Superconductivity: Peter SCHM User
Superconductivity: Peter SCHM User
Superconductivity: Peter SCHM User
Peter Schmüser
Institut für Experimentalphysik der Universität Hamburg
Abstract
Low-temperature superconductivity is treated at an introductory level. The
topics include Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect and London equations, thermody-
namic properties of the superconducting state, type I and II superconductors,
flux quantisation, superconductors in microwave fields and superconducting
quantum interference effects. Important experiments are discussed. The basic
ideas of the BCS theory and its implications are outlined.
1. INTRODUCTION
In these lectures I want to give an introduction into the physical principles of superconductivity and its
fascinating properties. More detailed accounts can be found in the excellent text books by W. Buckel
[1] and by D.R. Tilley and J. Tilley [2]. Superconductivity was discovered [3] in 1911 by the Dutch
physicist H. Kamerlingh Onnes, only three years after he had succeeded in liquefying helium. During his
investigations on the conductivity of metals at low temperature he found that the resistance of a mercury
sample dropped to an unmeasurably small value just at the boiling temperature of liquid helium. The
original measurement is shown in Fig. 1. Kamerlingh Onnes called this totally unexpected phenomenon
‘superconductivity’ and this name has been retained since. The temperature at which the transition took
place was called the critical temperature T c . Superconductivity is observed in a large variety of materials
but, remarkably, not in some of the best normal conductors like copper, silver and gold, except at very
high pressures. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 where the resistivity of copper, tin and the ‘high-temperature’
superconductor YBa2 Cu3 O7 is sketched as a function of temperature. Table 1 lists some important
superconductors together with their critical temperatures at vanishing magnetic field.
Table 1: The critical temperature of some common materials at vanishing magnetic field.
A discovery of enormous practical consequences was the finding that there exist two types of
superconductors with rather different response to magnetic fields. The elements lead, mercury, tin, alu-
minium and others are called ‘type I’ superconductors. They do not admit a magnetic field in the bulk
material and are in the superconducting state provided the applied field is below a critical field H c which
is a function of temperature. All superconducting alloys like lead-indium, niobium-titanium, niobium-tin
and also the element niobium belong to the large class of ‘type II’ superconductors. They are charac-
terized by two critical fields, Hc1 and Hc2 . Below Hc1 these substances are in the Meissner phase with
complete field expulsion while in the range H c1 < H < Hc2 a type II superconductor enters the mixed
phase in which magnetic field can penetrate the bulk material in the form of flux tubes. The Ginzburg-
Landau theory [9] provides a theoretical basis for the distinction between the two types. Around 1960
Gorkov [10] showed that the phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau theory is a limiting case of the BCS
theory. Abrikosov [11] predicted that the flux tubes in a type II superconductor arrange themselves in
a triangular pattern which was confirmed in a beautiful experiment by Essmann and Träuble [12]. In
1962 Josephson [13] studied the quantum theoretical tunnel effect in a system of two superconductors
separated by a thin insulating layer and he predicted peculiar and fascinating properties of such a Joseph-
son junction which were all confirmed by experiment and opened the way to superconducting quantum
interference devices (SQUID’s) with extreme sensitivity to tiny magnetic fields.
Fig. 4: A lead cylinder in a magnetic field. Two possible ways to reach the superconducting final state with H > 0 are sketched.
Ideally the length of the cylinder should be much larger than its diameter to get a vanishing demagnetisation factor.
In a (T, H) plane, the superconducting phase is separated from the normal phase by the curve
Hc (T ) as sketched in Fig. 5. Also indicated are the two ways on which one can reach the point (c). It
is instructive to compare this with the response of a ‘normal’ metal of perfect conductivity. The field
increase along the path (a) → (c) would yield the same result as for the superconductor, however the
cooldown along the path (b) → (c) would have no effect at all. So superconductivity means definitely
more than just vanishing resistance.
I have already used the terms ‘superconducting phase’ and ‘normal phase’ to characterize the
two states of lead. These are indeed phases in the thermodynamical sense, comparable to the different
phases of H2 O which is in the solid, liquid or gaseous state depending on the values of the parameters
temperature and pressure. Here the relevant parameters are temperature and magnetic field (for some
materials also pressure). If the point (T, H) lies below the curve H c (T ) the material is superconducting
and expels the magnetic field, irrespective of by which path the point was reached. If (T, H) is above
the curve the material is normal-conducting.
The first successful explanation of the Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect was achieved in 1935 by Heinz
and Fritz London. They assumed that the supercurrent is carried by a fraction of the conduction electrons
in the metal. The ‘super-electrons’ experience no friction, so their equation of motion in an electric field
is
∂~v ~ .
me = −eE
∂t
This leads to an accelerated motion. The supercurrent density is
J~s = −ens~v
where ns is the density of the super-electrons. This immediately yields the equation
∂ J~s ns e2 ~
= E. (1)
∂t me
Now one uses the Maxwell equation
~
~ = − ∂B
~ ×E
∇
∂t
and takes the curl (rotation) of (1) to obtain
∂ me ~
∇ × J~s + B
~ =0.
∂t ns e2
Since the time derivative vanishes the quantity in the brackets must be a constant. Up to this point the
derivation is fully compatible with classical electromagnetism, applied to the frictionless acceleration of
electrons. An example might be the motion of electrons in the vacuum of a television tube or in a circular
accelerator. The essential new assumption H. and F. London made is that the bracket is not an arbitrary
constant but is identical to zero. Then one obtains the important London equation
2
~ × J~s = − ns e B
∇ ~ . (2)
me
It should be noted that this assumption cannot be justified within classical physics, even worse, in
general it is wrong. For instance the current density in a normal metal will vanish when no electric field is
applied, and whether a static magnetic field penetrates the metal is of no importance. In a superconductor
of type I, on the other hand, the situation is such that Eq. (2) applies. Combining the fourth Maxwell
equation (for time-independent fields)
~ ×B
∇ ~ = µ0 J~s
~ ·B
(this is valid since ∇ ~ = 0) we get the following equation for the magnetic field in a superconductor
~− µ0 ns e2 ~
∇2 B B=0. (3)
me
It is important to note that this equation is not valid in a normal conductor. In order to grasp the signifi-
cance of Eq. (3) we consider a simple geometry, namely the boundary between a superconducting half
space and vacuum, see Fig. 6a. Then, for a magnetic field parallel to the surface, Eq. (3) becomes
d2 By 1
2
− 2 By = 0
dx λL
with the solution
By (x) = B0 exp(−x/λL ) .
Here we have introduced a very important superconductor parameter, the London penetration depth
me
r
λL = . (4)
µ0 ns e2
So the magnetic field does not stop abruptly at the superconductor surface but penetrates into the material
with exponential attenuation. For typical material parameters the penetration depth is quite small, 20 –
50 nm. In the bulk of a thick superconductor there can be no magnetic field, which is just the Meissner-
Ochsenfeld effect. Here it is appropriate to remark that in the BCS theory not single electrons but pairs
of electrons are the carriers of the supercurrent. Their mass is m c = 2me , their charge −2e, their density
nc = ns /2. Obviously the penetration depth remains unchanged when going from single electrons to
Cooper pairs.
We have now convinced ourselves that the superconductor can tolerate a magnetic field only in a
thin surface layer (this is the case for type I superconductors). An immediate consequence is that current
flow is restricted to the same thin layer. Currents in the interior are forbidden as they would generate
magnetic fields in the bulk. The magnetic field and the current which are caused by an external field
parallel to the axis of a lead cylinder are plotted in Fig. 6b. Another interesting situation occurs if we
pass a current through a lead wire (Fig. 6c). It flows only in a very thin surface sheet of about 20 nm
thickness, so the overall current in the wire is small. This is a first indication that type I superconductors
are not suitable for winding superconducting magnet coils.
Fig. 6: (a) Exponential attenuation of a magnetic field in a superconducting half plane. (b) Shielding current in a superconduct-
ing cylinder induced by a field parallel to the axis. (c) A current-carrying wire made from a type I superconductor.
The penetration depth has a temperature dependence which can be calculated in the BCS theory.
When approaching the critical temperature, the density of the supercurrent carriers goes to zero, so λ L
must become infinite:
λL → ∞ for T → Tc .
This is shown in Fig. 7. An infinite penetration depth means no attenuation of a magnetic field which is
just what one observes in a normal conductor.
Fig. 7: Temperature dependence of the London penetration depth.
where U is the internal energy, S the entropy and M the magnetisation of the superconductor (the
magnetic moment per unit volume). A measurent of the free energy of aluminium is shown in Fig. 8a.
Below Tc the superconducting state has a lower free energy than the normal state and thus the transition
normal → superconducting is associated with a gain in energy. The entropy of the superconducting state
is lower because there is a higher degree of order in this state. From the point of view of the BCS theory
this is quite understandable since the conduction electrons are paired and collect themselves in a single
quantum state. Numerically the entropy difference is small, though, about 1 milli-Joule per mole and
Kelvin, from which one can deduce that only a small fraction of the valence electrons of aluminium is
condensed into Cooper pairs. It should be noted, that also normal conduction is carried by just a small
fraction of the valence electrons, see sect. 4.1.
Fig. 8: (a) Free energy of aluminium in the normal and superconducting state as a function of T (after N.E. Phillips). The
normal state was achieved by exposing the sample to a field larger than Hc while the superconducting state was measured at
H = 0. (b) Schematic sketch of the free energies Gnorm and Gsup as a function of the applied field B = µ0 H.
3.2 Energy balance in a magnetic field
We have argued that a lead cylinder becomes superconductive for T < T c because the free energy is
reduced that way:
Gsup < Gnorm for T < Tc .
What happens if we apply a magnetic field? A normal-conducting metal cylinder is penetrated by the
field so its free energy does not change: G norm (H) = Gnorm (0). In contrast to this, a superconducting
cylinder is strongly affected by the field. It sets up shielding currents which generate a magnetic moment
m
~ antiparallel to the applied field. The magnetic moment has a positive potential energy in the magnetic
field
In the following it is useful to introduce the magnetisation M as the magnetic moment per unit volume.
The magnetisation of a superconductor inside a current-carrying coil resembles that of an iron core. The
‘magnetising’ field H is generated by the coil current only and is unaffected by the presence of a magnetic
material while the magnetic flux density 1 B is given by the superposition of H and the superconductor
magnetisation M :
~ = µ 0 (H
B ~ +M
~). (7)
In the following I will call both H and B magnetic fields. For a type I superconductor we have
~ (H)
M ~ = −H
~ ~ =0
and B (8)
as long as H < Hc . The potential energy per unit volume is obtained by integration
H H
µ0 2
Z Z
Epot = −µ0 M ~ 0 = µ0
~ 0 ) · dH
~ (H 2
H 0 dH 0 = H . (9)
0 0 2
This corresponds to the increase in the Gibbs free energy that is caused by the magnetic field, see Fig.
8b.
µ0 2
Gsup (H) = Gsup (0) + H . (10)
2
Here and in the following G denotes the Gibbs free energy per unit volume. The critical field is achieved
when the free energy in the superconducting state just equals the free energy in the normal state
µ0 2
H = Gnorm − Gsup (0) . (11)
2 c
Since the energy density stored in a magnetic field is (µ 0 /2)H 2 , an alternative interpretation of Eq. (11)
is the following: in order to go from the normal to the superconducting state the material has to push
out the magnetic energy, and the largest amount it can push out is the difference between the two free
energies at vanishing field. For H > H c the normal phase has a lower energy, so superconductivity
breaks down.
1
There is often a confusion whether the H or the B field should be used. Unfortunately, much of the superconductivity
literature is based on the obsolete CGS system of units where the distinction between B and H is not very clear and the two
fields have the same dimension although their units were given different names: Gauss and Oerstedt.
3.3 Type II superconductors
For practical application in magnets it would be rather unfortunate if only type I superconductors existed
which permit no magnetic field and no current in the bulk material. Alloys and the element niobium are
so-called type II superconductors. Their magnetisation curves exhibit a more complicated dependence
on magnetic field (Fig. 9). Type II conductors are characterized by two critical fields, H c1 and Hc2 ,
which are both temperature dependent. For fields 0 < H < H c1 the substance is in the Meissner phase
with complete exclusion of the field from the interior. In the range H c1 < H < Hc2 the substance enters
the mixed phase, often also called Shubnikov phase: part of the magnetic flux penetrates the bulk of the
sample. Above Hc2 , finally, the material is normal-conducting. The area under the curve M = M (H)
is the same as for a type I conductor as it corresponds to the free-energy difference between the normal
and the superconducting state and is given by (µ 0 /2) Hc2 .
Fig. 9: Magnetisation of type I and type II superconductors as a function of the magnetic field.
It is instructive to compare measured data on pure lead (type I) and lead-indium alloys (type II) of
various composition. Figure 10 shows that the upper critical field rises with increasing indium content;
for Pb-In(20.4%) it is about eight times larger than the critical field of pure lead. Under the assumption
that the free-energy difference is the same for the various lead-indium alloys, the areas under the three
curves A, B, C in Fig. 10 should be identical as the diagram clearly confirms.
Fig. 10: The measured magnetisation curves [14] of lead-indium alloys of various composition, plotted against B = µ0 H.
A remarkable feature, which will be addressed in more detail later, is the observation that the
magnetic flux does not penetrate the type II conductor with uniform density. Rather it is concentrated in
flux tubes as sketched in Fig. 11. Each tube is surrounded with a super-vortex current. The material in
between the tubes is field- and current-free.
The fact that alloys stay superconductive up to much higher fields is easy to understand: magnetic
flux is allowed to penetrate the sample and therefore less magnetic field energy has to be driven out.
Figure 12 shows that a type II superconducting cylinder in the mixed phase has a smaller magnetic
moment than a type I cylinder. This implies that the curve G sup (H) reaches the level Gsup (H) = Gnorm
at a field Hc2 > Hc .
In a (T, H) plane the three phases of a type II superconductor are separated by the curves H c1 (T )
and Hc2 (T ) which meet at T = Tc , see Fig. 13a. The upper critical field can assume very large values
which make these substances extremely interesting for magnet coils (Fig. 13b).
Fig. 12: Top: Magnetic moment of a type I and a type II sc cylinder in a field Hc1 < H < Hc . Bottom: The Gibbs free
energies of both cylinders as a function of field.
Fig. 13: (a) The phase diagram of a type II superconductor. (b) The upper critical field Bc2 = µ0 Hc2 of several high-field
alloys as a function of temperature.
Fig. 14: Attenuation of field (a) in a thick slab and (b) in thin sheet. (c) Subdivision of a thick slab into alternating layers of
normal and superconducting slices.
Fig. 15: The exponential drop of the magnetic field and the rise of the Cooper-pair density at a boundary between a normal and
a superconductor.
The relative size of the London penetration depth and the coherence length decides whether a
material is a type I or a type II superconductor. To study this in a semi-quantitative way, we first define
the thermodynamic critical field by the energy relation
µ0 2
H = Gnorm − Gsup (0) . (12)
2 c
For type I this coincides with the known H c , see Eq. (11), while for type II conductors H c lies between
Hc1 and Hc2 . The difference between the two free energies, G norm − Gsup (0), can be intepreted as the
Cooper-pair condensation energy.
For a conductor of unit area, exposed to a field H = H c parallel to the surface, the energy balance
is as follows:
(a) The magnetic field penetrates a depth λ L of the sample which corresponds to an energy gain since
magnetic energy must not be driven out of this layer:
µ0 2
∆Emagn = H λL . (13)
2 c
(b) On the other hand, the fact that the Cooper-pair density does not assume its full value right at the
surface but rises smoothly over a length ξ implies a loss of condensation energy
µ0
∆Econd = − Hc2 ξ . (14)
2
Obviously there is a net gain if λL > ξ. So a subdivision of the superconductor into an alternating
sequence of thin normal and superconducting slices is energetically favourable if the London penetration
depth exceeds the coherence length.
A more refined treatment is provided by the Ginzburg-Landau theory [9]. Here one introduces the
Ginzburg-Landau parameter
κ = λL /ξ . (15)
The criterion for type I or II superconductivity is found to be
√
type I: κ < 1/√2
type II: κ > 1/ 2.
In reality a type II superconductor is not subdivided into thin slices but the field penetrates the
sample in flux tubes which arrange themselves in a triangular pattern. The core of a flux tube is normal.
The following table lists the penetration depths and coherence lengths of some important superconduct-
ing elements. Niobium is a type II conductor but close to the border to type I, while indium, lead and tin
are clearly type I conductors.
material In Pb Sn Nb
λL [nm] 24 32 ≈ 30 32
ξ [nm] 360 510 ≈ 170 39
The coherence length ξ is proportional to the mean free path ` of the conduction electrons in the metal.
This quantity can be large for a very pure crystal but is strongly reduced by lattice defects and impurity
atoms. In alloys the mean free path is generally much shorter than in pure metals so alloys are always
type II conductors. In the Ginzburg-Landau theory the upper critical field is given by
√ Φ0
Bc2 = 2 κ Bc = (16)
2πξ 2
where Φ0 is the flux quantum (see sect. 5.2). For niobium-titanium with an upper critical field B c2 = 10
T at 4.2 K this formula yields ξ = 6 nm. The coherence length is larger than the typical width of a grain
boundary in NbTi which means that the supercurrent can move freely from grain to grain. In high-T c
superconductors the coherence length is often shorter than the grain boundary width, and then current
flow from one grain to the next is strongly impeded. There exists no simple expression for the lower
critical field. In the limit κ 1 one gets
1
Bc1 = (ln κ + 0.08)Bc . (17)
2κ
3.5 Heat capacity and heat conductivity
The specific heat capacity per unit volume at low temperatures is given by the expression
CV (T ) = γ T + A T 3 . (18)
The linear term in T comes from the conduction electrons, the cubic term from lattice vibrations. The
coefficients can be calculated within the free-electron-gas model and the Debye theory of lattice specific
heat (see any standard textbook on solid state physics):
π 2 nkB
2
12π 4 N kB
γ= , A= . (19)
2EF 5Θ3D
Here kB = 1.38 · 10−23 J/K is the Boltzmann constant, EF the Fermi energy, n the density of the free
electrons, N the density of the lattice atoms and Θ D the Debye temperature of the material. If one plots
the ratio C(T )/T as a function of T 2 a straight line is obtained as can be seen in Fig. 16a for normal-
conducting gallium [15]. In the superconducting state the electronic specific heat is different because the
electrons bound in Cooper pairs no longer contribute to energy transport. In the BCS theory one expects
an exponential rise of the electronic heat capacity with temperature
The experimental data (Fig. 16a, b) are in good agreement with this prediction. There is a resemblance
to the exponential temperature dependence of the electrical conductivity in intrinsic semiconductors and
these data can be taken as an indication that an energy gap exists also in superconductors.
Fig. 16: (a) Specific heat C(T )/T of normal and superconducting gallium as a function of T2 [15]. (b) Experimental verifica-
tion of Eq. (20).
The heat conductivity of niobium is of particular interest for superconducting radio frequency
cavities. Here the theoretical predictions are rather imprecise and measurements are indispensible. The
low temperature values depend strongly on the residual resistivity ratio RRR = R(300 K)/R(10 K) of
the normal-conducting niobium. Figure 17 shows experimental data [16].
Fig. 17: Measured heat conductivity in niobium samples with RRR = 270 and RRR = 500 as a function of temperature [16].
~2
EF = (3π 2 n)2/3 . (21)
2me
Fig. 18: The allowed states for conduction electrons in the px py plane and the Fermi sphere. The occupied states are drawn as
full circles, the empty states as open circles.
The quantity ~ = h/2π = 1.05 · 10−34 Js = 6.58 · 10−15 eVs is Planck’s constant, the most
important constant in quantum theory. In order to remind the reader I will shortly sketch the derivation
of these results. Consider a three-dimensional region in the metal of length L = N a, where a is the
distance of neighbouring ions in the lattice and N 1 an integer. The Schrödinger equation with
potential V = 0 and with periodic boundary conditions ψ(x + L, y, z) = ψ(x, y, z) etc. is solved by
The electron momentum is p~ = ~~k, the energy is E = ~2~k 2 /(2me ). It is useful to plot the allowed
quantum states of the electrons as dots in momentum space. In Fig. 18 this is drawn for two dimensions.
In the ground state of the metal the energy levels are filled with two electrons each starting from
the lowest level. The highest energy level reached is called the Fermi E F . At temperature T → 0 all
states below EF are √occupied, all states above EF are empty. The highest momentum is called the ‘Fermi
momentum’ pF = 2me EF , the highest velocity is the Fermi velocity v F = pF /me which is in the
order of 106 m/s. In the momentum state representation, the occupied states are located inside the ‘Fermi
sphere’ of radius pF , the empty states are outside.
What are the consequences of the Pauli principle for electrical conduction? Let us apply an electric
~ 0 pointing into the negative x direction. In the time δt a free electron would gain a momentum
field E
However, most of the metal electrons are unable to accept this momentum because they do not find free
states in their vicinity, only those on the right rim of the Fermi sphere have free states accessible to them
and can accept the additional momentum. We see that the Pauli principle has a strong impact on electrical
conduction. Heat conduction is affected in the same way because the most important carriers of thermal
energy are again the electrons. An anomaly is also observed in the heat capacity of the electron gas. It
differs considerably from that of an atomic normal gas since only the electrons in a shell of thickness
kB T near the surface of the Fermi sphere can contribute. Hence the electronic specific heat per unit
volume is roughly a fraction kB T /EF of the classical value
3 kB T
nkB ·
Ce ≈ .
2 EF
This explains the linear temperature dependence of the electronic specific heat, see eq. (19).
Fig. 19: Temperature dependence of the resistivity of OFHC (oxygen-free high conductivity) copper and of 99.999% pure
annealed copper. Plotted as a dashed line is the calculated resistivity of copper without any impurities and lattice defects (after
M.N. Wilson [17]).
Fig. 20: A pair of electrons of opposite momenta added to the full Fermi sphere.
What could be the reason for such an attractive force? First of all one has to realize that the
Coulomb repulsion between the two electrons has a very short range as it is shielded by the positive
ions and the other electrons in the metal. So the attractive force must not be strong if the electrons are
several lattice constants apart. Already in 1950, Fröhlich and, independently, Bardeen had suggested
that a dynamical lattice polarization may create a weak attractive potential. Before going into details
let us look at a familiar example of attraction caused by the deformation of a medium: a metal ball is
placed on an elastic membrane and deforms the membrane such that a potential well is created. A second
ball will feel this potential well and will be attracted by it. So effectively, the deformation of the elastic
membrane causes an attractive force between the two balls which would otherwise not notice each other.
This visualisation of a Cooper-pair is well known in the superconductivity community (see e.g. [1]) but
it has the disadvantage that it is a static picture.
I prefer the following dynamic picture: suppose you are cross-country skiing in very deep snow.
You will find this quite cumbersome, there is a lot of ‘resistance’. Now you discover a track made by
another skier, a ‘Loipe’, and you will immediately realize that it is much more comfortable to ski along
this track than in any other direction. The Loipe picture can be adopted for our electrons. The first
electron flies through the lattice and attracts the positive ions. Because of their inertia they cannot follow
immediately, the shortest response time corresponds to the highest possible lattice vibration frequency.
This is called the Debye frequency ω D . The maximum lattice deformation lags behind the electron by a
distance
2π
d ≈ vF ≈ 100 − 1000 nm . (25)
ωD
Fig. 21: Dynamical deformation of the crystal lattice caused by the passage of a fast electron. (After Ibach, Lüth [19]).
Obviously, the lattice deformation attracts the second electron because there is an accumulation of
positive charge. The attraction is strongest when the second electron moves right along the track of the
first one and when it is a distance d behind it, see Fig. 21. This explains why a Cooper pair is a very
extended object, the two electrons may be several 100 to 1000 lattice constants apart. For a simple cubic
lattice, the lattice constant is the distance between adjacent atoms.
In the example of the cross-country skiers or the electrons in the crystal lattice, intuition suggests
that the second partner should preferably have the same momentum, p ~ 2 = p~1 although opposite momenta
p~2 = −~ p1 are not so bad either. Quantum theory makes a unique choice: only electrons of opposite
momenta form a bound system, a Cooper pair. I don’t know of any intuitive argument why this is so.
(The quantum theoretical reason is the Pauli principle but there exists probably no intuitive argument
why electrons obey the Pauli exclusion principle and are thus extreme individualists while other particles
like the photons in a laser or the atoms in superfluid helium do just the opposite and behave as extreme
conformists. One may get used to quantum theory but certain mysteries and strange feelings will remain.)
The binding energy of a Cooper pair turns out to be small, 10 −4 −10−3 eV, so low temperatures are
needed to preserve the binding in spite of the thermal motion. According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle a weak binding is equivalent to a large extension of the composite system, in this case the
above-mentioned d = 100 − 1000 nm. As a consequence, the Cooper pairs in a superconductor overlap
each other. In the space occupied by a Cooper pair there are about a million other Cooper pairs. Figure
22 gives an illustration. The situation is totally different from other composite systems like atomic nuclei
or atoms which are tightly bound objects and well-separated from another. The strong overlap is an
important prerequisite of the BCS theory because the Cooper pairs must change their partners frequently
in order to provide a continuous binding.
Fig. 22: Visualization of Cooper pairs and single electrons in the crystal lattice of a superconductor. (After Essmann and
Tr¨auble [12]).
Therefore only a small fraction of the electrons can be paired via phonon exchange, namely those in
a shell of thickness ±~ωD around the Fermi energy. This is sketched in Fig. 23. The inner electrons
cannot participate in the pairing because the energy transfer by the lattice is too small. One has to keep
in mind though that these electrons do not contribute to normal conduction either. For vanishing electric
field a Cooper pair is a loosely bound system of two electrons whose momenta are of equal magnitude
but opposite direction. All Cooper pairs have therefore the same momentum P~ = 0 and occupy exactly
the same quantum state. They can be described by a macroscopic wave function Ψ in analogy with the
light wave in a laser in which the photons are all in phase and have the same wavelength, direction and
polarisation. The macroscopic photon wave function is the vector potential from which one can derive
the electric and magnetic field vectors (see sect. 5.2).
Fig. 23: Various Cooper pairs (~
p, −~ p 0 , −~
p), (~ p 0 ), (~
p 00 , −~
p 00 ), . . . in momentum space.
The reason why Cooper pairs are allowed and even prefer to enter the same quantum state is that
they behave as Bose particles with spin 0. This is no contradiction to the fact that their constituents are
spin 1/2 Fermi particles. Figure 23 shows very clearly that the individual electrons forming the Cooper
pairs have different momentum vectors p~, p~ 0 , p
~ 00 , . . . which however cancel pairwise such that the pairs
have all the same momentum zero. It should be noted, though, that Cooper pairs differ considerably from
other Bosons such as helium nuclei or atoms: They are not ‘small’ but very extended objects, they exist
only in the BCS ground state and there is no excited state. An excitation is equivalent to breaking them
up into single electrons.
The BCS ground state is characterized by the macroscopic wave function Ψ and a ground state
energy that is separated from the energy levels of the unpaired electrons by an energy gap. In order to
break up a pair an energy of 2∆ is needed, see Fig. 24.
Fig. 24: (a) Energy gap between the BCS ground state and the single-electron states. (b) Reduction of energy gap in case of
current flow.
There is a certain similarity with the energy gap between the valence band and the conduction
band in a semiconductor but one important difference is that the energy gap in a superconductor is not
a constant but depends on temperature. For T → T c one gets ∆(T ) → 0. The BCS theory makes
a quantitative prediction for the function ∆(T ) which is plotted in Fig. 25 and agrees very well with
experimental data.
Fig. 25: Temperature dependence of the energy gap according to the BCS theory and comparison with experimental data.
One of the fundamental formulae of the BCS theory is the relation between the energy gap ∆(0)
at T = 0, the Debye frequency ωD and the electron-lattice interaction potential V 0 :
1
∆(0) = 2~ωD exp − . (27)
V0 N (EF )
Here N (EF ) is the density of single-electron states of a given spin orientation at E = E F (the other spin
orientation is not counted because a Cooper pair consists of two electrons with opposite spin). Although
the interaction potential V0 is assumed to be weak, one of the most striking observations is that the
exponential function cannot be expanded in a Taylor series around V 0 = 0 because all coefficients vanish
identically. This implies that Eq. (27) is a truely non-perturbative result. The fact that superconductivity
cannot be derived from normal conductivity by introducing a ‘small’ interaction potential and applying
perturbation theory (which is the usual method for treating problems of atomic, nuclear and solid state
physics that have no analytical solution) explains why it took so many decades to find the correct theory.
The critical temperature is given by a similar expression
1
kB Tc = 1.14 ~ωD exp − . (28)
V0 N (EF )
Combining the two equations we arrive at a relation between the energy gap and the critical temperature
which does not contain the unknown interaction potential
The following table shows that this remarkable prediction is fulfilled rather well.
element Sn In Tl Ta Nb Hg Pb
∆(0)/kB Tc 1.75 1.8 1.8 1.75 1.75 2.3 2.15
In the BCS theory the underlying mechanism of superconductivity is the attractive force between
pairs of electrons that is provided by lattice vibrations. It is of course highly desirable to find experimental
support of this basic hypothesis. According to Eq. (28) the critical temperature is proportional to the
Debye frequency which in turn is inversely proportional to the square root of the atomic mass M :
√
Tc ∝ ωD ∝ 1/ M .
Associated with this coherent motion of the Cooper pairs is a supercurrent density
e~ ~
J~s = −nc K. (30)
me
Here nc is the Cooper-pair density. It can be shown (see e.g. Ibach, Lüth [19]) that the Cooper-pair
wave function with a current flowing is simply obtained by multiplying the wave function at rest with
the phase factor exp(iK ~ · R)
~ where R ~ = (~r1 + ~r2 )/2 is the coordinate of the centre of gravity of the
two electrons. Moreover the electron-lattice interaction potential is not modified by the current flow.
So all equations of the BCS theory remain applicable and there will remain an energy gap provided the
kinetic-energy gain δEpair of the Cooper pair is less than 2∆, see Fig. 24b. It is this remaining energy
gap which prevents scattering. As we have seen there are two types of scattering centres: impurities
and thermal lattice vibrations. Cooper pairs can only scatter when they gain sufficient energy to cross the
energy gap and are then broken up into single electrons. An impurity is a fixed heavy target and scattering
cannot increase the energy of the electrons of the pair, therefore impurity scattering is prohibited for the
Cooper pairs. Scattering on thermal lattice vibrations is negligible as long as the average thermal energy
is smaller than the energy gap (that means as long as the temperature is less than the critical temperature
for the given current density). So we arrive at the conclusion that there is resistance-free current transport
provided there is still an energy gap present (2∆ − δE pair > 0) and the temperature is sufficiently low
(T < Tc (Js )).
The supercurrent density is limited by the condition that the energy gain δE pair must be less than
the energy gap. This leads to the concept of the critical current density J c . The energy of the Cooper
pair is, after application of the electric field,
1 p~ 2
Epair = p + P~ /2)2 + (−~
(~ p + P~ /2)2 = + δEpair
2me me
with δEpair ≈ pF P/me . From the condition δEpair ≤ 2∆ we get
Js ≤ Jc ≈ 2e nc ∆/pF . (31)
Coupled to a maximum value of the current density is the existence of a critical magnetic field. The
current flowing in a long wire of type I superconductor is confined to a surface layer of thickness λ L , see
Fig. 6c. The maximum permissible current density J c is related to the critical field:
The temperature dependence of the critical field is caused by the temperature dependence of the gap
energy.
The above considerations on resistance-free current flow may appear a bit formal so I would like
to give a more familiar example where an energy gap prevents ‘resistance’ in a generalized sense. We
compare crystals of diamond and silicon. Diamond is transparent to visible light, silicon is not. So silicon
represents a ‘resistance’ to light. Why is this so? Both substances have exactly the same crystal structure,
namely the ‘diamond lattice’ that is composed of two face-centred cubic lattices which are displaced by
one quarter along the spatial diagonal. The difference is that diamond is built up from carbon atoms and
is an electrical insulator while a silicon crystal is a semiconductor. In the band theory of solids there
is an energy gap Eg between the valence band and the conduction band. The gap energy is around 7
eV for diamond and 1 eV for silicon. Visible light has a quantum energy of about 2.5 eV. A photon
impinging on a silicon crystal can lift an electron from the valence band to the conduction band and is
thereby absorbed. The same photon impinging on diamond is unable to supply the required energy of 7
eV, so this photon simply passes the crystal without absorption: diamond has no ‘resistance’ for light.
(Quantum conditions of this kind have already been known in the Stone Age. If hunters wanted to catch
an antelope that could jump 2 m high, they would dig a hole 4 m deep and then the animal could never
get out because being able to jump 2 m in two successive attempts is useless for overcoming the 4 m. The
essential feature of a quantum process, namely that the energy gap has to be bridged in a single event, is
already apparent in this trivial example).
Finally, I want to give an example for frictionless current flow. The hexagonal benzene molecule
C6 H6 is formed by covalent binding and contains 24 electrons which are localised in σ bonds in the
plane of the molecule and 6 electrons in π bonds below and above this plane. The π electrons can
move freely around the ring. By a time-varying magnetic field a ring current is induced (benzene is
a diamagnetic molecule) which will run forever unless the magnetic field is changed. This resembles
closely the operation of a superconducting ring in the persistent mode (see Fig. 27).
Fig. 27: Persistent ring currents in a benzene molecule and in a superconducting ring which have been induced by a rising field
Bz .
The magnetic field has a constant value B = B 0 inside the solenoid and vanishes outside if we the
length of the coil is much larger than its radius R. The vector potential has only an azimuthal component
and can be computed using Eq. (33):
12 B0 · r for r < R
Aθ (r) = R2
21 B0 for r > R .
r
~ =∇
Evaluating B ~ ×A
~ in cylindrical coordinates gives the expected result
B0 for r < R
Bz (r) =
0 for r > R .
where q is the charge of the particle (q = −e for an electron). The wavelength is then
2π~
λ= .
mv + qA
If one moves by a distance ∆x, the phase ϕ of the electron wave function changes in free space by the
amount
2π 1 ~ .
∆ϕ = ∆x = me~v · ∆x
λ ~
In an electromagnetic field there is an additional phase change
e~ ~
∆ϕ0 = − A · ∆x .
~
This is called the Aharonov-Bohm effect after the theoreticians who predicted the phenomenon [20]. The
phase shift should be observable in a double-slit experiment as sketched in Fig. 29. An electron beam is
split into two coherent sub-beams and a tiny solenoid coil is placed between these beams. The sub-beam
~ beam 2 parallel to A.
1 travels antiparallel to A, ~ So the two sub-beams gain a phase difference
e ~ = δϕ0 + e Φmag .
I
δϕ = δϕ0 + ~ · ds
A (36)
~ ~
Fig. 29: Schematic arrangement for observing the phase shift due to a vector potential.
Here δϕ0 is the phase difference for current 0 in the coil. The Aharonov-Bohm effect was verified
in a beautiful experiment by Möllenstedt and Bayh in Tübingen [21]. The experimental setup and the
result of the measurements are shown in Fig. 30. An electron beam is split by a metalized quartz
fibre on negative potential which acts like an optical bi-prism. Two more fibres bring the two beams
to interference on a photographic film. Very sharp interference fringes are observed. Between the sub-
beams is a 14 µm–diameter coil wound from 4 µm thick tungsten wire. The current in this coil is first
zero, then increased linearly with time and after that kept constant. The film recording the interference
pattern is moved in the vertical direction. Thereby the moving fringes are depicted as inclined lines. The
observed shifts are in quantitative agreement with the prediction of Eq. (36).
Fig. 30: Sketch of the Möllenstedt-Bayh experiment and observed interference pattern.
An interesting special case is the phase shift δϕ = π that interchanges bright and dark fringes.
According to Eq. (36) this requires a magnetic flux
~ h
Φmag = π =
e 2e
which turns out to be identical to the elementary flux quantum in superconductors, see sect. 5.3. In
the Möllenstedt experiment however, continuous phase shifts much smaller than π are visible, so the
magnetic flux through the normal-conducting tungsten coil is not quantised (there is also no theoretical
reason for flux quantisation in normal conductors).
Although the magnetic field is very small outside the solenoid, and the observed phase shifts are in
quantitative agreement with the expectation based on the vector potential, there have nevertheless been
sceptics who tried to attribute the observed effects to some stray magnetic field. To exclude any such
explanation a new version of the experiment has recently been carried out by Tonomura et al. [22] making
use of electron holography (Fig. 31). A parallel electron beam is imaged by an electron microscope lens
on a photographic plate. To create a holographic pattern the object is placed in the upper half of the
beam while the lower half serves as a reference beam. A metalized quartz fibre (the bi-prism) brings the
two-part beam to an overlap on the plate. The magnetic field is provided by a permanently magnetised
ring of with a few µm diameter. The magnet is enclosed in niobium and cooled by liquid helium so the
magnetic field is totally confined. The vector potential, however, is not shielded by the superconductor.
The field lines of B~ and A ~ are also drawn in the figure. The holographic image shows again a very
clear interference pattern and a shift of the dark line in the opening of the ring which is caused by the
vector potential. This experiment demonstrates beyond any doubt that it is the vector potential and not
the magnetic field which influences the wavelength of the electron and the interference pattern.
Fig. 31: Observation of Aharonov-Bohm effect using electron holography (after Tonomura [22]). The permanent toroidal
magnet, encapsuled in superconducting niobium, and the observed interference fringes are shown.
Φmag = n Φ0 , n = 0, 1, 2, . . . (37)
Fig. 32: Trapping of magnetic flux in a ring. First the normal-conducting ring (T > T c ) is placed in a magnetic field, then it is
cooled down (a) and finally the field is switched off (b). The integration path is shown in part (c).
The flux quantum is Planck’s constant divided by the charge of the supercurrent carriers. The BCS
flux quantum is thus
h
Φ0 = (38)
2e
while the London flux quantum is twice as big because the charge carriers in the London theory are single
electrons.
The density of Cooper pairs is denoted as n c . The phase ϕ = ϕ(s) has to change by n · 2π when going
once around the ring since Ψ must be a single-valued wave function. We choose a circular path in the
bulk of the ring (Fig. 31c). Then
dϕ
I
ds = n · 2π .
ds
In other words: the circumference must be an integer number of wavelengths. In the bulk there is no
current allowed so the Cooper-pair velocity must be zero, ~v = 0. Therefore the integrand is
dϕ q~ ~
ds = A · ds .
ds ~
Using Eq. (33) we see that the magnetic flux enclosed by the circular path is
~ = ~ · n · 2π = n · Φ0 ⇒ Φ0 = 2π~ .
I
Φmag = A ~ · ds (39)
q q
The BCS theory is not directly applicable to high-T c superconductors2 which are basically two-
dimensional superconductors. In Fig. 34 the flux through a YBa 2 Cu3 O7 ring with a weak joint is shown.
Flux jumps due to external field variations occur in multiples of h/2e which is an indication that some
kind of Cooper pairing is also responsible for the superconductivity in these materials.
Fig. 34: Flux through an YBa2 Cu3 O7 ring with a weak link [26].
In another interesting experiment a lead strip was bent into ring shape and closed via an interme-
diate YBa2 Cu3 O7 piece. It was possible to induce a persistent ring current in this combined system of a
low-Tc and a high-Tc superconductor.
Fig. 36: (a) Fluxoid pattern in niobium (courtesy U. Essmann). The distance between adjacent flux tubes is 0.2 µm. (b) Fluxoid
motion in a current-carrying type II superconductor.
The area occupied by a fluxoid is roughly given by πξ 2 where ξ is the coherence length. An estimate of
the upper critical field is derived from the condition that the fluxoids start touching each other:
Φ0
Bc2 ≈ . (40)
2πξ 2
An important experimental step was the direct observation of the fluxoid pattern. Essmann and
Träuble [12] developed a ‘decoration’ technique for this purpose. A superconductor sample was cooled
by a liquid helium bath with the surface sticking out of the liquid. Iron was evaporated at some distance
from the superconductor, and in the helium gas atmosphere the iron atoms agglomerated to tiny crystals
(about 20 nm) that were attracted by the magnetic field lines and stuck to the sample surface where the
fluxoids emerged. After warming up, a thin film was sprayed on the surface to allow the iron crystals to be
removed for subsequent observation in an electron microscope. The photograph in Fig. 36a shows indeed
the perfect triangular pattern predicted by Abrikosov. Similar pictures have been recently obtained with
high-temperature superconductors. The electron holography setup mentioned in the last section permits
direct visualization of the magnetic flux lines. Figure 37 is an impressive example of the capabilities of
this advanced method.
Fig. 37: Holographic image of the magnetic flux lines through a thin lead plate [22].
6. Hard Superconductors
6.1 Flux flow resistance and flux pinning
For application in accelerator magnets a superconducting wire must be able to carry a large current in
the presence of a field in the 5 – 10 Tesla range. Type I superconductors are definitely ruled out because
their critical field is less than a few tenths of a Tesla and their current-carrying capacity is very small
since the current is restricted to a thin surface layer (compare Fig. 6). Type II conductors appear quite
appropriate on first sight: they have a large upper critical field and high currents are permitted to flow in
the bulk material. Still there is a problem, called flux flow resistance. If a current flows through an ideal
type II superconductor which is exposed to a magnetic field one observes heat generation. The current
density J~ exerts a Lorentz force on the flux lines. The force per unit volume is
F~ = J~ × B
~ .
The flux lines begin to move through the specimen in a direction perpendicular to the current and to
the field (Fig. 36b). This is a viscous motion (~v ∝ F~ ) and leads to heat generation. So although the
current itself flows without dissipation the sample acts as if it had an Ohmic resistance. The statement
is even formally correct. The moving fluxoids represent a moving magnetic field. According to Special
Relativity this is equivalent to an electric field
~ equiv = 1 B
E ~ × ~v .
c2
~ equiv and J~ point in the same direction just like in a normal resistor. Flux flow
It is easy to see that E
resistance was studied experimentally by Kim and co-workers [28].
To obtain useful wires for magnet coils the flux motion has to be inhibited. The standard method is
to capture them at pinning centres. The most important pinning centres in niobium-titanium are normal-
conducting Ti precipitates with a size in the 10 nm range. Flux pinning is discussed in detail in M.N.
Wilson’s lectures at this school. A type II superconductor with strong pinning is called a hard super-
conductor. Hard superconductors are very well suited for high-field magnets, they permit dissipationless
current flow in high magnetic fields. There is a penalty, however: these conductors exhibit a strong
magnetic hysteresis which is the origin of the very annoying ‘persistent-current’ multipoles in supercon-
ducting accelerator magnets.
6.2 Magnetisation of a hard superconductor
A type I superconductor shows a reversible response 3 to a varying external magnetic field H. The
magnetization is given by the linear relation M ~ (H)
~ = −H ~ for 0 < H < Hc and then drops to zero,
see Fig. 10. An ideal type II conductor without any flux pinning should also react reversibly. A hard
superconductor, on the other hand, is only reversible in the Meissner phase because then no magnetic
field enters the bulk, so no flux pinning can happen. If the field is raised beyond H c1 magnetic flux enters
the sample and is captured at pinning centres. When the field is reduced again these flux lines remain
bound and the specimen keeps a frozen-in magnetisation even for vanishing external field. One has to
invert the field polarity to achieve M = 0 but the initial state (H = 0 and no captured flux in the bulk
material) can only be recovered by warming up the specimen to destroy superconductivity and release
all pinned flux quanta, and by cooling down again.
A typical hysteresis curve is shown in Fig. 38a. There is a close resemblence with the hysteresis
in iron except for the sign: the magnetisation in a superconductor is opposed to the magnetising field be-
cause the underlying physical process is diamagnetism. In an accelerator the field is usually not inverted
and then the hysteresis has the shape plotted in Fig. 38b.
Fig. 38: (a) Magnetic hysteresis of a hard superconductor. (b) Magnetisation hysteresis for the field cycle of accelerator
magnets.
Detailed studies on superconductor magnetisation were performed in the HERA dipoles. The
sextupole component is a good measure of M . Immediately after cooldown a dipole was excited to
low fields. In Fig. 39 the sextupole field B 3 at a distance of 25 mm from the dipole axis is plotted as
a function of the dipole field B1 = µ0 H1 on the axis. One can see that the sextupole is a reversible
function of B1 up to about 25 mT (the lower critical field of NbTi is somewhat smaller, around 15 mT,
but in most parts of the coil the local field is less than the value B 1 on the axis). The superconducting
cable is therefore in the Meissner phase. Increasing B 1 to 50 mT already leads to a slight hysteresis so a
certain amount of magnetic flux enters the NbTi filaments and is captured there.
3
This statement applies only for long cylindral or elliptical samples oriented parallel to the field.
Fig. 39: Sextupole field in a HERA dipole in the Meissner phase and slightly above.
With increasing field the hysteresis widens more and more and is eventually nearly symmetric to
the horizontal axis. The sextupole hysteresis observed in the standard field cycle at HERA is plotted in
Fig. 40a. A similar curve is obtained for the 12-pole in the quadrupoles.
Fig. 40: (a) The sextupole component in the HERA dipoles for the standard field cycle 4.7 T → 0.05 T → 4.7 T. (b) Sextupole
field for the first beam test with positrons of 7 GeV.
Only in a ‘virgin’ magnet, that is right after cool-down, is there the chance to influence the width
of the hysteresis curve. This fact was used to advantage during the commissioning of the HERA proton
storage ring. The first beam test was made with positrons of only 7 GeV since the nominal 40 GeV
protons were not yet available. At the corresponding dipole field of 70 mT (coil current 42.5 A) the
persistent-current sextupole component would have been two orders of magnitude larger than tolerable
if the standard field cycle had been used. To eliminate the sextupole, all magnets were warmed to 20
K to extinguish any previous superconductor magnetisation and cooled back to 4.4 K. Then the current
loop 0 → 112 A → 42.5 A was performed which resulted in an almost vanishing sextupole (see Fig.
40b). A similar procedure was used in the first run with 40 GeV protons, this time with the loop 0 →
314 A → 245 A. The measured chromaticity indeed proved an almost perfect sextupole cancellation.
For the routine operation of HERA these procedures are of course not applicable because they require a
warm-up of the whole ring. Instead, sextupole correction coils must be used to compensate the unwanted
field distortions.
Fig. 41: (a) Hysteresis of the internal field in a tube of hard superconductor. (b) Time dependence of the internal field on the
trapping and the shielding branch [29].
A logarithmic time dependence is something rather unusual. In an electrical circuit with inductive
and resistive components the current decays exponentially like exp(−t/τ ) with a time constant τ =
L/R. A theoretical model for thermally activated flux creep was proposed by Anderson [30]. The
pinning centres are represented by potential wells of average depth U 0 and width a in which bundles of
flux quanta with an average flux Φav = nΦ0 are captured. At zero current the probability that flux leaves
a potential well is proportional to the Boltzmann factor
P0 ∝ exp(−U0 /kB T ) .
When the superconductor carries a current density J the potential acquires a slope proportional to the
force density F ∝ Φav J. This slope reduces the effective potential well depth to U = U 0 − ∆U with
∆U ≈ Φav Ja l, see Fig. 42. Here l is the length of the flux bundle. The probability for flux escape
increases
P = P0 exp(+∆U/kB T ) .
Fig. 42: Sketch of the pinning potential without and with current flow and field profile across the NbZr tube.
We consider now the tube in the Kim experiment at a high external field B ext on the trapping
branch of the hysteresis curve. The internal field is then slightly larger, namely by the amount B int −
Bmext = µ0 Jc w where Jc is the critical current density at the given temperature and magnetic field
and w the wall thickness. Under the assumption B int − Bext Bext both field and current density are
almost constant throughout the wall. The reduction in well depth ∆U is proportional to the product of
these quantities. If a bundle of flux quanta is released from its well, it will ‘slide’ down the slope and
leave the material. In this way space is created for some magnetic flux from the bore of the cylinder
which will migrate into the conductor and refill the well. As a consequence the internal field decreases
and with it the critical current density in the wall. Its time derivative is roughly given by the expression
dJc ∆U Φav aJc l
≈ −C exp ≈ −C exp (41)
dt kB T kB T
kB T
Jc (t) = Jc (0) − ln t . (42)
Φav a l
This result implies that for given temperature and magnetic field the critical current density is not really
a constant but depends slightly on time. What one usually quotes as J c is the value obtained after the
decay rate on a linear time scale has become unmeasurably small.
A nearly logarithmic time dependence is also observed in the persistent-current multipole fields of
accelerator magnets, see e.g. [31]. So it seems tempting to attribute the effect to flux creep. Surprisingly,
the decay rates are generally much larger than typical flux creep rates and depend moreover on the
maximum field level in a preceding excitation, see Fig. 43a.
Fig. 43: (a) Decay of the sextupole coefficient in a HERA dipole at a field of 0.23 T for different values of the maximum field
in the initialising cycle 0 → Bmax → 0.04T → 0.23 T [32]. (b) Magnetisation decay at zero field in a long sample of HERA
cable for different values of the maximum field in the initialising cycle 0 → Bmax → 0 [33].
In cable samples this is not the case as is evident from Fig. 43b. The average magnetisation of a 5
m-long cable sample decays at low field (B = 0 in this case) by less than 1% per decade of time, and the
decay rate is totally independent of the maximum field B max in the preceding cycle. The observed rate
agrees well with other data on flux creep in NbTi.
From the data in Fig. 43 it is obvious that thermally activated flux creep can explain only part of
the time dependence of multipoles in magnets. The decay rates measured in magnets are usually much
larger than those in cable samples, and there is a considerable variation from magnet to magnet. In 1995
experimental results [34] and model calculations [35] were presented showing that the time dependence
is due to a complex interplay between magnetisation currents in the NbTi filaments and eddy currents
among the strands of the cable. Quantitative predictions are not possible because of too many unknown
parameters. For a more detailed discussion see [31].
Flux creep has become an important issue after the discovery of high-temperature superconduc-
tors. Figure 44 shows that the magnetisation of YBaCuO samples decays rapidly, in particular for single
crystals. One speaks of ‘giant flux creep’. This is a strong hint that flux pinning is insufficient at 77 K
and implies that the presently available materials are not yet suited for building magnets cooled by liquid
nitrogen.
Fig. 44: Comparison of superconductor magnetisation decay due to flux creep in NbTi at a temperature of 4.2 K, in oriented-
grained YBa2 Cu3 Ox at 77 K and in a YBa2 Cu3 Ox single crystal at 60 K [36].
1
Rsurf = (43)
δσ
where δ is the skin depth and σ the conductivity of the metal.
The response of a superconductor to an ac field can be understood in the framework of the two-
fluid model 4 . An ac current in a superconductor is carried by Cooper-pairs (the superfluid component)
as well as by unpaired electrons (the normal component). Let us study the response to a periodic electric
field. The normal current obeys Ohm’s law
Jn = σn E0 exp(−iωt) (44)
while the Cooper pairs receive an acceleration m c v̇c = −2e E0 exp(−iωt), so the supercurrent density
becomes
nc 2 e 2
Js = i E0 exp(−iωt) . (45)
me ω
If we write for the total current density
1 1 σn
Rsurf = Re = · 2 . (48)
λL (σn + iσs ) λL σn + σs2
Since σn2 σs2 at microwave frequencies one can disregard σ n2 in the denominator and obtains Rsurf ∝
σn /(λL σs2 ). So we arrive at the surprising result that the microwave surface resistance is proportional to
the normal-state conductivity.
The conductivity of a normal metal is given by the classic Drude expression
nn e2 `
σn = (49)
me vF
where nn is the density of the unpaired electrons, ` their mean free path and v F the Fermi velocity. The
normal electrons are created by thermal breakup of Cooper pairs. There is an energy gap E g = 2∆(T )
between the BCS ground state and the free electron states. By analogy with the conductivity of an
intrinsic (undoped) semiconductor we get
σn ∝ ` exp(−Eg /(2kB T )) = ` exp(−∆(T )/(kB T )) . (50)
Using 1/σs = µ0 λ2L ω and ∆(T ) ≈ ∆(0) = 1.76kB Tc we finally obtain for the BCS surface resistance
RBCS ∝ λ3L ω 2 ` exp(−1.76 Tc /T ) . (51)
This formula displays two important aspects of microwave superconductivity: the surface resistance
depends exponentially on temperature, and it is proportional to the square of the radio frequency.
Eq. (51) applies if the mean free path ` of the unpaired electrons is much larger than the coherence
length ξ. In niobium this condition is usually not fulfilled and one has to replace λ L in the above equation
by [38]
p
Λ = λL 1 + ξ/` . (52)
Fig. 45: The surface resistance of a 9-cell TESLA cavity plotted as a function of Tc /T . The residual resistance of 3 nΩ
corresponds to a quality factor Q0 = 1011 .
Combining equations (51) and (52) we arrive at the surprising statement that the surface resistance
does not assume its minimum value when the superconductor is of very high purity (` ξ) but rather
in the range ` ≈ ξ. Experimental results [39] and theoretical models [40] confirm this prediction. The
effect is also observed in copper cavities with a thin niobium sputter coating in which the electron mean
free path is in the order of ξ. At 4.2 K the quality factors in the LEP cavities are indeed a factor of two
higher than in pure niobium cavities [41].
In addition to the BCS term there is a residual resistance caused by impurities, frozen-in magnetic
flux or lattice distortions.
Rsurf = RBCS + Rres . (53)
Rres is temperature independent and amounts to a few nΩ for a clean niobium surface but may readily
increase if the surface is contaminated.
For niobium the BCS surface resistance at 1.3 GHz amounts to about 800 nΩ at 4.2 K and drops
to 15 nΩ at 2 K, see Fig. 45. The exponential temperature dependence is the reason why operation at
2 K is essential for achieving high accelerating gradients in combination with very high quality factors.
Superfluid helium is an excellent coolant owing to its high heat conductivity.
8. JOSEPHSON EFFECTS
In 1962 B.D. Josephson made a theoretical analysis of the tunneling of Cooper pairs through a thin
insulating layer from one superconductor to another and predicted two fascinating phenomena which
were fully confirmed by experiment. A schematic experimental arrangement is shown in Fig. 46.
Fig. 46: Schematic arrangement for studying the properties of a Josephson junction.
DC Josephson effect. If the voltage V 0 across the junction is zero there is a dc Cooper-pair current which
can assume any value in the range
−I0 < I < I0
where I0 is a maximum current that depends on the Cooper-pair densities and the area of the junction.
AC Josephson effect. Increasing the voltage of the power supply eventually leads to a non-vanishing
voltage across the junction and then a new phenomenon arises: besides a dc current which however is
now carried by single electrons there is an alternating Cooper-pair current
I(t) = I0 sin(2πfJ t + ϕ0 ) (54)
whose frequency, the so-called Josephson frequency, is given by the expression
2eV0
fJ = . (55)
2π~
For a voltage V0 = 1 µV one obtains a frequency of 483.6 MHz. The quantity ϕ 0 is an arbitrary phase.
Equation (55) is the basis of extremely precise voltage measurements.
8.1 Schrödinger equation of the Josephson junction
The wave functions in the superconductors 1 and 2 are called ψ 1 and ψ2 . Due to the possibility of
tunneling through the barrier the two Schrödinger equations are coupled
∂ψ1 ∂ψ2
i~ = E1 ψ1 + Kψ2 , i~ = E2 ψ2 + Kψ1 . (56)
∂t ∂t
The quantity K is the coupling parameter. The macroscopic wave functions can be expressed through
the Cooper-pair densities n1 , n2 and the phase factors
√ √
ψ1 = n1 exp(iϕ1 ) , ψ2 = n2 exp(iϕ2 ) . (57)
We insert this into (56) and obtain
√ √ √
ṅ1 i
√ + i n1 ϕ̇1 exp(iϕ1 ) = − [E1 n1 exp(iϕ1 ) + K n2 exp(iϕ2 )]
2 n1 ~
and
√ √ √
ṅ2 i
√ + i n 2 2 exp(iϕ2 ) = − [E2 n2 exp(iϕ2 ) + K n1 exp(iϕ1 )] .
ϕ̇
2 n2 ~
Now we multiply these equation with exp(−iϕ 1 ) resp. exp(−iϕ2 ) and separate the real and imaginary
parts:
2K √
ṅ1 = n1 n2 sin(ϕ2 − ϕ1 ) ,
~
2K √
ṅ2 = n1 n2 sin(ϕ1 − ϕ2 ) = −ṅ1 ,
~ r
1 n2
ϕ̇1 = − E1 + K cos(ϕ2 − ϕ1 ) , (58)
~ n1
r
1 n1
ϕ̇2 = − E2 + K cos(ϕ1 − ϕ2 ) .
~ n2
For simplicity we consider the case where the two superconductors are identical, so n 2 = n1 . The
Cooper-pair energies E1 and E2 differ by the energy gained upon crossing the voltage V 0 :
E2 = E1 − 2eV0 .
The equations simplify
2K
ṅ1 = n1 sin(ϕ2 − ϕ1 ) = −ṅ2 ,
~
d 1 2eV0
(ϕ2 − ϕ1 ) = − (E2 − E1 ) = . (59)
dt ~ ~
Integrating the second equation (59) yields the Josephson frequency
2eV0
ϕ2 (t) − ϕ1 (t) = · t + ϕ0 = 2πfJ · t + ϕ0 . (60)
~
The Cooper-pair current through the junction is proportional to ṅ 1 . Using (59) and (60) it can be written
as
2eV0
I(t) = I0 sin t + ϕ0 . (61)
~
There are two cases:
(1) For zero voltage across the junction we get a dc current
I = I0 sin ϕ0
which can assume any value between −I 0 and +I0 since the phase ϕ0 is not specified.
(2) For V0 6= 0 there is an ac Cooper–pair current with exactly the Josephson frequency.
8.2 Superconducting quantum interference
A loop with two Josephson junctions in parallel (Fig. 47) exhibits interference phenomena that are
similar to the optical diffraction pattern of a double slit. Assuming zero voltage across the junctions the
total current is
I = Ia + Ib = I0 (sin ϕa + sin ϕb ) .
When a magnetic flux Φmag threads the area of the loop, the phases differ according to Sec. 5 by
2e ~ = 2e Φmag .
I
ϕb − ϕ a = ~ · ds
A
~ ~
With ϕ0 = (ϕa + ϕb )/2 we get
e e
ϕa = ϕ0 + Φmag , ϕb = ϕ0 − Φmag
~ ~
and the current is
e
I = I0 sin φ0 cos Φmag . (62)
~
Fig. 47: A loop with two Josephson junctions and the observed interference pattern [42]. The amplitude modulation is caused
by the finite width of the junctions.
As a function of the magnetic flux one obtains a typical double-slit interference pattern as shown
in Fig. 47. Adjacent peaks are separated by one flux quantum ∆Φ mag = Φ0 , so by counting flux quanta
one can measure very small magnetic fields. This is the basic principle of the Superconducting Quantum
Interference Device (SQUID). Technically one often uses superconducting rings with a single weak link
which acts as a Josephson junction. Flux transformers are applied to increase the effective area and
improve the sensitivity.
and depends only on temperature but not on volume. The first law of thermodynamics describes energy
conservation:
dU = δQ + δW . (64)
The internal energy increases either by adding heat δQ or mechanical work δW = −p dV to the gas. For
a reversible process one has δQ = T dS where S is the entropy. Now consider an isothermal expansion
of the gas. Thereby the gas transforms heat into mechanical work:
The gas produces mechanical work but its internal energy does not change, hence U is not an ade-
quate variable to describe the process. What is the correct energy variable? We will see that this is the
Helmholtz free energy, given by
For an isothermal expansion (dT = 0) we get dF = δW , i.e. −dF = pdV : the work produced by the
gas is identical to the reduction of its free energy.
Now we consider a magnetic material of permeability µ inside a coil which generates a field H.
~ = (µ − 1)H.
The magnetization is M ~ Its potential energy (per unit volume) in the magnetic field is
~ ·H
Epot = −µ0 M ~ . (67)
If the magnetization changes by dM ~ the work is δW = µ0 dM ~ · H.~ Defining again the Helmholtz free
energy by eq. (66) we get by analogy with the ideal gas dF = δW , hence F can in fact be used to
describe the thermodynamics of magnetic materials in magnetic fields. One drawback is, however, that
the magnetization of a substance cannot be directly varied by the experimenter. What can be varied at
will is the magnetic field H, namely by choosing the coil current. For this reason another energy function
is more appropriate, the Gibbs free energy
~ ·H
G = F − µ0 M ~ = U − T S − µ0 M
~ ·H
~ . (68)
p~ = ~~k .
√
In the three-dimensional k space the Fermi sphere has a radius k F = 2me EF /~. To the fully occupied
Fermi sphere we add two electrons of opposite wave vectors ~k1 = −~k2 whose energy E1 = E2 =
~2 k12 /(2me ) is within the spherical shell (see Figs. 20, 23)
From Sect. 4 we know that ~ωD is the largest energy quantum of the lattice vibrations. The interaction
with the ‘sea’ of electrons inside the Fermi sphere is neglected except for the Pauli Principle: the two
additional electrons are forbidden to go inside because all levels below E F are occupied. Under this
assumption the two electrons together have the energy 2E 1 > 2EF . Now the attractive force provided
by the lattice deformation is taken into consideration. Following Cooper [18] we must demonstrate that
the two electrons then form a bound system, a ‘Cooper pair’, whose energy drops below twice the Fermi
energy
Epair = 2EF − δE < 2EF .
The Schrödinger equation for the two electrons reads
~2
− (∇2 + ∇21 ) ψ(~r1 , ~r2 ) + V (~r1 , ~r2 )ψ(~r1 , ~r2 ) = Epair ψ(~r1 , ~r2 ) (71)
2me 1
where V is the interaction potential due to the dynamical lattice polarisation. In the simple case of
vanishing interaction, V = 0, the solution of (71) is the product of two plane waves
1 1 1
ψ(~r1 , ~r2 ) = √ exp(i~k1 · ~r1 ) · √ exp(i~k2 · ~r2 ) = 3 exp(i~k · ~r)
L 3 L 3 L
with ~k1 = −~k2 = ~k the k-vector, ~r = ~r1 − ~r2 the relative coordinate and L3 the normalisation volume.
The most general solution of Eq. (71) with V = 0 is a superposition of such functions
1 X ~
ψ(~r) = g(k) exp(i~k · ~r) (72)
L3
~k
with the restriction that the coefficients g(~k) vanish unless EF ≤ ~2 k 2 /2me ≤ EF +~ωD . This function
is certainly not an exact solution of the equation (71) with V 6= 0 but for a weak potential it can be used
to obtain the energy Epair in first order perturbation theory. For this purpose we insert (72) into Eq. (71):
" #
1 X ~ 0 ~2 k 0 2
g(k ) + V (~r) − Epair exp(i~k 0 · ~r) = 0 .
L3 me
~k 0
This equation is multiplied by exp(−i~k · ~r) and integrated, using the orthogonality relations
~ ~0
1
Z
~k 0 − ~k) · ~r d3 r = δ~ ~ 0 with δ~ ~ 0 = 1 for k = k
3
exp i( k k k k
L 0 otherwise .
The matrix element V~k~k0 describes the transition from the state (~k, −~k) to any other state (~k 0 , −~k 0 ) in
the spherical shell of thickness ~ω D around the Fermi sphere. Cooper and later Bardeen, Cooper and
Schrieffer made the simplest conceivable assumption on these matrix elements, namely that they are all
equal.
~2 k 2 ~2 k 02
V~k~k0 = −V0 for EF < , < EF + ~ωD (75)
2me 2me
and V~k~k0 = 0 elsewhere. The negative value ensures attraction. With this extreme simplification the
right-hand side of Eq. (74) is no longer ~k dependent but becomes a constant
1 X ~0 V0 X ~ 0
− 3 g(k )V~k~k0 = 3 g(k ) = A . (76)
L L
~k 0 ~k 0
The constant A is still unknown. We can eliminate it by summing this expression over all ~k and using
(76) once more
L3
g(~k) = A
X
V0
~k
The sum extends over all ~k vectors in the shell between EF and EF + ~ωD . Since the states are very
densely spaced one can replace the summation by an integration
1 X 1
Z Z
3
→ d k → N (E)dE
L3 (2π)3
~k
where N (E) is the density of single-electron states for a definite spin orientation. (The states with
opposite spin orientation must not be counted because a Cooper pair consists of two electrons of opposite
spin). The integration spans the narrow energy range [E F , EF + ~ωD ] so N (E) can be replaced by
N (EF ) and taken out of the integral. Introducing a scaled energy variable
~2 k 2
ξ = E − EF = − EF
2me
formula (77) becomes
~ωD
dξ
Z
1 = V0 N (EF ) . (78)
0 2ξ + δE
The integral yields
1 δE + 2~ωD
ln .
2 δE
The energy shift is then
2~ωD
δE = .
exp(2/(V0 N (EF )) − 1
For small interaction potentials (V 0 N (EF ) 1) this leads to the famous Cooper formula
2
δE = 2~ωD exp − . (79)
V0 N (EF )
Except for a factor of 2 the same exponential appears in the BCS equations for the energy gap and the
critical temperature.
References
[1] W. Buckel, Supraleitung, 4. Auflage, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim 1990
[2] D.R. Tilley & J. Tilley, Superfluidity and Superconductivity, Third Edition, Institute of Physics
Publishing Ltd, Bristol 1990
[3] H.K. Onnes, Akad. van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam) 14, 113, 818 (1911)
[4] J. File and R.G. Mills, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 93 (1963)
[5] M.N. Wilson, private communication
[6] W. Meissner and R Ochsenfeld, Naturwiss. 21, 787 (1933)
[7] F. London and H. London, Z. Phys. 96, 359 (1935)
[8] J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper and J.R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)
[9] V.L. Ginzburg and L.D. Landau, JETP USSR 20, 1064 (1950)
[10] L.P. Gorkov, Sov. Phys. JETP 9, 1364 (1960), JETP 10, 998 (1960)
[11] A.A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 1174 (1957)
[12] U. Essmann and H. Träuble, Phys. Lett. 24A, 526 (1967) and Sci. Am. 224, March 1971
[13] B.D. Josephson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1, 251 (1962)
[14] J.D. Livingston, Phys. Rev. 129, 1943 (1963)
[15] N.E. Phillips, Phys. Rev. 134, 385 (1965)
[16] Th. Schilcher, Diploma Thesis, Hamburg 1994, unpublished
[17] M.N. Wilson, Superconducting Magnets, Oxford University Press 1997
[18] L.N. Cooper, Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956)
[19] H. Ibach and H. Lüth, Solid State Physics, 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1996
[20] Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1955)
[21] G. Möllenstedt and W. Bayh, Phys. Bl. 18, 229 (1962)
[22] A. Tonomura, Phys. Today, April 1990
[23] R. Doll and M. Näbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 51 (1961)
[24] B.S. Deaver and W.M. Fairbank, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 43 (1961)
[25] H. Rietschel, Phys. Bl. 46, 419 (1990)
[26] C.E. Gough et al., Nature 326, 855 (1987)
[27] G.T. Lee et al., Physica C 161, 195 (1989)
[28] Y.B. Kim, C.F. Hempstead and A.R. Strnad, Phys. Rev. 139, A1163 (1965)
[29] Y.B. Kim, C.F. Hempstead and A.R. Strnad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 306 (1962)
[30] P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 309 (1962)
[31] K.-H. Mess, P. Schmüser, S. Wolff, Superconducting Accelerator Magnets, World Scientific, Sin-
gapore, 1996
[32] H. Brück et al., Contribution to the European Accelerator Conference, Nice 1990
[33] M. Halemeyer et al., IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. Vol.3, No.1, 168 (1993)
[34] A.P. Verweij and H.H.J. ten Kate, IEEE Trans. ASC-5 (1995) 404
[35] L. Krempaski and C. Schmidt, Appl. Phys. Lett. 66 (1995) 1545, and J. Appl. Phys. 78 (1995) 5800
[36] C. Keller et al., Cryogenics 30, 410 (1990)
[37] H. Padamsee, J. Knobloch and T. Hays, RF Superconductivity for Accelerators, John Wiley, New
York 1998
[38] B. Bonin, CERN Accelerator School Superconductivity in Particle Accelerators, CERN 96-03, ed.
S. Turner, Hamburg (1995)
[39] F. Palmer, Proc. 3rd Workshop on RF Superconductivity, K. Shephard (ed.), Argonne Natl. Lab.
1988, p. 309
[40] J. Halbritter, Z. Physik 238 (1970) 466
[41] C. Benvenuti et al., Proc. PAC91, San Francisco (1991), p. 1023.
[42] R.C. Jaklevic et al. Phys. Rev. 140, A1628 (1965)