1: % \documentclass[aps,superscriptaddress,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}
2: % \documentclass[aps,superscriptaddress,showpacs,preprint,tightenlines]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{latexsym}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7:
8: \frenchspacing
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Structure of the superconducting state in a fully
12: frustrated wire network \\ with dice lattice geometry}
13:
14: \author{S. E. Korshunov}
15: \affiliation{L. D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics,
16: Kosygina 2, Moscow 119334, Russia}
17: \affiliation
18: {Laboratoire de Physique Th\'{e}orique et Hautes
19: \'{E}nergies, CNRS UMR 7589, \\
20: Universit\'{e} Paris VI and VII,
21: 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France}
22:
23: \author{B. Dou\c{c}ot}
24: \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique Th\'{e}orique et Hautes
25: \'{E}nergies, CNRS UMR 7589, \\
26: Universit\'{e} Paris VI and VII,
27: 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France}
28:
29:
30: \date{October 22, 2004}
31:
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: The superconducting state in a fully frustrated wire network
35: with the dice lattice geometry is investigated in the vicinity
36: of the transition temperature.
37: We express the projection of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy
38: functional on its unstable subspace
39: % (which is required for the implementation of
40: % the Abrikosov's variational procedure)
41: in terms of variables
42: defined on the triangular sublattice of sixfold coordinated sites.
43: For the resulting effective model, we construct a large class of
44: degenerate equilibrium configurations, which are in one to one
45: correspondence with ground states of the fully frustrated $XY$ model
46: with a dice lattice. The entropy of this set of states is proportional
47: to the linear size of the system. Finally, we show that
48: magnetic interactions between currents provide a degeneracy
49: lifting mechanism and find the structure of the periodic state
50: selected by these interactions.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \pacs{74.81.Fa, 64.60.Cn, 05.20.-y}
54:
55: \maketitle
56:
57: \section{introduction}
58:
59: The concept of frustration has been a common link among various
60: problems in statistical mechanics for the past two decades at least.
61: Even in the absence of disorder, it often results in a phenomenon of
62: competition between several degenerate ground-states. Superconducting
63: wire networks provide a very appealing class of systems where many subtle
64: effects induced by frustration can be observed experimentally and
65: analyzed theoretically~\cite{dG,A,AH,PCR,PCRV,WRP,SL,GG,NN}.
66:
67: For simple regular networks, a natural parameter characterizing
68: the strength of the frustration is the ratio $f=\Phi/\Phi_{0}$
69: where $\Phi$ is the external magnetic flux through an elementary
70: plaquette of the lattice and $\Phi_{0}=hc/2e$ is the
71: superconducting flux quantum. For an ideal network of very thin
72: wires, all physical properties are expected to be periodic
73: functions of $f$, all integer values being equivalent. In this
74: case, the maximal frustration is obtained when $f$ reaches
75: half-integer values. Such fluxes are interesting because already
76: for a single loop, they provide two equivalent ground states,
77: distinguished by the orientation of the supercurrent flowing
78: around the loop. For more complex geometries, two adjacent loops
79: (sharing a common link) have a lower free energy when the currents
80: in them flow in opposite directions. The possibility to fulfill
81: this requirement for any pair of adjacent loops is a geometrical
82: property of a given lattice, which allows one to be sure about the
83: structure of the superconducting state without any additional
84: analysis. This clearly holds for a square lattice~\cite{TJ}
85: (where vortices of alternating signs form a regular checkerboard
86: pattern) or for a triangular lattice.
87:
88: In recent years, network geometries which do not satisfy this criterion
89: have received a lot of attention. The most studied examples are
90: the honeycomb~\cite{Teitel85,Shih85,Korshunov86,Xiao02,Lin02}, the
91: {\em kagome}~\cite{Xiao02,Lin02,LN,HR,Rzchowski97,Higgins00,PH,K02},
92: and the dice~\cite{VMD,Abil,Pannetier01,Serret02,K01,Cataudella03}
93: lattices. On the honeycomb lattice, the discrete degeneracy of the
94: classical ground states in fully frustrated
95: superconducting wire networks or Josephson junction arrays
96: can be described in terms of formation of zero-energy
97: domain walls in parallel to each other~\cite{Korshunov86}, the residual
98: entropy of such system being proportional to its linear size. Experimentally,
99: a cusp-like local maximum in the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$
100: is observed as the external magnetic field is varied around the value
101: corresponding to $f=1/2$~\cite{Xiao02}. This behavior has been interpreted
102: as an evidence for a degeneracy lifting mechanism which selects a
103: commensurate ordered pattern of vortices~\cite{Xiao02}.
104:
105: For the {\em kagome} lattice, the residual entropy of classical
106: ground states is much larger, since it is proportional to the whole
107: network area~\cite{HR,Elser}. The experimental situation at
108: $f=1/2$ is not as clearcut as for the honeycomb lattice, since the shape
109: of $T_c$ versus magnetic field curves near $f=1/2$ depends on the resistive
110: criterion chosen to determine $T_c$~\cite{Higgins00}, or on the superconducting
111: metal (aluminium versus niobium for instance~\cite{Xiao02}).
112: Theoretically, various degeneracy lifting mechanisms have been studied in
113: detail by Park and Huse~\cite{PH}.
114:
115: On the dice lattice (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}),
116: the residual entropy is proportional
117: to the system linear size~\cite{K01}, as for the honeycomb lattice.
118: Experimentally, magnetic decoration experiments~\cite{Pannetier01,Serret02}
119: have found a highly disordered vortex pattern, with a vortex correlation length
120: comparable to the lattice spacing. Numerical simulations~\cite{Cataudella03}
121: of the corresponding $XY$ model support the picture proposed in
122: Ref.~\onlinecite{K01} for the ground states, but also
123: demonstrate, at low temperatures, an unusually slow relaxation of
124: energy, as well as aging of phase correlation functions.
125:
126: \begin{figure}[b]
127: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{nwd-fig1.eps}
128: \caption[Fig. 1]
129: {Finite cluster with the dice lattice geometry.}
130: \label{fig1}
131: \end{figure}
132:
133: In this article we consider maximally frustrated superconducting
134: networks on a dice lattice, in the immediate vicinity of the
135: superconducting transition temperature. In this limit, the
136: amplitude of the superconducting order-parameter is not
137: necessarily uniform, and it is appropriate to use a generalization
138: of the approach introduced by Abrikosov~\cite{Abr} in his first
139: prediction of vortex lattices in type II superconductors. The main
140: idea underlying this approximation is that at $T_c(H)$, only a
141: small fraction of the eigenmodes of the linearized Ginzburg-Landau
142: equations become unstable. Abrikosov developed a variational
143: procedure where the superconducting order-parameter is constrained
144: to remain in this unstable subspace (for $T\rightarrow T_c(H)$
145: this procedure is asymptotically exact). Minimizing the quartic
146: term in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy functional yields then
147: periodic vortex lattice solutions.
148:
149: Adopting this approach to a dice lattice network is quite
150: interesting since the corresponding eigenmodes (for $f=1/2$) have
151: unusually high degeneracy and exhibit the unexpected property of
152: an extreme form of spacial localization. It is indeed possible to
153: construct an eigenfunction basis for which each member is
154: non-vanishing only on a {\em finite} cluster~\cite{VMD,Vidal01}.
155: This phenomenon arises from the Aharonov-Bohm interference effect
156: which is magnified in the geometry of the dice lattice, and these
157: {\em Aharonov-Bohm cages} have been evidenced experimentally by
158: the observation of magnetoresistance oscillations in ballistic
159: semiconductor networks~\cite{Naud01} with the flux period $hc/e$
160: per elementary loop.
161:
162: The main result of the present study is that in maximally
163: frustrated superconducting wire network non-linear effects select
164: a class of order-parameter configurations in one to one
165: correspondence with the ground states of the fully frustrated $XY$
166: model with the same geometry~\cite{K01}, which may be viewed as a
167: low temperature approximation for the Ginzburg-Landau model
168: ignoring amplitude variations (London limit). However, the
169: inclusion into analysis of the magnetic energy leads to the
170: removal of the accidental degeneracy and selection of one of the
171: periodic states minimizing the Ginzburg-Landau free energy.
172: The same state has the lowest free energy also at lower
173: temperatures (down to London limit), as well as in Josephson
174: junction arrays with the same geometry.
175:
176: In sections~\ref{HarmonicFE} and~\ref{quarticFE},
177: we express the Ginzburg-Landau functional for a fully frustrated
178: dice lattice wire network after projection on the subspace of
179: unstable modes in terms of complex variables defined on the triangular
180: sublattice of sixfold coordinated sites.
181: Section~\ref{Minimization} describes the construction
182: of periodic equilibrium states for this effective problem,
183: and their extension to a larger class of degenerate states whose
184: precise connection with those proposed for the corresponding $XY$
185: model is established.
186: Finally, section~\ref{Selection} investigates a degeneracy
187: lifting due to magnetic interaction between currents.
188:
189:
190: \section{Harmonic contribution to free energy}
191: \label{HarmonicFE}
192: \subsection{A single wire}
193:
194: In the framework of the Ginzburg-Landau approximation the free
195: energy of a thin superconducting wire, $F^{\rm GL}_{\rm wire}$,
196: can be written as the sum of the two terms,
197: \begin{eqnarray}
198: F^{\rm (2)}_{\rm wire}
199: &=&\int_{0}^{L}dx\,\left\{-\frac{\alpha}{2}|\Delta(x)|^2 \mbox{}+
200: \right.\label{a1a}\\
201: %+\frac{\beta}{4}|\Delta(x)|^4
202: & &\left. \mbox{}+\frac{\gamma}{2}\left|\left[-i\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
203: -\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_0}A_\|(x)\right]\Delta(x)\right|^2\right\} \nonumber
204: %\equiv F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}+F^{(4)}_{\rm wire}\;,
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: and
207: \begin{equation}
208: F^{(4)}_{\rm wire}=\frac{\beta}{4}\int_{0}^{L}dx\,|\Delta(x)|^4
209: \;, \label{a1b}
210: \end{equation}
211: describing, respectively, the harmonic and the fourth-order
212: contributions to $F^{\rm GL}_{\rm wire}$. Here
213: \makebox{$\alpha\propto T_{c0}-T$}, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the
214: coefficients of the Ginzburg-Landau expansion, $L$ is the length
215: and $T_{c0}$ the mean field transition temperature of the wire,
216: $\Delta(x)$ is the superconducting order parameter as a function
217: of the coordinate $x$ along the wire, $A_\|(x)$ is the projection
218: of the vector potential on the wire and $\Phi_0=hc/2e$ is the
219: superconducting flux quantum.
220:
221: At the point of phase transition $|\Delta(x)|\rightarrow 0$ and
222: $F^{(4)}_{\rm wire}$ can be neglected in comparison with
223: $F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}$. For the given values of $\Delta(x)$ at the
224: ends of the wire,
225: \begin{equation}
226: \Delta(0)=\Delta_0\;,~~\Delta(L)=\Delta_1\;, \label{a2}
227: \end{equation}
228: the minimum of $F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}$ is achieved when \cite{A}
229: \begin{equation}
230: \Delta(x)=\left[\Delta_0\sin\frac{L-x}{\xi}+\Delta_1\sin\frac{x}{\xi}
231: \exp({-i{A}_{01}})\right]\frac{\exp\,i{ a}(x)}{\sin\eta}\;,
232: \label{a3}
233: \end{equation}
234: where $\eta={L}/{\xi}$,
235: \begin{equation}
236: \xi\equiv\xi(T)=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}
237: \approx \frac{\overline{\xi}}{\sqrt{1-T/T_{c0}}} \label{a4}
238: \end{equation}
239: is the temperature dependent correlation length [here
240: \makebox{$\overline{\xi}\sim\xi(T=0)$]}, the function ${a}(x)$ is
241: defined by the integral
242: \begin{equation}
243: { a}(x)=\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_0}\int_{0}^{x}dx'\, A_\|(x')\;, \label{a5}
244: \end{equation}
245: whereas $A_{01}$ is the value of this integral for the whole wire,
246: ${A}_{01}={a}(L)$.
247:
248: Substitution of Eq. (\ref{a3}) into the expression
249: for the superconducting current in the wire,
250: \begin{equation}
251: I(x)=\frac{2e}{\hbar}\gamma\,\mbox{Re}\left[\Delta^*(x)
252: \left(-i\frac{\partial}{\partial
253: x}-\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_0}A_\|\right)\Delta(x)\right]\;, \label{a7a}
254: \end{equation}
255: shows that the value of the current is constant along the wire
256: and is given by
257: \begin{equation}
258: I_{01}=-\frac{2e}{\hbar}\frac{\gamma}{\xi\sin\eta}\mbox{Im}
259: \left[\Delta_{0}\Delta_{1}^{*}e^{iA_{01}}\right]\;. \label{a7b}
260: \end{equation}
261:
262: On the other hand substitution of Eq. (\ref{a3}) into Eq.
263: (\ref{a1a}) gives a simple quadratic form of $\Delta_0$ and
264: $\Delta_1$ \cite{SL}:
265: \begin{equation}
266: F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}(\Delta_0,\Delta_1,{A}_{01})
267: =F_2\cdot\left[\cos\eta\left(|\Delta_0|^2+|\Delta_1|^2\right)
268: -\langle\Delta_0|\Delta_1\rangle \right]\;, \label{a6}
269: \end{equation}
270: where $F_2=\gamma/(2\xi\sin\eta)$ and
271: \begin{equation}
272: \langle\Delta_j|\Delta_k\rangle=\Delta_j\Delta_k^* e^{i{A}_{jk}}
273: +\Delta_j^*\Delta_k e^{-i{A}_{jk}}\;. \label{a6b}
274: \end{equation}
275:
276: \subsection{An arbitrary network}
277:
278: The function $F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}$ defined by Eq. (\ref{a6}) can be
279: then used to express the harmonic part of a free energy of a
280: superconducting wire network $F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}$ in terms of the
281: values of the superconducting order parameter $\Delta_{j}$ in its
282: nodes $j$,
283: \begin{equation}
284: F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}=\sum_{(jk)}F^{(2)}
285: _{\rm wire}(\Delta_j,\Delta_k,{A}_{jk})\;.
286: \label{a8}
287: \end{equation}
288: Here the summation is performed over all links $(jk)$ of a network.
289: In the following we assume that all the links are
290: identical and, therefore, the function $F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}(\Delta_j,
291: \Delta_k,{A}_{jk})$ is the same for all the links.
292:
293: In the case of a network formed by identical plaquettes it is
294: convenient to express the value of perpendicular external magnetic
295: field $H$ in terms of the number of flux quanta per single
296: plaquette: $f=HS/\Phi_0$ (here $S$ is the area of a plaquette).
297: Then the directed summation of the variables ${A}_{jk}\equiv
298: -{A}_{kj}$ along the perimeter of each plaquette in positive
299: direction (denoted below as $\sum_{\Box}$) should give
300: \begin{equation}
301: \sum_{\Box}{A}_{jk}=2\pi f\;. \label{a9}
302: \end{equation}
303: From the form of Eq. (\ref{a6}) it is evident that the shift of
304: $f$ by an integer or its reflection with respect to $f=1/2$
305: ($f\rightarrow 1-f$) do not change the form of the expression for
306: free energy (or can be taken care of by a redefinition of
307: variables), and, therefore, it is sufficient to analyze the
308: interval $0\leq f\leq 1/2$. By the analogy with frustrated $XY$
309: models \cite{TJ} a network with the maximal irreducible value of
310: $f$, that is with $f=1/2$, can be called a fully frustrated
311: network.
312:
313: When fluctuations are completely neglected, the magnetic field
314: dependence of the superconducting transition temperature in a
315: network $T_c(f)$ can be found by looking when (with the decrease
316: of temperature) the quadratic form defined by Eqs.
317: (\ref{a6})-(\ref{a8}) looses its positiveness.
318: To this end one has
319: to analyze the system of equations obtained by the variation of
320: $F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}$ with respect to $\Delta_{k}^*$,
321: \begin{equation}
322: \sum_{j=j(k)}\left[\Delta_k\cos\eta-\Delta_{j}
323: e^{i{A}_{jk}}\right]=0\;, \label{a10}
324: \end{equation}
325: where $j(k)$ are the nodes connected with $k$ by the links of a
326: network (in the following we call them the nearest neighbors of
327: $k$). The same equations can be derived \cite{A,dG} directly in
328: the framework of the continuous description without explicit
329: calculation of $F^{(2)}_{\rm wire}(\Delta_{j},\Delta_{k},A_{jk})$.
330: Multiplication of Eq. (\ref{a10}) by $\Delta_{k}^*$ with
331: subsequent extraction of the imaginary part allow to obtain the
332: current conservation equation,
333: \begin{equation}
334: \sum_{j=j(k)}I_{jk}=0\;. \label{a12}
335: \end{equation}
336:
337: The form of Eq. (\ref{a10}) coincides \cite{A} with that of the
338: Schr\"{o}dinger equation for a single electron hopping between the
339: sites of the lattice with the same geometry in the presence of
340: external magnetic field. As a consequence, $T_c(f)$ can be related
341: with $\epsilon_0(f)$, the largest eigenvalue of the
342: Schr\"{o}dinger equation in the same field. For a network whose
343: nodes are all characterized by the same coordination number $z$
344: this relation can be written \cite{PCRV} as
345: \begin{equation}
346: \frac{T_{c0}-T_c(f)}{T_{c0}} =
347: \left[\frac{\overline{\xi}}{L}
348: \arccos\frac{\epsilon_0(f)}{z}\right]^2\;.
349: \label{a11}
350: \end{equation}
351: Starting from the work of % Azbel \cite{Azb} and
352: Hofstadter \cite{H} (who considered the case of a square lattice),
353: the spectrum of the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for a single electron
354: hopping problem in the presence of external magnetic field has
355: been extensively studied for various types of two-dimensional
356: lattices including triangular \cite{CW}, honeycomb \cite{R}, dice
357: \cite{VMD} and {\em kagome} \cite{LN,XPCH} lattices.
358:
359: The structure of the superconducting state in the network just below
360: $T_c(f)$ is determined by the structure of the eigenfunction
361: corresponding to $\epsilon_0(f)$ \cite{WRP}.
362: The conditions for the applicability of the mean field approach
363: are discussed in Appendix A.
364:
365: \subsection{A network with a dice lattice geometry}
366:
367: Dice lattice \cite{HC,S} is formed by the sites with the
368: coordination numbers 3 and 6 in such a way that each bond connects
369: two sites with different coordination numbers (see Fig. 1). Below,
370: when discussing a dice lattice, we denote the three-fold
371: coordinated sites $k$ and the six-fold coordinated sites $j$.
372: Thus, the bond $(jk)$ of a dice lattice connects the six-fold
373: coordinated site $j$ with the three-fold coordinated site $k$.
374:
375: When considering the problem on a dice lattice it is convenient to
376: simplify the quadratic form (\ref{a8}) by minimizing it with
377: respect to all variables $\Delta_k$ defined on the three-fold
378: coordinated sites. Substitution [from Eq. (\ref{a10})] of
379: \begin{equation}
380: \Delta_k=\frac{1}{3\cos\eta}\sum_{j=j(k)} \Delta_{j} e^{i{A}_{jk}}
381: \label{b0}
382: \end{equation}
383: into Eqs. (\ref{a6})-(\ref{a8}) then gives:
384: \begin{eqnarray}
385: F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}
386: &=&\frac{F_2}{3\cos\eta}\sum_{(jj')}\left[(3\cos^2\eta-1)
387: \left(|\Delta_j|^2+|\Delta_{j'}|^2 \right) \right. \nonumber \\
388: & & \left.\mbox{}-2\cos(\pi f)
389: \left(e^{i{A}_{jj'}}\Delta_j\Delta_{j'}^*+\mbox{c.c.}\right)
390: \right] \label{b1}
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: where the summation is performed over the pairs $(jj')$ of
393: nearest neighbors on the triangular lattice formed by the six-fold
394: coordinated sites, whereas variables
395: \begin{equation}
396: {A}_{jj'}=\left[({A}_{jk'}+{A}_{k'j'})+
397: ({A}_{jk''}+{A}_{k''j'})\right]/2 \label{b2}
398: \end{equation}
399: (where $k'$ and $k''$ are the two three-fold coordinated sites
400: belonging to the same rhombus as $j$ and $j'$) are the averages of
401: $A_{jj'}$ on the two shortest paths on a network connecting the
402: nodes $j$ and $j'$. It follows from Eq. (\ref{a9}) that the
403: variables ${A}_{jj'}\equiv -{A}_{j'j}$ have to satisfy the
404: constraint
405: \begin{equation}
406: \sum_{\Box}{A}_{jj'}=3\pi f\; \label{b3}
407: \end{equation}
408: on all plaquettes of the triangular lattice. The form of Eqs.
409: (\ref{b1}) and (\ref{b3}) suggests that for $0\leq f\leq 1/2$ the
410: problem of finding $T_c(f)$ on a dice lattice is reduced to
411: analogous problem on a triangular lattice with $f$ multiplied by
412: $3/2$ and a different value of $\eta$. Accordingly, the relation
413: between the critical temperatures (expressed in terms of $\eta$)
414: in the two cases is given by
415: \begin{equation}
416: 3\cos^2\eta_c^{}(f)-1
417: =2\cos(\pi f)\cos\eta_c^\bigtriangleup (3f/2)\;. \label{b4}
418: \end{equation}
419: Analogous relation between the single electron spectra on dice and
420: triangular lattices has been derived in Ref. \onlinecite{VMD}.
421:
422: Quite remarkably, for $f=1/2$ the non-diagonal coupling
423: in Eq. (\ref{b1}) completely disappears,
424: which allows immediately to conclude that
425: \begin{equation}
426: \eta_c\left({1}/{2}\right) =\arccos({1}/{\sqrt{3}})\approx
427: 0.9553\;. \label{b5}
428: \end{equation}
429: This absence of coupling between different variables $\Delta_j$
430: can be understood as a manifestation of the extremely localized
431: nature of the highly degenerate eigenfunctions \cite{VMD}
432: corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the single electron
433: Hamiltonian.
434:
435: As a consequence, for $f=1/2$ the value of $F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}$
436: turns out to be exactly the same for any set of the variables
437: $\Delta_j$ satisfying the normalization condition
438: \begin{equation}
439: \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j}|\Delta_j|^2=\Delta^2\;, \label{b6}
440: \end{equation}
441: where $N$ is the number of the six-fold coordinated sites in the
442: network with appropriately chosen periodic boundary conditions
443: (the total number of sites being $3N$). Accordingly, to find the
444: structure of the superconducting state in a fully frustrated wire
445: network with the dice lattice geometry (which is the main subject
446: of this work) one has to minimize the fourth-order contribution to
447: free energy,
448: \begin{equation}
449: F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}=\sum_{(jk)}F^{(4)}_{\rm wire}(\Delta_j,\Delta_k,
450: {A}_{jk})\;, \label{c5}
451: \end{equation}
452: [where $\Delta_k$ is given by Eq. (\ref{b0})] with respect to the
453: whole set of the variables $\Delta_j$ satisfying the constraint
454: (\ref{b6}), which fixes also the value of $F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}$. For
455: $0<\eta-\eta_c\ll 1$
456: \begin{equation}
457: F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}\approx -12NF^{}_2\Delta^2(\sin\eta_c)
458: (\eta-\eta_c)\;, \label{c6}
459: \end{equation}
460: where we have kept only the lowest order term of the expansion
461: with respect to $\eta-\eta_c$.
462:
463: At the conceptual level, this task can be considered as analogous
464: to finding the structure of the vortex lattice which minimizes the
465: forth-order contribution to the free energy of a bulk
466: superconductor just below $H_{c2}$. In this problem (first
467: analyzed by Abrikosov \cite{Abr}), the harmonic contribution to
468: free energy is degenerate with respect to a huge number of
469: continuous variables, the positions of the order parameter
470: singularities, whereas in the present problem a huge continuous
471: degeneracy of the harmonic problem is related with variables
472: $\Delta_j$.
473:
474: \section{Fourth-order contribution to free energy}
475: \label{quarticFE}
476: \subsection{A single wire}
477:
478: Substitution of Eq. (\ref{a3}) into Eq. (\ref{a1b})
479: describing the fourth-order contribution
480: to the free energy of a superconducting wire gives
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: F^{(4)}_{\rm wire}(\Delta_{j},\Delta_{k},A_{jk}) & = & F_4 \left[
483: I_4\cdot\left(|\Delta_j|^4+|\Delta_k|^4\right)\right. \label{c2}\\
484: & + &
485: 2I_3\cdot\left(|\Delta_j|^2+|\Delta_k|^2\right)\langle\Delta_j|\Delta_k\rangle
486: \nonumber \\ & + &
487: I_2\cdot\left.\left(2|\Delta_j|^2|\Delta_k|^2
488: +\langle\Delta_j|\Delta_k\rangle^2\right)\right] \nonumber
489: \end{eqnarray}
490: where $F_4=\beta L/4$ and the numerical constants $I_n$ (with
491: $n=2,3,4$) are given by the integrals
492: \begin{equation}
493: I_n = \int_{0}^{1}dt\,\frac{\sin^n(\eta t)\sin^{4-n}[\eta(1-t)]}
494: {\sin^4\eta}\;. \label{c3}
495: \end{equation}
496: When we are interested in the structure of the superconducting
497: phase just below $T_c(f)$, the comparison of the forth order terms
498: in the free energy of different states should be made by
499: calculating them at $T=T_c(f)$. Thus, in the following we will
500: need the values of $I_n$ at
501: $\eta=\eta_c(1/2)=\arccos(1/\sqrt{3})$, which are
502: \begin{equation} \label{c4}
503: \begin{array}{rcl}
504: I_2 & = & ({15}-{9\sqrt{2}}{\eta_c}^{-1})/32
505: \approx 0.0524\;, \\
506: I_3 & = & \sqrt{3}({7\sqrt{2}}{\eta_c}^{-1}-9)/32
507: \approx 0.0737\;, \\
508: I_4 & = & ({27}-{13\sqrt{2}}{\eta_c}^{-1})/32
509: \approx 0.2424\;.
510: \end{array}
511: \end{equation}
512:
513: \subsection{A tripod of three wires}
514:
515: For $f=1/2$
516: the contribution to $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ from a tripod formed by the
517: three links $(j_a k)$ [where $j_a\equiv j_a(k)$ with $a=1,2,3$ are
518: the three nearest neighbors of $k$ numbered in the positive
519: direction] after the substitution of Eq. (\ref{b0}) can be
520: rewritten as
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: \lefteqn{F^{(4)}_{{\rm nw}}(k) = } \nonumber \\
523: & &
524: F_4 \left[
525: \frac{3\nu_1+\nu_2}{4}\sum_{a=1}^{3}|\Delta_{j_a}|^{4}+
526: \frac{\nu_1+\nu_2}{4}\left(\sum_{a=1}^{3}|\Delta_{j_a}|^{2}\right)^{2}+
527: \right. \nonumber \\
528: & &
529: +\nu_1\left(\sum_{a=1}^{3}|\Delta_{j_a}||\Delta_{j_{a+1}}|
530: \sin\chi_{j_{a}j_{a+1}}\right)^{2}+ \nonumber \\
531: & & +\nu_2\sum_{a=1}^{3}\left(|\Delta_{j_a}||\Delta_{j_{a+1}}|
532: \sin\chi_{j_{a}j_{a+1}}\right)^{2} - \label{ordre4} \\
533: & & -\nu_1\sum_{a=1}^{3}|\Delta_{j_a}||\Delta_{j_{a+1}}|
534: |\Delta_{j_{a+2}}|^{2}\sin\chi_{j_{a}j_{a+1}} - \nonumber
535: \end{eqnarray}
536: \vspace*{-5mm}
537: \[
538: -(\nu_1+\nu_3)\sum_{a=1}^{3}|\Delta_{j_a}||\Delta_{j_{a+1}}|
539: (|\Delta_{j_a}|^{2}+|\Delta_{j_{a+1}}|^{2})\left.
540: \sin\chi_{j_{a}j_{a+1}}\right]\;,
541: \]
542: where
543: \begin{eqnarray*}
544: \nu_1 & = & \frac{4}{3}I_{2}
545: +\frac{16}{3\sqrt{3}}I_{3}+\frac{4}{3}I_{4}\:, \\
546: \nu_2 & = & \frac{4}{3}I_{2} \:,\\
547: \nu_3 & = & \frac{8}{3}I_{2}+\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}I_{3} \:,
548: \end{eqnarray*}
549: whereas $\chi_{jj'}$ are the gauge-invariant phase differences
550: between the phases $\varphi_{j}$ of the order-parameter
551: \makebox{$\Delta_{j}\equiv|\Delta_{j}|\exp(i\varphi_{j})$} at
552: neighboring six-fold coordinated sites,
553: \begin{equation} \label{d3}
554: \chi_{jj'}=\varphi_{j'}-\varphi_{j} -{A}_{jj'}\equiv -\chi_{j'j}\;.
555: \end{equation}
556: It follows from Eq. (\ref{b3}) that for all tripods, or, in other
557: words, for all plaquettes of the triangular lattice formed by the
558: six-fold coordinated sites,
559: \begin{equation} \label{d3a}
560: \sum_{a=1}^{3}\chi_{j_a j_{a+1}} =-\sum_{a=1}^3 A_{j_a
561: j_{a+1}}=-3\pi/2\;.
562: \end{equation}
563: Since each plaquette of this lattice has a particular three-fold
564: coordinated site in its center, the index $k$ numbering such sites
565: can be also used for numbering triangular plaquettes.
566:
567: In the cyclic sums in Eq. (\ref{ordre4}) and analogous sums below
568: $j_4 \equiv j_1$. The last term in Eq. (\ref{ordre4}) can be
569: omitted, since during summation over the whole lattice the two
570: tripods adjacent to any link $(j_a j_b)$ always yield opposite
571: contributions.
572:
573: \subsection{The equal amplitude hypothesis}
574:
575: Let us now introduce the additional assumption (whose
576: self-consistency is established in Appendix~\ref{Consistency}) that
577: the absolute values of the variables $\Delta_j$ are the same for all
578: six-fold coordinated sites $j$,
579: \begin{equation}
580: \Delta_j=\Delta\exp(i\varphi_j)\;, \label{d1}
581: \end{equation}
582: where $\Delta$ is real.
583: In that case the contributions to
584: \begin{equation}
585: F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}=\sum_{k}F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}(k) \label{d3f}
586: \end{equation}
587: from the next but last term in Eq. (\ref{ordre4})
588: coming from the neighboring tripods also cancel each other,
589: and the expression for $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ is reduced to
590: \begin{equation}
591: F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}=F_4\Delta^4\sum_{k}\left[\nu_0 + V(\{\chi_{j_a
592: j_{a+1}}\})\right]\;, \label{d3b}
593: \end{equation}
594: where $\nu_0=(9/2)\nu_1+3\nu_2$,
595: \begin{equation} \label{d4}
596: V(\{\chi\})=
597: V(\chi_1,\chi_2,\chi_3)\equiv \nu_1\left(\sum_{a=1}^{3}\sin\chi_a
598: \right)^2 +\nu_2\sum_{a=1}^{3}\sin^2\chi_a \;
599: \end{equation}
600: and
601: \begin{equation} \label{d4b}
602: \sum_{a=1}^{3}\chi_{j_a j_{a+1}}=\pi/2 ~\mbox{(mod $2\pi$)}\;.
603: \end{equation}
604: Since $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ is invariant with respect to the shift of
605: any of the variables $\chi_{jj'}$ by a multiple of $2\pi$, here
606: and below we for convenience assume that they all are reduced to
607: the interval $[-\pi,\pi]$, in accordance with which the right hand
608: side of Eq. (\ref{d4b}) is written as $\pi/2$ (mod $2\pi$) instead
609: of $-3\pi/2$, as it would follow from Eq. (\ref{d3a}).
610:
611: At the temperature of the superconducting transition in a fully
612: frustrated wire network [that is, at $\eta=\eta_c=\eta_c(1/2)$]
613: the values of the coefficients $\nu_n$ are given by
614: \begin{equation} \label{d5}
615: \begin{array}{rcl}
616: \nu_1 & = & \frac{1}{4}(1+\sqrt{2}\eta_c^{-1})\approx 0.6201\;,\\
617: \nu_2 & = & \frac{1}{8}(5-3\sqrt{2}\eta_c^{-1}) \approx 0.0699\;, \\
618: \nu_0 & = & 3 \;.
619: \end{array}
620: \end{equation}
621:
622:
623: \section{Minimization of the fourth-order contribution to free energy}
624: \label{Minimization}
625:
626: \subsection{A single triangle}
627:
628: It is well known that the ground state \cite{DCJW,MS} of the
629: antiferromagnetic $XY$ model with triangular lattice can be found
630: by minimizing the energy separately for each triangular plaquette
631: and then matching these solutions with each other.
632:
633: For $\nu_1,\nu_2>0$ the minimum of $V(\chi_1,\chi_2,\chi_3)$ on
634: an isolated triangle [under the constraint of the form
635: (\ref{d4b})] is achieved when two of the arguments of
636: $V(\chi_1,\chi_2,\chi_3)$ are equal to each other, for example
637: \begin{equation}
638: \chi_1=\chi_2=-\psi(t)\;,~\chi_3=\pi/2+2\psi(t)\;, \label{d6a}
639: \end{equation}
640: another solution with the same value of $V(\chi_1,\chi_2,\chi_3)$
641: being
642: \begin{equation}
643: \chi_1=\chi_2=-[\pi-\psi(t)]\;,~ \chi_3=\pi/2-2\psi(t)\;,
644: \label{d6b}
645: \end{equation}
646: where $t=\nu_2/\nu_1$ and
647: \begin{equation}
648: \psi(t)=\arcsin{\frac{\sqrt{12+4t+t^2}-2+t}{4(1+t)}}\;.
649: \end{equation}
650: With increase of $t$ from zero to infinity $\psi(t)$ continuously
651: increases from $\arcsin{[(\sqrt{3}-1)/2]}\approx \pi/8$ to
652: $\pi/6$.
653:
654: In an infinite system each variable $\chi_{jj'}$ belongs
655: simultaneously to two triangles, but enters the function
656: $V(\chi_1,\chi_2,\chi_3)$ on these two triangles with the opposite
657: signs. Comparison of Eqs. (\ref{d6a}) and (\ref{d6b}) with each
658: other allows to conclude that it is impossible to minimize
659: $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ by minimizing $V(\chi_1,\chi_2,\chi_3)$
660: separately for each triangle.
661:
662: \subsection{A periodic solution}
663:
664: When variables $\chi_{jj'}$ are reduced to a finite interval, the
665: average value of $\sum_{a=1}^{3}\chi_{j_a j_{a+1}}$ should be
666: equal to zero. This can be achieved if on one quarter of triangles
667: the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{d4b}) is equal to $-3\pi/2$,
668: whereas on all remaining triangles it is really equal to $\pi/2$.
669: Accordingly, the minimal supercell of a periodic set of variables
670: $\chi_{jj'}$ should consist of four triangles.
671:
672: The four-triangle supercell with the most symmetric (triangular)
673: shape, but with the most general structure allowing for
674: construction of a periodic state by a periodic repetition of this
675: supercell, is shown in Fig. 2a. It can be described by the six
676: variables $\chi_i$ (with $i=1,\ldots,6$) defined as
677: shown in Fig. 2a and satisfying three independent constraints of
678: the form (\ref{d4b}), which can be chosen to be
679: \begin{eqnarray}
680: \chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3} & = & {\pi}/{2}\;, \label{e2a}\\
681: -\chi_{3}+\chi_{4}+\chi_{5} & = & {\pi}/{2}\;, \label{e2b} \\
682: -\chi_{1}-\chi_{5}+\chi_{6} & = & {\pi}/{2}\;, \label{e2c}
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: the fourth constraint,
685: \begin{equation}
686: -\chi_{2}-\chi_{4}-\chi_{6} = -{3\pi}/{2}\;,\label{e2d}
687: \end{equation}
688: following automatically from Eqs. (\ref{e2a})-(\ref{e2c}).
689:
690: \begin{figure}[bt]
691: \includegraphics[width=45mm]{nwd-fig2.eps}
692: \caption[Fig. 2]
693: {Construction of periodic patterns
694: minimizing the fourth-order contribution to free energy.
695: (a) A possible choice for the most symmetric four triangle supercell.
696: (b) An alternative four triangle supercell.
697: (c) The structure of the periodic solution
698: obtained from free energy minimization
699: with the supercell shown in (a) or (b). Simple arrows correspond to
700: phase differences $\chi_{jj'}$ equal to $\pm \pi/4$, double arrows
701: to $\pm 3\pi/4$, simple lines to $0$ and wiggly lines to $\pi$.}
702: \label{fig2}
703: \end{figure}
704:
705: The minimization of $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ for this supercell with
706: respect to the remaining three degrees of freedom shows that for
707: $\chi_{i}\in[-\pi,\pi]$ the minimum is achieved when
708: \begin{equation}
709: \begin{array}{ll}
710: \chi_{1}=\chi_{4}=-\pi/4 \;,~~ & \chi_{3}=0 \;, \\
711: \chi_{2}=\chi_{5}=3\pi/4 \;, & \chi_{6} =\pi\;,
712: \end{array} \label{e3}
713: \end{equation}
714: or in one of the five other states which can be constructed from
715: this state by permutations of the variables $\chi_{i}$. In
716: all these states on all triangles
717: \begin{equation}
718: \sum_{a=1}^3\sin{\chi_{j_a j_{a+1}}}=0\;, \label{e3b}
719: \end{equation}
720: which means that on each triangle the first term of $V(\{\chi\})$
721: reaches its absolute minimum ({\em i.e.}, is equal to zero).
722: Accordingly, the value of $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ in these states does
723: not depend on $\nu_1$,
724: \begin{equation}
725: F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}=2(\nu_0+{\nu_2})F_4\Delta^4 N\;.
726: \label{e4}
727: \end{equation}
728:
729: Note that the supercell defined by Eqs. (\ref{e3}) consists of
730: two pairs of equivalent (if one takes into account the equivalence
731: of $\pi$ and $-\pi$) triangles. Thus the actual size of the
732: supercell has turned out to be two times smaller than it has been
733: initially conjectured. But there was no way to predict this
734: without really performing the minimization for the four-triangle
735: supercell.
736:
737: The same solution (whose structure is shown in Fig 2c) can be also
738: found by starting from the assumption that a periodic state is
739: formed with the help of the four-triangle supercell with the
740: different shape shown in Fig. 2b. In that case the constraints
741: (\ref{e2a}) and (\ref{e2b}) retain their form, whereas in Eqs.
742: (\ref{e2c}) and (\ref{e2d}) one should interchange $\chi_1$ and
743: $\chi_4$. For this supercell the minimum of $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$
744: (for not too large ratio $\nu_2/\nu_1$) is again achieved in the
745: solution described by Eqs. (\ref{e3}) (or other equivalent
746: solutions).
747:
748: It follows from Eq. (\ref{b0}) that for $|\Delta_{j_a}|=\Delta$
749: \begin{equation}
750: |\Delta_{k}|^2=\frac{\Delta^2}{3}\left(3-2\sum_{a=1}^{3}
751: \sin\chi_{j_a j_{a+1}}\right)\;. \label{e5}
752: \end{equation}
753: Substitution of Eq. (\ref{e3b}) into Eq. (\ref{e5}) allows
754: immediately to conclude that in the solution which we have found
755: the absolute value of the order parameter on all three-fold
756: coordinated sites has the same value as on the six-fold
757: coordinated sites,
758: \begin{equation}
759: |\Delta_{k}|=|\Delta_{j}|=\Delta\;. \label{e9}
760: \end{equation}
761:
762: In addition to gauge-invariant variables $\chi_{jj'}$ defined on
763: the bonds of triangular lattice, one can, naturally, also introduce
764: the gauge-invariant phase differences defined on the bonds
765: of the original dice lattice,
766: \begin{equation}
767: \theta_{jk}=\varphi_k-\varphi_j-A_{j k}\;, \label{thetajk}
768: \end{equation}
769: where $\varphi_k\equiv\arg{(\Delta_k})$.
770: As a consequence of Eq. (\ref{a9}), the variables
771: $\theta_{jk}=-\theta_{kj}$, which we assume to be reduced to the
772: interval $(-\pi,\pi)$, have to satisfy the constraint
773: \begin{equation}
774: \sum_{\Box}{\theta}_{jk}=\pm\pi\;. \label{sumth}
775: \end{equation}
776: When Eq. (\ref{e9}) is fulfilled, the expression (\ref{a7b}) for
777: the current in a link is reduced to
778: \begin{equation}
779: I_{jk}=I_0\sin\theta_{jk}\;, \label{f4}
780: \end{equation}
781: where
782: \begin{equation}
783: I_0=\frac{2e}{\hbar}\frac{\gamma\Delta^2}{\xi\sin\eta}\;.
784: \label{f5}
785: \end{equation}
786:
787: Calculation of
788: \begin{equation}
789: \Delta_{j}\Delta_{k}^*\exp({i{A}_{j k}})
790: =\Delta^2\exp(-i\theta_{jk}) \label{e6}
791: \end{equation}
792: with the help of Eq. (\ref{b0}) demonstrates that in the
793: considered state the variables $\theta_{jk}$ have the same three
794: values (up to a permutation and a simultaneous change of sign),
795: \begin{equation}
796: \theta_{j k}= \pm \theta_{1}\;,~ \pm \theta_{2}\;,~ \mp
797: \theta_{3}\;, \label{e7}
798: \end{equation}
799: on all tripods forming dice lattice. These values have to satisfy
800: the constraints,
801: \begin{equation}
802: \theta_2-\theta_1=\pi/4\;,~~ \theta_1+\theta_3=\pi/2\;,~~
803: \theta_2+\theta_3=3\pi/4\;, \label{e8b}
804: \end{equation}
805: leading to the automatic fulfillment of Eqs. (\ref{sumth}), as
806: well as the current conservation equation,
807: \begin{equation} \label{currcons}
808: \sin\theta_1+\sin\theta_2=\sin\theta_3\;,
809: \end{equation}
810: which follows from Eq. (\ref{f4}). As a consequence, they turn out
811: to be exactly the same,
812: \begin{equation}
813: \theta_{1,3}=\arccos{\left({1}/{\sqrt{3}}\mp{1}/{\sqrt{6}}\right)}\;,~
814: \theta_{2}=\arccos\left({{1}/{\sqrt{3}}}\right)\;,
815: \label{e8}
816: \end{equation}
817: as in the ground state of the fully frustrated $XY$ model (FFXYM)
818: with a dice lattice \cite{K01}, for which the current conservation
819: equation also has the form (\ref{currcons}).
820:
821: Thus, in terms of $\theta_{jk}$, the state which we have found (it
822: is schematically shown in Fig. 3a) has exactly the same structure
823: as one of the ground states of the FFXYM with a dice lattice. It
824: has to be emphasized that the reasons for that are more subtle
825: than a simple reduction of one model to the other. Firstly, in the
826: case of a superconducting wire network the relation (\ref{e9}),
827: the form of which seems to imply a possible reduction to $XY$
828: model, is valid only in the minimum of free energy. Secondly, the
829: substitution of Eq. (\ref{e9}) into Eq. (\ref{c2}) gives
830: \begin{equation}
831: F^{(4)}_{\rm wire}(\theta_{jk})
832: =F_1[2(I_4+I_2)+8I_3\cos\theta_{jk}+4I_2\cos^2\theta_{jk}]\;,
833: \label{e10}
834: \end{equation}
835: whereas in the case of the FFXYM in the expression for the energy
836: of a bond the term proportional to $\cos^2{\theta}$ is simply
837: absent, whereas the term proportional to $\cos{\theta}$ has a
838: coefficient of the opposite (negative) sign. Thus the two models
839: do not become equivalent even if Eq. (\ref{e9}) is artificially
840: introduced as an additional assumption.
841:
842: \begin{figure*}[bt]
843: \includegraphics[width=130mm]{nwd-fig3.eps}
844: \caption{\label{fig3}
845: The four periodic states generating the class of
846: degenerate states discussed in the text by adjunction
847: of domain walls. The plaquettes with positive vorticities
848: are shaded, and the three types of arrows correspond to the three
849: possible gauge-invariant phase differences $\theta_{1}$, $\theta_{2}$,
850: $\theta_{3}$ (modulo $2\pi$). Labels are chosen to match those
851: introduced in Ref.~\onlinecite{K01}.}
852: \end{figure*}
853:
854:
855: \subsection{Additional degeneracy}
856:
857: The ground state of the FFXYM with a dice lattice is known to
858: possess a well-developed accidental degeneracy, which can be
859: described in terms of the formation of a network of zero-energy
860: domain walls \cite{K01} on the background of a periodic state.
861: This construction can start from any of the four periodic states
862: shown in Fig. 3 and allows to obtain, in particular, the three
863: other states shown in that figure by introduction of such domain
864: walls.
865:
866: For example, both state (c) and state (e) can be obtained from
867: state (a) by introduction of a dense sequence of parallel
868: zero-energy domain walls (of two different types). In that
869: language state (g) can be described as the dense network of
870: intersecting domain walls of two types. On the other hand, if one
871: starts the construction from state (c), both state (a) and state
872: (g) are formed by introduction of parallel domain walls, whereas
873: the network of two types of walls corresponds to state (e).
874:
875: The same set of states (described in a more detail in Ref.
876: \onlinecite{K01}) minimizes $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ for given $\Delta$.
877: In Appendix B we check that all these states are extremal not only
878: when one assumes $|\Delta_{j}|=\mbox{const}$, but also in the absence
879: of this constraint.
880: The accidental degeneracy related to formation of zero-energy
881: domains walls gives rise to residual entropy proportional to the
882: linear size of the system.
883:
884: In the framework of the description of different states in a
885: network in terms of the gauge-invariant phase differences
886: $\theta_{jk}\in(-\pi,\pi)$,
887: all rhombic plaquettes $\alpha$ of a dice lattice
888: can be considered as occupied by positive and negative
889: half-vortices, whose vorticities $m_\alpha=\pm 1/2$ are given by
890: \begin{equation}
891: m_\alpha=\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{\Box}\theta_{jk}=\pm\frac{1}{2}\;.
892: \label{m_A}
893: \end{equation}
894: In the family of states minimizing $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ the
895: half-vortices of the same sign always form triads with one
896: "central" and two "edge" vortices \cite{K01}. The formation of
897: domain walls which cost no free energy is related to the changes
898: in the orientation and/or in the shape of these triads, but does
899: not lead to formation of vortex clusters of any other size.
900:
901: At low temperatures ($T\ll T_{c0}$) the free energy of a fully
902: frustrated wire network with the dice lattice geometry (which then
903: can be described in terms of the London approximation) is minimal
904: for the same set of states, but with the slightly different values
905: \cite{K01} of $\theta_{a}$
906: \begin{equation}
907: \theta_{1}={\pi}/{12}\,,~~\theta_{2}={\pi}/{3}\,,~~
908: \theta_{3}={5\pi}/{12}\;, \label{e11}
909: \end{equation}
910: satisfying, nonetheless, the same constraints (\ref{e8b}).
911:
912: \subsection{Alternative solution}
913:
914: The analysis of the supercell shown in Fig. 2b allows also to find
915: a state which minimizes $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ for large $\nu_2$. In
916: the notation of Fig. 2b the structure of this state is given by
917: \begin{equation}
918: \chi_1=\chi_2=\chi_3=-\chi_4=\pi/6; ~~\chi_5=-\chi_6=5\pi/6\;.
919: \label{12}
920: \end{equation}
921: It minimizes the value of the second term in Eq. (\ref{d4})
922: separately for each triangle, the value of $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$
923: being
924: \begin{equation}
925: F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}
926: =2\left[\nu_0+\frac{3}{4}(\nu_1+\nu_2)\right]F_4\Delta^4 N\;.
927: \label{e13}
928: \end{equation}
929:
930: This alternative state is characterized by even more developed
931: accidental degeneracy leading to extensive residual entropy.
932: Namely, the value of $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ does not change if at an
933: arbitrary number of sites $j$ the variables $\varphi_j$ are
934: shifted by $\pi$. Note that this property holds not only at
935: $\nu_1=0$, when it trivially follows from $V(\{\chi\})$ being
936: dependent only on $\cos{2\chi_a}$, but also at finite values of
937: $\nu_1$.
938:
939: Comparison of Eq. (\ref{e13}) with Eq. (\ref{e4}) shows that the
940: values of $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ in the two states become equal at
941: $\nu_2/\nu_1=3$, whereas in our case, according to Eqs.
942: (\ref{d5}), \makebox{$\nu_2/\nu_1\approx 0.1127\ll 3$}. At so low
943: values of the ratio $\nu_2/\nu_1$, the alternative solution
944: discussed in this subsection is simply unstable.
945:
946:
947: \section{Magnetic energy}
948: \label{Selection}
949: \subsection{An arbitrary network}
950:
951: When currents in a two-dimensional wire network satisfy the
952: current conservation equations, the current in each link can be
953: expressed as a difference of so called mesh currents \cite{DK},
954: $I^m_\alpha$, associated with the plaquettes (meshes) of a network.
955: Namely, the current in the link $(jk)$ can be written as the
956: difference of the mesh currents associated with the two plaquettes
957: ($\alpha$ and $\alpha'$) adjacent to this link,
958: \begin{equation}
959: I_{jk}=I^m_\alpha-I^m_{\alpha'}\;. \label{f1}
960: \end{equation}
961: The magnetic energy of the currents in the network, $E_{\rm magn}$,
962: can be then expressed in terms of $I^m_\alpha$,
963: \begin{equation}
964: E_{\rm
965: magn}=\frac{1}{2c^2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}L_{\alpha\beta}I^m_\alpha
966: I^m_\beta\;, \label{f2}
967: \end{equation}
968: where a symmetric matrix $L_{\alpha\beta}$ is usually called the
969: mutual inductance matrix \cite{DK}.
970:
971: The diagonal elements of this matrix describe the self-inductances
972: of current loops which can be associated with different plaquettes
973: of the network and, accordingly, have to be positive. On the other
974: hand, its non-diagonal elements describe the mutual inductances of
975: non-intersecting coplanar current loops. Magnetic fields of such loops
976: substract from each other and, therefore, the non-diagonal
977: elements of $L_{\alpha\beta}$ have to be negative.
978: In an infinite network the constraint
979: \begin{equation}
980: \sum_{\alpha}L_{\alpha\beta}=0\; \label{f2b}
981: \end{equation}
982: has to be satisfied. This ensures the invariance of $E_{\rm magn}$
983: with respect to a possible redefinition of mesh currents,
984: \makebox{$I^m_\alpha\rightarrow I^m_\alpha+\delta I^m$} that
985: leaves the physical currents in the links, $I_{jk}$, intact. For
986: practical purposes it is convenient to define $I^m_{\alpha}$ in
987: such a way that
988: \begin{equation}
989: \sum_{\alpha}I^m_\alpha=0 \;. \label{f2c}
990: \end{equation}
991:
992: The value of $L_{\alpha\beta}$ depends only on the relative
993: disposition of the two plaquettes $\alpha$ and $\beta$,
994: and in the limit of infinitely thin wires
995: can be found by calculating the double integral over their
996: perimeters $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ and $\Gamma_{\beta}$,
997: \begin{equation}
998: L_{\alpha\beta}=\oint_{\Gamma_\alpha} d{\bf
999: r}_\alpha\oint_{\Gamma_\beta} d{\bf r}_\beta \,\frac{1}{|{\bf
1000: r}_\alpha-{\bf r}_\beta|}\;. \label{f3}
1001: \end{equation}
1002: The expression for $L_{\alpha\beta}$ given by Eq. (\ref{f3}) in
1003: the case of $\alpha=\beta$ is logarithmically divergent, which
1004: means that $L_{\alpha\alpha}$ has always to be calculated more
1005: accurately, taking into account the finite width of the wires. The
1006: same is true for the value of $L_{\alpha\beta}$ for neighboring
1007: plaquettes (having a common link). In the case of more distant
1008: neighbors (having only a common node or simply not touching each
1009: other) one can use Eq. (\ref{f3}) based on the assumption of
1010: infinitely thin wires without encountering any divergences.
1011:
1012: Eq. (\ref{f3}) can be also rewritten as the double integral over the
1013: areas of the plaquettes $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For $\alpha\neq \beta$
1014: \begin{equation}
1015: L_{\alpha\beta}=-\int_{S_\alpha} d^2{\bf
1016: r}_\alpha\int_{S_\beta}d^2{\bf r}_\beta \,\frac{1}{|{\bf
1017: r}_\alpha-{\bf r}_\beta|^3}\;, \label{f3b}
1018: \end{equation}
1019: which shows that $|L_{\alpha\beta}|$ rapidly decays with the
1020: growth of $R_{\alpha\beta}$, the distance between the centers of
1021: the plaquettes $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For $R_{\alpha\beta}\gg L$
1022: \begin{equation}
1023: L_{\alpha\beta}\approx
1024: -\frac{S_\alpha S_\beta}{R^3_{\alpha\beta}}\;. \label{f3c}
1025: \end{equation}
1026:
1027: In any periodic state minimizing the free energy of a frustrated
1028: network, the plaquettes with negative and positive values of
1029: $I^m_\alpha$ regularly alternate with each other, so $E_{\rm
1030: magn}$ (normalized, for example, per a single plaquette) is given
1031: by a rapidly decaying sign alternating lattice sum. It allows one to
1032: expect that the main contribution to this sum comes from its
1033: largest terms, corresponding to the self-inductances of the
1034: plaquettes and the mutual inductances of rather close neighbors.
1035: Analogously, when comparing the magnetic energies of different
1036: degenerate states minimizing the fourth order term in the free
1037: energy, the main contribution to the difference between them can
1038: be expected to come from the closest neighbors whose contributions
1039: do not cancel each other identically.
1040:
1041: Besides the proper energy of the magnetic field induced by
1042: currents and given by Eq. (\ref{f2}), one also has to take into
1043: account the decrease of the superconducting free energy related to
1044: the vector potential of this field. In the weak screening regime
1045: the sum of these two contributions, $F_{\rm magn}$, differs from
1046: $E_{\rm magn}$ only by sign,
1047: \[
1048: F_{\rm magn}=-E_{\rm magn}\,,
1049: \]
1050: and, therefore, one has to maximize $E_{\rm magn}$.
1051:
1052: \subsection{Mutual inductances of dice lattice plaquettes}
1053:
1054: \begin{figure}[b]
1055: \includegraphics[width=52mm]{nwd-fig4.eps}
1056: \caption{\label{fig4}
1057: Classification of plaquettes according to their distance
1058: from the shaded one.}
1059: \end{figure}
1060:
1061: Fig. 4 introduces the classification of neighbors for rhombic
1062: plaquettes of a dice lattice, which can be used for the natural
1063: reordering of summation in Eq. (\ref{f2}). A chosen plaquette
1064: (which is shaded) has four nearest neighbors (denoted by 1), four
1065: next-to-nearest neighbors (denoted by 2), two third neighbors
1066: (denoted by 3), {\em etc.}, as shown in Fig. 4 up to sixth
1067: neighbors. In the following we denote the self-inductance of a
1068: plaquette $L_0$ and the mutual inductance of a plaquette and its
1069: $n$-th neighbor (which is a negative quantity), $L_n=-\lambda_n
1070: L$.
1071:
1072: For $n$ from $2$ to $5$ the calculation of $L_n$ with the help of
1073: Eq. (\ref{f3}) or Eq. (\ref{f3b}) gives
1074: \begin{eqnarray}
1075: \lambda_2 & = & 4\sqrt{3}-2\sqrt{7}-2-15\ln 3
1076: -4\ln(1+\sqrt{3}) \\
1077: & & \mbox{}+\ln[8(4+\sqrt{7})^5(-1+2\sqrt{7})(1+25\sqrt{7})^2] \;, \nonumber\\
1078: \lambda_3 & = & 8\sqrt{7}-12\sqrt{3} \\
1079: & & \mbox{}+\ln[(27/4)(1+\sqrt{3})^{12}/(5+2\sqrt{7})^6] \;, \nonumber \\
1080: \lambda_4 & = & 12 -10\sqrt{3}+2\sqrt{7}-(33/2)\ln 2-(97/4)\ln 3 \\
1081: & & \mbox{}+(1/2)\ln[(1+\sqrt{3})^{50}
1082: (4-\sqrt{7})^{31}(2+\sqrt{7})^{11}] \;, \nonumber\\
1083: \lambda_5 & = & 3+5\sqrt{3}-3\sqrt{7}-\sqrt{13}-12\ln 3 \\
1084: & & \mbox{} +\ln[(2+\sqrt{7}) (1+2\sqrt{7})
1085: (5+2\sqrt{7})^3/(1+\sqrt{3})^8] \nonumber\\
1086: & & \mbox{} +(1/2)\ln[(1+\sqrt{13})(-2+\sqrt{13})^4(7+\sqrt{13})^8/2]
1087: \;, \nonumber
1088: \end{eqnarray}
1089: whereas numerically
1090: \begin{equation} \label{lambda}
1091: \begin{array}{lcl}
1092: \lambda_2 & \approx & 0.5569 \;, \label{u2} \\
1093: \lambda_3 & \approx & 0.3637 \;, \label{u3} \\
1094: \lambda_4 & \approx & 0.1671 \;, \label{u4} \\
1095: \lambda_5 & \approx & 0.0723 \;. \label{u5}
1096: \end{array}
1097: \end{equation}
1098: Thus the decrease of $|L_n|$ with $n$ is rather fast
1099: even for $n \sim 1$.
1100:
1101: \subsection{The form and the magnitude of magnetic energy}
1102:
1103: In a general situation the values of mesh currents $I^m_\alpha$
1104: should be found from Eqs. (\ref{f1}) and, accordingly, are given by
1105: non-local linear combinations of link currents $I_{jk}$.
1106: Quite remarkably, substitution of Eq. (\ref{b0}) into Eq.
1107: (\ref{a7b}) allows to find that the values
1108: of mesh currents in a fully frustrated superconducting wire
1109: network with dice lattice geometry in the vicinity of $T_c$
1110: are given by the local expression,
1111: \begin{equation} \label{Imjj}
1112: I^m_{jj'}=-\frac{2e}{\hbar}\frac{\gamma}{\xi\sin\eta}
1113: |\Delta_{j}||\Delta_{j'}|\frac{\cos\chi_{jj'}}{\sqrt{3}}\;,
1114: \end{equation}
1115: where $I^m_{jj'}$ is the mesh current in the plaquette
1116: \makebox{$\alpha_{jj'}=(jk'j'k'')$}.
1117:
1118: In the family of states minimizing
1119: $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ and described in Sec. IV the absolute value of
1120: $I^m_{jj'}$ on all plaquettes acquires only two values,
1121: \begin{equation} \label{IcIe}
1122: I^m_c=I_0/\sqrt{3}\;,~~I^m_e=I_0/\sqrt{6},
1123: \end{equation}
1124: where $I_0$ is given by Eq. (\ref{f5}). The choice between $I^m_c$
1125: and $I^m_e$ is determined by whether the plaquette $\alpha_{jj'}$
1126: is occupied by the central or edge vortex of a triad to which it
1127: belongs, whereas the sign of $I^m_{jj'}$ by the sign of this
1128: vortex. The ratio $g=I^m_e/I^m_c$ following from Eqs. (\ref{IcIe})
1129: is equal to $g_1=1/\sqrt{2}$.
1130:
1131: Substitution of Eq. (\ref{Imjj}) into Eq. (\ref{f2}) shows that
1132: $E_{\rm magn}$ is of the fourth order in $\Delta_j$, and thus
1133: should be added (with the negative sign) to the forth-order term,
1134: $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw }$, which has been minimized in Sec. IV. It
1135: follows from Eq. (\ref{Imjj}) that for $|\Delta_j|=\Delta$ the
1136: main contribution to $E_{\rm magn}$ [which is related to
1137: self-inductances of lattice plaquettes, $L_0\sim 8 L\ln(L/d)$,
1138: where $d$ is the thickness of the wires], can be written as
1139: \begin{equation} \label{E0}
1140: E^{(0)}_{\rm magn}=E_{\rm m} \sum_{(jj')}[1-\sin^2\chi_{jj'}]\;,
1141: \end{equation}
1142: where $E_{\rm m}={L_0 I_0^2}/{6c^2}$.
1143:
1144: The value of the coefficient $E_{\rm m}$, which at $T=T_c$ is
1145: given by
1146: \begin{equation} \label{E_0}
1147: E_{\rm m}=\frac{L_0}{4}\left(\frac{2e}{\hbar c}\right)^2
1148: \left(\frac{\gamma}{\xi}\right)^2\Delta^4\;,
1149: \end{equation}
1150: should be compared with $F_4\Delta^4=({L}/{4})\beta\Delta^4$.
1151: With the help of Eq. (\ref{Ap7}) and Eq. (\ref{Ap6}) one obtains
1152: \begin{equation} \label{EmF4}
1153: \frac{E_{\rm m}}{F_4\Delta^4}\sim
1154: \frac{\sigma}{\kappa^2\xi^2(T_c)}\;,
1155: \end{equation}
1156: where $\kappa$ is the Ginzburg-Landau parameter of the material from
1157: which the wires are made, and $\sigma$ their cross-section area.
1158: Since the mean field phase transition in a fully frustrated
1159: network takes place when $\xi(T_c)\approx L$, Eq. (\ref{EmF4}) can
1160: be rewritten as
1161: \begin{equation} \label{EmF5}
1162: \frac{E_{\rm m}}{F_4\Delta^4}\sim
1163: \frac{\sigma}{\kappa^2 L^2}\;.
1164: \end{equation}
1165:
1166: Thus, in order to get $E_{\rm magn}\ll F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$ (the weak
1167: screening regime) one should have
1168: \[
1169: \sigma\ll\kappa^2L^2\;.
1170: \]
1171: In other terms the same condition can be rewritten as
1172: \[\Lambda_{\rm eff}[\xi(T_c)\sim L]\gg L\;,\]
1173: where $\Lambda_{\rm eff}(\xi)\sim (\kappa\xi)^2 L/\sigma$ is the
1174: effective penetration depth for the magnetic field in a network.
1175: In such a case $E_{\rm magn}$ can be treated as a small
1176: correction, which is relevant only for the removal of the
1177: accidental degeneracy between different states minimizing
1178: $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$. In the opposite limit finding the structure of
1179: the ordered state becomes an even more complicated problem because
1180: one has to minimize $F^{(2)}_{\rm nw}+F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}+E^{}_{\rm
1181: magn}$ taking into account the dependence of all three terms on
1182: the magnetic fields induced by the currents. Therefore, below we
1183: always assume $\sigma\ll\kappa^2L^2$, that is that the wires are
1184: thin enough.
1185:
1186: Note, however, that the applicability of the mean field approach
1187: requires the wires to be not too thin,
1188: \makebox{$\sigma\gg\kappa^2L^3/\Lambda_{\rm univ}(T)$,} see
1189: Appendix A. The two conditions on $\sigma$ are compatible provided
1190: $L\ll\Lambda_{{\rm univ}}(T)$, which is readily satisfied in
1191: experiments, since for a temperature around one Kelvin
1192: $\Lambda_{{\rm univ}}(T)$ is of the order of one centimeter, see
1193: Eq.~(\ref{Ap9}).
1194:
1195: It is clear from the form of Eq. (\ref{E0}) that the substraction
1196: of $E^{(0)}_{\rm magn}$ from $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw }$ does not change
1197: the functional form of the fourth order term (expressed in the
1198: terms of the variables $\chi_{jj'}$), but leads only to a small
1199: increase of the coefficient $\nu_2$ in Eq. (\ref{d4}). The next
1200: contribution to $E^{}_{\rm magn}$, which is related to mutual
1201: inductances of neighboring plaquettes, has a more complicated
1202: structure,
1203: \begin{equation} \label{E1}
1204: E^{(1)}_{\rm magn}=-\frac{L_1 I_0^2}{3}\sum_{k}\sum_{a=1}^{3}
1205: \cos\chi_{j_a j_{a+1}}\cos\chi_{j_{a+1}j_{a+2}}\;.
1206: \end{equation}
1207: However, in all the states minimizing $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw }$, the
1208: three variables $\chi_{jj'}$ on each triangle are always given by
1209: \begin{equation} \label{chi123}
1210: \chi_{1,2,3}=\pi/2\mp\pi/2,\;\mp\pi/4,\;\pm 3\pi/4\;,
1211: \end{equation}
1212: as a consequence of which the sum over $a$ in Eq. (\ref{E1}) is
1213: equal to $-1/2$ for all $k$ and, therefore, the substraction of
1214: $E^{(1)}_{\rm magn}$ from $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw }-E^{(0)}_{\rm magn}$
1215: also does not lift the degeneracy. To be sure of that we have
1216: checked also that all the states minimizing $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw }$
1217: remain extremal with respect to variations of $\varphi_j$ even
1218: when one includes into analysis the extra terms obtained by the
1219: variation of $E^{(1)}_{\rm magn}$.
1220:
1221: \subsection{Selection of the state by magnetic energy}
1222:
1223: In a more general situation, when the ratio $g=I^m_e/I^m_c$ is
1224: kept as a free parameter, the first two contributions to the
1225: magnetic energy can be written as
1226: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Em12}
1227: E^{(0)}_{\rm magn}
1228: & = &\frac{L_0}{2}\left(\frac{I^m_c}{c}\right)^2 (1+2g^2)N \;,\\
1229: E^{(1)}_{\rm magn}
1230: & = &-L_1\left(\frac{I^m_c}{c}\right)^2 2g^2N \;,
1231: \end{eqnarray}
1232: and, naturally, are also the same for all the states minimizing
1233: $F^{(4)}_{\rm nw}$.
1234:
1235: The difference appears when considering $E^{(2)}_{\rm magn}$, the
1236: contribution to $E_{\rm magn}$ coming from the mutual inductances
1237: of the plaquettes which are next-to-nearest neighbors of each
1238: other. Comparison of $E^{(2)}_{\rm magn}$ for the four periodic
1239: states the structure of which is shown in Fig. 3 shows that for
1240: any $g$ with $|g|<1$ the minimum of $E^{(2)}_{\rm magn}$ is
1241: achieved in the state (e) and the maximum in the state (c).
1242:
1243: The non-equivalent contributions to magnetic energy
1244: of different periodic states can be characterized
1245: by the dimensionless parameter $\epsilon$ defined by the relation
1246: \begin{equation} \label{eps}
1247: E_{\rm magn}=E^{(0)}_{\rm magn}+E^{(1)}_{\rm magn}+
1248: \epsilon_{\rm}\frac{L(I^m_c)^2}{c^2}N\;.
1249: \end{equation}
1250: The values of $\epsilon$ for basic periodic states can be then
1251: expressed in terms of the coefficients $\lambda_n$ as
1252: \begin{eqnarray}
1253: \epsilon_a & = & 2g^2\lambda_2-(1+2g^2)\lambda_3+(2-4g^2)\lambda_4 \nonumber\\
1254: & & \mbox{}+4g^2\lambda_5+\ldots\;, \label{epsa}\\
1255: \epsilon_c & = & (1+g^2)\lambda_2-g^2\lambda_3+(1-3g^2)\lambda_4 \nonumber\\
1256: & & \mbox{}-(2-2g^2)\lambda_5+\ldots\;, \\
1257: \epsilon_e & = & -2g^2\lambda_2-(1-2g^2)\lambda_3+2\lambda_4
1258: -4g^2\lambda_5+\ldots\;, \\
1259: \epsilon_g & = & (1-3g^2)\lambda_2+g^2\lambda_3+(1+g^2)\lambda_4 \nonumber \\
1260: & & \mbox{}-(2-2g^2)\lambda_5+\ldots\;. \label{epsg}
1261: \end{eqnarray}
1262: Substitution of the values of $\lambda_n$ given by Eqs.
1263: (\ref{lambda}) into Eqs. (\ref{epsa})-(\ref{epsg}) shows that for
1264: $|g|<1$ the state (c) maximizes the $n$-th approximation to
1265: $\epsilon$,
1266: \begin{equation}
1267: \epsilon^{(n)}_{\rm}
1268: =\frac{c^2}{L(I^m_c)^2N}\sum_{m=2}^{n}E^{(m)}_{\rm magn}
1269: \end{equation}
1270: not only for $n=2$ (as it follows from the previous paragraph),
1271: but also for all other values of $n$ it has been possible to check
1272: (up to $n=5$). Since the value of $\lambda_{n}$ rapidly decreases
1273: with the increase of $n$, the same conclusion can be expected to
1274: be valid in the limit of $n\rightarrow \infty$. Table 1
1275: illustrates the dependence of $\epsilon^{(n)}$ on $n$ for four
1276: basic periodic states in the case of $g=1/\sqrt{2}$.
1277: % The differences between the values of $\epsilon$ in different periodic
1278: % states (namely $\epsilon_a-\epsilon_e$ and
1279: % $\epsilon_g-\epsilon_e$) determine the energies of domain walls
1280: % separating different realizations of state (e) from each other.
1281:
1282: In a Josephson junction array the value of the current in a
1283: junction is also given by Eq. (\ref{f4}), where now
1284: $I_0=(2e/\hbar)J$ ($J$ being the coupling constant of a single
1285: junction). As a consequence, the results of this section are
1286: applicable to a fully frustrated Josephson junction array as well.
1287: The value of the parameter $g$ in the array is also equal to
1288: $g_1$, because its ground state is characterized by exactly the
1289: same values of the variables $\theta_a$, Eq. (\ref{e8}), as in a
1290: fully frustrated wire network just below $T_c$.
1291:
1292: On the other hand, for $T\ll T_{c0}$, when
1293: $I_{jk}\propto\theta_{jk}$, the value of $g$ in a fully frustrated
1294: wire network is equal to $g_0=3/5$, as can be found from Eqs.
1295: (\ref{e11}). It can be expected that with the decrease in
1296: temperature the value of $g$ in a network continuously decreases
1297: from $g_1$ to $g_0$. However, the conclusion on the selection of
1298: the state (c) by the magnetic energy is valid not only for
1299: $g_0\leq g\leq g_1$, but in the whole interval $-1<g<1$.
1300:
1301: \begin{table}[hb]
1302: \begin{center}
1303: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
1304: n & a & c & e & g \\ \hline \hline
1305: 2 & 0.5569 & 0.8354 & -0.5569 & -0.2785 \\ \hline
1306: 3 & -0.1704 & 0.6536 & -0.5569 & -0.0966 \\ \hline
1307: 4 & -0.1704 & 0.5700 & -0.2227 & 0.1540 \\ \hline
1308: 5 & -0.0258 & 0.4977 & -0.3673 & 0.0817
1309: \end{tabular}
1310: \end{center}
1311: \caption{Comparison of dimensionless parameter $\epsilon$
1312: characterizing the magnetic energy of four basic periodic states
1313: in different orders of approximation.}
1314: \end{table}
1315:
1316: \section{Conclusion}
1317:
1318: The main result of this work is that the superconducting state in
1319: a fully frustrated wire network with the dice lattice geometry
1320: exhibits the same set of degenerate spacial patterns minimizing
1321: the free energy in the two limiting cases when the temperature is
1322: either low compared to the critical temperature $T_c$ (London
1323: limit) or close to $T_c$ (Ginzburg-Landau limit). This conclusion
1324: is quite interesting, given the fact that the system is described
1325: by two rather different models in these two limits. In the London
1326: limit, the amplitude fluctuations of the superconducting order
1327: parameter are negligible, and the corresponding fully frustrated
1328: $XY$ model has been analyzed in~\cite{K01}. In the vicinity of
1329: $T_c$, we used the variational approach pioneered by Abrikosov,
1330: where the spacial variations of the complex order parameter are
1331: constrained to live in the subspace of unstable modes for the
1332: corresponding linearized Ginzburg-Landau equations.
1333:
1334: Our interest in this problem had been stimulated by the fact that
1335: for a fully frustrated network with the dice lattice geometry,
1336: this subspace has unusually high degeneracy (as a consequence of
1337: the localized nature of modes) and includes a finite fraction (one
1338: third) of the total number of modes \cite{VMD,Vidal01}.
1339: Remarkably, non linear effects select particular linear
1340: combinations of these spacially localized states which reproduce
1341: precisely the current patterns obtained for the pure $XY$
1342: limit~\cite{K01}.
1343:
1344: In the second part of this article, we have compared magnetic
1345: energies of current patterns in different periodic states
1346: minimizing the Ginzburg-Landau functional. The dominant
1347: contribution to this degeneracy lifting mechanism is due to
1348: interactions of current loops which can be associated with second
1349: neighbor plaquettes. It favors the % most symmetric
1350: periodic pattern in which the triads of positive and negative
1351: vortices have % the same shape and orientation
1352: three different orientations [state (c) in Fig.~\ref{fig3}]. The
1353: same conclusion is valid also in London limit and in the case of a
1354: Josephson junction array with the same geometry. {It can be hoped
1355: that decoration experiments performed in more equilibrium
1356: conditions than those of Refs. \onlinecite{Pannetier01,Serret02}
1357: may reveal such an ordering.}
1358:
1359: This work leaves several open questions. First, it is important to
1360: know if all the states constructed here are stable with respect to local
1361: fluctuations in both order parameter amplitudes and phases.
1362: We have checked numerically that this is indeed the case for the
1363: periodic states shown on Fig.~\ref{fig3},
1364: as well as for configurations with a
1365: single domain wall between two such ordered states. Unfortunately,
1366: a simple (analytical) stability proof holding for the complete class
1367: of degenerate states is not available now.
1368:
1369: Second, alternative degeneracy lifting mechanisms should be
1370: analyzed, as has been done for a wire network with {\em kagome}
1371: geometry by Park and Huse~\cite{PH}. These authors have found that
1372: the dominant perturbation to the idealized Ginzburg-Landau
1373: description of a wire network arises from the finite width of
1374: wires, which removes the degeneracy between the two opposite
1375: orientations of the supercurrents in a given loop. This mechanism
1376: can be interpreted in the terms of magnetic field redistribution
1377: between the network plaquettes (see discussion in Ref.
1378: \onlinecite{Meyer}, where it has been named "hidden
1379: incommensurability"), and, accordingly, is effective only when a
1380: network contains non-equivalent plaquettes. Therefore, in the case
1381: of a dice lattice (formed by identical rhombic plaquettes) it
1382: cannot play a prominent role.
1383:
1384: Another degeneracy lifting mechanism is related with the free
1385: energy of fluctuations around various free-energy minima
1386: and will be the subject of a separate report.
1387: It is likely to be the dominant one in the vicinity of $T_c$,
1388: but with decrease in temperature becomes less and less important
1389: in comparison with magnetic interactions of currents analyzed
1390: in this work.
1391:
1392: \acknowledgments
1393:
1394: The work of S.E.K. has been additionally supported by the Program
1395: "Quantum Macrophysics" of the Russian Academy of Sciences and by
1396: the Program "Scientific Schools of the Russian Federation" (grant
1397: No. 1715.2003.2).
1398:
1399:
1400: \appendix
1401: \section{Condition for the applicability of the mean field approach}
1402:
1403: In two-dimensional superconductors the most important fluctuations
1404: are the fluctuations of the order parameter phase
1405: $\varphi=\arg(\Delta)$. When $T_c$ is approached from below, the
1406: free energy of the phase fluctuations in a single wire,
1407: \begin{equation} \label{Ap2}
1408: F_{\rm wire}\approx
1409: \frac{J}{2}(\delta\varphi_{j}-\delta\varphi_{k})^2\;,
1410: \end{equation}
1411: can be characterized by the effective coupling constant $J$, which
1412: in the absence of external magnetic field is given by
1413: \begin{equation} \label{Ap3}
1414: J(T)=\frac{\alpha(T)\gamma}{L\beta}=\frac{\gamma^2}{L\beta\xi^2(T)}\;.
1415: \end{equation}
1416:
1417: The fluctuations are of no importance when \makebox{$J(T)\gg k_B
1418: T$}, which means that the critical region corresponds to
1419: \begin{equation} \label{Ap4}
1420: \xi^2(T)\gtrsim \frac{\gamma^2}{L\beta k_BT_{c0}}\;.
1421: \end{equation}
1422: Since the maximal deviation of $T_c(f)$ from $T_{c0}$ is achieved
1423: when $\xi[T_c(f)]\sim L$ \cite{A,PCRV}, the critical region can be
1424: considered as sufficiently narrow if
1425: \begin{equation} \label{Ap5}
1426: L^3\ll \frac{\gamma^2}{\beta k_BT_{c0}}\;.
1427: \end{equation}
1428:
1429: When the mean free path of electron is much smaller than the thickness
1430: of a wire, the values of the coefficients entering the Ginzburg-Landau
1431: functional for the wire are determined simply by the values of the
1432: analogous coefficients for the material from which the wire is
1433: fabricated. Substitution of
1434: \begin{equation} \label{Ap7}
1435: \beta\approx \sigma\beta_{\rm bulk}\,,~~
1436: \gamma\approx \sigma\gamma_{\rm bulk}\,,
1437: \end{equation}
1438: where $\sigma$ is the cross section of a wire, and
1439: \begin{equation} \label{Ap6}
1440: \beta_{\rm bulk}=\frac{16\pi^3}{\Phi_{0}^{2}}{\gamma_{\rm
1441: bulk}^{2}\kappa^{2}}\;,
1442: \end{equation}
1443: where $\kappa$ is the ratio of the penetration depth and the
1444: coherence length, into Eq. (\ref{Ap5}) allows one to rewrite this
1445: condition as
1446: \begin{equation} \label{Ap8}
1447: L^3\ll \frac{\Lambda_{\rm univ}(T_{c0})\sigma}{\pi\kappa^2} \;,
1448: \end{equation}
1449: where
1450: \begin{equation} \label{Ap9}
1451: \Lambda_{\rm univ}(T)=\frac{\Phi_0^2}{16\pi^2 k_B
1452: T}\approx\frac{2\,{{\rm cm}\cdot}{\rm K}}{T}
1453: \end{equation}
1454: is the expression for the universal value of the two-dimensional
1455: penetration length at the temperature of the
1456: Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition in a
1457: two-dimensional superconductor \cite{BMO}. In the right-hand side
1458: of Eq. (\ref{Ap9}) the temperature should be expressed in Kelvin.
1459:
1460: In aluminum wire networks fabricated with electron beam
1461: lithography \cite{PCR,PCRV,Abil,Pannetier01,GG,Xiao02}
1462: $T_{c0}\approx 1.2\,$K, and therefore \makebox{$\Lambda_{\rm
1463: univ}(T_{c0})\approx 1.7\,$}cm, whereas (according to the
1464: estimates of Park and Huse \cite{PH}) $\kappa\sim 1$.
1465:
1466:
1467: \section{Consistency of the equal amplitude hypothesis}
1468: \label{Consistency}
1469:
1470: We shall now check that for the class of states described in
1471: section~\ref{Minimization}, in which the amplitudes $|\Delta_{j}|$
1472: are the same for all six-fold coordinated sites $j$, the
1473: derivatives ${\partial F^{(4)}_{{\rm nw}}}/{\partial
1474: |\Delta_{j}|}$ are independent of the sixfold coordinated site
1475: $j$. If this property is satisfied, it is then possible to enforce
1476: the equilibrium condition ${\partial [F^{(2)}_{{\rm
1477: nw}}+F^{(4)}_{{\rm nw}}]}/{\partial |\Delta_{j}|}=0$ with equal
1478: amplitudes $|\Delta_{j}|$ since $F^{(2)}_{{\rm nw}}$ is
1479: proportional to $\sum_{j}|\Delta_{j}|^{2}$ (with a negative
1480: coefficient below the critical temperature of the network).
1481:
1482: Derivation of $F^{(4)}_{{\rm nw}}=\sum_{k} F^{(4)}_{{\rm nw}}(k)$
1483: with respect to $|\Delta_{j}|$ gives
1484: \begin{equation} \label{derF4}
1485: \frac{\partial F^{(4)}_{{\rm nw}}}{\partial |\Delta_{j}|}=
1486: F_4\Delta^3\left[8\nu_0+4\nu_2\sum_{b=1}^{6}\sin^2\chi_{jj_{b}}-
1487: 2\nu_1 \sum_{b=1}^{6}\sin\chi_{j_b j_{b+1}}\right]\;,
1488: \end{equation}
1489: where $j_b$ (with $b=1,\ldots,6$) are the six neighbors of $j$
1490: numbered in positive direction (see Fig.~\ref{figap}), and it is
1491: assumed that $j_{7}\equiv j_{1}$. The contribution from the third
1492: term in Eq. (\ref{ordre4}) vanishes from Eq. (\ref{derF4}) as a
1493: consequence of Eq. (\ref{e3b}), which is valid for any tripod in
1494: any of the states discussed in section~\ref{Minimization}.
1495:
1496: It turns out that the first sum in Eq. (\ref{derF4})
1497: is equal to $2$ for any $j$ in any of the considered degenerate
1498: states. On the other hand, summation of Eq. (\ref{e3b}) over the six
1499: tripods containing the given site $j$ allows one to conclude that the
1500: second sum in Eq. (\ref{derF4}) is always equal to zero.
1501: Thus, the expression in the right hand side of
1502: Eq. (\ref{derF4}) does not depend on $j$ for any
1503: configuration with $|\Delta_{j}|=\mbox{const}$ described in
1504: section~\ref{Minimization}.
1505:
1506:
1507: \begin{figure}[h]
1508: \includegraphics[width=60mm]{nwd-fig5.eps}
1509: \caption{\label{figap} The six neighbors of the site $j$
1510: contributing to the sums in Eq. (\ref{derF4}).}
1511: \end{figure}
1512:
1513: \begin{widetext} $~$ \end{widetext}
1514: \newpage
1515:
1516: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1517:
1518: \bibitem{dG} P.G. de Gennes, C. R. Sceances Acad. Sci., Ser. 2,
1519: {\bf 292}, 9 and 291 (1981).
1520:
1521: \bibitem{A} S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 1541 (1983).
1522:
1523: \bibitem{AH} S. Alexander and E. Halevi,
1524: J. Phys. (Paris) {\bf 44}, 805 (1983).
1525:
1526: \bibitem{PCR} B. Pannetier, J. Chaussy and R. Rammal,
1527: J. Phys. (Paris) {\bf 44}, L853 (1983).
1528:
1529: \bibitem{PCRV} B. Pannetier, J. Chaussy, R. Rammal and J.C. Villegier,
1530: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 53}, 1845 (1984).
1531:
1532: \bibitem{WRP} Y.Y.Wang, R. Rammal and B. Pannetier,
1533: J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 68}, 301 (1987).
1534:
1535: \bibitem{SL} J. Simonin and A. L\'{o}p{e}z,
1536: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 2649 (1986).
1537:
1538: \bibitem{GG} J.M. Gordon, A.M. Goldman, J. Maps, D. Costello,
1539: R. Tiberio and B. Whitehead,
1540: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 2280 (1986);
1541: J.M. Gordon, A.M. Goldman and B. Whitehead,
1542: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 2311 (1987);
1543: J.M. Gordon and A.M. Goldman,
1544: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35}, 4909 (1987).
1545:
1546: \bibitem{NN} F. Nori and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 2364 (1988);
1547: Q. Niu and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 2134 (1989).
1548:
1549: \bibitem{TJ} S. Teitel and C. Jayaprakash,
1550: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 598 (1983).
1551:
1552: \bibitem{Teitel85} S. Teitel and C. Jayaprakash,
1553: J. Phys. Lett. (Paris), {\bf 46}, L33 (1985).
1554:
1555: \bibitem{Shih85} W.Y. Shih and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 32}, 158 (1985).
1556:
1557: \bibitem{Korshunov86} S.E. Korshunov, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 43}, 17 (1986).
1558:
1559: \bibitem{Xiao02} Yi Xiao, D.A. Huse, P.M. Chaikin, M.J. Higgins,
1560: S. Bhattacharya and D. Spencer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 214503 (2002).
1561:
1562: \bibitem{Lin02} Y.-L. Lin, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 214504 (2002).
1563:
1564: \bibitem{LN} Y.-L. Lin and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 15953 (1994).
1565:
1566: \bibitem{HR} D.A. Huse and A.D. Rutenberg,
1567: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 7536 (1992).
1568:
1569: \bibitem{Rzchowski97} M.S. Rzchowski, Phys. Rev. {\bf B 55}, 11745 (1997).
1570:
1571: \bibitem{Higgins00} M.J. Higgins, Yi Xiao, S. Bhattacharya, P.M. Chaikin,
1572: S. Sethuraman, R. Bojko and D. Spencer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, R894 (2000)
1573:
1574: \bibitem{PH} K. Park and D.A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 134522 (2001).
1575:
1576: \bibitem{K02} S.E. Korshunov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 054416 (2002)
1577:
1578: \bibitem{VMD} J. Vidal, R. Mosseri and B. Dou\c{c}ot,
1579: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5888 (1998).
1580:
1581: \bibitem{Abil} C.C. Abilio, P. Butaud, Th. Fournier, B. Pannetier,
1582: J. Vidal, S. Tedesco and B. Dalzotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 5102 (1999).
1583:
1584: \bibitem{Pannetier01} B. Pannetier, C. C. Abilio, E. Serret, T. Fournier,
1585: P. Butaud, and J. Vidal, Physica {\bf C 352}, 41 (2001).
1586:
1587: \bibitem{Serret02} E. Serret, P. Butaud, and B. Pannetier,
1588: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 59}, 225 (2002).
1589:
1590: \bibitem{K01} S.E. Korshunov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 134503 (2001).
1591:
1592: \bibitem{Cataudella03} V. Cataudella and R. Fazio,
1593: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 61}, 341 (2003).
1594:
1595: \bibitem{Elser} V. Elser, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2405 (1989).
1596:
1597: \bibitem{Abr} A.A. Abrikosov,
1598: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 32}, 1442 (1957)
1599: [Sov. Phys. - JETP {\bf 5}, 1174 (1957)].
1600:
1601: \bibitem{Vidal01} J. Vidal, P. Butaud, B. Dou\c{c}ot, and R. Mosseri,
1602: Phys. Rev. {\bf B 64}, 155306, (2001).
1603:
1604: \bibitem{Naud01} C. Naud, G. Faini, and D. Mailly,
1605: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5104, (2001).
1606:
1607: \bibitem{H} D.R. Hofstadter,
1608: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 14}, 2239 (1976).
1609:
1610: \bibitem{CW} F.H. Claro and G.H. Wannier,
1611: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 19}, 6068 (1979).
1612:
1613: \bibitem{R} R. Rammal, J. Phys. (Paris) {\bf 46}, 1345 (1985).
1614:
1615: \bibitem{XPCH}Yi Xiao, V. Pelletier, P.M. Chaikin and D.A. Huse,
1616: Phys. Rev. {\bf 67}, 104505 (2003).
1617:
1618: \bibitem{HC} T. Horiguchi and C.C. Chen,
1619: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 15}, 659 (1974).
1620:
1621: \bibitem{S} B. Sutherland,
1622: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 34}, 5208 (1986).
1623:
1624: \bibitem{DCJW} D.H. Lee, R.G. Caflisch, J.D. Joannopoulos and
1625: F.Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 29}, 2680 (1984);
1626:
1627: \bibitem{MS} S. Miyashita and J. Shiba,
1628: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 53}, 1145 (1984).
1629:
1630: \bibitem{DK} C.A. Desoer and E.S. Kuh, {\em Basic Circuit Theory}
1631: (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969).
1632:
1633: \bibitem{Meyer} R. Meyer, S.E. Korshunov, Ch. Leemann and P. Martinoli,
1634: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 104503 (2002).
1635:
1636: \bibitem{BMO} M.R. Beasley, J.E. Mooij and T.P. Orlando,
1637: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 42}, 1165 (1979).
1638:
1639: \end{thebibliography}
1640:
1641:
1642: \end{document}
1643: