1: \documentstyle[11pt]{article}

2: %

3: \def\one{1\hskip -.37em 1}     

4: \def\proj{E\hskip -.69em I}     

5: %

6: \setlength{\textwidth}{155mm}

7: \setlength{\textheight}{220mm}

8: \setlength{\topmargin}{-5mm}

9: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{3mm}

10: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{3mm}

11: %

12: \setlength{\parskip}{1mm}

13: \setlength{\parindent}{10mm}

14: \setlength{\baselineskip}{7mm}

15: %

16: \begin{document}

17: %

18: \begin{titlepage}

19: \begin{flushright}

20: YITP-00-27\\

21: %cond-mat/0006070\\

22: June 2000

23: \end{flushright}

24: %

25: \begin{centering}

26:  

27: {\ }\vspace{1cm}

28:  

29: {\Large\bf On Electric Fields in Low Temperature Superconductors}\\

30: 

31: \vspace{2.0cm}

32: 

33: Jan Govaerts\footnote{On leave from the Institute of Nuclear

34: Physics, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium\\

35: \indent{\ }\hspace{5pt}E-mail: {\tt govaerts@fynu.ucl.ac.be}}\\

36: 

37: \vspace{0.6cm}

38: 

39: {\em C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics}\\

40: {\em State University of New York at Stony Brook}\\

41: {\em Stony Brook NY 11794-3840, USA}\\

42: 

43: \vspace{0.6cm}

44: 

45: Damien Bertrand and Geoffrey Stenuit\footnote{

46: E-mail: {\tt bertrand, stenuit@fynu.ucl.ac.be}}\\

47: 

48: \vspace{0.6cm}

49: 

50: {\em Institut de Physique Nucl\'eaire, 

51: Universit\'e catholique de Louvain}\\

52: {\em 2, Chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium}

53: 

54: \vspace{2cm}

55: \begin{abstract}

56: 

57: \noindent The manifestly Lorentz covariant Landau-Ginzburg equations

58: coupled to Maxwell's equations are considered as a possible framework 

59: for the effective description of the interactions between low temperature 

60: superconductors and magnetic as well as electric fields. A specific 

61: experimental set-up, involving a nanoscopic superconductor and only 

62: static applied fields whose geometry is crucial however, is described, 

63: which should allow to confirm or invalidate the covariant model through the

64: determination of the temperature dependency of the critical

65: magnetic-electric field phase diagram and the identification

66: of some distinctive features it should display.

67: 

68: \end{abstract}

69: 

70: \vspace{10pt}

71: 

72: \end{centering} 

73: 

74: \vspace{5pt}

75: 

76: \noindent PACS numbers: 74., 74.20.De, 74.25.Dw

77: 

78: \vspace{25pt}

79: 

80: \end{titlepage}

81: 

82: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

83: 

84: \noindent{\bf 1. Introduction.}

85: It is a widely held belief that (low $T_c$) superconductors cannot

86: sustain electric fields in static configurations. The argument\cite{Tinkham}

87: is directly based on the first of the London equations,

88: \begin{equation}

89: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\Lambda\vec{J}\right)=\vec{E}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

90: \vec{\partial}\times\left(\Lambda\vec{J}\right)=-\vec{B}\ \ \ ,

91: \label{eq:London}

92: \end{equation}

93: where $\Lambda$ is a phenomenological parameter proper to the superconducting

94: material, $\vec{J}$ is the supercurrent density, and $\vec{E}$, $\vec{B}$ are 

95: the electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Indeed, given that relation 

96: as well as the property of infinite conductivity, any nonvanishing electric 

97: field within the sample must set into motion a dissipationless supercurrent, 

98: hence a displacement of charges which very rapidly leads to an exact screening 

99: of any such electric field, certainly for time independent configurations 

100: (the case of stationary configurations with externally sustained supercurrents 

101: in the presence of magnetic vortices in type II superconductors is a different 

102: matter, see for example Refs.\cite{Josephson,Bok, Kolacek}).

103: 

104: However, such a situation raises a series of puzzles of varying degrees of

105: concern. First, it is physically inconceivable that an applied

106: electric field would discontinuously drop to zero from its external value

107: when crossing the surface of a superconducting sample. There

108: ought to exist some skin effect with a characteristic nonvanishing

109: penetration depth however small. Nevertheless, none of the parameters

110: appearing in the London equations provides for such an electric

111: penetration length. Moreover, in the above picture for the screening of

112: electric fields, mention is made of an electromagnetic

113: charge density which also is not accounted for in the London equations, 

114: nor more generally in the Landau-Ginzburg (LG) equations (see below).

115: 

116: Another concern at a more formal level is the fact that the coupling

117: of the London and LG equations to the electromagnetic fields is not

118: spacetime covariant. Indeed, under Lorentz boosts, the 

119: supercurrent density $\vec{J}$ ought to transform as the space

120: components of a 4-vector whose time component would then play

121: the role of the aforementioned missing charge density, while the electric 

122: $\vec{E}$ and magnetic $\vec{B}$ fields transform as components of the

123: two index antisymmetric field strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$.

124: To illustrate this point more vividly perhaps, consider

125: a flat infinite superconducting slab submitted to an external homogeneous

126: magnetic field lying parallel to its surface. In such a case,

127: the magnetic field will only partially penetrate the sample, with

128: a characteristic penetration length related to the parameter $\Lambda$

129: above\cite{Tinkham}. Imagine now performing a Lorentz boost in a 

130: direction both parallel to the surface of the slab and perpendicular 

131: to the applied magnetic field. According to the Lorentz covariance of 

132: Maxwell's equations, in the boosted frame there appears now an electric 

133: field perpendicular to the surface of the sample, {\sl also within 

134: the volume of the superconductor where the magnetic field in the 

135: initial frame is nonvanishing\/}. Thus Lorentz covariance requires

136: the possibility of electric fields on the same footing as magnetic

137: ones within superconductors, with an electric penetration length

138: equal to the familiar magnetic one. Nevertheless, the existence of 

139: such electric fields within superconductors is incompatible with 

140: the London equations.

141: 

142: One may take issue with the above covariance argument,

143: since the superconducting sample itself defines a preferred frame,

144: thereby insisting that the physics should be described only with respect 

145: to that specific rest-frame. Even though that frame is obviously 

146: distinguished, the coupling of the London and LG equations 

147: to the electromagnetic fields should be consistent with the covariance 

148: properties of Maxwell's equations, even within that frame. 

149: In addition, one would also like to have available

150: a manifestly covariant framework in which to study the interactions

151: of electromagnetic fields and moving superconducting samples,

152: an issue which the usual London and LG equations are unable to address,

153: and which is certainly accounted for to anyone's satisfaction in the 

154: description of electromagnetic interactions with ordinary conductors. It 

155: remains true nevertheless that some physical characterizations of 

156: superconductors can be defined with respect only to the rest-frame, such 

157: as for example the frame dependent notion of the free energy whose value 

158: determines the occurrence of the superconducting-normal phase transition

159: only when evaluated in the rest-frame.

160: 

161: Note that any spacetime covariant extension of the usual London and

162: LG equations entails a time dependent LG (TDLG) equation in which space and

163: time variations are on the same footing. Namely, a covariant

164: TDLG equation is necessarily of second-order in time derivatives

165: as it is in space derivatives, in sharp contrast with the usual

166: non covariant first-order TDLG equations encountered in the 

167: literature\cite{Tinkham}. In particular, in a covariant setting, the 

168: time scale associated to time dependent fluctuations is then naturally 

169: set by the time it takes light to travel the distance of some mean value 

170: of the penetration and coherence lengths. In contradistinction for

171: first-order TDLG equations, this time scale is specified

172: in terms of an additional parameter, the relaxation constant\cite{Tinkham}.

173: As a matter of fact, the latter quantity involves Boltzmann's constant,

174: showing that the usual TDLG equations apply rather to the time

175: dependency encured through thermodynamic fluctuations in the

176: superconducting order parameter. As such, these TDLG equations do not

177: provide a framework in which to study the intrinsically genuine time

178: dependent dynamics of superconductors coupled to time varying electromagnetic

179: fields, in the absence of thermodynamic fluctuations. A covariant

180: extension of the London and LG equations would also provide such

181: a dynamic framework, of relevance for instance to the

182: dynamics of ensembles of magnetic vortices interacting among one another

183: and with their electromagnetic environment.

184: 

185: A manifestly covariant extension of the LG equation which immediately

186: comes to one's mind is of course the so-called U(1) Higgs model of

187: particle physics, whose construction itself was motivated by the

188: BCS and LG theories in the late 50's. Indeed, as an effective theory

189: for superconductivity, this model coincides with the original LG

190: formulation for stationnary configurations, and readily provides\cite{Weinberg}

191: a description of all the remarkable quantum phenomena of superconductivity.

192: It may thus appear somewhat surprising that the covariant formulation

193: has not been used to further explore superconducting phenomena

194: possibly lying beyond the boundaries of the usual London and LG equations.

195: The purpose of this Letter is to suggest examples of

196: investigations along such lines.

197: 

198: After some considerations on the covariant London and LG equations presented

199: in the next section, section 3 identifies a specific set-up which should 

200: enable to establish experimentally whether the covariant, rather than 

201: the usual noncovariant approach is relevant to superconducting phenomena

202: in the presence of electric fields. What appears to us to be quite a

203: remarkable circumstance is that this experimental confirmation of the

204: covariant model should prove to be possible already using only a static, 

205: time independent configuration of external fields, through the observation 

206: of the superconducting-normal phase transition and the determination

207: of the phase diagram in the $(B,E)$ plane for a specific geometry of the 

208: applied fields.

209: 

210: \vspace{10pt}

211: 

212: \noindent{\bf 2. The covariant LG equations.}

213: As mentioned already, the considered model, of application only to low

214: temperature superconductors, is that of a U(1) gauge invariant coupling to 

215: the electromagnetic interactions of a complex scalar field $\psi$ of charge

216: $q=-2e<0$ (the Cooper pair charge) and with self-interactions determined

217: through the usual LG potential $(|\psi|^2-1)^2$ properly normalized. 

218: The order parameter $\psi$ is normalized to the square-root of the

219: Cooper pair density in the bulk in the absence

220: of any electromagnetic field (see Ref.\cite{Gov1} for some further

221: details). Rather than listing all the relevant equations

222: in terms of the physical quantities, let us already use the following

223: choice of units. Space and time coordinates, namely $\vec{x}$ and

224: the combination $x^0=ct$ with $c$ being the speed of light in vacuum,

225: are measured in units of the penetration length $\lambda(T)$. Similarly,

226: magnetic $\vec{B}$ and electric $\vec{E}/c$ fields are measured in units

227: of $\Phi_0/(2\pi\lambda^2(T))$, where $\Phi_0=2\pi\hbar/|q|$ is the usual

228: quantum of flux. Note that these units are temperature dependent,

229: since the penetration length $\lambda(T)$ is, with a dependency

230: we shall model\cite{Tinkham} through 

231: $\lambda(T)=\lambda(0)\left(1-(T/T_c)^4\right)^{-1/2}$, 

232: $T_c$ being of course the critical temperature. Finally, the order

233: parameter $\psi$ is parametrized according to $\psi=f e^{i\theta}$,

234: with $f$ real and $f^2$ thus measuring the relative Cooper pair density.

235: In terms of these units, space and time coordinates are denoted

236: $\vec{u}$ and $\tau$, and the magnetic and electric fields $\vec{b}$

237: and $\vec{e}$, respectively. Finally, let us also introduce the

238: quantities,

239: \begin{equation}

240: j^0=\frac{q}{\hbar}\frac{\lambda^3(T)}{f^2}\,\mu_0\,c\rho_{\rm em}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

241: \vec{j}=\frac{q}{\hbar}\frac{\lambda^3(T)}{f^2}\,\mu_0\,\vec{J}_{\rm em}\ ,

242: \end{equation}

243: where $\mu_0$ is the usual vacuum magnetic permitivity, and

244: $(c\rho_{\rm em},\vec{J}_{\rm em})$ are the superconducting electromagnetic

245: charge and current densities (constructed in terms of $\psi$), indeed

246: defining a 4-vector under Lorentz transformations.

247: Note that these relations show that $(f^2j^0,f^2\vec{j})$ is in fact

248: proportional to this electromagnetic 4-supercurrent, which must be 

249: locally conserved.

250: 

251: The latter remark is also confirmed by the inhomogeneous Maxwell

252: equations (all space derivatives are of course with respect

253: to $\vec{u}$),

254: \begin{equation}

255: \vec{\partial}\cdot\vec{e}=-f^2\,j^0\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

256: \vec{\partial}\times\vec{b}-\partial_\tau\vec{e}=-f^2\vec{j}\ ,

257: \label{eq:Maxi}

258: \end{equation}

259: which indeed, as is usual, imply the local conservation property

260: $\partial_\tau\left(f^2j^0\right)+\vec{\partial}\cdot

261: \left(f^2\vec{j}\right)=0$.

262: The remaining electromagnetic equations of motion are given by,

263: \begin{equation}

264: \partial_\tau\vec{j}\,+\,\vec{\partial}j^0=-\vec{e}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

265: \vec{\partial}\times\vec{j}=\vec{b}\ ,

266: \label{eq:London2}

267: \end{equation}

268: which are recognized as the appropriate covariant extension of the 

269: London equations in (\ref{eq:London}). Note that only the first London 

270: equation is modified by the inclusion of a contribution of the supercharge

271: density, as was indeed required, while the second London equation, 

272: essential to the Meissner effect, retains its original form.

273: The homogeneous Maxwell equations,

274: \begin{equation}

275: \vec{\partial}\times\vec{e}+\partial_\tau\vec{b}=\vec{0}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

276: \vec{\partial}\cdot\vec{b}=0\ ,

277: \end{equation}

278: follow from the covariant London equations (\ref{eq:London2}) (as they

279: do also from the noncovariant ones in (\ref{eq:London})).

280: 

281: The equations of motion for the order parameter $\psi$ are given,

282: on the one hand, by the covariant LG equation

283: \begin{equation}

284: \left[\vec{\partial}^2-\partial^2_\tau\right]f=

285: \left[\vec{j}^2-{j^0}^2\right]f-\kappa^2(1-f^2)f\ ,

286: \label{eq:LG}

287: \end{equation}

288: where the LG parameter $\kappa=\lambda(T)/\xi(T)$---$\xi(T)$ being

289: the coherence length---is essentially temperature independent\cite{Tinkham},

290: and on the other hand, by the following conditions for the quantum phase 

291: $\theta$,

292: \begin{equation}

293: \partial_\tau\theta=-j^0+\varphi\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

294: \vec{\partial}\theta=\vec{j}-\vec{a}\ .

295: \label{eq:theta}

296: \end{equation}

297: In these latter relations, $\varphi$ and $\vec{a}$ are the scalar and

298: vector gauge potentials defined such that

299: \begin{equation}

300: \vec{e}=-\vec{\partial}\varphi-\partial_\tau\vec{a}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

301: \vec{b}=\vec{\partial}\times\vec{a}\ .

302: \end{equation}

303: Finally, these equations are subject to boundary conditions requiring

304: vanishing values for those components of the vectors $\vec{\partial}f$ 

305: and $\vec{j}$ which are perpendicular to the surfaces of the 

306: superconducting sample in contact with an insulating material. 

307: 

308: The advantage of using this representation of the system is that the

309: number of gauge dependent variables is kept to a minimum\cite{Gov1}. Only the

310: quantities $\theta$, $\varphi$ and $\vec{a}$ are defined up to the following

311: gauge transformations,

312: \begin{equation}

313: \theta'=\theta+\chi\ \ ,\ \ 

314: \varphi'=\varphi+\partial_\tau\chi\ \ ,\ \ 

315: \vec{a}'=\vec{a}-\vec{\partial}\chi\ ,

316: \end{equation}

317: $\chi(\vec{u},\tau)$ being an arbitrary function, while the absolute

318: sign of $f$ may also be subject to gauge transformations\cite{Gov2}.

319: 

320: In fact, this decoupling of gauge variant and gauge invariant quantities

321: may be rendered complete when substituting the covariant London equations

322: (\ref{eq:London2}) into the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations (\ref{eq:Maxi}).

323: In addition to the covariant LG equation (\ref{eq:LG}), one then finds

324: for the $(j^0,\vec{j})$ 4-supercurrent,

325: \begin{equation}

326: \left[\vec{\partial}^2-\partial^2_\tau\right]j^0=

327: f^2 j^0-\partial_\tau

328: \left[\partial_\tau j^0+\vec{\partial}\cdot\vec{j}\right]\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

329: \left[\vec{\partial}^2-\partial^2_\tau\right]\vec{j}=

330: f^2\vec{j}+\vec{\partial}

331: \left[\partial_\tau j^0+\vec{\partial}\cdot\vec{j}\right]\ .

332: \label{eq:current}

333: \end{equation}

334: Any solution to this set of three coupled equations for $j^0$, $\vec{j}$

335: and $f$ then leads to specific values for $\vec{b}$ and $\vec{e}$ 

336: through the covariant London equations (\ref{eq:London2}), and in turn, 

337: once the gauge potentials $\varphi$ and $\vec{a}$ related to these fields 

338: determined up to the gauge transformations parametrized by $\chi$, 

339: the corresponding solution for the quantum phase $\theta$ is also 

340: finally obtained from (\ref{eq:theta})\cite{Gov2}.

341: 

342: Although nonlinear, the equations (\ref{eq:LG}) and (\ref{eq:current})

343: also establish that these covariant LG equation admit progressive

344: wave solutions with covariant dispersion relations in a linear

345: regime. As a matter of fact, the phase and group velocities for 

346: variations in the 4-supercurrent and the order parameter $f$ are different, 

347: unless the LG parameter $\kappa$ takes the same critical value 

348: $\kappa_c=1/\sqrt{2}$ as the one which is so crucial to the understanding

349: of the stability and interaction properties of magnetic vortices.

350: Indeed, for a fluctuation of wave number $k$ (in units of $1/|\vec{u}|$)

351: around the vacuum solution

352: $(j^0=0,\vec{j}=\vec{0},f=1)$, the group velocities are,

353: respectively,

354: \begin{equation}

355: v_j=\frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2+1}}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

356: v_f=\frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2+2\kappa^2}}\ ,

357: \end{equation}

358: thus showing that when $\kappa>\kappa_c$ (resp. $\kappa<\kappa_c$),

359: waves in the 4-supercurrent will overtake (resp. be overtaken by)

360: those in the order parameter $f$. In other words, within the superconductor,

361: fluctuations in the electromagnetic fields will propagate more rapidly 

362: (resp. slowly) than those in the order parameter, in accordance with 

363: the relative magnetic and superconducting rigidities that the parameters 

364: $\lambda(T)$ and $\xi(T)$ characterize.

365: 

366: Clearly, such properties are totally different in the case of the

367: usual noncovariant first-order TDLG equation, in which time scales are then 

368: normalized with respect to the relaxation parameter, which itself is

369: temperature dependent. The ensuing dispersion relations are then

370: linear in frequency, implying that the group velocities of fluctuations

371: in the supercurrent $\vec{j}$ and in the order parameter $f$ are

372: then also identical, independently of the value for $\kappa$.

373: Such differences between the covariant and noncovariant frameworks

374: must lead to distinct physical properties in the case of time dependent

375: configurations in ultra-high frequency regimes, 

376: $\nu\sim c/\lambda(T),c/\xi(T)$, an issue which, however, is beyond

377: the scope of this work.

378: 

379: To conclude this general discussion, let us

380: also give the expression for the free energy $E$ of the system in 

381: the covariant form,

382: \begin{displaymath}

383: \left(\frac{\lambda^3(T)}{2\mu_0}

384: \left(\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi\lambda^2(T)}\right)^2\right)^{-1}\,E=

385: \int_{(\infty)}d^3\vec{u}\left\{

386: \left[\vec{e}-\vec{e}_{\rm ext}\right]^2+

387: \left[\vec{b}-\vec{b}_{\rm ext}\right]^2\right\}\ +\

388: \end{displaymath}

389: \begin{equation}

390: +\ \int_\Omega d^3\vec{u}\left\{

391: \left(\partial_\tau f\right)^2+\left(\vec{\partial}f\right)^2+

392: f^2\left({j^0}^2+\vec{j}^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2\left(1-f^2\right)^2

393: -\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2\right\}\ ,

394: \label{eq:E1}

395: \end{equation}

396: where the normalization factor related to our choice of units is displayed

397: together with $E$ in the l.h.s., $\vec{e}_{\rm ext}$ and $\vec{b}_{\rm ext}$ 

398: are externally applied electric and magnetic fields, respectively, and

399: $\Omega$ stands for the volume of the superconducting sample.

400: 

401: The same expression is also of application to the noncovariant model,

402: in which case one has $j^0=0$ and $\vec{e}=\vec{0}$ within the superconductor,

403: and the quadratic term in $\partial_\tau f$ is to be replaced by 

404: a linear term while the time coordinate is then also measured in units of

405: the relaxation parameter for the TDLG equation. The term in

406: $\left[\vec{e}-\vec{e}_{\rm ext}\right]^2$ measures the energy required

407: to expulse the electric field from the superconductor. In the

408: noncovariant case, and in accordance with the first London equation,

409: we shall thus assume that the associated penetration depth

410: is essentially vanishing for all practical purposes. For physics

411: reasons, such an approximation cannot be very reliable when it

412: comes to nanoscopic superconductors, but we shall use it as

413: a working hypothesis anyway. Note that the free energy $E$

414: is defined here in such a way that it vanishes at the superconducting-normal

415: phase transition. And as a last remark, clearly, in the case of

416: stationary configurations and in the absence of any electric fields, 

417: the equations of both approaches coincide

418: with the usual noncovariant time independent LG equations.

419: 

420: \vspace{10pt}

421: 

422: \noindent{\bf 3. Characterizing the phase transition.}

423: In order to identify a specific geometry of applied fields which could 

424: help discriminate experimentally between the two approaches already in a

425: static configuration, consider again the situation of the flat infinite

426: slab of the Introduction, this time subjected not only to the homogeneous

427: magnetic field parallel to its surface, but also to an homogeneous

428: electric field applied perpendicularly to its surface (an electric 

429: field parallel to the slab does not induce a supercharge

430: distribution $j^0$, hence neither a feature distinctive from the 

431: noncovariant model). The slab is

432: taken to be of thickness $2a$, while the external electric field 

433: $\vec{e}_{\rm ext}$ is aligned along the $x$ axis, and the external magnetic 

434: field $\vec{b}_{\rm ext}$ along the $y$ axis, with components

435: $e_{\rm ext}$ and $b_{\rm ext}$, respectively (the origin of this

436: coordinate system is of course positioned in the center of the slab). 

437: For this specific geometry, the expulsion of the magnetic field is

438: achieved through an induced supercurrent $\vec{j}$ circulating along

439: the $z$ axis, also parallel to the slab, while that of the electric field

440: is achieved through the appearance of a nonvanishing supercharge density 

441: $j^0$, an occurrence which simply cannot arise in the noncovariant approach. 

442: Both these effects imply a deviation from its canonical value of unity

443: for the order parameter $f$. In view of the symmetries of the problem, both

444: $j^0(u)$ and $j^z(u)$ are odd functions of the normalized $u=x/\lambda(T)$ 

445: coordinate along the $x$ axis, while $f(u)$ is even.

446: 

447: Given the equations and the different conditions imposed on these quantities

448: at the boundaries $u=\pm u_a\equiv\pm a/\lambda(T)$, it proves possible as

449: well as useful to express both $j^0(u)$ and $j^z(u)$ in terms of a single

450: function $j(u)$

451: \begin{equation}

452: j^0(u)=-e_{\rm ext} j(u)\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

453: j^z(u)=-b_{\rm ext} j(u)\ ,

454: \end{equation}

455: so that one has for the electric and magnetic fields within the

456: sample,

457: \begin{equation}

458: e(u)=e_{\rm ext}\frac{d}{du}j(u)\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

459: b(u)=b_{\rm ext}\frac{d}{du}j(u)\ ,

460: \end{equation}

461: thus showing once again that Lorentz covariance implies that the

462: penetration lengths for both types of fields are identical.

463: The set of equations to be considered then reduces to,

464: \begin{equation}

465: \frac{d^2}{du^2}j(u)=f^2(u)j(u)\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

466: \frac{d^2}{du^2}f(u)=\left(b^2_{\rm ext}-e^2_{\rm ext}\right)j^2(u)f(u)-

467: \kappa^2\left(1-f^2(u)\right)f(u)\ ,

468: \label{eq:slab1}

469: \end{equation}

470: subject to the boundary conditions

471: \begin{equation}

472: \frac{d}{du}j(u)_{|u=\pm u_a}=1\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

473: \frac{d}{du}f(u)_{|u=\pm u_a}=0\ . 

474: \end{equation}

475: Note already the subtle interplay between the magnetic and electric

476: field contributions to the LG equation for $f(u)$, which leads to

477: values larger than unity for $f(u)$ in the electric regime

478: $e^2_{\rm ext}>b^2_{\rm ext}$, while, as is usual, $f(u)$ remains less

479: than unity in the magnetic regime $b^2_{\rm ext}>e^2_{\rm ext}$.

480: The existence of these two regimes is a direct and distinctive

481: consequence of manifest Lorentz covariance; only the magnetic one arises

482: in the noncovariant approach (see below). Note also that in view

483: of these equations, the solutions for $j(u)$ and $f(u)$ are necessarily

484: functions of the specific combination $(b^2_{\rm ext}-e^2_{\rm ext})$ only,

485: indeed justifying this notion of electric or magnetic regimes.

486: 

487: Up to the normalisation factor displayed in (\ref{eq:E1}) as well

488: as the infinite surface of the slab, the free energy ${\cal E}$

489: of configurations obeying these equations is simply given by

490: \begin{equation}

491: {\cal E}=2u_a\left\{\left[1-\frac{1}{u_a}j(u_a)\right]

492: \left(b^2_{\rm ext}+e^2_{\rm ext}\right)\ -\

493: \frac{1}{u_a}\int_0^{u_a}du\left[

494: \left(b^2_{\rm ext}-e^2_{\rm ext}\right)j^2f^2+

495: \frac{1}{2}\kappa^2f^4\right]\right\}\ .

496: \end{equation}

497: Consequently, the curve in the $(b,e)$ phase diagram which 

498: characterizes the superconducting-normal phase transition obeys

499: the following equation in the covariant approach,

500: \begin{equation}

501: b^2+e^2=\frac{1}{\left[1-\frac{1}{u_a}j(u_a)\right]}\,

502: \frac{1}{u_a}\int_0^{u_a}du\left[

503: \left(b^2-e^2\right)j^2f^2+

504: \frac{1}{2}\kappa^2f^4\right]\ .

505: \label{eq:critical1}

506: \end{equation}

507: The noteworthy property of this relation is that the l.h.s. involves

508: only the combination $(b^2+e^2)$, while the r.h.s. is only a function of

509: the combination $(b^2-e^2)$ of the external fields (since the solutions

510: $j(u)$ and $f(u)$ also share that property).

511: 

512: Before addressing the specific consequences of this equation for the

513: $(b,e)$ phase diagram, let us consider the corresponding expressions in

514: the noncovariant approach. In that case, one has of course $j^0(u)=0$

515: (which also implies $e(u)=0$ within the superconductor, as follows

516: from the first London equation) as well as $j^z(u)=-b_{\rm ext}j(u)$.

517: The equations then remain as given in (\ref{eq:slab1}), including the

518: boundary conditions, with the only but important difference that the factor

519: $(b^2_{\rm ext}-e^2_{\rm ext})$ appearing in the LG equation is

520: of course replaced by $b^2_{\rm ext}$ only. Hence, the noncovariant

521: LG equations only admit the magnetic regime of solutions.

522: Note that in this case, the solutions for $j(u)$ and $f(u)$ are

523: then also functions of the $b^2_{\rm ext}$ external field only.

524: Consideration of the expression for the free energy then leads to

525: the following condition of criticality in the $(b,e)$ phase diagram

526: in the noncovariant case,

527: \begin{equation}

528: b^2+\frac{1}{\left[1-\frac{1}{u_a}j(u_a)\right]}e^2=

529: \frac{1}{\left[1-\frac{1}{u_a}j(u_a)\right]}\,

530: \frac{1}{u_a}\int_0^{u_a}du\left[

531: b^2j^2f^2+\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2f^4\right]\ .

532: \label{eq:critical2}

533: \end{equation}

534: In spite of the apparent similarity with (\ref{eq:critical1}), recall

535: however that the r.h.s. of this expression is a function of $b^2$ only,

536: while the l.h.s. is no longer the simple combination $b^2+e^2$

537: characteristic of a circle since the coefficient multiplying the term

538: in $e^2$ is also a function of $b^2$.

539: 

540: Note that the conditions (\ref{eq:critical1}) and (\ref{eq:critical2})

541: coincide in the limit that no electric field is applied, $e=0$, as they

542: should of course. Moreover in the absence of any magnetic field, $b=0$,

543: (\ref{eq:critical2}) implies the existence of a nonvanishing critical

544: electric field, $e_0=\kappa/\sqrt{2}$, or in physical units

545: $E_0(T)/c=\left(\lambda(0)/\lambda(T)\right)^2B^\infty_c(0)$,

546: $B^\infty_c(0)=\Phi_0/(2\sqrt{2}\pi\lambda(0)\xi(0))$ being the usual

547: thermodynamic critical magnetic field in the bulk at zero temperature.

548: Clearly, the existence of such a critical electric field even in the

549: noncovariant approach is consequence of our definition for the free

550: energy in (\ref{eq:E1}) which accounts for the expulsed electric

551: energy density through the term in $\left[\vec{e}-\vec{e}_{\rm ext}\right]^2$.

552: In particular, this critical electric field $E_0(T)$ vanishes

553: at the critical temperature $T_c$, as does the critical magnetic field

554: $B_0(T)$ in the absence of any electric field, $e=0$.

555: 

556: \vspace{10pt}

557: 

558: \noindent{\bf 4. The $(B,E)$ phase diagram.}

559: A complete unravelling of the consequences of the criticality conditions

560: (\ref{eq:critical1}) and (\ref{eq:critical2}) requires of course

561: a numerical approach. Nevertheless, an analysis in some limiting

562: situations already suffices to gain insight into the differences

563: implied by the two models. An obvious such situation is obtained in

564: the macroscopic limit, namely when the slab half-thickness $a$ is

565: much larger than both the penetration and coherence lengths. For all

566: practical purposes, the function $j(u)$ then essentially vanishes

567: whereas the order parameter retains its canonical value of unity 

568: within most of the volume of the sample, except for a small region close

569: to the surface. Hence in the above expressions of criticality,

570: in the limit that $a\rightarrow\infty$, only the contribution in

571: $\kappa^2f^4/2$ tends to dominate, leading in both cases to the

572: condition,

573: \begin{equation}

574: b^2+e^2\simeq \frac{1}{2}\kappa^2\ \ \ ,\ \ \ a\gg\lambda(T),\xi(T)\ .

575: \label{eq:macro1}

576: \end{equation}

577: Since this will prove to be useful, let us normalize the measurement

578: of these fields to the value $b_0$ of the critical magnetic

579: field in the absence of any electric field (in the macroscopic limit,

580: we thus have $b_0=\kappa/\sqrt{2}$). In terms of the physical

581: quantities, one then obtains the following approximation to the

582: criticality condition in the $(B,E)$ phase diagram

583: \begin{equation}

584: \left(\frac{B}{B_0}\right)^2+\left(\frac{E/c}{B_0}\right)^2\simeq 1\ \ \ ,

585: \ \ \ a\gg\lambda(T),\xi(T)\ .

586: \label{eq:macro2}

587: \end{equation}

588: Hence in the macroscopic limit, the two models are not distinguished

589: in their $(B,E)$ phase diagrams. In particular, both their critical

590: magnetic, $B_0$, and electric, $E_0$, fields (in the absence each time

591: of the other field) reach a vanishing value at the critical

592: temperature $T_c$.

593: 

594: Consider now the nanoscopic limit, namely when $a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)$.

595: In practice, this situation may be encountered indeed for nanoscopic

596: samples close to the critical temperature $T_c$. In such a case,

597: one may develop series expansion solutions in $u$ for the functions $j(u)$

598: and $f(u)$ in order to evaluate the criticality conditions 

599: (\ref{eq:critical1}) and (\ref{eq:critical2}). However, since

600: contributions of order $b^2$ and $e^2$ appear on both sides of these

601: equations, in order to be of sufficient accuracy,

602: the expansion in $u$ must at the same time include at least

603: the first order corrections in $b^2$ and $e^2$ in the r.h.s. of

604: (\ref{eq:critical1}) and (\ref{eq:critical2}) as well. 

605: For this reason, it is more relevant to consider a weak field

606: expansion for the solutions independently of whether $u_a$ is small or not, 

607: to be used to compute to first order in $b^2$ and $e^2$ the r.h.s. of 

608: the criticality conditions above, and then 

609: eventually take the nanoscopic limit. Note that given the result 

610: (\ref{eq:macro1}), critical fields are at least of the order of 

611: $\kappa/\sqrt{2}$, so that such a weak field expansion should be

612: warranted for small values of the LG parameter $\kappa$, namely 

613: for type I superconductors.

614: 

615: After some work, one then finds that the criticality conditions

616: (\ref{eq:critical1}) and (\ref{eq:critical2}),

617: evaluated to first order in $b^2$ and $e^2$, imply the following

618: constraint on the physical fields in the $(B,E)$ phase diagram,

619: \begin{equation}

620: \left(\frac{B}{B_0}\right)^2+C\left(\frac{E/c}{B_0}\right)^2\simeq 1\ ,

621: \label{eq:nano1}

622: \end{equation}

623: where as before $B_0$ stands for the critical magnetic field value

624: in the absence of any electric field, $E=0$, which is in general a function

625: of temperature and of $a$ of course, while $C$ is a factor

626: given by the following expressions,

627: \begin{equation}

628: \begin{array}{r c l}

629: {\rm covariant\ model}&:&\ \ C=\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)\ ,\\

630:  & & \\

631: {\rm noncovariant\ model}&:&\ \ 

632: C=\left(\frac{u_a}{u_a-\tanh u_a}\right)

633: \left(\frac{1}{1-\beta}\right)\ ,

634: \end{array}

635: \end{equation}

636: where

637: \begin{displaymath}

638: \beta=\frac{u_a}{16(u_a-\tanh u_a)^2}\frac{1}{(\kappa^2-2)^2}\left\{

639: 8\kappa\sqrt{2}\frac{\tanh^2u_a}{\tanh(\kappa\sqrt{2}u_a)}-

640: (3\kappa^4-10\kappa^2+16)\tanh u_a+\right.

641: \end{displaymath}

642: \begin{equation}

643: \left.+(5\kappa^4-22\kappa^2+16)\tanh^3u_a

644: +(\kappa^2-2)(3\kappa^2-4)\frac{u_a}{\cosh^4u_a}\right\}\ .

645: \label{eq:B}

646: \end{equation}

647: 

648: These expressions are valid in the weak field approximation to

649: first order whatever the value for $a$. Taking now the nanoscopic limit 

650: as well, one finds $\left(1-\tanh(u_a)/u_a\right)^{-1}=

651: 3/u^2_a\left[1+{\cal O}(u^2_a)\right]$

652: and $\beta=1/2\left[1+{\cal O}(u^2_a)\right]$, leading finally to the

653: following criticality conditions in the $(B,E)$ phase diagram

654: in the weak field limit,

655: \begin{equation}

656: \begin{array}{r c l c l}

657: {\rm covariant\ model}&:&\ \ 

658: \left(\frac{B}{B_0}\right)^2+3\left(\frac{E/c}{B_0}\right)^2\simeq 1\ &,&

659: \ a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)\ ,\\

660:  & & & & \\

661: {\rm noncovariant\ model}&:&\ \ 

662: \left(\frac{B}{B_0}\right)^2+6\left(\frac{\lambda(0)}{a}\right)^2

663: \frac{1}{1-\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^4}\left(\frac{E/c}{B_0}\right)^2\simeq 

664: 1\ &,& \ a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)\ .

665: \label{eq:nano2}

666: \end{array}

667: \end{equation}

668: Since the critical magnetic field $B_0$ does vanish towards the

669: critical temperature $T=T_c$, so do all the critical fields $B$ and $E$

670: which are defined by either of these relations, and thus in particular also

671: the critical electric field $E_0$ in the absence of any magnetic field,

672: $B=0$, as was already remarked previously in the noncovariant case. 

673: However, by having chosen to normalize the measurements of these fields 

674: to $B_0$, a very distinctive feature appears for the covariant model when

675: compared to the noncovariant one. Indeed, the ratio $E/(cB_0)$ always retains

676: a finite and nonvanishing value, whatever the critical values for $B$ and

677: $E$ within the intervals $[0,B_0]$ and $[0,E_0]$, {\sl even in the limit 

678: of the critical temperature $T_c$\/}, whereas in the noncovariant model,

679: that same ratio $E/(cB_0)$ must vanish like $\sqrt{1-(T/T_c)^4}$ (given our

680: chosen model for $\lambda(T)$). In particular, in the weak field

681: approximation and including the result (\ref{eq:macro1}) valid for 

682: macroscopic samples, one thus derives in the covariant case the following

683: bounds for the critical electric field $E_0$,

684: \begin{equation}

685: \sqrt{\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}}<\frac{E_0/c}{B_0}<1\ ,

686: \label{eq:boundE0cov1}

687: \end{equation}

688: with $E_0/(cB_0)$ moving towards lower values within that interval

689: when the critical temperature $T_c$ is approached (recall that $\beta$

690: is also temperature dependent through $u_a$). In the nanoscopic limit 

691: $a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)$, these same bounds reduce to

692: \begin{equation}

693: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}<\frac{E_0/c}{B_0}<1\ .

694: \label{eq:boundE0cov2}

695: \end{equation}

696: In contradistinction in the noncovariant case, the lower bound 

697: on $E_0/(cB_0)$ always vanishes, since one then finds,

698: \begin{equation}

699: \sqrt{\left(1-\frac{1}{u_a}\tanh u_a\right)(1-\beta)}<\frac{E_0/c}{B_0}<1\ ,

700: \label{eq:boundE0non1}

701: \end{equation}

702: reducing in the nanoscopic limit $a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)$ to

703: \begin{equation}

704: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\frac{a}{\lambda(0)}\right)

705: \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^4}<\frac{E_0/c}{B_0}<1\ .

706: \label{eq:boundE0non2}

707: \end{equation}

708: 

709: As a matter of fact, this type of consideration may be refined further

710: still in the covariant case. Indeed, an obvious solution to the covariant LG

711: equations is $j(u)=\sinh u/\cosh u_a$, $f(u)=1$ in the case that

712: $e_{\rm ext}=b_{\rm ext}$, a fact which, as was remarked previously, is

713: a distinctive feature of the covariant approach, since this solution

714: defines precisely the boundary between the magnetic and electric regimes

715: of superconductivity, and as such its existence is a direct consequence

716: of Lorentz covariance. Hence, the critical condition 

717: (\ref{eq:critical1}) for the corresponding fields $b_1$ and $e_1$ 

718: simplifies in this specific instance to the exact result, valid under all

719: circumstances,

720: \begin{equation}

721: b_1^2+e_1^2=2b_1^2=2e_1^2=\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2

722: \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{u_a}\tanh u_a}\ .

723: \end{equation}

724: When the weak field approximation is also warranted for the evaluation

725: of the critical magnetic field $B_0$, this result combines

726: with those above to lead to the following bounds,

727: \begin{equation}

728: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-\beta}<\frac{B_1}{B_0}=\frac{E_1/c}{B_0}<

729: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ ,

730: \label{eq:boundE1cov1}

731: \end{equation}

732: and in the nanoscopic limit,

733: \begin{equation}

734: \frac{1}{2}<\frac{B_1}{B_0}=\frac{E_1/c}{B_0}<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ \ \ ,

735: \ \ \ a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)\ ,

736: \label{eq:boundE1cov2}

737: \end{equation}

738: whereas in the noncovariant case, one finds similarly in the

739: nanoscopic limit

740: \begin{equation}

741: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+6\left(\frac{\lambda(0)}{a}\right)^2

742: \frac{1}{1-\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^4}}}<

743: \frac{B_1}{B_0}=\frac{E_1/c}{B_0}<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ 

744: \ \ \ a\ll\lambda(T),\xi(T)\ .

745: \label{eq:boundE1non2}

746: \end{equation}

747: Hence here again for those specific configurations such that 

748: $B_{\rm ext}=E_{\rm ext}/c$, the lower bound on $B_1/B_0$

749: reaches a vanishing value at the critical temperature in the

750: noncovariant case, whereas that lower bound remains finite and is only

751: mildly temperature dependent in the covariant case.

752: 

753: The existence of such finite bounds on the values for $E_1/(cB_1)$ 

754: as a function of temperature in the covariant case, translates into

755: the following nice characterization in terms of the $(B/B_0,E/(cB_0)$ phase

756: diagram. Indeed, the limits (\ref{eq:boundE1cov2}) (which are more

757: refined in (\ref{eq:boundE1cov1})) imply that the phase boundary

758: curve in that diagram must always cross the diagonal line $B=E/c$ within the 

759: interval of $B/B_0$ or $E/(cB_0)$ values defined by these bounds in 

760: the covariant model, whatever the value for the temperature (see Fig.1). 

761: Such a property is simply not met in the noncovariant model (see Fig.2). 

762: Similarly, the lower bounds 

763: (\ref{eq:boundE0cov1}) or (\ref{eq:boundE0cov2}) on $E_0/(cB_0)$ imply that, 

764: when approaching the critical temperature, the same phase boundary curve 

765: at $B/B_0=0$ cannot move below a specific finite value in the covariant model, 

766: while it must necessarily do so in the noncovariant one.

767: 

768: As a conclusion thus, which should remain valid beyond the

769: specific limits con\-si\-de\-red here, it appears that by choosing 

770: to normalize the measurement of critical electric and magnetic fields 

771: to the critical magnetic field in the absence of any electric field, 

772: for a given nanoscopic sample with this specific geometry of applied

773: fields and by approaching the critical temperature,

774: the $(B,E)$ phase diagram provides the necessary distinctive features

775: which should enable to discriminate experimentally between the covariant

776: and noncovariant mo\-dels, and in any case confirm or invalidate the

777: description offered by the Lorentz covariant LG equations. Indeed, as

778: was remarked previously, the ordinary noncovariant framework is not

779: physically realistic when it comes to nanoscopic samples in the presence

780: of electric fields, since it ignores the partial penetration, albeit

781: small, of the electric field into the sample's surface.

782: The present analysis has concentrated on the weak field approximation,

783: essentially in the nanoscopic limit. Similar distinctive differences

784: between the two models should also exist for larger values of $\kappa$,

785: in ways still to be investigated requiring then a detailed numerical 

786: study which is not pursued in this Letter.

787: 

788: 

789: \vspace{10pt}

790: 

791: \noindent{\bf 5. Numerical solutions.}

792: Here, we present the results of the numerical resolution of the

793: LG equations and of the criticality conditions 

794: (\ref{eq:critical1}) and (\ref{eq:critical2}) for only

795: one situation, which is close enough both to the discussion of the

796: previous section and to an experimentally realistic situation.

797: Namely, we take the following parameter values

798: \begin{equation}

799: \frac{a}{\lambda(0)}=5\ \ \ ,\ \ \ \kappa=0.02\ .

800: \label{eq:values}

801: \end{equation}

802: Indeed, this value for $\kappa$ is typical for aluminium (Al),

803: while tabulated values of $\lambda(0)$ 

804: for Al---$\lambda(0)=16-50$ nm with $T_c=1.18$ K---would imply that

805: the slab is then a few hundred nanometers thick,

806: within reach of present lithographic techniques for Al on

807: a SiO$_2$ substrate. Moreover, the critical magnetic field $B^\infty_c(0)$

808: for Al is also on the order of 100 Gauss, so that the required

809: electric field values for a measurement of the $(B,E)$ phase

810: diagram would reach into 3 MV/m, namely 3 V/$\mu$m, certainly

811: also a reasonable range of values for such a nanoscopic device.

812: Of course, compared to the infinite slab model, such a device will

813: be subjected to finite size corrections. Presumably, such corrections

814: would imply that the role played by $\lambda(T)$ and $\kappa$ in our

815: analysis would be replaced by some effective quantities whose values

816: would not differ to a great extent from those of Al in the bulk.

817: Such corrections may be assessed only once a specific device is designed.

818: 

819: In Fig.1 (resp. Fig.2), we present the 

820: $(B/B_0,E/(cB_0))$ phase diagram for the covariant (resp. noncovariant) 

821: model, given the values in (\ref{eq:values}), for a series of temperatures 

822: in the range from $T=0$ to $T=T_c$. The general behaviour

823: of the phase diagram as a function of temperature is indeed the one described

824: in the previous section. In particular in the covariant model,

825: and as a function of temperature, the critical electric field values 

826: $E_0/(cB_0)$ and $E_1/(cB_0)$ obey the different 

827: finite lower (and upper bounds) derived from the analytical discussion,

828: including those given in (\ref{eq:boundE0cov1}) and (\ref{eq:boundE1cov1})

829: when considering the associated values for $\beta$. In contradistinction,

830: in the noncovariant case, the ratio $E/(cB_0)$ reaches a

831: vanishing value when approaching the critical temperature, while in this

832: case as well it way be checked that the different lower bounds 

833: (\ref{eq:boundE0non1}), (\ref{eq:boundE0non2}) and

834: (\ref{eq:boundE1non2}) are indeed also obeyed.

835: 

836: Such results, as well as the other considerations of this Letter

837: show that it should be possible to experimentally 

838: discriminate between the ordinary noncovariant LG equations and 

839: the covariant ones advocated here, by determining the critical

840: $(B,E)$ phase diagram of a nanoscopic superconducting sample for 

841: temperatures approaching its critical temperature. 

842: The geometry of the applied fields is crucial

843: for this purpose, with the external magnetic field parallel to the

844: sample's surface and the external electric field perpendicular to it.

845: By normalizing the measurement of fields to that of the critical magnetic

846: field in the absence of any electric field, distinctive differences

847: between the two approaches are best brought to the fore, and should

848: enable to confirm or invalidate the covariant approach. Moreover,

849: if the experiment should also allow for an absolute calibration

850: of the applied fields, the comparison between the two models may be

851: refined still further by considering the temperature dependency of the

852: critical value for applied magnetic $B$ and electric $E/c$ fields of

853: equal magnitude, this temperature dependency being

854: constrained to lie within a specific interval

855: whose existence is a direct consequence of the manifest Lorentz covariance

856: of the covariant model. We hope to be able to report on such measurements in 

857: the future, but lithographic problems have hindered any progress until now.

858: 

859: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.}

860: J.G. wishes to thank Peter van Nieuwenhuizen and the members of the

861: C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics at the State University of

862: New York at Stony Brook for their kind hospitality. The work

863: of G.S. is financially supported as a Scientific Collaborator of the

864: ``Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique" (FNRS, Belgium).

865: 

866: \clearpage

867: 

868: \newpage

869: 

870: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

871: 

872: \bibitem{Tinkham} See for example,\\

873: M. Tinkham, {\sl Introduction to Superconductivity\/}, 2nd Edition

874: (McGraw Hill, New York, 1996);\\

875: J.R. Waldram, {\sl Superconductivity of Metals and Cuprates\/}

876: (Institute of Physics, Bristol, 1996).

877: 

878: \bibitem{Josephson} B.D. Josephson, {\sl Phys. Lett.\/} {\bf 16} (1965) 242.

879: 

880: \bibitem{Bok} J. Bok and J. Klein, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.\/}

881: {\bf 20} (1968) 660.

882: 

883: \bibitem{Kolacek} J. Kol\'a\u{c}ek and E. Kawate, {\sl Phys. Lett.\/}

884: {\bf A 260} (1999) 300;\\

885: J. Kol\'a\u{c}ek and P. Va\u{s}ek, {\sl Hall voltage

886: sign reversal in type II superconductors\/}, {\tt cond-mat/9911222};\\

887: J. Kol\'a\u{c}ek, P. Lipavsk\'y and V. \u{S}pi\u{c}ka,

888: {\sl Electric field in type II superconductors\/}, {\tt cond-mat/9911283}.

889: 

890: \bibitem{Weinberg} S. Weinberg, {\sl The Quantum Theory of Fields\/}

891: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996), Vol. II, pp. 332-352.

892: 

893: \bibitem{Gov1} J. Govaerts, G. Stenuit, D. Bertrand and O. van der Aa,

894: {\sl Phys. Lett.\/} {\bf A 267 } (2000) 56 ({\tt cond-mat/9908451}).

895: 

896: \bibitem{Gov2} J. Govaerts, in preparation.

897: 

898: \end{thebibliography}

899: 

900: \clearpage

901: 

902: \noindent{\bf Figure Captions}

903: 

904: \vspace{10pt}

905: 

906: \noindent Figure 1: The phase diagram $(B/B_0,E/(cB_0))$ for the

907: covariant LG equations with the va\-lues (\ref{eq:values}). Shown

908: from top to bottom are the curves associated to the following

909: increasing temperature values, $T/T_c=0,0.8766,0.9659,0.9935,0.9996$.

910: The diagonal line determines those configurations such that

911: $B_{\rm ext}=E_{\rm ext}/c$, the two vertical dot-dashed lines

912: at $B/B_0=1/2$ and $B/B_0=1/\sqrt{2}$ correspond to the lower and 

913: upper bounds (\ref{eq:boundE1cov2}) obeyed by the critical electric $E_1/c$ 

914: and magnetic $B_1$ fields of equal strength in the nanoscopic limit

915: of the weak field ap\-pro\-xi\-mation for the covariant LG equations,

916: while the horizontal dashed line at $E/(cB_0)=1/\sqrt{3}$ corresponds to

917: the lower bound (\ref{eq:boundE0cov2}) on the critical electric field

918: $E_0/(cB_0)$ in the same approximation.

919: The existence of these finite bounds is the distinctive prediction

920: of the covariant model and a direct consequence of its manifest Lorentz

921: covariance.

922: 

923: \vspace{20pt}

924: 

925: \noindent Figure 2: The same as in Fig.1 for the noncovariant

926: model. In this case, the horizontal and two vertical lines are displayed 

927: only for the purpose of comparison with the covariant model.

928: 

929: 

930: \end{document}

931: