λ_{m}_{1} = 0.31283 and for all values of ρ > 10, λ_{m}_{1} has the same value up to four significant digits. For the same value of ρ and λ_{m}_{1} = 0, the corresponding value of λ_{m}_{2}(Bi) and λ_{m}_{2}(Sr) via (33) are 0.22043 and 0.20778, respectively Similarly obtained values of λ_{m}_{1}(Ca), λ_{m}_{2}(Bi) and λ_{m}_{2}(Sr) for some select values of ρ ≤ 10 are given in

2) Since none of the values of λ_{m} in _{F}_{2} corresponding to the data in (29). To this end for ρ = 10, for pairing via the Ca ions, we use the following values in (39):

ρ = E F 1 k θ 0 | λ m 1 ( Ca ) | λ m 2 ( Bi ) | λ m 2 ( Sr ) |
---|---|---|---|

10 | 0.31283 | 0.22043 | 0.20778 |

5 | 0.31243 | 0.22003 | 0.20736 |

4 | 0.31219 | 0.21980 | 0.20712 |

3 | 0.31176 | 0.21937 | 0.20667 |

2 | 0.31069 | 0.21835 | 0.20558 |

1 | 0.30594 | 0.21382 | 0.20075 |

λ m 2 = 0 , λ m 1 = 0.31283 ; T c = T c 2 , H c = H c 2 , j c = j c 2 ; r = r 1 = 1 , E F = q E F 1 ( E F 1 = ρ k θ 0 ) , (40)

which leaves out y which is yet to be specified. Since y too is an independent variable, we need to solve (39) for a range of values of ry > 1; that ry must be greater than unity follows from (34). We find that for each such value of y, the solution of the transcendental Equation (39) yields, in general, multiple roots each of which corresponds not only to j_{c}_{2} (which is an in-built feature of our formalism), but also, to the accuracy with which they are quoted in _{s} and v_{c} via (24) and (25), respectively. For this reason, corresponding to each y, given in

In the context of the critical current densities, such a plot given in

The parameters, the values of which are different for different roots, corresponding to the same value of y are n_{u}_{4}, s and E_{F}_{2} where n_{u}_{4} and s are determined via (35) and (27), respectively, and E_{F}_{2} = qE_{F}_{1}. Of these, the values of s dictate the range of y relevant for the data under consideration. To elaborate, for y ≤ 2.40, it is found that s ≥ 37. Since, contrary to the known features of the SC under consideration, such values of s would put it in the category of heavy-fermion SCs [

3) For the data in (30), we also give in

T c = T c 2 = 4.2 K , H c = H c 2 = 12 × 10 4 G, j c = j c 2 = 2.4 × 10 5 A ⋅ cm − 2 ,PairingviaCaions | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ρ , λ | y 1 , y 2 asin y 1 ≤ y ≤ y 2 | q 1 , q 2 asin q 1 ≤ q ≤ q 2 ( × 10 − 4 ) | n u 1 , n u 2 asin n 1 ≥ n u 4 ≥ n 2 | s 1 , s 2 asin s 1 ≥ s ≥ s 2 | n s 1 , n s 2 asin n s 1 ≤ n s ≤ n s 2 ( × 10 17 cm − 3 ) | v c 1 , v c 2 asin v c 1 ≥ v c ≥ v c 2 ( × 10 7 cm / s ) | E F 2 1 = q 1 E F 1 E F 2 2 = q 2 E F 1 E F 2 1 ≤ E F 2 ≤ E F 2 2 ( × 10 − 4 eV ) |

10, 0.31283 | 2.575, 3.10 | 4.5194, 48.041 | 52, 6 | 8.77, 0.99 | 1.05, 1.38 | 1.43, 1.08 | 0.92, 9.81 |

5, 0.31243 | 2.575, 3.10 | 9.0422, 96.168 | 52, 6 | 8.77, 0.99 | 1.05, 1.38 | 1.43, 1.08 | 0.92, 9.82 |

1, 0.30594 | 2.575, 3.20 | 43.589, 472.32 | 54, 6 | 9.10, 1.04 | 1.05, 1.45 | 1.43, 1.03 | 0.89, 9.65 |

T c = T c 2 = 4.2 K, H c = H c 2 = 12 × 10 4 G, j c = j c 2 = 2.4 × 10 5 A ⋅ cm − 2 ,PairingviaSrions | |||||||

10, 0.20778 | 2.50, 3.35 | 3.9111, 49.813 | 77, 8 | 9.84 1.04 | 1.00, 1.55 | 1.50, 0.96 | 0.80, 10.2 |

5, 0.2076 | 2.50, 3.35 | 7.9476, 99.83 | 76, 8 | 9.69, 1.03 | 1.00, 1.55 | 1.50, 0.96 | 0.81, 10.2 |

1, 0.20075 | 2.51, 3.35 | 39.478, 516.30 | 77, 8 | 9.79, 1.00 | 1.01, 1.55 | 1.49, 0.96 | 0.81, 10.5 |

T c = T c 3 = 4.2 K, H c = H c 3 = 12 × 10 4 G, j c = j c 3 = 1.0 × 10 6 A ⋅ cm − 2 ,PairingviaCaions | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ρ , λ | y 1 , y 2 asin y 1 ≤ y ≤ y 2 | q 1 , q 2 asin q 1 ≤ q ≤ q 2 ( × 10 − 3 ) | n u 1 , n u 2 asin n 1 ≥ n u 4 ≥ n 2 | s 1 , s 2 asin s 1 ≥ s ≥ s 2 | n s 1 , n s 2 asin n s 1 ≤ n s ≤ n s 2 ( × 10 17 cm − 3 ) | v c 1 , v c 2 asin v c 1 ≥ v c ≥ v c 2 ( × 10 6 cm / s ) | E F 2 1 = q 1 E F 1 E F 2 2 = q 2 E F 1 E F 2 1 ≤ E F 2 ≤ E F 2 2 ( × 10 − 4 eV ) |

10, 0.31283 | 2.40, 2.90 | 1.5499, 17.720 | 56, 6 | 9.94, 1.05 | 8.01, 10.6 | 7.79, 5.87 | 3.17, 36.2 |

5, 0.31243 | 2.40, 2.90 | 3.2281, 35.461 | 54, 6 | 9.54, 1.05 | 8.01, 10.6 | 7.79, 5.87 | 3.30, 36.2 |

1, 0.30594 | 2.40, 2.90 | 15.274, 179.10 | 57, 6 | 10.08, 1.04 | 8.01, 10.6 | 7.79, 5.87 | 3.12, 36.6 |

T c = T c 3 = 4.2 K, H c = H c 3 = 12 × 10 4 G , j c = j c 3 = 1.0 × 10 6 A ⋅ cm − 2 ,PairingviaSrions | |||||||

10, 0.20778 | 2.30, 2.90 | 1.4543, 20.791 | 76, 7 | 10.15, 0.89 | 7.51, 10.6 | 8.31, 5.87 | 2.97, 42.5 |

5, 0.20736 | 2.30, 2.90 | 2.9099, 35.048 | 76, 8 | 10.14, 1.06 | 7.51, 10.6 | 8.31, 5.87 | 2.97, 35.8 |

1, 0.20075 | 2.31, 2.90 | 14.619, 177.80 | 76, 8 | 10.14, 1.05 | 7.56, 10.6 | 8.25, 5.87 | 2.99, 36.3 |

4) Pairing in Bi-2212 can of course also take place via the Bi ions in the 1PEM scenario. From the results obtained via the Ca and the Sr ions and the value of θ_{Bi}, which lies between θ_{Ca} and θ_{Sr} [vide (31)], one would expect that λ_{m}(Bi) for any of the value of ρ in either of the two Tables should lie between the corresponding values of λ_{m}(Ca) and λ_{m}(Sr) and that, but for this change, the overall results should be substantially similar to those already obtained. This is indeed found to be so, as can be seen from the following results corresponding to T = 4.2 K, H_{c} = 12 × 10^{4} G and j_{c} = 2.4 × 10^{5} A/cm^{2} as an example:

ρ = 10 , λ = 0.22043 ; 2.54 ≤ y ≤ 3.30 4.0226 × 10 − 4 ≤ q ≤ 5.4521 × 10 − 3 , 70 ≥ n u ≥ 7 , 9.72 ≥ s ≥ 0.93 1.03 × 10 17 ≤ n s ≤ 1.52 × 10 17 , 1.46 × 10 7 ≥ v c ≥ 9.87 × 10 6 0.82 × 10 − 4 ≤ E F 2 ≤ 11.1 × 10 − 4 ,

where the units for n_{s}, v_{c }and E_{F} are cm^{-3}, cm/s and eV, respectively.

To give a perspective of the approach followed in this paper, it is pertinent to point out that, conventionally, the j_{c} of an SC is determined via one or the other critical state models; for characteristic equations of nine critical state models, see ( [_{c} and H and that the interior of the SC is shielded from these fields and currents. For Bi-2212, the most commonly employed model is Bean’s model where its j_{c} is determined via the geometry of the sample and the magnetization width ΔM of the M(H) hysteresis loop; see, e.g. [_{c}(H) of the melt quenched and the non-melted samples of the SC at 5 K. Following the conventional approach, the significantly different j_{c }(H)-values of the samples in [

A remark about the operator Re in (33): The function G_{1}(θ_{1}, T_{c}_{1}, H_{c}_{1}, E_{F}_{1}) in this equation becomes pure imaginary for all values of x < − E F / ℏ Ω 1 ( H c ) because of ϕ 1 ( H c 1 , E F 1 , x ) . This is a situation which also occurs in several other problems, e.g., while dealing with heavy-fermion SCs [

As was noted above, the solution of (39) leads to multiple roots for any value of y for which s falls in the range of our interest. These are shown in _{F}.

Another feature of (39) is that as y is progressively increased, the number of its roots keeps decreasing, as an example of which we note that as one goes from y = 2.60 to 3.10 in the upper-half of

Regarding the employment of Ω_{0} (which corresponds to free electron mass) in obtaining solutions of (33), we note that there is no loss of generality in making this assumption in so far as the solutions of this equation are employed to shed light on why the same SC at the same values of T and H sustains different values of j_{c}—which is the chief objective of this study. This assertion follows from the fact that different pairs of {ρ, λ_{m}} in both

In so far as the n_{u} values given in

r n ( H ) = r 0 2 n u ( H ) + 1

where r 0 = ℏ c / e H 0 and H_{0} is the critical applied field at T = 0 and that n_{u}(H_{0}) for the elemental SCs Hg, In, Tl and Sn, for example, has the values 1062, 1900, 2201 and 3172, respectively. Since r_{n}(H) and therefore n_{u} may also be regarded as a measure of the coherence length of the SC, the low values of the latter in the two Tables signify that Bi-2212 has a much smaller coherence length than the elemental SCs, which is in accord with the known empirical facts.

If, for both the values of j_{c}, i.e., j_{c}_{2} = 2.4 × 10^{5} (for an Ag-sheathed tape) and j_{c3} = 1.0 × 10^{6} A/cm^{2} (for a multilayer tape), the SC is assumed to have nearly the same value of s, which is unlikely, then the results in _{c2}) ≈ 10 and s(j_{c3}) ≈ 1. However, if s(j_{c2}) ≈ 1 and s(j_{c}_{3}) ≈ 10 then, while the first two results still hold, we have E_{F}(j_{c}_{2}) > E_{F}(j_{c3}). In so far as the absolute values of E_{F} in

1) Based on the microscopic BSE customized to deal with superconductivity, we have given here derivation of equations that incorporate E_{F} (equivalently, the chemical potential μ), T, H, and P.

2) Among the main results of this paper are (33) and (39). The former generalizes the equation given in [_{F}; the latter generalizes the equation given in [_{F} and P, but not H.

3) Another notable result of the approach followed here is that it sheds light on why the cuprate that we have dealt with has much smaller coherence length than elemental SCs.

4) A novel aspect of our work is that it incorporates j_{c}, which is a sample-specific property, into the dynamical equations that govern pairing in the SC.

5) As is well-known, the j_{c} of an SC depends on several factors such as its size, shape, and how it is doped and prepared. Based on the premise that the E_{F} of an SC subsumes all of these features, we have given here a framework for testing it, and applied it for a detailed study of Bi-2212.

6) The upshot of the present work is that for greater substantiation of the above premise, there is a need not only to monitor via experiment, insofar as it may be feasible, the following parameters for Bi-2212: n u 4 , s , n s and v c , but also to carry out similar studies for other SCs. Unfortunately, none of the conventionally employed critical state models sheds light on any of these parameters.

We conclude by noting that a detailed exposition of most of concepts of the BSE-based approach employed in this paper can be found in [

GPM thanks Dr. V.P.S. Awana for a valuable discussion of the conventional critical state models and the approach followed in this paper for determining the j_{c} of an SC. It is gratifying to note that invoking the electronic structure of an SC in this context, as done here, seemed to be a refreshing new approach to him.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Malik, G.P. and Varma, V.S. (2020) A Fermi Energy-Incorporated Framework for Dealing with the Temperature- and Magnetic Field-Dependent Critical Current Densities of Superconductors and Its Application to Bi-2212. World Journal of Condensed Matter Physics, 10, 53-70. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcmp.2020.102004

In order to see that λ_{m} defined in (8) in the natural system of units is dimensionless, we need the following conversion factors:

1 g = a 1 e V c − 2 , 1 cm = a 2 e V − 1 ( ℏ c ) , e = b 1 ( ℏ c ) 1 / 2 , 1 s = a 3 e V − 1 ℏ , 1 G = g 1 / 2 ⋅ cm − 1 / 2 ⋅ s − 1 = b 2 e V 2 ( ℏ c ) − 3 / 2 ,

where

a 1 = 5.60958616 × 10 32 , a 2 = 5.06772886 × 10 4 , a 3 = 1.51926689 × 10 15 b 1 = ( 137.03599895 ) − 1 / 2 , b 2 = a 1 1 / 2 a 2 − 1 / 2 a 3 − 1 = 6.92507774 × 10 − 2 .

Hence, we have

e = b 1 ( ℏ c ) 1 / 2 = b 1 ( if ℏ = c = 1 ) (A1)

H c ( B C S , G ) = b 2 | H c | e V 2 ( ℏ c ) − 3 / 2 = b 2 | H c | e V 2 ( if ℏ = c = 1 ) (A2)

V B C S = | V | e V c m 3 = a 2 3 | V | e V − 2 ( ℏ c ) 3 = a 2 3 | V | e V − 2 ( if ℏ = c = 1 ) (A3)

It follows from the above equations that when ℏ ≠ 1 and c ≠ 1 , V_{BCS} has to be divided by ( ℏ c ) 3 in order for it to play the required role of a propagator in the BSE-based approach and that, after inserting a factor of ℏ c on the RHS of the first equation in the set of Equations (2), we obtain

λ m = a 2 3 b 1 b 2 | H | | V | 16 π 2 2 m * c 2 E F , (A4)

which is dimensionless, since both |H| and |V| are pure numbers.

We note that (A4) is needed only when one wishes to decouple the constituent V of λ_{m} after the latter has been determined corresponding to a given value of H.