1: %%%%% Version 15.04.04 %%%%%
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4:
5: %\newcommand{\agt}{\mbox{\raisebox{-4pt}{$\,\buildrel>\over\sim\,$}}}
6: %\newcommand{\alt}{\mbox{\raisebox{-4pt}{$\,\buildrel<\over\sim\,$}}}
7:
8: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
9: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
10:
11: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,
12: floatfix,amsmath,amssymb,eqsecnum]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
13:
14: \usepackage{epsfig,psfrag}
15: %\usepackage{graphicx} % Include figure files
16: \usepackage{dcolumn} % Align table columns on decimal point
17: \usepackage{bm} % bold math
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: %\preprint{preprint not for distribution}
22:
23: \title{Effective low-energy theory of
24: superconductivity in carbon nanotube ropes}
25: \author{A.~De~Martino and R.~Egger}
26:
27: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
28: Heinrich-Heine-Universit\"at,
29: D-40225 D\"usseldorf, Germany}
30:
31: \date{\today}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We derive and analyze the low-energy theory of superconductivity in
35: carbon nanotube ropes. A rope is modelled as an
36: array of metallic nanotubes, taking into account
37: phonon-mediated as well as Coulomb interactions, and
38: arbitrary Cooper pair hopping amplitudes
39: (Josephson couplings) between different tubes.
40: We use a systematic cumulant expansion to construct the
41: Ginzburg-Landau action including quantum fluctuations.
42: The regime of validity is carefully established, and the
43: effect of phase slips is assessed.
44: Quantum phase slips are shown to cause a depression of the critical
45: temperature $T_c$ below the mean-field value, and a
46: temperature-dependent resistance below $T_c$.
47: We compare our theoretical results to recent experimental data
48: of Kasumov {\sl et al.} [Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 214521 (2003)] for
49: the sub-$T_c$ resistance,
50: and find good agreement with only one free fit parameter.
51: Ropes of nanotubes therefore represent superconductors in the one-dimensional
52: few-channel limit.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \pacs{73.63.Fg, 74.78.Na, 74.25.Fy}
56:
57: \maketitle
58:
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: Over the past decade, the unique mechanical, electrical,
63: and optical properties of carbon nanotubes,
64: including the potential for useful technological applications,
65: have created a lot of excitement \cite{nts,nts2}.
66: While many of these properties are well understood
67: by now, the experimental observation of intrinsic
68: \cite{kociak,kasnew,tang} and anomalously strong proximity-induced
69: \cite{morpurgo,kasumov} superconductivity continues to pose open
70: questions to theoretical understanding.
71: In this paper we present a theory of
72: one-dimensional (1D) superconductivity as found in ropes of
73: carbon nanotubes \cite{kociak,kasnew} and potentially in other
74: nanowires. Ropes are 1D materials in the sense that there is
75: only a relatively small number of
76: propagating channels (typically, $N\approx 10$ to $100$)
77: available to electronic transport.
78: While most other 1D materials tend to become insulating at low
79: temperatures due to the Peierls transition or as a consequence
80: of electron-electron interactions, nanotubes can stay metallic
81: down to very low temperatures \cite{nts}.
82: If the repulsive electron-electron interactions can be
83: overcome by attractive phonon-mediated interactions,
84: ropes of nanotubes can then exhibit a superconducting transition.
85:
86: However, due to strong 1D fluctuations, this transition is
87: presumably rather broad, and the question of how precisely
88: superconductivity breaks down as the number of propagating channels
89: decreases has to be answered by theory. Experimentally, the
90: breakdown of superconductivity manifests itself
91: as a temperature-dependent
92: resistance below the transition temperature $T_c$, which
93: becomes more and more pronounced as the rope gets thinner \cite{kasnew}.
94: According to our theory, this resistance is caused
95: by quantum phase slips, and therefore the experimental data
96: published in Ref.~\cite{kasnew} have in fact explored a
97: regime of 1D superconductivity with clear evidence for quantum
98: phase slip events that had not been reached before.
99: To the best of our knowledge, nanotube ropes represent wires
100: with the smallest number of propagating channels
101: showing intrinsic superconductivity, even when
102: compared to the amorphous MoGe wires of diameter
103: $\approx 10$~nm studied in Ref.~\cite{lau},
104: where still several thousand channels are available.
105:
106: We theoretically analyze superconductivity in nanotube ropes
107: by starting from the microscopic model of an array of
108: $N$ individual metallic single-wall nanotubes (SWNTs) without disorder,
109: with effectively attractive on-tube interactions
110: and inter-tube Josephson couplings. A similar model has been
111: suggested by Gonz{\'a}lez \cite{gonzalez1,gonzalez2}.
112: In the absence of the Josephson couplings, each SWNT would then
113: correspond to a {\sl Luttinger liquid}\
114: with interaction parameter $g_{c+}>1$,
115: where $g_{c+}=1$ marks the noninteracting limit. For simplicity, we
116: take the same $g_{c+}$ on each SWNT.
117: For example, for $(10,10)$ armchair SWNTs, assuming good screening
118: of the repulsive Coulomb interactions, phonon exchange via a breathing
119: mode (as well as optical phonon modes) leads to $g_{c+}\approx 1.3$,
120: see Ref.~\cite{ademarti}. In the case of attractive interactions,
121: the dominant coupling mechanism between different SWNTs is then given
122: by Cooper pair hopping, while
123: single-particle hopping is drastically suppressed by
124: momentum conservation arguments \cite{kane,gonzalez1}.
125: The coupling among different SWNTs is thus encoded in a
126: {\sl Josephson coupling matrix} $\Lambda_{ij}$, where $i,j=1,\ldots,N$.
127: As different nanotube chiralities are randomly distributed in
128: a rope, only $1/3$ of the SWNTs can be expected to be metallic.
129: In general, the $\Lambda_{ij}$ matrix should therefore be
130: drawn from an appropriate random distribution. We consider
131: below one individual rope with a fixed (but unspecified)
132: matrix, and derive general statements valid for
133: arbitrary $\Lambda_{ij}$. In that sense, our theory allows to
134: capture some disorder effects, at least qualitatively. However,
135: since typical elastic mean free paths in SWNTs exceed $1 \mu$m
136: \cite{nts}, disorder effects within individual SWNTs are ignored completely.
137: The above reasoning leads us to the problem of
138: $N$ coupled strongly correlated Luttinger liquids, where
139: the number of ``active'' chains $N \lesssim 100$ with
140: reference to the experiments of Ref.~\cite{kasnew}.
141: This is a difficult problem that neither permits
142: the use of classical Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory
143: nor of the standard BCS approach,
144: in contrast to the situation encountered in,
145: e.g., wide quasi-1D organic superconductors \cite{schulz}.
146:
147: The approach taken in this paper is sketched next.
148: After a careful derivation of the coupled-chain action in Sec.~\ref{sec2}, we
149: proceed by introducing the appropriate order parameter
150: field. In Sec.~\ref{sec3}, we then perform a cumulant expansion in this order
151: parameter, and thereby give a
152: microscopic derivation of the quantum GL action, which
153: then allows to make further progress. We establish the
154: temperature regime where this theory is reliable, and
155: then focus on the important phase fluctuations of the
156: order parameter field. At temperatures $T$ well below a
157: mean-field transition temperature $T_c^0$, amplitude fluctuations
158: are shown to be massive, and hence the amplitude can safely
159: be treated in mean-field theory. The massless phase fluctuations
160: then capture the important physics, and
161: we specify the resulting effective low-energy action, valid at
162: temperatures well below $T_c^0$.
163: Based on this action, Sec.~\ref{sec4} explains why
164: quantum phase slips (QPSs)
165: \cite{tinkham,zaikin1,zaikin2,blatter} are
166: crucial for an understanding of the experimental results of
167: Refs.~\cite{kociak,kasnew}. First, they cause a depression of the
168: transition temperature $T_c$ below the mean-field critical
169: temperature $T_c^0$.
170: Furthermore, for $T<T_c$, a finite resistance $R(T)$ due to QPSs appears,
171: which exhibits approximate power-law scaling.
172: We determine the full temperature dependence
173: of $R(T<T_c)$ for arbitrary rope length in Sec.~\ref{sec5}.
174: In Sec.~\ref{sec6}, we then compare these results for $R(T)$
175: to the experimental data of Ref.~\cite{kasnew}, focussing on two
176: of their samples. Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec7} offers some concluding
177: remarks. Throughout the paper, we put $\hbar=k_B =1$.
178:
179:
180:
181: \section{Model and order parameter} \label{sec2}
182:
183:
184: We consider a rope consisting of $N$
185: metallic SWNTs participating in superconductivity.
186: Experimentally, this number can be found from
187: the residual resistance measured as offset in the
188: resistance when extrapolating down to $T=0$
189: \cite{kasnew}. Due to the attached normal electrodes
190: in any two-terminal measurement of the rope,
191: despite of the presence of superconductivity, there will always be
192: a finite contact resistance $R_c$.
193: Since each metallic tube contributes two conduction channels,
194: assuming good transparency for the contacts between metallic tubes
195: and the electrodes,
196: this is given by
197: \begin{equation}\label{contactres}
198: R_c= \frac{R_Q}{2N}, \quad R_Q=h/2e^2\simeq 12.9\, k\Omega.
199: \end{equation}
200: Extrapolation of experimental data for the resistance $R(T)$ down
201: to $T\to 0$ within the
202: superconducting regime then allows to measure $R_c$, and hence $N$.
203: Good transparency of the contacts is warranted by the sputtering technique
204: used to fabricate and contact the suspended rope samples in the experiments
205: of Refs.~\cite{kociak,kasnew}.
206: An alternative way to estimate $N$ comes from atomic force microscopy,
207: which allows to measure the apparent radius of the rope, and hence yields
208: an estimate for the total number of tubes in the rope. On average, 1/3
209: of the tubes are metallic \cite{nts}, and one should obtain
210: the same number $N$ from this approach.
211: Fortunately, these two ways of estimating $N$ provide
212: consistent results in most samples \cite{kasnew}. Therefore the values
213: for $N$ used below are expected to be reliable.
214:
215:
216: Here we always assume that phonon exchange leads to attractive
217: interactions overcoming the (screened) Coulomb interactions.
218: This assumption can be problematic in ultrathin ropes, where practically
219: no screening arises unless there are close-by gate electrodes.
220: For sufficiently large rope radius, however, theoretical arguments
221: supporting this scenario have been provided in Ref.~\cite{gonzalez3}.
222: In the absence of intra-tube disorder, then
223: the appropriate low-energy theory for an
224: individual SWNT is the Luttinger liquid (LL)
225: model \cite{egger97,kane97,ademarti}.
226: The LL theory of SWNTs
227: is usually formulated within the Abelian bosonization
228: approach \cite{gogolin}.
229: With ${\bf x}=(x,\tau)$, where $x$ is the spatial 1D
230: coordinate along the tube, and
231: $0\leq \tau < 1/T$ is imaginary time,
232: and corresponding integration measure $d{\bf x}=dx d\tau$,
233: the action for a single SWNT is
234: \cite{egger97,kane97,ademarti}
235: \begin{eqnarray}\label{bosac}
236: S_{\rm LL} & = & \int d{\bf x} \sum_{a=c\pm,s\pm}
237: \frac{v_a}{2 g_a} \left[ (\partial_\tau \varphi_{a}/v_a)^2 +
238: (\partial_x \varphi_{a})^2 \right] \nonumber \\
239: &=& \int d {\bf x } \sum_{a}
240: \frac{v_a g_a}{2} \left[ (\partial_\tau \theta_{a}/v_{a})^2 +
241: (\partial_x \theta_{a})^2 \right],
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: which we take to be the same for every SWNT.
244: Due to the electron spin and the additional K point degeneracy present
245: in nanotubes \cite{nts}, there are four channels, $a=c+,c-,s+,s-$,
246: corresponding to the total/relative charge/spin modes \cite{egger97,kane97},
247: with associated boson fields $\varphi_{a}({\bf x})$ and
248: dual fields $\theta_a({\bf x})$ \cite{gogolin}.
249: In the $a=(c+,s-)$ channels, the second (dual) formulation
250: turns out to be more convenient, while the first line of Eq.~(\ref{bosac})
251: is more useful for $a=(s+,c-)$.
252: The combined effect of Coulomb and phonon-mediated
253: electron-electron interactions results in the interaction parameter $g_{c+}$,
254: where we assume $g_{c+}>1$, reflecting effectively attractive
255: interactions \cite{ademarti}.
256: In the neutral channels, there are only very weak
257: residual interactions, and we therefore put $g_{a\neq c+}=1$.
258: Finally, the velocities $v_a$ in Eq.~(\ref{bosac})
259: are defined as $v_a=v_F/g_a$, where
260: $v_F=8\times 10^5$~m$/$sec is the Fermi velocity.
261:
262:
263: Next we address the question which processes trigger the strongest
264: superconducting fluctuations in a nanotube rope. This question
265: has been addressed in Refs.~\cite{gonzalez1,gonzalez2,ademarti},
266: and the conclusion of these studies is that Cooper pairs predominantly
267: form on individual SWNTs rather than involving electrons on different
268: SWNTs, see, e.g., the last section in Ref.~\cite{ademarti} for a
269: detailed discussion. Furthermore, the dominant intra-tube
270: fluctuations involve {\sl singlet}\ (rather than triplet) Cooper
271: pairs. The relevant order parameter for superconductivity is then given by
272: \cite{egger98}
273: \begin{equation}\label{orderpar2}
274: {\cal O}({\bf x})= \sum_{r\sigma\beta} \sigma \psi_{r,\sigma,\beta}
275: ({\bf x}) \psi_{-r,-\sigma,-\beta}({\bf x}) ,
276: \end{equation}
277: where $\psi_{r\sigma \beta}$ denotes the electron field
278: operator for a right- or left-moving electron ($r=\pm$)
279: with spin $\sigma=\pm$ and K point degeneracy index $\beta=\pm$.
280: In bosonized language, this operator can be expressed as \cite{egger98}
281: \begin{eqnarray}\label{orderpar}
282: {\cal O}&=& \frac{1}{\pi a_0}
283: \cos[\sqrt{\pi} \theta_{c+}] \cos[\sqrt{\pi} \varphi_{c-}] \\
284: \nonumber &\times &
285: \cos[\sqrt{\pi} \varphi_{s+}] \cos[\sqrt{\pi} \theta_{s-}] -
286: (\cos\leftrightarrow \sin),
287: \end{eqnarray}
288: where we identify the UV cutoff
289: necessary in the bosonization scheme with
290: the graphite lattice constant, $a_0=0.24$~nm.
291: In what follows, we use the shorthand notation $\varphi_j$
292: to label all four boson fields $\varphi_a$ (or their dual fields)
293: corresponding to the $j$th SWNT, where $j=1,\ldots,N$.
294:
295: The next step is to look at possible couplings among the
296: individual SWNTs. In principle, three different processes
297: should be taken into
298: account, namely (i) direct Coulomb interactions,
299: (ii) Josephson couplings, and (iii) single-electron hopping.
300: The last process is strongly
301: suppressed due to the generally different chirality of
302: adjacent tubes \cite{kane}, and, in addition, for $g_{c+}>1$,
303: inter-SWNT Coulomb interactions are irrelevant \cite{schulz}.
304: Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Ref.~\cite{ademarti},
305: phonon-exchange mediated interactions between
306: {\sl different}\ SWNTs can always be neglected against
307: the intra-tube interactions.
308: Therefore the most relevant mechanism is Josephson
309: coupling between metallic SWNTs. These couplings define
310: a Josephson matrix $\Lambda_{jk}$,
311: which contains the amplitudes for
312: Cooper pair hopping from the $j$th to the $k$th SWNT.
313: We put $\Lambda_{jj}=0$, and hence $\Lambda$ is a real, symmetric,
314: and traceless matrix. It therefore has only real eigenvalues
315: $\Lambda_\alpha$, which we take in descending order,
316: $\Lambda_1\geq \Lambda_2\geq \ldots\geq \Lambda_N$.
317: Moreover, there is at least one positive and at least one negative
318: eigenvalue. The largest eigenvalue $\Lambda_1$ will be shown
319: to determine the mean-field critical temperature $T_c^0$ below.
320: The matrix $\Lambda$ is then expressed in the corresponding orthonormal
321: eigenbasis $|\alpha\rangle$,
322: \begin{equation}\label{lambdade}
323: \Lambda_{jk}= \sum_{\alpha} \langle j | \alpha \rangle \Lambda_\alpha
324: \langle \alpha | k \rangle ,
325: \end{equation}
326: where $\langle j | \alpha \rangle$ is the
327: real orthogonal transformation from the basis of lattice
328: points $\{|j\rangle\}$ to the basis
329: $\{|\alpha\rangle\}$ that diagonalizes $\Lambda$.
330: Clearly, $\langle j | \alpha \rangle = \langle \alpha | j \rangle $.
331: In what follows, we define $\alpha_0$
332: such that $\Lambda_{\alpha}>0$ for $\alpha<\alpha_0$.
333:
334:
335: The Euclidean action of the rope is then
336: \begin{equation}\label{ea}
337: S = \sum_{j=1}^N S_{\rm LL}[\varphi_{j}] - \sum_{jk}
338: \Lambda_{jk}\int d{\bf x} \, {\cal O}^\ast_j {\cal O}_k^{},
339: \end{equation}
340: where ${\cal O}_j$ is the order parameter specified in Eq.~(\ref{orderpar}).
341: The action (\ref{ea}) defines the model that is
342: studied in the remainder of our paper.
343: For studies of closely related models, see
344: also Refs.~\cite{schulz,carr}.
345:
346: In order to decouple the Josephson term in Eq.~(\ref{ea}),
347: we employ a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation.
348: To that purpose,
349: since the Josephson matrix has at least one negative eigenvalue,
350: we first express $\Lambda$ in its eigenbasis, see Eq.~(\ref{lambdade}).
351: The Josephson term in Eq.~(\ref{bosac}) is then rewritten as
352: \[
353: \sum_{jk}
354: {\cal O}_j^* \Lambda_{jk} {\cal O}^{}_k = \sum_{\alpha}\
355: {\rm sgn}(\Lambda_\alpha)
356: | \Lambda_\alpha | {\cal O}_\alpha^* {\cal O}^{}_{\alpha} ,
357: \]
358: where the order parameter in the $|\alpha\rangle$ basis is
359: \begin{equation}\label{expa00}
360: {\cal O}_\alpha^{} \equiv \sum_i \langle \alpha | i
361: \rangle {\cal O}^{}_i, \quad
362: {\cal O}_\alpha^* \equiv \sum_i {\cal O}_i^* \langle i | \alpha \rangle.
363: \end{equation}
364: By introducing a field $\Delta^{}_\alpha({\bf x})$ for each
365: Josephson eigenmode \cite{foot1},
366: with (formally independent) complex conjugate field
367: $\Delta^\ast_\alpha$, it is now possible to
368: perform the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation following
369: the standard procedure \cite{nagaosa1}.
370: With integration measure ${\cal D} \Delta = \prod_{\alpha}
371: {\cal D}\Delta^*_\alpha
372: {\cal D}\Delta^{}_\alpha$, the effective action entering
373: the partition function $Z=\int {\cal D}\Delta \exp(-S_{\rm eff}[\Delta])$
374: reads
375: \begin{equation}
376: \label{effac}
377: S_{\rm eff}[\Delta]= S_0[\Delta] + \int d{\bf x} \sum_{\alpha}
378: \Delta^\ast_\alpha \frac{1}{|\Lambda_\alpha|}
379: \Delta_\alpha ,
380: \end{equation}
381: where the action $S_0[\Delta]$ is formally defined via the remaining
382: path integral over the boson fields $\varphi_{j}$,
383: \begin{eqnarray} \label{f00}
384: S_0[\Delta] &=& -\ln \int
385: \prod_{j=1}^N {\cal D}\varphi_{j} \, e^{ -\sum_j S_{\rm LL}[\varphi_{j}]}
386: \times \nonumber \\
387: & \times & e^{- \int d{\bf x}
388: \sum_{\alpha} c_{\alpha} \left(
389: \Delta^*_\alpha {\cal O}^{}_\alpha +
390: {\cal O}^*_\alpha \Delta^{}_\alpha
391: \right)},
392: \end{eqnarray}
393: with $c_\alpha = 1$ for $\alpha <\alpha_0$,
394: and $c_\alpha = i$ otherwise.
395:
396: \section{Quantum Ginzburg-Landau approach}\label{sec3}
397:
398: \subsection{Cumulant expansion}
399:
400: Clearly, closed analytical evaluation of the path integral
401: in Eq.~(\ref{f00}) is in general impossible.
402: In order to make progress, approximations are necessary,
403: and in the following we shall construct and analyze the
404: Ginzburg-Landau (GL) action
405: \cite{nagaosa1,tinkham} for this problem.
406: It turns out to be essential to take into account
407: quantum fluctuations, i.e., the imaginary-time dependence of the
408: order parameter field $\Delta_\alpha(x,\tau)$.
409: In the standard (static) Ginzburg-Landau theory, such effects are
410: ignored.
411:
412: The derivation of the GL action
413: proceeds from a cumulant expansion
414: of Eq.~(\ref{f00}) up to quartic order in the $\Delta_\alpha$.
415: This is a systematic expansion
416: in the parameter $|\Delta|/2\pi T$ \cite{nagaosa1},
417: and by self-consistently computing this parameter, one
418: can determine the regime of validity of GL theory.
419: We stress that this expansion is {\sl not}\ restricted to $N\gg 1$.
420: In addition, for the long-wavelength low-energy regime of primary interest
421: here, we are entitled to perform a gradient
422: expansion.
423: Using the single-chain correlation function
424: $G({\bf x}_{12})=\langle {\cal O}({\bf x}_1)
425: {\cal O}^\ast({\bf x}_2)\rangle$
426: of the operator ${\cal O}$ in Eq.~(\ref{orderpar})
427: with respect to the free boson action
428: $S_{\rm LL}$, and the connected four-point correlation function
429: \begin{eqnarray*}
430: G^{(4)}_c({\bf x}_1,{\bf x}_2,{\bf x}_3,{\bf x}_4) &=&
431: \langle {\cal O}({\bf x}_1)
432: {\cal O}({\bf x}_2) {\cal O}^*({\bf x}_3) {\cal O}^*({\bf x}_4)\rangle
433: \\
434: &-& \langle {\cal O}({\bf x}_1) {\cal O}^*({\bf x}_3) \rangle
435: \langle {\cal O}({\bf x}_2) {\cal O}^*({\bf x}_4)\rangle \\
436: &-&\langle {\cal O}({\bf x}_1) {\cal O}^*({\bf x}_4) \rangle
437: \langle {\cal O}({\bf x}_2) {\cal O}^*({\bf x}_3)\rangle ,
438: \end{eqnarray*}
439: the cumulant-plus-gradient expansion
440: up to quartic order yields for
441: the effective Lagrangian density
442: \begin{eqnarray}\label{lagal}
443: L[\Delta] &=& \sum_{\alpha<\alpha_0}
444: \Bigl[ C\, |\partial_x \Delta^{}_\alpha|^2 +
445: D\, |\partial_\tau \Delta^{}_\alpha |^2 \\
446: &+& \left( \Lambda_\alpha^{-1} - A \right) |\Delta^{}_\alpha|^2
447: \Bigr] \nonumber \\ \nonumber
448: &+& B \sum_{\alpha_i<\alpha_0}
449: f^{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}_{\alpha_3,\alpha_4}
450: \, \Delta^*_{\alpha_1}
451: \Delta^*_{\alpha_2} \Delta^{}_{\alpha_3}
452: \Delta^{}_{\alpha_4} ,
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: where we use the notation
455: \[
456: f^{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}_{\alpha_3,\alpha_4}=\sum_i
457: \langle \alpha_1 | i\rangle \langle \alpha_2 | i\rangle
458: \langle i | \alpha_3 \rangle
459: \langle i | \alpha_4 \rangle .
460: \]
461: The temperature-dependent positive coefficients $A, B, C, D$ are obtained as
462: \begin{eqnarray}
463: A &=& \int d{\bf x} \, G({\bf x}) ,\label{coefA}\\
464: \label{coefB}
465: B & = & -\frac{1}{4}\int d{\bf x}_{1} d{\bf x}_2
466: d{\bf x}_3 \, G^{(4)}_c({\bf x}_1,{\bf x}_2,{\bf x}_3,{\bf x}_4), \\
467: C &=& \frac12 \int d{\bf x} \, x^2 G({\bf x}) ,\label{coefC}\\
468: D &=& \frac12 \int d{\bf x} \, \tau^2 G({\bf x}) .\label{coefD}
469: \end{eqnarray}
470: Due to translation invariance, the integral for $B$
471: does not depend on ${\bf x}_4$.
472: Besides temperature, these coefficients basically depend only
473: on the important LL interaction parameter $g_{c+}$.
474: In particular, as it is discussed below, for $g_{c+} >1$,
475: the coefficient $A$ grows as $T$ is lowered.
476: For static and uniform configurations, modes with
477: $\alpha>\alpha_0$ never become critical.
478: One can then safely integrate over these modes, which leads to a
479: renormalization of the parameters governing the remaining
480: modes. Such renormalization effects are however tiny,
481: and thus are completely neglected in Eq.~(\ref{lagal}).
482:
483: At this stage, it is useful to switch to
484: an order parameter field defined on the $j$th SWNT,
485: \begin{equation}\label{opontube}
486: \Delta_j=\sum_{\alpha<\alpha_0} \langle j| \alpha \rangle \Delta_\alpha .
487: \end{equation}
488: After some algebra, the Lagrangian density (\ref{lagal}) can
489: be written as
490: \begin{eqnarray}
491: L[\Delta] = \sum_{j=1}^N \Bigl[
492: C |\partial_x \Delta_j^{}|^2 +
493: D |\partial_\tau \Delta_j^{}|^2 + B |\Delta_j|^4 &+& \nonumber \\
494: + \left( \Lambda_1^{-1} - A \right) |\Delta^{}_j|^2 \Bigr]
495: + \sum_{jk}\Delta^\ast_j V_{jk} \Delta^{}_k , &{}&
496: \label{hs2}
497: \end{eqnarray}
498: with the real, symmetric, and positive definite matrix
499: \begin{equation}\label{vjk}
500: V_{jk}=\sum_{\alpha< \alpha_0}
501: \langle j | \alpha \rangle \left( \Lambda_\alpha^{-1} -
502: \Lambda_1^{-1} \right) \langle \alpha | k \rangle.
503: \end{equation}
504: Notice that, strictly speaking,
505: the fields $\Delta_i$ are not all independent,
506: because we have defined them from the subset of positive modes.
507: The transformation in Eq.~(\ref{opontube}) is indeed not invertible.
508: Nevertheless, in the following, we treat them as formally independent.
509: This only affects the precise values of the $V_{ij}$ but does
510: not qualitatively change our results.
511: The expectation value of the order parameter field
512: (\ref{orderpar}) can be expressed in terms of linear combinations
513: of the fields $\Delta_j(x,\tau)$, and hence it is indeed justified
514: to call $\Delta_j$ a proper ``order parameter field''.
515:
516: Equation (\ref{hs2}) specifies the full GL action, taking
517: into account quantum fluctuations and transverse modes
518: for arbitrary number $N$ of active SWNTs.
519: In the limit $N\to\infty$, and considering only static field
520: configurations, results similar to those of Ref.~\cite{schulz} are
521: recovered. In that limit the last term in Eq.~(\ref{hs2}) gives
522: indeed the gradient term in the transverse direction, and one
523: obtains the standard 3D GL Lagrangian.
524: There is however an important difference, namely the starting point of
525: Ref.~\cite{schulz} is a model of Josephson-coupled
526: 1D superconductors, whereas we start from an array
527: of metallic chains with $g_{c+} > 1$, where the
528: inter-chain Josephson coupling is crucial in stabilizing
529: superconductivity.
530: More similar to ours is the model investigated in Ref.~\cite{carr}.
531: However, in that paper, the metallic chains are assumed to have a spin gap,
532: which is not the case for the SWNTs in a rope in the
533: temperature range of interest. Furthermore, the main focus
534: in Ref.~\cite{carr} is the competition between charge density wave and
535: superconducting instabilities, whereas in our case, as discussed above,
536: the formation of a charge density wave is strongly suppressed
537: by compositional disorder, i.e., different chiralities of adjacent
538: tubes, and we do not have to take the corresponding instability
539: into account.
540:
541: \subsection{Ginzburg-Landau coefficients}
542:
543:
544: In order to make quantitative predictions, it is necessary to compute
545: the GL coefficients defined in Eqs.(\ref{coefA})-(\ref{coefD}).
546: While this is possible in principle for the
547: full four-channel model (\ref{bosac}), here we will instead
548: derive the coefficients
549: for a simpler model, where the K point degeneracy is neglected.
550: This leads to an effective spin-$1/2$ Luttinger liquid action
551: with interaction parameter $g_c$ ($g_s=1$)
552: and velocity $v_c=v_F/g_c$ ($v_s=v_F$).
553: Up to a prefactor of order unity, the respective results can be matched onto
554: each other. This can be made explicit, e.g., for the coefficient $A$,
555: where we get from the full action (\ref{bosac})
556: \[
557: A= \frac{c}{v_F}
558: \left( \frac{\pi a_0 T}{v_{c+}} \right)^{(g_{c+}^{-1}-1)/2} .
559: \]
560: The proportionality constant $c$ is
561: found to differ from $\tilde A/2\pi^2$
562: [see Eq.~(\ref{coefA2}) below, which follows from
563: the spin-$1/2$ description] only by a factor of order unity.
564: In the simpler model neglecting the K point
565: degeneracy, one then needs to take
566: \[
567: g_c^{-1}=\frac{1+g^{-1}_{c+}}{2},
568: \]
569: which gives, for $g_{c+}=1.3$, a value of $g_c \approx 1.1$.
570: This way, all exponents of the resulting power-law correlation functions
571: (which are the physically relevant quantities)
572: in the ``reduced'' model
573: are the same as in the complete model, and only
574: prefactors of order unity may be different
575: for the respective GL coefficients.
576: The bosonized order parameter (\ref{orderpar}) in the
577: simpler model is then given by
578: \[
579: {\cal O}= \frac{1}{\pi a_0} \cos[\sqrt{2\pi} \varphi_s]
580: \exp[i\sqrt{2\pi}\theta_c].
581: \]
582: Using the finite-temperature correlation functions of
583: the fields $\theta_c$ and $\varphi_s$ \cite{gogolin},
584: \begin{eqnarray*}
585: \langle \theta_c({\bf x})\theta_c({\bf 0})\rangle &=& \frac{-1}{2\pi g_c}
586: \ln \left(\frac{v_c}{\pi a_0 T}
587: \left |\sinh \frac{\pi T (x+iv_c\tau)}{v_c}\right|\right) , \\
588: \langle \varphi_s({\bf x}) \varphi_s({\bf 0}) \rangle &=& \frac{-1}{2\pi}
589: \ln \left(\frac{v_F}{\pi a_0 T}
590: \left|\sinh \frac{\pi T(x+iv_F\tau)}{v_F}\right|\right),
591: \end{eqnarray*}
592: and rescaling the integration variables $x$ and $\tau$
593: in Eqs.~(\ref{coefA})-(\ref{coefD}),
594: explicit expressions follow in the form
595: \begin{eqnarray}
596: A(T) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2 v_F} ( \pi a_0 T/v_c )^{g_c^{-1}-1}
597: \tilde{A},\label{coefA2}\\ \nonumber
598: B(T) &=& \frac{a_0^2 }{32\pi^4 v_c v_F^2}
599: ( \pi a_0 T/v_c )^{2g_c^{-1} -4} \tilde{B}, \\ \nonumber
600: C(T) &=& \frac{a_0^2}{4\pi^2 v_F}
601: ( \pi a_0 T/v_c )^{g_c^{-1}-3} \tilde{C},\\
602: D(T) &=& \frac{a_0^2}{4\pi^2 v_Fv_c^2}
603: ( \pi a_0 T/v_c )^{g_c^{-1}-3} \tilde{D}. \nonumber
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: Dimensionless $g_c$-dependent numbers
606: $\tilde A, \tilde B, \tilde C, \tilde D$
607: were defined as follows. With the notation ${\bf z}=(w,u)$
608: and
609: \[
610: \int d{\bf z}=
611: \int_{0}^{\pi} du \int_{-\infty}^\infty dw,
612: \]
613: we have
614: \begin{eqnarray*}
615: \tilde{A}&=& \int \frac{d{\bf z}}{ f_c({\bf z}) f_s({\bf z})}, \\
616: \tilde{C}&=& \int d{\bf z} \frac{w^2}{ f_c({\bf z}) f_s({\bf z})},\\
617: \tilde{D}&=& \int d{\bf z} \frac{u^2}{ f_c({\bf z}) f_s({\bf z})},
618: \end{eqnarray*}
619: where functions $f_{c,s}$ are introduced as
620: \begin{eqnarray*}
621: f_c({\bf z}) &=& |\sinh(w+iu)|^{1/g_c},\\
622: f_s({\bf z}) &=& |\sinh(w/g_c + iu)|.
623: \end{eqnarray*}
624: The coefficient of the quartic term in the GL functional is
625: \begin{eqnarray*}
626: & &\tilde B = \int \frac{d{\bf z}_1 d{\bf z}_2 d{\bf z}_3}
627: {f_c({\bf z}_2) f_c({\bf z}_{13})} \Biggl[
628: \frac{4}{f_s({\bf z}_2)f_s({\bf z}_{13})}-
629: \frac{f_c({\bf z}_1) f_c({\bf z}_{23})}
630: {f_c({\bf z}_3)f_c({\bf z}_{12})} \\ &\times& \left(
631: \frac{f_s({\bf z}_1)f_s({\bf z}_{23})}
632: {f_s({\bf z}_2)f_s( {\bf z}_{13}) f_s({\bf z}_3)f_s({\bf z}_{12})}
633: + (1\leftrightarrow 2) + (1 \leftrightarrow 3) \right)
634: \Biggr ]
635: \end{eqnarray*}
636: with ${\bf z}_{ij}=(w_i-w_j, u_i-u_j)$.
637: The quantity $\tilde{B}$
638: is evaluated using the Monte Carlo method.
639: For $g_c=1$, we first numerically reproduced
640: the exact result $\tilde{B}=8\pi^2 \tilde{C}$
641: with $\tilde{C}=7\pi \zeta(3)/4$ \cite{nagaosa1}.
642: Numerical values can then be obtained for arbitrary $g_c$.
643: Numerical evaluation yields for $g_c \approx 1.1$ (corresponding to
644: $g_{c+}=1.3$) the following results:
645: \begin{equation}\label{tildes}
646: \tilde{A} \simeq 17.4 , \quad \tilde{B} \simeq 392(1) ,
647: \quad \tilde{C}\simeq 8.15 ,\quad \tilde{D}\simeq 6.97 .
648: \end{equation}
649:
650: \subsection{Mean-field transition temperature}
651:
652: Since in the rope only a modest number of transverse modes are present,
653: a natural definition of the mean-field critical temperature $T_c^0$
654: is the temperature at which the mode corresponding to
655: the largest eigenvalue of $\Lambda$
656: becomes critical. {}From Eq.~(\ref{hs2}), this leads to
657: the condition $A(T)=\Lambda_1^{-1}$, and hence to
658: the mean-field critical temperature
659: \begin{equation}\label{tc}
660: T_c^0 = \frac{v_c}{\pi a_0} \left( \frac{\tilde A \Lambda_1}{2\pi^2 v_F}
661: \right)^{g_c/(g_c-1)} ,
662: \end{equation}
663: which exhibits a dependence on the number $N$ of
664: active SWNTs in the rope through $\Lambda_1$. For large
665: $N$, the eigenvalue $\Lambda_1$ saturates, and Eq.~(\ref{tc})
666: approaches the bulk transition temperature.
667:
668: To provide concrete theoretical
669: predictions for $T_c^0$ is difficult,
670: since the Josephson matrix is in general unknown, and the
671: results for $T_c^0$ very sensitively depend on $\Lambda_1$.
672: Using estimates of Ref.~\cite{gonzalez2} and typical $N$ as reported
673: in Ref.~\cite{kasnew}, as an order-of-magnitude estimate,
674: we find $T_c^0$ values around $0.1$ to 1~K. When comparing
675: to experimental results, $\Lambda_1$ can be inferred from the
676: actually measured $T_c$, which in turn provides values in
677: reasonable agreement with theoretical expectations \cite{gonzalez1}.
678:
679:
680: \subsection{Low-energy theory: $T < T_c^0$}
681:
682: In what follows, we focus on temperatures $T<T^0_c$.
683: Then it is useful to employ an amplitude-phase representation of the
684: order parameter field,
685: \begin{equation}\label{densphas}
686: \Delta_j ({\bf x})=|\Delta_j|({\bf x}) \exp [i\phi_j({\bf x})],
687: \end{equation}
688: where the amplitudes $|\Delta_j|$ are expected to be
689: finite with a gap for fluctuations
690: around their mean-field value. At not too low temperatures, the GL action
691: corresponding to Eq.~(\ref{hs2}) is accurate (see below),
692: and the mean-field values
693: follow from the saddle-point equations.
694: Considering only static and uniform field configurations,
695: we find $\phi_i\equiv \phi$, where in principle also other (frustrated)
696: configurations with $\phi_i-\phi_j=\pm \pi$ could contribute.
697: Such configurations presumably correspond to maxima of the free energy,
698: and are ignored henceforth.
699: The saddle-point equations then reduce to equations for the amplitudes alone,
700: \begin{equation}\label{gap}
701: \sum_{j} V_{ij} |\Delta_j| + (\Lambda_1^{-1}-A)|\Delta_i| +
702: 2B |\Delta_i|^3 =0 ,
703: \end{equation}
704: whose solution yields the transverse order parameter profile.
705: Numerical study of Eq.~(\ref{gap}) using a standard Newton-Raphson
706: root-finding algorithm then allows to
707: extract the profile $\{|\Delta_j|\}$
708: for a given Josephson matrix $\Lambda_{ij}$.
709: We briefly discuss the solution of Eq.~(\ref{gap})
710: for the idealized model of a rope as a trigonal
711: lattice exclusively composed of
712: $N$ metallic SWNTs, where $\Lambda_{ij}=\lambda$ for nearest
713: neighbors $(i,j)$, and $\Lambda_{ij}=0$ otherwise. For this model,
714: Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows the resulting average amplitude
715: $\Delta_0=\sum_i |\Delta_i|/N$ as a function of temperature for
716: $\lambda/v_F=0.1$ and two values of $N$.
717: Since $\Delta_0/2\pi T$ is the expansion parameter entering
718: the construction of the GL functional, and it
719: remains small down to $T\approx T_c^0/2$, we
720: conclude that the GL theory is self-consistently valid
721: in a quantitative way down to such temperature
722: scales. In our discussion below, GL theory turns
723: out to be qualitatively useful even down to $T=0$.
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \centerline{\epsfxsize=7cm\epsfysize=6cm
727: \epsffile{prof.eps}}
728: \caption{\label{fig1}
729: Temperature dependence of $\Delta_0/2\pi T$ versus $T/T_c^0$ for
730: $N=31$ (open circles) and $N=253$ (filled circles). }
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: Fixing the amplitudes $|\Delta_j|$ at their mean-field values, and
734: neglecting the massive amplitude fluctuations around these values,
735: the Lagrangian follows from Eq.~(\ref{hs2}) as
736: \begin{eqnarray}\label{final}
737: L&=& \sum_{j=1}^N
738: \frac{\mu_j}{2\pi} \left[ c_s^{} (\partial_x\phi_j)^2 + c_s^{-1}
739: (\partial_\tau \phi_j)^2 \right]\\ \nonumber
740: & + & \sum_{i>j} 2V_{ij}|\Delta_i||\Delta_j|
741: \cos(\phi_i-\phi_j) ,
742: \end{eqnarray}
743: with the Mooij-Sch\"on velocity \cite{mooij},
744: \begin{equation}\label{css}
745: c_s \equiv v_c \sqrt{\tilde{C}/\tilde{D}},
746: \end{equation}
747: and dimensionless phase stiffness parameters
748: \begin{equation}\label{stiff1}
749: \mu_j= 2\pi C |\Delta_j|^2 /c_s.
750: \end{equation}
751: At this stage, electromagnetic potentials can be coupled in via standard
752: Peierls substitution rule \cite{nagaosa1},
753: and dissipative effects due to the electromagnetic environment
754: can be incorporated following Ref.~\cite{blatter}.
755:
756:
757: \section{1D action and quantum phase slips}\label{sec4}
758:
759: \subsection{1D phase action}\label{sec41}
760:
761: Numerical evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{gap})
762: shows that for $T$ well below $T_c^0$,
763: transverse fluctuations are heavily suppressed.
764: While this statement only applies to amplitude fluctuations,
765: one can argue that also the transverse phase fluctuations
766: are strongly suppressed. The basic argument relates to
767: the scaling dimension [in the renormalization group (RG) sense]
768: of the operator $\cos(\phi_i-\phi_j)$, which is essentially
769: governed by the $\mu_j$. For $T$ well below $T_c^0$, the
770: $\mu_j$ become large, and the cosine operators get strongly
771: relevant, locking the phases all together. In the low-temperature
772: regime of main interest below, this argument allows to substantially
773: simplify Eq.~(\ref{final}).
774: Then also no detailed knowledge about the Josephson
775: matrix is required, because the only relevant information
776: is essentially contained in $T^0_c$.
777:
778: Putting all phases $\phi_j=\phi$,
779: we arrive at a standard (Gaussian) 1D superconducting phase action
780: \cite{tinkham},
781: \begin{equation}\label{finala}
782: S=\frac{\mu}{2\pi}\int dx d\tau \left[
783: c_s^{-1}(\partial_\tau\phi)^2 + c_s (\partial_x \phi)^2 \right],
784: \end{equation}
785: with dimensionless rigidity
786: $\mu = \sum_j \mu_j$, see Eq.~(\ref{stiff1}),
787: and $c_s$ as given in Eq.~(\ref{css}).
788: Assuming GL theory to work even down to $T=0$ for the moment, and neglecting
789: the $V_{ij}$-term in Eq.~(\ref{gap}), a simple analytical estimate follows
790: in the form
791: \begin{equation} \label{mu1}
792: \mu(T) = N \nu \left[ 1 - (T/T_c^0)^{(g_c-1)/g_c}\right] ,
793: \end{equation}
794: where the number $\nu$ is
795: \begin{equation} \label{defnu}
796: \nu =4\pi \tilde{A} (\tilde{C}\tilde{D})^{1/2} / \tilde{B}.
797: \end{equation}
798: The peculiar temperature dependence of the phase stiffness in Eq.~(\ref{mu1}),
799: reflecting the underlying LL physics of the individual SWNTs, is one of
800: the main results of this paper.
801: In the effective spin-$1/2$ description employed here,
802: using the numbers specified
803: in Eq.~(\ref{tildes}) for $g_c=1.1$ results in $\nu\approx 4$.
804: Remarkably, at
805: $T=0$, Eq.~(\ref{mu1}) coincides, up to a prefactor of order unity,
806: with the rigidity $\bar{\mu}$ obtained from standard
807: mean-field relations \cite{nagaosa1},
808: \[
809: \bar{\mu}= \pi^2 n_s R^2/2 m^\ast c_s = \bar{\nu} N.
810: \]
811: With the density of condensed electrons $n_s$ and rope radius $R$,
812: this implies $\bar{\nu}\approx v_F/c_s$, which is of order unity.
813: We therefore conclude that the GL prediction (\ref{mu1}) for $\mu(T)$ is
814: robust and useful even outside its strict validity regime.
815:
816: The result (\ref{mu1}) for the stiffness is central for the
817: following discussion. The value we obtain for $\nu$, however,
818: should not be taken as a very precise estimate.
819: First, it can be affected
820: by factors of order unity under a full four-channel calculation
821: taking into account the K point degeneracy,
822: as this affects each of the numbers in Eq.~(\ref{tildes}) by a
823: factor of order unity. Second, uncertainties in the parameter $g_c$
824: will also affect $\nu$ by a factor of order unity. Moreover, based
825: on the discussion in Ref.~\cite{zaikin2}, one expects
826: on general grounds that intra-SWNT disorder and
827: dissipative effects, both of which are not included
828: in our model, will effectively lead to a {\sl decrease} of the parameter
829: $\nu$ entering Eq.~(\ref{mu1}).
830: Therefore $\nu$ is taken below as a fit
831: parameter when comparing to experimental data.
832: Since the number of active SWNTs $N$ can be estimated
833: from the residual resistance,
834: and the transition temperature $T_c$, see Eq.~(\ref{tc1}) below, can be
835: determined from the experimentally observed transition temperature,
836: $\nu$ is basically the only free remaining parameter.
837: Fits of our theoretical results
838: to experimental data are then expected to yield values for $\nu$ around
839: $\nu\approx 1$. This is verified below in Sec.~\ref{sec6}.
840:
841: \subsection{Phase slips}
842:
843: In the 1D situation encountered here, superconductivity
844: can be destroyed by phase slips \cite{tinkham}.
845: A phase slip (PS) can be visualized as a process in which
846: fluctuations locally destroy the amplitude of the superconducting
847: order parameter, which effectively disconnects the 1D
848: superconductor into two parts. Simultaneously, the phase,
849: being defined only up to $2\pi$, is allowed to ``slip'' by $2\pi$
850: across the region where the amplitude vanishes.
851: This process then leads to finite dissipation in the superconducting wire
852: via the
853: Josephson effect. Depending on temperature, phase slips
854: can be produced either by thermal or by quantum fluctuations.
855: In the first case, which is commonly realized very near the critical
856: temperature, we have a thermally activated
857: phase slip (TAPS). At lower temperature,
858: the quantum tunneling mechanism dominates,
859: and one speaks of a quantum phase slip (QPS).
860: For a textbook description of quantum phase slips, see Ref.~\cite{chaikin}.
861: Below we demonstrate that in superconducting ropes, only QPSs
862: are expected to play a prominent role.
863:
864: A QPS is a topological vortex-like excitation of the
865: superconducting phase field $\phi(x,\tau)$
866: that solves the equation of motion for
867: the action (\ref{finala}) with a
868: singularity at the core, where superconducting order
869: is locally destroyed and a phase cannot be defined.
870: Defining a thermal lengthscale as
871: \begin{equation}\label{lt}
872: L_T= c_s/ \pi T ,
873: \end{equation}
874: for rope length $L\to \infty$ and $L_T\to \infty$,
875: a QPS with core at $(x_i,\tau_i)$ and winding number $k_i=\pm 1$
876: (higher winding numbers are irrelevant)
877: is given by \cite{chaikin}
878: \begin{equation}\label{qps}
879: \phi(x,\tau)=k_i \arctan
880: \left[\frac{c_s(\tau-\tau_i)}{(x-x_i)}\right] ,
881: \end{equation}
882: where the finite $L,L_T$ solution
883: follows by conformal transformation \cite{blatter}.
884: The action of a QPS consists of two terms, one associated with the local
885: loss of condensation energy, the core action $S_c$, and
886: the other with the vortex strain energy. % $S_{\rm el}$.
887: While a detailed computation of $S_c$ requires a microscopic
888: description of the dynamics inside the vortex core \cite{zaikin2},
889: a simple qualitative argument is able to predict an order-of-magnitude
890: estimate $S_c\approx \mu/2$ \cite{chaikin}.
891:
892: This result allows us to assess the relative contribution
893: of the TAPS and QPS mechanisms.
894: The production rate for the creation of one
895: vortex is \cite{zaikin2}
896: $\gamma_{\rm QPS}\approx \frac{S_c L c_s}{\kappa} \exp(-S_c)$,
897: where $\kappa$ is the core size.
898: Within exponential accuracy, comparing this formula to the respective
899: standard TAPS rate expression \cite{tinkham},
900: the crossover temperature from
901: TAPS- to QPS-dominated behavior is
902: $T^*_{\rm PS}= 2\Delta F/ N\nu$,
903: with activation barrier $\Delta F$. Using results of
904: Ref.~\cite{carr}, we estimate the latter as
905: $\Delta F=8\sqrt{2} R(g_c) N T_c^0/3$,
906: with dimensionless coefficient $R(g_c)$ of order unity.
907: Finally, this implies $T^*_{\rm PS}\approx T_c^0$.
908: Since the true transition temperature $T_c<T_c^0$, see below,
909: in the temperature regime $T<T_c$, the influence of a TAPS
910: can safely be neglected against the QPS.
911:
912: The generalization to many QPSs then leads to the standard picture
913: of a Coulomb gas of charges $k_i=\pm 1$, with fugacity $y=e^{-S_c}$, total
914: charge zero, and logarithmic interactions \cite{nagaosa1,chaikin}.
915: The partition function $Z=Z_G Z_V$ contains a regular factor
916: $Z_G$ and the vortex contribution
917: \begin{equation} \label{partfncvor}
918: Z_V = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{y^{2n}}{(n!)^2}
919: \int \frac{\prod_{m=1}^{2n} d{\bf r}_m}{(c_s\kappa^2)^{2n}}
920: \sum_{\{k \}} e^{\mu \sum_{i\neq j} k_i k_j \ln (r_{ij}/\kappa)}.
921: \end{equation}
922: This model undergoes a Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless
923: transition driven by the nucleation of vortices, here corresponding to
924: a transition from a phase $\mu>\mu^*$, where QPSs are
925: confined into neutral pairs and the rope forms a 1D superconductor
926: with finite phase stiffness
927: and quasi-long-range order, to a phase $\mu <\mu^*$ where
928: QPSs proliferate. In that phase, vortices are deconfined and
929: destroy the phase stiffness, thereby producing normal behavior,
930: where ``normal'' does of course not imply Fermi-liquid behavior.
931: The phase boundary is located at $\mu^*=2+4\pi y \simeq 2$.
932: The true transition temperature $T_c$ is therefore {\sl not}\ the mean-field
933: transition temperature $T_c^0$, but follows
934: from the condition $\mu(T_c)=\mu^\ast$. Putting $\mu^\ast=2$,
935: Eq.~(\ref{mu1}) yields
936: \begin{equation}\label{tc1}
937: T_c/T_c^0 = \left[1- 2/ N\nu \right]^{g_c/(g_c-1)}.
938: \end{equation}
939: This $T_c$ depression is quite sizeable for $N\alt 100$. To give
940: concrete numbers, taking $\nu=1$, for $N=25,50,$ and 100, the
941: ratio $T_c/T_c^0$ equals $0.40, 0.63,$ and $0.80$, respectively.
942: QPSs also have an important and observable effect in the
943: superconducting regime, as will be discussed in the next section.
944:
945: \begin{figure}
946: \centerline{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsfysize=6cm
947: \epsffile{figevo.eps}}
948: \caption{\label{figevo}
949: Temperature-dependent resistance $R(T<T_c)$
950: predicted by Eq.~(\ref{resis})
951: for $\nu=1$ and different $N$. The smaller is $N$, the broader is
952: the transition. From the leftmost to the rightmost curve,
953: $N=4,7,19,37,61,91,127,169,217$.
954: }
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \section{Resistance below $T_c$}\label{sec5}
958:
959: A phase slip produces finite dissipation through the Josephson
960: effect, and therefore introduces a finite resistance even
961: in the superconducting state, $T<T_c$. The QPS-induced linear
962: resistance $R(T)=V/I$ for $T<T_c$ can be computed perturbatively in the
963: QPS fugacity $y$ \cite{zaikin1}. For that purpose, we imagine that one
964: imposes a small current $I$ to flow through the rope.
965: The presence of QPSs implies that a voltage drop $V$ occurs,
966: which is related to the average change in phase,
967: \[
968: V=\frac{\langle \dot\phi \rangle}{2e}=
969: \frac{\pi}{e}[\Gamma(I)-\Gamma(-I)] ,
970: \]
971: where $\Gamma(\pm I)$ is the rate for a phase slip
972: by $\pm 2\pi$ \cite{zaikin1}. This rate can be obtained
973: following Langer \cite{langer} as
974: the imaginary part acquired by the
975: free energy $F(I)$ under an appropriate analytic continuation,
976: \begin{equation}
977: \Gamma(\pm I)= -2 \, {\rm Im} \, F(\pm I) .
978: \end{equation}
979: We only consider the contribution of a single pair of QPSs,
980: i.e., compute $R(T)$ to second order in $y$.
981: Expanding Eq.~(\ref{partfncvor}) to order $y^2$,
982: the free energy at this order reads
983: \begin{equation}
984: F = - \frac{Ly^2 c_s^2}{\kappa^4} \int_0^{1/T} d\tau
985: \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx \, e^{\epsilon \tau -2 \mu g_E(x,\tau)} ,
986: \end{equation}
987: where the vortex-vortex interaction $g_E(x,\tau)$
988: only depends on relative coordinates, and
989: $\epsilon=\pi \hbar I/e$. The contribution $F_G$ to
990: the free energy due to regular configurations can be dropped, because
991: it does not acquire an imaginary part under the analytic continuation.
992: We now perform the analytic continuation $\tau \rightarrow it$,
993: resulting in [see Ref.~\cite{weissbook} for details]
994: \begin{equation}
995: {\rm Im} \, F = - \frac{Ly^2 c_s^2}{2\kappa^4}
996: \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt \,
997: e^{i \epsilon t -2 \mu g(x,t)} ,
998: \end{equation}
999: where $g(x,t)\equiv g_E(x,\tau\rightarrow it)$.
1000: The rate $\Gamma(\epsilon)$ then follows
1001: for $L,L_T \gg \kappa$ but arbitrary $L/L_T$ in the form
1002: \[
1003: \Gamma(\epsilon)=\frac{c_s^2 L y^2}{\kappa^4}
1004: \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx \int_{-\infty}^\infty dt \, e^{i\epsilon t
1005: - \mu [\tilde g(t+x/c_s)+ \tilde g(t-x/c_s)]} ,
1006: \]
1007: where
1008: \[
1009: \tilde g(t) = \ln \left[(L_T/\kappa) \sinh(\pi T|t|)\right]
1010: + i (\pi/2) {\rm sgn}(t).
1011: \]
1012: Analyticity of $g_E(x,\tau)$ in the strip $0\leq\tau\leq 1/T$
1013: also leads to the standard detailed balance relation
1014: \cite{weissbook},
1015: \[
1016: \Gamma(-\epsilon)=e^{- \epsilon/T} \Gamma(\epsilon) .
1017: \]
1018: In order to explicitly evaluate the rate $\Gamma(\epsilon)$ for
1019: arbitrary $L/L_T$, we now replace the boundaries for the $x$-integral
1020: by a soft exponential cutoff,
1021: switch to integration variables
1022: $t'=t-x/c_s$ and $t^{\prime \prime}=t+x/c_s$,
1023: and use the auxiliary relation
1024: \[
1025: e^{-c_s | t^{\prime\prime}- t'|/L}= \frac{c_s}{\pi L}
1026: \int_{-\infty}^\infty ds \frac{e^{-is(t^{\prime\prime}-t')}}
1027: {s^2+(c_s/L)^2}.
1028: \]
1029: The $t',t^{\prime\prime}$ time integrations then decouple,
1030: and it is straightforward to carry them out.
1031: Finally some algebra yields the linear resistance
1032: in the form
1033: \begin{eqnarray}\label{resis}
1034: \frac{R(T)}{R_Q} &=& \left( \frac{\pi y \Gamma(\mu/2)}{ \Gamma(\mu/2+1/2)}
1035: \right)^2 \frac{\pi L}{2\kappa} \left(\frac{L_T}{\kappa}\right)^{3-2\mu}
1036: \\ \nonumber
1037: &\times & \int_{0}^\infty du \frac{2/\pi}{1+u^2}
1038: \left|\frac{\Gamma(\mu/2+iu L_T/2L)} {\Gamma(\mu/2)} \right|^4 ,
1039: \end{eqnarray}
1040: in units of the resistance quantum $R_Q$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{contactres}).
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044: For $L/L_T\gg 1$, the $u$-integral approaches unity,
1045: and hence $R\propto T^{2\mu-3}$,
1046: while for $L/L_T\ll 1$, dimensional scaling arguments
1047: give $R\propto T^{2\mu-2}$. In Refs.~\cite{kociak,kasnew},
1048: typical lengths were $L\approx 1~\mu$m, which puts one into the
1049: crossover regime $L_T\approx L$.
1050: While the quoted power laws have already been reported for diffusive wires
1051: \cite{zaikin1}, Eq.~(\ref{resis}) describes the full
1052: crossover for arbitrary $L/L_T$, and applies to
1053: strongly correlated ladder compounds such as nanotube ropes.
1054: It predicts that
1055: the transition gets significantly
1056: broader upon decreasing the number of tubes in the rope.
1057: This is shown in Fig.~\ref{figevo}, where the theoretical
1058: results for the resistance is
1059: plotted for various $N$ at $\nu=1$.
1060: Note that Eq.~(\ref{resis}) is a perturbative result
1061: in the fugacity, and it is expected to break down close to $T_c$,
1062: see below.
1063: In the next section we directly compare Eq.~(\ref{resis}) to
1064: experimental data obtained by Kasumov {\sl et al.} \cite{kasnew}.
1065:
1066: \section{Comparison to experimental data}\label{sec6}
1067:
1068: \begin{figure}
1069: \centerline{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsfysize=6cm \epsffile{figR2.eps}}
1070: \caption{\label{figR2}
1071: Temperature dependence of the resistance below $T_c$ for
1072: superconducting rope
1073: $R2$ experimentally studied in Ref.~\cite{kasnew}.
1074: Open squares denote experimental data
1075: (with subtracted residual resistance),
1076: the curve is the theoretical result.
1077: }
1078: \end{figure}
1079:
1080: Here we discuss how the prediction for the
1081: temperature-dependent resistance $R(T)$ below
1082: $T_c$ as given in Eq.~(\ref{resis}) compares to the experimental
1083: results for $R(T)$ published in Ref.~\cite{kasnew}.
1084: More aspects of this comparison will be given elsewhere \cite{next}.
1085: The experimental data in Ref.~\cite{kasnew} were obtained from
1086: two-terminal measurements of ropes suspended between
1087: normal electrodes.
1088: Due to the presence of the contacts,
1089: the residual resistance (\ref{contactres}) survives down to $T=0$
1090: even when the rope exhibits a superconducting transition.
1091: Extrapolation of experimental results for $R(T)$ yields $R_c$, which then
1092: allows to infer the number $N$ in the respective sample
1093: from Eq.~(\ref{contactres}).
1094: This resistance $R_c$ has to be subtracted from experimental
1095: data to allow
1096: for a comparison with Eq.~(\ref{resis}), where no contact resistance
1097: is taken into account.
1098:
1099: In Figs.~\ref{figR2} and \ref{figR4}, experimental
1100: resistance curves (after this subtraction)
1101: for the samples named $R2$ and $R4$
1102: in Ref.~\cite{kasnew} are plotted versus the prediction
1103: of Eq.~(\ref{resis}). For sample
1104: $R2$, we find $R_c= 74~\Omega$
1105: corresponding to $N_{R2}=87$, while for sample $R4$, the
1106: subtracted resistance is $R_c=150~\Omega$,
1107: leading to $N_{R4}=43$. We then take these $N$ values
1108: when computing the respective
1109: theoretical curves.
1110: The experimentally determined
1111: temperature $T^\ast$ locates the onset
1112: of the transition \cite{kasnew}, and
1113: is identified with the true transition temperature $T_c$
1114: in Eq.~(\ref{tc1}). It is therefore also not a free parameter.
1115: Note that thereby the eigenvalue $\Lambda_1$ of the Josephson
1116: matrix has been determined.
1117: In the absence of detailed knowledge about the
1118: Josephson matrix, it is fortunate that our result
1119: for $R(T)/R(T_c)$ following from Eqs.~(\ref{resis})
1120: and (\ref{mu1}) does not require more information about
1121: $\Lambda$ besides the largest eigenvalue.
1122: Given the estimate $g_{c+}=1.3$
1123: \cite{ademarti}, the comparison of Eq.~(\ref{resis})
1124: to experimental data then allows only one free fit
1125: parameter, namely $\nu$. According to our discussion
1126: in Sec.~\ref{sec41}, the fit is expected to yield values $\nu \approx 1$.
1127:
1128: The best fit to the low-temperature experimental curves for $R(T)$
1129: yields $\nu=0.75$ for sample $R2$, see Fig.~\ref{figR2},
1130: and $\nu=0.16$ for sample $R4$, respectively. The agreement between
1131: experiment and theory is excellent for sample $R2$. For sample $R4$,
1132: the optimal $\nu$ is slightly smaller than expected, which indicates that
1133: dissipative processes may be more important in that sample.
1134: Nevertheless, for both samples, the low-temperature
1135: resistance agrees quite well, with only one free fit parameter that
1136: is found to be of order unity as expected.
1137: Whereas the agreement between theoretical and experimental curves
1138: appears then quite satisfactory in the low-temperature region,
1139: our predictions clearly deviate in the region near $T_c$.
1140: This is not surprising, because
1141: our expression for $R(T)$ in Eq.~(\ref{resis})
1142: is perturbative in the QPS fugacity. It is then expected to
1143: break down close to $T_c$, where QPSs proliferate and the approximation
1144: of a very dilute gas of QPS pairs, on which
1145: our calculation is based, is not valid anymore.
1146: As a consequence, also the saturation observed
1147: experimentally above $T^\ast$ is not captured.
1148:
1149: We note that it is an interesting challenge to compute the
1150: finite resistance in the normal phase at $T_c<T<T_c^0$,
1151: where the saturation should be caused by
1152: QPS and TAPS proliferation. For temperatures $T>T_c^0$, superconducting
1153: correlations can be neglected, and the resistance should then be dominated
1154: by phonon backscattering and disorder effects.
1155: Nevertheless, we believe that the
1156: agreement between the theoretical resistance result (\ref{resis})
1157: and experimental data at low temperatures shown
1158: in Figs.~\ref{figR2} and \ref{figR4},
1159: given the complexity of this system, is rather satisfactory.
1160: More importantly, this comparison
1161: provides strong evidence for the presence of quantum phase
1162: slips in superconducting nanotube ropes.
1163:
1164: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec7}
1165:
1166: According to our discussion above,
1167: the intrinsic superconductivity observed in ropes of
1168: SNWTs \cite{kasnew,kociak} represents a
1169: remarkable phenomenon, where it has been
1170: possible to experimentally probe the extreme 1D
1171: limit of a superconductor.
1172: In this paper, we have formulated a theory for this phenomenon,
1173: based on a model of metallic SWNTs with
1174: attractive intra-tube interactions
1175: and arbitrary inter-tube Josephson couplings.
1176: The analysis of this model leads to an effective Ginzburg-Landau
1177: action, whose coefficients can be expressed in
1178: terms of parameters entering the
1179: microscopic description of the rope. In order
1180: to get the correct low-energy dynamics, it is crucial
1181: to include quantum fluctuations of the order parameter.
1182: Based on the resulting low-energy action for the phase
1183: fluctuations, we have shown that quantum phase slips
1184: produce a depression of the critical temperature.
1185: More importantly, the temperature dependence of the linear resistance
1186: experimentally observed below the transition temperature
1187: can be accounted for by considering the underlying LL physics
1188: and the effect of quantum phase slips.
1189: Despite some admittedly crude approximations, like the neglect of
1190: intra-tube disorder and dissipation effects inside the vortex core,
1191: the comparison of
1192: experimental curves and theoretical predictions,
1193: in particular in the low-temperature region, strongly
1194: suggests that the resistive process is indeed dominated by
1195: quantum phase slips.
1196: Our theory also suggests that, if repulsive Coulomb interactions
1197: can be efficiently screened off, superconductivity may survive down
1198: to only very few transverse channels in clean nanotube ropes.
1199:
1200:
1201: \begin{figure}[t]
1202: \centerline{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsfysize=6cm \epsffile{figR4.eps}}
1203: \caption{\label{figR4}
1204: Same as Fig.~\ref{figR2}, but for sample $R4$ experimentally
1205: studied in Ref.~\cite{kasnew}.
1206: }
1207: \end{figure}
1208:
1209: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1210:
1211: We thank H. Bouchiat and M. Ferrier
1212: for providing the data shown in Figs.~\ref{figR2} and
1213: \ref{figR4} and for many discussions. One of us (ADM) would like
1214: to thank them also for their warm hospitality
1215: during an extended stay in Orsay.
1216: This work has been supported by the EU network DIENOW
1217: and the SFB-TR 12 of the DFG.
1218:
1219:
1220:
1221: \begin{references}
1222:
1223: \bibitem{nts}
1224: C. Dekker, Physics Today {\bf 52(5)}, 22 (1999);
1225: See also reviews on nanotubes in Physics World No.~{\bf 6} (2000).
1226:
1227: \bibitem{nts2}
1228: M. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus and Ph. Avouris (Eds.),
1229: Carbon Nanotubes, Topics in Appl. Physics {\bf 80}
1230: (Springer Verlag 2001).
1231:
1232: \bibitem{kociak}
1233: M. Kociak, A.Yu. Kasumov, S. Gueron, B. Reulet, I.I. Khodos,
1234: Yu.B. Gorbatov, V.T. Volkov, L. Vaccarini, and H. Bouchiat,
1235: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2416 (2001).
1236:
1237: \bibitem{kasnew}
1238: A. Kasumov, M. Kociak, M. Ferrier, R. Deblock, S. Gueron, B. Reulet,
1239: I. Khodos, O. Stephan, and H. Bouchiat, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 214521 (2003).
1240:
1241: \bibitem{tang}
1242: Z.K. Tang, L. Zhang, N. Wang, X.X. Zhang, G.H. Wen, G.D. Li, J.N. Wang, C.T.
1243: Chan, and P. Sheng, Science {\bf 292}, 2462 (2001).
1244:
1245: \bibitem{kasumov}
1246: A.Yu. Kasumov, R. Deblock, M. Kociak, B. Reulet, H. Bouchiat, I.I.
1247: Khodos, Yu.B. Gorbatov, V.T. Volkov, C. Journet, and M. Burghard,
1248: Science {\bf 284}, 1508 (1999).
1249:
1250: \bibitem{morpurgo}
1251: A.F. Morpurgo, J. Kong, C.M. Marcus, and H. Dai,
1252: Science {\bf 286}, 263 (1999).
1253:
1254: \bibitem{lau}
1255: C.N. Lau, N. Markovic, M. Bockrath, A. Bezryadin, and M. Tinkham,
1256: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 217003 (2001).
1257:
1258: \bibitem{gonzalez1} J. Gonz{\'a}lez,
1259: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 076403 (2002).
1260:
1261: \bibitem{gonzalez2} J. Gonz{\'a}lez,
1262: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 014528 (2003).
1263:
1264: \bibitem{ademarti} A.~De~Martino and R. Egger,
1265: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 235418 (2003).
1266:
1267: \bibitem{kane} A.A. Maarouf, C.L. Kane, and E.J. Mele,
1268: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}, 11156 (2000).
1269:
1270: \bibitem{schulz} H.J. Schulz and C. Bourbonnais,
1271: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 5856 (1983).
1272:
1273: \bibitem{tinkham} M. Tinkham, {\sl Introduction to Superconductivity}, 2nd ed.
1274: (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996).
1275:
1276: \bibitem{zaikin1}
1277: A.D. Zaikin, D.S. Golubev, A. van Otterlo, and G.T. Zimanyi,
1278: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 1552 (1997).
1279:
1280: \bibitem{zaikin2} D.S. Golubev and A.D. Zaikin,
1281: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 014504 (2001).
1282:
1283: \bibitem{blatter}
1284: H.P. B{\"u}chler, V.B. Geshkenbein, and G. Blatter,
1285: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 067007 (2004).
1286:
1287: \bibitem{gonzalez3} J. Gonz{\'a}lez, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 36}, 317 (2003).
1288:
1289: \bibitem{egger97} R. Egger and A.O. Gogolin,
1290: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 5082 (1997).
1291:
1292: \bibitem{kane97}
1293: C. Kane, L. Balents, and M.P.A. Fisher,
1294: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 5086 (1997).
1295:
1296: \bibitem{gogolin} A.O. Gogolin, A.A. Nersesyan, and A.M. Tsvelik,
1297: {\sl Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems} (Cambridge University
1298: Press, 1998).
1299:
1300: \bibitem{egger98} R. Egger and A.O. Gogolin,
1301: Eur. Phys. J B {\bf 3}, 281 (1998).
1302:
1303: \bibitem{carr} S.T. Carr and A.M. Tsvelik,
1304: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 195121 (2002).
1305:
1306: \bibitem{foot1}
1307: Modes with $\Lambda_\alpha=0$ have to be excluded in the
1308: transformation. All $\alpha$
1309: summations have to be understood in this sense.
1310: Note that such modes never cause critical behavior in any case.
1311:
1312: \bibitem{nagaosa1} N. Nagaosa,
1313: {\sl Quantum Field Theory in Condensed Matter Physics}
1314: (Springer Verlag, 1999).
1315:
1316: \bibitem{mooij}
1317: J. E. Mooij and G. Sch{\"o}n,
1318: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 114 (1985).
1319:
1320: \bibitem{chaikin} P.M. Chaikin and T. Lubensky,
1321: {\sl Principles of Condensed Matter Physics}
1322: (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
1323:
1324: \bibitem{langer}
1325: J.S. Langer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 41}, 108 (1967).
1326:
1327: \bibitem{weissbook}
1328: U. Weiss, {\sl Quantum Dissipative Systems}, 2nd. ed.
1329: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
1330:
1331: \bibitem{next}
1332: M. Ferrier, A. De~Martino, A. Kasumov, R. Deblock, S. Gueron, R. Egger,
1333: and H. Bouchiat, invited review, submitted to Solid State Communications.
1334:
1335: \end{references}
1336:
1337: \end{document}
1338: