Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Distinguishing Insulator, Metal, Superconductor by a flux insertion argument

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
144 views

@EverettYou I have the following argument to distinguish Insulator, Metal and Superconductor.

For simplicity let's consider electrons on a circle
and thread one quantum of flux (e$\Phi_0 = 2\pi$) through it (or make a "large" gauge transformation on the system). I will ignore the spin of the electrons. Then do the following arguments make sense ?

a) In an insulator the electrons are localized and they do not see the flux at all. So nothing happens in an insulator.

b) In metals electrons are nearly free with the dispersion relation $E(k_n) = k_n^2/(2m)$ .
As the flux is inserted adiabatically, each momentum level shifts and at the end of the process the spectrum is mapped to itself according to $k_n \to k_{n+1}$. The end results is a particle-hole excitation at the fermi surface.

c)In a superconductor the electrons are delocalized and most importantly each $k_n$ is paired with $-k_n$. The pairing will be lost if the electrons behave independently, because $k_n+ \alpha (\Phi)$ and $- k_n +  \alpha(\Phi)$ have different energy if the dispersion relation is $E(k) = k^2/(2m)$, where $\alpha(\Phi) = \Phi/\Phi_0$ , $0 < \Phi < \Phi_0$ . However, if the dispersion relation is also changed according to something like $E(k, \alpha) = (k-\alpha)^2/(2m)$, then there will always be pairing about $k = \alpha$. This is equivalent to saying that instead of changing their states independently, the system of electrons starts to move as a whole, as we insert the flux.


Of course for the superconductor I already knew the final result (that if a flux is inserted inside the hole of a superconducting ring, a supercurrent starts to flow along the ring).
I worked out the argument backward and I have the feeling that I might have missed some subtle (or not so subtle) point.

It will be helpful for me to know whether the above arguments are correct. 

asked Jul 10, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Tuhin Subhra (45 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jul 10, 2016 by Tuhin Subhra

Your argument for a) is not correct in the form you've given. In a clean band insulator, electrons are typically not localized — the wave functions obtained with the Bloch ansatz are delocalized. In the non-interacting band picture, whether the material is an insulator or a metal depends on whether bands are completely filled or only partially filled, a property which mainly depends on the number of electrons in the crystal, not on the shape of the wave functions.

That said, disorder can localized electrons (especially in 1D and 2D), then the argument would apply.

I see. This argument will not apply for band insulators. That really undermines the premise of this whole argument. 

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverf$\varnothing$ow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...